OF THE 
 
 U N IVER5 ITY 
 OF I LLI N O I S 
 From the Library 
 of the 
 
 Diocese of Springfield 
 Protestant Episcopal 
 Church 
 
 Presented 1917 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 STACKS 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 . 
 
 \ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/scripturaldefenc00matt_0 
 
EDITORIAL NOTICES, 
 
 Rev. George Peck, D. D. 
 
 After quoting the title of the book, Dr. Peck says : The above title- 
 page is fully sustained by the arguments of the book. Any one who 
 wishes to see, within a small compass, the arguments and false expo- 
 sitions of Scripture, by which the errorists named endeavor to sustain 
 their views of the person and work of Christ, completely refuted, 
 should procure this little book. It is a capital thing to circulate among 
 the people where any type of Unitarianism is rife. — Christian Advo- 
 cate and Journal . 
 
 Rev. Charles Pitman, D. D. 
 
 This is a most able defense of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 
 The argument is comprehensive, vigorous, and scriptural. We have 
 read the work with much interest, and most cheerfully recommend it 
 as a powerful vindication of a doctrine which lies at the foundation of 
 the evangelical system. — Missionary Advocate. 
 
 Rev. Abel Stevens, A. M. 
 
 An able little volume in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. * * 
 The line of argument is vigorously and closely traced, and in a style 
 adapted to popular readers. — Zion’s Herald. 
 
 Rev. Nelson Rounds, A. M. 
 
 An able defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The author has 
 done good service to the cause of truth in the volume before us, and 
 we trust it may be productive of much good. — Northern Christian Ad- 
 vocate. 
 
 Rev. William Hosmer. 
 
 The Arian heresy has assumed a great variety of phases, and the 
 work before us has been prepared with special reference to its latest 
 forms. The author writes in a perspicuous style, and his argument 
 carries conviction. — Northern Advocate. 
 
 Rev. Samuel I. Prime. 
 
 So brief, concise, and clear a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity 
 cannot fail to be timely and beneficial. — New York Evangelist. 
 
 The Presbyterian. (Philadelphia.) 
 
 The author has done a good service in attacking that grand feature 
 of almost all modern heresies— the denial of the Godhead of the Son 
 and Holy Spirit. His treatise seems to be peculiarly adapted to plain 
 honest readers, and to general circulation. The subject is stated, the 
 scriptural proofs adduced, objections answered, and Arianism is shown 
 to be any thing but the truth, as revealed from on high. 
 
 The New York Recorder. 
 
 This small volume is wisely intended to meet a practical want, by 
 defending the doctrine of the Trinity — not so much against scholastic 
 speculation as against the more popular forms of error. 
 
 The Christian Chronicle. (Philadelphia.) 
 
 The author has presented a fair view of the scriptural doctrine on 
 
EDITORIAL NOTICES. 
 
 this subject. He has also exposed the fallacy of the objections brought 
 against the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. The work was designed 
 and is adapted for general circulation. 
 
 Albany Spectator. 
 
 We do not hesitate to commend this little work to every member of 
 the Evangelical Church ; and to all who would exalt Jesus Christ, as 
 very God, Lord over all, and blessed forever. It handles every form 
 of Arian error ungloved, and having exposed the false doctrines of the 
 Campbellites, Hicksites, Western New Lights, Universalists, Mormons, 
 and especially a sect calling themselves “ Christians/’ glories in the 
 mission and Godhead of the Redeemer. * * * 
 
 Alabama Baptist. 
 
 This is an exceedingly well written and valuable work — clear, con* 
 Cise, logical, and scriptural. The author shows himself a complete 
 master of his subject, explaining what is explicable, and proving what 
 is provable. His plan is original, but happy ; and his style is easy and 
 attractive. 
 
 The Olive Branch. (Boston.) 
 
 This is a timely production— serving to quicken attention to what 
 must ever be a central truth of Christianity. 
 
 The True Wesleyan. (New York.) 
 
 We take rank with Trinitarians, and regard Mr. Mattison as having 
 done good justice to the subject. He is a close reasoner, and possesses 
 a mind well adapted to polemic investigation. 
 
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.” 
 
 BY REV. HIRAM MATTISOX, 
 
 OF THE BLACK RIVER CONFERENCE. 
 
 FIFTH EDITION. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 HUKTINGTOK & SAVAGE, AND MASON & LAW, 
 23 PARK ROW, 
 
 OPPOSITE THE ASTOR HOUSE. 
 
 1851. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by 
 HIRAM MATTISON, 
 
 In the C^^k’s Office of the District Court of the United States 
 (or the Southern District of New York. 
 
/ 
 
 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 plu- 
 rality 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, Re- 
 formed 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 char- 
 acter of Christ; but with the Unitarians it is far otherwise. 
 Of these there are at least three distinct subdivisions, distin- 
 guished by a wide difference of opinion upon the very sub- 
 ject 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 dis- 
 tinct 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, neverthe- 
 less, 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 expe- 
 dient to go beyond the limits of our main subject. 
 
 The term Unitarian, when used generically, is very prop- 
 erly 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 consti- 
 tute 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 doc- 
 trine 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 Socin- 
 ians 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-an- 
 gelic, 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 differ- 
 ent names in different parts of the country. They are some- 
 times 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 iden- 
 tified 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 con- 
 sidered as specimens. These works are generally spoken of 
 by the order as containing their sentiments, though they pro- 
 fess to repudiate all creeds but the Bible. They are indus- 
 triously 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 de- 
 nomination, commends this new edition in the strongest pos- 
 sible 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 ex- 
 ponents 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 Socin- 
 ian 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 charac- 
 teristics : 
 
 1. A clear and natural method , or arrangement of its parts. 
 The plan adopted is original, and, it is thought, possesses sev- 
 eral important advantages. 
 
 2. Brevity , and by consequence, cheapness. The mass of 
 readers have neither means to pay for, nor time to read, ex- 
 pensive 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 dif- 
 ficult 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. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 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 inno- 
 cently indulged, but by admitting his pro- 
 per 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 II. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES — DEFINITION OF TERMS. 
 
 Doctrines Stated, .11 
 
 Section I. — The term “ Son” 12 
 
 II. — The term “ person” 14 
 
 
viii 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Section III. — The term “ Trinity ” — not in the Bible, 15 
 
 IV. — The term “ incarnation ,” . . . 16 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Arian and Trinitarian Unity, 17 
 
 Unity essential to a Trinity, 18 
 
 Scripture proofs of unity, . . . . 18, 19 
 
 Arianism virtually denies unity, 19 
 
 Arian liberties with the Scriptures, ... 19, 20 
 
 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 concern- 
 ing 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 
 
 son,” 24 
 
 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 atone- 
 ment, 35 
 
 IX.— Christ must be our “ kinsman 11 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 speci- 
 men 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 “di- 
 vine,” as applied to Christ, 40 
 
 Christ not a il creature”-*- Col. i, 15, and Rev. iii. 15, con- 
 sidered, 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. 
 
 iii. 22. 99 
 
 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 vindi- 
 cated at length as genuine, 101 — 108 
 
 Its true doctrine set forth, 108 
 
 Arian proof-texts considered, viz. John xvii. 
 
 20 — 23 ; 1 Cor. iii. 7, 8; and Galatians 
 iii. 28, 109-111 
 
 VIII. — A trinity of persons proven from Matt, xxiii. 
 
 9 — “ Go ye therefore and teach,” 113 
 
 IX. — From the Apostolic benediction, 2 Corin- 
 thians 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 God- 
 head, 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 sys- 
 tem 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 Scrip- 
 tures, 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 in- 
 strument of extensive reformation, 152 
 
 XVI. — In the absence of the Divine blessing, it re- 
 sorts to unjustifiable and wicked means to- 
 sustain itself, 153 
 
 XVII. — Modern Arianism outrages philosophy, rea- 
 son, revelation, consistency, and com- 
 mon 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 in- 
 vite 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 dis- 
 ciples 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 in- 
 duce the belief that the opposite doctrine has no 
 practical bearing, that we may believe or disbelieve 
 it, without in the least affecting our Christian ex- 
 perience, or impeding our progress in the way to 
 heaven. 
 
 If such is the nature of the subject, the produc- 
 tion 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 at- 
 tentive 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 
 
2 
 
 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 in- 
 volve in its rejection the rejection of the saving 
 truth of God, and the blood of atonement, and con- 
 sequently the hope of salvation by Jesus Christ, no 
 reasonable man will dismiss the subject with a su- 
 perficial examination ; or rest contented till he has 
 learned the truth as it is in Christ. 
 
 I. That this doctrine has been considered and de- 
 fended as a doctrine of vital importance, by a ma- 
 jority 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 invidi- 
 ous 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 war- 
 fare, 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 Chris- 
 tians in the land consider it a doctrine of vital im- 
 portance, 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 op- 
 posite error as false, and ruinous in its tendencies, 
 
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 3 
 
 but they even refuse to fellowship those who un- 
 derstandingly embrace it; or to admit that they 
 have built upon the rock Christ Jesus. Metho- 
 dists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Orthodox Quakers. 
 Episcopalians, Reformed Dutch, and Lutherans, 
 all agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is an es- 
 sential doctrine of Revelation. Now were the 
 above churches Romanists — were they grossly ig- 
 norant 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 pe- 
 culiarities in doctrine and government, and its se- 
 parate 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 funda- 
 mental, 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 ex- 
 clusiveness, till we have inquired whether or not 
 they have sufficient warrant for their course. If 
 they are wrong in proscribing the opposite senti- 
 ment, then indeed the Arians have cause to com- 
 plain ; but if, on the other hand, they are justifiable 
 in so doing, we should not only cease to brand them 
 
4 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 as bigots and persecutors, but commend their pru- 
 dence and caution, in rearing up effectual barriers 
 against the encroachments of error. 
 
 But let us look at the merits of the doctrine it- 
 self. 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, con- 
 sequently, 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 princi- 
 ples 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 ap- 
 proach the subject, then, with seriousness and with 
 candor ; and let us bestow upon it that time and at- 
 tention which its importance demands. 
 
 The following remarks, chiefly from Mr. Wat- 
 son, 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 con- 
 ceptions. 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. 
 
 5 
 
 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 wor- 
 ship 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 wor- 
 shippers 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 conse- 
 quences of sin, the violation of that law — points 
 which have an essential relation to morals, because 
 they affect the nature of the sanctions which accom- 
 pany the law of God. He who denies the Doctrine 
 of the Trinity, and its necessary adjunct, the Atone- 
 ment, makes sin a matter of comparatively trifling 
 moment : God is not strict to punish it ; and if pun- 
 ishment follow, it is not eternal. Whether, under 
 1 * 
 
6 
 
 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 esti- 
 mate of the love which gives must be widely differ- 
 ent, 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 crea- 
 ture, 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 re- 
 ward, that he, a creature , should be advanced to uni- 
 versal 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- 
 
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 7 
 
 dured after him, and, in many instances, not so 
 great. 
 
 For the same reason, the doctrine which denies 
 our Lord’s Divinity diminishes the love of Christ 
 himself, takes away its generosity and devotedness , 
 presents it under views infinitely below those con- 
 tained in the New Testament, and weakens the 
 motives which are drawn from it to excite our grati- 
 tude and obedience. If Christ was in the form of 
 God, equal with God, and very God, it was then an 
 act of infinite love and condescension in him to as- 
 sume our nature ; but if he was no more than a 
 creature, it was no surprising condescension to em- 
 bark in a work so glorious ; such as being the Sa- 
 viour of mankind, and such as would advance him 
 to be Lord and Judge of the world, to be admired, 
 reverenced, and adored, both by men and angels. 
 To this it may be added, that the idea of disinterest- 
 ed, generous love, such as the love of Christ is rep- 
 resented to be by the Evangelists and the Apostles, 
 cannot be supported upon any supposition but that 
 he was properly a Divine person. As a man and 
 as a creature only, however exalted, he would have 
 profited by his exaltation ; but, considered as Divine, 
 Christ gained nothing. To deny his Divinity, 
 therefore, is to deny that his love to man is generous 
 and disinterested; hence the Arian and Socinian 
 schemes totally destroy the true character of the 
 love of Christ. They alter the very foundations of 
 Christianity, and destroy all the powerful argu- 
 ments based upon the love , humility , and condescen- 
 sion of our Lord, which are the peculiar motives of 
 the Gospel. 
 
 V. The doctrine of satisfaction or atonement de- 
 pends upon the Divinity of our Lord ; and is there- 
 fore consistently denied by Arians and Socinians. 
 
8 
 
 IMPORTANCE CF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 No creature could merit from God, or do works of 
 supererogation. If, then, Christ be a mere creature , 
 there is no intrinsic value or merit in his atonement ; 
 or, in other words, we have no atonement. 
 
 The question of the Trinity, then, amounts sub- 
 stantially to this : Did Christ die for us, in the sense 
 of making an atonement for sin ? Indeed the very 
 terms of salvation, and the grounds of our hope of 
 heaven are affected by it. 
 
 VI. The manner in which the evil of sin is esti- 
 mated must be very different, on these views of the Di- 
 vine nature respectively ; and this is a consequence 
 of a directly practical nature. Whatever lowers in 
 men a sense of what an Apostle calls u the exceed- 
 ing sinfulness of sin,” weakens the hatred and hor- 
 ror of it among men, and by consequence encour- 
 ages it. In the Orthodox doctrine, sin is an evil so 
 great in itself, so hateful to God, so injurious in its 
 effects, so necessary to be restrained by punishment, 
 that it dooms the offender to eternal exclusion from 
 God, and to positive endless punishment, and could 
 only be forgiven through such a sacrifice or atone- 
 ment, as that of the death of the Son of God. A 
 denial of the doctrine of the Trinity must therefore 
 lower our views of the magnitude of sin, as it low- 
 ers the sacrifice required for its expiation ; and the 
 more feeble our sense of the enormity of sin, the 
 more careless shall we be in respect to its com- 
 mission. 
 
 VII. Love to Christ , which is njade so eminent 
 a grace in internal and experimental Christianity, 
 changes also its character, as our views of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity are changed. If Christ be a 
 mere creature , our love to him cannot be supreme; 
 for that would be to break the first and great com- 
 mandment — “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 9 
 
 with all thy heart,” &c. We must therefore love 
 him as we love any creature from whom we have 
 received benefit ; and our love must be constantly 
 guarded and restrained , lest it should become exces- 
 sive, and wean our thoughts from God. But surely 
 it is not under such views that love to Christ is re- 
 presented in the Scriptures ; and against its excesses, 
 as against “ worshipping and serving the creature 
 more than the Creator,” we have certainly no ad- 
 monitions — no cautions. Supreme love to Christ, 
 is an infallible characteristic of a true Christian ; 
 and so essential is it, in genuine Christian expe. 
 rience, that the curse of God is pronounced on all 
 who love him not. “ If any man love not the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maran-atha.” 
 
 To lower the character of Christ, then, is to les- 
 sen our love to him, and to run the fearful hazard 
 of incurring the curse of God and the u wrath of 
 the Lamb.” 
 
 VIII. The general and habitual exercise of the 
 affections of trust, hope, joy, &c., towards Christ, 
 are all interfered with by the Arian doctrine. If 
 the Redeemer were not omnipotent and omniscient, 
 could we be certain that he always hears our pray- 
 ers, and knows the source and remedy of all our 
 miseries ? If he were not all-merciful, could we 
 be certain he must always be willing to pardon and 
 relieve us ? If he were not all-powerful, could we 
 be sure that he must always be able to support and 
 strengthen, to enlighten and direct us? Of any 
 being less than God, we might suspect that his pur- 
 poses might waver, his promise fail, his existence 
 itself, perhaps, terminate ; for, of every created be- 
 ing, the existence must be dependent and ter- 
 minable. 
 
 IX. The language , too, we say not of the 
 
10 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Church of Christ in all ages, for that has been 
 formed upon her faith, hut of the Scriptures them- 
 selves, must be altered and brought down to these 
 inferior views. No dying saint could say, “ Lord 
 Jesus receive my spirit,” if Christ were a mere 
 man like ourselves, and the redeemed, neither in 
 heaven nor in earth, would so dare to associate a 
 creature with God in divine honors and solemn 
 worship, as to unite in the chorus, “ Blessing and 
 honor, and glory and power, he unto Him that sit- 
 teth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for 
 ever !” 
 
 While we consider the doctrine of the Trinity 
 as interwoven with the very frame and texture of 
 the Christian religion, it appears natural to con- 
 ceive that the whole scheme and economy of man’s 
 redemption was laid with a principal view to it, in 
 order to bring mankind gradually into an acquaint- 
 ance with the Three Divine Persons, one God 
 blessed for ever. We would speak with all due 
 modesty, caution, and reverence, as becomes us, al- 
 ways in what concerns the unsearchable councils 
 of heaven : but we say, there appears to us none 
 so probable an account of the Divine Dispensa- 
 tions, from first to last, as what we have just men- 
 tioned, namely, that such a redemption was pro- 
 vided, such an expiation for sins required, such a 
 method of sanctification appointed, and then re- 
 vealed, that so men might know that there are 
 Three Divine Persons, — might be apprized how 
 infinitely the world is indebted to them, and might 
 accordingly be better instructed and inclined to love, 
 honor, and adore them here, because that must be 
 a considerable part of their employment and hap- 
 piness hereafter. 
 
 The subject before us, then, is not one of mere 
 
STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES, ETC. 11 
 
 curiosity and speculation, but one in which every 
 man has an interest, precious as the happiness of 
 the soul, and deep as eternity itself. Let us resolve, 
 therefore, to know the truth, and fully to settle this 
 great question. Let us open before us that store- 
 house of knowledge, the Bible ; and, with a pa- 
 tience and candor becoming an inquiry so impor- 
 tant, and a determination not to be biased by pre- 
 judices or prepossessions, let us pursue our investi- 
 gations in the fear of God. Above all, let us in- 
 voke that influence from above which alone can 
 reveal to us “ the things of the Spirit,” and guide 
 us safely by the truth unto eternal life. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES DEFINITION OF TERMS. 
 
 In order to a clear understanding of the subject 
 to be considered, it may be necessary briefly to 
 state both the Arian and Trinitarian doctrines, and 
 also to define certain terms that will be used in the 
 progress of the discussion. 
 
 Trinitarians believe that there is but one living 
 and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of 
 infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker 
 and Preserver of all things visible and invisible ; 
 but that in unity of this Godhead there are three 
 persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They 
 hold that the Son, who is eternal, and truly and 
 properly Divine, took upon himself humanity, in 
 order to make an atonement for sin ; so that two 
 whole and perfect natures, that is to say, humanity 
 and Divinity, w’ere united in the person of Christ. 
 
12 
 
 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 
 
 They also regard the Holy Ghost as a distinct per- 
 son in the Godhead, and one in substance, power, 
 and eternity, with the Father and the Son. Not 
 that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are each God, 
 separately and independently considered, (for we 
 never contemplate their Divinity in this light,) hut 
 that these three, in unity, constitute the one all- 
 perfect, incomprehensible, and eternal Being. 
 
 On the other hand modern Arians affirm that 
 there is no distinction of persons in the Godhead 
 — that Christ has but one nature, — that though 
 higher than angels, he is, nevertheless, a created 
 being, neither human or Divine ; and that the 
 Holy Ghost is merely an attribute, or emanation from 
 the Father. Some, however, regard the Spirit as 
 the mind or soul of the Father, in connection with a 
 Divine body, which is seated upon the throne of 
 heaven. 
 
 The above is an epitome of the respective creeds, 
 as near as they can be stated in few words. 
 
 As the terms son , person , trinity , and incarnation , 
 are frequently used in the course of this work, and 
 the sense in which we use them may be misunder- 
 stood, it may be necessary to show, at this point, in 
 what sense they are employed. 
 
 I. The term son always points out a relation; 
 but those relations differ very much in their na- 
 ture, as will be seen by the following examples : — 
 1. It primarily signifies the relation of a male- 
 child to his natural father, as u David the son of 
 Jesse.” 2. That of the Christian to God, as “ to 
 them gave He power to become the sons of God.” 
 u For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
 are the sons of God.” “ Beloved, now are we the 
 sons of God.” 3. That of the angels to God, as 
 u when the sons of God came to present themselves 
 
DEFINITION OF TER AS. 
 
 13 
 
 before the Lord.” 4. That of a pupil to his in- 
 structor, as Eli said to Samuel, “ I called not, my 
 son ;” and Paul calls Timothy and Titus his “ sons 
 in the faith.” 5. That of a creature to the Creator, as 
 “ Adam was the son of God.” 6. Judas was the u son 
 of perdition.” 7. The relations of the persons in 
 the Godhead, as, u Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” 
 Here we have seven different relations , expressed 
 by the term son ; and only one of them is tnat of a 
 son to his natural father. Now, we may declare 
 Christ to he u the Son of God,” and yet be very in- 
 definite in our meaning, unless we show in what 
 sense we use the term son. Mr. Millard, and most 
 other Arians, say, he is a son in the first sense — 
 u a natural Son of God, as Solomon was the son of 
 David.” Hence the stress laid upon the term son , 
 by Arians generally, in preaching and prayer. 
 But Kinkade says he is the Son of God by creation 
 — “ in the sense that Adam was the Son of God.” 
 So these great reformers are as far apart in their 
 views of Christ, as a created being is from the Un- 
 created. Perhaps others would say he is a son by 
 regeneration, or as the angels are sons of God, &c. 
 
 Trinitarians understand the term in a different 
 sense when applied to Christ. The humanity of 
 Christ is the Son of God, because supernaturally 
 begotten by the Holy Ghost. Hence, in view of 
 her conception by the Spirit, the angel said to 
 Mary, u that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
 shall be called the Son of God.” But that spirit- 
 ual nature that existed before the world began, can- 
 not be a son in this sense, because it was never 
 thus begotten. Neither is He the Son of God as 
 Solomon was the son of David ; for son ) in its 
 primary sense, implies a father and mother, as well 
 as a natural birth ; and to make Christ the Son of 
 2 
 
14 
 
 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 
 
 God in this sense, would be to say that there was a 
 father, mother, and son in heaven before time be- 
 gan ; and that all of them were Gods ! Absurd 
 and blasphemous as is this notion, it is constantly 
 implied whenever Christ is represented as being 
 u the natural Son of God.” The term “ Son,” 
 then, when applied to the Divine Nature of Christ, 
 is used to express a relation subsisting between the 
 persons of the Godhead, which, instead of being 
 like that of a family of father, mother, and chil- 
 dren, is different from all human or earthly relations, 
 and to all finite minds incomprehensible. 
 
 II. The term person, like son , is used in various sen- 
 ses in the Holy Scriptures and elsewhere. Its first ac- 
 ceptation is u an individual human being, consisting 
 of body and soul.” It is used also to denote the body 
 only, as, when we say, a lady adorns her person ; and 
 to distinguish one’s self from a representative, as 
 u the queen delivered her speech in person ,” &c. A 
 corporate body is a person in law, and the term per- 
 son is applied to God the Father, Heb. i. 3. In the 
 latter instance, it is evidently used to denote one of 
 u the three that bear record in heaven,” and not in 
 its common acceptation. It is, therefore, used by 
 Trinitarians to denote either of the three that con- 
 stitute the Supreme Being, the Father, Word, or 
 Holy Ghost. But it is differently understood by 
 Arians. Because it commonly signifies a body and 
 soul, and is applied to the Father, they infer that 
 God has a body! Hence Kinkade, in attempting 
 to make out a corporeal Deity, veils his absurd no- 
 tions under the running caption, “ God a real per- 
 son.” That by “ per son] ’ he means a body , is evi- 
 dent from the fact, that he goes on to show that God 
 has hands, feet, eyes, ears, face, arms, &c., — that he 
 has a u shape ” like man, and that he is local ; or, 
 
DEFINITION OF TERMS. 
 
 15 
 
 in other words, is not everywhere present. In this 
 he is followed by Arians generally. No wonder, 
 therefore, that they oppose the doctrine of a plural- 
 ity of persons in the Godhead, if by person they 
 mean a body , or a distinct and independent being. 
 But Trinitarians use the term in a different sense 
 altogether. They employ it merely to denote one 
 of those distinctions in the Godhead which are re- 
 vealed in the Scriptures. Nor is it a valid objection 
 to this view of the subject that we are unable 'pre- 
 cisely and fully to define the terms person and son, 
 as applied to the Deity. They are intelligible so 
 far as to point out a distinction and a relation , but the 
 precise nature of that relation, is not to be compre- 
 hended by mortals. cc Canst thou by searching find 
 out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto 
 perfection ? It is as high as heaven ; what canst 
 thou do ? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ?” 
 How preposterous for man, after having heard, from 
 the lips of God, all that he has been pleased to re- 
 veal, to refuse to believe what he has revealed of him- 
 self, simply because he cannot comprehend the infi- 
 nite God, and scan with precision his mode of being ! 
 W e should remember that “ secret things belong to 
 God, but revealed things to us and our children.” 
 
 III. Much stress is often laid upon the circum- 
 stance that the word Trinity is not found in the 
 Bible. But does this affect the truth or falsity of 
 the doctrine? We are not contending that the 
 term Trinity is a Bible term , but that the doctrine of 
 the Trinity is a Bible doctrine. The term Trinity 
 is a proper English term, compounded, according to 
 Webster, of ires, or three, and unus, or one. Hence, 
 tri-unity , or Trinity, signifies three-one, and is used 
 to denote the doctrine of three persons in one God. 
 
 Now if it is insisted that the doctrine of the Tri- 
 
16 
 
 STATEMENT OF DOCTRINES. 
 
 nity is not a Scriptural doctrine, because the word 
 trinity is not found in the Bible, we may for the 
 same reason deny the doctrine of Divine Providence , 
 and of the omnipotence , omniscience and omnipresence 
 of the Deity ; as none of these terms are taken from 
 the Scriptures. The truth is, we are not bound to 
 express our views of the meaning of the Scripture 
 in Bible language ; neither do any practice thus, 
 even the most conscientious Arians themselves. 
 Indeed, to attempt to explain a text by reading it 
 over and over to his hearers, would be an experi- 
 ment which few Arian preachers would be willing 
 to make. They constantly use a unscriptural terms ” 
 as they call them, in preaching, singing, and pray- 
 er ; and, it is inconsistent to condemn others for 
 what we ourselves practice. “ Happy is he that 
 condemneth not himself in that thing which he al- 
 io weth.” 
 
 I Y. A few remarks upon the term “ incarnation ,” 
 and we close this chapter. Incarnation is the act of 
 being clothed with flesh ; hence the assumption of 
 human nature, by the pre-existent Word, is called 
 the incarnation of Christ. That a God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh,” and that u the Word was made 
 flesh and dwelt among us,” is plainly asserted in 
 the Scriptures ; and this is all we mean by the 
 doctrine of the incarnation. But we shall notice 
 this doctrine more fully hereafter. 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 17 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Few Arian works are published, in which the 
 unity of God is not professedly advocated. It may 
 therefore seem strange to the reader that this point 
 should be gravely argued in the present treatise. A 
 moment’s reflection, however, will show the propri- 
 ety of this course. The Arian notion of unity is so 
 very peculiar, that while both Arians and Trinita- 
 rians hold to the unity of Gpd, there is a radical dif- 
 ference in their views. The former hold to a unity 
 that has respect only to the number of persons in the 
 Godhead, so that while they affirm that there is but 
 one person in the Supreme Being, they regard 
 Christ as God in a subordinate sense, thus virtually 
 abandoning the doctrine of Divine unity. Hence, 
 when pressed by those texts which declare Christ 
 to be God, the usual reply is that he is God, but 
 not the self-existent and eternal God. So Mr. Perry, 
 an Arian preacher, “ I am inclined to believe that 
 Christ is God, though he is not the only true God.”* 
 If we understand this language, it implies that 
 there is one finite and dependent God, and one self- 
 existent and eternal. This is the doctrine of Mil- 
 lard and Kinkade, and of modern Arians generally. 
 The point in dispute, then, is, whether there are two 
 Gods or but one. We affirm that there is but one 
 living and tiue God; so that our unity and the Arian 
 unity are two distinct things, one referring to the 
 number of persons in the Godhead, and the other to 
 
 * Printed Discussion of 1839. 
 
 2 * 
 
18 
 
 THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 the number of Gods in the universe. So important 
 is this point in the present discussion, that the whole 
 question turns upon it. If there be a plurality of Gods, 
 a supreme and a subordinate, as Arians assert, then 
 there is no unity, and can be no Trinity. But if, 
 on the other hand, there is but one God, and Christ 
 is God, then it follows that the Father and Son so 
 exist as to constitute but one God, and the doctrine 
 of the Trinity is true. It is easy therefore to see 
 why Arians deny the proper unity of God. They 
 are forced to admit that Christ is God in some sense, 
 hence they must either hold to two distinct Gods, or 
 admit that the Father, Son and Spirit co-exist in one 
 Being ; and that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. 
 To avoid Trinitarianism they run to Polytheism, 
 and embrace the doctrine of a plurality of Gods, a 
 supreme and a subordinate. Against this notion 
 we solemnly protest. Though there is as much 
 proof of the Deity of Christ and of the Spirit, as of 
 the Father himself, yet instead of holding to a plu- 
 rality of Gods as do Arians, we hold with St. John 
 that u these three are one.” So clear are the 
 Scriptures on the subject before us, that we scarce 
 need refer to any particular passage. Their voice 
 is uniform and unequivocal. This grand feature of 
 Christianity, which distinguishes it from Paganism, 
 stands forth prominently on almost every page of 
 Revelation ; and it is obvious that if the Bible re- 
 veals two Gods as objects of worship, love, and reve- 
 rence, we are little better off than the Heathen 
 themselves. 
 
 But what saith the law and the testimony — the 
 Holy one of Israel ? u Before me there was no God 
 formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, 
 am the Lord ; and besides me there is no Saviour.” 
 “ Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his 
 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 19 
 
 Redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am 
 the last, and beside me there is no God.” u Is there 
 a God beside me ? yea, there is no God ! I know 
 not any.” 
 
 Now Arians assert that Christ existed before the 
 world began, and that the works of Creation , Provi- 
 dence and Redemption , were delegated to him. Of 
 course then he existed at the time the above texts 
 were written If then he is a distinct God from the 
 Father, though in a subordinate sense, how can 
 these texts be true 1 God here declares that there 
 was no other God, nor ever should be; and yet 
 Arianism affirms that there was at that time another 
 and a distinct God, and has been ever since ! It is 
 painful to see how small matters are strained to sup- 
 port this feature of Arianism — small as it respects 
 their weight in the argument, though involving an 
 amount of guilt that few would be willing to incur. 
 We allude to altering of the Holy Scriptures by 
 substituting one letter for another, a practice quite 
 common among Arian writers. To justify the no- 
 tion of two real Gods, it is alleged that Moses, the 
 Judges of Israel, idols, &c. were Gods. Moses and 
 the Judges were the representatives of God, as his 
 executive officers under the theocracy — Moses being 
 in a certain sense “ as God ” to Pharaoh, and the 
 Judges as God to the Israelites. Of course they 
 possessed no Divinity whatever. But to elevate 
 them as far as possible, to keep company with the 
 subordinate and finite God of the Arians, they take 
 away all the small g’s in those passages where they 
 are mentioned, and put capitals in their place ; so 
 that instead of reading “ I said ye are gods — God 
 of gods — among the gods,” &c., as it is in the Bible, 
 it reads “ I said ye are Gods — God of Gods — among 
 the Gods,” &c., as quoted by Arian writers. This, 
 
20 
 
 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 in our view, is effectually altering the Scriptures ; 
 and in principle is no better than to change words 
 or verses, or even whole chapters. We shall con- 
 sider this subject more fully when we come to speak 
 of the Deity of Christ. Let it he distinctly under- 
 stood, however, that we hold to the unity of God in 
 a sense that allows of but one God , while those who 
 for other reasons are called Unitarians, openly avow 
 their belief in two distinct Gods — a supreme and a 
 subordinate — both of which they love and worship. 
 By this theory the proper unity of God is effectually 
 denied, and it matters little whether we have two 
 Gods or two thousands. 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 
 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 It is a prominent point in the doctrine of tne 
 Trinity, that Jesus Christ has two natures. We 
 affirm that the pre-existent Word, or Divinity, took 
 man’s nature, so that in the person of Christ were 
 united two whole and perfect natures, humanity 
 and Divinity. This Arians deny. They tell us 
 that he has but one nature ; that the whole of that 
 nature died and was buried ; and that strictly speak- 
 ing, he is neither man nor God. Making him 
 equal with Moses and pagan gods, does not affect 
 the truth of this assertion. These were finite gods, 
 which, to us, were no Gods at all. The doctrine 
 of the incarnation, or two natures of Christ, is a 
 very important part of the general doctrine of the 
 Trinity. Arians are aware of this ; and by them 
 
TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 21 
 
 nothing is more violently opposed than what they 
 are pleased to call 66 the two nature scheme.” In- 
 deed, both parties agree that the determination of 
 this single question turns the scale. If Christ has 
 but one nature, the doctrine of the Trinity is false ; 
 but if he has two natures, it is true, Arians them- 
 selves being judges. This point, then, should re- 
 ceive special attention. We shall first adduce those 
 Scriptures in which both natures are mentioned in 
 connection, or implied, after which we shall con- 
 sider his humanity and Divinity in two distinct 
 chapters. 
 
 I. Isa. ix. 6 — u For unto us a child is born, unto 
 us a son is given, and the government shall be 
 upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the ever- 
 lasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” In this 
 text both natures are distinctly brought to view. 
 We have, first , the humanity — the child born , &c. ; 
 and, secondly , the Divinity — the mighty God — the 
 everlasting Father. Both these characters could 
 not be united in one nature. To say that the son 
 born is the everlasting Father, or, that the mighty 
 God was born, is a perfect outrage to common 
 sense, and little less than blasphemy ; but, to say 
 that Christ had two natures, in one of which he 
 was a “ child,” and in the other “ the mighty 
 God,” is perfectly rational and consistent. 
 
 The Arian exposition of this text is in perfect 
 keeping with their system in general. Kinkade 
 takes it for granted, that there is but one nature, 
 and hence that the 61 mighty God” was born, and 
 given. He then infers that Christ is inferior and 
 subordinate, because he was born, &c. Now, the 
 truth is. his higher nature never was born ; and 
 the subordination indicated by birth and childhood, 
 
22 
 
 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 belongs mainly, if not exclusively, to his humanity, 
 which alone could be born. In his higher na- 
 ture he was “ the mighty God,” unborn and un- 
 originated. 
 
