Thursday, May 10, 2018

Henry Grew on the Early Church Fathers and the Trinity


Henry Grew on the Early Church Fathers and the Trinity

From An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God 1824
Download this book here for a limited time

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

Irenaeus who was but second from John says, "John, declaring the one God Almighty, and the only begotten, Christ Jesus by whom all things were made," &c. [Historical View of Heresies, p. 69.] He exhibited a creed which embraced the general belief of Christians in that age. He says, "The church, which is dispersed through the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles, and their immediate successors, the belief in one God, The Father Almighty, the maker of the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made flesh for our salvation, &c. That to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee shall bow," &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ And His Apostles:

To us, there is but one God, the father. 1 Cor. viii. 6.

My Father is greater than I. John xiv. 28.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature. Col. i. 15.

The Son can do nothing of himself. John v. 19.

But of that day, &c. knoweth no man, no not the angels, &c. neither the Son, but the Father. Mark xiii. 32.

All power is given, unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. xxviii. 18.

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John xvii. 2.

God, who created all things BY Jesus Christ. Eph. iii. 9.

By whom also he made the worlds. Heb. i. 2.

The Revelation of JesusChrist which God gave unto him. Rev. i. 1.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. ii 5.

Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4.

Trinitarians:

To us, there is but one God, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.

The Son is as great as the Father.

Who is the invisible God, the uncreated Jehovah.

The Son is omnipotent.

The Son is omniscient, and knew of that day as well as the Father.

No given power can qualify the Son of God to give eternal life to his people.

Jesus Christ created all things by his own independent power.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ from his own omniscience.

There is one Mediator between God and man; who is also supreme God and man in one person.

Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the only Lord God, and a distinct person.


Jesus Christ And His Apostles:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and signs, and wonders, -which God did by him. Acts ii. 22.

For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John v. 26.

I live by the Father. John vi. 57.

This is my beloved Son. Matt. iii. 17.

That they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John xvii. 3.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow — and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Phil. ii. 11.

Trinitarians:

Jesus performed his miracles by his own omnipotence.

The Son is self-existent.

The Son lives by himself.

This is the only true God, the same numerical essence as the Father.

That they might know thee, who art not the only true God, in distinction from the Word whom thou hast sent.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow — and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to his ovn glory.

1 comment: