bd Ss be Sg or cera) “ Eien ete bab 7 niet gifts rath ieee eieaeat Beas sect eirecee saad a Pout y: iieser : ty KS a rete x pa ghiecssts aa if poze i nad pipes ee 3 i i‘ ey eeaes =) act area! See eagle ren nat yet Sioa a eatstes CERARY OF PRINCES r. . ak “Eo. oGica, sews BT 111 .T53 Theophilus. Biblical Trinity vinih The Stes | ha Nae ¥ in God.” “On the other hand, Dr. Taylor of New Haven and Dr. Beecher of | Cinaiinats teach the distinct conscious- ness, intelligence, and will, of each of the three persons in the Godhead.) But at Andover, Professor Stuart assigns no meaning and knows no meaning to the word person, nor will he so much as venture to translate the definitions of person given in Latin by various learned and venerable theologians of Europe, from a conscious inability to under- stand thezr meaning. I cannot say precisely why Dr. Pond is so careful to in- terpose the word ‘‘ perfectly?’ in his caveat in behalf of ‘¢ Tyinitarians,’? who have ‘‘a thousand times’? made their disclaimer of three distinct sets of attributes for one God. Certainly that discreet word perfectly was not jostled in by accident ; and yet, however carefully it was chosen to pro- tect his caveat, it virtually neutralizes and abandons the disclaimer aide which it evidently meant to shelter the doctrine of tripersonality. That qualifying word is wholly out of place in relation to its subject,—distinct conscious- nesg, understanding, and will having no grades or shades, but being absolutely perfect, or else not being atall. As, however, the word was selected by the learned Professor as a careful guard, and as there was nothing to guard against but a perfectly distinct consciousness, understanding, and will, it is virtually an admission that there is, after all, among ‘‘ Trinitarians,’’ some distinct, some individual, some separate, some exclusively appropriate consciousness, un- derstanding, and will—a sort of incomplete and imperfect existence of those attributes of an individual in each of the persons. That select and snugly adjusted word ‘‘ per- fectly,” is a shrewd device, and an ingenious salvo both to the learned Doctor and his many Tripersonal friends ; for had he left out the intended qualification, and said outright, XV: \ f 4 ; \ Xvi A BIBLICAL TRINITY. . to distinguish genuine from spurious ‘‘ Trinitarians,’’ that the former ‘‘ have said a thousand times, that they use the term person, not as denoting a... . distinct consciousness, understanding, and will,’’? he would have denied to a ma- jority of his brother professors'and ministers in New Eng- land, now called orthodox, their title to be called ‘‘ Trini- tarians.”’ It is really difficult to imagine why Dr. Hodge is so shy of the doctrine of ‘‘ three consciousnesses, intelligences and wills in God.’?? Why should Ae who holds and teaches, as a cardinal truth, the doctrine of three persons in the God- head actually consulting and covenanting with each other, have any qualms about the doctrine of three sets of attri- butes in the Godhead—a complete set for each Person ? One would suppose that he would hasten to entertain it as his only relief from self-contradiction, unless he also sees as gross a self-contradiction in rejecting it. That less than two understandings and wills can counsel and covenant, is so ob- viously absurd, that no possible authority can warrant its be- lief. No evidence of a revelation can be so clear and com- plete, as the evidence of the falseness of such a proposition would be. ‘The reception of a revelation by a rational mind, in respect to truths or facts above reason but not con- flicting with it, depends on testimony ; but the proposition in hand is intuitively false. Testimony cannot change the conviction of its falseness, till it shall change the terms of the proposition itself. Every dictate of reason absolutely forbids the belief of it—even that reason by whose dictates we can only approximate to certainty by inductions from testimony. The absurdity is as gross in respect to an infi- nite, as to a finite nature. To think of doing away with the absurdity by interposing the consideration of infinitude, is of itself another gross absurdity ; as much so as it would be to think of doing away the quality of nonsense by alleg- ing its illimitable quantity. ~ LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XvVll The disclaimer of Dr. Hodge is more than strange—it is marvelous. That so accomplished a scholar and so well trained a thinker should not only misrepresent the fathers, ~~ but be willing to take refuge behind so flimsy and transpa-" rent a screen, is itself a mystery which the doctrine of ““ mystery’? is insufficient to explain. He knows full well, he cannot but know absolutely, and try to impose on him- self as he may, still he cannot help knowing that less than two understandings cannot cownsel, cannot covenant—that in- terchange of thought-must be the act of separate wnderstand- ings—that mutual stipulations and mutual conditions can be made and accepted only by, and can be thought of only in respect to, distinct and independent wills. Nor can he by any writhings of the mind free it from the certainty that the number of the conscrowsnesses must be equal to the num- ber of the understandings and wills. Acute and learned men may split metaphysics into invis- ibility, and twist words into all possible contortions, and do their utmost to vex common sense into a faith which it ab- hors ; but there is a spirit in man that delivers him from the meshes of metaphysical entanglements—-an understanding from the Lord, by which he clears his way out of the chaos in which scholastic words and phrases would leave him mazed and. confounded. I have a word to say in respect to a class of Tripersonal- ists, or rather, a class whe fraternize with orthodox Trinita- rians, retaining the word person but subscribing to it as a term of no meaning—wholly unintelligible. _ This is a great change in the treatment of a term which for so many cen- turies has been a watch-word in the church, and whose use has been insisted on, beth as a test and a defense of Gospel truth. Perhaps one of the mildest forms of setting forth its importance and necessity, is in the following, by Dr. South, who says, (Vol. I. Serm. 7,) ‘* A plurality of persons XV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. or personal subsistences in the Divine nature, is a great mystery, and so to be acknowledged by all who really are and profess themselves Christians.’? This comports sub- stantially with the Athanasian Creed: “ which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.’?—I say the change is great from the former veneration of the term, the care which had been given to define its meaning and the use. of its meaning ‘to keep off heretics,’”” to its present ex- hausted import and cold reception. They do not absolutely reject the term; they only absolve it from all meaning. They patiently acquiesce in its sound as a shibboleth ; though if they could have their own way without fretting their neighbors, they would prefer its disuse altogether. I cannot but regard it as evidence of real “ progress,”? that so large a class, including so many influential and ven- erable names, have got so far in advance of past generations and of their own former selves as to deny a meaning to that long revered and most practical term. It at least proves their conviction that to assign to it a definite meaning, would involve in absurdity any who should venture to declare lis signification. Such a denial 1 call progress, because it abandons the old theological stopping-place, and leaves the mind free to take its course out of the region of contradic- tions into the domain of homogeneous truth. This denial is, virtually, a condemnation of the past, and as such, it opens the door of hope for the future. ans I know it is thought by some, whose opinions in such mat- ters are entitled to much respect, that Dr. Emmons made, or at least sanctioned an innovation on the stereotyped ortho- doxy of the church catholic, when he said, ‘‘ We have as clear an idea of these three Divine Persons as of three hu- man persons. ‘There is no mystery in the personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though there ig @ pro- found mystery in their being one God.’ But, to my _* Works, vol. IV. p. 125. | Ppa ee ee ae eth Sale 8 LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XIX view, this is anything but a novelty. It seems to me to be rather a statement, in his own clear way, of an old and fa- milar view of the subject. This, if I mistake not, is man-_ ifest from the definitions of the term person as given by some of the most learned and acute of his Transatlantic predecessors at different periods from the time of the Refor- mation, and who themselves were no more explicit than the Nicene and Athanasian fathers meant to be. Their difficul- ty was not in defining what person means, but in reconciling their definitions of it with the doctrine of the Divine unity— just the same difficulty which made Emmons pause before his own ‘‘ profound mystery.’? As the term person, in ref- ‘erence to man, signifies the individuality of a human being, so Emmons, in common with the older theologians referred to, uses the term, in-reference to either the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, to express the individuality of a Divine being—the ‘¢ profound mystery’’ of which is, in making three Divine individuals but one Divine individual. There was no ob- scurity in the term as referring to the three, severally. The whole trouble was in harmonizing contradictions in terms— in making unity of plurality—in reducing three ‘‘ distinct”? and ‘‘ separate’? objects of contemplation, each having all Divine attributes, to one sole object having neither more nor less than precisely the same attributes. This is indeed a “¢ yrofound mystery,’’ and must remain a matter of wonder till, in spite of creeds, councils, and spiritual faggots, the mind plucks up courage to see and reject contradictions and absurdities. But, no matter in what difficulty or inconsistency a defi- nition of the term person may involve some other separate statement, as a defination itis independent of that statement, and in its own special application is unmysterious and easily intelligible—as much so as if applied to the mythological Ju- piter, Mercury, or Minerva, of the Greeks. Emmons used xX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. the term person substantially as does Locke, when he defines person as ‘‘ a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same think- ing thing at different times and places.””* That Emmons does, in fact, harmonize with the highest orthodoxly Trini- tarian authorities of a more reverend date than his alleged innovation, is, I think, manifest from the following defini- tions of the term person which I find, in Latin, collected in Professor Stuart’s learned and valuable Miscellanies, (p. 60. ) with which many more might be cited not less precise and intelligible. Melancthon: ‘* An individual substance, intelligent, in- communicable, not sustained’in another nature.”’ Buddaeus: ‘‘ A single substance, complete, incommuni- cable, not sustained by another person.?? = * ' Morus: ‘‘ A being by itself [ens per se], that under- stands and acts with intelligence.”’ Reinhard: ‘* An individual being [individuum] of an incomplete subsistence, acting freely of itself, and partaking [independently] of Divine perfections.”? Gerhard: ‘* An individual substance, intelligent, incom- municable, that is not sustained in another, or by another.’ Zanchius: ‘‘ The Divine essence itself distinguished by its own mode of subsisting.’’ Turretin: ‘‘ The word person is properly a concrete, not an abstract term, that denotes, besides the form that is per- sonality, the bemg [subjectum] also, with the form from which it takes its name.’? Calvin: ‘‘ A subsistence in the essence of God, which, though related to others, is nevertheless distinguished by an incommunicable property [an ownership that cannot be an- other’s].”? dee Perhaps, as I make no pretensions to critical acumen in any language, I should apologize for presuming to translate * Essay on the Human Understanding, Book II. ch. 27. LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. | XX1 what the very learned Professor, to whose Miscellanies I am indebted, so modestly declines giving to the English reader, on the principle that, ‘‘ to translate implies an understand- ing of what one professes to represent in another language. ??— I may not have done exact justice to every word of the original definitions, though I think the main thoughts are represented with all the precision which the case requires. I confess that I have had much less difficulty in finding ac- credited words in our own language corresponding to the original Latin of these acute technical fathers, than in match- ing what is plain in their definitions with what is as plain in their contradictions of them. And what do those definitions really and plainly teach ? Melancthon, the accomplished scholar and theologian, and the friend and coadjutor of Luther may, as respects the Protestants, be considered as representing the period of the Reformation. In his definition, given to discriminate each person from his divine Coéqual, and, also, from the united Godhead, we are taught that each person is an individual substance, that each individual substance hag its own intelli- gence, that each is communicable, and that neither person has any nature but his own. All this is directly taught or clearly implied in the definition by Melancthon. How many dntellzgences are there in three persons, each of which is an individual substance having its own intelligence’? The rest of those masters, described by Professor Stuart as *‘ leading theologians on the continent of Europe,’ taught by their various defining terms, that each person is an indi- vidual substance—each a being by itself [ens per se]—an intelligent individual being—a single, complete, self-sus- tained substance—a being that acts with understanding—an individual free agent having divine perfections—each the divine essence itself in its own mode of subsisting—a sub- sistence, in the Divine essence, which is only related to other sghaistaneeas in the Divine essence, each subsistence XXil A BIBLICAL TRINITY. being wholly distinct from any other. If, then, each person is, by itself, an intelligent free agent, and there are three such persons, each being individually and distinctly an in- telligent free agent, and if each has separately all divine perfections, what is such language good for but to unbrain those who use it, if there are not three sets of attributes, one to each person or being? If three persons have sever- ally and individually complete divine attributes, can either of them be other than a God by himself ?—and if there are three such persons, each a God by himself, then the number of Gods may be ascertained by counting on one’s fingers. Whatever else the ‘‘ leading theologians’’ may have taught elsewhere, or whatever incongruity may attach to the definitions themselves, and whatever care or pains may be taken to condense, confound, or unite three such persons into one being, the attempt is at once abhorrent to language and to common sense. You have very justly taken notice of Dr. Pond, who fig- ures considerably in the concerted alarm of ‘‘ heresy,’’ now ringing in the ears of the church. He is certainly among the most valiant defenders of what he regards as ‘‘ the good old way.’? His views are entitled to consideration as haying been collated from those of the worthies who in older times have given law to the church, and thus provided an apology for the saying, ‘‘ So the church has always under- stood the subject.”? Some of his views of the old triperson- al theory seem to be not far, if at all, out of the way. Most real Tripersonalists will recognize in the following statement of the learned Professor at Bangor, the real ‘tradition of the elders.”? It runs thus: ‘‘ The Unitarian believes in one God in one Person; while the Trinitarian believes in one God in three Persons. And those three must be, not fictitious, dramatic, representative Persons, like the characters in a romance or a play; but real, swb- — stantial, eternal distinctions in the one undivided essence of LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXL the Godhead.’’* In this view Dr. P. seems to harmonize with the illustrious Turretin, who more briefly says, thas “the term person is not See but concrete.”