 II. Micah v. 2 — “ But thou, Bethlehem Eph- 
 ratah, though thou be little among the thousands of 
 Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me 
 that is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth 
 have been from of old, from everlasting,” or, accord- 
 ing to the marginal reading, “ from the days of 
 eternity.” This is a prediction relative to the birth 
 of Christ in Bethlehem. See Matt, ii., 4th to 12th 
 verses. But, while the birth-place of his humanity 
 is so carefully predicted, we are guarded against 
 the impression that this was his only nature. He 
 was to come forth from Bethlehem, as it respected 
 his humanity, being born in this city of David ; 
 but, in his higher nature, he had no birth — his go- 
 ings forth having been from of old, from the days 
 of eternity. 
 
 III. Heb. x. 5 — “ Wherefore, when he cometh 
 into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou 
 wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” 
 Here we have the person that came into the world, 
 which was a perfect nature before it came, and the 
 body prepared for the Divinity, which was another 
 nature. 
 
 IV. 1 Pet. iii. 18 — “For Christ also hath once 
 suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he 
 might bring us to God, being put to death in the 
 flesh , but quickened by the Spirit .” The “ flesh,” 
 or humanity, is here clearly distinguished from the 
 “ Spirit,” or Divinity. 
 
 V. Rom. ix. 5 — “ Whose are the fathers, and of 
 whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came , who is 
 over all, God blessed forever.” The flesh , or hu- 
 
TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 23 
 
 manity, was of the fathers, that is, of the seed of 
 Abraham ; but this was true only “ as concerning 
 the flesh ; for in his higher nature he is “ God 
 blessed forever.” 
 
 VI. Philip, ii. 5, 6, 7 — ■“ Let this mind be in 
 you, which was also in Christ Jesus : Who, being 
 in the form of God : thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God ; but made himself of no reputa- 
 tion, and took upon him the form of a servant , and 
 was made in the likeness of men.” On this text, 
 we observe, 
 
 1. That in one nature Christ was in the “ form 
 of God.” This form cannot mean bodily shape, 
 for God is a Spirit, and, therefore, has no body, or 
 bodily form. Again — If the form of God was the 
 form of his body, as Arians tell us, which form is 
 that of a man, then the “form of God” and the 
 “ form of a servant,” would be exactly the same 
 thing; and Christ, by taking on him the form of a 
 servant, would be only taking the form of God, the 
 same which he already had. On this supposition 
 the text would be utterly unmeaning. The form 
 of God must therefore mean his nature — a nature 
 not assumed, but inherent, as is clear from the 
 text. 
 
 2. In view of this “ form of God,” it is said he 
 “ thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” that 
 is, with the Father. This could not be true of 
 any nature short of supreme Divinity. For a 
 creature to assume to be equal with th« great Je- 
 hovah, would be downright robbery and treason;' 
 hence, by the “form of God,” we must understand 
 absolute Divinity. 
 
 3. This person, in the form of God, took upon 
 him another “ form,” which must of course differ 
 from the first, namely, the form or nature of a ser- 
 
24 
 
 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 vant. Here, then, we have two distinct “ forms” or 
 natures — the “ form of God” and the “ form of a 
 servant”— the one equal with God the Father, and 
 the other mere humanity, “ the likeness of men.” 
 
 VII. Heb. ii. 14-17 — “Forasmuch then as the 
 children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
 himself likewise took part of the same ; — For verily 
 he took not on him the naiure of angels ; but he took 
 on him the seed of Abraham.” Here are two na- 
 tures, one of which took the other. The Divinity 
 “ took on him the seed of Abraham.” But it is 
 objected, that the seed of Abraham means only the 
 body, which is not the whole of human nature. 
 We have yet to learn, however, that the children 
 of Abraham were mere bodies without souls. 
 
 VIIL Matt. xxii. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 — “While 
 the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked 
 them, saying, What think ye of Christ ? whose son 
 is he ? They say unto him, The son of David. 
 He saith unto them, How then doth David in 
 Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto 
 my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make 
 thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then call 
 him Lord, how is he his son The carnal and 
 blinded Pharisees were as ignorant of the true 
 character of Christ, as they were of the nature of 
 his kingdom. Our Lord here endeavors to lead 
 them to the truth, and discover to them his two- 
 fold nature. That he was the son of David he did 
 not deny ; but quotes a passage where David, 
 when inspired, calls him Lord or Jehovah. He 
 then asks how he could be David’s Lord, and also 
 his son. To obviate this apparent difficulty, they 
 must acknowledge the doctrine of the incarnation, 
 which our Saviour intended to teach. Christ was 
 David’s God and David’s son ; but this could not 
 
TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 25 
 
 be true without two natures. His Divine nature 
 was David’s God, manifest in the flesh ; while at 
 the same time his human nature was u the son of 
 David and David knew, being a “ prophet,” that 
 u God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the 
 fruit of his loins : according to the flesh, he would 
 raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” — Acts ii. 30. 
 
 IX. Rev. xxii. 16 — Christ says, “ I am the root 
 and the offspring of David.” How could this be 
 true if he had but one nature. Could the nature 
 that created David spring from him as his off- 
 spring ? or that which sprang from David be his 
 Creator? The only answer to this question is, 
 that Christ had two natures, humanity and Divin- 
 ity. His human nature was the “ offspring of 
 David but his Divinity was the root of David, the 
 great Creator of all things. 
 
 X. John xvii. 1 1 — Christ says, u And now I am 
 no more in the world ;” but he says again, John 
 xiv. 25 — ■“ If a man love me, he will keep my 
 words, and my Father will love him, and we will 
 come unto him, and make our abode with him.” 
 How can these sayings be reconciled with the no- 
 tion that Christ has but one nature ? The human- 
 ity is “ no more in the world,” having gone up 
 on high, to return no more until the general judg- 
 ment ; but still Christ can come to, and abide with, 
 every obedient Christian. He must therefore have 
 two natures, one of which is in heaven, while the 
 other is ever-present with his saints. 
 
 XI. The same doctrine is proved from Mark 
 xiv. 7, compared with Matt, xxviii. 20. In the 
 former Christ says — “ Ye have the poor with you 
 always — but me ye have not always.” In the lat- 
 ter, he says, to the same disciples, “ Lo, I am with 
 you always, even unto the end of the world.” How 
 
26 
 
 TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. 
 
 could he say he was , and was not , always with his 
 disciples, if he had but one nature ? The answer is 
 obvious. In the first passage he spoke of his hu- 
 manity, in the second of his Divinity. The form- 
 er has long since left the world, but the latter is 
 with us always. Blessed be the Lord for a Divine 
 and ever-present Saviour ! 
 
 XII. We might easily multiply quotations on 
 this point, but it is unnecessary. With the candid, 
 the above are sufficient ; and with the obstinate, 
 and wilfully blinded, additional labor would be 
 thrown away. The doctrine of the two natures of 
 Christ, or the incarnation, is found in almost every 
 book of the Holy Scriptures ; and is interwoven 
 with their very texture throughout. They plainly 
 declare that u God was manifest in the flesh” — 
 that “ God was in Christ,” and that Li in him dwelt 
 all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ 5 But as in the 
 days of St. John, so now, there are those who deny 
 this doctrine, and yet complain because we do not 
 fellowship them as the children of God. But how 
 can we, while it is written, u Every spirit that con 
 fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh , is 
 not of God. And this is that spirit of antichrist, 
 whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and 
 even now already is it in the world.” — 1 John 
 iv. 3. Again — •“ This is the commandment, That, 
 as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should 
 walk in it. For many deceivers are entered into 
 the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an 
 antichrist. — If there come any unto you, and bring 
 not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, 
 neither bid him God speed : for he that biddeth 
 him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds.” — 2 
 John, 6 — 11. 
 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 27 
 
 As it respects the Sacrament of the Lord’s Sup- 
 per, we see no reason why Arians should ever par- 
 take of it, especially in connection with Trinita- 
 rians. They deny the doctrine of incarnation, and 
 also that of the atonement. We believe both these 
 doctrines, and perpetuate the euoharist as a memo- 
 rial of our redemption. Now, if we were never re- 
 deemed, why use a memorial of the atonement? 
 If an Arian uses this sacrament at all, it must be 
 for other purposes than those contemplated by Tri- 
 nitarians. In our opinion, it is solemn mockery 
 before God to eat and drink the emblems of our 
 Lord’s body and blood, while at the same time we 
 deny the incarnation and the atonement of Christ. 
 On this ground we refuse to commune with Arians. 
 If any wish to use the sacraments for other purposes 
 than those contemplated in the Scriptures, they 
 should do so by themselves, and upon their own re- 
 sponsibility. W e wish no part or lot in the matter. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 9 
 
 Too little importance has been attached to the 
 doctrine of Christ’s humanity, even by some Trini- 
 tarians. By many it has been thought sufficient to 
 establish his supreme Divinity : hence, where we 
 have a dozen sermons on that point, and page after 
 page in our theological works, we have little or no- 
 thing, comparatively, to vindicate his proper hu- 
 manity. This we consider a defect in the usual 
 method of treating the subject. The two natures 
 
28 
 
 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 stand or fall together. If Christ he not man as well 
 as God, then all those Scriptures that speak of his 
 inferiority and dependence, must refer to his Divin- 
 ity ; and he cannot be the Supreme Being. The 
 doctrine of Christ’s humanity is therefore, an essen- 
 tial link in the golden chain of truth ; and, as 
 no chain can he stronger than its weakest iink, it is 
 quite as important to defend this doctrine, as that of 
 his Divinity. Some may have neglected this point, 
 from a fear of being suspected of leaning towards 
 Socinianism ; but there is no danger of this, so long 
 as we keep the idea before the mind, that Christ is 
 not only man , but also God. 
 
 Besides the Scriptures that refer to both the na- 
 tures of Christ in the same connection, as in the pre- 
 ceding chapter, there is a large class that refer ex- 
 clusively to his humanity; and another equally 
 numerous that refer solely to his Divinity. Hu- 
 manity and Divinity are distinct natures ; hence, if 
 Christ is both man and God, he must have two na- 
 tures, and the doctrine of the incarnation must be 
 true. Modern Arians deny that Christ is either 
 man or God. They ridicule the idea of two na- 
 tures, and deny that the Scriptures are to be interpret- 
 ed upon this principle. So far as we can get at their 
 real sentiments, they believe that Christ has one 
 compound nature, made up of humanity and Divin- 
 ity ; or, in other words, that he took half his nature 
 from God, and half from the Virgin Mary. That 
 humanity and Divinity are united, we admit ; but 
 it is obvious that the union of two natures does not 
 destroy those natures. They are still distinct na- 
 tures, though not separate. The correctness of this 
 view seems to have struck Mr. Millard, with pecu- 
 liar force. He saw, that if they were whole and 
 perfect natures while separate, they must be so 
 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 29 
 
 when united. Hence, to save his creed, a very nice 
 philosophical distinction is invented. He tells us, 
 that Christ took half a nature from each of his parents, 
 and that these two half natures make up the one 
 nature of Christ. u He partook,” says he, u of his 
 father as well as his mother, yet not a whole com- 
 plete nature from each.” — “ To say that a son de- 
 rives a whole nature from each of his parents, is a 
 great absurdity.” — ■“ He also took part (not the 
 whole) of the same.” 
 
 Now it is easy to see that this distinction is not 
 only unphilosophical, but absurd. The nature of a 
 thing is that assemblage of qualities or attributes 
 which are found in it, or belong to it. Hence in 
 describing the nature of gold, we name over its 'pro- 
 perties as constituting its nature. We say it is a 
 metal, yellow, heavy, ductile, not subject to rust, &c. 
 A single particle of gold has all the nature of gold ; a 
 single shot has all the nature of lead ; and a dew- 
 drop, all the nature of water. On the same princi- 
 ple, an infant has a complete human nature, as 
 much so as a man, or as all the men on earth. But 
 Mr. Millard says, a child does not derive a whole 
 nature from each of its parents. Well, how then ? 
 Do some of the distinguishing- attributes of human- 
 ity come from one^ and some from the other? Is 
 the mortal nature from one and the immortal from 
 the other ? or, is consciousness from the father, and 
 memory from the mother ? Both parents possess 
 a complete human nature, and a perfect nature is 
 derived from both ; but as the nature of both parents 
 is the same, Jhe offspring has but one nature. A 
 shot has all the nature of lead, and yet, if two shot, 
 or two hundred, are united, you have but one na- 
 ture after all. 
 
 But Mr. M.’s theory proves too much for him. 
 
 3 * 
 
30 
 
 HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 He admits that Mary was human, and God DIvme. 
 Now, if Christ partook of both these distinct and 
 widely different natures, he must have had two na- 
 tures ; but if he had half a nature from God, and 
 half from Mary, he could have had hut half a na- 
 ture before the days of his incarnation, and yet, with 
 but half a nature, he created the universe, and sus- 
 tained it for at least four thousand years ! But this is 
 not the worst feature of Mr. M.’shalf nature scheme. 
 He tells us, in another part of his work, (pp. 108, 
 9, 17,) that the half nature of Christ that existed 
 before the world began, was actually changed into 
 flesh. Now if a spirit can be changed into matter, or 
 flesh, of course it is no longer spirit ; and hence 
 both halves of Christ’s nature must have been flesh. 
 He must therefore have been all matter, without 
 any spirit whatever ! How much more rational 
 to suppose, that the pre-existent nature remained the 
 same, while as the Scriptures assert, LL he took on 
 him the seed of Abraham,” or proper humanity. 
 The point of difference is simply this : Arians say 
 Christ has but one nature — -a nature neither human 
 or Divine ; while we assert that he has two natures, 
 and is both man and God. W e propose to show, 
 therefore, in this chapter, that Christ is in one nature , , 
 truly and properly man, having a human body and 
 soul : and all the essential attributes of real humanity. 
 
 I. He was man corporeally. 1. He is of the 
 same substance as other men. They are matter, so 
 was he. 2. He had the same physical organization 
 as other men. We are flesh, blood, &c., “ fearfully 
 and wonderfully made,” and so was Christ. Even 
 after his resurrection, he said, “ Behold my hands 
 and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and 
 see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see 
 me have.” 3. He had the innocent habits of man. 
 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 31 
 
 He ate, drank, slept, &c., grew in stature like other 
 men, and probably wrought as u the carpenter’s son,” 
 from the time he was twelve years old, till he en- 
 tered upon his public ministry at the age of thirty. 
 4. He was mortal like other men. Hence he often 
 became weary, enduring the sufferings that mor- 
 tality is heir to, and finally finished his life upon 
 the cross. 
 
 The same language is used by the inspired 
 writer in describing his death, that is used in refer- 
 ence to other men. Of Abraham and Ishmael it is 
 said, “ they gave up the ghost.” Job says, u man 
 dieth and wasteth away yea, man giveth up the 
 ghost, and where is he ?” So also in recording the 
 death of Christ ; it is written that “ he gave up the 
 ghost.” Thus 
 
 ei He dies and suffers as a man,” 
 
 and gives the fullest evidence that, so far as his ma- 
 terial or corporeal being was concerned, he pos- 
 sessed a whole and perfect human nature. 
 
 II. He was man mentally. By this we mean 
 that he had the intellectual nature of man, or, in 
 other words, a human soul. This all Arians deny. 
 While some destroy his spiritual nature altogether, 
 others say that the pre-existeni nature occupied his 
 body as a soul, and there was no human soul 
 whatever. But it is evident that Christ took per- 
 fect humanity ; a soul as well as a body, for, 
 
 1. The Scriptures speak of the soul of Christ as 
 in no way differing, in its essential nature, from 
 the souls of other men. Hence we read, u his 
 soul was not left in hell — -my soul is sorrowful,” &c. 
 It is certain, therefore, that Christ had a soul, a term 
 never applied to angels or to super-angelic beings. 
 
 2. This soul had all the attributes, powers, and 
 
32 
 
 HUMANITY OF JURIST. 
 
 susceptibilities of other human souls. There is 
 not a single characteristic by which a human soul 
 may be known, that is not found in the soul of 
 Christ. He had will, perception, sensation, con- 
 sciousness, memory, reason, love, joy, sorrow, and 
 every thing by which we may distinguish a human 
 soul. We must therefore conclude, either that the 
 pre-existent nature of Christ and a human soul are 
 precisely alike, or else that he possessed a human 
 soul. The Trinitarian belief is, that the intellec- 
 tual nature of Christ, which was so precisely like 
 the soul of man, was really and properly a human 
 soul in connection vnth the human body. 
 
 3. But there are things affirmed of the soul of 
 Christ, that could not be true of his pre-existent 
 nature. We have no evidence that a super-angelic 
 being could be “ sorrowful even unto death,” much 
 less that it could “ increase in wisdom” by a so- 
 journ on earth, as is affirmed of Christ. Arians 
 admit, that Christ had wisdom enough to create the 
 universe four thousand years before his advent; 
 and yet the Scriptures say, he “ increased in wis- 
 dom” while on earth. Could that intellect which 
 was wise enough to arrange the wondrous ma- 
 chinery of nature, and create seraphim and cher- 
 ubim, angels and men, grow wiser by visiting our 
 little world which he had created four thousand 
 years before ? Could he learn of men, whose in- 
 tellectual powers he himself had made? 
 
 We recollect urging this consideration in a dis- 
 cussion with an Arian minister several years ago. 
 In reply, it was remarked, that in his advent to our 
 world, Christ laid aside or surrendered up his wis- 
 dom ; and in proof, the passage was quoted in which 
 it is said, “in his humiliation his judgment was 
 taken away as if judgment here meant knowledge % 
 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 33 
 
 Instead of justice or equity , which was denied him at 
 the bar of Pilate. 
 
 But such degrading- notions of Christ can never 
 grow out of the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ 
 had a human soul as well as a human body, and, 
 in connection with these, a dwelt all the fulness of 
 the Godhead.” Hence in reference to his human 
 soul, it could be said he u increased in wisdom;” 
 while of his Divinity it is said he had u all the 
 treasures of wisdom and -knowledge.” 
 
 III. Christ was man morally. True he had not 
 man’s depraved nature ; but this is no part of hu- 
 manity itself. Adam was a man before he fell, and 
 Christ could be human, though perfectly holy. He 
 was a moral being, capable of, and subject to, moral 
 government ; u made of a woman, made under the 
 law;” but, being pure like Adam in Eden, he 
 needed not to repent or be regenerated, nor will he 
 require to be judged in the day of general judg- 
 ment. He is therefore a fit residence for the Eter- 
 nal Word, who is to come in connection with his 
 immortalized body to judge the quick and the dead. 
 Like Eve, before the fall, he was tempted; “yet 
 without sin ” As a human soul he had a God ,* 
 was dependent upon God ; obeyed God ; belonged 
 to God ; grew in favor with God ; worshipped God ; 
 prayed to God ; and ascended to God — a human 
 soul and immortal bod}/ — the u first fruits of them 
 that slept” 
 
 IV. Relationships are referred to in the Scrip- 
 tures, as existing between Christ and man, that 
 cou.d not have existed without proper humanity. 
 Christ was “ the Son of God,” as it respects his pre- 
 existent nature, (as the term Son is already defined,) 
 but at the same time that he was u the Son of God,” 
 he was u the Son of man.” This was a common 
 
34 
 
 HUMANITY OP 7HRIST. 
 
 name for man. Ezekiel is called the “ sou of man 7, 
 about ninety times in the Scriptures, and our Lord 
 about eighty-four. When God addresses Ezekiel 
 as a “ son of man,” this title is understood to desig- 
 nate his origin — to keep before the mind his true 
 character and mortality, distinguishing him from 
 the higher orders of intelligences. The relation- 
 ship fully implies the humanity of Ezekiel. What 
 then are we to understand by the phrase, when 
 Christ is called the “ Son of man ?” Does it not 
 clearly imply Ms humanity ? In what sense could 
 he have been “the Son of man,” without proper 
 humanity? The same conclusion would follow 
 from the fact, that Christ was the “ Son of David,” 
 which he could not have been without real hu- 
 manity. 
 
 V. Christ was known as man by those who lived 
 at the time of his advent, and had the best opportu- 
 nity for obtaining correct information respecting 
 him. Hence we read — “ This man receiveth sin- 
 ners” — “ never man spake like this man ” — “ come 
 see the man which told me all things” — “ a man 
 that is called Jesus made clay” — •“ if this man were 
 not of God he could do nothing,” &c. It is evident, 
 from such language, that he was considered as pos- 
 sessed of real humanity, by those who saw and heard 
 him. 
 
 VI. The inspired writers say Christ was man. 
 “ Behold the man whose name is the Branch” — “ a 
 man of sorrows” — after me cometh a man” — “ but 
 this man when he had offered one sacrifice” — •“ this 
 man hath an unchangeable priesthood” — ■“ a man ap- 
 proved of God” — “ through this man is preached 
 unto you the forgiveness of sins” — “grace which is 
 by one man Jesus Christ” — “ by man came also the 
 resurrection from the dead,” &c. Now, if Christ 
 
IIUMANITT OF CHRIST. 
 
 35 
 
 were not in one nature man, why do the Scriptures 
 call him so ? and what could have been better cal- 
 culated to mislead us, than the use of such language ? 
 
 V II. Our Lord himself asserts his humanity. He 
 says, “ Had I not done among them the works which 
 none other man did, they had not had sin.” Again, 
 “ Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you 
 the truth.” Thus the Saviour endorses the opinions 
 expressed by his Prophets and Apostles, and by 
 others who saw and heard him, by declaring, in 
 the most plain and unequivocal manner, that he was 
 “ man or that he possessed a human nature. 
 
 VIII. Without humanity Christ could not have 
 made an atonement for sin. The law was broken 
 by man, and the penalty was due to man, and must 
 fall upon humanity, though it might be connected 
 with Divinity. But Christ did make an atonement 
 for us. u The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity 
 of us all” — •“ he hath borne our griefs, and carried 
 our sorrows” — ■“ he was wounded for our transgres- 
 sions” — ■“ he was bruised for our iniquities : the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with 
 his stripes we are healed.” He must, therefore, 
 have been possessed of proper humanity. 
 
 IX. According to the law of Moses, (Lev. xxv. 
 25,) the redeemer of a forfeited inheritance must be 
 a relative or kinsman. Now the human family are 
 represented as having forfeited the heavenly inheri- 
 tance, and Christ comes forth as their Redeemer. If, 
 then, the antitype answers to the type, Christ must 
 have been our kinsman or relative, and consequent- 
 ly of our nature. u Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” 
 and “he is not ashamed to call us brethren.” 
 
 X. Christ was “ in all points tempted like as we 
 are.” — How could this be true without humanity? 
 
36 
 
 HUMANITY" OF CHRIST. 
 
 There are a thousand temptations peculiar to hu- 
 manity alone ; and, indeed, we know not that any 
 other nature can be tempted at all. We know not 
 that devils or lost souls can be tempted ; and as to 
 the righteous dead, and holy angels, we have rea- 
 son to believe they are now forever beyond the 
 reach of temptation. If so, a super-angelic being 
 certainly could not be tempted. But Christ was 
 a in all points tempted like as we are therefore 
 he must have had a nature that could be tempted, 
 or, in other words, he must have had a human na- 
 ture. 
 
 XI. It was necessary that Christ should possess 
 perfect humanity, in order to demonstrate, in his 
 own person, the possibility of human resurrection. 
 In the 15th chapter of First Corinthians, Paul ar- 
 gues the general resurrection of the human family, 
 from the resurrection of Christ. Now, on the sup- 
 position that Christ had not perfect humanity, no- 
 thing could have been more fallacious than the 
 Apostle’s argument. If he had but one nature, and 
 that nature was above angels, it was sophistical in 
 the extreme to refer to him as a specimen of human 
 resurrection ; as his resurrection furnishes no proof 
 whatever that any human being ever has risen, or 
 ever will arise from the dead. Had there been 
 Arians at Corinth, they might have replied, “We 
 know that Christ rose, but he was super-angelic, 
 and had no human nature ; therefore, his resurrec- 
 tion is no proof that human beings will, or can 
 arise.” 
 
 But the Apostle considered him a true specimen 
 of human resurrection — a pledge and proof of the 
 resurrection of all men. He must, therefore, have 
 possessed perfect humanity. Again ; Paul speaks of 
 Christ, as “ the first fruits of them that slept.” The 
 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 37 
 
 a first fruits,” literally, consisted of the first ripe 
 fruits, or grain, that was gathered from the ap- 
 proaching vintage or harvest ; and was presented 
 as a thank-offering to the Lord. They were of 
 course of the same nature of the harvest that was to 
 follow. Now Christ is the “ first-fruits of them that 
 slept,” and the harvest that is to follow is the gene- 
 ral resurrection. But if Christ had not a human 
 nature, nothing could have been more unfortunate 
 than the Apostle’s metaphor. Could the u first 
 fruits” he of one nature, and the harvest of another ? 
 Could Christ be the first-fruits from the dead, un- 
 less he had the same nature of the dead ? It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, that he was man as well as God, and 
 in that humanity he entered the tomb, conquered 
 death in his own dominions, and u triumphed o’er 
 the grave.” 
 
 “ Then first humanity triumphant, 
 
 Passed the crystal ports of light, 
 
 And seized eternal youth.” 
 
 XII. We might argue the humanity of Christ 
 from his character as Mediator ; — from the fact 
 that he is our 'pattern or example ; and from various 
 other considerations; but if the above arguments 
 fail to establish the truth, it would be useless to add 
 others. We have shown that he was man, corpo- 
 really , mentally , and morally. W e have also proved 
 his humanity from the fact, that he was the u son of 
 man” and the “son of David.” He was known as 
 man by those best acquainted with him while on 
 earth — called a man by the Prophets and Apostles 
 — calls himself a man — suffered the penalty of the 
 law due only to man — is our Redeemer, and there- 
 fore our relative and brother — was tempted as none 
 but men could be tempted — and is adduced by St. 
 4 
 
38 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Paul as a specimen and proof of human resurrec- 
 tion. W e are constrained, therefore, to believe that 
 he had a whole and ‘perfect human nature, and to 
 adopt the sentiment of 1 Tim. ii. 5. — “ There is one 
 God, and one Mediator between God and men, the 
 man Christ Jesus.” 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Having shown that Jesus Christ is really and 
 properly man, possessing a whole and perfect hu- 
 man nature, we shall now proceed to prove that he 
 is verily and really God. On this point we wish to 
 be very plain and explicit. When we say that 
 Christ is God, we do not mean that his humanity is 
 God, or that flesh and bones are Divinity ; but that 
 in union with the human body and soul of Christ, 
 there existed the eternal “Word;” the second per- 
 son in the Godhead ; of the same substance, power, 
 and eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghost. 
 Hence when we say that Christ is God, we refer 
 solely to his pre-existent nature. 
 
 Neither do we consider him a created and finite, 
 a subordinate God, as do Arians ; but the Supreme 
 Being : Jehovah ; the Creator and Sovereign of the 
 Universe. On these points we have often been 
 misrepresented. Arians have charged us with be- 
 lieving that Christ’s humanity was Divine, and 
 have then urged that according to Trinitarians, God 
 was born, carried down into Egypt, baptized by 
 John, &c. This argumer., may be found in almost 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 39 
 
 every Arian work, and is very popular with Arian 
 preachers. 
 
 Now, if we asserted that Christ had but one na- 
 ture, which nature was Divine ; or that having two 
 natures his humanity was Divine ; the above ob- 
 jection would be valid. But if, as we constantly 
 maintain, Christ had two natures, humanity and 
 Divinity, then the former could be born, carried 
 into Egypt, baptized and crucified, without predi- 
 cating any of these of Divinity. 
 
 Although we have already stated the Arian doc- 
 trine in a summary manner on page 12, it may be 
 important more fully to set forth their views of the 
 origin and character of Christ in the present con- 
 nection. In so doing they will be allowed to speak 
 for themselves. Kinkade says, “ the Mediator is 
 ten thousand times greater than all the men on 
 earth and all the angels in heaven, and the next 
 greatest being in the universe to God the Father” — 
 p. 38. “I think Christ a created being ” — p. 133. 
 u The plain truth is, that the pre-existent Christ 
 was the first creature that was born into existence” 
 — p. 117. “ He is God’s Son, not in the sense that 
 
 Isaac was the son of Abraham, bnt in the sense 
 that Adam was the son of God.” Here it will be 
 perceived that Mr. K. is endeavoring to account for 
 the origin of Christ, as well as to determine his rel- 
 ative dignity and true character ; and in this effort 
 he asserts that he came into being in two ways — 
 by creation and by birth. If he had said that God 
 the Father created Christ before the world began, 
 and left the matter there, we should all have under- 
 stood him ; but when he talks of the pre-existent 
 nature of Christ as having been “born into exist- 
 ence,” we know not what he means. Does he 
 really think the pre-existent nature of Christ was 
 
40 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 “ born ” in heaven, before the world began ? Is this 
 what Arians mean, when they assert that Christ 
 was “ brought forth,” or that he was a “ natural 
 son,” before time began ? This seems to be the 
 fact. They think he has but one nature, super- 
 human and super-angelic, and before men or an- 
 gels ; but that he is, after all, but a creature ; and 
 that he originated by being “brought forth” or 
 “ born into existence,” before the foundation of the 
 world. 
 
 If the reader should suspect a distinction between 
 creation and birth, he must look to the Arian phi- 
 losophy to unlock the “ mystery.” Trinitarianism 
 furnishes no key to it. On the other hand, this 
 singular theory involves us in a labyrinth of diffi- 
 culties. Birth always implies parents and natural 
 generation , (the conception of the virgin Mary ex- 
 cepted,) hence to say that the pre-existent nature of 
 Christ was “ born” in heaven before the creation 
 of the world, would be to assert by implication that 
 there is a family of Divinities in heaven — Father, 
 Mother, and Son ! This we should call Poly- 
 theism. 
 
 But it may be asked, “ Do they not hold to the 
 Divinity of Christ ? They say that they do, nay 
 more, that they believe him to be all-Divine .” 
 Very true, and yet they deny the proper Divinity 
 of Christ. They use the term “ divine ” in an ac- 
 commodated sense, as we call a sound theologian a 
 divine ; or merely to signify purity or holiness ; but 
 when the question of Christ’s proper Deity is pro- 
 posed, they steadfastly deny him this honor. They 
 use the term divine, as they apply it to Christ, to 
 signify something falling infinitely short of the 
 Godhead — something finite, inferior, and dependent. 
 In this sense only do they admit the Divinity of 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 41 
 
 Christ. But to return. The princip. i arguments 
 in favor of the Arian scheme, are drawn from Col. 
 i. 15, and Rev. iii. 15. In one of these passages, 
 Christ is called “ the first-born of every creature 
 and in the other, “ the beginning of the creation 
 of God.” From these it is inferred, that Christ 
 must have been created. When it is shown that 
 Christ is both man and God, from the general lan- 
 guage of the Scriptures, the reply is, “ he is called 
 man, but he was not really man ; he is called God,” 
 &c. ; but, when only two passages are to be found 
 in all the Bible, that speak of Christ as a creature, 
 the evidence is considered conclusive. Suppose he 
 was plainly called a creature, (which is not the case 
 in either of the above texts,) would it be certain, 
 therefore, that he was literally created ? The lan- 
 guage is figurative : and the import of both texts is 
 the same. The “ first-born” among the Jews were 
 considered as superior ; and were entitled to privi- 
 leges which others had not. Hence, in figurative 
 language, the terms u first-born” or “ beginning” 
 would often be used as a title of superiority , and in 
 this sense was applied to God himself. The Jews 
 term Jehovah becovo shel olam : the first-born of all the 
 world , or of all the creation ; to signify his having 
 created or produced all things. In the same sense 
 Christ is called u the first-born of every creature,” 
 u the beginning of the creation of God,” to sig- 
 nify his superiority ; and to point him out as the 
 pre-existent and eternal Author of all things. 
 Hence it is said, u he is before all things, and by 
 him all things consist.” Again — It is a well 
 
 known principle in the interpretation of any writ- 
 ten document, that if a sentence seems to conflict 
 with the general tenor, it must be so understood, as 
 to harmonize with the main design. The same 
 4 * 
 
42 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 rule must be respected in the interpretation of the 
 Scriptures. If then, there are two passages that 
 seem to represent Christ as a creature, and two hun- 
 dred that represent him as t]re uncreated Word, the 
 Creator of all things ; we must interpret the few so 
 that they will agree with the many. On this prin- 
 ciple we must either understand the above texts as 
 we have explained them, or set aside scores of 
 others that assert his proper Divinity. We are 
 obliged, therefore, to reject the notion that Christ is 
 a creature, not only because there are but two pas- 
 sages that seem to favor it, but because those pas- 
 sages are figurative ; are easily interpreted differ- 
 ently, and must be so interpreted, or contradict more 
 than two hundred other passages, some of which 
 we shall presently adduce. 
 
 In establishing the supreme Divinity of Jesus 
 Christ, it will be necessary to pursue, to a great ex- 
 tent, the usual course. The attributes predicated 
 of him in the Holy Scriptures, are the best evidence 
 of his Divinity. Our knowledge of things in the 
 natural world is confined to their qualities. We 
 can discover a difference between marble and silver, 
 not because we see a difference in their essence, 
 but from a difference in their attributes, such as 
 weight, hardness, color, &c. For example, if two 
 pieces of metal are put into our hand, in order that 
 we may tell what they are, we feel their weight 
 or hardness, look at their color, perhaps heat them 
 or hammer them to develope their qualities, and 
 then judge. When we find a substance that pos- 
 sesses all the attributes of gold, and no others, we 
 identify it as gold ; and the evidence arising from 
 the presence of those attributes, has all the strength 
 of demonstration. What we have said of this evi- 
 dence, as it respects material things, is equally true 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 43 
 
 in the universe of mind. We know nothing of 
 spiritual beings beyond their attributes. Of their 
 essence we are totally ignorant. Conformably to 
 the same principle God has revealed himself to 
 man. Of his essence as a spirit we know nothing ; 
 but the Scriptures attribute to him certain properties , 
 or qualities , usually called attributes , which belong 
 to him alone, and distinguish him from all other 
 beings. By these attributes or perfections we be- 
 come, to some extent, acquainted with his nature. 
 Were there no essential attributes which distin- 
 guish the Divine Being from every thing else, 
 there could be no God, or if there were, we should 
 be unable to distinguish him from the works of 
 his hands. If, then, we find from the Scriptures 
 that certain attributes belong to God, and to him 
 only, and at the same time find that all these attri- 
 butes belong to Christ, the conclusion is irresistible, 
 that Christ and God are one Being. Arians are 
 aware of the conclusiveness of this method of rea- 
 soning, hence they labor to show, either that the 
 attributes of God do not belong to him alone, or if 
 they do, that they are not found in Jesus Christ. 
 They tell us that two beings may have “ all power” 
 or omnipotence at the same time ; that omnipres- 
 ence belongs even to the Devil, and is not peculiar 
 to God ; and that neither omniscience or eternity be- 
 long to Christ at all. 
 
