The Trinity and Medieval Jewish and Muslim Critiques

The Christian belief that the Supreme Being exists as three fully divine “persons,” who constitute one God, developed over a period of time stretching from the late first or second century C.E. to the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. The precise origin of this belief and the exact stages by which it took shape in different forms and within various communities is a matter of debate among historians. Early Christian sources do not provide enough information to make all of this clear. Two points may be stated with certainty, however: first, a standard (“Orthodox”) understanding of the Trinity was widely accepted by the fifth century; second, this understanding came about through a complex process.

The earliest Christian sources consist of the writings that became the New Testament as well other texts that likewise emerged between the second half of the first century C.E. and the middle of the second century, such as the Didache, the First Epistle of Clement, and the Gospel of Thomas. Some New Testament texts speak of “God the Father” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” perhaps reflecting a conception of God known in ancient Judaism whereby a primary God exists alongside a lesser God, such as Philo’s Logos (“Word”).^[1] This gives only two (“Father” and “Son”), not three.^[2]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

In a few early Christian texts, one finds a triad of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”^[3] The relationships between these three (or two) is not clear, nor is the relationship between such thinking and monotheism. As particular Christian identities developed in distinction to Jewish identities in the first several centuries C.E., Christian writers sought to clarify these relationships.

What evidence we have in relation to the second century suggests a measure of diversity regarding the precise identity of Jesus in relation to God.^[4] Still, a trajectory can be discerned in many preserved sources in the direction of a Trinity of some kind. In the early third century, Tertullian of Carthage argues in favor of the concept of a “Trinity” (trinitas), although he acknowledges that most Christians (he calls them “simple”) focus on the unity and singular rule of God.^[5] In the first half of the third century, Origen of Alexandria considers the Holy Spirit to be a divine “person” alongside the “Father” and “Son.”^[6] Moreover, evidence suggests that baptismal confessions used in Rome in the second and third centuries were structured around belief in God Almighty, Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.^[7]

This is not to suggest, however, that later trinitarian theologies were already established. For example, in the second and early third centuries, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria each spoke of Jesus as God’s “Word” or “Thought” which came forth from God for the purpose of creation.^[8] In other words, none of these figures thought that the divine “Word” always existed as a separate “person.” In the earliest Christian centuries, the doctrine of the Trinity was not believed by everyone within the broader Christian world, and even among those who affirmed some version of trinitarianism there was no single understanding shared by all.

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

By the fifth century, as the result of intense theological debate and in conjunction with the Christianization of the Roman Empire, an “Orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity came to be widely accepted, as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). The main points of this conception of God can be summed up as follows:

One God – Divine father and creator of the universe and everything in it.

One Lord Jesus – The only Son of God, Jesus existed before the creation of the universe and was instrumental in creation. He took human form, came to earth, died, was resurrected, and returned to heaven.

The Holy Spirit – The source of life, He comes from God, is worshipped alongside the Father and Jesus, and was heard through God’s prophets.^[9]

The doctrine of God expressed in fourth and fifth century Byzantine Creeds does not capture every nuance of Christian belief as encountered by Jews and Muslims in the Middle Ages.^[10] However, the basic contours of the Trinity noted above were generally recognized by Christians in the Middle Ages. This essay will focus on objections to the Trinity aimed broadly at Christians on these major points.

To medieval Jewish and Muslim scholars and commentators who were familiar with Christianity, the concept of the Trinity was deeply problematic. The Trinity appeared to represent a departure from pure monotheism, and the doctrine of the incarnation entailed by the Trinity was seen as untenable. The need to refute this distinctive Christian belief arose from religious competition that was often intertwined with political competition or coercion. To varying degrees, each of these Jewish and Muslim writers drew on philosophy, the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament to express their objections to the Trinity.

Does the “Three-ness” of the Trinity Make Sense?