? Allow me to express to you a few thoughts suggested by the foregoing statement of Dr. P., in addition to your own remarks on the same passage. If the term person denotes a ‘‘real distinction,’’ it of course denotes some property, attribute, or quality excluded from that, from which it is really distinct ; or, in other words, its attributes must be ex- clusively its own—they must be the attributes of one person, as contradistinguished from those of any other person.—lIf this ‘‘ real’’ distinction is also ‘‘ swbstantzal,’’ then does it of course include an essence or a nature which is excluded from that from which it is realiy and substantially distinct ; for whatever is substantially distinct from anything else, must be se in nature or essence.—And if this real and sub- stantial distinction is also ‘‘ eternad,’’ then is there some at- tribute, nature, or essence eternally included in such a dis- tinction, which is eternally excluded from that from which it is so distinguished : for, whatever is really, substantially, and eternally included in any object, whether called being, person, or what not, can be nothing more, less, or else, than some attribute, nature, or essence of that object.—For, not only can nothing be conceived of as pertaining to or inhering in any object whatever, that is not its attribute, nature, or essence, but the supposition to the contrary is absurd, as both confounding and denying the proper, definite, and in- telligible use of ‘the terms employed. But if any should object that there may be a ‘‘ redatzon’? distinct from attribute, nature, or essence, and that the term person is~used as expressive uf such relation, then would it be proper to consider what is included in, or signi- fied by, that relation. And, evidently, it must mean one of two things, viz., either a relation of a part to the whole * Pond’s Review of Bushnell. XXIV A BIBLICAL TRINITY. of one general object, of which it is only a part, or a rela- tion of one entire object to another distinct from itself, and in no true and proper sense identical with itself: for, by the term, relationship excludes identity, and is not itself predicable of any object in respect to itself. - If, then, the term person is used as expressive of a rela- tion of part to part, of the same general object, then neither of the parts so denoted can be correctly spoken of as having the complete and entire attributes, nature, or essence of that object: for, whatever is only a part, however large the fraction, cannot be, or be properly regarded as, the whole, or as, in any true and intelligible sense, egual to the whole. And if this safe and self-evident principle is applied to either person in the Trinity, that person, whether first, second, or third, cannot be a perfect, complete, and entire God, noth- ing being absent which truly and properly belongs to the real, substantial, and eternal God who is adored as having every perfection. But if the only alternative is assumed, viz., that the re- lation signified by person, is the relation, not of part to part, but of a whole to some other whole, or in other words, if such relation be that of one complete, entire, perfect, and distinct object—no matter what its name-—to another object complete, entire, perfect, and distinct, then, however loose- ly used, arbitrarily confounded, or firmly stereotyped our terms may be, still the fact is clear and demonstrable, that these distinct objects, however named, are distinct Bernes, each possessing whatever is comprehended in any communi- cable or intelligible idea of beeng, essence, or substance. And if the principle just stated be applied to a real, sub- stantial, and eternally distinct person, then such term, though never so many individuals, for never so long a time, deny or seck to evade its true and proper force, can mean nothing else than a real, substantial, eternal, and eternally LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXV distinct God—a doctrine which excludes and virtually de- nies the doctrine of essential wnity in the Godhead. The notion that a general consent of the church, for many centuries, to a dogma, is reliable evidence of its truth, is unsubstantial and quite unworthy to be harbored in places where it has been entertained with special honors. Some infirmity of the dogma to be sustained “by it, may best account for the pertinacity and gravity with which its claim to confidence is sometimes urged. So important, if not indispensable, has this assumed evidence been considered, that it has been found expedient to prop it up by another assumption as rash as the former is extravagant. This second assumption, auxiliary to the first, is, that the Divine wisdom and goodness are too provident for the honor and welfare of the church to permit its long continuance in any gross error. Now, to say nothing of the incompetency of human dis- cretion, though ever so kindly disposed, to predetermine the best rethiod of God’s providence instead of watching its actual development,—to say nothing of the long night which once confessedly brooded over the church itself, so that hardly a glimpse of its proper glory was discernible through the thick and settled gloom,—leaving out of sight these and other objections to the theory of Ged’s restricted wisdom and goodness in behalf of the church, and returning to the inde- pendent assumption that the long harmony of the church, respecting any one of its tenets is sufficient evidence of its truth ; what is there, I would ask, in the nature, circum- stances, or history of man, to warrant a reliance on such proof ? For myself, I freely ponte that I have not as yet dis- covered anything in human nature, its condition or its history that will allow me to take, on mere trust; any dogma which may have been entertained by the general and unin- terrupted consent of the church from the era, or from — XXVI ; A BIBLICAL TRINITY. beyond the era of the authorative Council of Nice, If the presumption seems strong that such numbers could hardly have harmonized for so many centuries in their credence of error, that presumption should not so fill the mind as to ~ leave no room for the admission of absolute conflicting proof. Though the presumption be as reasonable as a presumption can be, and though I may greatly respect it while it is a presumption, I am bound to respect much more the decision of my own understanding, on a due consideration of all the evidence of the truth or falseness of any proposition that lies within the scope of my discernment. But it is a matter of interesting and profitable inquiry, as to what causes give longevity to error among men, from which order of beings the church on earth has not clean escaped. It is not questioned that, for a brzef period, error, great error, may spread wide in the church. The only difficulty seems to be about its long continuance on the broad scale of its admitted diffusion. As revelation assigns no definite limit as to the number over whom religious error may prevail, any more than to secular error ; so it assigns no definite limit as to the duration of either this or that, both of which are sometimes much blended and mutually-influen- tial in their diffusion and continuance. One would suppose that the admission, so freely made, as to the prevalence of error for a time, would make less incredible the idea of its long continuance, since, as a gene- ral rule, it is quite as easy to keep out as to root out mischief of any kind. If human reason had liberty to pry mto such matters as the wisest and best methods of Divine providence, I do not see why it should not quite as readily come to the conclusion that it would be wiser and better to prevent error from spreading over the church at all, than to eradicate it after allowing it to work mischief for a season, whether longer or shorter. But this is beyond our depth, and instead of intruding our wisdom and goodness where they do not LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXVii appear to be wanted, it seems wiser to keep within our more evident province, and learn, from abundant sources of infor- mation, that physical disease is not more transmissible from parent to child, than is error, whether secular or religious, from age to age. The oeld’s experience is full of proof, that in matters: of faith, possesszon is a title hard-to be disturbed, and that the longer it continues, the stronger it grows. This very plain matter of fact comes of a salutary principle i in the nature of man, without which no truth could gain a foothold; for eihone it, there could be no such thing as character— nothing to create the expectation that the man of to-day, will be the man of to-morrow. The habits of a community, whether’a church or a nation, are, like those of an individual, self-perpetuating. How Ios the distinctive traits of. the Roman and the Greek churches have propagated themselves. In like manner did the Lutherans in Germany and the Cal- Vinists in Switzerland preserve what was peculiar to each, as well as what was common to both. Had Congregation- alism taken possession of Scotland under the auspices of Knox, and Presbyterianism, of New-England, by consent of the Pilgrims, their ecclesiastical polity had this day been the reverse of what it is. The distinct character of the Jewish faith at this hour, is the legitimate offspring of the faith established at Horeb more than three thousand years 0. : ; But if the assumption that the long prevalence of a doctrine is a test of its truth, should be ventured upon with great modesty, if at all; a little prudence might be a saving grace to any who is tempted to assume the* fact that the church has always maintained the doctrine in question. To claim that they only are ‘‘ the church’? who maintain that ‘doctrme, would savor much more of arrogance than of argu- ment; while it would not be over discreet to affirm that XXVIll A BIBLICAL TRINITY. even they have maintained their constant faith by the - cogency or persuasion of the gospel. But this unbroken unity, or this fixed ascendeney, so much vaunted of—what is it? and who has seen it? History has no record of the fact, though scriveners are not wanting impatient to record it. A single sect denying the doctrine of tripersonality, but embarrassed by extraneous errors and consequent divisions, all but shifted the general current of faith into their channel. The theological battle fought at Nice, left tripersonality master of the field; and who does not know that the first victory is strength for future conquest ? A single victory at Actium, which a random arrow might have turned in favor of Antony, placed a long line of Ceesars on the throne, and gave a current te human affairs which has never ceased to flow. Unless the heathen saying, that ‘‘the conqueror is Heayen’s favorite’? has become a gospel truth, triumph at Nice is but small evidence for the doctrine of the victors. But when has the Nicene faith kept the undisputed mastery by its own proper force, independently of secular power and carnal weapons? From that day to this, when- ever there has been an approximation to free mquiry, that faith has been resisted by great and good men. And even the triumph at Nice was only the successful beginning of a campaign in which victory hovered alternately over the * yival standards, either in the Eastern or Western parts of the empire, -for nearly two hundred years. ' For a consider- able time, the two parties by turns had possession of the imperial throne, and in no part of the long controversy can “it be safely said, that ‘‘the church’? won the victory by fhe power of truth in a fair and open field. Ecclesiastical ambition, rivalry, and intrigue, aided by the caprice or the necessities of civil despotism, had too large a share, during all that period of darkness and storm, in the management of spiritual affairs, to authorize a prescriptive claim in behalf LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XX1X of any doctrine then having the supremacy. Perhaps it is enough here to say, that, while in the Eastern parts of the empire the supremacy of faith was restless till a combination of unspiritual influences settled the controversy in favor of the tripersonalists ; their opponents prevailed in the West, till, near the close of the fifth century, the orthodox Clovis reversed the creed.of that part of the empire. In Northern Africa, the Anti-Nicene faith was routed by the army of Belisarius, near the middle of the sixth century, and among the Lombards it was maintained till after the middle of the seventh. Thus after having been banished, in one quarter by decrees of Councils, and put to the sword in another by imperial armies, and after having been, by turns, cherished and persecuted by powerful sovereigns as whim or caprice ruled the hour, it was hushed for several centuries of igno- rance and despotism. : It is not out of place, in relation to your general subject, to make a few remarks respecting looseness of terms and figurative language. The meaning of words must be more intelligible, more agreed upon, and more fixed, among the learned who in fact have so much control over faith and fellowship. ‘Theological terms play fast and loose even in the professors chair, as systems or changes of systems re- quire. Of this fact the term person has had sad experience, considering the assent to its import which has been go strenuously insisted on as a condition of salvation. It has had this meaning, or that, or the other, or none at all, ag the exigency of controversy required. It has been used ag a hiding-place for logic to dodge under when afraid of being hit, while it has served as a battery when opposition to it was unskilfully managed. Its vagueness has had for many, a bewitching charm. Without telling, or being so irreve- -rent as to suspect what it means, they haye been delighted to get so far as to say, with great confidence, ‘‘ It means XXX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. something, we cannot tell what, that lays a foundation for : a mysterious something else.’’ Now, whatever pleasure or comfort this mystification of language may have afforded in times gone by, I think the symptoms are not equivocal, that the next generation, if not its predecessor, will not abide it. The pleasure of such an unsuspected meaning is not so rational as that of certain ad- mirers of Junius, of whom Johnson so sarcastically said, ‘< They who cannot understand his meaning, hope he means rebellion.’ Looseness of language and facility of belief, are imstruc- tively hit off by the same vigorous author, in his larger Dictionary, under the verb to worm, which he defines :— ‘6 To extract something, nobody knows what, from under a dog’s tongue, to prevent him, nobody knows why, from running mad.’?—There is much in science, of all sorts, theological by no means excepted, that might be much im- proved, if their professors would take a hint from the casual, but sagacious lesson of the great English lexicographer.— Said the late Chancellor Kent, very characteristically to a member of the bar, ‘‘ Do you think these ministers believe the Bible, as you and I believe Blackstone? I don’t be- lieve they do.”’ That language strictly applicable to not less than two be- ings, may be applied figuratively to but one being, without violence to the understanding, all know, for all so apply it. When one tells another, ‘‘ I said to myself so and so,’’— ‘¢ When I was young, I made a covenant with myself,’’— ‘¢ T have been communing intimately with myself,’’—or ‘‘ 1 had a long struggle with myself, but I finally conquered 37” _—when one uses such language, strictly implying two vol- untary agents, nobody misapprehends it. But if he should affirm that cither of, those expressive statements is literally and philosophically true, and that there was really a com- munion of two intelligences, that one of them did really LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXX1 speak to the other, or that there was, in reality, such a communion of distinct beings, or such a conflict of two vol- untary agents, the one of which mastered the other, hig so saying, if it did not prove him to be literally ‘‘ beside him- self,’ would prove him either false or insane. So, also, was it a natural and forcible way which Paul took to give instruction respecting the exercises of one and the same individual soul, to speak of them as the conduct of two distinct men, each having his own separate conscious- ness, understanding, and will—two distinct beings of oppo- site characters, in earnest conflict with each other, the one with a carnal mind, and the other with a spiritual mind, continually warring with each other, and each in turn vic- torious: and so well did Paul sustain the figure, as to lay on one all the blame of misconduct, except as he was insti- gated by the Evil Spirit; and to bestow on the other all the praise of doing well, except as he was prompted by the Holy Spirit. But there is a limit beyond which it will not do to crowd these bold metaphors, though they often are pushed far over _ that boundary into the region of the wildest and most gro- tesque religious fancies. The limit in one language may not always be the limit in another, as a literal translation of one sometimes has a meaning in its new form, which did not belong to it in the original. The translation of words is not always the translation of ideas. Figures of speech that were safe in Judea without note or comment, may be dangerous elsewhere without a skillful and wary interpreter. The genius of a language may be as peculiar in its meaning as in its structure. A Chinese state-paper, so rhapsodical when literally rendered to an English ear, may have much Jess flightiness at home ; and a sensible Chinese might look | somewhat skeptical at an Englishman, who, in regard to shame and surprise, should tell him by a literal version, that he was mortified at one time and thunderstruck at an- XXX A BIBLICAL TRINITY. other, ‘¢ The Celestial Empire,’? a name that seems so yain and boastful, like that of ‘‘ The Sublime Porte,’’ may mean but little if any more where it belongs than ‘* Great Britain”? does here ; the term Celestial denoting, perhaps, only what is comparatively high—elevation, dignity, or greatness : and the pompous titles of the Emperor of China may not seem more flatulent in Europe, than the title of 6 His Serene Highness’? denoting some petty prince, or than that of ‘¢ The High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands,”’ would seem to a na- tive of the Celestial Empire. A want of regard to, or knowledge of the genius of the Hebrew language has made sad work both with the science of theology and the charity of Christian churches. The luxuriant poetry of Oriental prophets has been trimmed into conformity with the severe and staid philosophy of English prose; and the idioms which were learned in ancient Babylon, or at the feet of Gamaliel, or on the rude shore of the Galilean lake, have been Jiteralized into the languages of modern Europe, to be interpreted by the letter, to the killing of the life. In how many instances in the Bible, is plurality repre- sented as unity and unity as plurality. And with what freedom and boldness of expression are these representations carried out as if literally true. And in how many instan~ ces are contradictions of language used to convey emphasis of meaning. Much of the instruction given by Christ him- self, though unequaled in moral expression, is antithetical, -enigmatical, and, if strictly construed, either mysterious or absurd, where the plainest and most rational truths were in- tended to be deeply impressed on the minds of plain, unlet- tered men. Examples in abundance might be cited from the teachings of Christ, illustrative of this statement, but I will refer only to John 6: 48—58. ‘I am the bread of ie ey The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. . . «. Except ye eat LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXXlll the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have ne: life im: ows 3" For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. . . . He that eateth of this bread shall live forever.’? See the whole passage—a passage full of ‘* hard sayings,’’ (v. 60.) to hungry men who had come a weary distance by land and lake, for no other object than a miraculous meal of loaves and fishes. What if figurative language should be applied as literally to the disciples of Christ as it is to Christ himself? Into what delusions would it not carry such as should so apply it? Then would Christians be regarded as literally dwelling an God, and G'od in them, and they as being filled with all the fullness of G'od, so that their unity with God, he as their - Father and they as his divinely begotten sons, would be as multipersonal as the individualities so mingled and con- founded. : The representations so frequently made in the New Tes- tament, of the identity of the church and Christ’s body, and the boldness with which such statements are carried into detail, with specific appropriation of the constituent parts of his corporeal being—these numerous and definite statements of identity, illustrate the idiomatic genius of Jewish thought and language. ‘The words of the Savior to his disciples at the paschal supper, ‘‘ Take, eat; this is my body,’’ when carefully compared with and fortified by the previous words of Christ in John 6; 48—58, teach as plainly as words can teach, if literally taken, the identity of the unorganized, inert, passive, unleavened bread, with the visible, organized, animate, speaking and moving body of Jesus in whose hand was extended, not his other, but his identical self. This, says the Catholic, is a great mystery, but it is really so ; and while he adds, ‘‘ So the church has always understood ‘it,”’ he curses all who will not receive literally the words of Christ and the words of his apostles. But when Paul teaches, by authority of his miraculous XXX1V A BIBLICAL TRINITY. commission from the Savior, that the church is, also, Christ’s body, how plainly, and with what fullness, variety, and fre- quency of instruction does he endeavor to fix this important truth deep in the mind. Among the many ways in which he teaches the identity of the visible church with the other- wise invisible body of Christ, he says expressly, (1 Cor. 12: 27.) ‘‘ Ye are the body of Christ,’? and not only so, but also, ‘‘ members in particular.”’ But; as if this was not plain enough for the incredulity of such as would sperdt- walize his instruction, away from its literal and true mean- ing, he says, (Eph. 5: 30.) ‘¢ For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones :”? and, to cut short the maiter and leave no room for cavil, the apostle adds, (v. 32, ) ‘¢ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church ;’?—as much as to say, The mysteriousness of Christ’s human and divine natures is so profound and un- searchable, that to determine its possibilities or impossibili- ties, against a revelation from heaven, is arrogance and pre- sumption which should be humbled at once into absolute and uninquisitive submission. Such might be the logic of those who would interpret se- lect passages of Scripture by the letter, without regard to their want of harmony with other passages taken as literally, and without regard to their flat contradiction of self-evident truths, Men allow themselves to be misled by the mere fact of a difference in the nature of objects contemplated. In the case of the church, men know that it is not Christ’s body. Their senses and their individual consciousness put the matter out of question ; but when they come to consider spiritual and invisible objects, they give a latitude or a straitness to language, as the case may hapen, without the test of the senses or of consciousness to hinder them, and so men are taught, with solemn admonition, to be afraid of reason even in its Heaven-assigned province, and in those LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. ~ XXXV conclusions and intuitions of the mind which are as safe a guide as the senses or as consciousness itself. . It is quite uncertain when the tripersonal controversy which has so long yexed Christendom will come to an end, though it is very certain never to stop, till the charity of Christians shall become broader than are their creeds. So long as Christian fellowship is cramped by subscription to a formula of faith whose terms are either unmeaning, self- contradictory, or defiant to common sense ; so long will men, who value Christ’s ordinances and do not undervalue their own reason or the right of private judgment in matters of faith, be impatient of such trammels and be earnest to cast them off. How much self-darkening, how much hypocrisy, how much skepticism, how much strife, how much con- tempt for the church and for religion itself, have the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, with their countless creedlings, been responsible for, since the way of Christ and his apostles was abandoned for those idols of man’s device. There are three things which would help the church most blessedly, if technical and scholastic lords over God’s heri- tage would allow their subjects a breathing-spell for the ex- periment,—viz., reading the Bible with their own eyes, by its own light ;—allowing every one to conform his creed to the Bible, instead of compelling all to adjust the Bible to a creed ;—and restoring, in their spurit, the simple, compre- hensive conditions of discipleship and terms of communion which Christ made broad, and his apostles never narrowed. To fear that the gospel will go to wreck with the anchor which Christ provided for it, and by which it rode out the wild storms of the apostolic age, is want of confidence in the power of truth and the wisdom of its great Teacher. _ Shall all other truth be most energetic ang,most beneficent to human interests, when left free ; and that which concerns man’s highest welfare be weak, except in bondage? Never os XXXVI A BIBLICAL TRINITY. will the gospel be so mighty to save, as when its great power shall work unembarrassed by human restraints. But I must bring this long letter to a close. Had I sus- pected the length to which your book would have drawn it, I should hardly have had courage to begin. I know not how I can so well end it as by two remarkable lessons of candor, reflection and foresight, from John Robinson and Jonathan Edwards—that of the latter, a Resolution for himself ; and that of the former, his parting Advice to the Pilgrim Church. —‘* Resolved, that should I live to years, I will be impar- tial to hear the reasons of all pretended discoveries, and re- ceive them if rational, how long soever I have been used to another way of thinking.’’—When Edwards, in his twentieth year, wrote that resolution, he made an unconscious record of his greatness. Had he lived long enough to keep so dif- ficult a resolution, perhaps it would have been kept; and more probably by him than by any other man. Your book must hope for influence with those comparatively young; as there is no harder current to be resisted than that of the mind, when it has run long in any channel. Said Robinson, with the wisdom of a sage, the affection of a father, and the picty of a saint, to the little church at Leyden, about to embark for the wilds of America : *¢ Brethren,—We are now quickly to part from one an- other, and whether I may ever live to see your faces on earth any more, the God of heaven only knows; but whether the Lord has appointed that or no, I charge you before God and his blessed angels, that you follow me no farther than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘Tf God reveal anything to you, by any other instru- ment of his, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any trut by my ministry ; for I am verily persua- ded, the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a pe- LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. XXXVil riod in religion, and will go at present no farther than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw ; whatever part of his will our God has revealed to Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it: and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. ‘‘ This is @ misery much to be lamented ; for though they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they pen- etrated not into the whole counsel of God, but were they now living, would be as willing to embrace further light as that which they first received. I beseech you remember, it is an article of your church covenant, that you be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from the written word of God. Remember that, and every other article of your sacred covenant. But I must here withal exhort you to take heed what you receive as truth, examine it, consider it, and compare it with other scriptures of truth, before you receive it; for it is not pos- sille the Christian world showld come so lately out of such thick anti-christian darkness, and that perfection of knowl- edge should break forth at once.??* With abundant good will to yourself, and much to spare for your readers, I subscribe myself Respectfully, Yours, * Neal's Hist. Purit. Boston, 1817, p. 146. A cerha se ea Jeet Wie, EA A BIBLICAL TRINITY. CHAP ER Rirr. GOD REVEALED AS THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST. We know nothing of God, except as he has revealed himself to us in his works and in his word. This reve- lation has respect chiefly to the character and cedhdition of man as a rebel against God’s government, and to the work of his redemption. God has also given us some intimations respecting the revelation he hag made of himself to those intelligent beings who stand connected with man, as seeking his ruin or ministering to hig sal- vation ; and in respect to their character, condition and destiny. Otherwise, we know not in what aspects and relations he may have revealed himself to his subjects in other parts of his empire; nor is it necessary that we should know. Of God unrevealed—God in the abstract, we know nothing. aes In revealing himself to man, God has used various 1 18 A BIBLICAL TRINITY- appellative terms to designate himself, expressive of different attributes, or’ different capacities in which he acts toward men, or different -relations which he sus- tains to them. These terms are proper names of God, . used on all occasions to designate the Supreme Being, or having reference to particular occasions or classes of his actions, and presenting him to us in different aspects and relations. Thus, he is called Lord, Jehovah, a Judge, a Savior, a Sun, a Shield, a Rock, and the like. So likewise, the only living and true God has re- vealed himself to us as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, with specific reference to the work of man’s redemption. ‘The texts in which all these terms are mentioned in connection, are only three. The first +3 in Matt. 28 : 19—“‘ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”? The second ‘3 in 2 Cor. 18: 14—‘* The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all? The third is in 1 John 5 : '7—‘¢ For there are three that bear record in hea- yen, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.”? In the first of these passages, these names stand in what some have denominated “ the order of subsistence ;”’ though, it would seem, without any good reason for such a metaphysical theory. This passage is a com- mand requiring us to proclaim to the whole world the truths which the Bible reveals respecting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to introduce into the visible church such as appear cordially to receive these ee eS ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 19 truths ; which are the sum and substance of the Gos- pel. The second passage presents these names in a different order; putting the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Son, in the first place in the series. It contains an aspiration to God, that all the blessings which he can bestow on man through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, may rest on all those in whose behalf they are invoked. And it seems to teach us, that it is proper to address God in prayer, either as the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. The third passage men- tioned above, as an eminent biblical scholar has justly remarked, “if not proved to be spurious, is at least thrown into a state so doubtful, that no considerate inquirer would at present think of appealing to it as authority.’?* But though these three terms are not elsewhere men- tioned in connection, each one is so used by itself, as plainly to designate the true God. The passages in which they are found, reveal God in a three-fold capa- city, and in a three-fold relation to. men, with special reference to the work of redemption. ‘This is, pre- eminently, the aspect of the Godhead as revealed and presented to us in the Scriptures. Here it may be well to remark, that the word capa- city is used, as the best which occurs, to express the thought intended to be communicated. The word office does not express it. Character comes nearer to it, and may sometimes be used for the sake of variety. * Stuart on the Hebrews, Ist ed., vol. il. p. 315. 20 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ~ We mean by the word, what is meant when it is said of a man, that he acts in a private capacity; or, in a public capacity. More strictly, the meaning is that of the phrase—he acted as a private individual; or as a public officer. So Prof. Stuart says of Christ, that ‘Sit is in his mediatorial capacity that he acts as judge.’’