 All these points will be duly considered as we 
 proceed. For the present we wish only to show 
 the principle on which we conduct our reasoning 
 upon the attributes of Christ — a principle which 
 will lead us infallibly to the truth in all our re- 
 searches, whether in the material or spiritual world. 
 
 There are certain attributes which belong to God 
 only, To deny this, would be to contradict both 
 
44 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 philosophy and revelation. Now we affirm that 
 the same attributes that belong solely to the Su- 
 preme Being, are found also in Jesus Christ. If 
 these two points can be established, the Deity of 
 Christ must necessarily follow. 
 
 I. God is a Spirit without body or parts. 
 This is denied by Arians generally. Most of them 
 believe there are two bodies in Heaven, namely, 
 the body of God, and the body of Christ — that 
 God is literally seated on a throne, and that Christ 
 sits at his right hand. Kinkade has a chapter of 
 fifteen pages, to show that God has a body like 
 man. Chadwick says he is iC prepared to defend 17 
 this sentiment ; and Elder G. Fancher says, “ God 
 has a body, eyes, ears, hands, feet, &c., just as we 
 have .’ 7 Millard evidently holds to the same creed, 
 and Elder L. Perry says, in a letter in our posses- 
 sion, “ I believe he is a body, sir . 77 Kinkade says, 
 “ ears, hands, and eyes, are part of an intelligent 
 ruler, and if God have none of these he cannot 
 hear, handle, nor see us . 77 
 
 To show that God has “ nearly all the members 
 of the human body , 77 he quotes the following texts : 
 — ■“ The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, 
 and his ears are open unto them that cry. The 
 face of the Lord is against them that do evil. I 
 will turn my hand upon thee. He shall gather 
 the lambs with his arm , and carry them in his bo- 
 som. His garment was white as snow, and the hair 
 of his head like the fine wool ; his throne was like 
 the fiery flame and his wheels as burning fire . 77 
 From these it is inferred that God has eyes, ears, 
 face, hands, arms, bosom, garments or clothing, 
 head, hair, &c. But if these texts are to be under- 
 stood literally, we must not stop here. We must 
 not only represent God as resembling an aged man 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 45 
 
 but as actually riding in a carriage, and gathering 
 the lambs in his bosom ! Instead of understanding 
 figurative language as such, Arians make it all 
 literal ; and thus originate some of the most absurd 
 notions, that were ever uttered in any Christian 
 land. 
 
 In figurative language the eye sometimes de- 
 notes wisdom, or providential care, the ear atten- 
 tion, and the hand strength ; but if we were to 
 speak of “ the strong arm of the law” in the hearing 
 of an Arian, he might infer that the law had an 
 arm, and perhaps “ nearly all the members of the 
 human body.” This theory represents God as in- 
 capable of seeing or hearing without the medium 
 of ears and eyes ! But does sound go from earth 
 to heaven ? and does God hear a secret prayer with 
 natural ears, and a thousand of them at the same 
 time ? If God sees with natural eyes, can he see 
 all around him or on the opposite side of the earth ? 
 It may be wrong to dwell upon such palpable non- 
 sense, and we drop the subject by briefly stating 
 two objections to the Arian sentiment. 
 
 1. To give God a body is to contradict one of the 
 plainest declarations of the word of God. Christ 
 says, “ God is a spirit,” and “ a spirit hath not flesh 
 and bones.” Now, if a spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, of course it can have no eyes, ears, hands, 
 or feet, or any members or parts of a material body. 
 By body we always understand matter in some form, 
 as opposed to spirit. The term is applicable to no- 
 thing but matter ; therefore if God is a spirit, he 
 cannot be matter ; and consequently has no body 
 or parts. On the other hand, to assert that God 
 “ is a body,” is to make out a material God, and to 
 deny that God is a spirit. Hence this feature of 
 modem Arianism, is no better than Atheism. But 
 
46 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Arians tell us that God’s body is a “ spiritual body ” 
 by which they mean a sort of body that is nothing 
 but spirit after all. This is an unscriptural inven- 
 tion. A spiritual body is a human body immor- 
 talized. Hence it is said of the human body, u It 
 is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” 
 — 1 Cor. xv. 44. The material body of Christ 
 was, therefore, a spiritual body after the resurrec- 
 tion, and yet it had flesh and bones, and was matter 
 as much as it was before. All bodies will be spi- 
 ritual after the resurrection, and yet they will all 
 be material. It is useless, therefore, to assert that 
 God’s body is a spiritual body, for if this be true 
 he must be matter and not spirit, and Christ must 
 stand corrected by Arians. 
 
 2. To give God a body is to deny his omnipresence. 
 Hence Arians generally follow Kinkade, and deny 
 that God is every where present. He is very frank 
 in the avowal of this doctrine, as may be seen by 
 consulting his book, p. 157. If God is a body, of 
 course he cannot be every where present. It can- 
 not, -therefore, be true that he u fills heaven and 
 earth,” as he has declared ; — that “ jn him we live, 
 move, and have our being or that he “ filleth all 
 in all.” We must, then, either disbelieve those 
 Scriptures that ascribe universal presence to God, or 
 reject the notion of a material Deity. We prefer 
 the latter. God is revealed to us as an omnipresent 
 God ; and, as before said, any theory that robs him 
 of his spiritual nature, and consequently of his at- 
 tributes, is no better than Atheism itself. u God is 
 pure spirit, unconnected with bodily form or organs, 
 the invisible God whom no man hath seen or can 
 see, an immaterial, incorruptible substance, an im- 
 mense mind , or intelligence, self-acting, self-moving, 
 wholly above the perceptions of bodily sense, free 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 47 
 
 from the imperfections of matter, and all the infirmi- 
 ties of corporeal beings, far more excellent than any 
 finite and created spirits, and therefore styled “ the 
 Father of spirits,” “ the God of the spirits of all flesh.” 
 
 If God is a spirit, he is not matter or body, and 
 consequently has no parts. Nothing can have parts 
 that is not susceptible of division ; for a part is such 
 only in reference to a whole of which it is a part ; 
 and always implies divisibility. Spirit is not divisi- 
 ble, and consequently has no parts. Hence we 
 never speak of half a spirit, half a joy, or half a 
 sorrow. If, then, u God is a spirit,” he is necessa- 
 rily incapable of division, and must be 66 without 
 body or parts.” 
 
 II. God is the real and only Creator. The 
 Scriptures ascribe the work of creation to God and 
 to Christ ; and from this we argue that Christ is 
 God, u manifest in the flesh.” Arians are therefore 
 obliged to deny the work of creation to one or the 
 other of these, or to admit Christ’s Divinity. Ac- 
 cordingly they usually assert that the Father never 
 created any thing, except the Son ; and that Christ 
 created all things as God’s representative or agent. 
 It will be necessary, therefore, to show, in the first 
 place, that God is the real and only Creator. 
 
 1. Moses says, u In the beginning God created 
 the heavens and the earth.” David says, u The 
 heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
 ment sheweth his handy work” — that the heavens 
 are u the work of his fingers.” Paul says, “ He 
 that built all things is God — the living God that 
 made heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things 
 therein.” 
 
 The whole account of creation clearly shews that 
 God alone is the Creator. a And God said, Let 
 there be light : and there was light.” “ He spake, 
 
48 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 and it was done.” “ And God said, Let the earth 
 bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, 
 and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his 
 kind : and it was so.” “ And on the seventh day 
 God ended his work which he had made ; and he 
 rested on the seventh day from all his work which 
 he had made . And God blessed the seventh day, 
 and sanctified it ; because that in it he had rested 
 from all his work which God created and made" 
 Who would suppose, from this account, that an in- 
 ferior being, altogether distinct from God, was the 
 true Creator? 
 
 2. But at the same time that the Scriptures teach 
 that God, and God alone, is the Creator of all things, 
 they teach that Christ created all things. “ All things 
 were made by him, and without him was not any- 
 thing made that was made.” “ For by him were all 
 things created that are in heaven and that are in 
 earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
 or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things 
 were created by him, and for him. And he is be- 
 fore all things, and by him all things consist.” 
 Now, as the Scriptures teach that God created all 
 things himself, and yet affirm that Christ created 
 all things, it follows that Christ is the God spoken 
 of by Moses, “ manifest in the flesh.” 
 
 3. In reply to this argument, it is asserted, as 
 above stated, that Christ, a creature, created all 
 things as u God’s agent;" and hence, that God and 
 Christ may both be considered as Creators, God as 
 the principal, and Christ as the agent. But this 
 agency scheme is liable to the following objec- 
 tions : — 
 
 (1.) There is not the least vestige of any such 
 doctrine in all the Bible. 
 
 (2.) It directly contradicts the account of creation 
 
DEITY OF .HRIST. 
 
 49 
 
 as given by Moses in the book of Genesis. Here 
 the work of creation is attributed to God alone, 
 without any reference to a finite and created agent. 
 
 (3.) If Christ created all things as God’s agent, 
 then God is not in reality the Creator ; for he never 
 created anything. We shall then be bound to the 
 conclusion, that God “ said” by an agent, “ saw” 
 by an agent, “blessed” by an agent, talked to 
 Adam and Eve by an agent, and, to cap the climax, 
 that he “ rested” on the seventh day, because his 
 agent had finished his work ; or, worse still, that 
 he rested by an agent. Absurd as this may seem, 
 it necessarily follows if the agency scheme be true , 
 and the work of creation was the work of a crea- 
 ture, and not the work of God. Of course, then, 
 God did not create the heavens and the earth, and 
 is not in reality the Creator of all things. 
 
 (4.) A being that can create a spire of grass, can 
 have no limit to his power. Now, if God has an 
 agent who created the material universe, and all the 
 angels of light, he is of course, omnipotent, and 
 there are two beings of infinite power. But this is 
 impossible ; and we are obliged to conclude, that 
 Christ is not an agent, but the omnipotent God 
 himself, the Creator of all things. 
 
 (5.) If Christ created all things as God’s agent, 
 he must have created them for God ; as an agent 
 never transacts business for himself, but for his em- 
 ployer. But the Scriptures declare, that “ all things 
 were made by him and for himf therefore he could 
 not have been an agent creating for another. 
 
 (6.) This agency scheme represents Christ as 
 creating himself. True, Kinkade says, “ he is per- 
 haps the only being that God ever made without 
 doing it- ithrough an agent or instrument,” but 
 this “ perhaps” theory does not do away the logi- 
 5 
 
50 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 cal consequence of the agency scheme. Other 
 Arians, much wiser than Kinkade, endorse the 
 whole system, and deny that God can create with- 
 out an agent. Rev. L. Perry says, “for God to 
 work without means is contrary to the known laws 
 of his operations.” According to this plan, then, 
 Christ must have been created first, to act as God’s 
 agent in creating the rest. But God cannot work 
 “ without means” by which Mr. P. means an agent, 
 and yet there was no agent. Who then created 
 Christ ? God had no “ means” and could not “work 
 without them therefore, God did not create him. 
 If, then, he was created at all, he must have created 
 himself. 
 
 On the supposition that Christ was a creature, 
 we can prove from the Scriptures that he created 
 himself. It is said, “ All things were made by him, 
 and without him was not any thing made that was 
 made.” Now, if Christ is a “ thing,” or creature, 
 he must have been made by himself ; for “ all things 
 were made by him.” Again — “ Without him was 
 not anything made that was made.” But if Christ 
 was “ made,” as Kinkade affirms, he was made by 
 the power of Christ, for this text says, nothing that 
 was made was made without him. If, then, he was 
 made at all, he made himself. But as this is im- 
 possible, we must conclude that the agency scheme 
 is imaginary, and that Christ the “ Word,” was 
 never made, but is the eternal and infinite Crea- 
 tor. 
 
 (7.) Christ is represented as “upholding all 
 things by the word of his power,” and we are told, 
 that “by him all things consist.” Now, Arianism 
 teaches, that Christ is God’s agent; has but one na- 
 ture ; and that the whole of that nature actually 
 died and was buried. Who then upheld all things 
 
 i 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 51 
 
 while the agent was dead ? Were the affairs of the 
 universe managed by a dead being, confined in the 
 tomb of Joseph 'l If it be said that God took the 
 helm of government while the agent was dead, then 
 government and preservation have been shifted 
 from Christ to God, and back again to Christ j and 
 God has been at work without an agent. If neither 
 held the reins, then chance is as good as direction, 
 and the strongest arguments against Atheism are 
 overthrown. Such are the absurdities of error. The 
 difficulties of the Arian creed have given birth to a 
 scheme which throws the infinite Jehovah into the 
 background, and ascribes the glory of creation to a 
 finite creature ; — a creature that was mortal and 
 actually died ! We have no way to avoid the con- 
 tradictions and absurdities of this modern invention, 
 but to adhere closely to the old-fashioned and scrip- 
 tural doctrine, that “ In the beginning God created 
 the heavens and the earth.” 
 
 4. We hold, with Moses, that God created all 
 things, and with John and Paul, that Christ created 
 all things. But instead of making one the princi- 
 pal, and the other an agent, we believe the “ God” 
 of Moses, and the 66 Word ” of John, are the same 
 Being ; for Paul says, “ God was manifest in the 
 flesh,” and John says, “ the Word was God.” This 
 doctrine agrees with the Mosaic account of creation ; 
 harmonizes with the New Testament account ; as- 
 cribes the glory of creation to God, to whom it be- 
 longs ; and instead of making Christ a finite Mor- 
 tal, who, after having created himself, created the 
 universe, gives him his true scriptural character, 
 as “ the true God and eternal life.” The sum of 
 the entire argument is this : God created all things 
 absolutely and alone ; but the pre-existent Word, 
 
 UWWW 
 
 DHWEBSITY OF ILUHOI8 
 URBAN* 
 
52 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 or Christ, created all things, not as an agent, but for 
 himself; therefore, the Word, or Christ, is God. 
 
 III. The Deity of Christ follows from the 
 
 FACT THAT HE IS THE ETERNAL BEING. 
 
 1. God , and God only , is eternal. He declares 
 that he is “ the first and the last,” and is styled 
 “ the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.” 
 He fills the whole round of boundless duration, be- 
 ing unoriginated, and without beginning or end. 
 None but Atheists will deny this doctrine. It 
 is equally true that no being but God is eternal ; as 
 all creatures had a beginning, and consequently 
 did not exist before that beginning. If, then, it can 
 be shown, that Christ is eternal, it cannot but be 
 true that he is verily and really God. This is one 
 of the most difficult points Arians have to manage. 
 We have heard the same persons say he was nei- 
 ther created or eternal. Most Arians are afraid to 
 say whether he had a beginning or not. Some ad- 
 mit the eternity of Christ, and yet deny his proper 
 Divinity. Elder O. E. Morrel says, “he is of the 
 same eternal nature and essence with the Father,” 
 and yet he believes he is no more Divine, properly 
 speaxing, than an angel or a man. Mr. Perry also 
 says, “ he is not created,” and yet denies that he is 
 Eternal, or truly Divine. Leaving these teachers 
 to agree among themselves, if they can, we shall 
 proceed to prove the eternity of Christ. 
 
 1. In one nature Christ existed before the time 
 of his advent. John says, “ He was before me,” 
 and yet John was born six months before the 
 humanity of Christ. Paul says, “Neither let us 
 tempt Christ as they also tempted ;” but this temp- 
 tation was 1,400 years before Christ came in the 
 flesh. Christ says, “ Before Abraham was, I am ;” 
 and speaks o r the glory he had with the Father, 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 53 
 
 {C before the world began? These sayings cannot be 
 true of the humanity of Christ, for that did not ex- 
 ist before creation, before Abraham or Moses, or 
 even before John. There must, therefore, have been 
 another and a distinct nature that did exist “ in the 
 beginning.” Most Arians admit the pre-existence 
 of Christ ; but instead of holding to two natures, 
 they hold that the pre-existent Word was made 
 flesh, not by being clothed with humanity, but by 
 actual change of substance ; the Spirit becoming 
 flesh, being born, dying, &c. 
 
 We have already noticed this theory in Chapter 
 V., but we may here add, (1.) That the Scriptures 
 plainly shew in what sense u the Word was made 
 flesh namely, that “ he took on him the seed of 
 Abraham.” (2.) It is not possible for a spirit to be- 
 come matter and die. It is therefore certain, that 
 no such transformation ever took place, and that 
 Christ’s Divinity existed before the world began, 
 and is entirely distinct from his humanity. 
 
 2. Christ says, u I am the first and the last.” If 
 he was the first, there was no being in existence be- 
 fore him. He is consequently the oldest of all 
 beings, and must be eternal. But the Father says, 
 (Isa. xliv. 40,) “ I am the first,” &c. God says he is 
 the first, and Christ says he is the first ; and, as they 
 cannot both be first as two distinct beings, they 
 must be merely distinct persons in the same eternal 
 Being or Godhead. 
 
 3. The Prophet Micah says of Christ, “ His go- 
 ings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” 
 or u from the days of eternity.” Paul says, “ he is 
 before all things” — “ the same yesterday, to-day, and 
 forever.” John says, “ In the beginning was the 
 Word.” If he was in the beginning, he must 
 have existed before the beginning ; if before' the 
 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 beginning, he must have been without beginning, 
 and that which is without beginning must be 
 eternal. Christ must therefore be eternal. 
 
 4. To deny the eternity of the Son, would be to 
 deny the eternity of the Father. One relation can 
 be no older than the other. If there was a time 
 when the Son did not exist, there was no Father ht 
 that time ; as the Father is such only in reference 
 to the Son. The Father was not the Father be- 
 fore the Son existed ; therefore, if the Son is not 
 eternal, the Father is not. 
 
 Now, as God is the only Eternal Being in the 
 universe, and Jesus Christ is eternal , it follows that 
 Christ is the Eternal Being ; the God whose throne 
 is forever and ever. 
 
 IV. God, and God only, is omnipotent. — 1. He 
 styles himself u the Almighty God,” a title that 
 clearly imports his unlimited power. His omnipo- 
 tence is displayed in the work of creation, for “ he 
 spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it 
 stood fast.” At his word a thousand worlds start 
 from the slumbers of non-existence, and the mighty 
 wheels of nature begin to roll. Another fiat, and 
 earth, sea, and sky, are full of life. u The pillars 
 of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his re- 
 proof.” “ He hath measured the waters in the hol- 
 low of his hand, meted out the heavens with a span, 
 comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, 
 and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills 
 in a balance.” a He shaketh the earth out of her 
 place, and the pillars thereof tremble ; he command- 
 eth the sun, and it riseth not : and sealeth up the 
 stars.” u Lo, these are but parts of his ways, but 
 how little a portion is known of him, and the thun- 
 der of his power, who can understand ?” 
 
 2. But while the Scriptures are thus explicit in 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 55 
 
 asserting the infinite power of Jehovah, they are 
 equally clear in teaching the omnipotence of Christ. 
 He is called the “ Most Mighty,” Psa. xlv. 3 ; “ the 
 Mighty God,” Isa. ix. 6 ; and “ the Almighty,” 
 Rev. i. 8. He says, “ All power is given unto me 
 in heaven and in earth,” and his omnipotence is 
 seen in the works of creation and providence. u All 
 things were made by him,” and he “ upholds all 
 things by the word of his power.” To suppose 
 that there are two beings of infinite power, is ab- 
 surd ; as they must necessarily limit each other, 
 and one or the other must be finite. But the Scrip- 
 tures represent the Son as omnipotent, as well as 
 the Father ; hence it is clear that they are one 
 Being ; and that God exists under the personal dis- 
 tinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 
 In reply to this argument Arians assert that God 
 delegated his power to Christ ; and it is only as a 
 delegate, or agent, that he is omnipotent. In sup- 
 port of this theory, they quote the passage — ■“ All 
 power is given unto me,” laying great stress on the 
 word “given” If this text proves that Christ’s 
 power was derived, a similar passage will prove the 
 same thing of the Father. It is written, Acts i. 7, 
 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons 
 which the Father hath put in his own power” Now, 
 instead of supposing that omnipotence was given 
 to a creature, or that God literally put things in his 
 own power, it is obvious that these passages mean 
 nothing more than that Christ and the Father pos- 
 sess unlimited power, both in heaven and in earth ; 
 not by delegation, but inherently. Christ cannot 
 be omnipotent by delegation, because, (1.) Omnip- 
 otence is an incommunicable attribute of Deity. 
 God cannot make a creature omnipotent, for to do 
 so would be to create a God, and destroy his own 
 
56 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 existence. (2.) If God delegated infinite power to 
 a creature, he himself must have been destitute of 
 that power ; and not the Almighty God. It is not 
 possible, therefore, that Christ was omnipotent by 
 delegation. Even some Arians have acknowledged 
 this. Mr. Perry says, in his written discussion, 
 that u no power was delegated or given to Christ to 
 create the world.” But how he can reconcile this 
 with the idea, that Christ is a creature and an agent , 
 is more than we can tell. The concession shows, 
 however, the discord that prevails in the Arian 
 ranks ; and also, that the notion of delegated om- 
 nipotence is far from being satisfactory to some of 
 the leaders of that sect. As Scripture and reason 
 are against this theory, we reject it as an invention 
 of men ; and maintain that Christ is, of himself, a 
 being of infinite power ; and consequently the self- 
 existent and eternal God. 
 
 V. God, and God only, is omniscient. — 1 . By 
 this we mean that he has universal knowledge, or 
 is infinitely knowing. “ Known unto God are all 
 his works from the beginning of the world.” “ O 
 Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. 
 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine up- 
 rising-; thou understandest my thoughts afar off. 
 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and 
 art acquainted with all my way. For there is not 
 a word in my tongue but lo, O Lord, thou knowest 
 it altogether.” u Hell is naked before him, and de- 
 struction hath no covering.” Great is the Lord, 
 his understanding is infinite.” No created or finite 
 being can possibly be infinite in any of his attri- 
 butes ; hence infinite knowledge must belong ex- 
 clusively to the uncreated and infinite God. 
 
 2. But Jesus Christ is omniscient. This is incon- 
 sistently denied by Arians. They assert that God 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 57 
 
 delegated omnipotence to Christ, and yet that he 
 was not omniscient. But how could this be ? 
 Could Christ have u all power in heaven and in 
 earth,” without having all knowledge? It has 
 been said, with great justice, that “ knowledge is 
 power ;” because the power of all finite beings, to 
 say the least, depends to a great extent upon their 
 knowledge. This principle will hold good in refe- 
 rence to Christ, on the supposition that he is a 
 creature. If he was limited in knowledge, he 
 must h$ve been limited in power ; as no being can 
 act beyond his knowledge. But Arians represent 
 him as a being of very limited mental capacity — • 
 increasing in wisdom by a residence on earth — in- 
 finitely inferior to God in knowledge, and yet hav- 
 ing infinite power ! 
 
 It is alleged, from Matt. xxiv. 36, that Christ did 
 not know when the day of judgment would be. 
 If so, how can he adjust the affairs of his mediato- 
 rial kingdom, and of the universe, preparatory to 
 that day ? Is He, who is to judge the world, igno- 
 rant of the period when he is to do it? In respect 
 to the above text, we remark, 
 
 1. That it has no reference whatever to the day 
 of judgment. The topic, on which our Lord is 
 discoursing, is the destruction of Jerusalem ; hence 
 he refers to the prophecy of Daniel respecting that 
 event, and says, “ When ye shall see those things 
 come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the door. 
 Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not 
 pass, till all these things be done.” — Mark xiii. 29. 
 
 2. It is by no means certain that Christ intended 
 to disavow his knowledge of the time when Jeru- 
 salem should be destroyed. The phrase , li neither 
 the Son,” is found only in Mark ; and many emi- 
 nent critics consider it spurious. 
 
58 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 3. But even if it be genuine, the term Son must 
 here refer to the human nature only. Christ was 
 the Son of God in both natures, considered as dis- 
 tinct. Hence, when referring to either of these 
 natures, it was necessary to call it the Son. As to 
 the term Father, it would be natural if Christ 
 spoke of his human nature only, that he should 
 designate the Divinity by the use of that term ; as 
 his own Divine nature is called “ the Everlasting 
 Father,” — Isa. ix. 6, and the whole Godhead is 
 called the “ Father of all.” Eph. iv. 6. As a hu- 
 man being, then, Christ could say, “ Of that day, 
 and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels 
 which are in heaven, neither the Son, [as a 4 man ,’] 
 but the Father ;” that is, the Divinity. As God, 
 Christ certainly knew all about this event. He 
 laid down all the particulars relative to it, declared 
 that one stone should not be left upon another, and 
 all his predictions were fulfilled to the very letter. 
 How is it. then, that he, in whom dwelt all the full- 
 ness of the Godhead, did not know this small mat- 
 ter ? and yet Daniel had known and foretold the 
 time, hundreds of years before ? See Daniel ix. 
 24, &c. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that if Christ disavows a 
 knowledge of the time of this event, he does it only 
 as man. In this sense the text might be true, but, 
 of his Divinity, it could not. 
 
 One of the distinguishing characteristics of 
 Christ’s nature as man, was a capability of pro- 
 gressive advancement in knowledge. “ Jesus in- 
 creased in wisdom.” Now, although we maintain 
 the Supreme Divinity of Christ, we do not suppose 
 that the incommunicable attributes of Deity, were 
 imparted to his human nature. As a human being, 
 Christ was neither omnipotent, omniscient, omni- 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 59 
 
 present, or eternal. He had a human soul as well 
 as body, and this soul u increased in wisdom” like 
 other souls. Now, all that the human soul of 
 Christ knew respecting future events, must have 
 been communicated to it by the Divinity. As man, 
 then, he might have known all that was to take 
 place relative to Jerusalem, excepting the time, a 
 knowledge of which was not communicated. 
 
 That Christ often spoke in reference to his hu- 
 manity and Divinity, as distinct from each other, is 
 certain. As man he could say, “ I am no more in 
 the world — me ye have not always;” but, as God, 
 he says, he will “ make his abode with us” — meet 
 “ where two or three are gathered together in his 
 name,” and be with his disciples u alway, even unto 
 the end of the world.” So also, as man, he could 
 say he knew not the day nor the hour when Jeru- 
 salem should be destroyed ; while, as God, he knew 
 all things. 
 
 Both Kinkade and Millard object to this view of 
 the subject, as implicating Christ in the charge of 
 prevarication and falsehood. Their position is, that 
 if Christ knew a thing in any sense, he could not 
 in truth say he did not know it. But suppose we 
 apply this rule to some other sayings of his, and 
 say, if Christ is with us alway in any sense, he 
 could not say, u me ye have not alway.” Would 
 not the objection be equally reasonable? Christ 
 says he is, and is not , with us alway, because as 
 God he is with us, while, as man, he has gone into 
 heaven. So, as man, he was finite in knowledge, 
 while, as God, his understanding was infinite. To 
 illustrate their position, both the above writers com- 
 pare Christ to a man, one of whose eyes is defec- 
 tive ; and allege, that if he sees a thing with one 
 eye, he cannot say he does not see it ; therefore, if 
 
60 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Christ knew a thing in one nature, he could not 
 say he did not know it. In the case of the man 
 with one eye, there would be falsehood ; but the 
 case of Christ is widely different. The man has 
 but one intellect that could possibly know a thing ; 
 hence, if he denied seeing a thing, the same intel- 
 lect that saw must deny that it saw, simply because 
 it had but one eye to see with. But in the case of 
 Christ there were two intellects, the Divine and in- 
 finite Spirit, and the human soul ; hence, if the Di- 
 vinity only saw a future event, it would not be false- 
 hood for the humanity to say it did not know it. If 
 the man in the Arian illustration had two distinct 
 souls, one of which saw with the right eye, and the 
 other with the left, the soul that had the blind eye 
 could say, u I cannot see,” though the other soul 
 had the most extended and perfect vision. 
 
 4. To say that the Divine nature of Christ did not 
 know this matter, is to contradict numerous Scrip- 
 tures that represent him as omniscient. u Jesus did 
 not commit himself unto them because he knew all 
 men , and needed not that any should testify of man, 
 for he knew what was in man .” u Jesus knew from 
 the beginning who they were who believed not.” 
 “ The word of God is quick and powerful, and 
 is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the 
 heart. Neither is there any creature that is not 
 manifest in his sight ; but all things are naked and 
 open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to 
 do.” Without infinite knowledge, Christ could 
 never have created the universe, neither could he 
 now “ uphold all things by the word of his power.” 
 Much less would he be qualified a to be the Judge 
 of quick and dead.” But he is to judge the secrets 
 of men’s hearts — to bring every work into judgment, 
 with every secret thing — to bring to light the hidden 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 61 
 
 things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels 
 of the heart. Can he do these things without in- 
 finite knowledge ? Most certainly not. 
 
 In the 2d of Colossians, we read of “ the mystery 
 of God, and of the Father, and of Christ ; in whom 
 are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 37 
 Here the Apostle speaks first of God, by which he 
 means the whole Godhead, and afterwards mentions 
 the Father and Christ as distinct persons in the 
 Trinity. He affirms that in Christ all the trea- 
 sures of wisdom and knowledge are hid. Now 
 could this be true, if there were some things that 
 Christ did not know ? Do “ all the treasures of 
 wisdom and knowledge 33 mean a part of them 1 
 Again — It is written, u I the Lord search the heart, 
 I try the reins, even to give every man according to 
 his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. 33 
 Solomon says, “ Thou, even thou only , knowest the 
 hearts of all the children of men. 33 But Christ 
 says, in the 2d chapter of Revelation, “ I am he 
 which searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will 
 give unto every one of you according to your 
 works, 33 using the same language to assert his Dei- 
 ty and omniscience, that he had used by Jeremiah 
 hundreds of years before. He thus identifies him- 
 self as the heart-searching and rein-trying God ; and 
 clearly asserts his own omniscience. 
 
 Peter, in addressing himself to Christ says, “ Thou 
 knowest all things , 33 and yet Christ did not rebuke 
 him as a heretic, or even intimate that the sentiment 
 was erroneous. Now, if Christ knew all things, of 
 course he knew when Jerusalem would be destroyed, 
 nor can any other being know more than he does. 
 If he knows all men, knows what is in man, and 
 knew who would believe ; if all things are open 
 before him ; if he has all the treasures of wisdom 
 6 
 
62 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 and knowledge, is to judge the world, and is that 
 Being who alone can search the hearts of men ; he 
 must be infinite in knowledge, the Arian hypothe- 
 sis to the contrary notwithstanding. From these 
 premises then, as thus supported, the Deity of 
 Christ necessarily follows. God, and God only, is 
 omniscient. Jesus Christ is omniscient, therefore 
 Jesus Christ is God. 
 
 VI. The Deity of Christ follows from his 
 Omnipresence. Omnipresence, says Webster, is 
 u presence in all places at the same time — un- 
 bounded or universal presence.” 
 
 1. God, and God only, is omnipresent. “Whith- 
 er shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I flee 
 from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven 
 thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold 
 thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, 
 and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even 
 there shall thy hand lead me and thy right hand 
 shall hold me.” “ Can any hide himself in the se- 
 cret place that I shall not see him, saith the Lord ? 
 Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord ?” 
 Plain and explicit as are the Scriptures on this 
 point, Arians virtually deny the omnipresence of 
 Deity. They first assume that God has a body 
 like a man, and then, to be consistent with them- 
 selves, deny that he is every where present. So 
 Mr. Kinkade, in his chapter on a material Deity. 
 We will give a specimen of his reasoning. “ This 
 doctrine,” says he, “ deprives God of his agency, for 
 if his essence fills immensity, he cannot be an active 
 Being, because there could be no room for him to 
 act in, unless he could act beyond immensity, which 
 is impossible. He cannot even turn round unless 
 there is some space outside of him, and if there is, 
 he does not fill all immensity.” u If he fills all im- 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 03 
 
 mensity, he cannot have the power of locomotion, 
 unless he contracts and dilates his person,” &c. 
 “ If his person fills immensity, his sight does not 
 extend one inch from him. The sight of an ant 
 extends but a few inches around it, while that of a 
 man extends as many miles. As God surpasses us 
 infinitely more than we do the smallest insect ; we 
 must suppose he can sit on his throne in heaven, 
 and see and control every being in the universe 
 without being with them in person.” — “ Bible Doc- 
 trine,” pp. 156-7-67. In disposing of those Scrip- 
 tures that teach that God is every where, Mr. K. 
 says, “ God can fill heaven and earth with his ar- 
 mies, his power, his infinite riches and perfection,” 
 and quotes passages to show that he is omnipresent 
 by his glory, his knowledge, &c. 
 
 Notwithstanding the Psalmist says, “ If I make 
 my bed in hell, behold thou art there,” Mr. K. 
 says, (p. 70,) “If God is as much in hell as he is 
 any where else, the wicked shall not depart from 
 him to go there. The phrase c depart from me in- 
 to everlasting fire,’ proves that God and hell-fire 
 are not in the same place.” We shall leave the 
 reader to decide which is most consistent, the Arian 
 notion of a corporeal and local Divinity, or the Scrip- 
 tural doctrine of a spiritual and omnipresent God. 
 
 2. But Jesus Christ is omnipresent. This is im- 
 plied where it is said he “ upholdeth all things,” 
 and “ by him all things consist ;” as no being can act 
 where he is not. Paul says he “ filleth all in all,” 
 and Christ says, “ Where two or three are gathered 
 together, there am I in the midst.” “ Lo, I am with 
 you alway, even unto the end of the word.” But 
 Arians say, Christ is not absolutely omnipresent, 
 and that the omnipresence he possesses is no proof 
 of his Divinity. As an illustration, Mr. Millard 
 
64 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 says, Satan is in very many places at the same time, 
 and yet is not omnipresent. This we deny. We 
 have no proof that a good angel even, can be in 
 two places at once ; and as to Satan, he must “go 
 about like a roaring lion” to seek his prey. The 
 amount of temptation and sin in all parts of the 
 world, is no proof that the Devil is omnipresent, as 
 all this is not to be charged to one evil spirit, but to 
 “ the Devil and his angels.” Instead of one omni- 
 present Devil, as Arians suppose, it is probable that 
 there are more fallen spirits that have access to our 
 world, and are striving against truth and holiness, 
 than there are human beings on the face of the globe. 
 Mr. M.’s theory is, therefore, a mere hypothesis ; and 
 the omnipresence of Christ cannot be disproved by 
 putting him on a level with Satan. 
 
 The sum of our argument upon this point is, that 
 God and God only is omnipresent ; but as Christ 
 is omnipresent, Jesus Christ is God. 
 
 VII. The Divinity of Christ follows, from 
 
 THE FACT THAT HE IS THE PROPER OBJECT OF RE- 
 LIGIOUS WORSHIP. 
 
 By religious worship we do not mean mere re - 
 sped , honor , or veneration , such as is due from man 
 to man ; but divine honors, supreme respect and 
 adoration, such as is due to God only. In no other 
 sense do the Scriptures speak of worship as a re- 
 ligious act ; and in this sense has the term always 
 been used by the Church of Christ. Now we learn 
 from the Scriptures, 
 
 1 . That no being is entitled to religious worship but 
 God. u Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
 him only shalt thou serve.” u Hear, O Israel : The 
 Lord our God is one Lord : And thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
 thy soul, and with all thy might.” But while it is 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 65 
 
 thus clear that no being but God is entitled to re- 
 ligious worship, it is equally clear, 
 
 2. That Jesus Christ is entitled to this worship. 
 “ Let all the angels of God worship him” — “ At 
 the name of Jesus every knee shall bow” — “ All men 
 should honor the Son, even as they honor the Fa- 
 ther” — “ And they stoned Stephen calling upon God , 
 and saying, Lord Jesus , receive my spirit” — “ And 
 they worshipped Him , and returned to Jerusalem 
 with great joy” — “ And they came and held him 
 by the feet and worshipped him ” — “ And when they 
 saw him they worshipped him” &c. In the first 
 chapter of 1st Corinthians, the Apostle directs his epis- 
 tle to “ the Church of God which is at Corinth — 
 with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus 
 Christ our Lord.” From this we learn that a dis- 
 tinguishing characteristic of the 11 saints” of the 
 apostolic age, was that they prayed to Christ ; and 
 consequently Christ received the worship of the 
 apostles and the primitive Church. Of course, then, 
 he is the proper object of religious worship. 
 
 But here again we are met by our opponents. 
 While they admit that God is the only being that 
 may receive religious worship in its proper sense, 
 they deny that Christ ever received such worship ; 
 or is in any respect entitled to it. They consider 
 the worship due to Christ as mere “ adoration, re- 
 spect, or honor,” such as may be paid to parents, 
 magistrates, and rulers. Hence Kinkade says, “ It 
 is perfectly right to worship earthly rulers, and 
 when the Lord says, 1 Thou shalt worship the Lord 
 thy God and him only shalt thou serve, 5 the mean- 
 ing is that we must worship and serve, that is, hon- 
 or and obey him, and him alone as the Supreme 
 God. He does not mean that we should not wor- 
 ship and serve our magistrates and families in their 
 6 * 
 
66 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 proper places. If it is wrong to worship creatures, 
 Christ would not have directed us to use means to 
 get our neighbors to worship us. I worship the Fa- 
 ther as the Supreme Being, and I worship Jesus 
 Christ as the Son of God — the next greatest being 
 to God in the universe,” &c. — pp. 123, 4. 
 
 That the term worship is sometimes used in 
 Scriptures to represent respect to parents or magis- 
 trates, no one denies ; but, when thus employed, it is 
 used in an accommodated sense, to denote filial or 
 civil respect, and not to signify religious worship. 
 But in this secondary sense, Arians worship Christ. 
 They pay him a sort of deference, which falls as far 
 short of religious worship, as honoring a creature 
 falls below the worship of God. We are, therefore, 
 borne out in the assertion, that Arians pay no reli- 
 gious worship to Christ whatever ; as filial or civil 
 reverence is not religious worship. If the proper 
 distinction between religious worship and mere re- 
 spect to creatures be kept in view, it will be clear 
 that Arians do not worship Christ, any more than 
 they worship their parents, or the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 But it is contended, that there are various kinds 
 of religious worship ; and that, while we are for- 
 bidden to worship any being but God, as God ; 
 it is right to pay a subordinate religious worship to 
 a creature ; and that we may worship Christ re- 
 ligiously as a creature, while at the same time we 
 worship God only as the Supreme Being. This is 
 the true doctrine of modern Arians ; and against it 
 we urge the following objections 
 
 1. There is no such distinction in religious wor- 
 ship as this theory supposes. Reverence to parents 
 and rulers is entirely different and distinct from 
 religious worship. The object to whom worship is 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 67 
 
 paid, affects its quality ; and no worship is truly re- 
 ligious, but that which is paid to the Deity himself. 
 Neither the worship of idols, or of any other 
 creature, can be called religious worship in the 
 Christian sense. The above hypothesis, therefore, 
 being built upon a distinction that does not exist, 
 must fall to the ground. 
 
 2. The Scriptures no where claim a subordinate 
 or creature worship for Christ. If the reader will 
 turn back, and read over the passages already ad- 
 duced that speak of Christ’s worship, he will find 
 that they not only contain no hint that his worship 
 should be of a secondary quality, but on the con- 
 trary they claim for him supreme love and adora- 
 tion. “ All men should honor the Son, even as 
 they honor the Father .” Now, whether the term 
 u honor” means worship, as Arians teach, or not, 
 the case is the same. The text claims for Christ 
 the same worship or honor that is paid to the Fa- 
 ther. But do we worship the Father 'as a creature ? 
 Do we “ honor the Father” by offering him a spu- 
 rious worship? We are to worship him as the Su- 
 preme Object of all religious worship, and love him 
 with all our hearts ; and u all men should honor 
 the Son even as they honor the Father.” 
 
 The worship of primitive Christians was con- 
 ducted in obedience to these instructions. Even 
 angels, who worship the Father, worship Christ. 
 All should bow to the Father, and also to the Son. 
 The early saints called upon the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and Paul says, they u called upon the name 
 of Jesus.” Dying Stephen called upon the name 
 of God, when he said, “ Lord Jesus, receive my 
 spirit,” as soul and body were parting. There is 
 not an instance on record in which the worship paid 
 to Christ seems to have been any thing less than 
 
68 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 that which was usually paid to the Supreme Be- 
 ing- 
 
 3. The distinction of worship on which the 
 Arian theory depends for its support, is the ground- 
 work of one of the most pernicious practices of the 
 Church of Rome. When a Papist is accused of 
 idolatry, in worshipping relics and saints, his an- 
 swer is, “ We do not worship them as God , but 
 merely as creatures .” Let us hear one of their 
 priests on this point. We quote from “ Lectures on 
 the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, 55 by Nicholas Wiseman, D. D., vol. 
 ii. p. 77. 
 
 66 For, my brethren, what is idolatry ? It is the 
 giving to man, or to any thing created, that hom- 
 age, that adoration, and that worship, which God 
 hath reserved unto himself; and, to substantiate 
 such a charge [that of idolatry] against us, it must 
 be proved that such honor and worship is alien- 
 ated by us from God, and given to a creature. Now, 
 what is the Catholic belief on the subject of giving 
 worship or veneration to the saints or their em- 
 blems ? You will not open a single Catholic work, 
 from the folio decrees of Councils, down to the 
 smallest catechisms, in which you will not find it 
 expressly taught, that it is sinful to pay the same 
 homage or worship to the saints which we pay to 
 God : that supreme honor and worship are re- 
 served exclusively to him, &c. No one surely 
 will say, that there is no distinction between one 
 species of homage and reverence and another ; no 
 one will assert, that when we honor the king, or 
 his representatives, or our parents, or others in law- 
 ful authority over us, we are thereby derogating 
 from the supreme honor due to God. 55 Again, p. 
 78 — “ It is wasting time to prove that there may 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 69 
 
 be honor and worship, so subservient o God, as 
 in no way to interfere with what is due to him. 
 What I have cursorily stated, is precisely the Ca- 
 tholic belief regarding* the saints.” 
 
 From this quotation, every one can see that the 
 theory of Kinkade and the Arians, and that of I)r. 
 Wiseman and the Catholics, is precisely the same. 
 It is used for the same purpose in both cases, name- 
 ly, to repel the charge of idolatry, and justify sub- 
 ordinate religious worship. The only difference 
 is that the Catholics worship a number of creatures, 
 while the Arians worship but one. If the distinc- 
 tion contended for by the latter is correct, the former 
 are certainly right in worshipping relics, images, 
 and saints ; so that we must either reject the Arian 
 notion of supreme and subordinate worship, or sanc- 
 tion all the idolatry of the Church of Rome. 
 
 4. This theory must create great confusion and 
 great danger in religious worship. In the first 
 place, it acknowledges two Gods, both of whom are 
 objects of religious adoration. But while Christ is 
 worshipped as well as the Father, it is admitted, 
 that to pay him the highest order of worship, would, 
 be downright idolatry. This being the case, we 
 might expect that the worship of Christ and the 
 worship of God would be kept distinct by Arians ; 
 and that they would not only have a set day for the 
 public worship of each, but also give notice, that 
 on such a day they would meet to worship the 
 creature, (Christ,) and on such a day to worship 
 God; that is, one day for their supreme and another 
 for their subordinate Divinities. This would be 
 nothing more than is imperatively demanded, if the 
 Arian notion be correct, in order to the safety of 
 the souls of the worshippers. Hence the Catholics, 
 who worship images, &c., on the same principle 
 
70 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 that Arians worship Christ, allow each saint his 
 day j and keep the worship of their respective gods 
 in a great measure distinct. But instead of this 
 necessary precaution on the part of the Arians, 
 they worship both their Gods on the same day, in 
 the same place, and in the same hour ; and adopt 
 no measures whatever to guard themselves or others 
 against the horrible sin of idolatry. They use the 
 same day, and notify their worship in the same 
 manner, that Trinitarians do ; and make no distinc- 
 tion whatever between the worship of Christ and 
 of God in any part of their services. 
 
 Again : Both Arians and Catholics admit, that 
 to render supreme worship to a creature would be 
 idolatry ; and yet if Arians worship Christ at all, 
 they take the very means to secure him supreme 
 homage. They worship him publicly on the same 
 day that those worship who worship God only — 
 make great efforts in the pulpit professedly to exalt 
 Christ — often pray to him and claim to love him 
 better than others ; and even arrogate to themselves 
 exclusively the name of Christian. With all these 
 helps to the supreme worship of Christ, they have 
 no guards to prevent so ruinous a calamity. In- 
 stead of erecting light-houses on the coast of de- 
 struction, they kindle bonfires to lure souls to the 
 dark rocks of idolatry and eternal ruin. Their 
 leaders never say, “ Now let us worship Christ — 
 be careful and worship him as a creature — restrain 
 your love and reverence, and give him only a par- 
 tial homage” — no ; all is mingled together in indis- 
 criminate confusion. Some are worshipping one 
 of their Gods, and some another — one moment they 
 worship Jehovah, and the next a creature, and nil 
 are constantly liable to go so far in the worship of 
 Christ as to ruin their souls forever. 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 71 
 
 This danger has been seen, even by Arians them- 
 selves. A minister, who denied the Deity of Christ, 
 says, in writing to another, “I know not what to 
 do. My people will not worship Christ. When I 
 urge them to this duty, they reply, ‘ Thou shall 
 worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
 serve.’ Others, to be on the safe side, have given 
 up the worship of Christ altogether, and denounced 
 it as 4 idolatrous worship ” and, if Arianism be 
 true, this is far more consistent and safe than to 
 persist in the worship of our Lord and Saviour. 
 
 5. The Arian theory of worship not only coun- 
 tenances the idolatry of the Romish Church, but 
 likewise that of all Pagan lands. It is assumed, 
 both by Arians and Catholics, that it is not idolatry 
 to worship a creature, unless we worship it u as the 
 Supreme God.” Now let us apply this rule to Pa- 
 gan idolatry. Does the African worship his gree , 
 gree , as the Supreme God? Did the Ephesians 
 worship Diana as the first and highest of all Di- 
 vinities ? Were not all the gods of the Greeks and 
 Romans subordinate Divinities, one excepted ? The 
 truth is, few, if any, of the gods of Pagan lands are 
 worshipped as supreme ; hence, according to the 
 Arian doctrine, there is little or no idolatry in the 
 world 
 
 6. Finally: We deny that the Scriptures justify 
 us in paying religious worship to a creature in any 
 degree whatever. It is admitted, on all hands, that 
 the text — “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,” 
 &c. — refers to religious worship only. Now the 
 same text that commands us to pay religious wor- 
 ship to God, is equally clear and authoritative in 
 the prohibition, “ Him only shalt thou serve.” 
 We are thereby solemnly inhibited from paying 
 any kind of religious worship to any being but 
 
72 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 God : nor is there a single instance on record where 
 a creature was worshipped with the Divine approval. 
 
 If, as Arians tell us, the above text does not for- 
 bid the worship of creatures, hut merely cautions 
 us against regarding them as supreme, why did 
 Christ employ it in his conflict with Satan ? The 
 enemy did not ask to be worshipped as God, but in 
 his proper character as a Devil, tempted Christ to wor- 
 ship him. He asked merely for worship, without 
 specifying any particular kind or degree, and Christ 
 quotes the law as forbidding it. Now, if the law 
 did not forbid the worship of all creatures, of course 
 it did not forbid the worship of Satan, provided it 
 was not supreme ; and as Satan asked only to be 
 worshipped as a creature, the text was wrongly ap- 
 plied. But the use made of this text by our Lord 
 shows conclusively, that Christ understood it as for- 
 bidding the worship of all creatures. 
 
 When John was about to worship the angel, Rev. 
 xxii. 8, the angel said to him, 14 See thou do it not 
 and immediately assigns the reason, namely, that 
 he also was a creature. Kinkade’s exposition of 
 the text goes to show that the angel was willing to 
 be worshipped, but objected only to supreme wor- 
 ship. He says, 44 The reason why the angel talked 
 so to John, was, that he saw John was about to 
 offer him undue worship, that is, John was going to 
 worship him too as the Supreme GodP He then 
 attempts to show that the angel was Christ. To 
 this interpretation we object. (1.) The angel said, 
 44 1 am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the 
 prophets .” If he was one of the old prophets, he 
 could not have been Jesus Christ. (2.) Jesus 
 Christ never said to any of his worshippers, 44 See 
 thou do it not.” (3.) The angel did not say, 44 Do 
 not worship me as God : or as an angel ” but for- 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 73 
 
 bade John to worship him at all ; and then directed 
 him to the only proper object of religious worship. 
 John mistook the angel for Christ, and therefore 
 fell down to worship him. The angel seeing this, 
 corrects the mistake by telling who he was, and 
 says, “ worship God as if God only might be 
 worshipped. It is clear, therefore, that it is wrong 
 to pay any degree of religious worship to any crea- 
 ture whatever. 
 
 From all these considerations, we are compelled 
 to reject the Arian theory of worship, as an un- 
 scriptural, unreasonable, and dangerous invention ; 
 and to consider the worship paid to Christ as un- 
 restricted and supreme. Now, as no being but 
 God may receive religious worship, and yet all the 
 angels of God, and the whole human family, are 
 required to worship Christ, it follows that Jesus 
 Christ is God ; and in worshipping him supremely, 
 we are obeying the commandment, u Thou shall 
 worship the Lord thy God : and him only shalt thou 
 serve" 
 
 VIII. The Deity of Christ ts necessarily im- 
 plied IN NUMEROUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. “ Be- 
 
 ing in the form of God, he thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God.” — Philip, ii. 6. “ In him 
 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” — 
 Col. ii. 9. The Father is in me, and I in him.” — 
 John x. 38. “ I and my Father are one.” — John 
 
 x. 30. i6 He that hath seen me, hath seen the Fa- 
 ther.” — John xiv. 9. u All men should honor the 
 Son, even as they honor the Father.” — John v. 23. 
 None of these passages can be reconciled with the 
 idea that Christ was a creature. For a creature to 
 be equal with God would certainly be robbery ; 
 and even Anans admit that to honor a creature, as 
 we honar the Father, is idolatry. We must there* 
 
74 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 fore believe that he who spake, or was spoken of, 
 in these passages, was the uncreated Word ; a God 
 manifest in the flesh.” 
 
 IX. The titles of Christ are proofs of his 
 proper Divinity. — 1. The title of “Lord” is a 
 common name for Jehovah throughout the Old 
 Testament. It is said u the Lord our God is one 
 Lord,” and the New Testament teaches “ one Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism :” and yet this same book, 
 that reveals God to man under the name of “ Lord,” 
 reveals Christ to us as “ King of kings, and Lord 
 of lords.” Indeed, “ Lord” is a common title of 
 Christ throughout the New Testament. Now, on 
 the supposition that he is a mere creature, why has 
 the Holy Ghost revealed this creature to man, under 
 the same title that reveals Jehovah in the Old Tes- 
 tament % But more on this point hereafter. 
 
 2. The name, “ Son of God,” implies absolute 
 Divinity, and was so understood by the Jews of our 
 Lord’s time, and by Christ himself. We have de- 
 fined the term sou as applied to Christ in Chapter 
 XL, and need only add here, that it was never ap- 
 plied to his pre-existent nature to signify that it was 
 begotten, or born ; or that he had a natural father 
 or mother. Of course, then, the fact that Christ is 
 called “ the Son of God,” is no evidence of his in- 
 feriority, any more than the use of the term Father 
 is proof of family relations in the Godhead. Christ 
 is called “ the Everlasting Father,” as well as 
 u the Son of God.” When he said, “ God was his 
 Father,” John v. 18, the Jews sought to kill him, 
 not because, as they understood him, he had de- 
 clared himself a creature, but because he had made 
 himself equal with God. Again — Because he said, 
 u I am the Son of God,” John x. 36, “the Jews 
 took up stones again to stone him ; and, when 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 75 
 
 asked why they did it, they answer, “ for blas- 
 phemy ; and because that thou being a man 
 makest thyself God.” In both these cases, the 
 Jews understood him to assert his absolute Divin- 
 ity ; for, when he said he was the Son of God, 
 they said he made himself God. It is certain, 
 therefore, that the Jews understood the title, “ Son 
 of God,” as a title of Divinity ; and it is no small 
 confirmation of this idea that Josephus, a learned 
 Jew of that age, calls Christ “ God the Word,” p. 
 609. If, then, this title is a title of supreme Divin- 
 ity, and was so used by Christ, knowing how he 
 would be understood, it follows that Christ claimed 
 Divinity when he said he was the Son of God ; 
 and the application of this title to Christ in the 
 Scripture, is proof of his Deity. 
 
 3. Jesus Christ is the God of the Old and New 
 Testaments. John crying in the wilderness before 
 Christ, was to say, “ Make straight in the desert a 
 highway for our God.” “ Behold your God,” Isa. 
 iv. 3, 9. Christ is called u The Mighty God,” Isa. 
 ix. 6 ; “ God with us,” Matt. i. 23 ; “ the Lord our 
 God,” Luke i. 16; “ God manifest in the flesh,” 
 1 Tim, iii. 16 ; 66 God our Saviour,” Tit. ii. 10 ; the 
 God whose throne “ is forever and ever,” Heb. i. 
 8 ; 66 the true God,” 1 John v. 20 ; “ the God who 
 purchased the Church with his own blood,” Acts 
 xx. 28 ; u and the God who' laid down his life for 
 us,” 1 John iii. 16. Thomas calls him “his Lord 
 and his God,” John xx. 28, and it is said, “ the Word 
 was God,” John i. 1. In view of these passages, 
 Arians admit that “ Christ is called God,” and that 
 he is God in a subordinate sense. Kinkade says, 
 “ I conscientiously call him my Lord and my God, 
 and yet I firmly believe he is a created being.” 
 Mr. Perry says, “ he is God, though not the only 
 
76 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 true God.” It is thus assumed that there are two 
 Gods, one created, and the other eternal ; and to 
 keep this theory in countenance, it is alleged that 
 Moses was God, and that there are many gods be- 
 sides Jehovah. But we are not contending that 
 there are no false gods, or that Moses was not u a 
 god to Pharaoh.” This we admit, hut it has no- 
 thing to do with the question, Moses was “ a god 
 to ^Pharaoh,” that is, “ instead of God,” Exod. iv. 
 16 ; as Moses sustained the same relation to Aaron 
 as his teacher, that God sustained to Moses; but 
 the Scriptures nowhere represent Christ as “ a god,” 
 or u instead of God.” It is a mere evasion of the 
 question, therefore, to introduce Moses and others 
 as Gods, even though the capital G be added in all 
 cases, as is done by Kinkade. 
 
 On the supposition that the title God in the above 
 texts is applied to a creature, it ought certainly to 
 have been qualified by the introduction of an ad- 
 jective ; especially as the Bible reveals but one God. 
 John should have said, “ Behold your created God,” 
 and we should read, “ The Mighty created God — 
 our created God — the true created God — my Lord 
 and my created God — the Word was the created and 
 subordinate God.” This would not only have 
 guarded us against the notion of only one God, and 
 of the proper Divinity of Christ, but also have 
 given some countenance to the Arian notion of a plu- 
 rality of Gods, one supreme and one subordinate. 
 
 But both reason and religion forbid such an un- 
 derstanding of the Sacred Oracles. It is written, 
 “ Before me there was no God formed, neither 
 shall there be after me — besides me there is no 
 God — there is no God beside me — there is none 
 other God but one ;” and yet in this same book the 
 “Word” is revealed to us as the “true” and 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 77 
 
 “mighty God.” We must therefore either adopt 
 the ridiculous notion, that there are two Gods, in 
 direct opposition to the Scriptures, or admit that 
 Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the second person in the 
 holy Trinity. 
 
 4. Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Jewish 
 Scriptures. “ This name,” says Cruden, “ signifies 
 he who exists of himself and it is generally ad- 
 mitted that it belongs exclusively to the Supreme 
 Being. The Scriptures fully settle this point. 
 “ And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and 
 unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by 
 my name Jehovah was I not known to them.” 
 “ Thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most 
 High over all the earth.” “ I am the Lord : (Je- 
 hovah,) that is my name : and my glory will I not 
 give to another.” “ I am Jehovah, and there is 
 none else ; there is no God besides me.” 
 
 But, while the Scriptures restrict this august title 
 to God alone, they more than once apply it to Jesus 
 Christ. The original word translated “ Lord” 
 in the New Testament, is the same used in the 
 Greek version of the Old Testament, to signify 
 Jehovah. Jehovah, in Hebrew, is rendered 
 Kyrios in Greek ; and Kyrios in Greek is rendered 
 Lord in English ; so that Lord in the New Testa- 
 ment is the same as Jehovah in the Old. We may 
 therefore substitute the word Jehovah where the 
 title “ Lord” is applied to Christ in the New Tes- 
 tament, without altering the sense of those passages. 
 That the New Testament writers used the term 
 Kyrios , or Lord , in this sense, is certain. Hence. 
 “ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
 shall be saved,” is a correct quotation from Joel ii. 
 32. “ Whosoever shall call on the name of Je- 
 
 hovah shall be de ivered.” “ Thou, Lord. (Jeho- 
 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 vah,) hast laid the foundations of the earth” — “ pre- 
 pare ye the way of the Lord,” (Jehovah,) — “ say 
 unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God,” (Jeho- 
 vah) — “ and this is the name whereby he shall he 
 called, the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness.” 
 
 Now, as Jehovah is God’s name, and he alone is 
 Jehovah ; and as Jesus Christ is Jehovah , it follows 
 that Christ is the Supreme Being, the God of the 
 spirits of all flesh. 
 
 Dr. Waterland says, “if Jehovah signify the 
 eternal, immutable God, it is manifest that the name 
 is incommunicable , since there is but one God ; and 
 if the name be incommunicable , then Jehovah can 
 signify nothing but that one God, to whom, and to 
 whom only, it is applied.” Mr. Watson says of 
 Christ, “ he is called Jehovah himself, a name which 
 the Scriptures give to no person whatever, except 
 to each of the sacred Three, who stand forth, in 
 the pages of the Old and New Testaments, 
 crowned with this supreme and exclusive honor and 
 eminence.” 
 
 It is unnecessary to spend time in noticing Arian 
 arguments on this point, as they carry their own re- 
 futation with them. All Kin kade says, to prove 
 that Christ is an Archangel, is only so much testi- 
 mony that Christ is God j as he admits that Christ 
 was “the Angel of the Lord” that appeared to Mo- 
 ses in the burning bush, and we all know that this 
 Angel was the “ Angel Jehovah,” the God of the 
 Old Testament. This is the opinion of all the 
 Trinitarian writers that he has professed to quote, 
 in order to support his cause. 
 
 Whether, then, we consider Christ as the “ Son 
 of God,” as “ Lord,” as “ God,” or as “ Jehovah,” 
 we have abundant evidence in the necessary and 
 exclusive import of these terms, that he is the se- 
 
DEITY OF CHR.ST. 
 
 79 
 
 cond person of the adorable Trinity , the eternal, in- 
 finite JEHOVAH. One more argument, in favor of 
 the Deity of Christ, and we shall dismiss the subject. 
 
 X. The Divinity of Christ follows from the 
 
 FACT THAT HE FORGIVES SINS. 
 
 1. No being but God can forgive sins. When 
 Christ said to the sick of the palsy , 66 Thy sins he 
 forgiven thee,” the Scribes said, u Who can forgive 
 sins but God only ?” Christ does not deny the cor- 
 rectness of their position ; but proceeds to convince 
 them, that u the Son of man had power on earth to 
 forgive sins,” as if desirous from their own premises 
 to lead them to the acknowledgment of his proper 
 Divinity. To escape this conclusion is impossible. 
 No being but God can forgive sins; but Jesus 
 Christ forgave sins ; therefore, Jesus Christ is God. 
 
 That Christ forgave sins, is too plain to be de- 
 nied, even by Arians themselves. The only al- 
 ternative left them, is, to deny that God only can 
 pardon the sinner ; and resort to the modern inven- 
 tion of agency and delegation. It is therefore as- 
 serted that Christ forgave sins merely as the agent 
 or representative of the Almighty. The falsity and 
 absurdity of this doctrine have already been shown ; 
 but in respect to the point in hand, we further re- 
 mark, 
 
 (1.) That such is the nature of pardon, that no 
 being can forgive offences for another. If a man 
 injure us, we can forgive him, it is true ; but no 
 man can forgive him in our stead ; neither can we 
 forgive him so as to prevent the adjudication of the 
 case by the Judge of all. So in respect to God. 
 It is not possible, in the nature of things, that a 
 creature should be authorized to forgive sins. 
 
 (2.) This notion of pardon by proxy, is another 
 u mark of the Beast” — a favorite dogma of “ Baby- 
 
80 
 
 DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 Ion.” Papists telhus, that God can appoint a vice- 
 gerent , or representative, to forgive sins, and that the 
 world has such a delegate in the person of the 
 Pope. They also allow this power to the priest- 
 hood generally. Arianism responds to the first of 
 these sentiments, but tells us that this agent is Jesus 
 Christ instead of the Pope, a creature, in their opin- 
 ion, a little above his Holiness in some respects. 
 Now, if the Arian position be correct, we see no 
 reason why the Catholics should not be correct 
 also. If God could delegate the right to forgive 
 sins to an exalted creature , that creature could ap- 
 point Peter as his agent, and Peter could appoint 
 his successor ; and it may be true, after all, that the 
 Pope, and all his Cardinals and Priests, even to 
 Bishop Hughes, have power on earth to forgive 
 sins. 
 
 We must then either abandon the notion of for- 
 giveness by proxy altogether, or all turn Papists at 
 once, and go over to the church of Rome. We 
 therefore reject the Arian hypothesis of pardon by 
 proxy as an unscriptural and blasphemous assump- 
 tion — the very quintessence of Popery. 
 
 We will now dismiss this important point in the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and bring this Chapter to a 
 close. Though we have extended these remarks 
 beyond the limits proposed, we have adduced but 
 a few of the arguments that might be urged in sup- 
 port of our position. Neither do we pretend that 
 those selected are better than those that are omitted. 
 Having determined not to swell this volume to an 
 immoderate size ; and, knowing that many unan- 
 swerable sermons on the Divinity of Christ were 
 already before the public, we shall rest satisfied 
 with the specimen of Scripture and argument al- 
 ready ad luced upon this point. We have shown 
 
DEITY OF CHRIST. 
 
 81 
 
 that Christ is the omnipotent, omniscient, omni- 
 present, and eternal Being-, the Creator of all things 
 seen and unseen. We have proved his Divinity 
 from the fact, that he is the only proper object of 
 religious worship, and from Scriptures that neces- 
 sarily imply his Godhead. We have also identi- 
 fied him as u God over all,” from his titles of u Son 
 of God “ Lord u God and “ Jehovah and 
 have proved him to be the sin-pardoning God, the 
 only God revealed in the Bible. On these argu- 
 ments we are willing to rest our cause, with all 
 who believe the Scriptures, and are willing to know 
 the truth. We see no rational middle-ground be- 
 tween rejecting the Divinity of Christ and denying 
 the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. If he, whom 
 the Scriptures reveal to us as the omnipotent, om- 
 niscient, omnipresent, and eternal Being — the Je- 
 hovah worshipped by men and angels — the God 
 who upholds all things, forgives^ sins, and is to 
 judge the world in the last day, is nothing but a 
 mere finite creature of yesterday, a being infinitely 
 below the Deity ; who can have any confidence in 
 the Bible, or receive it for a moment as an infalli- 
 ble revelation of God’s will to man ? No wonder 
 therefore, that Arianism is the highway to Deism ; 
 for we must impeach the Bible to be an Arian. But, 
 when we fall in with its plain and obvious mean- 
 ing, all is clear. The Old and New Testaments 
 agree with each other ; a key is furnished to un- 
 lock the Book of Life ; a thousand ridiculous no- 
 tions and absurdities are avoided ; the credit of the 
 Holy Scriptures is preserved ; and angels and men 
 are justified in honoring the Son, even as they hon- 
 or the Father. May that Eternal u Word,” who 
 became incarnate to redeem us, shine on our hearts. 
 
82 
 
 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 and open our eyes ; that we may behold a the light 
 of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face 
 of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 In the preceding chapters we have shown that 
 there is but one living and true God ; and that 
 Jesus Christ has two natures, being in one nature 
 verily and really man; and in the other truly and 
 properly God. That the u Word” or Son of God 
 is a distinct person from the Father, is not denied by 
 Arians. They not only admit his personality, but 
 push the distinction so far as to make him a distinct 
 being from God ; whereas we maintain that he is 
 distinct only as a person in the Godhead, and is con- 
 sequently possessed of absolute Divinity. This we 
 think we have already proved to the satisfaction of 
 every candid reader. We shall now proceed to 
 establish the third leading point in the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, namely, that the Holy Ghost also is 
 really Divine ; and that he is a distinct person from 
 the Father and the Son. On this point there is 
 great confusion among Arian teachers and writers. 
 Some say the Holy Ghost is one thing and some 
 another. One says u he is a power, attribute, or 
 emanation from God.” Another says he is literally 
 the breath of God, while a third informs us that he 
 is God’s soul that occupies his body as human souls 
 occupy their bodies. Kinkade says, “ God’s Spirit, 
 bears the same relation to God, that the spirit of 
 man does to man.” This is the prevailing doctrine 
 
DEITY OF TE..3 SPIRIT. 
 
 83 
 
 on this point, among Arians. They hold that God 
 has a body like a, man, and that the Holy Spirit is 
 the soul of that body ; so that God is not a pure 
 spirit without body or parts, but a material being 
 like man, having both soul and body. In this they 
 have departed a little from the footsteps of their 
 father Arius, and on this account they deny that 
 they are Arians. But they have only exchanged 
 one particular error for another, having, as it re- 
 spects the Spirit, abandoned Arianism for Sabel- 
 lianism. Both Arians and Sabellians deny the 
 doctrine of the Trinity ; the former by making the 
 Son a distinct being from God, and a creature, and 
 the Spirit the soul of God ; the latter by making 
 the Father, Son, and Spirit one person , with differ- 
 ent titles under different dispensations. “ Sabellians 
 taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are 
 only denominations [or names] of one hypostasis ; 
 [or person ;] in other words, that there is but one 
 person in the Godhead : — that under the Old Testa- 
 ment, God delivered the law as Father ; under 
 the New, dwelt among men, or was incarnate, as 
 the Son : and descended on the Apostles as the 
 Spirit.” So far as the Spirit is concerned, most 
 modem Arians adopt this theory ; and tell us that 
 the Holy Ghost and the Father are one, without 
 any distinction of persons. But while this senti- 
 ment is the more popular one among Arians, it is 
 by no means universal. While some admit the 
 Deity of the Spirit and deny his personality ; others 
 deny both. It will be necessary, therefore, in con- 
 sidering this subject, not only to show that the Holy 
 Ghost is God , but that he is a distinct person from 
 the Father and the Son. To the first of these points 
 we now invite attention. 
 
 I. Our Lord says, “ God is a Spirit and one of 
 
84 
 
 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 the most common names of the Holy Ghost is, u the 
 Spirit of God.” Now as God is a Spirit, and the 
 Holy Ghost is a Spirit, they must be of the same 
 nature , namely, Spirit. But as God himself is pure 
 Spirit, he can have no spirit aside from his own 
 being ; as the Spirit of a Spirit cannot exist as a 
 distinct substance. The Spirit of God must there- 
 fore be that God who is a spirit. 
 
 The identity of the Spirit with the Godhead, is 
 clearly taught 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11 — u For the Spirit 
 searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save 
 the spirit of man which is in him 1 even so the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of 
 God.” From this text Kinkade attempts to show 
 that the Spirit of God occupies God’s body as its 
 soul ! It is true that the Apostle illustrates his 
 views, by comparing the Spirit of God with the 
 spirit of man ; but this comparison extends only to 
 one or two points of agreement at most. 1. The 
 Spirit only, knows the things of the Spirit. As no 
 man fully opens his heart, and reveals all “ the 
 things of a man” to another, so “ the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 2. As 
 the Spirit of man that is in him, is, in reality, the 
 man ; so the Spirit of God that knoweth the things 
 of God is God himself. But because there is a 
 resemblance between the Spirit and the human 
 soul, in one or two particulars, it is inferred that the 
 analogy must be general ; and that God has a soul 
 and body like human beings. 
 
 II. 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17 — •“ Nevertheless when it (the 
 heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken 
 away. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the 
 Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Here ob- 
 serve, 1 . The Lord JehoT ih is the Being to whom 
 
DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 85 
 
 the Jews were to turn. 2. The Spirit spoken of, is 
 the Spirit of God, by which we are changed into 
 the image of the Lord, from glory to glory ; verse 
 18th. 3. The Lord Jehovah, to whom the Jews 
 
 were to turn, and the Spirit or Holy Ghost, are 
 one. “ Now the Lord is that Spirit.” As the Lord 
 Jehovah is the Spirit, the Spirit is the Lord ; or in 
 other words, the Holy Ghost is God. 
 
 III. Acts xxviii. 25 — “Well spake the Holy 
 Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, say- 
 ing, Go unto this people and say, Hearing ye shall 
 hear,” &c. Now by turning to the 6th of Isaiah, 
 from which Paul quotes, we find that the Holy 
 Ghost that spake by Esaias, was the Lord of hosts, 
 the Jehovah of the Old Testament. “ And I heard 
 the voice of the Lord (Jehovah) saying, Whom 
 shall I send, and who will go for us ? Then said 
 1, here am I ; send me. And he said, Go, and tell 
 this people,” &c. From a comparison of these pas- 
 sages, it is certain that the Holy Ghost of the 
 Apostle, is the Lord of hosts ; the Jehovah of the 
 Bible. 
 
 IV. The Holy Ghost is the Creator. “ And 
 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the wa- 
 ters” — “ The Spirit of God hath made me” — “ By 
 his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens” — “ Thou 
 sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are created.” 
 These passages prove that the Holy Ghost is pos- 
 sessed of creative power ; and the Arian must either 
 substitute another “ agent” or admit that the Holy 
 Ghost is God, the Creator of all things. 
 
 V. The Deity of the Spirit is implied, Matt. xii. 
 31. “ All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
 given unto men ; but the blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And 
 whosoever speaketh word against the Son of man, 
 
 8 
 
86 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. * 
 
 it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh 
 against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, 
 neither in this world nor in the world to come.” 
 Again : u He that shall blaspheme against the 
 Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in dan- 
 ger of eternal damnation.” From these texts we 
 learn that to sin against the Holy Ghost is an of- 
 fence so peculiar, and so aggravated in its character, 
 that the offender finds no forgiveness in time or in 
 eternity. But how can this be accounted for, on 
 the supposition that He is “ a power, attribute, or 
 emanation ?” Is it so peculiarly dangerous to speak 
 against these that the offender can find no pardon ? 
 The nature of this particular sin, and the penalty 
 attached to it, show the dignity of the Holy Spirit, 
 and clearly imply His supreme Divinity. 
 
 VI. The Spirit is omniscient. “ The Spirit 
 searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 
 What “ power, attribute, emanation” or being is ca- 
 pable of such knowledge but God only ? 
 
 VII. The Holy Ghost is omnipresent. “ Whith- 
 er shall I go from thy Spirit ? or whither shall I flee 
 from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, 
 thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold, 
 thou art there,” &c. He reproves the world of sin, 
 and dwells in the hearts of all true believers ; and 
 as God is the only omnipresent Being, the omni- 
 presence of the Holy Ghost is proof of his Di- 
 vinity. 
 
 VIII. The Spirit of God is eternal. u Christ, 
 who, through the eternal Spirit , offered himself,” 
 &c. God only is eternal ; therefore the u eternal 
 Spirit” must be that eternal God, who is a Spirit. 
 
 IX. The words Holy Ghost and God are used 
 synonymously in the New Testament. “ Know ye 
 not that ye are the temple of God : and that the 
 
DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 87 
 
 Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” “ Your body is 
 the temple of the Holy Ghost ” — “ Ye are the tem- 
 ple of the living God. v — “ Why hath Satan filled 
 thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not 
 lied unto men, but unto God .” “ Except a man be 
 
 born — of the Spirit ” — “ so is every one that is born 
 of the Spirit .” “ As many as received him were 
 
 born — of God .” “ All Scripture is given by inspi- 
 
 ration of God ;” — ■“ Holy men of old spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost” “ God shall raise 
 the dead ;” — “ It is the Spirit that quicken eth — 
 “shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
 Spirit that dwelleth in you,” &c., &c. This list 
 might be greatly extended ; but the above passages 
 are sufficient to show, that in the New Testament 
 and the terms “ God ” “ Holy Ghost ” are interchanged, 
 as signifying the same Divine person. 
 
 X. Paul says, 2 Cor. iii. 5 — “ But our suffi- 
 ciency is of God, who also hath made us able min- 
 isters of the New Testament.” — Now, we learn 
 from the 13th chap, of Acts, that this God, who 
 made these ministers, was the Holy Ghost. “ As 
 they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy 
 Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
 the work whereunto I have called them ; — so they 
 being sent forth by the Holy Ghost , departed.” The 
 conclusion from these passages is, that the Holy 
 Ghost who called Paul and Barn alias to the minis- 
 try, is the God by whom they were made minis- 
 ters. 
 
 XI. The Holy Ghost is recognized by the Apos- 
 tles as possessing sovereign and absolute authority 
 over the Church. Hence he called and sent forth 
 Paul and Barnabas, as stated in the above texts ; 
 and is referred to as the Ruler of the Church, and 
 the person who appointed her officers. “ For it 
 
88 
 
 DEITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay 
 upon you no greater burthen than these necessary 
 things — “ Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
 and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost 
 hath made you overseers.” Now, the Scriptures 
 represent the Church as “ the Church of God,” and 
 her ministry as those who are “ called of God , as 
 was Aaron.” We must therefore recognize the 
 Holy Ghost as the God of the Christian Church. 
 
 The substance of the testimony upon this point 
 may be thus briefly summed up. We pray to the 
 Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father and Son, in 
 the Apostolic benediction. We are baptized in the 
 name of the Holy Ghost — comforted by the Holy 
 Ghost — converted and sanctified by him — led by 
 the Spirit, and are to be raised by him in the last 
 day. He is of the substance of God, “a Spirit” — 
 the God to whom the Jews were to turn — the God 
 who sent Isaiah— the omniscient, omnipresent, and 
 Eternal Spirit — the Creator of all things — the God 
 that dwells in believers — the God to whom Ana- 
 nias lied — the God who inspired “holy men of 
 old” — the God by whom Paul was made a minis- 
 ter — the God insulted in the commission of the un- 
 pardonable sin — the Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and the God and Governor of the Christian 
 Church. We therefore acknowledge him as one 
 of the “ three that bear record in heaven ;” of one 
 substance, majesty, and glory with the Father, and 
 the Son, very and eternal God. 
 
THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 89 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON FROM THE 
 FATHER. 
 
 Having established the proper Divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit, we shall now proceed to show that he 
 is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. It 
 will be recollected, that one class of Arians admit 
 that the Holy Ghost is God, but deny his person- 
 ality. They maintain that he is God’s soul, dwell- 
 ing in a body in the shape of man — a doctrine 
 which we have elsewhere identified as a species 
 of Sabellianism, and which need not here be recon- 
 sidered. 
 
 Before we proceed to argue the subject of this 
 chapter, it may be necessary again to remind the 
 reader of the sense in which we use the term per- 
 son , as we apply it to the Holy Ghost. By person 
 we do not mean body , as do Arians, or a human 
 being ; but simply one of the three that bear re- 
 cord in heaven. We mean that the Holy Ghost is 
 a person as the Father and Word are persons ; and 
 that these three Divine persons constitute the one 
 Eternal Being, the God of heaven and earth. For 
 further remarks upon this point, see Chapter II. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the personality of 
 the Holy Spirit. In doing so we shall not only 
 oppose the notion that he is a mere attribute or 
 power ; but also the still more absurd one that he is 
 the soul of God. His distinct personality appears 
 from the following considerations : — 
 
 I. The Holy Ghost is a mind or intelligence. 
 u And he that searcheth the heart, knoweth what is 
 the mind of the Sumt.” Here the term u mind ” is 
 8 * 
 
90 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 
 
 used to denote an intellectual state, as will, purpose, 
 or inclination ; which state could not exist, unless 
 the spirit was a mind. But as it is impossible for 
 mind to exist without personality, the Holy Ghost 
 must he a person. 
 
 II. The Spirit has intelligence or knowledge. 
 u For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
 things of God ; the things of God knoweth no 
 man but the Spirit of God.” This text shows that 
 the Spirit of God “ knows ” the things of God, as 
 perfectly as the soul of man knows the things of 
 man. Searching and knowing are indubitable evi- 
 dences of intelligence ; and, as there can he no in- 
 telligence without personality, it follows that the 
 Holy Ghost is not a mere attribute or power, but an 
 intelligent or distinct person. 
 
 III. The Holy Ghost has a will . u But all these 
 worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing 
 to every man severally as he will” If an “ organ,” 
 “ energy,” “ power,” or “ attribute,” can have a will , 
 this text is of no force in our cause ; but if they 
 cannot, and if will always implies personality, then 
 the Holy Ghost cannot be any of these, merely, 
 but is a knowing, self-willing person. 
 
 IV. The Scriptural distinction between the Holy 
 Ghost and the Father, is as clear as between the 
 Son and the Father. “ The grace of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of 
 the Holy Ghost, he with you all. Amen.” Here 
 the Spirit is mentioned as distinct from the Father 
 and Son ; and, on either of the modern Arian hy- 
 potheses, the text must not only he unmeaning, hut 
 a specimen of the most flagrant tautology. Mil- 
 lard says, the Holy Ghost is a personified something. 
 If so, the meaning of the benediction is, u The 
 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, (a creature ,) and the 
 
THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 91 
 
 love of God, and the communion of an £ attribute, 
 power, energy, organ,’ or something else, be with 
 you all. Amen.” What a benediction ! The 
 grace of a “ creature ,” and the communion of a per- 
 sonified “ organ ! !” 
 
 But Kinkade makes it still worse. His theory is, 
 that Christ is a creature , and the Holy Ghost the 
 soul of “ God’s body.” According to his theory, 
 we should read, “ The grace of the £ first creature 
 that was born into existence, 7 the love of the £ body 
 of God, 7 and the communion of £ his soul] be with 
 you all. Amen!” A real Arian blessing! Nor 
 can these sickening absurdities be avoided by any 
 theory that denies the Deity of Christ, and the per- 
 sonality and Deity of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Again — “ Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Millard would 
 say, “ In the name of the Father, and of a creature, 
 and of a personified attribute ;” and Kinkade and 
 Perry, “ In the name of the body of God ; a crea- 
 ture; and the soul of God.” Sabellianism proper 
 would say, “ In the name of God, and of God, and 
 of God ;” as it teaches that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, are one Divine person. 
 
 W e have the same proof from the apostolic bene- 
 diction, that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person 
 from the Father, that we have of the personality 
 of the Son. When a certain Arian minister was 
 urged to explain this matter, and show why these 
 three titles were used in this connection, if the Holy 
 Ghost was the soul of the Father, he replied, “ Be- 
 cause they are the three greatest names in the 
 Christian dispensation ! ! ! 77 Now, we wonder not 
 that his answer was so vague and unmeaning, but 
 that he was able to give any answer at all ; for it 
 
92 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 
 
 is certain that no reason can be assigned why the 
 Holy Ghost should be distinguished from the Father 
 and the Son, in the apostolic benediction and bap- 
 tismal formula, except that he is an equally distinct 
 person in the Godhead. 
 
 Y. The same arguments that are used by Arians 
 to prove that Christ is a distinct being from God, 
 may be adduced to show that the Holy Ghost is a 
 distinct person. It is often remarked that God gave 
 his Son — sent his Son, &c. ; and is then asked, with 
 an air of triumph, u Did God give himself and send 
 himself?” That these circumstances prove Christ 
 to be. a distinct person from the Father, we admit ; 
 but they do not prove him to be a distinct being. 
 But do not the same circumstances prove the per- 
 sonality of the Spirit? Our “heavenly Father” is 
 to give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him and 
 Peter says, “ the Holy Ghost” was u sent down from 
 heaven.” Paul says, God has “ given the earnest 
 of the Spirit ;” and the disciples had the promise, 
 that the Comforter should be sent. Now we ask, 
 in turn, Did the Father give himself? or, Did he 
 send himself? Was it the Father that was poured 
 out on the day of Pentecost? 
 
 So sure, then, as Christ is a distinct person from 
 the Father, so sure the Holy Ghost is also ; and, if 
 Arians would be consistent with themselves, they 
 would not only call him a distinct person , but a dis- 
 tinct being — perhaps a “ creature ,” and an “ agent.” 
 
 VI. The Holy Ghost is represented as being sub- 
 ject to the Son ; as the Son is subject to the Father, 
 in his official character in the work of redemption. 
 u If I go not away,” said Jesus, “ the Comforter will 
 not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him 
 \mto you.” “ But when the Comforter is come, 
 whom I will send unto you from the Father, even 
 
THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 93 
 
 the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Fa* 
 ther, he shall testify of me.” “ But the Comforter, 
 which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
 send in my name , he shall teach you all things.” 
 u I will pray the Father, and he will give you an- 
 other Comforter,” &c. 
 
 How can these passages be reconciled with the 
 notion that the Holy Ghost is the Father? or the 
 soul of a material God ? Did a creature send the 
 Father into the world “ from the Father ?” or did 
 the Father send himself in the name of a creature? 
 Did a creature pray to God to send his soul into the 
 world, and leave his forsaken body literally seated 
 on a throne, to receive the homage of angels? 
 How must this theory distort the word of God, even 
 in the minds of Arians themselves. It is revolting 
 to all piety, to contemplate its absurdities. What 
 confusion and embarrassment attend on Arianism 
 at every step ! No wonder its votaries often meet 
 each other in open hostility, when once they enter 
 its dark labyrinths. 
 
 From the above passages, it is clear that the Holy 
 Ghost is a distinct person from the Father; and is 
 sent from the Father by the Son ; or by the Father in 
 the name of Christ. 
 
 VII. The personal acts of the Holy Ghost prove 
 him to be a person. The Spirit “ searcheth all 
 things” — “ hnoweth ” ihe deep things of God — exer- 
 cises his “ will ” in distributing spiritual gifts — “ com- 
 munes ” with the saints — is “given” by the Father, 
 and “sent” into the world — “spake” by Esaias — 
 beareth “ witness” — makes “ intercession” — “ testifies” 
 of Christ — is “ grieved ” — “ moved” the Prophets to 
 write — created all things — ■“ made” the Apostles min- 
 isters and overseers, and consequently governs the 
 Church — “ reproves” the world of sin — converts sin- 
 
94 THE HOLY GHOST A DISTINCT PERSON. 
 
 ners — sanctifies believers — comjorts the afflicted — 
 covenants with believers in baptism, and raises the 
 dead. These acts as clearly imply the personality 
 of the Spirit, as they imply his existence. 
 
 But it is replied, that the Holy Ghost is 'personified , 
 as inanimates objects are personified in figurative 
 language. Even Kinkade takes this ground with 
 strange inconsistency. In one part of his book he 
 says, 66 God’s Spirit is mentioned to signify God’s 
 self. By vexing the Lord’s Holy Spirit, they vexed 
 the Lord, therefore the Lord’s Spirit was the Lord. 
 God and the Holy Spirit are the same person. — 
 The Holy Spirit is something more than a mere 
 quality, it is real being, and yet not a distinct per- 
 son from the Father.” See “ Thoughts on the Holy 
 Spirit.” 
 
 After arguing for seven pages that the Holy 
 Spirit is the Father, without any distinction of per- 
 sons, he suddenly shifts his ground, and denies that 
 the Holy Ghost is a person ! “ Some suppose,” 
 
 says he, “ that because the Holy Spirit is called a 
 witness, it must therefore be a person. If the Holy 
 Spirit is a person, he must be inferior to Christ, be- 
 cause he [Christ] had power to send him. If the 
 Holy Spirit and the Father are one, and the self- 
 same Being, I cannot see how he, as a person, could 
 proceed from him.” In this passage, Mr. K. vir- 
 tually denies that the Holy Ghost is a person. 
 He believes him to be “something more than a 
 mere quality,” a “ a real being ” — the soul of God, 
 and really God ; and yet he is not a person. But 
 as Mr. K. always uses the term person in the Arian 
 sense ; that is, to signify body ; the mystery is ex- 
 plained. His meaning is, that the Holy Ghost has 
 not a body ; or, in other words, that God has not 
 tw: todies. 
 
THE HOLY GHOST A HST1NCT PERSON. 95 
 
 Leaving this rickety hypothesis to fall to pieces 
 of its own weight, we dwell for a moment on one 
 more feature, and close this chapter. 
 
 We deny that the Holy Spirit is invested with 
 the attributes of an intelligent person by personifica- 
 tion. To show that objects are thus invested in 
 figurative language, is a useless task, as no one 
 denies it. But let it he proved that this is the case 
 in one instance where the acts of the Spirit are men- 
 tioned. If these acts are only ascribed to the Spirit 
 figuratively, then of course they were never really 
 performed. The works of conviction, conversion, 
 sanctification, and resurrection, must then be mere 
 figurative representations. If this he true, the 
 whole Bible is an allegory, and we may deny the 
 literal reality of any thing and every thing in the 
 whole range of Christianity itself. All that would 
 be left for us, would be a figurative conversion, 
 sanctification, salvation, God, heaven, and hell ! 
 Such are the legitimate fruits of the Arian theory. 
 
 But we turn with delight from these bewildering 
 vagaries, to the sober realities of the Bible. A 
 doctrine that cannot stand by the plain and explicit 
 declarations of that Holy Book, without the aid of 
 a licentious criticism, is unworthy of God, and 
 dangerous to man. But, as the Holy Ghost is there 
 revealed to us as a searching, knowing, willing, 
 speaking, creating, convicting, converting, and sanc- 
 tifying mind, distinct from the Father and the Son, 
 his personality is as obvious as that of the Father. 
 We therefore regard him, not as an imaginary be- 
 ing, existing only in poetic conception ; but as an 
 acting, knowing, converting, and sanctifying Spirit, 
 really and personally existing. May the Holy Ghost 
 be merciful to such as deny his personal and real 
 existence ; and may he so lift the veil from off their 
 
96 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 hearts, as to convince them of their error and unbe- 
 lief ; lead them to embrace the truth as it is in 
 Christ ; and enable them to go on full of faith and 
 of the Holy Ghost to their lives’ end. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 In the early part of this work we proved the 
 absolute unity of the Divine Being — a unity that 
 utterly precludes the possibility of more than one 
 God. We were also particular to show that while 
 Arians deny the proper unity of God, by holding to 
 two Divinities, we acknowledge but one God, while 
 we hold that this one God exists as three persons. 
 By person we do not mean a distinct and indepen- 
 dent being , as we have elsewhere shown, but merely 
 one of those distinctions in the Godhead that are 
 revealed to us as Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. 
 In this sense we proved the Holy Ghost to be a 
 person, and also established his Divinity. We had 
 previously shown that Christ had two natures, in 
 one of which he was man ; and that in his higher 
 and pre-existent nature he was verily and really 
 God. These two main points, then, we consider as 
 fully established in the preceding pages. 
 
 I. That there is but one living and true God ; and 
 
 II. That while the Scriptures insist upon one God 
 only, they reveal three distjnct persons, of one 
 substance , power , and eternity ; and invested with every 
 characteristic and attribute of Supreme Divinity. 
 
 Neither of these positions can be abandoned, 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 97 
 
 unless we abandon the Word of God. They must 
 therefore be reconciled ; and in order to this we are 
 obliged to conclude that these three Divine persons — 
 the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost — co-exist in a 
 manner incomprehensible to mortals , as one supreme 
 and everlasting God. This is the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. And how can we reject it, so long as we 
 believe the Scriptures ? Can we deny the unity ? 
 The Bible says there is but one God. Can we deny 
 the plurality ? The Bible teaches the Divinity of 
 the Son, and the personality and Divinity of the 
 Holy Ghost. What, then, can we do but believe 
 in a Trinity ? or that these three Divine persons 
 constitute the one infinite and eternal Being. 
 
 Solid as are the premises from which this conclu- 
 sion is drawn, we are not without further proofs of 
 a plurality of persons in the Godhead. To these 
 additional evidences we now invite attention. 
 
 I. The Scriptures speak in a number of places 
 of the “ Godhead” — a title of Deity which of itself 
 conveys an idea of plurality as well as of unity. 
 “ We ought not to think the Godhead is like unto 
 gold” — “ Even his eternal power and Godhead” — 
 w In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead.” 
 Now if this title is not used to represent the Divine 
 Being, as distinguished from either of the persons 
 which constitute the Deity, why not use the term 
 Father, or God, instead of Godhead? Does not 
 this title convey an idea of plurality, even to the 
 minds of Arians themselves? and is not this the 
 reason why they seldom or never use the term ? 
 
 II. u In the beginning God created the heavens 
 and the earth.” On this passage an eminent critic 
 observes, u The very first name in the Scriptures 
 under which the Divine Being is introduced to us 
 is a plural one.” Dr. A. Clark says, u The original 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 word is certainly in the 'plural, form, and has long 
 been supposed by the most eminent, learned, and 
 pious men, to imply a plurality of persons in the 
 Divine Nature.” 
 
 III. “ And God said, let us make man in our 
 image, after our likeness.” Here the pronouns 
 u us” and u our” show that there is a plurality of 
 persons in the one Divine Being . Mr. Millard says, 
 “ the plurality of these expressions does not neces- 
 sarily imply more than two, and as God made all 
 things by Jesus Christ, [alluding to the agency 
 scheme,] it appears evident to me that it was the 
 Son to whom he spake.” Mr. Perry endorses his 
 opinion. Kinkade accounts for these plural expres- 
 sions and titles by supposing that God imitated the 
 dignitaries of earth in saying us , our , we, &c. He 
 sa}rs , u In Hebrew, as well as in ail other languages, a 
 King, an Emperor, or any other person of great dig- 
 nity, is frequently mentioned in the plural number. 
 Thus, the King of Spain says, 6 We, Ferdinand the 
 Seventh . J The King of France says, L We, Charles 
 the Tenth ? The Emperors of Russia say, i We, Alex- 
 ander ,’ or ‘ We, Nicholas .’ ” According to this ex- 
 positor, then, the Almighty has anticipated the re- 
 finements of earthly courts, and has followed the prac- 
 tice of kings, thousands of years before this practice 
 was in vogue. Such an argument needs no refuta- 
 tion. But Mr. M.’s scheme is equally exceptionable. 
 
 1. The creation of man is represented as the 
 work of all the persons indicated by the term u usP 
 u Let us make man,” not u do thou, my agent, make 
 man.” To say that only one of these persons was 
 engaged in the work, is to contradict the text. 
 
 2. Man was to be made in the image of all these 
 persons. u Let us make man in our image,” &c. 
 Mr. M. admits that there were two persons, namely 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 99 
 
 the Father and the Son ; though Kinkade says 
 there was but one. Now as the image of the Fa- 
 ther and the Son is expressly stated to be “ the 
 image of God,” it follows that these persons are 
 God ; or there is a plurality of persons in the God- 
 head. The same conclusion follows from another 
 view of the text. If a plurality of persons made 
 man — as the Scriptures affirm by the use of the 
 term “ us” — and God made man, as is expressly 
 declared ; it follows that God exists in a plurality 
 of persons. 
 
 IV. “ And the Lord God said, behold the man is 
 become as one of us, to know good from evil.” If 
 there be not a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
 why say, “like one of us ?” 
 
 V. “ Go to, let us go down and there confound 
 their language.” On this text observe, 1. More per- 
 sons than one came down ; u Let us go down.” 
 2. When these Divine persons came down, they 
 were nothing more or less than Jehovah himself ; 
 for it is written, “ The Lord came down to see the 
 city — the Lord did there confound their language.” 
 Now as there was a plurality of persons that came 
 down, and these persons were “ the Lord it fol- 
 lows that there is a plurality of persons in the God- 
 head ; or that the one God of the Bible exists in a 
 plurality of persons. 
 
 But while one class of Scriptures reveal a. plural- 
 ity in the Godhead, without definitely showing the 
 extent of that plurality, another class reveals a plu- 
 rality, and restricts it to three; identifying the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost as the three Divine 
 persons of the Godhead. Some of these passages 
 will now be considered. 
 
 VI. In the 6th chapter of Isaiah, the Prophet 
 speaks of a vision in which he had seen “ the King, 
 
100 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 the Lord of hosts.” At the 8th verse he says, u I 
 heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I 
 send, and who will go for us ? Then said I, here 
 am I, send me. And he said, go and tell this peo- 
 ple, Hear ye indeed but understand not ; and see ye 
 indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this 
 people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their 
 eyes ; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with 
 their ears, and understand with their hearts, and 
 convert and be healed.” On this passage we offer 
 the following observations : 
 
 1. There was but one Being that sent Isaiah, 
 and that Being was “ the Lord of hosts.” 
 
 2. In this one Being , there is a 'plurality of per- 
 sons. u Whom shall I send, and who will go for 
 us V Here, then, both the unity and plurality of the 
 Godhead are distinctly revealed. 
 
 3. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were 
 present, as constituting u the Lord of hosts,” can 
 be easily proved. That the Father was included, 
 no one will deny. In the 12th chapter of John, 
 the above message delivered to Isaiah is quoted ; 
 verse 40th ; after which it is said, u These things 
 said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of 
 him: Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also 
 many believed on himf but u did not confess himf 
 &c. Here the pronouns “ his” and u him ” refer to 
 Christ as their antecedent, as any one can see who 
 will read verses 36 and 42 inclusive. “ These things 
 spake Jesus ” — “ spake of him ” — “ believed on Am” 
 — “ did not confess him” &c. We have then this 
 clear proof, that the Lord of hosts, whose glory 
 Isaiah saw, and of whom he spake, was the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; or that the Son was present as one 
 person in the Godhead. 
 
 4 . That the Holy Ghost, the third person in the 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOP. 
 
 101 
 
 Trinity, was also present, appears from Acts xxviii. 
 25. “ Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the 
 prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this peo- 
 ple and say, Hearing ye shall hear,” &c., repeating 
 the same message that God gave to Isaiah in the 
 above vision. Here the message of the Lord of 
 hosts, is said to have been the speech of the Holy 
 Gnost. Of course, then, the Holy Ghost was pre- 
 sent also on this memorable occasion. 
 
 We have then direct proof from the word of 
 Gtad, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were 
 together engaged in securing an ambassador, and 
 sending this message to ancient Israel ; and that 
 these three Divine persons constituted the one 
 “ Lord of hosts” mentioned by Isaiah. Hence the 
 expression, 66 Whom shall I,” the Lord of hosts, 
 u send ; and who will go for us” — Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. Well might adoring Seraphim 
 salute this triune Lord and give equal honor to 
 each of the Divine persons, as they cried u Holy, 
 Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts ; the whole earth 
 is full of his glory.” Let us imitate the example 
 of these celestial worshippers ; and while they as- 
 cribe equal glory, majesty, and dominion, to each 
 of the Divine persons, as constituting the one Lord 
 of hosts ; let us on earth respond to the glorious 
 sentiment, and render our tribute of feebler praise 
 as we sing, 
 
 u Hail ! Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 
 One God in persons three ; 
 
 Of thee we joyful make our boast, 
 
 And homage pay to thee.” 
 
 VII. “ For there are three that bear record in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 
 and these three are one.” In reply to this strong 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 text, Arians generally deny that it is a portion of the 
 word of God. Kinkade and Millard deny its genu- 
 ineness, the former saying, “ I have no doubt but the 
 passage is an interpolation and the latter, with an 
 air of triumph, “ Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist 
 commentator, gives up the passage as spurious.” 
 Mark the expression , u the Methodist commentator,” at 
 if the Methodists had hut one commentator, and he 
 was decidedly against them. But supposing it were 
 so, what then ? Are we bound to follow Dr. Clarke 
 or any other man, as an infallible interpreter ? We 
 acknowledge him as a great and good man — we 
 learn all we can from his excellent writings ; hut 
 after all, it is the right of every Protestant Chris- 
 tian, to read the Bible and think for himself ; and 
 in the exercise of this right we become Trinita- 
 rians. As a denomination the Methodists have 
 never received Clarke’s views of the Sonship, or 
 of the foreknowledge of God ; and we are far from 
 adopting his opinion respecting the above text. It 
 is true that some modern writers, on the subject of 
 the Trinity, do not urge this text in proof of their 
 doctrine. But this is not because they think it 
 spurious. They know it to be a disputed text, and, 
 like Dr. Clarke, feel that they have proof enough 
 without it. But we are under no obligation to give 
 it up as a forgery, simply because Dr. Clarke does. 
 The substance of Kinkade’s “ reasons” for rejecting 
 this passage, is, the opinion of Dr. Clarke ; a dis- 
 covery which Mr. K. says was made in the East by 
 Mr. Buchanan ; a note in the “ improved,” or Arian 
 version of the New Testament ; and the expulsion 
 of the text from the Campbellite New Testament, 
 another Arian work. This last is mentioned as a 
 mere translation by Campbell, (not Alexander,) 
 Doddridge, and McNight ; which has been reprinted 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 103 
 
 by Alexander Campbell of Virginia. The fact 
 seems to be, that u Campbell, Doddridge and 
 McNight’ 7 never published any joint translation of 
 the New Testament ; that A. Campbell has given 
 his version to the world, as the work of these men ; 
 and that instead of its being a “ reprint” of their 
 version, it is almost exclusively his own perform- 
 ance. But to return: If the genuineness of the 
 above text is to depend on the opinion of commen- 
 tators, we must consult others besides Dr. Clarke ; 
 and see if the scales may not be balanced in its 
 favor. 
 
 1. Rev. Richard Watson says, “ The recent re- 
 vival of the inquiry into the genuineness of this 
 text, however, shows that the point is far from be- 
 ing critically settled against the passage as a true 
 portion of Holy Writ, and the argument from the 
 context is altogether in favor of those who advo- 
 cate it” 
 
 2. Dr. Thomas Coke says : — “ The anti-trini- 
 tarian heretic trembles at this passage ; it is a thun- 
 derstroke to him, of which he well knows the 
 weight ; therefore he leaves no means untried to 
 turn it aside, or to avoid it. The chief mode has 
 been to deny that the text was written by St. John ; 
 and under pretence that it does not appear in all 
 the ancient manuscripts of this Epistle, and that 
 some of the fathers who formerly wrote against the 
 Arians, did not avail themselves of it in proof of 
 Christ’s Divinity, the heretics of the present day 
 deny the authenticity of the text. But the cause 
 must be very desperate which can allege no better 
 reasons against the strength and evidence of a text 
 of Scripture. For, to give any force to such an ar- 
 gument, it would be necessary to show, that the 
 passage in question existed but in very few manu 
 
104 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 scripts, or at least, only in those of a modern date, 
 and of small authority, and that it was unknown in 
 all Christian antiquity ; hut the fact is, that this 
 passage is found in a great number of manuscripts, 
 and those the most ancient ; and is quoted in books 
 of the most venerable ecclesiastical antiquity, and 
 all much older than those manuscripts that do not 
 contain the passage. But not to mention St. Je- 
 rome, who found it in the Greek manuscript of the 
 New Testament, from which he made his Latin 
 versions, in which we find it also, and a long com- 
 ment upon it in his Preface to the canonical Epis- 
 tles ; we find it cited in proof of the Trinity in 
 the Confession of Faith, presented about the end of 
 the fifth century by the bishops of the African 
 churches to Huneric king of the Vandals, an 
 Arian, and a great persecutor of the orthodox de- 
 fenders of the Trinity. Now, would it not have 
 been the most unexampled piece of imprudence in 
 those bishops, purposely to expose themselves to the 
 rage of Huneric, and of all the Arian party, by al- 
 ledging in so solemn a piece as the Confession of 
 Faith, this passage of St. John, if it had not been 
 universally extant in all the manuscripts of the 
 day, or if it had been forged ? Doubtless the Arian 
 would sufficiently have triumphed in such a dis- 
 covery ; and it is clear, that nothing but the truth 
 and notoriety of the facts could have silenced those 
 heretics. Neither could the citation of the passage 
 at that time have been regarded as a new thing, or 
 of doubtful authority ; for it was more than 250 
 years before, that St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 
 and a celebrated martyr, who flourished but a little 
 more than a hundred years before John, had quoted 
 it in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church ; and 
 all the printed editions of Cyprian’s works, as well 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 105 
 
 as the most ancient manuscripts of that father of the 
 Church, constantly contain that citation, which is a 
 certain mark of its authenticity. Lastly, to go still 
 farther back, we find Tertu Ilian, who was before 
 St. Cyprian, mentioning it in his dispute against 
 Praxeas. Now, since nothing reasonable can be 
 objected against a passage quoted by such celebrated 
 writers, one of whom is Tertullian, who flourished 
 towards the conclusion of the very same century in 
 which St. John died, it is a certain proof that these 
 words were extant in the very first manuscripts.” 
 
 3. Rev. John Wesley was fully satisfied of the 
 genuineness of this text. He says, “ What Ben- 
 gelius has advanced, both concerning the transposi- 
 tion of these two verses, and the authority of the 
 controverted verse, will abundantly satisfy any im- 
 partial reader.” He calls Bengelius u the most pi- 
 ous, the most judicious, the most laborious, of all 
 modern commentators on the New Testament.” 
 u For some years,” says Mr. Wesley, “ he stood in 
 doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in 
 many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were 
 removed by three considerations : — 1st. That though 
 it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more, 
 and those copies of the greatest authority. 2d. It 
 is cited by a whole train of ancient writers, from 
 the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This 
 argument is conclusive, for they could not have 
 cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon. 3d. 
 That we can easily account for its being, after that 
 time, wanting in many copies, when we remember 
 that Constantine’s successor was a zealous Arian, 
 who used every means to promote his bad cause, to 
 spread Arianism throughout the empire ; in parti- 
 cular, the erasing this text out of as many copies as 
 fell into his hands.” No doubt this was the case ; 
 
106 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 and a similar course would be adopted by modern 
 Arians, were it not for public opinion. Mr. A. 
 Campbell has substantially tried the experiment, in 
 publishing his version of the New Testament ; and 
 some of our citizens have had it in their houses for 
 some months, before they knew that it was anything 
 less than the whole truth. But, on looking for 1 
 John v. 7, the “ improved version” is found want- 
 ing. Such an expedient is certainly unworthy of 
 any good cause ; and can only be resorted to by 
 those who consider theirs a desperate one. 
 