Muslims and Jews objected to the Christian affirmation of one God as three “persons.” Qadi Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025/415),^[11] for example, was a scholar of the rationalist stream of thought in Medieval Islam.^[12] In his Critique of Christian Origins, Al-Jabbar argues that having a god who is Father, Begetter, Almighty, etc., and a god who is Son, Begotten (but not Father or Begetter), Word, etc., and a god who is Holy Spirit, Living, etc.—each one with different titles and activities—is essentially an account of three gods, even if Christians refrain from asserting tri-theism explicitly.^[13] He further asserts that the scriptures affirmed by Christians undermine their theological position:

The only thing that prevents the Christians from putting forth the statement that there are three separate, different gods (which they have given in meaning) is that they affirm the Books of God, Mighty and Exalted, which Jesus—peace be upon him—affirmed. They are filled with monotheism; they declare that He alone is Without Beginning and that He does not resemble [created] things.^[14]

In the end, the Christian Trinity amounts to shirk (شِرْك, lit. “association”), that is, associating things with God, which is the opposite of monotheism.^[15]

Another Muslim scholar, Salih b. al-Husayn al-Gafari (d. 1270/668), opens his analysis of the Trinity in The Shaming of Those Who Have Corrupted the Torah and the Gospel by quoting the beginning of the Christian creed—“We believe in one God, the Father, controller of all, ruler of all things, maker of what is seen and unseen.”^[16] According to al-Gafari, “This could have been a sound statement, if they had remained on it and had not muddled it with associationism.”^[17]

He continues by noting the apparent contradiction when Christians proceed to confess another Lord by whose hand all things are made:

In the beginning of the creed, [they said] that God is the creator of everything. Then, they did not linger before they said: “No! Rather the Messiah, the son of Mary, is the creator and framer of everything.” This is the utmost contradiction!^[18]

To al-Gafari this compromises monotheism and contradicts the Bible:

Furthermore, this contradicts what the Torah, the Psalms and all the Prophecies contain regarding the profession of God’s oneness and His being unequalled in lordship and divinity.^[19]

To press home the point, al-Gafari asks why—if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God—did the Son particularly (and not the Father or the Spirit) come down to earth to battle Satan? Was the Son more compassionate than the other two? If all three have the same degree of lordship, why was only one of them entitled to this task?^[20]

Jewish scholar Hasdai Crescas (14^th century), whose The Refutation of the Christian Principles (c. 1398) is especially concerned with philosophical questions, takes up the Christian premise that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, and that “the Father generates the Son, and, from the love of both, the Holy Spirit proceeds.”^[21] He argues that this would mean that God is not eternal:

^{קרשקש, ביטול עיקרי הנוצרים} וזה כשנאמר אם הבן הוא נולד, האלוה הוא נולד. וזה יתחייב מאומרך שכל אחד מהם הוא אלוה.^[22]

^{Crescas, Refutation of Christian Principles} We say: If the Son were generated, then God would be generated. This follows from your statement that each one of them is God.^[23]

Nor, under the Christian scheme, would God be eternally perfect:

האב לא היה שלם עד שהוליד הבן, כי קודם היה בכח, ואם כן הוציא מן הכח אל הפועל, ואם כן לא נמצאו בו השלמיות לנצח.^[24]

The Father was not perfect until he generated the Son, since previously he was in potentiality. Therefore, he was brought from potentiality to actuality. Therefore, all the perfections were not eternally in Him.^[25]

Crescas even addresses the standard Christian response to this objection: If, for Christians, the begetting of the Son itself is eternal—the Father generates the Son continuously (and always has and always will) and the Son is generated eternally (and always has been and always will be)—Crescas asks, what is meant by “begetting”? Is the Son constantly ceasing to exist and then coming back into existence?^[26]

Is the Incarnation Theologically Possible?

Medieval Christians believed that Jesus is truly God who became “incarnate” (that is, “made flesh”), in the sense that he experienced life fully as a human. Both Jews and Muslims argued that this belief is incompatible with the notion of God as Creator and Supreme Being.