* In this sense the word is used, when we speak of God as acting in different capacities. Accordingly, it is proposed to consider briefly the view which the Bible gives us of the Godhead, as desig- _ nated by the terms, the Father, the Son, and the. Holy Spirit. We do not purpose to set forth the inventions of metaphysical philosophy for Divine verity, as to the internal nature of the Supreme Being, in order to re- move apparent difficulties involved in what the Bible reveals to us of God, or to strengthen the evidence of his own testimony in the case,—for it adds nothing, ~ either as elucidation or as evidence,—but to confine ourselves to what is deemed the Scriptural view of God, as developed by his attributes, and in his rela- tions to us and the creation around us $ or, Tur GopHEAD AS REVEALED TO MAN. ‘I. God has revealed himself as the Father. The term is obviously taken from a well-known rela- tion among men, and as applied to God, approximates * Miscellanies, p. 124. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 21 in its meaning to what is denoted by this term, in that human relation. 1. The term Father as applied to God, has refer- _ ence to the origin of the human race, and designates him as the Author of thewr being. He was the original contriver, who formed the purpose of man’s existence — and created him in his own image—an intelligent, moral and immortal being, qualified to exercise a subordinate dominion over the inferior creation. Then God gaye him that dominion. | In like manner, the same term is s applied to fee m reference to his beloved Son, the man Christ Jesus. God was his Father. His conception was the result of @ supernatural Divine agency; ‘‘ therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.??—Luke 1 : 35. Then, God sent him forth among men as the Messiah, the Anointed of the Father, the Savior of the world. In this relation to God,— including other particulars yet to be noticed,— he was, according to Hebraistic idiom, “ the only be- gotten of the Father ;’’ that is, beloved and favored of _ God preéminently, as no other creature ever was. He is likewise, in a peculiar sense, the Father of his spiritual children; who have been renewed and sanctified by his word and Spirit. He is the Author of their spiritual life. In these several particulars, differing circumstantially but similar in the most im- portant respect—Divine authorship—God is appropri- ately denominated the Father. 2. He is so denominated, in reference to his provi- oD A BIBLICAL TRINITY. dential care of those whom he has created. He sustains them in being, with all their powers and susceptibili- ties, provides for the supply of their temporal wants, and exercises over them the needful providential care during the whole of their lives. All this. providential care and kindness are necessary to their comfort and preservation ; and in thus manifesting himself to men, he is their Father; that is, he acts in the capacity and relation of Father. 8. He is the Father of all men, inasmuch as he is their supreme Moral Governor. As a human father rightfully exercises moral government over his children, imparts to them his counsels and commands for the regulation of their conduct, disciplines them and admin-. isters to them variously, according to his views of their wants, dangers, duties, and deserts; so God, as the Father of the human race and of all intelligent crea- tures, is their supreme and rightful Moral Governor. Him they are bound to obey, and to him they are accountable for all their conduct. Acting in this capa- city, God gave a law to man for the regulation of his conduct, requiring certain things and forbidding others, on pain of his displeasure. If perfectly obedient to the law, men would have sustained to him the relation of loyal subjects, or obedient children, and been made perfectly happy. But man apostatized from God, and thus became a rebel, justly exposed to suffer the full penalty of -the violated law. On the occurrence of this event, God was bound by the rectitude of his character as Moral Governor, to maintain the authority of his A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 93 violated law, and, 50 doing, in the regular course of moral administration, to execute the penalty upon trans- gressors. A. Foreseeing eternally, that the result of man’s pro- bation while under law, would be, his fall and utter ruin; God acted in the capacity and with the compas- sion of a Father, in his purpose and provision for the — salvation of our race. Out of his great love to them — in their rebellion, he devised a way to effect their reconciliation to him, so as to reclaim them and make them happy without doing injury to his great kingdom. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.”—John 3:16. “That he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” —Rom. 3: 26. ‘“ According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”’— Eph. 3:11. This plan of mercy which God devised in eternity, he, when the occasion for its execution occurred, introduced into his moral government ; which how became, in respect to man, a government of proba- tion, with a system of means and agencies appropriate to this peculiar and gracious administration; and he is still carrying it forward to its completion. Accord- ingly, II. In the execution of his purpose to redeem man, the true and eternal God manifested himself in the flesh. In veference to this manifestation of himself for the purpose in question, the one God is denominated the Logos—the Revealer of the Godhead, who commu- 24 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. nicated with men in various ways on the subject of their salvation. The person thus manifested in the flesh, is called the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of man, Jesus Christ, ‘‘ who is God over all, blessed forever.”’ —Rom. 9: 5. It would seem that the manifestation of the Godhead by the Logos in the work of creation, was made with special reference to the development of the Divine attributes in the work of man’s redemption. It is said not only of the Logos, that ‘‘ all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made’ that was made ;”? but also of Christ the Son of God, that “‘ 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 before all things, and by him all things consist.’’—Col. 1:16,17. “ By him (e» avr) were all things cre- ated’’—by him as the Logos—as God who, when Christ was on earth, dwelt in him ; which will be more particularly noticed hereafter. ‘‘ All things were created by him.’’—(di atrév.) These two expressions may both denote the same thing, and refer to him as the efficient cause—as the Logos. But the change of the proposition, (e” into dre,) in the latter clause of the same verse, seems to render it susceptible of a different meaning : ‘ All things were created on his account and in reference to his work, as Messiah.’’ And whether the latter interpretation should not be given in both cases, will admit of a serious question ; for, the fact A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 95 that creation was performed with that reference, seems to be clearly revealed. They were also created “for him ”’—for his glory—for the manifestation of the Divine perfections before the universe, in the work of redemption. ‘ And he is before all things,’’—an addi- tional circumstance, having reference to his Divine nature ;—“‘and by him (ev atre) all things consist”’—by him as God ; or, on his account as Messiah, all things have their being. These repetitions of thought, as Calvin says of Rom. 5 : 19, are “not tautology, but a necessary explanation of the preceding sentence.” Richard Watson says, in his Theological Institutes : (p. 163.) “ Who seeks the explication of natural phe- nomena in theological doctrines? But there is one view, in which even right views of the facts of nature depend upon proper views of the Godhead. All nature has a theological reason and a theological end.” But more of this hereafter. In Eph. 3 : 9-11, it is declared, that “God created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent, that now unto principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church, the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”? “God created all things by Jesus Christ ;?’ (5xé,) on his account—with reference to him and his work as Messiah—an interpretation which will presently be further illustrated. For what end was this work performed? “To the intent,”? fa, so that—to the end that. “ The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all 2 . —_ 26 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. things were made.’? (Barnes.) It was to become known by means of the church, purchased with the Redeemer’s blood; through the mercy and grace of God manifested in the redemption of man; by the means here employed for the actual recovery of his people from the ruins of the fall, and the salvation of the redeemed. Especially was this world created as the theater on which these transactions were to take place—where the Logos was to become incarnate— where the Son of God was to suffer and die, and to exhibit the wonders of redeeming love; and where the greatly diversified wisdom of God was to be set forth and made known to the universe. All that he has done, is doing, and is yet to do in this whole matter, is sn accordance with his eternal purpose which he formed *n Christ Jesus our Lord. And what is more worthy to be done, what more important in itself and to the universe, what more glorious to God, than the work of redemption by Jesus Christ? Why, then, should not God have had this in view as one great end, for which, according to his own declaration, he created the uni- verse? Why should it not have been done on account of Christ as our Redeemer, and with reference to his work for the salvation of men? What better reason can be given—what more glorious. end could the great Creator have proposed, in his great plan? So likewise, the passage in Heb. 1 : 2, considered an connection with the general subject on which the writer is just entering,—the Messiah and his appropriate work,—seems to have its meaning very distinctly A BIBLICAL TRINITY. | oF marked. Speaking of the Son, the apostle says, “ By whom also, he (God) made the worlds.” By whom, (dt 05) on whose account as Messiah—denoting the rea- son of the thing affirmed. This is sometimes the sense of the preposition dé, as in the following passages : Rom. 4 : 25—“* Who was delivered for (d«4, on account of) our offenses, and was raised again for (Océ, on ac- count of—for the sake of) our justification.” Rom. 5: 19—“ For as by (dé, on account of) one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by (dé, on account of) the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”? In the preceding verse, the same word is twice used in a similar sense. Rom. 8 : 3—“ For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through (5:4, on account of) the flesh.”? Rom. 14: 14—“] know and am persuaded by the Lord J esus, that there is nothing unclean of itself ;?? 01 abtov, on its own ac- count—for its own sake. The same preposition has a similar sense in other passages. And though its mean- ing has been claimed to be the occasion, yet it mani- festly denotes the reason of the thing spoken of, amounting to final cause, or ‘end. As other passages of Scripture teach us plainly, that in the work of crea- tion specific reference was had to the work of redemp- tion as one great end for which it was performed ; the meaning of the declaration, “by whom also he made the worlds,”’ fairly and naturally appears to be this : that “ God created the universe with special (we do not say exclusive) reference to the developments to be made of the Godhead in the work of redemption through the 28 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Messiah.”? This was the final cause*—a most im- portant end, or reason—for which God made the worlds. | | But it has been said that the above sense ‘‘ put upon dé cannot be defended by any examples sufficiently plain, and cogent enough to justify the admission of it? We do not, however, depend chiefly on any alleged general meaning of that preposition. Yet on a subject so entirely peculiar, as the one before us,—so unlike anything in common life or in heathen fable,— it is to be expected that language will be used m a sense. somewhat peculiar. But as Prof. Stuart says of the same preposition in one of the passages quoted above, (Rom. 5 : 19,) “We cannot here lay any stress on the preposition itself as denoting either for or against the usual idea of imputation, in the verse before us,’? but “ must come to the examination of the general nature of the whole phrase, [and we may add, what is elsewhere revealed on the same subject,| im order to get the satisfaction which is required ;’? so we say of the same preposition in Heb. 1 : 2,—we must examine ‘the general nature of the whole phrase,”’ in connection with the general nature of the subject which the apostle is discussing, and also, what is elsewhere revealed respecting God, the Messiah, and the works of creation and redemption. One word here, on the use of prepositions. Their meaning (as also that of other words) in a given case, * Since penning the above view of this passage, we notice that a similar interpretation is ascribed to Grotius. en Ts em re ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 29 is to be explained, and modificd if need be, by the general scope of the subject under discussion, or the nature of the case. Very different prepositions, and even those of opposite meanings, are used in Greek or English, or both, when the meaning of the phrase in both cases is the same. The meaning of these little. words is often determined almost wholly by the connec- tion in which they stand; and they frequently run into each other, in some of their meanings. In Rom. 3: 30, it is said; “Seeing it is one God, who shall justify the circumcision (@* wiotews) by faith, and the uncircumeision (dué 27s mlotews) through faith 3”? .both meaning exactly.the same thing. In Rom. 2 : 12, the preposition «y—2n, is used for under: “ Ags many as have sinned in the law?’—ev, under the law. The _ same thought, in Gal. 4: 4, 5, is twice expressed by -umo—under ; “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.’? So we say of some man: : ‘he did thus wnder these circumstances; or, he did thus in these circumstances.” “He said this upon oath 5 or, he said this under oath??—words of opposite raeaine: Now, if any one should attempt to build up theory growing out of the different and even opposite meanings of these prepositions, no one would be much the wiser for it. Too much dependence may be placed on the common meaning of a preposition, to the arbi- trary neglect of the general nature of the subject, or of the phrase, where it is found. Prof. Stuart says* * On the Hebrews. YV., ii. p. 813, Ist. ed. semper, 30 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. of the preposition (5:4) in the verse before us, in refer- ence to the cause of creation, ‘‘ whether principal or instrumental,’’—“ it is evident that nothing of impor- tance can depend, either in respect to Heb. 1: 2, or Eph. 3: 9, on the word d.” With this statement we feel perfectly satisfied. But if true, is any one competent to affirm that this preposition, in the verse before us, cannot denote the final cause, or end, for which God made the worlds? Who that duly considers the general scope of this part of the epistle, will ven- ture to take such ground? We do not say there is no difficulty connected with the interpretation above given of this passage; but is there no difficulty in giving it such a meaning as presents two truly distinct and yet united Divine Agents in the work of creation,—the Father as the original, actual, and efficient Author of the work, creating the worlds by his Son as the princi- pal, real, and efficient Agent in the same? The diffi- - culty with the latter interpretation, is immeasurably greater than with the former. But as before remarked, our chief dependence is not on the meaning of that preposition. We think the pas- sage should have the interpretation given to it above, particularly on account of the general scope of the writer ; whose object evidently is, to treat of the char- acter, office, and work of the Messiah, the Son of God and Savior of the world ; a fact worthy of particular attention. ‘‘ God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 81 his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.”? ‘Spoken by hig Son,”’ does not designate him as the Supreme God, but as the Messiah, in his proper office and work as such. His being “ appointed heir of all things,”? cannot refer to him in his proper Divinity as the Logos, but ag the Messiah, or Son of God; “ by whom also—on whose account—he made the worlds.”? The apostle goes on to speak of him; (v. 3.) “‘ who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person?—a form of expression similar to that in Col. 1:15; ‘who, (Christ) in his human nature, is the visible image of the invisible God.’’—(Bloomfield.) Having “thus referred to the Godhead that dwelt in Christ, the apostle speaks of him as “upholding all things by the word of his power ;”’ and then at once speaks of him again as the Messiah; who, ‘‘ when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”’? The sacred writer continues to speak of his character and office as Messiah—superior to the angels and greatly exalted above them, because he is the Son of God. (vs. 4-6.) “Let all the angels of God wor- ship him.’? “It is argued, indeed, that, because Christ is called the Son, he is higher than the angels, and worthy of their worship; that is, of their homage and reverence, as their superior and Lord; just as a king is entitled to the homage and reverence. of his subjects: for so the word zgocxvvew [worship] signifies in a multitude of places. But this is far from arguing that he is, for the same reason, God.” 382 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. The apostle continues, in vs. 8, 9—‘‘ But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever : a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy king- dom. ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated ini- quity ; therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ ‘* Here the Son is addressed by the title God; but the context shows that it is an official title, which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne, and a scepter ; and in y. 9, he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists im this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them ; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.”’* Prof. Knapp also remarks on this passage, (Ps. 45: 6, 7.) that “the name Elohim is sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, there- fore, necessarily prove that the person to whom it is here given, must be of the Divine nature.’? So of Ps. 110: 1, he says, “* My Lord (Messiah) is here distin- guished from Jehovah, and is not described as partici- pating in the Divine nature, but only in the Divine government, as far as he was constituted Messiah by God.?”—(Theol. p. 132.) Except in the three next verses (10-12), in which the apostle applies to Christ a passage taken from Ps. 102 : 24, 25, addressing him as Lord, or Jehovah, and * Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, p. 149. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Oey teaching us, as he has elsewhere done, that He who was manifested in the flesh as the Son of God, laid the foundation of the Earth—the sacred writer proceeds to speak of him as the Messiah, and of his appropriate work. ‘This is the general tenor of his remarks; with a view, indeed, to encourage those to whom he wrote to continue steadfast in the faith. We believe there are but ¢wo instances in the New Testament, in which it is declared that God created all things ‘‘ by Jesus Christ,”? on oy his Son.??* (Eph. 39s ¢ Hep. Dope ibis elsewhere said that they were created “ by the Logos,” or ‘‘ by Christ ;”? but not in connection with the general name God, as the agent. But we think it is never said in the Scriptures, that God created all things by the Logos. ‘ All things were made by him??—the Logos himself—as the original and efficient cause. The Logos, who is the true God, was the sole creator. But in the passage before us, Heb. 1 : 2, the creator is designated by the general term God. In both instances in which this peculiar form of expression occurs,— ‘* God created by him,’’—the context plainly shows that reference is not had to Christ or to the Son of God as the Logos,—to him in his Divine nature,—but simply as the “‘ mediator between God and‘men, the man Christ Jesus ;’’ (1 Tim. 2: 5.) in other words, to his _ Messiahship. This fact should have all due influence on the interpretation of the two passages, where the expression is found. For the reasons mentioned above, and with all due deference to the opinions of that learned and able 34 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. . critic, Bloomfield, we cannot agree with him, that the sense here given of the passage under consideration (Heb. 1 : 2) is ‘‘ inapposite ;”’ but consider it as strictly apposite—exactly appropriate to the subject and the circumstances where it is found. Much less is it: ‘ contradictory’? to what is said in John 1:3; ‘* All things were made by him:’’ for he of whom this is said is the Logos, not the Messiah; and it is not said that God made all things by the Logos. Nor is it ““ contradictory’? to 1 Cor. 8:6; ‘‘One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,’’—on whose account, or with reference to whose great work.as Messiah, all things have their being ;—“‘ and we by him’’—we are what we are as Christians, *‘ by”—through his work as Messiah. Such is the view which we are constrained to take of these several passages, ay the one most favored— nay, required by the context, and by the particular subject under consideration ; and as the only one which seems really consistent with the nature of the whole subject of the Godhead, as revealed in the Scriptures. Here is a new development of the Godhead, in the great work of redemption. It was not fully made and could not be fully understood, till the incarnation—till Christ appeared, suffered, died, and rose from the dead, and the terms of salvation were proposed and explained by the apostles of our Lord. But these terms were doubtless revealed before, with sufficient plainness to be understood and accepted by man; as was actually done by multitudes, before God was manifest in the flesh. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 85 Then, this new development was more clearly made and better understood; and it is still unfolding to the wonder and admiration of the universe. _ We are taught that it was, strictly and appropriately speaking, the Logos—the revealer of the Godhead in the works of creation and redemption—who was mani- fested in the flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. But then, Christ says repeatedly, that the Father dwelt in him, and was in him; not occasionally, as the Spirit of God visited the prophets; but abode perma- nently—“ the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the - work.?? Not the Father in distinction from the Logos, or the Holy Spirit; but simply, that God dwelt in him. It is elsewhere said, that ‘“‘ God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.’? So likewise, while Christ commonly speaks of the Divinity that was in him as the Father,—simply meaning God, who sustained to him the relation of Father,—by whose power his miracles were wrought; yet he elsewhere distinctly ascribes this work to the Holy Spirit. ‘If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.”? Matt. 12:28. And he immediately reminded his hearers, that in speaking against this work, they sinned “against the Holy Ghost.”? In Luke, the miracle is said to have been wrought “by the finger of God.”? So likewise, John the Baptist “saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him” (John 1: 32) ; thus designating him as the man in whom God dwelt. The apostle John likewise, in applying to Christ a ~ 86 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. passage quoted from Isaiah, designates him as the JeHovaH of the Old Testament; who, in the fullness of time, “‘ was manifest in the flesh :’’ ‘‘ These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory and spake of him.” (John 12:41. Isa. 6 : 9, 10.) ; Here, then, the Divinity that dwelt in Jesus is some- times spoken of as God, as Jehovah, as the Father, as the Logos, and as the Holy Spirit. It is plain, there- fore, that the Divinity who dwelt in Christ was not one distinction in the Godhead exclusive of two other dis- tinctions, but the whole Godhead. So the apostle Paul expressly declares it : ‘‘ In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;’? (Col. 2:9.) that is, really —truly. 'This language is as full and explicit as could well be imagined. It plainly teaches us that God—the whole Godhead, and not one distinction only—dwelt in the man Christ Jesus. That he was-‘‘ the Son of Man’’—a true and proper . man, having a human body and a human soul, is as evident as that Peter, James, or Paul was a real and proper man. ‘The evidence is the same, both in kind and degree. Produce the evidence that John was a man, and this same is evidence—sin only excepted— that Jesus wasaman. Reject the evidence of the one, and on the same ground you may reject the evidence of the other. That Jesus was truly a man, is, there- fore, not a theory—any more than the reader of these pages is a theory—but a revealed fact; as much so, ag that John was a man. And there is no more diffi- culty in understanding how God could: dwell in the A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 87 man Christ Jesus, with a human soul than without one; nor in him, more than in the Christian; who is a ‘temple,”? in which God ‘dwells and walks.” (1 Cor.3:16. 2Cor.6:16.) There is real mystery in this union and indwelling of the Godhead in the human nature of Christ; but not more than in the. union of soul and body in man; or in the indwelling of the Spirit in the Christian. They are facts, the mode of which is not to be explained, because not revealed. This Son of man was also the Son of God. “God . sent forth his Son, made of a woman,’’—formed of human nature,— made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law’? as he was. Gal. 4: 4, 5. As the result of a supernatural Divine agency, the child Jesus was conceived and born; grew up to man- hood; performed, by appointment of the Father, his mission as the Messiah; and “‘died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’? He was called the Son of God, not on account of his supreme Divinity,—for ‘‘his Sonship is not in his Divinity,’’—but on account of his miraculous conception, his resurrection from the dead, his office as king Messiah, and his being preemi- nently beloved and favored of God. More briefly ; “he is called the Son of man, on account of his form . and nature; and the Son of God, on account of the Divine favor shown him in the high distinction which he obtains.”’* Of the same import with Son-and only * Bib. Rep., Jan., 1840, p. 162. 38: A BIBLICAL TRINITY. begotten Son of God, is the phrase, “‘ who is in the bosom of the Father.’’—John 1:18. Observe, the lan- guage is not, who was in the bosom of the Father,”’ that is, before his incarnation, and who, when he came in the flesh, Jeft that bosom, as is sometimes said; for this language is not applied to the Logos, but to the Mes- siah. After “‘God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,’ the language became very appropriate ; and it is expressive of the strongest friendship, attachment, intimacy, and endearment ; applicable to Jesus as the Son of God, or the Messiah. It was this Son of God that was given—that was sent—that was born—that agonized in the garden— that died upon the cross—that was raised from the dead—that was exalted to the right hand of God—that was constituted head over all things to the church. ‘Nothing of all this can be predicated of Divinity, and it consequently shows that, as the Son of God, Jesus is a man.” In this man, God was manifested, and the fullness of the Godhead dwelt. This was the second manifestation and impersonation of the Godhead, in the work of man’s redemption. But that work was not yet complete. Though God had devised a plan for our salvation, and Christ had died to prepare the way for our reconciliation to him; * Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, p. 151; an able article on the Sonship of Christ, and well worth studying. The proprietor of that work would render a service to the church by publishing it in a separate volume. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 39 something yet remained, in order to accomplish the object. Man, after all the preparation that has been made, is still disinclined from God, and indisposed to return and become reconciled to him. An influence more than human—more than that of the truth alone —-is needful, in order to bring him back to God, and secure the end in view. III. Accordingly, to the regular means of moral administration under a government of law, God has superadded those peculiar Dwine operations—peculiar to man’s state of probation—which are needful to carry out his system of grace and complete the work of man’s salvation. ‘This agency is notexerted by him as Moral Governor sunply,—as the Administrator of law,—but in a new and peculiar capacity suited to the exigencies of the case. The agency in question is ascribed to the Hoxy Spirit. In the affairs of men, he who holds a certain office is commonly designated by some term more or less signi- ' ficant of the duty or service to be performed; as em- peror, governor, legislator, advocate, judge, and the like. In a similar manner, as already noticed, the supreme God is designated by different and appropriate names, ex- pressive of different attributes and relations, or different classes of his actions. It would seem that he is de- nominated the Holy Spirit, not only on account of his invisible and spiritual nature, but also on account of that peculiar, spiritual, and gracious agency, variously 40 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. exerted, which he puts forth in carrying on and carry- ing out the purposes of Christ’s redemption. The Scriptures teach us that the Holy Spirit’s agency is not confined to the work of individual salva- tion ;—which is sometimes spoken of as his only as well as his peculiar province ;—but, favoring and advancing in various ways the work of man’s redemption, it would seem that it extends to all things in which Divine agency is employed, in administering the spiritual and providential government of the Messiah. Unquestion- ably, as already noticed, this entire mundane system 1s managed in subserviency to the work of redemption ; and if so, then the question is, whether the Holy Spirit per- forms, as his appropriate work, all the Divine agency requisite in-carrying out God’s plan of mercy, or only a part of it; the rest bemg performed by God as moral governor simply,—as legal administrator,—or by God in Christ, i. e. the Messiah. The agency of the Spirit in the sanctification of men, is so important a part of his work, so indispensable, and holds so prominent a place in the Scriptures, that we often hear it spoken of as if it comprehended the whole of his agency. But the Bible ascribes to the Holy Spirit an agency far more extensive than what apper- tains to the conversion and subsequent sanctification of men, and therefore favors the idea of his universal agency—wherever Divine agency is exerted in the work of redemption, especially when favoring God’s people and kingdom—during the whole period of this world’s al a A BIBLICAL TRINITY. oe Re probation; whether the agent is designated by the name God, Jehovah, God the Father, Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God. In one instance, Jude 1, Christians are said to be ‘‘ sanctified. by God the Father.”? The meaning may be, that theig sanctification is the result of his plan of mercy by Jesus Christ. Surely it cannot be, that the Father, in distinction from the Spirit, is the sanctifier of men; but it would seem that the term is here used, as it sometimes is elsewhere, as a proper name, designating the true God—the Divine agent in the work of sanctification. Not only in the Old Testa- ment, but in the New, the distinctive appellation, Holy Spirit, is not always employed; it being deemed suf- ficient that the agency in such.case, be ascribed to the supreme God. Where it is important to be known, the nature of the subject ttself is a sufficient indication, in what capacity the Divine agent speaks, or acts ; if that common sense which God has given to man, is allowed to be the interpreter. Thus, Christians are often said to be “children of God,’? and “ born of God,’ when the Divine agent in their regeneration, is the Holy Spirit. They are elsewhere said to be “* born of the Spirit ;?? yet they are not on that account called children of the Spirit, but “children of God.” So likewise, on account of the agency ascribed to “ the Holy Ghost,”? in Luke 1 : 35, it was said to Mary the mother of Jesus ; ‘‘ therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The nature of the subject commonly shows in what sense the name is to be taken, when the agent is called 42, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. God, or the Father, or Jehovah, and not the Holy Spirit. This general view of the Spirit’s agency is very much in accordance with the views expressed by Prof. Knapp,* on the same subject. He says, ‘‘ Through- out the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, is represented as having an agency, sometimes mediate and sometimes immediate, in everything which - is done ; and to it everything great and eleyated— knowledge, talents, discoveries, arts, great actions, good governments, exemplary virtue and piety, &c., are uniformly ascribed. | ‘* The same mode of expression and representation is adopted in the New Testament, and was common among the first Christians.”? :.°. . 4.5... Some of these ‘‘ were distinguished from the rest by eminent abilities, _ talents, UCs keene A te Now all these various gifts, abilities, and talents of whatever sort, by which such persons became useful to the church, were ascribed to the Holy Spirit, derived and named from him; for in these various endowments the agency of this Divine codperating power was unusually conspicuous. These extraordinary qualifications are commonly called mira- culous gifts—the gift of teaching, of tongues, of heal- ng, of working miracles, &c.—all of which promoted the glory and advancement of Christianity.”? This is exactly in accordance with the general view which has been taken of the Spirit’s agency. | * Theology, p. 141, 2d Am. ed. ee ee eee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 43 Prof. Knapp does not, in these remarks, refer par- ticularly to any passages in the Old Testament ; appa- rently for the reason that they are so numerous and the truths he presents are so apparent on the sacred page, that he did not deem it necessary. However that may be, we shall refer to a few passages. There are many passages which speak of extraordinary wisdom or skill imparted to men by the Spirit of Jeho- vah, to qualify them the better for services ¢0 be per- formed for his worship and the benefit of his kingdom, and for the government and defense of his people. In Exodus 81: 1-11, it is said, “ Jehovah spake - unto Moses,”’?—but he who spake to ancient saints and pro- phets, was the Holy Spirit,—‘‘ saying, I have filled him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in all knowledge, and in all man- _ ner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.’? ‘‘ And in the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee.” Among those “that were wise-hearted,” and who shared in the wisdom thus given them, were “all the women that did spin with their hands.”’—(85 : 26.) Substantially the same thing is repeated in ch. 35: 30-35, and several other places. Here then, extra- ordinary skill in workmanship, secwlar in itself, but performed for the service of pebigion;, 1s ascribed to the agency of the Holy Spirit. ‘ 44. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Passing over other instances of the kind, a similar Divine agency—or rather, one suited to the exigencies of the case—is spoken of in reference to the judges that ruled over Israel. In Jud. 3:10, it is said: *¢ And the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him (Othniel the son of Kenaz), and he judged Israel and he went out to war, and Jehovah delivered Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand.’? So, in 6: 84; “The Spirit of Jehovah came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet.’’ Here the Spirit of Jehovah is spoken of as stirring men up to fight in behalf of his church and people, and giving them the victory over their enemies. In like manner, in 2 Chron. 20: 14—- 19, when three heathen tribes came out to fight against the king of Judah; “the Spirit of God came upon”? certain men, who said to all the people, ‘‘ Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s.”? The result was, *‘ they were smitten.””—(v. 22.) God’s people were victorious. In such cases, his interposing agency is gracious toward his people—favoring his church, though unfavorable toward her enemies, in their wicked courses. Moreover, God’s agency in his judgments among men, was often a manifestation or vindication of his holiness, justice, and supremacy—all tending to advance his kingdom and promote its welfare. In that Divine agency which was employed for the benefit of his ancient people, God often acted in that — peculiar relation which he sustained to them. Jehovah was temporal Head of the Hebrew Commonwealth— A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 45 King over his people Israel. Moses, Joshua, the judges, and the kings who were afterward anomted or set apart by God, were his vicegerents, and acted by his authority and according to his instructions; unless they revolted from him. In a subordinate sense, they were ‘ gods’’—acting under him, the supreme God. Solomon was called the son of God,—‘‘ my son,”’— on whom God bestowed peculiar favor. When he entered upon his duties as king of Israel, feeling his need of higher qualifications than he possessed, he prayed earnestly that God would bestow upon him a superior measure of wisdom; such as he needed. His request was granted in answer to prayer.—(1 Kings 3 : 6-13.) It was a special gift; and the fact that it was bestowed upon him as God’s vicegerent in the kingdom, does not prevent it from being properly regarded as the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, it is said, in unnumbered instances ; ‘‘ Jehovah spake to me ;”’ “¢ Jehovah said 5” “the word of Jehovah came to me,’’—declaring what He, who spake to the prophet, would do im the case. Doubtless we are to understand the speaker and the agent to be the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God. This is not theory; because “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” So the Spirit of Jehovah is said to come upon men; and Jehovah inclined the hearts of heathen kings to favor his people in external matters,—as the return from the captivity, the removal of obstacles out of their way, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reéstablishment of the temple 46 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. worship in Jerusalem. Yet these providential events were effected, “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.”,—Zech. 4:6, 7. Also, Ezra 1: 1-6; 6:22; 7 : 21-28. .. Even the necessary skill for rightly conducting the operations of husbandry, are referred to Divine inspiration. ‘ For his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him.’’—Isa. 28 : 23-26. That the Divine agency in this matter was not gracious, and had no connection with the prosperity of God’s people and kingdom, those may affirm who choose to do so.. It is well known that he promised his people, if obedient, temporal prosperity 5. ‘and such prosperity was then, an important method of showing his favor and of expressing his approbation. In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, the God who is spoken of as supreme ruler, during the period of this world’s probation, is Jehovah the Logos, who was manifest in the flesh. During this whole period, the government of God is administered with . reference to the work of Christ’s mediation. We sup- pose this is what is properly meant when it is said, that ‘Christ is the God of the Old Testament.’? The Messiah reigns. But that gracious agency which is employed in carrying out the Divine purposes relative to his kingdom, is to be referred to the Holy Spirit. To give a summary view of the subject,—though some of the particulars yet remain to be noticed,— the Holy Spirit’s agency is recognized, first, in the conviction, conversion, and subsequent sanctification of men. Secondly, in the miracles wrought by Christ A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 47 and his apostles. Thirdly, in the miraculous concep- tion and resurrection of Jesus. Fourthly, m the inspiration of ancient saints and prophets, and of the | apostles and first teachers of Christianity. Fifthly, in the exercise of a special providential care over his ancient people—instructing and admonishing them, chastising them for their sins, bringing them out of | captivity, punishing the enemies of his church for oppressing and warring against her ; and thus teaching them and others a lesson for the future. Sizxthly, in imparting extraordinary wisdom to various persons for religious purposes, and extraordinary spiritual gifts to many of the early Christians.—Here it may be proper to add, that in such passages as those which speak of the first Christians as “ filled with the Holy Ghost,”’ and “‘ full of the Holy Ghost,’—(Acts 2:4. 4:8. bres dpeOare Ot Don. 28 bi et t1 e ote ere 51.) we believe it will be found, on careful examination, that special reference is generally had to those extraor- dinary endowments—for knowledge, teaching, and act- ing—which were bestowed upon them, as important and necessary qualifications, in their circumstances, for the successful introduction of Christianity, its firm estab- lishment, and its greatest success in the world. They seem to have this meaning, rather than to refer to those gracious influences which are granted to alJ Christians for their sanctification, support under trials and aid in duty.—Seventhly, in aiding and rendering successful the work of evangelizing and converting the world, and in carefully watching over, triumphantly defending, and 43 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. gloriously advancing the best interests of the church of God, down to the end of time. And jinally,—as the Scriptures appear to teach us,—the agency of the Spirit is manifest in the resurrection of the dead; particularly, of the righteous. Of the resurrection of the wicked, little comparatively is ever said. The Holy Spirit raised up Christ from the dead. Aside from the evidence of this fact, which may be derived from the general nature of his agency in the work of redemption, there are several passages which seem plainly to teach it. And, as an eminent biblical scholar has somewhere remarked, ‘‘ one plain, explicit declaration of God is as good as a hundred.”? The passages referred to are these: Rom. 1: 38,4; 8:11. Pb 1 i209. At elim. 3.2 166.4) ti Pete 3.2, 18-1 Cor. 6:14. 2 Cor. 4:14. In the first of these passages, it is declared, that Christ was constituted the Son of David by the agency of human nature; and powerfully shown or incontestibly proved to be the Son of God, the Messiah, by the agency of the Holy Spirit in his resurrection from the dead.* Tholuck also remarks, that the phrase rendered “‘ Spirit of Holi- ness,’’ means in this place the same as ‘‘ Holy Spirit ;”’- in accordance with a well known Hebraistic idiom. In the second passage, it is said, ‘‘ But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, etc.’ Some commentators suppose, that by “ the Spirit of him,”? God the Father is meant. But we think it * For an able exposition of this passsge, see Bib. Rep. for Jan, 1840, by the Rev. Dr. Mayer, late of York, Penn. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 4y) needs no proof here, that He who “‘ dwells” in Christ- lans, sanctifying, aiding, and comforting them, is the Holy Spirit. If so, then, in order that the above inter- pretation may be the true one, ‘‘ the Spirit”? must mean the Holy Spirit ; and “ him,’ the Father in distinction from the Spirit—an interpretation quite too far-fetched and fanciful to be adopted ; for it would make the term, “the Spirit of him,’ denote éwo Divine agents—one, dwelling in the Christian; the other, raising up Jesus from the dead. But, by “‘the Spirit of him,’’ we are doubtless to understand, the Spirit of God—a common term for the Holy Spirit. If this is so,—and it is not easy to see how it can be otherwise,—then the Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. In 1 Pet. 3: 18, it is declared that Christ was ‘ put to death by the flesh, (by man,) but quickened (raised to life) by the Spirtt.”? The two nouns (cegxi et mveduare) rendered flesh and Spirit, are in the dative case of the agent after the passive participles there used, and should both have been rendered by, in our translation, instead of one being rendered in and the other by.* Macknight remarks on this passage; ‘“‘ As Christ was conceived . ... by the Holy Spirit, (Luke 1 : 85,) so he was raised from the dead by the same Spirit; on which account he is said, 1 Tim. 8 : 16, to have been ‘ justi- fied by the Spirit.’ ’? On this last text, he remarks : “¢ Jesus having been publicly put to death as a blas- phemer for calling himself the Son of God, he was * See Bib. Rep. Jan. 1840, pp. 169, 170. 3 50 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. justificd—acquitted from the crime of blasphemy, which was imputed to him by the chief priests and elders—and demonstrated to be the Son of God, through the operation of the Spirit, who raised him from the dead.” ‘To these passages may be added, Eph. 1:19, 20; in which the same powerful agency which is exerted (by the Holy Spirit) in the conversion and sanctification of men, was put forth in the resur- rection of Christ from the dead. And yet, the agent spoken of as doing all this, (v. 17,) is called “‘ the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” or glorious Father. Here it may be well to make one or two general remarks. The Divine agent is often designated by the general name God, and often too by a term denoting a particular relation ; when, in @ given case, the relation itself is not particularly referred to; the term being used simply as a proper name; the circumstances of the case deciding, if need be, in what character the Divine agent acts. Thus, in Jude 1, “sanctified by God the Father,” was not intended to teach us that the Father, in distinction from the Spirit, is the sanctifier of men ; but simply to refer the work to the agency of God. At the same time, the sanctifying influence here as- cribed to the Father, is the especial work of the Holy Spirit. As there is but one and the same God, though there are diversities of operations, he may be desig- ~ nated by one relative term,—Father, Eph. 1: 17,—and immediately described as acting im another character and relation,—Sanctifier, v. 19,—without any change 2 en ae A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 51 of name. The reason is, that the true God, who sustained to Christ the relation of Father, is the sanc- tifier of men; though in this capacity, he is more commonly denominated the Holy Spirit. Hence, too, apparently, the reason why the same act—creation or sanctification—is ascribed to God, sometimes under one name and sometimes under another; either name designating the true God. Long since the preceding paragraph was written, we have noticed a passage (which we here insert) in the writings of the beloved and venerated Evarts, in the near prospect of death ; the language of which is simi- lar to that of the apostle Paul, (Eph. 1 : 17-20,) referred to above: ‘“‘ While Mr. Evarts was on his way to Cuba, fully aware of the uncertain continuance of his life, he wrote as follows: ‘ Here, in this sea, I consecrate myself to Gop as my chief good ;—to him as my heavenly Father, infinitely kind and tender of his children ;—to him, as my kind and merciful Redeemer, by whose blood and merits alone I do hope for salvation ; —to him as the beneficent Renewer and Sanctifier of the saved.’ *’* Here, an eminent Christian in full view of death and ripe for heayen,—with the liveliest emotions toward God as the author of his salvation im the various departments of its work, breaks out from the fullness of his heart, in language exactly in accordance with that of the apostle just referred to, and in Acts 20: 28, * Allen’s Biog. and Hist. Dic., Art. Evarts Jeremiah. 52, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. noticed in the second chapter of this work. He was not in a state of mind to think of metaphysical distinc- tions of any sort; but he poured out the overflowings of a devout and grateful heart toward God, calling “him? his Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier—toward “him (God manifest in the flesh) by whose blood he hoped for salvation :’? his thoughts and affections sup- plying (as we have done, upon Acts 20 : 28,) what was needful in the case, without stopping for critical accu- racy, and having—without a thought of it—the exam- ple of the apostle, in two instances at least, for his mode of expression. But some critics are a little too apt to apply all their studied and philosophical accuracy to the popular language of the Scriptures. Thus it would seem that the Holy Spirit raised up Christ from the dead, as a part of his appropriate work in carrying out the purposes of redemption. And why is not the resurrection of the dead,—particularly of believers in Jesus, the true Messiah—the only and all-sufficient Savior of sinners,—also a part of his ap- propriate work ? : Macknight remarks on 1 Pet. 38: 18; ‘* Christ’s resurrection being an example as well as a proof of our resurrection, he was raised by the agency of the Spirit, perhaps to show that we shall be raised by the same power, exerted agreeably to the will of God and of Christ.2? The resurrection of the dead is sometimes ascribed to God, (Acts 26 : 8. 1 Cor. 6 : 14,) when it does not appear that the Father i is particularly intended. In like manner, God says; (Ezek. 36 : 265) “ A new eee ee ee ene A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 53 heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ;”? but we are not to understand this of the Father, rather than of the Spirit. So, ‘‘ every one that loveth is born of God”—not the Father, but the Spirit. In the same manner, when Christ says, (John 5: 21,) “‘ As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will ;”’ he may, as he often does, use the term Father as a proper name of God, who sustained to him the relation of Father: but this is not saying, distinctively, whether he raises the dead as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy Spirit—preparatory to the winding up of the scheme of redemption. In ch. 5 : 28, when he says, ** All that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ;’? it doubtless means, that by himself or by his authority,—which is one and the same thing,—some signal will be given, in close proximity to - which the dead will be raised by almighty power; and their resurrection will have reference to, or be on account of, the completion of his work as Messiah. In 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22, it is said, “‘ For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’ In other words, “* As it is the consequence, or on account of the first man’s trans- gression, that men die; so also, on account of the obedience of the man Christ Jesus, will there be a resurrection from the dead. For, as by means of Adam and his doings, all die; even so, by virtue of what Christ has done for the salvation of men, shall all his 54 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. followers be raised from the dead, to immortal life.”’ The all here, doubtless refers to those only who will be saved by his atonement; the comparison being drawn between those connected with Adam as the father of all men, on the one hand ; and those connected with Christ as the Savior of his redeemed ones, on the other. ‘This is evident, both from the preceding and following verses. In Rom. 8: 11, it is said; ‘‘ He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.’? Doddridge para- phrases it: ‘“‘He that so powerfully and gloriously raised up Christ from the dead, will also, in due time, quicken your mortal bodies, though corrupted and con- sumed in the grave, by the agency of that powerful Spirit which now dwelleth in you, and acts to quicken you in the divine life.’ Schleusner also gives the ’ Greek word here (Zworoujoer) the same sense ;* and he classes it with the same word in John 5: 21; 1 Cor. 15 : 22; and in 1 Tim. 6: 183 where. it evidently means, to raise from the dead. Some commentators give the passage the sense of spiritual quickening of our mortal bodies, in this life; assigning as a reason, that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as raising the dead,—the very question in debate,—which cannot, at the outset, be assumed. But ‘why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God’? the Holy Spirit ‘ should raise the dead ??? He igs omnipotent. He possesges al/ Divine * Lex. sub voce, No.8. In vitam revoco, vitam amissam restituo. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 55 attributes, and has a peculiar and most important part to act in carrying out the plan of redemption. If whatever Divine agency is needful in carrying on and completing this glorious work, is to be ascribed to the Spirit, then the resurrection of the dead would seem to be within the appropriate sphere of his agency. It appears to be the true sense of the Scriptures, that “God”? the Holy Spirit “hath both raised up the Lord”? Jesus, “and will azso raise up us by his own power,”’—(1 Cor. 6 : 14); and “ that he who raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus,?— on account of what Jesus has done for us, and in us, —‘‘and shall present us with you.”’—(2 Cor. 4: 14.) Moreover, the work of Divine preparation for the winding up of the great scheme of redemption, is not complete, until all men are raised up and assembled before the judgment seat. ‘‘ God shall raise the dead.’’? There is clearer and more abundant evidence that the agent in the work in question, is the Holy Spirit, than that it is the Father. Still, whether it is God acting as supreme Moral Governor, as God in Christ, or as the Holy Spirit in the performance of his appropriate work in redemption,—that episode in God’s moral administration,—is, indeed, a question not of the very first importance 5 seeing that, in each case, it is the true God who does it. We may, therefore, refer the resurrection of the dead to any one of these, with- out being heretical. ‘“‘ God shall raise the dead.” There, at least, we may safely leave the subject. This third development and impersonation of the 56 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Godhead in the work of the Holy Spirit, is peculiar to the system of grace adopted for the salvation of men. We say impersonation, because.God is personed forth in the work of the Holy Spirit, as he is in that of the Messiah and of the Father. The shade of thought running through the whole subject of the Spirit’s agency, is this; That 1r Is VARIOUSLY EXERTED, ac- cording to the exigencies of the case, IN ALL SUCH WAYS AS ARE NEEDFUL, for effectually aiding and perfecting the glorious work of man’s redemption. All such Divine agency as is peculiar to this work, the Scriptures seem to ascribe to the Holy Spirit. Thus, for the purpose of Christ’s mediation, has God revealed himself to man as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and in each of these develop- ments, he is the Supreme God. a sai P ye ee Se a Se a ee OTA? Wt Ree: THE COMMON THEORY OF THE TRINITY CONSIDERED. Havine taken a brief view of the Godhead as we find it revealed in the Scriptures, we shall now con- sider the question.— Whether this view of the subject recognizes three Persons in the very nature of the God- head itself, independently of all manifestation. This Biblical view does not recognize the F ather, Son, and Holy Spirit as ‘‘ three Persons,’’ in the tech- ‘nical sense of theological philosophy ; each one having his own distinct intellect, susceptibility, consciousness, and will—himself possessing a complete set of “ similar or equal attributes”? of a distinct and competent Divine agent ; for that is nothing less, and nothing else than sheer Tritheism ; whether admitted or denied; and in whatever manner they are considered as united together in one complex Being. This may be called the Trt- theistic form of the common theory of the Trinity. Nor does it recognize or deny the Monotheistic form of the common theory; namely: three personal, eter- nal, and unknown distinctions in the nature of the Godhead itself; each of them possessing a complete set of Divine attributes, common to them all. 3* 58 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. But the view which has been taken of the subject maintains, that, as it is presented in the Bible, each one of these—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit —is a Person, with his own “ distinctive peculiari- ties ;??—not a person in the Tritheistie sense, but in the Biblical sense ; i.e. each one is a different Imper- sonation of the Godhead from the other two—a real Person, and yet not one and the same Person with either of the others; and each one, the infinite and — eternal Jenovan, revealing himself to man in different aspects and relations, for the work of redemption. God the Father has his distinctive peculiarities. These are manifest in the development which he has made of himself as the Father. ‘‘ God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,’ has Ais distinctive peculiari- ties. They are developed in what he has done and suffered for the salvation of men. God the Holy Spirit has Ais distinctive peculiarities. They are manifested in that gracious agency which he exerts, wherever and in whatever form it is needed, in carrying out the pur- poses of Divine grace, through the atonement of Christ. Whatever things are revealed as peculiar to any one of these Persons, constitute his “distinctive peculiarities.” But the Divine attributes themselves are not distinc- ‘ tive, or peculiar. For, according to the T ritheistic form of the common theory, the attributes of the Father are ‘ similar or equal”? to those of the Son, and of the Spirit ; as well as “* distinct”? from them. And, ac- cording to the Monotheistic form of the common theory, they are “ numerically the same,” and therefore com- ee ee (ee ee oe A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 59 mon to the three Persons. So, in a Biblical Trinity without any theory, God is represented as possessed of all possible perfection, manifested by the same, and not by three sets of Divine attributes. For, the attributes of the Godhead are revealed as one set of attributes, infinite in all respects ; not as three sets of attributes, “ similar or equal.’? They are peculiar only in their - manifestation. Omnipotence is omnipotence ; ommi- science is omniscience ; infinite benevolence is infinite benevolence,—and so of the other Divine attributes,— whether belonging to the Persons of the Tritheistic theory of the Trinity, or any other; or to the Persons of the simple Trinity of the Scriptures. To say that this Biblical view represents the Father, Son, and Holy. Spirit as one and the same Person, would be a mani- fest perversion of the language,-and of the truth. This view of the Trinity is not a theory, but a state- ment of revealed facts. God Has revealed himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This as inconéro- vertible ract—whatever theories any may choose to superadd, in order to explain, reconcile, or defend the truths revealed. For ourselves, we prefer to hold the facts revealed, and stop there ; without the theories. But it may be said that ‘‘ the personality of the God- head consists in these developments, made in time, and made to intelligent and rational beings,’ and therefore cannot be ‘‘eternal.”’* Not exactly so. Develop- ments are not persons, or personalities. Were we to * Prof, Stuart in Bib. Rep., Vol. v. p. 317. 60 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. use the word development, in the definition of person- ality, we should say, that the /atter consists in develop- ment AND the attributes of the Being who develops himself. Perhaps we might say, too, that the person- ality in question, consists in the attributes of God de- veloped in certain relations. But we much prefer to say, that we mean by Person—not development, nor any mode or form of development, but—the true God himself considered in relation to what he has done and is doing in the economy of redemption. To ask whether Person, as thus defined and used, is eternal, is the same as to ask, whether God is eternal. Person, then, is here used, not to denote that in God which is not revealed,—whether unknown distinctions or anything else,—but that which is revealed ; not the Being alone, nor the manifestation alone, but both united : namely; God revealed in different capacities and relations. As God without any revealed attri- butes, is not the God of the Bible; so, God without the manifestations which he has made of himself in redemption, is not what we mean by Person. ‘True, he did not develop himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before he thus developed himself; but he eternally possessed all those properties or attributes— that nature—which prompted him to make those de- velopments, when the occasion for them occurred in carrying out the Divine plan ; as, from the very nature of God, it was certain to occur. It has been remarked, “that the names themselves, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are names given not so much to characterize a q ——o ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 61 the original distinctions in the Godhead, as those by which the Godhead is disclosed to us in the scheme of redemption. These appellations may be said to spring from, and to be peculiarly characteristic of, redemp- tion.”’* This is well said, in the main. But it is elsewhere statedt by the same learned author, as the middie and proper ground between the two extremes on the subject of the Trinity, that ‘from eternity there existed that distinction in the Godhead, which was developed in the economy of redemption.”? Here the whole apparent difference between the views of this admirable disputant and justly venerated instructor, and the view which it is the object of these pages to present, 1s happily reduced to the compass of a nut- shell. N ay, more; to the use of a single word —“ dis- tinction ;”’ and that too, when he has elsewhere re- marked,t that he “‘ inclines to say that distinction must be attribute ; yet, as its specific nature lies beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, how can we feel very certain respecting any conclusions relative to this point??? Then, why not leave it where Gon has left it, without insisting on a certain alleged, yet unre- vealed, unknown “ distinction’? in the very nature of the Godhead itself, when it is believed to be “an attri- bute,”? or “something”? fully adequate to the develop- ments which God has made? These developments are fully accounted for, nay, they seem obviously and scripturally to result, from those attributes of the true * Bib. Rep., Vol. vi., pp. 103, 104. t Ibidem, p. 112. t Bib. Rep., Vol. vi. p. 95. : 62 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. God which are revealed in the Bible ; without suppos- ing any additional * distinction’? in the very nature of the Godhead—unrevealed and unknown. Substitute the word nature for “ distinction,”? in the sentence quoted above, and the view presented there will be exactly that which it is the aim of these pages to set forth : ‘From eternity there existed that nature of the Godhead which was developed in the economy of redemption.”? The same writer elsewhere remarks : ‘¢There was in the Godhead, antecedent to creation and redemption, something which was the foundation of all the developments made in the same.’? Admi- rably said! But who knows that this *¢ something”’ was some unrevealed “ distinction,” rather than the attributes of God already revealed ? Distinction, with- out any knowledge of what it may be, is an unknown quantity ; the value or meaning of which is yet to be ascertained ; and it may as well be called X, as dis- tinction, for aught that appears. It must be nature, or ‘‘ something,’’ revealed or unrevealed, which is ade- quate to the effect. What use is there in contending that it is, and ought to be called, ‘¢ distinction in the Godhead itself ?”’ But the Divine attributes of wisdom, benevolence, mercy, holiness, justice, power, seem fully adequate to all the developments which God has made of himself to man, without the aid of any “ distinctions”? in the God- head, beyond the reach of human knowledge. Indeed, to these very attributes, the developments in question seem, in the Scriptures, to be ascribed with sufficient = ; . 4 F A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 68 clearness and fullness. It was his benevolence which induced God to ‘‘ make the worlds,” and to create man in his own image and place him under a perfect law. His eternal love to man, led him to devise the plan of salvation. When man rebelled, ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”? That same love, in the specific form of grace,—favor to the al-deserving,~-prompted him, in order to complete the work he had begun, to ** sive unto us his Holy Spirit.”