 4. In an ancient commentary in our possession, 
 the name of whose author is lost from the work, 
 the text is explained without a hint that it was ever 
 disputed. 
 
 5. Scott and Henry, in their commentaries, 
 vindicate the text as legitimate. 
 
 6. The learned Valpy, in his Critical Notes on 
 the Greek Testament, defends this text as genuine, 
 and refers to Pearson, Stillingfleet, Bull, Grab, Mill, 
 Bengelius, Ernesti, Horsley, Nolan, and Bishop 
 Burgess, as of his opinion. He also quotes the re- 
 mark of Dr. Hey, that “ the text might be more 
 easily expunged unfairly, than admitted unfairly.” 
 This is obvious to every candid mind. That it 
 might be expunged by the opposers of the doctrine 
 it contains, is certain ; but, that Trinitarians should 
 forge a new text, and insert it in the manuscripts, 
 and yet nothing be said of it at the time by their 
 opponents, is impossible. We must therefore have 
 more testimony before we erase this Trinitarian text 
 from our Bibles. 
 
 7. This text stands in the German Bible, printed 
 in 1602 (a reprint of a much older edition) with 
 out any mark of doubt. This shows the opinion of 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD 
 
 107 
 
 the German divines and commentators of that age ; 
 and also of the preceding century. 
 
 8. The bare insertion of this text, in our English 
 Bibles, is strong evidence that it is a true portion of 
 the word of God. Was it only a word, or a phrase, 
 the case would be different ; but it is a whole verse. 
 When we consider that the Bible was translated 
 from the Greek and Hebrew more than hvo hundred 
 years ago ; when sectarianism was dormant to what 
 it now is; that forty-seven of the most learned men 
 on the globe were engaged in this work for more 
 than three years, “ neither coveting praise for expedi- 
 tion, nor fearing reproach for slackness — that they 
 had all the manuscripts that could now be had, if 
 not many more, and every facility which the British - 
 empire could furnish or procure — when we consi- 
 der all these things, we are not prepared to admit 
 that they have sent down to posterity a forged 
 Bible ; or that they were less honest or learned 
 than our Arian expositors. 
 
 Finally , We should suppose they would be 
 among the last to attempt to invalidate any portion 
 of the New Testament. They boast of it as their 
 “ Discipline,” and yet they are ever and anon try- 
 ing to prove certain portions of it, that cannot be 
 conformed to their views, incorrect, counterfeit and 
 forged. If there is any advantage in having a 
 genuine confession of faith and a genuine Bible, 
 we certainly have it. Our Bibles and creeds are 
 genuine, while those of the Arians are in part a 
 forgery, they themselves being judges. 
 
 The above summary of testimony is sufficient to 
 show the slight ground upon which 1 John v. 7, is 
 rejected by those who dislike its doctrine. Though 
 it is but a part of what might be urged, it will 
 doubtless be sufficient for the sincere inquirer after 
 
108 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 truth ; and the obstinacy which rejects this evi- 
 dence, is probably too far gone to be benefited by 
 proof or argument. Having vindicated the text as 
 a genuine portion of the word of God, we shall now 
 proceed to consider its doctrine. 
 
 In the first member of the text, it is asserted, that 
 u there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.” Here 
 notice ; the second person is not called the Son or 
 Christ — titles usually applied to the Saviour to ex- 
 press his complex character — but “the Word,” a 
 title that signifies the pre-existent nature only. Had 
 he been called the Son, or Christ, titles which in- 
 clude both natures, John could not have said “ these 
 three are one,” as the humanity of Christ never was 
 one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Again, 
 these three Divine persons are mentioned in the 
 usual scriptural order, without any sign of inferi- 
 ority on the part of any of them, the work attributed 
 to them being common to them all. The three 
 u bear record the Word and the Holy Ghost doing 
 all that the Father does. 
 
 Secondly , It is declared in this passage that “ these 
 three” namely, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, 
 “ are one.” Is it possible more clearly to state the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, without much circumlocu- 
 tion ? The text says there are three,* names each 
 of the three separately ; and declares that they are 
 one. Here then we have three in one — a plurality 
 and unity in one Being, or three persons in one God. 
 This is the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Plain and guarded as is this text at every point, 
 Arians deny that it contains the above doctrine. 
 This, however, is nothing strange. As a matter of 
 course, if they cannot impeach those passages that 
 are in the way of their system, some plan must be 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 109 
 
 devised to pervert their meaning ; and turn aside 
 those u thunderbolts” that would otherwise rive their 
 frail tenement in pieces. But let us examine the 
 Arian exposition of the text. 
 
 1. Mr. Millard tells us, p. 17, that it points out a 
 “ oneness of union.” What the man means by a 
 i: oneness of union,” we know not. If he means 
 that there is but one union in the Divine Being, 
 very well. We believe that by one eternal union 
 the three Divine Persons are so united as to be one 
 God. 
 
 2. It is said that these three are one in the sense 
 that Christians are one with Christ and with each 
 other. In support of this position the following 
 texts are quoted : 
 
 (1.) “Neither pray I for these alone; but for 
 them also which shall believe on me through thy 
 word : That they all may be one ; as thou Father 
 art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one 
 in us : — that they may be one, even as we are one, 
 I in them, and thou in us, that they may be perfect 
 in one ; and that the world may know that thou 
 hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast lov- 
 ed me.” — John xvii. 20 — 23. That the unity here 
 spoken of is oneness of mind and spirit we admit. 
 This is the only unity among Christians, that could 
 prove that Christ was the true Messiah, and that 
 his religion was from heaven. We also admit 
 that Christ and the Father are one in this sense. 
 This text speaks of an agreement between the 
 Father and the Son, like that of Christians that are 
 made “ perfect in one ;” but the subject treated of in 
 1 John v. 7, is altogether different. Hence it is a 
 violation of a just rule of interpretation, to explain 
 the latter by the former. 
 
 (2.) 1 Cor. iii. 7, 8. u So then, neither is he that 
 10 
 
no 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 planteth anything, neither he that watereth ; but 
 God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth 
 and he that watereth are one ; and every man shall 
 receive his own reward, according to his own labor. 5 5 
 The argument raised on this text by Arians is, that 
 as Paul and Apollos are one, and yet two distinct 
 beings, so the three mentioned 1 John v. 7, are one, 
 and yet not one being. Now we deny that there is 
 the least analogy between the two texts ; or that the 
 oneness mentioned in them has the slightest resem- 
 blance. The Corinthians had been saying one to 
 another, a I am of Paul and I of Apollos. 55 Paul 
 considered this u carnal, 55 as it was giving them that 
 glory as ministers which they could not receive. 
 Hence he says, “ I have planted, Apollos watered, 
 but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he 
 that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but 
 God that giveth the increase. 55 Now we ask in 
 what sense were Paul and Apollos one ? Has this 
 text any reference to their being of one mind, or of 
 one spirit? By no means. They were one in of- 
 fice, dignity and nature; and consequently occupied 
 one ground , being mere agents by whom the Corin- 
 thians heard the gospel and were saved. Hence the 
 question : u Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, 
 but ministers by whom ye believed ? 55 How plain 
 that they were one only in reference to their office 
 and condition as ministers ; and their unworthiness to 
 receive the honor that was proffered them. But are 
 the “ three that bear record in heaven 55 one in this 
 sense ? Are they one as mere agents , occupying one 
 ground , and filling one office ? It is useless to waste 
 time upon this point, as every one must see that this 
 passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and should never be pressed into the ser- 
 vice of Arianism. 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 ill 
 
 (3.) Gal. iii. 28. “ There is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
 neither male nor female : for ye are all one in 
 Christ Jesus.” Here the unity spoken of in the 
 latter part of the text, must he directly opposed to 
 the 'plurality spoken of in the former part. The 
 Church at Galatia was composed of “Jews, Greek, 
 bond, free, male and female,” who had abandoned 
 their former religions, respectively, and become “ the 
 children of God by faith.” Now the doctrine of the 
 text is, that as the Galatians had been “ baptised 
 into Jesus Christ,” and had “put on Christ,” it was 
 their duty to merge all former peculiarities, titles, 
 and attachments in the one common cause ; and as 
 they were now the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus, they must be o<ne in faith, hope , affection and 
 doctrine. In this sense they were “ all one in Christ 
 Jesus.” But are the “ three that bear record in 
 Heaven,” “ one” in this sense ? Have they hereto- 
 fore entertained different opinions, and belonged to 
 different nations? Have they abandoned different 
 systems of religion and become “ all one in Christ 
 Jesus.” How trifling to assert that the Father, Word 
 and Holy Ghost are one in any such sense. 
 
 But suppose we admit for a moment that the three 
 in 1 John v. 7, are one as Christians are one in 
 the above passages. Would it not utterly overthrow 
 Arianism ? These Christians were one in nature, 
 being all really human. Now if the sacred “ three” 
 are one in this sense, they are of course of one sub- 
 stance, power, and eternity, with the Father : and 
 are all truly and properly Divine. 
 
 Again, if the Holy Ghost and the Father are one 
 as Paul and Apollos were one, they must be two 
 distinct persons, a point which Arians deny. They 
 must therefore either cease to explain 1 John v. 7, 
 
112 
 
 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 by the above texts, or admit that the Holy Ghost is 
 a distinct person in the Godhead, and that the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost are of one nature, truly 
 and really Divine. 
 
 (4.) There is evidence in the text itself, and in 
 the context, that the “ three” cannot be u one” in the 
 Arian sense. At the eighth verse it is said of the 
 u spirit, the water, and the blood,” tha u these three 
 agree in one.” Now if the Father, Word, and 
 Spirit, are one only in the sense of agreement , why 
 is it not said that they “ agree in one ?” Why say, 
 “ these three are one ?” 
 
 (5.) Finally, Our opponents are extremely in- 
 consistent in their opposition to this passage. They 
 first tell us that it was “forged” and inserted by 
 Trinitarians, on purpose to prove their doctrine ; 
 and the next breath they affirm that the text has no 
 reference whatever to the doctrine of the Trinity ! 
 Why then was it inserted? Could a Trinity be 
 proved by a text that had no reference to that sub- 
 ject ? If, as Arians say, the text was inserted by 
 Trinitarians to prove their doctrine, it must certain- 
 ly contain the doctrine of the Trinity ; and if not 
 thus inserted, it is genuine, and Arians should cease 
 to reject it as spurious. 
 
 But we must close these remarks. We have 
 shown that 1 John v. 7, is a genuine portion of the 
 word of God ; and that it clearly and fully teaches 
 the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the only ob- 
 ject for which it was introduced, and we will now 
 dismiss it. In spite of every effort to erase this text 
 from the Bible, or to explain away its meaning, the 
 truth still blazes forth from the pages of inspiration, 
 that “ there are threi that bear record in heaven , the 
 Father , the Word and the Holy Ghost , and these 
 
 THREE ARE ONE.” 
 
THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 113 
 
 VIII. A third text that recognizes the Father, 
 Son and Holy Ghost as persons in the Godhead, is 
 Mat. xxviii. 19, “Go ye therefore and teach all 
 nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The Chris- 
 tian Church is the Church of God, and her ministers 
 are God’s servants, to preach His word and administer 
 His ordinances in His name . In baptism the candidate 
 enters into solemn covenant with God, promising to 
 serve him all the days of his life ; on the fulfilment of 
 which promise God is pledged to bless him in life and 
 death, and to save him eternally in heaven. The 
 visible “ sign” and “ seal ” of this covenant, is bap- 
 tism; and God authorizes his ministers to apply 
 this seal in His name , to all proper subjects. Now 
 in the formula appointed by God himself, to be 
 used by his ministers on such occasions, they are ex- 
 pressly taught to baptize in the name of three Divine 
 Persons. What they do in the name of the Lord, 
 they do in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. Now if there be no Trinity, why this Trin- 
 itarian formula, where the candidate covenants with 
 God only ? Must we be baptized in the name of 
 the Father, a creature and an attribute ? This is 
 the Arian sense of the text. But one class of Arians 
 have so fallen out with this Trinitarian ceremony, 
 as to reject it altogether in baptism ; and in its place 
 to substitute u I baptize thee unto the remission of 
 sinsf omitting the three Divine Persons, and doing 
 the work in their own name, rather than in the 
 name of the Trinity. 
 
 IX. The prayer addressed to God in the Apos- 
 tolic benediction, is addressed to three Divine Per- 
 sons. “ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost be with you all. Amen.” 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 
 
 10 * 
 
ll4 THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD. 
 
 That u God” in this passage means the Father, no 
 one will deny. Here, then, we have an inspired 
 Apostle, solemnly addressing the Supreme Being in 
 behalf of the Corinthian Church ; but his address 
 is not to the Father only, but to the three Divine 
 persons, namely, Father , So?i, and Holy Ghost. It 
 is certain, therefore, that the three addressed by 
 Paul, are the one God whom he worshipped. 
 
 But let Arianism interpret this prayer. The 
 Bible teaches that u the grace of God bringeth sal- 
 vation” — that we are saved u by grace,” and that 
 this grace is 16 the gift of God.” Paul says, “ By 
 the grace of God I am what I am,” and he express- 
 ly declares, that his preaching was “ to testify the 
 gospel of the grace of God . 11 Now when he comes 
 to pray for his Corinthian brethren, he prays for 
 “ the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” If then, as 
 Arians tell us, Christ is a creature , and a distinct 
 being from God, the prayer of Paul was not for 
 the grace of God, but of a poor finite creature! 
 He enjoyed the grace of God himself — the only 
 grace that can bring salvation— but, upon the Arian 
 hypothesis, when he prays for others he asks only 
 the grace of an inferior, dependent “ agent /” 
 
 But enough has been said on the subject of this 
 chapter. Though we might greatly enlarge the 
 above list of texts, we consider those already quoted 
 as abundantly sufficient. Our object has been to 
 show that while the Scriptures reveal but one God , 
 and yet reveal three Divine Persons , of one sub- 
 stance, power, and eternity, they reconcile the ap- 
 parent contradiction by uniting the Father, Word, 
 and Holy Ghost, as the one living and true God. 
 This point we now consider established. We have 
 shown that the God that sent forth Isaiah, was a 
 God consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost— 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 115 
 
 that these three are the one God to whom the Apos- 
 tles prayed, and the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost 
 are one. With this summary we shall close the 
 argument, so far as direct proofs are concerned, 
 and proceed in the next chapter to consider objec- 
 tions. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 It is well known that the usual course pursued 
 by modern Arians, in propagating their doctrine, is 
 to stand at a respectful distance from the arguments 
 of their opponents, and raise objections to the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. To this we should not ob- 
 ject, provided they were candid and fair in their 
 animadversions ; but the truth is, not one in ten of 
 their objections is urged against our real sentiments. 
 They first misapprehend or wilfully distort our 
 views, and then fall upon their own Agag, and 
 hew him to pieces. Having destroyed their man 
 of straw, they often rejoice, as if they had driven 
 Trinitarianism from the earth. This farce has 
 been acted over and over again in different parts of 
 the country. 
 
 If our opponents would state our views as they 
 are, or suffer our articles to speak for themselves, 
 without a forced construction, the doctrine of the 
 Trinity would furnish within itself an answer to 
 every reasonable objection. But to proceed : — 
 
 I. It is objected that u the doctrine of the Trinity 
 
116 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 is of human origin? In support of ihis position, 
 Millard asserts, that the doctrine of the Trinity was 
 invented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and 
 completed at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 
 381. That creeds were formed by these Councils 
 as declarations of the general faith, we do not deny ; 
 but this fact is decidedly in our favor. These 
 primitive Christians took the Bible for their guide, 
 and after the proud and ambitious Arius introduced 
 his heresy, and began to spread it abroad, Constan- 
 tine assembled the ministers of the Church to dis- 
 cuss this doctrine, in the presence of the Arian 
 party, and to pronounce upon its character. At this 
 Council they condemned Arianism, and declared 
 the doctrine of the Trinity to be the doctrine of the 
 primitive Church, and of the Bible. A person of 
 very limited historical knowledge must know this 
 to be the fact. We have, then, this proof, that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the 
 Church of Christ ; and was pronounced such in 
 her confessions of faith, at least as far back as with- 
 in 225 years of the death of St. John. 
 
 Again : If this doctrine is of human origin, how 
 is it that nearly all who have taken the Bible for 
 their guide, in all ages of the Church, have been 
 Trinitarians? How is it that the great majority 
 of learned and pious Christians have found this 
 doctrine in the Bible ; while comparatively few 
 have rejected it? 
 
 II. It is objected that this doctrine is “ an inven- 
 tion of Popery? The objection just now considered 
 is a sufficient answer to this. If the doctrine was in- 
 vented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, it cannot 
 be an invention of Popery ; for the Bishop of Rome 
 was not acknowledged Universal Bishop or Pope 
 till A. D. 606 ; so that there was no “ Popery” till 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 117 
 
 281 years after the Nicene Council. The doctrine 
 of the Trinity was known at least 281 years before 
 Popery was known, even Arians themselves being 
 judges. 
 
 This objection, when stated in a Protestant com- 
 munity, is an appeal to prejudice rather than to the 
 judgment. Suppose Catholics do hold to the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, does that circumstance militate 
 against its truth ? Do they not hold to other doc- 
 trines that are considered fundamental in Christian- 
 ity, even by Arians ? That Popery is a corrupt re- 
 ligion, both in theory and practice, we firmly be- 
 lieve ; but to reject every doctrine that is held by 
 the Catholics, would be to reject the being of a 
 God, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection 
 of the dead, and future rewards and punishments, 
 as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 In our view, the fact that Romanists are Trini- 
 tarians, is in favor of the truth of the doctrine. 
 While they have corrupted many doctrines, and 
 have covered up others, during the nine hun- 
 dred years of their ascendency, the doctrine of the 
 Trinity remains unchanged and uncorrupted, the 
 same as in the days of Constantine. This shows that 
 it was too conspicuous and prominent on the pages of 
 the Bible to be covered up, and too stern and pointed 
 in its evidences to yield to their efforts at corruption. 
 Again : we all know that there is a tendency in 
 human nature, to go from one extreme to another. 
 When Luther and his coadjutors came out from 
 the Romish Church, and protested against her doc- 
 trines and practices, they rejected every thing that 
 they did not find revealed in the word of God. In 
 sifting truth from error, they were far more liable 
 under the circumstances to reject a truth, because 
 they found it with Romish errors, than to adopt and 
 
118 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 perpetuate mere Papal inventions as the truth of 
 God. But with all their prejudices, they transfer 
 the doctrine of the Trinity from the Romish to the 
 Protestant Church, as a doctrine of the Bible — a 
 doctrine which they dare not reject as a human in- 
 vention, much as they despised the errors and cor- 
 ruptions of Popery. 
 
 Now, if this doctrine has been in every branch 
 of the Church up to 1517, and at that time passed 
 the ordeal of the Reformation as a Bible doctrine 
 — if at this ordeal, where the Bible was made the 
 law, and prejudiced men the judges, this doctrine 
 was acquitted as true, and adopted as from heaven ; 
 what reasonable man will be terrified by the cry 
 of u Popery ?” or be influenced in the least by this 
 frivolous objection ? 
 
 III. A third objection is, that “ the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is unscripturalP This is grounded mainly 
 upon the fact, that the words “ Trinity,” “ incarna- 
 tion,” &c., are not found in the Bible. “ If these 
 phrases were in the Bible,” says Kinkade, “ I would 
 not say a word against them ; but, as neither the 
 word Trinity , co-equal, co-essential , &c., is in the Holy 
 Scriptures, but are all mere human inventions, no 
 person who takes the Bible for a standard, will con- 
 sider me erroneous for rejecting them.” Again, 
 he says, iL It is not common for logicians to dispute 
 much about words , when they agree in idea.” But 
 do not Arians claim to be “ logicians ?” and do they 
 not make the whole controversy turn upon “words?” 
 We do not say the word “ Trinity ” is in the Bible, 
 but the doctrine is there ; and no logician will dis- 
 pute about mere words. According to their own 
 showing, then, the above objection is groundless. 
 
 After what has been said on the term Trinity 
 &c., Chap. II. and the proofs adduced from the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 119 
 
 Bible in the preceding pages, we leave the reader 
 to judge whether our views are scriptural or not. 
 Formally to appeal to the Scriptures here, would 
 be to repeat the arguments already adduced. * 
 
 IV. Others reject Trinitarianism, because “ it is a 
 mystery .” The strength of this objection is, that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true, because we 
 cannot understand how three persons can be united 
 as one God. There is no mystery in the fact of 
 this union ; this is clearly revealed. The mystery 
 is all in the mode of union. Now, we demur to 
 the principle assumed in this objection as Deistical, 
 and subversive of all revelation. If we are to re- 
 ject every doctrine that we cannot comprehend, we 
 shall soon reject most of the leading truths of the 
 Bible. Can any tell how the dead are to be re-or- 
 ganized and brought to life ? — how we are born of 
 the Spirit ? — how spirits communicate with each 
 other in the intermediate state ? or how God exists, 
 and is omniscient and omnipresent ? God gave the 
 Bible to teach things that we did not know ; 
 and, for us to assume to decide upon the truth of 
 things revealed, making reason the test of revela- 
 tion, is the height of folly and presumption. We 
 are bound to believe all that is revealed in the Bi- 
 ble, whether we can comprehend it or not. Such 
 is the weakness of the human understanding, that 
 we lay it down as a principle, that we should be- 
 lieve things that we cannot comprehend or explain, 
 whether made known to us by the senses, by con- 
 sciousness, or by revelation. Hence we believe 
 that the soul and body are united ; that the sun 
 shines ; the heart beats ; grass grows, and bodies 
 gravitate ; and yet we cannot fully comprehend or 
 explain one of these phenomena. Nor can Arians 
 divest their cwn system of “ mystery .” Can they 
 
120 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 tell how God can have a body and soul, and yet be 
 “ a Spirit V 1 How he can have a natural son that 
 had no body before the world began, either with or 
 without a mother ? How there can be two omni- 
 potent Gods, and yet but one God? We have 
 known a number of their leading men to admit 
 that there were mysteries in their system ; and yet 
 they reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it is 
 a mystery ! 
 
 That there are three distinct persons in the God- 
 head, and that “ these three are one" is clearly re- 
 vealed ; and we may as well reject the being of a 
 God because we cannot comprehend him, as to re- 
 ject his peculiar mode of being for the same reason. 
 
 V. Another objection is, that u the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is unreasonable .” The remarks on the last 
 objection are equally applicable here, as both objec- 
 tions assume that human reason is to decide what 
 is possible or impossible in a revelation from God. 
 A doctrine is reasonable or unreasonable with a 
 man, according as it agrees or disagrees with doc- 
 trines and notions already entertained. All reason- 
 ing proceeds by comparison ; and if on comparing 
 a new thought with an old one they disagree, the 
 new thought is pronounced unreasonable Hence 
 when once a person adopts a system, in religion or 
 philosophy, he uniformly considers all others un-' 
 reasonable, that do not accord with his pre-conceived 
 views. For instance, the Copernican theory of the 
 revolution of the earth was considered very unreason- 
 able by those who held that the earth stood still ; and 
 the absurd idea that the heavenly bodies made the 
 whole circuit of the heavens every twenty-four hours 
 was pronounced reasonable, because it agreed with 
 the first error, namely that the earth stood still. 
 
 So with Arians in respect to the doctrine of the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 
 
 121 
 
 Trinity. They compare it with their theory, and 
 then pronounce it “ unreasonable” because it does 
 not agree with Arianism. Deacon Homespun 
 must be right, though Copernicus and all the world 
 ' be wrong. 
 
 But by what rule is this doctrine branded as un- 
 reasonable ? Can it be unreasonable unless it con- 
 tradicts some known and established truth ? By no 
 means. We ask then, wherein is it repulsive to 
 reason ? Can such hostility be discovered by com- 
 mon minds ? If so, how is it that the greatest logi- 
 cians that have ever lived have been Trinitarians ? 
 and that nine-tenths of all the great men that have 
 ever shone in the Church, have believed the 
 same doctrine? Are there no reasonable men on 
 earth but Arians ? Alas, for Methodists, Baptists, 
 Presbyterians, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Luthe- 
 rans and Episcopalians ! If our opponents are cor- 
 rect, we are well nigh destitute of reason. 
 
 Aside from the arrogance of such indiscriminate 
 censure, it always creates suspicion with some, to 
 hear men so loud in eulogizing reason, as the test 
 of Bible truth. It reminds us of a certain book 
 called “ The Age of Reason and of a nation we 
 once read of, that reasoned the Sabbath into every 
 tenth day ; the Bible into the fire ; and the soul of 
 man out of existence. 
 
 VI. A sixth objection to our doctrine is, that “it 
 represents Christ as two persons ; and thus makes out 
 as many as four persons in the Godhead .” It is 
 urged that if Christ had a human body and soul, 
 they must make one person, and the pre-existent na- 
 ture is another person. “Add to these,” say they, 
 “the Father and the Holy Spirit, and we have 
 four persons” The fallacy of this objection lies in 
 the ambiguous use of the term person. It ordina- 
 11 
 
122 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 rily comprehends in its meaning both body and soul, 
 but not always. It sometimes includes only the 
 body, at other times only a spirit ; as when it is said, 
 God is a person ; but when applied to Christ as a 
 complex being, it comprehends his entire substance, 
 soul, body, and Divinity. Hence we say, “ the 
 Godhead and manhood were joined together in one 
 person.” We might as well say that there were 
 two Christs, or two sons of God, as that there were 
 two persons. 
 
 As the soul and body may each be called a per- 
 son when abstractly considered, and yet when 
 united are but one person ; so the humanity and 
 Divinity of Christ, which might each be called per- 
 sons when separately considered, are but one per- 
 son when united in Christ. 
 
 VII. It is objected that u fif Trinitarianism be true , 
 we have only a human sacrifice 
 
 This objection comes with an ill grace from those 
 who deny the sacrificial death of Christ altogether ; 
 but still we will give it a candid consideration. 
 The curse of a broken law hung over man ; and 
 without real humanity there could have been no 
 atonement. This we have shown in our remarks 
 on the humanity of Christ. But though humanity 
 was essential, as well as Divinity, sinful humanity 
 could not become an offering for the sins of others ; 
 as it would need an atonement for itself. All the 
 natural descendants of Adam were “ in his own 
 image,” that is, depraved and sinful ; but the hu- 
 manity of Christ, being begotten by the Holy 
 Ghost, had not the depravity of Adam’s natural 
 descendants, but was perfectly holy. In reference 
 to this miraculous provision for the redemption of 
 the world, the eternal Word says to the Father, 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 123 
 
 “ sacrifices and offerings thou wouldst not, but a body 
 hast thou prepared me. ” 
 
 As Christ’s humanity was begotten by the Holy 
 Ghost, and was perfectly holy, he needed no atone- 
 ment for himself, and was an appropriate offering 
 for the sins of the world. He never sinned or re- 
 pented ; was never converted ; and will never be 
 judged. “ Such an High Priest became us, who is 
 holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, 
 and made higher than the heavens ; who needeth 
 not daily as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, 
 first for his own sins , and then for the people’s : for 
 this he did once, when he offered up himself. For 
 the law maketh men high priests which have in- 
 firmity ; but the word of the oath, which was since 
 the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for- 
 evermore.” Heb. vii. 26. 
 
 Christ’s sacrifice, then, was more than human , if 
 by human we mean a mere fellow being. He was 
 begotte7i of God ; was perfectly holy ; and was in 
 union with the Godhead , and sustained by it , in the 
 redemption of the world. To attempt, therefore, to 
 disparage the atonement, by connecting it with the 
 sin and corruption of fallen humanity, is a mere 
 artifice ; — an appeal to our prejudices, rather than 
 to the Scriptures. 
 
 “ The man Christ Jesus” was a sacrifice which 
 God could accept — an atonement by the merit of 
 which “ He could be just, and yet the justifier of 
 him that believeth in Jesus.” Now allowing that 
 the offering actually made for sin, was nothing 
 more than the “body prepared” — the spotless hu- 
 manity of Christ, what then ? Has Arianism a 
 more valid atonement ? Do they not assert that 
 Christ is a mere creature ? and has not one creature 
 as much merit before God as another ? All the 
 
124 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 
 
 merit that could be secured, growing out of the 
 quality of the offering, must arise from a connection 
 with absolute Divinity — a connection which we 
 acknowledge, hut which Arians deny. 
 
 VIII. Another common objection is, that “ accord- 
 ing to Trinitarianism , the Son of God never died” 
 
 But Christ was the Son of God in a twofold 
 sense. His Divine Nature was the “ Son,” as dis- 
 tinguished from the Father and the Holy Ghost ; 
 and his humanity was the Son of God, because God 
 the Holy Ghost was his only father. _ In some 
 passages the title “ Son of God” signifies one na- 
 ture ; in some the other ; and in others both united. 
 u Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for- 
 ever and ever,” — “ all men should honor the Son, 
 even as they honor the Father.” Here the term 
 Son , signifies the Divine Nature. In the first chap- 
 ter of Luke it is applied to the humanity only. 
 “ The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
 power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; there- 
 fore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall 
 be called the Son of God.” Here that which was 
 horn of Mary, namely the human nature, was to be 
 called the Son of God, because the Holy Ghost was 
 its Father, by whom it was begotten. Other pas- 
 sages apply the term to both natures. The Son in 
 Isaiah ix. 6, is both a “ child born” and “ the mighty 
 God and in most places in the New Testament, 
 as Mr. Watson well remarks, it is applied to Christ 
 without any nice distinction, to include both natures, 
 and signify the one person, Jesus Christ. Now as 
 Christ is the Son of God in both natures, considered 
 as distinct, and is consequently the Son of God in 
 his complex character, the death of the human na- 
 ture is entirely sufficient to justify the language of 
 the Scriptures. If the u Son of God” meant only 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 125 
 
 the Divine Nature, we should deny that it died. 
 We do not believe that the pre-existent Spirit — the 
 Divinity — ever suffered or died ; nor did we suppose 
 that even a super-angelic being could die, till we 
 read it from the pen of an Arian preacher. Mr. 
 Millard says the whole Christ actually died, Divinity 
 and all ; but as he was only a subordinate God, 
 according to Mr. M.’s theory, it seems he was not 
 exempt from death. 
 
 But Trinitarians do not hold to the suffering or 
 death of Divinity ; and yet they firmly believe that 
 “ that holy thing” which was bom of Mary, and 
 was called by Gabriel “ the Son of God,” actually 
 died on the cross as an atonement for sin. 
 
 IX. It is affirmed that according to our doctrine 
 “ God diedP This objection and the preceding, 
 cross at right angles, and neutralize each other. 
 If, according to our views, the pre-existent nature 
 did not die, how does it appear that God died % But 
 we will give the objection full scope, and answer it 
 as if it stood alone. It is said if Christ was God* 
 and Christ died, God must have died. 
 
 To those who have given little attention to the 
 subject, this argument appears quite plausible. But 
 let us examine it. In order to make the objec- 
 tion valid we must assert that Christ has but one 
 nature ; that in this nature he is God ; and that he 
 actually died. But is this Trinitarianism ? We 
 assert that Christ has two natures , humanity and 
 Divinity ; and that the human nature only died on 
 the cross. How then does our doctrine imply that 
 God died % The humanity could die and did die, 
 without the suffering or death of Divinity. 
 
 Natural death is the separation of soul and body; 
 and though the soul of man never dies, yet we 
 speak of a deceased person as dead. So in refe- 
 * 11 * 
 
126 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 rence to Christ. His pre-existent nature and his 
 human soul were both immortal, and consequently 
 could not die ; but his body being mortal “ became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” 
 Now we might as well say that the soul dies be- 
 cause the body does, as that Christ’s Divinity died 
 because his body did. The same logic would say, 
 “ men are souls and bodies united. Men die , there- 
 fore souls and bodies dieP 
 
 X. Again, it is asserted that on the Trinitarian 
 scheme “ there was no humiliation ,” in the advent of 
 Christ. A strange objection indeed, and easily an- 
 swered. It rests on the assumption that it indicates 
 greater condescension and humility for a creature to 
 become incarnate, than for God to be “manifest 
 in the flesh.” This assumption is untrue, as all 
 must see. The more elevated the being, the 
 greater the humiliation in stooping to our nature, 
 and to a visible residence in this lower world. So 
 far, then, as the infinite God exceeds a mere crea- 
 ture ; so far does the Trinitarian scheme exceed 
 that of the Arians, in the humiliation it ascribes to 
 Christ. For a creature to be elevated to create, sus- 
 tain, and govern all things — to forgive sins, receive 
 the homage of men and angels, and judge all men 
 at the last day — is an inconceivable exaltation ; but 
 for the eternal Word, the God and Creator of all, 
 to assume our nature and “ dwell among us,” is a 
 specimen of humiliation unparalleled in the annals 
 of time or of eternity. And yet it is objected that 
 there is “ no humiliation ! !” 
 
 XI. It is urged, that “ if Trinit arianism be true , 
 we have no Mediator In Christ were united the 
 sacerdotal , prophetic , and regal offices ; into all of 
 which the candidate was inducted by anointing. 
 Hence Jesus is called Christy which signifies the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 127 
 
 anointed. In his priestly office he is our Mediator, 
 and stands like the ancient high priests between 
 the Father and sinful men. His pre-existent nature 
 is also our Mediator by office. Each of the three 
 persons in the Godhead has his peculiar office in 
 the work of redemption. The Father vindicated 
 the law, and insists on the claims of justice. The 
 Son becomes incarnate, to mediate between the 
 Father and us, to become our Advocate, and to re- 
 deem us from under the curse of a broken law. 
 The peculiar office of the Holy Ghost is to inspire 
 the Scriptures ; to convince the world of sin ; to in- 
 duce repentance ; to renew the heart in conversion, 
 and to sanctify us wholly to God. It does in- 
 deed seem that the whole scheme and economy of 
 man’s redemption was laid, in order to bring man- 
 kind gradually into an acquaintance with the three 
 Divine Persons, one God blessed forever. Now, if 
 the doctrine of the Trinity be true, Christ is our 
 Mediator in both natures. The pre-existent Word 
 being “ manifest in the flesh,” the entire person, in- 
 cluding both humanity and Divinity, constitutes an 
 appropriate Mediator between the Father and us. 
 We may approach God through such a Mediator, 
 and live ; for by him the rays of Divine justice are 
 so modified, that we can draw nigh unto God, and 
 not be consumed. He is our Brother, and we need 
 not dread to approach him ; he is our God, and we 
 need not fear to love, trust, obey, and worship him 
 with all our hearts, and forever more. 
 
 So far is Trinitarianism from destroying the me- 
 diatorial office, that it is the only doctrine that fully 
 recognizes that office. It is the glory of our sys- 
 tem that u there is one God and one Mediator be- 
 tween God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” 
 
 XII. Arians tell us, that our doctrine “ represents 
 
128 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Jesus Christ as sending himself; anointing himself f 
 &c. This, also, is a mistake. If there are no dis- 
 tinctions of persons in the Godhead, as Arians af- 
 firm ; that is, if God exists in one person only ; then 
 to assert the Deity of Christ, is to represent the 
 same person as sending and being sent ; but if God 
 exists in three persons, then the Father could send 
 the Son, and the Son could pray to the Father. 
 The Word, or second person in the Trinity, was 
 sent in the office of Mediator, to take our nature, 
 and become a sacrifice for sin ; and, in order to re- 
 deem man, and conquer death in his own domin- 
 ions, he “ humbled himself,” and assumed “ the 
 place of a servant.” Though he was rich, for our 
 sakes he became poor, yielding to an official subor- 
 dination, and dependence. Hence, though he was 
 essentially one with the Father, he was officially sub- 
 ject to, and dependent upon the Father, in the 
 great work of human redemption. As the incar- 
 nate Son, self-exiled from the glory of heaven, and 
 nearing the period of his exaltation and glorifica- 
 tion, he prays, “ Now, O Father, glorify thou me 
 with the glory which I had with thee before the 
 world began.” 
 
 If then, the doctrine of the Trinity be true, 
 Christ did not pray to himself, or send himself; for 
 whether it were the incarnate Son that prayed, or 
 the human soul, or both, as united in one complex 
 person, the prayer was offered to the Father, a dis- 
 tinct person in the Godhead ; and the Father sends 
 the Son, and anoints “ Jesus of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost.” 
 
 XIII. The last objection we shall notice, and the 
 only remaining one that we know of, is, that, u ac- 
 cording to Trinitarianism , the sufferings of Christ were 
 comparatively nothing .” It is alledged, that as his 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 
 
 129 
 
 Divinity infinitely transcends his humanity, and 
 yet could not suffer, but was infinitely happy while 
 Christ hung on the cross, his sufferings were the 
 sufferings of mere humanity ; a part of Christ 
 which, compared with the whole of him, was as a 
 drop to the ocean. This objection assumes first , 
 that the validity of the atonement depends upon the 
 amount and intensity of Christ’s sufferings ; and, se- 
 condly , that humanity could not suffer as much even 
 while connected with Divinity, as an exalted creature 
 could without such connection. Neither of these 
 positions is tenable. 
 
 1. Christ never suffered, in amount , what the law 
 demanded as the punishment of sin ; for this would 
 have consigned him to indescribable torments to all 
 eternity ; and, on the principle that u he died for 
 all,” all must have been saved ; as the loss of one 
 soul would have involved double punishment, and 
 stamped the Divine administration with injustice. 
 There would then have been no such thing as par- 
 don, as the punishment would only have been 
 changed from the guilty to the innocent. 
 
 The penalty due to sin is endless suffering. 
 Christ did not suffer this, therefore he did not suffer 
 in amount the desert of sin : and the atonement does 
 not depend upon the amount of suffering. 
 
 The sacrifice of Christ was such as God could 
 accept, consistently with the claims of Divine jus- 
 tice ; and with that satisfaction “ he could be just, 
 and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” 
 Hence it did not make the salvation of all a neces- 
 sary result of the atonement, but merely a possible 
 consequence. 
 
 Though the Scriptures lay some stress upon the 
 sufferings of Christ, they are far from making these 
 alone the ground of our justification. They attri- 
 
130 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 bute our redemption to the blood of Christ as well 
 as to his sufferings. “ We are made nigh by the 
 blood of Christ” — “him that hath loved us, and 
 hath washed us from our sins in his own blood ” — 
 “ set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 blood ” — “ we have redemption through his blood , 
 and remission of sins” — peace was made “ through 
 the blood of his cross” — we are redeemed not with 
 corruptible things, but “ with the precious blood of 
 Christ.” 
 
 It was not the sufferings of the sacrifice that 
 made an atonement under the Levitical law, but 
 the blood ; and so with Christ ; “ the Lamb- of God 
 that taketh away the sin of the world.” The saved 
 in heaven do not attribute their salvation to Christ’s 
 sufferings, but addressing the “ Lamb,” they say, 
 “ Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by 
 thy blood” 
 
 It is an unscriptural objection, therefore, that 
 makes the validity of the atonement to depend upon 
 the amount and intensity of Christ’s sufferings. 
 
 2. It is equally preposterous and fallacious to at- 
 tempt to measure the sufferings of Christ, as they 
 are measured and limited by this objection. We 
 have no evidence that any being in the universe is 
 capable of more intense suffering than the human 
 spirit. The sufferings of lost souls in hell are 
 greater, judging from the language used in descri- 
 bing them, than those of the fallen angels. Now, 
 by what authority is it assumed that humanity is 
 capable of but limited suffering? Have human 
 spirits less sensibility or immortality than angels ? 
 It is probable that we have but a mere specimen of 
 our capability to suffer, in the most extreme suffer- 
 ings of the present life. 
 
 But it may be said that if humanity only suffered, 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 131 
 
 a small amount of suffering would produce death, 
 with which all suffering must end. This also is 
 fallacious. Life does not remain or become extinct, 
 according as our sufferings rise to, or keep below, a 
 certain point. Some who live, suffer far more than 
 others who die ; and many die who suffer com- 
 paratively little. 
 
 Hitherto we have defended the orthodox view of 
 atonement, as if there was nothing peculiar in the 
 sufferings and death of Christ. It has been shown 
 that if he were only a man like one of us, it would 
 be impossible to invalidate the atonement for want 
 of suffering. But this was not the case. He was 
 not only man, and perfectly holy, but “ in him 
 dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” 
 There was a union of soul, and body, and Divinity ; 
 and had it not been for the support of the Divine 
 Nature, no doubt Christ would have given up the 
 ghost long before he came to the Cross. What 
 merely human being ever suffered so as to sweat 
 “ great drops of blood,” and yet lived 1 Christ had 
 not yet felt the nails or the soldier’s spear ; and yet, 
 such was his “ agony,” even before he was betrayed, 
 that the blood gushed from every pore, “ falling 
 down to the ground !” In the midst of this intense 
 suffering, “there appeared an angel unto him from 
 heaven, strengthening him,” as if for the time being 
 to render the sufferer immortal, and strengthen the 
 ties of dissolving nature, as soul and body were 
 parting. And yet with all these circumstances, 
 rendering him capable of untold suffering ; and 
 with all the evidences of distress that attended him 
 in the garden and on the cross ; it is objected that, 
 according to our system, Christ was no sufferer ! 
 
 But look for a moment at the opposite theory. 
 Arians tell us that Christ is a creature , and has but 
 
132 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 one nature ; and that he had no union with a pro- 
 per Divinity. Now we ask, can one intelligent 
 creature suffer more than another may? If Christ 
 is “ the first creature that was born into existence,” 
 as Mr. Kinkade says, is there any proof that he 
 could suffer any more than a man ? And could not 
 a creature united with and sustained by the Divine 
 Nature, suffer far more than one who had not that 
 union and peculiar support ? It is perfectly cer- 
 tain, that if either system diminishes the sufferings 
 of Christ, it is that of the Arians. 
 
 We have now considered all the objections that 
 we ever knew urged against the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ; and the reader must judge whether the 
 answers given are candid and scriptural or not 
 But we have not done yet. Our opponents claim 
 the right to state objections, and demand answers to 
 all their queries. Of course, then, they will allow 
 us carefully to examine their system, before we 
 abandon ours ; and if, in the examination, we dis- 
 cover untempered mortar, hay, wood, and stubble, 
 they will not consider it uncourteous in us, if we 
 state our fears and our reasons for them. We shall 
 proceed, then, in the next Chapter, to state some ob- 
 jections to the Arian theory. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM STATED AND URGED. 
 
 It is but too common a practice, in stating objec- 
 tions, to caricature and distort the system opposed, 
 in order to render it odious, and to create the greater 
 number of objectionable features. This is always 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 133 
 
 unfair, and, in respect to the present controversy, 
 wholly unnecessary. Arianism is quite bad 
 enough as it really is, without any misrepresenta- 
 tions ; and our main difficulty will be, not in find- 
 ing reasonable objections, but in making a judicious 
 selection from the vast number that might be urged. 
 We have, therefore, no possible motive for produ- 
 cing an overwrought picture of modern Arianism. 
 It has often been the case, that when it has been 
 fairly unveiled to the world, its avowed friends 
 have disowned it, and pronounced the disclosure a 
 misrepresentation. In anticipation of this we have 
 made a free use of names and quotations in the 
 preceding pages, that we might do no injustice to 
 the Arian theory. 
 
 After having read their books and periodicals for 
 a number of years ; after holding a number of pub- 
 lic discussions both oral and written, and conversing 
 with private individuals of the Arian school ; we do 
 positively know that the sentiments we oppose are, 
 in truth and verity, the sentiments of the great 
 body of modern Arians; and we here challenge 
 any man to point out a single doctrine which we 
 have charged upon them, which is not clearly ex- 
 pressed or necessarily implied in their writings. 
 With these remarks we proceed to the work be- 
 fore us. 
 
 1. Arianism is of suspicious origin. Mr. Watson 
 says — “ The source of this ancient error appears to 
 have been a philosophical one. Both in the Orien- 
 tal and Greek schools, it was a favorite notion, that 
 whatsoever was joined to matter , was necessarly con- 
 taminated by it, and that the highest perfection of 
 this life was abstraction from material things, and, 
 in another, a total and final separation from the 
 body.” This, he says, was “ one of the chief 
 12 
 
134 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 grounds of the rejection of the proper humanity of 
 Christ among the different branches of the Gnostics, 
 who, indeed, erred as to both natures.” If this 
 opinion be correct, (and we have every reason to 
 think it is,) Arianism had its origin in the errors of 
 the Pagan religion, and the bewildering specula- 
 tions of a false philosophy. 
 
 II. Arianism approaches nearer io a system of neg- 
 ativism, or unbelief, than to a system of faith. In 
 their writings and conversation, Arians are ever 
 ready to tell you what they do not believe, but they 
 are never willing to tell you, plainly and fully, 
 what they do believe. They are free to declare that 
 they do not believe in a Trinity — in Christ’s Deity, 
 or humanity — in the personality of the Holy Ghost 
 — in depravity — in creeds, or in a vicarious atone- 
 ment ; but when asked to tell what kind of a being 
 Christ is : what the Holy Ghost is ; or what they 
 mean by u atonement,” the popular answer is, u I 
 believe the Bible !” We have never yet met with 
 an Arian who could tell, clearly and fully, what he 
 did believe. 
 
 III. Arianism shuns investigation ; or , in other 
 words , “ iiateth the light.” Our Lord says, John 
 iii. 20, 21, “For every one that doeth evil hateth 
 the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds 
 should be reproved. But he that doeth truth , com- 
 eth to the light, that his deeds may be made mani- 
 fest, that they are wrought in God ” Now, where 
 does modern Arianism stand, according to this rule ? 
 While Trinitarians come out fairly, and state their 
 belief to the world, and make a public confession of 
 their faith, in printed articles ; modern Arians re- 
 fuse to give us as much as a syllable of their creed, 
 on a single point of doctrine. Now, we ask, Which 
 of these systems “ cometh to the light ?” Which is 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 135 
 
 it that dreads the result of close investigation, and 
 shows to the world that it would suffer by scrutiny ? 
 
 Again, while Arians circulate Kinkade’s “ Bible 
 Doctrine,” and Millard’s “ True Messiah,” as un- 
 answerable productions containing their views, they 
 refuse to be held responsible for a single paragraph 
 or sentiment therein contained. Are we not, there- 
 fore, justified in the assertion, that Arianism “hateth 
 the light ;” and hence according to our Saviour’s 
 rule, “ doeth evil,” and is not the “ truth V 7 
 
 IV. Arianism recognizes at least three distinct 
 Gods, who sustain to each other the relation of father , 
 mother , and son. It asserts that Christ is God ; that 
 he is a distinct being from Jehovah ; and that he is a 
 natural son “born into existence.” At the same 
 time it admits that Christ existed before the world 
 began. Now if Christ is God, and is a distinct be- 
 ing from the Father, there must be two Gods; and 
 if one of these Gods was “born into existence” before 
 the world began, as Kinkade asserts, he must have 
 had a divine mother also. Here then we have three 
 Gods at least, a father, mother , and son ! ! How much 
 like the Pagan theory of Jove , Juno , and their family. 
 
 For more on this point see the Chapter on “ The 
 Unity of God.” 
 
 Y. Arianism acknowledges two distinct Saviours 
 for our world. God says by Isaiah, “ I am the 
 Lord thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy Saviour.” 
 “ I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no 
 Saviour” — “ a just God and a Saviour ; there is 
 none beside me.” See Isa. xliii. 3, 11 ; and xlv. 
 15, 21. Now it is certain that Jesus Christ is the 
 Saviour of the world — of “ all men ;” but, rather 
 than admit that he is the God and Saviour of the Old 
 Testament, the one only Saviour; Arians tell us, that 
 God was the Saviour under the old dispensation. 
 
136 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 and Christ, a creature, the Saviour of the new. 
 Thus we have two Saviours and two Redeemers. 
 
 VI. Arianism endorses some of the worst fea- 
 tures of Popery. 
 
 The first of these is idolatry . Romanists assume 
 that it is right to pay religious worship to a creature ; 
 and adopt a definition of idolatry, which favors 
 their creature worship. Modern Arianism endorses 
 this theory. It adopts the same false definition of 
 idolatry ; insists that it is right to make a creature 
 an object of religious worship ; and actually wor- 
 ships two objects, one of which they say is a crea- 
 ture. 
 
 Secondly , — It endorses the doctrine of pardon by 
 delegation. Papists tell us that God can delegate 
 the power to forgive sins to his creatures ; and that 
 this power is actually entrusted to the Catholic 
 Church. The great principle here involved is 
 sanctioned by Arianism. It teaches that God au- 
 thorized a creature , as his agent, to forgive sins ; and 
 that when Christ forgave sins, he did it merely as 
 God’s delegate. This is, substantially, the Romish 
 doctrine of pardon by delegation. 
 
 Thirdly , — Arianism has much of the intolerance 
 and exclusiveness of the Church of Rome. They 
 profess to be very catholic in their feelings, and 
 ready to fellowship almost any body, and they also 
 claim to let their members believe about as they 
 please. But there is one “ Shibboleth ” which they 
 must all pronounce ; and this done, other matters 
 are of little consequence. They must all be op- 
 posed to confessions of faith, and hostile to the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. However sound a man 
 may be in morals and in faith, he can never live in 
 the Arian fraternity and be a Trinitarian. Take 
 the following in proof of our assertion. 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 137 
 
 A number of Arian preachers met in a certain 
 neighborhood to hold a three-days meeting. In 
 the early part of their exercises they took occasion 
 to decry “ creeds,” &c., as usual, and to assert that 
 in their church every man could believe and preach 
 what he thought to be the truth, without incurring 
 the displeasure of “ Conferences, Bishops, or Sy- 
 nods.” A Trinitarian preacher who heard the 
 statement, concluded to try an experiment, and give 
 these liberalists a chance to show their great charity. 
 Accordingly he made known his desire to unite 
 with them, as a member of their church, on condi- 
 tion that he should remain, as he then was, a minis- 
 ter. The proposal was gladly accepted, and he 
 was formally admitted. Of course their new min- 
 ister must take part in the exercises of the occasion, 
 and as a mark of respect to him, and of encourage- 
 ment to others that might follow his example, it 
 was appointed for him to preach on Sabbath morn- 
 ing. The time arrived, and the preacher arose 
 and took his text ; — u There are three that bear record 
 in heaven , the Father , the Word , and the Holy Ghost , 
 and these three are one.” Every eye was fixed 
 on the speaker. It was now supposed that he was 
 about to renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
 in this public manner to give it its death-blow. But 
 what was the consternation, when instead of pronoun- 
 cing the text a forgery, he proceeded to vindicate it 
 as the genuine portion of the word of God, and to 
 prove and defend its true doctrine before the people. 
 Some frowned ; some interrupted the speaker and 
 attempted to stop him ; and others fled. But he held 
 on his way, and made thorough work as he went. 
 Having concluded, he closed his meeting, in due 
 form and according to custom. No sooner had he 
 pronounced the benediction, than he was surrounded 
 12 * 
 
138 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 by preachers and people, who seemed much displeased 
 and almost ready to tear him in pieces. He calmly 
 inquired the reason of their anger, when with one 
 voice they commenced persecuting him for his be- 
 lief. “ But stop, gentlemen,” said he ; “ did you 
 not publish in this congregation on Friday last, 
 that in your church every man could take the 
 Bible for his guide, and believe and teach what he 
 thought to be truth ? If this Is a specimen of your 
 liberality and charity, I think it is best for me to 
 withdraw from your church and so saying, he 
 made his way through the crowd and retired. So 
 much for Arian liberty and tolerance. 
 
 Take another circumstance. The very name 
 assumed by modern Arians, might teach us what 
 to expect of them by way of charity. They style 
 themselves “The Christian Church and their 
 Press, at which they publish only now and then a 
 book, is called “ the Book Concern of the Christian 
 Church ” They arrogate to themselves the exclu- 
 sive title of Christian , and denounce all other de- 
 nominations as anti-Christian. They ring the 
 changes on the words “ Trinity ” “Creeds” “Chris- 
 tian” and “ Sectarian as if all religion was in a 
 certain name , and in opposing all other names. 
 But why this great ado about a name? Was not 
 the term “ Christian” a name given to the follow- 
 ers of Christ in derision, by their enemies at Anti- 
 och ? But, it is replied, “ it is a scriptural name ; 
 and Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian, are anti- 
 scriptural.” But what is meant by “ scriptural ?” 
 If it is intended to assert that the disciples of Christ 
 were named Christians by the Apostles, or by Di- 
 vine authority, we deny it, and call for the proof. 
 It is said the disciples were called Christians first at 
 Antioch. Bnt who called them so ? Did they 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 139 
 
 call themselves so ? or did their enemies call them 
 so. in order to reproach them as followers of Christ ? 
 By what authority, we ask, were they called Chris- 
 tians? Was it not precisely on the same principle 
 that some are called Lutherans, Arminians, Wes- 
 leyans, &c. ? 
 
 The name given to the disciples, as a name of 
 reproach, soon spread through the Roman empire, 
 and the disciples became generally known by that 
 name. Hence Agrippa said unto Paul, u Almost 
 thou persuadest me to be a Christian .” But the 
 Apostle does not acknowledge the title as of Divine 
 origin, but simply says, “ I would to God, that thou 
 wert” [not a Christian ] but u such as I am as if 
 discarding the name by which the disciples were 
 called by the Roman Governor. 
 
 Again — Peter says, “ if any man suffer as a Chris- 
 tian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify 
 God on this behalf.” Here it is evident that the 
 term “ Christian ” was a name of reproach, other- 
 wise it would have been written, “ If any Chris- 
 tian suffer,” &c., instead of, “ If any man suffer as a 
 Christian as if Christian was a name of obloquy 
 and reproach. In time, however, believers in Christ 
 acknowledged this name, not as a Divine appella- 
 tion, but as a convenient and distinguishing cogno* 
 men. In this sense, and in this only, is it “ a scrip- 
 tural name.” But are there not a number of other 
 names quite as ^ scriptural” as Christian , if not 
 more so ? Are not believers called the “ children 
 of Abraham” — “ the sons of God,” and “ disciples,” 
 by Divine authority ? Were not 66 Christians” called 
 u Galileans ,” and “ Nazarines ?” Tacitus, an ancient 
 historian, speaks of a low or vulgar people, called 
 the followers of Christ or Christians; and Josephus 
 says, that “ the tribe of Christians, so named from 
 
140 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO AETANISM. 
 
 Christ , are not extinct at this day.” See Ant. Book 
 xviii.j Chap, iii., Par. 3. From both these writers, 
 it is clear that the name was given by man, and not 
 by God. 
 
 The only circumstance that renders the term Chris- 
 tian more proper than either of the above, as the 
 name of a believer in Christ, is that it embodies the 
 name of the Great Head of the Church ; and has been 
 used in all ages by common consent to designate 
 his followers. The first of these circumstances 
 doubtless led primitive Christians to acknowledge 
 the title. Venerable as is the name, and sacred as 
 are its associations, it is, however, far from being 
 hallowed by the authority of Heaven. Where then 
 is its peculiar sanctity ? If our enemies brand us 
 with opprobrious epithets, what difference whether 
 we are called Christians or Lutherans, Quakers or 
 Methodists ? or whether we are so called first at An- 
 tioch or Oxford 2 But “ the Christian Church” deny 
 that they use the term Christian in a sectarian sense ; 
 hence, to distinguish them from other professions, 
 they have been known in most parts of the country 
 by the name of “Chri-stians pronouncing the first 
 2 long. 
 
 Of the modesty and charity of their course, in 
 calling themselves Christians, as a denominational 
 title, I will not stop to speak. It is certain, however, 
 that if soundness of faith and holiness of life are the 
 marks of a Christian, they are not the only Chris- 
 tians in the world. Saying nothing of their prac- 
 tice, it is certain that their faith is the very opposite 
 of the Christians of Antioch. The following re- 
 marks, chiefly from a work written by a Presby- 
 terian minister of Philadelphia, will illustrate this 
 point : — 
 
 1. Real Christians worship that God who : s a 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 141 
 
 Spirit The Pagans worship a material Jupiter, 
 the father of gods and men. With which does 
 Arianism agree ? Does it not unblushingly declare 
 that the sole, supreme, Almighty Father, is a mate- 
 rial God ? 
 
 2. Real Christians have always believed God to 
 be without body or parts. Kinkade says, “ This is 
 equal to Atheism.” Which creed did the Pagans 
 hold 7 Their Jupiter , like the Arian idol, had a 
 body and parts. 
 
 3. Real Christians have always believed that the 
 true God is without shape or figure. The Pagan 
 Jupiter had a shape. Which is the Arian creed ? 
 Mr. K. says, u if God has no shape , he has no real 
 existence.” 
 
 4. The Pagan Jupiter was in the shape of a 
 man. Hence the priests of Jupiter mistook Paul 
 and Barnabas for their gods, Acts xiv. 11, and were 
 about to sacrifice to them. They said, “ The gods 
 are come down to us in the likeness of men ; and 
 they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius.” 
 What is the Arian doctrine on this point? Mr. 
 K. and his followers say, a God is in the shape 
 of a man.” Mr. K. says, God has “ nearly all 
 the members of the human body. Ears , hands , 
 and eyes, are parts of an intelligent ruler, and if 
 God has none of these, he cannot hear, handle, nor 
 see us !” 
 
 5. The Christian Church has always believed 
 that the Divine Father had a Divine Son, co-essen- 
 tial, co-eternal, and co-equal with the Father, with- 
 out the intervention of any mother, human or 
 divine. But when Jupiter is the father of a Pagan 
 God, they assign him a Divine mother ; and, when 
 he is the father of a demigod, it is by a human 
 mother. So Mr. K. says, “ Christ could not have 
 
142 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 been begotten, in the proper sense of the word, 
 unless he had a mother as well as a father.” 
 
 These are some of the enormities of a society 
 calling themselves “ the Christian Church !” 
 
 Before we dismiss this objection, allow us to 
 introduce an item of personal experience. The 
 writer has had a fair opportunity, during a few 
 years past, to visit different churches, and to become 
 acquainted with ministers and laymen of various 
 denominations. He has often talked with Baptists, 
 Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Epis- 
 copalians, Dutch Reformed, and Quakers ; respect- 
 ing their peculiarities in doctrine and government ; 
 and he can truly say, that of all people he ever met 
 with, none ever betrayed so lamentable a want of 
 charity as these self-styled Christians. We regret 
 to say this, but truth constrains us. They assume 
 a soft, sweet, innocent name — they talk about 
 “union ' 1 for the sake of advantage, but the design 
 of all is to break up other churches, in order to 
 build up their own party. If, in the exercise of 
 your own judgment and prerogative, you venture to 
 think and act for yourself, and, in so doing, cross 
 their track, their severest censure is too good for 
 y°u. 
 
 We do think therefore that if gross idolatry, par- 
 don by delegation, and sectarian exclusiveness and 
 intolerance, are among the “ marks of the Beast,” 
 Arianism has in its composition some of the foulest 
 ingredients of Popery ; and, if we may know a 
 Christian by his agreeing in doctrine with those of 
 Antioch, Arians should be among the last to assume 
 that innocent name as a sectarian title. 
 
 VII. Arianism is pointedly reprobated in the 
 Holy Scriptures. It is there written, “ Every 
 spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 143 
 
 in the flesh, is not of God. And this *s that spirit 
 of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should 
 come.” u For many deceivers are entered into the 
 world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.” 
 But Arianism denies that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh. It denies that Christ has two natures, or 
 that the pre-existent Word became incarnate, which 
 is precisely the doctrine of the anti-christs in the 
 above texts. 
 
 VIII. Modern Arianism destroys the person- 
 ality of God, angels, and disembodied spirits. In 
 all their reasoning on the persons of Deity, they 
 use the term person to signify a body. Hence by 
 the person of God they mean his body, as they can- 
 not admit his personality without giving him a body. 
 Now if it be true that there can be no personality 
 without a body, then angels, and human souls, 
 during the intermediate state, have no personality ; 
 as the former never had any body, and the bodies 
 of the latter are dissolved, to slumber in the dust of 
 the earth till the morning of the resurrection. 
 
 Again — If a corporeal body is essential to per- 
 sonality, God cannot be a “ person,” for God is a 
 Spirit ;” and “ a spirit hath not flesh and bones,” or 
 a corporeal body. 
 
 IX. Arianism destroys all ground of trust in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ be a mere 
 creature , mutable and finite, who will dare to trust 
 their souls to his keeping, for time and eternity? 
 Who would risk all for both worlds on the pardon 
 of a creature ? Kinkade »ays, Christ u is a created 
 being , that can of his own self do nothing, and change- 
 able , and capable of repentance If he is u change- 
 able,” he may change his mind concerning us ; his 
 love may change into hatred, and his mercy into 
 
144 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 revenge. The pardon he has given us may be 
 pronounced insufficient, and he may abandon us 
 after all to sink into hell. 
 
 But worse still, Mr. K. says he is “ capable of re - 
 pentance .” If he is capable of repentance, he must 
 be capable of sinning ; and if capable of sinning, he 
 may himself become the victim of retributive jus- 
 tice, and reap the wages of sin, which is eternal 
 death. It must be possible, therefore, not only that 
 Christ may prove recreant to his trust and abandon 
 those that confide in him, but he may even sin 
 against God himself, and like the fallen angels be 
 damned forever ! This is a most shocking conclu- 
 sion we grant ; but it legitimately grows out of the 
 Arian doctrine, and justice to the subject and to the 
 cause of God requires that it be set before the world 
 in its true light. 
 
 But is this the Rock on which the Church rests ? 
 Is this the foundation of our hope of eternal life ? 
 Is this the best assurance of salvation this side hea- 
 ven ? Is our allotment to turn for heaven or hell, 
 as a changeable creature may determine ? Is it so, 
 that after all our anxiety and solicitude — after all our 
 confidence and joy in anticipation of heaven — after 
 long cherishing u the hope of glory,” our Saviour 
 may become a sinner, and together with all his 
 followers be consigned to hopeless perdition ? Alas 
 for us, if this is our only trust ! 
 
 But we are not thus abandoned to despair. While 
 the soul stands for a moment horror-stricken and 
 appalled at the wreck of all her hopes, the next 
 moment she turns with holy gratitude from the 
 desolation and ruin of modern Arianism, and 
 anchors herself still deeper in the truth of God, and 
 the merits of a Divine Redeemer. Again the fires 
 of devotion are rekindled. Again the torch of im- 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 145 
 
 mortal hope shines on her otherwise dark passage 
 through this world, and while all her powers find 
 free exercise and expansion, in contemplating the 
 incarnate Word, her fears are hushed in silence — 
 the anxiety of the disturbed spirit subsides into the 
 tranquillity of heaven, and again she sings, “Why 
 art thou cast down, O my soul ? and why art thou 
 disquieted within me ? Hope thou in God, for I shall 
 yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance 
 and my God.” Blessed be God for a holy, immu- 
 table, eternal and almighty Saviour ; and blessed be 
 His name forever and ever ! 
 
 X. Arianism denies the doctrine of atonement 
 by Jesus Christ. Our limits forbid the full dis- 
 cussion of this point, but we can say enough in a 
 few paragraphs to show the force of the objection. 
 
 By the doctrine of atonement we mean the doc- 
 trine that Christ died for us as a sin offering or sat- 
 isfaction to divine justice, that God might be just, 
 and yet justify the guilty. Not that Christ suffered 
 in amount as much as would be due to the sins of 
 the whole world, but that he took the place of the 
 sinner so far as to suffer in his stead ; and to secure 
 for him a second period of trial under “ a better 
 covenant;” consistently with the claims of justice, 
 and the honor of the law of God. 
 
 That Christ suffered for us as our substitute, is a 
 doctrine so obvious in every part of the Bible, as 
 scarcely to require proof. The following passages, 
 however, may be adduced as specimens. Of Christ 
 it is said, “ He was delivered for our offences — 
 suffered for our sins — died for our sins — gave him- 
 self for our sins — offered one sacrifice for sin — 
 died for all — was made a curse for us — bore our sins 
 in his own body on the tree — bore the sins of 
 many — was wounded for our transgressions, was 
 13 
 
140 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our 
 peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are 
 healed — the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
 us all — for he hath made him to be sin [a sin of- 
 fering] for us who knew no sin — while we were 
 yet sinners Christ died for us — he died the just for 
 the unjust — he gave himself a ransom for all,” 
 &c, From all these passages it is clear that Christ 
 died for us vicariously , as a propitiation or atone- 
 ment. 
 
 But this is flatly denied by modern Arians. 
 Kinkade says, u this doctrine is not in the Bible. 
 There is no text in that book which says, he made 
 satisfaction for sinners, or that he bore the wrath of 
 God that was due to sinners, or that he fulfilled the 
 law, or suffered its penalty instead of sinners ; nor 
 is there any text that says he reconciled God to 
 man.” All the atonement he admits of is that 
 “ Christ makes an atonement for sinners by means 
 of the Gospel.” His theory is, that the broken law 
 of God requires no satisfaction in order to man’s sal- 
 vation — that the way in which Christ made an 
 atonement was to a establish that system of religion 
 by which we may be cleansed from sin and recon- 
 ciled to God” — that “ the atonement of Christ is ac- 
 complished in believers by means of the Gospel,” 
 &c. In his short chapter on this subject, there 
 seems to be a design to equivocate, and an attempt 
 to make war upon the common doctrine of atone- 
 ment, without dearly avowing his own theory, or 
 making himself responsible for any thing. Indeed, 
 ambiguity and indefiniteness characterize his whole 
 performance ; but they are particularly prominent 
 here. Still he has said enough to show that he be- 
 lieves in no atonement by Christ. He says to make 
 an atonement is to 'purify and reconcile ; (mark the 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 147 
 
 order ;) and that this atonement is “ accomplished 
 in believers by means of the Gospel,” that is. it is 
 “ regeneration ” effected by the Spirit ! Hence “ the 
 atonement of Christ could not apply to God, or 
 have any effect on him,” and God could have been 
 just in pardoning the sinner without the death of 
 Christ. 
 
 To carry the system out he insists that God was 
 never unreconciled to man — that only one of the 
 parties needed reconciliation, and that we are “ re- 
 conciled to God” not “ by the death of his Son,” 
 but by a “ system of religion.” This doctrine will 
 be readily identified as that of the Socinians of 
 Europe, the Boston Unitarians, the Campbellites 
 and Mormons of the West, and modern Universal- 
 ists. It is a doctrine directly at variance with the 
 word of God, as may be seen by the preceding quo- 
 tations ; and it saps the very foundations of the 
 Christian religion. If there is no atonement but 
 regeneration, wrought by the Gospel “ system of 
 religion,” where was the necessity of the death of 
 Christ ? How is it that “ we are brought nigh by 
 the blood of Christ?” — are “washed from our sins 
 in his own blood?” — “ have redemption through his* 
 blood and remission of sins ?” and have peace 
 “ through the blood of his cross ?” How was Christ 
 “delivered for our offences?” — “bruised for our in- 
 iquities ?” — “ made a curse for us,” &c. Let the 
 reader turn back to the Scriptures quoted at the 
 commencement of this section, and see if one of 
 the whole number can be reconciled with the 
 Arian notion of atonement. We object to it, there- 
 fore, as an unscriptural and dangerous error ; sub- 
 versive of the whole scheme of salvation, as de- 
 vised by God, and revealed in the Scriptures. 
 
 XI. Arianism takes away the strongest proof 
 
14S 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 of human resurrection. St. Paul dwells on the 
 resurrection of Christ, as the main proof and pledge 
 of human resurrection. See 1 Cor. xv. 12 — 21. 
 His argument is based upon the supposition that 
 Christ was in one nature a human being. But if 
 he had no humanity, as Arians assert, the Apostle’s 
 argument is good for nothing, and the resurrection 
 of Christ has nothing to do with the resurrection of 
 men. How, then, are we begotten u into a lively 
 hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead V 1 
 How are life and immortality brought to light by 
 the Gospel ? If Christ was not man in his lower 
 nature, then his resurrection was no proof of the 
 resurrection of the human family; and the Apos- 
 tle’s argument is fallacious. 
 