The arguments are straightforward and can be stated simply. As Crescas explains, humanity cannot unite with God, because humanity is finite, and God is infinite. Even if such a union were possible, the thing created would be neither God nor human, but some kind of mixture.^[27] He supports this point with several biblical citations, such as:

^{ישעיה לא:ג} וּמִצְרַיִם אָדָם וְלֹא אֵל וְסוּסֵיהֶם בָּשָׂר וְלֹא רוּחַ...

^{Isa 31:3} The Egyptians are human, not God; and their horses are flesh, not spirit…^[28]

Jewish commentator Joseph Kimhi (c. 1105–c. 1170), in his refutation of Christianity in The Book of the Covenant, notes the absurdity of suggesting that “the great and mighty God, Whom no eye has seen, Who has neither form nor image” (אל גדול ונורא אשר עין לא ראתה ואין לא דמות ואין לא צורה) would live a normal human life with all its frailty.^[29] For example, it is not in the nature of God to be hungry and sleepy. On the contrary, God said:

^{שמות לג:כ} ...לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי.

^{Exod 33:20} …For a human may not see me and live.^[30]

Muslim writers raised similar objections, in some cases with detailed knowledge of the New Testament. Al-Gafari contends that Jesus cannot be the creator of all things, given that he was born into the world at a specific time.^[31] Ibn Hazm (d. 1064/456), a prolific Muslim scholar who offered critical analysis of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, raised numerous questions about the incarnation based on Christian scripture.^[32]

For example: How could God have a mother, a stepfather, and brothers and sisters?^[33] Is it consistent with Divine otherness that God should eat and drink? Did God experience anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane?^[34] Did God need support from angels?^[35] If Philippians 2:6–11 is correct, did Jesus as God humble himself, and did he need to be exalted higher than he already was?

On the topic of the incarnation, it should be noted that the Qur’an declares explicitly that God does not have a son.^[36] This position was consistently maintained by Muslim scholars and was likewise supported by Jewish scholars.^[37]

If God is Trinitarian, Why Doesn’t the Hebrew Bible Say So?

And yet, for Christians in antiquity and the Middle Ages, the Old Testament spoke often about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but it did so mostly through typology and allegory. In a few cases, however, the Old Testament was seen as addressing these topics directly. All of these passages were discussed extensively in Christian commentaries. It became a task for Jewish interpreters (and occasionally Muslims) to offer counter interpretations. For example:

The creation of humans – Christians understood the plural forms used by God when He creates humans as references to the Trinity:

^{בראשׁית א:כו} וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ....

^{Gen 1:26} And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....”

Joseph Kimhi (c. 1105–c. 1170), however, argues that God is referring to the earth and the other elements that He had already created with the ability to produce things:

^{יוסף קמחי, ספר הברית} ....מה שאמר ”נעשה“ לשון רבים – יש מפרשים כי השם בתחילת בריאתו ברא ארבע יסודות, אש ורוח עליוניות, עפר ומים תחתוניות; ונתן להם יכולת להוציא בטבעם ותולדתם כל הנבראים ....עד יום השישי שברא את האדם כנגד ארבע יסודות. ”נעשה אדם“

^{Kimchi, Book of the Covenant} With reference to the plural form of Let us make, some explain that at the beginning of creation, He created the four elements—the higher, fire and air, and the lower, earth and water. Then He gave them the faculty to produce all creatures by virtue of their natural qualities…. (Gen 1:11, 12, 20 are cited). This was so until the sixth day when He created man along with the four elements, saying Let Us make man.^[38]

As for “our image,” Kimhi says this must be taken in a metaphorical sense indicating rule and dominion, in which humanity resembles God, but not the elements:

ומשה שאמר ”צלם ודמות“ , זהו פירושו: כי כל אשר ברא בעולם אין דומהו אלא אדם לבדו. ובמה דומה? בצלם הממשלה ובדמות השררה. כי כשם שהקדוש ברוך הוא מושל בכול, כן האדם מושל

As for image and likeness, nothing which He created in the world resembles Him except man alone. In what does he resemble Him? In the image of dominion and the likeness of rulership, for just as the Holy One, blessed be He, rules over all, so does man rule.^[39]

Jewish commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who was raised and educated in Muslim Spain but later traveled extensively in Christian lands, provides a number of other Jewish approaches to Genesis 1:26, including the view that the plural forms represent the speech of a king, who says “we command” even when speaking on his own.^[40] As with Kimhi’s view, each of these interpretations attempts to explain the passage within the immediate context of the book of Genesis.