 XII. Arianism robs God of the honor of 
 
 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE, AND WHOLLY EXCLUDES 
 HIM FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF THIS 
 WORLD. 
 
 It admits that Christ created and upholds all 
 things — that he is the angel Jehovah of the Old 
 Testament — that most, if not all that was ever 
 done for our world by the Powers above, was done 
 by Jesus Christ ; and yet it asserts that he is not 
 God in reality, but a mere finite and dependent 
 creature. What part, then, has God in the affairs 
 of this world ? or what right to the honor of crea- 
 tion and providence ? By this theory “ the God of 
 the whole earth” is a creature , and the God of the 
 universe is a God 6C afar off” and u not at hand.” 
 Hence in their writings, preaching, and prayers, 
 Arians represent the true God as a being having a 
 body , and literally sitting on a throne, at an im- 
 mense distance from our globe. How different 
 from the doctrine of the Apostle, that “ God is not 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 149 
 
 far from every one of us and that “ in him we 
 live, and move, and have our being.” 
 
 XIII. Arianism keeps bad company, and has a 
 
 STRONG AFFINITY FOR OTHER FORMS OF ERROR. 
 
 It unites with Pagans in si pport of a material God , 
 with hands and feet , parts and passions ; it shakes 
 hands with Mormonism on the same point ; it re- 
 sponds to the Popish notion of creature worship, and 
 of pardon by proxy ; and, in common with Deists, 
 Universalists, Hicksites, Quakers, and Campbell- 
 ites, denies the doctrine of the Trinity, the atone- 
 ment by Jesus Christ, his proper Divinity, the 
 personal existence of the Holy Ghost, and the 
 natural depravity of man. It claims as its abettors 
 the Jews, who denied the Messiahship of Jesus 
 Christ, blasphemed his name, and crucified him as 
 a malefactor ; and is in great sympathy with Ma- 
 hometans, who worship one person in the Godhead, 
 and divide the “ agency ” business between Christ 
 and Mahomet. Hence the Mahometans claim the 
 Unitarians of Europe as their “ nearest fellow- 
 champions” against the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
 and, in turn, the Unitarians “ heartily salute and 
 congratulate” the followers of the Prophet, u as vo- 
 taries and fellow-worshippers of that sole Su- 
 preme Deity, the Almighty Father and Creator.” 
 See u Epistle to Ameth Ben Ameth, Ambassador 
 of the Emperor of Fez and Morocco, to Charles 
 II., King of Great-Britain.” 
 
 Thus this new modification of error, either in- 
 corporates, or is in close alliance with, almost every 
 species of heresy that has ever disturbed the peace 
 of the Church. 
 
 XIV. Arianism has never been received as 
 
 TRUTH BY THE CHURCH OF GoD. 
 
 That it is pointedly reprobated in the Scriptures, 
 13 * 
 
150 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 we have already shown. W e have also shown that 
 the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity ; the 
 humanity and Deity of Christ ; the doctrine of 
 atonement ; and the personality and Divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit. That Arianism has never been the 
 faith of the Church, can easily be shown, not only 
 from Ecclesiastical History in general, but from 
 those Confessions of Faith which she has published 
 in different ages of the world. Whatever may be 
 said against the expediency of these Confessions, it 
 will not be denied that they contain a summary of 
 the principal articles of belief in the Church of 
 Christ, a.t the times when they were respectively 
 issued. The orthodox faith in the primitive Church 
 may also be ascertained, in part at least, from early 
 Christian writers. 
 
 Irenseus, who flourished within 100 years of the 
 death of St. John, says, “ The faith of the Church, 
 planted throughout the whole world” was, that 
 there was “ one God ; one Jesus Christ the Son of 
 God, who became incarnate for our salvation ; and 
 one Holy Spirit and he calls Christ “ our Lord 
 and God, and Saviour and King.” 
 
 Tertullian says, A. D. 200, that Christ was “both 
 man and God.” The Apostles’ Creed, which was 
 formed as early as the latter part of the third cen- 
 tury, is a Trinitarian confession. The Nicene 
 Creed, that was issued A. D. 325, was designed to 
 show the true faith of that age, in opposition to the 
 heresy of Arius. The object for which the represen- 
 tatives of the Church were convened at Nice, was 
 to arrest the Arian heresy ; and, in that Council, 
 it is condemned and proscribed as an error. The 
 faith of the Church then was, (as expressed in the 
 Nicene Creed,) that Jesus Christ was verily and 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 151 
 
 really “ Goa • and that he “ became incarnate” and 
 “ was crucified for us” 
 
 The Council that was called at Constantinople, 
 A. D. 381, expressed themselves still more decidedly 
 against the Arian heresy. In the Council of 
 Ephesus, in the year 431, and that of Chalcedon, 
 451, it was declared as their faith, that “ Christ was 
 one Divine person, in whom two natures , the human 
 and the Divine , were most closely united, but with- 
 out being mixed or confounded together.” 
 
 As we approach the year 606, the period when 
 Popery was established, we leave the main body of 
 the Church with her corruptions of faith and prac- 
 tice, and consult only those branches, which are ac- 
 knowledged to have retained a greater degree of 
 purity. The Greek Church has ever discarded 
 Arianism as false, and held to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. The Waldenses in the valleys of Pied- 
 mont, say, in their confession of A. D. 1120, “We 
 believe that there is one God, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit.” These Christians denounced Popery 
 with all its abominations, and acknowledged no 
 other rule of faith than the Bible. 
 
 The Lutheran confession formed in 1530, asserts 
 the Divinity of Christ ; the doctrine of original 
 sin ; and that of the atonement. The Bohemic 
 confession of 1535 is decidedly Trinitarian. The 
 Saxon of 1551 is the same, as also the Gallican of 
 1559, the Scotch of 1560, &c., &c. 
 
 As we come down to our own time, and consult 
 the confessions of the different denominations that 
 compose the Church general, we find the prevail- 
 ing faith of the Protestant world to be directly op- 
 posed to Arianism. Episcopalians, Methodists, 
 Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Luthe- 
 rans, Reformed Dutch, and Orthodox Quakers, both 
 
152 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 m the Old and the New World, unite, as with one 
 voice, in rejecting Arianism as an error. Now, if 
 the Arian doctrine be true, how are we to account 
 for all this? We have the most conclusive evi- 
 dence, that the Church in every age has borne tes- 
 timony against it as false ; and that even at the pre- 
 sent time, nineteen-twentieths of all the professed 
 Christians on earth are of the same mind. How is 
 it that Arianism is believed by but few, while the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is generally received by 
 Protestant Christians? The only solution of this 
 problem is, that Arianism is not of God, and has 
 no support from the Scriptures ; while on the other 
 hand, God favors his own truth, which is mighty 
 and prevails. 
 
 XV. Arianism has never been blessed of god 
 
 AS THE INSTRUMENT OF EXTENSIVE REFORMATION. 
 
 Arius, the leader, in this crusade against Christ, 
 was expelled from the Church, for his heresy, A.D. 
 325 ; and when about to be restored to the pale 
 of the Church by imperial authority, was taken sud- 
 denly ill, and died before his restoration. This sud- 
 den illness was regarded as a judgment from God, 
 in order to prevent the public recognition and far- 
 ther spread of his ruinous sentiments. Ever since 
 that period the frown of Heaven has seemed to rest 
 on the Arian cause. It has found but few adhe- 
 rents in any age, and since the Reformation the 
 comparative strength of this party has been gradu- 
 ally diminishing. None of the great Reformers of 
 past centuries have been Unitarians, and as to the 
 revivalists of the present century, there are no Uni- 
 tarians or Arians among them ; no, not one ! 
 
 But if Arianism be true, we ask again, why does 
 it not prosper ? It has been long enough in the 
 world ; its votaries have triec hard enough to give 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 153 
 
 it currency, but all to no purpose. It is still a mea- 
 gre, sickly plant, and, like Jonah’s gourd, has a 
 worm at the root. 
 
 According to the showing of Kinkade, the mem- 
 bers of all the Trinitarian churches in the land are 
 inhabitants of “ BABYLON,” or wicked sinners. 
 If this be correct, we are compelled to the belief, 
 that after a conflict of 1,800 years, error has ob- 
 tained a permanent ascendency over truth, so that 
 only one of twenty that profess Christianity, are 
 any better than Pagans or Atheists ! This is too 
 much for credulity itself. 
 
 It was well said by one of old, in reference to 
 Christianity, u If this counsel, or this work, be of 
 men, it will come to naught : but if it be of God, 
 ye cannot overthrow it.” But if Arianism be true, 
 the counsel and truth of God have come to naught, 
 while it has been impossible to overthrow Trinita- 
 rianism, which is said to be one of the devices of 
 men. Arians feel the force of this testimony 
 against them, hence it is a cardinal point in all their 
 operations, to represent their cause as in the ascen- 
 dency, or at least rapidly advancing. 
 
 XYI. In the absence of the Divine blessing , Arian- 
 
 ISM RESORTS TO UNJUSTIFIABLE AND WICKED MEANS 
 TO SUSTAIN ITSELF. 
 
 So far as we know, it has never depended upon 
 converts from among the wicked, to replenish its 
 wasting ranks. This would be to place their exist- 
 ence as a body upon a dubious issue, for it is well 
 known that they would immediately dwindle away, 
 had they no other resources than what sinners they 
 could bring to repentance and faith in Christ. 
 Their main dependence therefore, as a sect, is, to 
 pick up disaffected and expelled members of other 
 churches, and enrol them under their banner. 
 
154 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM 
 
 It is said of David at a certain time, that u every 
 one that was distressed, and every one that was in 
 debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered 
 themselves unto him ; and he became a captain 
 over them.” So in respect to the Arian party. It 
 is composed to a great extent of discontented and 
 restless spirits, who have either been cut off in the 
 exercise of a scriptural and wholesome church dis- 
 cipline, or are restive and impatient under its re- 
 straints, and ready to embrace any system that will 
 give greater license both in faith and practice. 
 Such being the materials of which this sect is com- 
 posed, we can easily account for the constant war 
 upon creeds and church government, both by 
 preachers and people. Expelled members gene- 
 rally turn against the church that excludes them, 
 and complain of the discipline by which they are 
 condemned. Hence by opposing creeds and tear- 
 ing other churches in pieces, Arianism not only 
 gets into sympathy with expelled persons, but in- 
 creases the- number of the disaffected and restless, 
 the very materials of which the sect is mainly com- 
 posed. 
 
 But in order to allay suspicions, and spread a kind 
 of salvo over the poison ; much is said about 
 “ union,” even while they are concocting plans to 
 rend societies and churches in pieces. In order to 
 unite the heterogeneous elements that are thus 
 called together, it is found necessary to dispense 
 with Confessions of Faith, and in order to keep 
 those that are thus enlisted, they must be wholly free 
 from the restraints of church government, and the 
 pruning knife of discipline. Hence the cry of u no 
 creeds, no discipline.” 
 
 On candidly surveying this whole system of 
 operations — the effort to create disaffection, and 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 155 
 
 break up other churches by sowing- discord among- 
 brethren — the war upon creeds and church govern- 
 ment, and the formation of a party without either — 
 the picking up of expelled members — the constant 
 effort to get into notice by “ challenges” and “ de- 
 bates,” and by alledging that some great man, or 
 respectable body of men, have noticed them — the 
 use that is made of public controversies, and the, 
 one-sided course of the Arian paper — in view, we 
 say, of this entire system by which Arianism la- 
 bors to sustain itself, we can but believe that it is er- 
 ror and not truth. If it were of God, no such means 
 would be necessary to sustain it, and the Arian party 
 might grow up by the preaching of its doctrines 
 to sinners, without tearing Christian churches in 
 pieces, or gathering up excluded members that have 
 been thrown over the walls of Zion. 
 
 We never knew an instance where Arianism got 
 any foothold at all, unless it was by just such 
 means as are above described ; and, when it has 
 done all it can, according to the above system, and 
 is obliged to rely upon the preaching of its doc- 
 trines, and the blessing of God in the conversion 
 of sinners for its support, it uniformly withers and 
 dies. 
 
 XVII. Arianism outrages philosophy, reason, 
 
 REVELATION, CONSISTENCY, AND COMMON SENSE. 
 
 It represents “the next greatest being in the uni- 
 verse to God,” as losing his knowledge, so that he 
 could “increase in wisdom” in this world ; it ac- 
 counts for the origin of this being, who is “ ten thou- 
 sand times greater than all the men on earth, and 
 all the angels in heaven,” by saying that he was 
 “ born into existence ;” and represents this pre-exis- 
 tent Spirit as being changed into the flesh of Christ. 
 It asserts that the Spirit of Christ actually died ; it 
 
156 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANISM. 
 
 represents the infinite Jehovah as having a wife and a 
 natural son six thousand years ago ; and gives Christ 
 all power without all knowledge. It teaches that 
 God sees with natural eyes, and the use of light, as 
 man sees, (which would hinder his seeing but one 
 side of the earth at a time,) and also that he hears 
 with u ears,” which implies that we must speak loud 
 enough to have the sound go from earth to the 
 third heaven, in order to be heard. It gives him a 
 “hand” as large as a man’s hand, in the “ hollow” 
 of which he measures the deep, and by the 
 “ span” of which he “ metes out the heavens.” It 
 gives him literal “ legs,” and “ feet,” and a “ foot- 
 stool and, although his “ feet” and “ hands” are 
 said to be like those of a man, he covered the whole 
 of Moses with his hand, and his footstool is 25,000 
 miles in circumference, and millions of miles from 
 the “literal throne” where the “ body ” is said to be 
 “ sitting.” It represents Christ as creating himself ; 
 as liable to sin and to go to hell ; and as upholding 
 all things while dead. It denies that we are to 
 identify objects by their attributes ; makes the 
 Devil omnipresent ; contradicts Christ and the in- 
 spired writers, and all who knew Christ while on 
 earth, on the point of his being man ; and contra- 
 dicts Moses, who ascribes creation to God only. It 
 represents a being infinitely higher than angels, 
 and without a human nature, as tempted in all faints 
 like man ; thus implying, that angels and the 
 spirits of the just may still be tempted. It gives us 
 a Redeemer who is not a kinsman according to the 
 law of God, and an “ elder brother” who is in no 
 way connected with the family of man. It admits 
 of two omnipotent, and three omnipresent, beings ; 
 and represents a creature as sending the soul of the 
 Father out of his body into this world. It represents 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 157 
 
 the Father as sending himself in the name of a crea- 
 ture ; and teaches that we are baptized in the name 
 of the Father, a creature, and the Father’s soul l 
 It rejects the doctrine of the Trinity because it is a 
 mystery, and embraces a system that is acknow- 
 ledged to be full of mystery. It makes reason a 
 test of revelation, and rejects as false all that feeble, 
 blinded reason cannot comprehend. It makes war 
 upon the Bible, by adding a capital G to the word 
 “god” wherever it occurs; by rejecting numerous 
 passages as forged ; and entirely perverting many 
 others. It represents Trinitarians as forging a text 
 to prove a Trinity, and then asserts that the text 
 says nothing about the Trinity. It makes Christ a 
 dishonest Agent, creating for himself instead of his 
 employers ; and by asserting that “ the idea of a 
 person , and the idea of a being are both one idea,” 
 it teaches that all beings are persons, even to beasts, 
 birds, fish, insects, and reptiles. It affirms that God 
 delegated almighty power to a “ changeable” crea- 
 ture that was “ capable of repentance,” and declares 
 that a “ body” is a person ; and that dignity and 
 authority are Divinity. It condemns its own “ Dis- 
 cipline” as in part “ a forgery,” and while it pro- 
 fesses to be very catholic and liberal, is most un- 
 charitable and intolerant. It talks much of “ union f 
 and yet glories in discord and division. It com- 
 plains much of persecution, and is always perse- 
 cuting others. It denounces all “ creeds,” “ confes- 
 sions,” and “ sects,” for the sole purpose of destroying 
 existing churches, and establishing another set of 
 doctrines and another sect. Thus is philosophy, 
 reason, revelation, consistency, and common sense, 
 outraged and trampled upon by the very principles 
 and spirit of modern Arianism. 
 
 XVIII. Finally , This wild and extravagant sys- 
 14 
 
158 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO ARIANJSM 
 
 TEM UTTERLY EXCLUDES GoD AND CHRIST FROM THE 
 Church, and from the world. 
 
 In illustrating his views of the omnipresence of 
 God, Kinkade says — “ A great king may fill a 
 country with his armies, military stores, laws, and 
 officers, while his person [by which he means his 
 body] will not fill one house. So God can fill 
 heaven and earth with his armies, his power, his 
 infinite riches, and perfections, till they are lighted 
 with his glory, while at the same time his blessed 
 person [ i . e. his body] is seated on his glorious 
 throne with his Son at his right hand.” If this is 
 the sense in which God is omnipresent, he has 
 never yet visited our world himself, but has mere- 
 ly sent his “ armies,” &c. 
 
 But it is asserted that he has sent a creature as his 
 Agent, bearing the titles of “ Lord,” “ God,” “ the 
 Almighty,” “ Jehovah,” “ the mighty God,” &c., 
 and that this Agent is to do God’s business for him 
 in this world, “ as if a rich merchant in New- York 
 should send his son to do business for him, as his 
 agent, with the people in London.” But suppose 
 this son should run away, and go to China, would 
 the merchant then be in London even by his repre- 
 sentative ? Certainly not. But what says Arianism 
 about their imaginary Agent? It teaches, 1st. 
 That he never visited the earth till 4,000 years 
 after it was created. 2d. That he had but one na- 
 ture , and being mortal, actually died soul and body, 
 while on his agency. 3d. That though he had 
 been here but a few years, when he came to life 
 again, he left us, soul and body, and went back 
 and sat down on the throne with his Father ; and 
 that ever since, the Father has sat “on his glorious 
 throne, with his Son at his right hand” 
 
 Now, if Christ had but one nature , and that nature 
 
STATED AND URGED. 
 
 159 
 
 died, rose, and ascended ; he, like the Father, must 
 now be here by proxy, or not at all. We have 
 then neither the Son nor the Father ; the Agent or 
 his Employer. We are left a poor revolted pro- 
 vince of God’s dominions, without a God or a Sa- 
 viour — a Christless Church and a Christless world !! 
 Whatever other systems may be invented, may the 
 Lord deliver us from the Atheism, blasphemy, and 
 absurdity of modern Arianism ! 
 
 Having thus stated some of the principal objec- 
 tions to this heresy, as it appears with its new 
 modifications and additions, we shall now sum up 
 the entire argument, and bring our remarks to a 
 close. 
 
 On the part of the doctrine of the Trinity it has 
 been shown, in the preceding pages, that there is 
 but one God ; that Jesus Christ has two natures ; 
 that in one nature he is man , consisting of body and 
 soul ; that in his higher and pre-existent nature he 
 is verily and really God ; that the Holy Ghost is 
 God ; and, as a person in the Godhead, is as distinct 
 from the Father and the Son, as the Son is from 
 the Father ; that while the Scriptures reveal one 
 God only , they reveal three distinct persons , of one 
 substance, power, eternity, and Divinity ; the Fa- 
 ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and that 
 therefore, these Three Divine Persons must co-exist 
 as One Being , constituting the one living and incom- 
 prehensible Jehovah. 
 
 We have also shown that we are not left to rea- 
 son alone on this all-important subject. Though 
 it is perfectly clear from reason, that if there is but 
 one God, and yet three equally Divine persons, 
 these persons must constitute the one God ; still the 
 Scriptures forestall reason in its verdict, and remove 
 
160 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 all the apparent difficulties growing out of the unity 
 and plurality taught in the Scriptures, by declar- 
 ing that the plurality of persons exist in unity of 
 nature and essence , as one supreme and everlasting 
 God. The objections to this doctrine have also been 
 considered, and shown to be futile and groundless. 
 
 In respect to modern Arianism, we have not only 
 unveiled its general features as we passed along, 
 but have shown specifically that it is of suspicious 
 origin — a system of negativism rather than a sys- 
 tem of faith ; that it shrinks from investigation ; re- 
 cognizes three distinct Gods, and two distinct Sav- 
 iours ; endorses some of the worst features of Popery ; 
 is the very opposite of real Christianity ; is point- 
 edly reprobated in the Holy Scriptures ; destroys 
 the personality of God, angels, and disembodied, 
 spirits ; and all ground of trust in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. It denies the doctrine of atonement, and of 
 natural depravity ; encourages a loose state of mor- 
 als by lowering our views of the evil of sin ; de- 
 stroys the strongest motives for love to God and 
 Christ ; weakens the very foundations of Christian- 
 ity ; takes away the strongest proof of human resur- 
 rection ; robs God of the honor of creation and 
 providence ; has a strong affinity for other forms of 
 error ; has never been received as truth by the 
 Church of God ; has never been blessed of God as 
 the means of extensive reformation ; resorts to un- 
 justifiable means to sustain itself ; outrages philos- 
 ophy, reason, revelation, consistency, and common 
 sense ; and wholly excludes God and Christ from 
 the Church and from the world ! 
 
 Such are the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
 and such the rocks and quicksands, the whirlpools 
 and tempests, of modern Arianism. We have rear- 
 ed up our beacon light upon its dark and danger- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 161 
 
 ous coast, and, if others pass on to destruction, we 
 are clear of their blood. Our duty is done in the 
 fear of God, and the reader must judge and act for 
 himself If he is a Trinitarian, our prayer is, that 
 this small volume may confirm him still more in 
 the truth of God, and the faith once delivered to the 
 saints. But if, on the other hand, he has unhappily 
 fallen into error, and denied the doctrine of the 
 Trinity and the Divinity of Christ — if he has been 
 deceived by the ambiguity of modern Arianisra, 
 and induced, by the cunning and artifice of its vo- 
 taries, to give his assent to doctrines that he did not 
 fully understand, let him assert his liberty as a man 
 and a Christian, and renounce this dangerous sys- 
 tem at once and forever. Stop not in view of 
 your former sentiments, the frown of your associates 
 and leaders, or the opinions of men. You have a 
 soul to save or lose; and your course in this mat- 
 ter has much to do with your eternal welfare. See 
 to it, then, ‘we beseech you, that you “ buy the 
 truth,” even though it might cost you the mortifica- 
 tion of acknowledging your error ; the pain of being 
 reproached and persecuted for the truth’s sake ; or 
 even life itself. May the Lord help you to resolve, 
 before you lay aside this book, that you will here- 
 after avow a different faith, and pursue a different 
 course as to this great question. 
 
 But be that as it may, we repeat it, we are in no 
 way responsible for your soul. We have spoken 
 plainly and freely upon this great subject : and we 
 again take you to record, that so far as this bewil 
 dering and dangerous error is concerned, if you go 
 on in error and finally perish, your blood is upon 
 your own head. 
 
 The writer has been called, in the providence of 
 God, to encounter Arianism in various forms, and 
 14 * 
 
162 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 on various occasions. He has seen it sweep along 
 for a day, like the fatal sirocco of the desert, deso- 
 lating every thing in its path ; while, at other times, 
 it has moved with a more cautious and steady step 
 through neighborhoods that were peaceful and 
 prosperous in religion ; that its aim might be more 
 certain, and its ruin more complete. In both cases 
 its course has been like that of the locusts of Egypt, 
 that “left no green thing behind.” For lifting up 
 his voice against this error, he has more than once 
 been obliged to suffer the most bitter persecution, 
 and to meet the poisoned shafts of calumny and in- 
 vective. He has had a fair chance to learn the na- 
 ture and tendency of this error, both in theory and 
 practice. 
 
 With a single eye to the glory of God, he has 
 now borne his public and unequivocal testimony 
 against modern Arianism. This done, he has only 
 to appeal his cause to the upper tribunal — to the 
 judgment of the great day — and await the issue. 
 May the Lord help both the reader and writer 
 to walk in the paths of truth and holiness ; that 
 when the toils and sufferings of life are over, and 
 “the bitterness of death is past,” we may meet with 
 all the sanctified in the kingdom of God. 
 
 “ There we shall see and hear and know 
 Ail we desired or wished below ; 
 
 And every hour find sweet employ, 
 
 In that eternal world of joy.” 
 
 And now to the ever blessed and adorable Trin- 
 ITY — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — be honor 
 and praise, dominion and power, forever and ever. 
 Amen, 
 
HUNTINGTON AND SAVAGE, 
 
 AND 
 
 MASON AND LAW, 
 
 PUBLISHERS, 
 
 23 PARK ROW, opposite the Astor House, 
 
 Solicit the attention of School Committees, Superintendents, 
 Principals of Academies, High Schools, and Teachers 
 generally, to the following Text Books. 
 
 A PRIMARY ASTRONOMY, for Schools and Families. By H. 
 Mattison, Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy in the Falley 
 Seminary. 168 pages 12mo, with 200 engravings. 
 
 MATTISON’S ELEMENTARY ASTRONOMY. With Illus- 
 trations, colored. 
 
 MATTISON’S ASTRONOMICAL MAPS. 16 sheets, each 38 by 
 44 inches, beautifully colored, and mounted on rollers. 
 
 BURRITT’S GEOGRAPHY OF THE HEAVENS. With a 
 Celestial Atlas, revised and corrected by Professor Mattison, and enriched 
 with many new Illustrations. 
 
 MITCHEL’S BURRITT’S GEOGRAPHY of the HEAVENS. 
 
 CHART OF ARITHMETICAL TABLES, compiled by Professor 
 Mattison, consisting of Twenty distinct Tables, multiplication, numera- 
 tion, &c., &c., on one sheet, 3 feet 8 inches by 4 feet 8 inches, neatly put 
 up on rollers, for the use of the school-room. Price two dollars. 
 
 THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHY. New edition, with the Census 
 of J850, illustrated in the most beautiful manner. This work is concise, 
 yet complete ; strongly and durably bound, and in all respects executed 
 in beautiful style ; yet the cheapest hook in the market. 
 
 PETER PARLEY’S NEW GEOGRAPHY FOR BEGINNERS. 
 
 GOODRICH’S PRIMER OF GEOGRAPHY. 
 
 GOODRICH’S PRIMER OF HISTORY, for beginners at home and 
 school. Illustrated by maps and engravings. 
 
 PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 PICTORIAL HISTORY OF FRANCE. 
 
 PICTORIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 PICTORIAL HISTORY OF GREECE. 
 
 PICTORIAL HISTORY OF ROME. 
 
HUNTINGTON AND SAVAGE’S TEXT BOOKS. 
 
 FITCH’S CHOROGRAPHY ; or Plates with the Lines of Latitude 
 and Longitude drawn on the same scale as the maps in the National 
 Geography, to be filled up by the pupil. A most useful and instructive 
 exercise . 
 
 WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY. University edition. 
 
 WEBSTER’S ACADEMIC QUARTO DICTIONARY. 
 
 WEBSTER’S HIGH SCHOOL PRONOUNCING DIC- 
 TIONARY. 
 
 WEBSTER’S PRIMARY SCHOOL PRONOUNCING DIC- 
 TIONARY. 
 
 WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY. Pocket edition. 
 
 PINNEY’S FIRST BOOK IN FRENCH. 
 
 PINNEY’S FIRST BOOK IN FRENCH, with a Key. 
 
 KEY TO THE PRACTICAL FRENCH TEACHER. 
 
 PINNEY’S PROGRESSIVE FRENCH READER. 
 
 PINNEY & BADOIS’S PRACTICAL FRENCH TEACHER. 
 New edition, greatly improved, from entirely new plates. 
 
 WEBB’S NORMAL READERS, in four numbers, on a new plan. 
 One of the most distinguished Principals in one of the Ward Schools in 
 the city of New York says, in a letter to the publishers, that in his school 
 they can, with Mr. Webb’s system, in four weeks, accomplish what 
 usually takes a year under the old system. 
 
 ENGINEERS’ AND MECHANICS’ COMPANION. 
 
 THE ENGINEERS’, CONTRACTORS’, AND SURVEYORS’ 
 POCKET TABLE-BOOK. 
 
 THE YOUTH’S SONG BOOK. By I. B. Woodbury. This popular 
 work has been thoroughly revised, and greatly enriched by the addition 
 of Songs of rare excellence, yet simple, and adapted to the wants of 
 children and youth. 
 
 PUTNAM’S ELEMENTARY ENGLISH GRAMMAR. New 
 
 edition, revised and corrected by David Price. 
 
 MRS. LINCOLN’S BOTANY. 
 
 THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL MUSIC BOOK. By I. B. Woodbury. 
 
 THE AMERICAN MUSICAL REVIEW. Monthly. Edited by 
 I. B. Woodbury. Price 50 cents per annum. 
 
 THE DULCIMER; OR, THE NEW YORK COLLECTION 
 OF SACRED MUSIC. 
 
 THE PRACTICAL SCHOOL ARITHMETIC. Prepared by the 
 Principal of the Associate Academy of New York, and revised by 
 David Price. 
 
A PRIMARY ASTRONOMY, 
 
 For Schools and Families : adapted to the capacities of Youth, and 
 Illustrated by over Two Hundred Engravings. By Hiram Matti- 
 son, Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy in the Falley 
 Seminary, &c. 
 
 This is a small 12mo book of 168 pages— a regular Spelling-book” 
 of Astronomy— containing the essence of the science in few words, and 
 so illustrated that the pupil must understand it. The main text is in 
 Questions and Answers, printed in a bold, handsome type; and the 
 cuts, of which there are over two hundred , are inserted in the pages 
 with the type, and in immediate connection with the matter to be il- 
 lustrated. 
 
 Whenever it is necessary to explain a diagram, and to show how it 
 illustrates the subject in hand, the explanation required is inserted in 
 smaller type, either by the side of the cut, on the same page, or im- 
 mediately under it. These notes and remarks, descriptive of the dia- 
 grams, &.C., are to be read and studied , but not committed to memory; 
 as they form no part of the main text. In using the book in schools, 
 students should be required to draw the diagrams of the lesson as they 
 occur upon the blackboard, and to explain how they illustrate or 
 demonstrate the point in hand. The insertion of cuts in connection 
 with Questions and Answers, and the exercise of the class in Drawing 
 and oral explanations during recitation, are entirely new features in a 
 text-book on Astronomy ; and such, it is believed, as will give the 
 “ Primary” great practical advantages over books constructed upon a 
 different plan. 
 
 Another valuable feature of this work is, that ail difficult words are 
 pronounced and defined , at the bottom of the page, and in most cases 
 traced to their original source. In short, it is intended to be all that 
 can be desired as a First Book in Astronomy, especially for the Family 
 and the Primary School. A more beautiful , entertaining , and useful 
 book for presentation to the young could scarcely be selected. Price 
 31 cents. 
 
 AN ELEMENTARY ASTRONOMY, 
 
 For Academies and Schools: Illustrated by numerous Original Dia- 
 grams, and adapted to use either with or without the author’s Large 
 Maps : 12mo, 244 pages. Tenth edition, with Questions, &c. 
 
 This work is written in the didactic style, with Questions for Review 
 in the Appendix, and is much more full and extended than the 
 u Primary Astronomy .” It contains a description of all the Constella- 
 tions , with the number of stars in each, and is every way adapted to a 
 higher grade of Schools, and a more advanced class of pupils than 
 those for whom the Primary was designed. 
 
 The book is illustrated by nineteen colored engravings , the full size 
 of the page, to which constant reference is had for illustration through- 
 out the work. No better evidence of its value can be desired than the 
 fact that 50,000 copies have already been sold, and it is now the 
 chosen text-book in Astronomy in forty-seven of the Academies under 
 the Regents of the University of this State. Price 50 cents. 
 
ASTRONOMICAL MAPS, 
 
 Adapted to use with the “ Elementary Astronomy,” and designed to 
 illustrate the Mechanism of the Heavens. For the use of Public Lec- 
 turers, Private Learners, Academies, and Schools. By Professor 
 H. Mattison. 
 
 This series consists of sixteen Maps, or Celestial Charts, each 38 by 
 44 inches, representing the various appearances of the Heavenly 
 Bodies — the Sun, Moon, Planets, Comets, and Fixed Stars — and illus- 
 trating the laws which govern them in their motions, the philosophy of 
 Tides, Eclipses, and Transits, and indeed all the most interesting and 
 wonderful phenomena of the Mechanism of the Heavens. The sixteen 
 Maps cover an area of nearly 200 square feet. They are printed upon a 
 black ground, answering to the natural appearance of the heavens in 
 the night, and are beautifully colored, and mounted upon slats and 
 rollers. They are beyond comparison the most splendid and complete 
 series of scientific charts ever published 'in this country. They are not 
 only invaluable for Seminaries, Academies, and the higher institutions 
 of learning, but, at the same time, are admirably adapted to popular 
 use in Common Schools. Maps, per set, in case, on strong paper, with- 
 out cloth backs, $15. 
 
 Jgp 5 *’ Each Set of Maps is nicely packed in a Wooden Case, and can 
 be sent to order with perfect safety to any part of the United States or 
 Canada. 
 
 GEOGRAPHY OF THE HEAVENS, 
 
 And Class-Book of Astronomy $ 
 
 Accompanied by a Celestial Atlas. By Elijah H. Burritt, A. M. A 
 New Edition, Revised and Illustrated by Professor H. Mattison. 
 
 This is simply such a thorough revision, both of the Text and Atlas 
 of this standard work, as was demanded by recent discoveries and new 
 classifications in the science. The Questions and Mythological History 
 are retained, and about fifty illustrative cuts have been added, which 
 
 f reatly enhance both the beauty and practical utility of the work, 
 ’rice $1 25. 
 
 CHART OF ARITHMETICAL TABLES, 
 
 For the School-Room. 
 
 This Chart consists of twenty distinct Tables ; namely, Numeration, 
 Arithmetical Signs, Multiplication, Long Measure, Square Measure, 
 Cubic Measure, Circular Measure, &c. It is printed in very large type, 
 on strong and well sized paper, and upon a sheet 44 by 56 inches. 
 
 The main use of this Chart is for learning the Tables in concert, the 
 Teacher using a pointer, and the School running over the whole Chart,, 
 perhaps twice a day. This exercise will not only have much of the 
 effect of singing in the School; as a pastime, and relaxation from 
 study ; but will, in a short time, fix the Tables indelibly in the mind of 
 every student. 
 
 Price, bound and mounted with slats and rollers, $2. 
 

 
'