YHWH appearing to Abraham – Christians also found evidence for the Trinity in the visit of the three men to Abraham at the terebinths of Mamre:^[41]

^{בראשׁית יח:א} וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְ־הוָה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. ^יח:ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה.

^{Gen 18:1} YHWH appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot. ^18:2 Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them and bowed to the ground.

In Kimhi’s view, the Trinitarian reading cannot work. He points out that all three come in the form of men, so that, if this is an appearance of the Trinity, then all three members of the Trinity became incarnate:

ואם תאמר כי הבורא היה, הנה לקח בשר קודם ביאת ישו שהוא הבן. וישו שהוא הבן לקח הבשר; והנה אב ובן ורוח שלושתם לקחו בשר כי בצורת אנשים היו.

If you say that they were the Creator, then He became incarnate before the advent of Jesus who is the Son. Now Jesus, who is the Son, became incarnate, and in this instance all three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, became incarnate, for they appeared in the form of men.^[42]

Furthermore, when the men go away to Sodom, Abraham still stands before YHWH, leading Kimhi to wonder which members of the Trinity went away, and which one stayed? (cf. Gen 19:1):

ואמור לי: אם כאמרך הוא כי הבורא נגלה לו בצורה שלושה אנשים, היאך נתחלף לו באחד כשהלכו השניים אל לוט לסדום, כמו שאמר בפסוק ״ויפנו משם האנשים וילכו סדומה ואברהם עודנו עמוד לפני יי״ [בראשית יח:כב]? ועוד אמור לי: מי המתפרד מן השניים, האב, או הבן, או הרוח? ומה עניין לאותו שנתפרד?

Now if, as you say, the Creator appeared to him in the form of three men, how did he change back into one when the [other] two went off to Lot in Sodom, as the verse says, “The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord” [Gen 18:22]? Tell me also: Which one separated himself from the other two, the Father, the Son, or the Spirit?^[43]

Kimhi also asks, since God appears to Lot as two people, wouldn’t believing in a duality be equally valid?

ולמה נראה הבורה ללוט בצורת אנשים שניים ולאברהם בצורת שלושה? הרי מי שיאמין השניים לא יטעה על אמונתך, כי הם נראו ללוט שניים. ישמרנו אלוהים מאמונה זו ואשר נדמה אליה.

Why did the Creator appear to Lot in the form of two men and to Abraham as three? Indeed, he who believes in two [deities] will not go wrong with your theory, for two appeared to Lot. God save us from this faith and anything that resembles it!^[44]

Objecting to the anthropomorphic actions of the three men in the biblical account, Ibn Hazm rejected the Christian trinitarian interpretation on the grounds that the men acted in a manner unfit for God. He likewise rejected the Jewish angelic interpretation (although he agreed they were angels), insisting that the men acted in a manner unfit for angels. According to Ibn Hazm, the biblical text is “corrupt” and must be corrected based on the Qur’an.^[45] Ibn Hazm’s view was summarized by Pulcini as follows:

Would God (or an angel, for that matter) need to wash his feet or to eat bread (Gen 18:4–5)? Would God (or an angel) eat and drink as these guests did (v. 8)? This is indeed a corrupt text, unlike the Qur’an (11:69–70),^[46] which clearly states that the visitors (who are certainly angels and not God) did not even touch the calf Abraham had prepared for them.^[47]

The young woman of Isaiah – Following the gospel of Matthew, many Christians believed that Jesus’s birth to Mary, who conceived him while remaining a virgin, fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy that the young woman would conceive and bear a son named “Immanuel”:

^{Matt 1:22} All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ^1:23 “Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel” (Isa 7:14), which means, “God is with us.”^[48]

Ibn Ezra argues that this verse cannot be about “their god” (i.e., Jesus), because the sign was given to Ahaz and the passage makes clear that the prophecy relates to the events of Syria and Ephraim at that time:

^{אבן עזרא, ישעיה ז:יד} והתימה מהאומרים שעל אלהיהם ידבר, והנה האות נתן לאחז ואותו נולד אחרי שנים רבות, ועוד שאמר ״כי בטרם ידע הנער טוב ורע תעזב האדמה״, והנה היתה ארץ אפרים גם דמשק עזובה בשנת שש לחזקיהו, והכתוב אמר ״מפני שני מלכיה.״

^{Ibn Ezra Isa 7:14} It is surprising that there are those who say that this is about their God, since the sign was given to Ahaz, and Jesus was born many years afterwards; besides, the prophet says, “For before the child shall know good and evil, the land shall be forsaken” (cf. Isa 7:16); but the countries of Ephraim and Syria were wasted in the sixth year of Hezekiah, and it is distinctly said “of whose two kings...” (v. 16).^[49]

All Jewish commentators agreed on this main point. There were some differences of opinion on the identity of the young woman and consequently the identity of “Immanuel.”^[50] But even if they did not agree on every detail, each medieval Jewish commentator interpreted this passage against the backdrop of the context presented in Isaiah 7–8.

As these three examples illustrate, while Christians believed that certain passages in the Hebrew Bible spoke of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus, Jews and Muslims who studied the Hebrew Bible did not agree. According to Jewish and Muslim readers, Israel’s scriptures did not speak of the “three-ness” of God, whereas they spoke clearly on God’s oneness.

Did Jesus Believe in the Trinity?

Both Jews and Muslims appealed to New Testament traditions about the historical Jesus to make the case that Jesus did not believe in the Trinity and that this doctrine arose at a later time. For example, Jewish scholar Profiat Duran (14^th century Christian Spain), in his Shame of the Gentiles (1397),^[51] observes that the Gospels and Epistles typically speak of “our Lord Jesus” or the “Son of God,” but not “our God Jesus.”^[52] Although the prologue of the Gospel of John ascribes divinity to Jesus through the Word, he argues, it makes no mention of the Holy Spirit and therefore fails to bear witness to the Trinity.^[53]

^{דוראן כלימת הגוים} ואמנם, איך שהיה מדיבור יואן, הנה יובן השניות לא השילוש, כי הוא לא זכר רוח הקודש כלל. וזה גם כן אחד מהמקומות אשר הטעה המטעים לייחס אלוהות לישו.

^{Duran, Shame of the Gentiles} In fact, as it appears in John’s discourse, one would conclude that there is a Duality, not a Trinity, because this passage makes no mention of the Holy Spirit at all. Even so, this is one of the passages that mislead the deceivers into attributing divinity to Jesus.^[54]

Muslim writers in particular (e.g., al-Jabbar, Ibn Hazm, al-Gafari) cite a number of passages from the New Testament to prove that Jesus did not claim to be divine. For example:

• Jesus says to the Devil, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him alone you shall serve” (Matt 4:10; cf. Luke 4:8);
• Jesus says the greatest commandment is “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mark 12:29; cf. Matt 22:37);
• Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except One, God” (Mark 10:18); and
• Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).^[55]

Such passages received significant attention both from Christian writers working out the doctrine of the Trinity and Jews and Muslims who criticized it.

A few Medieval Jews and Muslims attempted to answer the question of where the Trinity came from, if Jesus did not teach it. Profiat Duran, for example, argued that the writer of John’s Gospel was the first to associate Christ with God, and that the Trinity was created by the Church Fathers, notably Augustine and Jerome.^[56] Whereas Jesus and his immediate followers were simply misled, the damage caused by these later theologians was more serious:

^{דוראן כלימת הגוים} ישו הנוצרי ותלמידיו ושלוחיו אשר יקראו להם אפוסטולי אני קורא טועים לפי שטעו הם לבד ולא הגיעה מדרגתם אל שיטעו את זולתם כי אם מעט וזה לחסרונם. והבאים אחריהם ממדברי האומה הזאת והפיקחים אני קורא אותם מטעים, לפי שעם היותם טועים הגיעה מדרגתם להטעות את זולתם.

^{Duran, Shame of the Gentiles} The Christian Jesus, with his disciples and his messengers, whom they call “apostles,” I call “misled,” because they erred alone and did not go so far as to deceive anyone but themselves – except for a few, and this is to their discredit. But those who came after them from the deserts of this nation, especially their clever ones, I call “deceivers,” because, in addition to their being misled themselves, they went beyond this and deceived others besides themselves.^[57]

Al-Gafari contended that neither Jesus (the Messiah) nor his followers as reported in the New Testament said that the Messiah is True God, as the Christian Creed says:

The Messiah also said that he was greater than Jonah and greater than Solomon (Matt 12:41–42). Paul also said that Jesus was greater than Moses (Heb 3:3), and when [John] the Baptist baptized the Messiah, he said: “This is he of whom I said: He comes after me and he is mightier than I” (Mark 1:7, John 1:30; cf. Matt 3:11). Thus, we see neither the Apostles, nor John [the Baptist], nor Paul saying what the creed says, namely, that the Messiah is true God and that he created everything.^[58]

Rather, he suggests that the Creed was created to refute the heretical teachings of Arius during the time of the emperor Constantine:

Historians and those skilled in transmission mentioned that what prompted the early Christians to compose the creed...was that Arius, one of the early Christians, and his party believed in the oneness of the Creator, did not associate anything else with Him, and did not see in the Messiah what the [other] Christians saw, but rather Arius believed that the Messiah was [only] a prophet and a messenger, and that he was created, body and spirit.^[59]

Medieval Christian Writers in Defense of the Trinity

It would be impossible here to give a full account of medieval Christian arguments on behalf of the Trinity, but it is worth mentioning a few general points that explain why this doctrine made sense to Christians.

The first general point is that the doctrine of the Trinity does not commit the mathematical absurdity of claiming that three equals one, because the sense in which God is three differs from the sense in which God is one.

This leads to the second point, namely, that precise philosophical categories (especially Aristotelian) and specially defined technical terms (such as the Greek hypostasis, “substance”) were used to define the unique way in which God is one and three at the same time. What made the Trinity plausible for medieval Christians is best appreciated by immersing oneself in their philosophical arguments and paying careful attention to the subtle meanings assigned to key words in the particular writer’s language (whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, etc.).

A third general point is that the nature of God, including the nature of God as Trinity, was seen as a profound mystery that ultimately transcends our ability to understand it. When dealing with God, we should expect that sometimes we will not be able to grasp how two seemingly incompatible things can be true simultaneously. Christians believed that scriptural passages led them to confess the Trinity,^[60] which meant that it should be accepted as divinely revealed truth and should not be subordinated to human reason, even if it can be better understood through the use of reason.^[61]

Given this stance, rational objections to the Trinity raised by Jews and Muslims were unlikely to have much effect on Christian intellectuals of the Middle Ages, who were heirs to the patristic legacy of trinitarian exegesis and theology. Questions were raised and answers were provided in the spheres of biblical interpretation, history, philosophy, and theology.

In such discussions, social and political pressures played important roles in shaping how people believed and acted. Still, at the level of individual members of these communities, meaningful conversations no doubt took place between Jews or Muslims, whose backgrounds encouraged them to highlight objections to the Trinity, and Christians, whose backgrounds encouraged them to explain it as a doctrine and confess it as a belief.