? What other distinc- tion is necessary as a foundation for these develop- ments? What better foundation can there be, than love? When the Scriptures ascribe these several manifestations to the revealed attributes of God,—to his dove especially ; what aurHority has any unin- spired man, or any number of such men, to ascribe them to unrevealed, unknown, inferential distinctions in the nature of the Godhead, and to denounce that ag heresy, which does not say, Amen / If our minds are driven to the conclusion that there “‘ must be?’ some unrevealed ‘‘ distinction’? in the very nature of the Godhead, in order to account for the effects produced ; it may be owing to “our modes of conception, defini- tion, and reasoning”? on the subject, through specula- tion and philosophy so called, rather than to the inade- quateness of the revealed attributes of God, as a foun- dation for all the developments which he has made. Still, it-has been said, that ‘‘ as there was.a founda- tion in the Divine nature itself for creatorship and 64 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. lordship, or God would never have been actually creator and lord ;’? so, there must be ‘‘ some corresponding property of the Godhead,” as “‘ the ground of its mani- festations as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’’ or there is “an effect without an adequate cause.” But who knows—who is authorized to affirm, that there must be in the Godhead, some unrevealed distinction “ corre- sponding” to these developments, other than the re- vealed attributes of God, in order that there may be a cause adequate to effect? ‘There must indeed be some adequate cause ; but it does not seem at all necessary that it should be a ‘‘ corresponding property ;”’ unless both words mean the same thing. Must it correspond, as the type corresponds to the letter on the printed page ; or the die to the image on the con? Here isa foot-print in the snow. Whose is it? One foot is applied, and another, and another, until one is found that fits it—that corresponds to it. Is this the mean- ing? Let us examine and see. ‘¢ God was manifest in the flesh.’? But is there anything in God corresponding to the flesh? Why “is not his great Love to man—* for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,”— the “ corresponding property”’—the “ adequate cause”? of this effect,?? or manifestation? He created the material universe. But is there anything in God ** cor- responding”’ to matier ? Must we, in order to furnish a more full and clear revelation of God than he has seen fit to make, resort to another doctrine of “ correspon- ee ee ee re eS try ae ee rh ig A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 65 dencies between things natural and things spiritual’’* —a, doctrine claiming “ distinctions’? in the internal nature of the Godhead, “ corresponding’”’ to the de- velopments he has made of himself to men? Why are not his wisdom, benevolence, holiness, justice, power, the ‘‘ corresponding, adequate cause ?’? According to the Scriptures, it is these attributes which make the foot-prints. You may there see their own impress. There seems to be no more necessity for affirming dis- tinctions in the nature of the Godhead corresponding to these manifestations, than for maintaining the doc- trine of “‘ the eternal generation of the Son,” or “ the eternal procession of the Spirit,”’ in order that it may “‘ correspond,”’ literally or quwast-literally, to certain Scripture expressions appertaiming to the subject. From such language as ‘‘ only Son,” “ only begotten Son,” “‘ only begotten of the Father,’’ and “ every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is be- gotten of him; it has been extensively maintained, that the Son, in his proper Divine nature, was from eternity truly but mysteriously begotten of the Father. By “ eternal generation”’ they have declared that they mean, ‘‘ the generation of the Divine substance of the Son.?? In the Nicene Creed it is; ‘‘ We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be- gotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, from the nature of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not created, haying * Swedenborg, 66 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. the same substance with the Father.”’ In the Atha- nasian Creed we have it; ‘“‘that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds.” This mode of expression, “ the Son is eternally begotten of the Father,’ though not in the Scriptures, nor justi- fied by them, is used in the Westminster Confes- sion of Faith; in that adopted by the Synod at Bos- ton in New England, 1680; in that agreed upon at Saybrook, in 1708; in that of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States ; and in other Confessions of Faith. Now, nothing is plainer, than that it is incumbent on all persons, as well as the worthy authors and re- ceivers of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, to ex- amine the Scriptures for themselves, and to judge whether, according to common-sense principles of in- terpretation, this thing is so revealed. We believe it is not said in the Scriptures, that the Son was begotten - before the worlds, or begotten of the substance of the Father. The only passages which we have seen refer- red to as proof* of this statement, are John 1: 14, 18. The language thera is, “‘ the only begotten of the Father,” and “‘ the only begotten Son.’? These wor- thy fathers, nearly all of them, seem, from the very best intentions, to have made quite a mistake in their quotations, or in their interpretation of the terms. They have substituted the word “ eternally,’ for * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Saybrook Platform, etc. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 67 ** only”’—-“ eternally begotten,”’ fer ‘* only begotten.”? We should like to see the proof that these two words are synonymous. They have quoted no other or better authority for the language they have used, than the passages referred to. Would they not have done so, had they possessed any better authority ? But there does not appear to be any occasion an giving to such expressions of Holy Writ, as *‘ only Son,”? and ‘only begotten Son of God,” a literal, a quasi- ‘* corresponding”? sense. We do not find literal, or a them so explained or used in the Scriptures ; though they are so, abundantly, in the schools. In accordance with Hebraistic usage, we find these expressions em- ployed in the Scriptures, and in the writings of Jose- phus, in a very different manner from this. In Gen. 22: 2,12, 16, Isaac, the second son of Abraham, is called his only son ; rendered in the Septuagint, beloved son. Soin Zech. 12:10, the phrase, ‘‘as one mourn- eth for an only son,’’ is rendered, “‘ as one mourneth for a beloved son.’? The same is true of this word, in Prov. 4: 38,and Amos 8:10. This Septuagint transla- tion was made ‘‘ by Jews who spoke the Greek language and were familiar with the Hebrew idiom.”’ Josephus uses these terms in the same sense. He calls Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham.—(Antiq. B. i. ch. 13.1.) But he has more clearly expressed the sense in which he understood this term, in speaking of Izates, the son of Monobazus, king of Adiabene. ‘“* He (Mono- bazus the king) had indeed Monobazus, his (Izates’) elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by 68 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son Izates.’’—(An- tiq. B. xx. ch. 2. 1.) ‘* Josephus was cotemporary with the apostle John. He was a Jew, a priest, and a Pharisee. His usage of the term only begotten son, settles the question about the usus loquendi of the Jews at that time, and shows most fully that its mean- ing is the most beloved son’’*—the expression being evidently used in a tropical sense. So in Heb. 11:17, Abraham is said to have “ offered up his only begotten son’’—a term expressive of the utmost tenderness and love toward the object of his affection. It does not appear from anything said in the Scriptures, that a “‘ mysterious’? or a ‘ ‘ correspond- ing’? sense of the term, only begotten Son of God, ever entered into the mind of the sacred writer. In the simplicity of ancient language, various other ex- pressions are used, which cannot, with any good rea- son, be interpreted literally, as the real meaning of the writer, or the speaker ; though this thing, like almost everything else, has often been done. Christ says; ‘* Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’? It is well known that this has often been interpreted literally. The same is true of what he says of washing the disciples? feet. It would not comport with that sobriety which ought to be main- tained in this discussion, to dwell upon the literal * Bib. Rep., Jan. 1840, p. 158. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 69 meaning of the terms used by David (1 Sam. 25 : 22), in his threat against Nabal’s household. It is quite enough to say, that he threatened to destroy all the male members of the family before the morning light; without supposing that he meant to pay particular at- : tention to the literal meaning of all his expressions. Various expressions are used in the Bible, the true and proper meaning of which, on common-sense principles, would seem to be quite as obvious, as the literal or corresponding one. Shall we say, then, that the term, only begotten of the Father, must be understood in a literal or a corresponding sense? The answer to this question will be very much in accordance with the views which different persons entertain of the doctrine of “‘ eternal generation.”’? But it is not enough to say that this term is ‘‘ mysterious, and beyond the reach of our minds ;”’ and that ‘it is impossible for us to know the mystery of this generation. For, it is reasonable to suppose that God intended to reveal something by such terms as, “‘only Son’? and “only begotten of the — Father ;’’ and if so, what he Aas revealed, is not a mystery. We are not authorized to throw a cloud of ““ mystery’? over the subject, and to “ protest,”’ that no one has a right to approach it for examination, be- ‘‘an awful mystery.”? For God has not cause it ls said that there 1s an unrevealed truth denoted by the above terms; if he had, we would receive it without hesitation, as a fact declared, but not explained: but we cannot receive it upon mere human authority. - What, then, shall we say of such language as this ; 70 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. “That the second Person of the Godhead was from eternity Son: Son, not by creation, or adoption, or incarnation, or office; but by nature ; the true, pro- per, coéqual, coéssential, and coéternal Son of the Fa- ther ?”’* It is not to be found in the Scriptures; nor has it any support from them, understood and explained according to common-sense principles of. interpretation. Such language and such views had their origin in the schools, and have all their authority from them, and not from the Scriptures. The same writer represents ‘‘ eternal generation”’ as denoting and meaning “ a mysterious and ineffable?” — ‘a Divine and eternal relation” between the first and second Persons of the Trinity. Now, if we understand the writer, as to the meaning of the term, this repre- sentationt seems to be a plain departure from the sense of those fathers who formed the various Creeds which have been received by “‘ the church,” as presenting the Divine verity in the case. ‘* The generation of the Divine substance of the Son’’—*‘ begotten from the nature of the Father,’ is something more than simple relation ; it is real though mysterious generation— generation of his Divine substance, from the nature of the Father. Had such a view—that of simple relation- ship—been presented in the time of those fathers, it is somewhat doubtful whether it would have been con- sidered quite ‘‘orthodox,’? and whether it would not have been publicly denounced as “‘heresy.’? Indeed, *Dr. Miller’s Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 38. + Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 272. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 71 how a man holding and maintaining it, would himself have fared in those days, might have been to him a pretty serious question. But if this worthy and vener- able Doctor may depart thus much from,‘ the doctrine~ of the church ;’’ then, surely, others may inquire, whether even he has given the exact sense of the Scrip- tures on the subject. We are not “shut up” to this view of the case, as the only one which the Bible pre- sents. Every one is at liberty to examine for himself what is revealed—to consider the nature of the subject and the Hebraistic use of the terms in question, and after a careful examination, to come to such a result as common-sense principles of interpretation shall re- quire. If the term Son of God is sometimes used to desig- nate the Divine nature of our glorious Redeemer, 0 is the name ‘* Christ, who is God over all.?’? But this does not prove that he is, in his Divine nature, the Son of God, or the Christ—the Messiah. It is said that ‘‘ God was manifest in the flesh ;°? but it is not said that the Son of God was manifest in the flesh. It is said that “* the Son of God was manifested’”—ap- peared among men as the Messiah and died on the cross— that he might destroy the works of the devil.”? So it is said that “‘ the children of God are manifest.” —(1 Jn. 3:8, 10.) These terms—the Son of God and Christ—are often used as proper names; and as such, may designate his whole Person,—the Son and the Father that dwelt in him,—and even denote his proper Divinity, before his incarnation. This is in 72 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. © perfect accordance with the common and proper use of language. Thus we say—General Washington was born at such a time. But he was not born General— not even George, or Washington ; but an infant child, afterward called George Washington, much later ap- pointed Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United States, and thenceforward known everywhere by the name—General Washington. This name is often carried back beyond the time when he became General, and is properly employed to designate him during the whole of his earthly existence; and even extending into the future. In the same manner, we use the term Son of God, ‘In application to Jesus who is called Christ. The Logos existed in eternity, and was manifested in the flesh in time. ‘‘ The Son of God,’ used as a proper name, may be applied to him in every period of his existence. The same is true of other names by which he is called. And we are left to the exercise of our own private judgment and common sense, as to the meaning in each case, considering the connection in which it stands and the whole of what is revealed on the subject. When it is said—*‘ before Abraham was, Tam;’? “TI came down from heaven ;” he was born; he died; he rose from the dead; he ascended to hea- ven, and the like; we have simply to consider what is revealed and known respecting him, in order to ascer- tain the meaning in a given case. Then we may use the proper name as such, in reference to his Divinity or his humanity, his body or his soul, with perfect A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 73 propriety. Just as we say of a man whom we all know - to have suffered some great calamity ; ‘‘ He has suf- fered a great loss.”? All who are acquainted with the fact, know how the language is to be understood. It may be, he has lost his right arm ; or he has lost his reason ; or he has lost his only child ; or he has lost the whole of his estate. The word—either his own proper name or its substitute—is used to designate him in very different respects ; and yet we say, very pro- perly, that he has suffered a great loss. So, in regard to the various names which the Scriptures apply to Christ,—used in the common and popular way,—there is no need of mistake, if owr pHILosopHY does not un- dertake to meddle with the subject. In one instance at least, even the name God appears to be used in this manner, with a good deal of latitude—supposing the text to be genuine. (Acts 20 : 28.)—“ Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood ;?’—** Feed the church of God,’? who was mani- fest in the flesh—the church of Christ, “which he hath purchased with his own blood.’? This is not using the name God, with much, if any, more latitude than the terms, ‘* the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory,” and ‘‘ God the Father,”’ are used, in Eph. 1 : 17-20, and Jude 1; as already noticed. We know it has been said,—sticking to the letter,—that the meaning is, the church was in fact purchased with the blood of God, and that God died on the cross ;* but * The Sufferings of Christ. By a Layman. + 74 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. we cannot help thinking, that common sense and the Scriptures have had quite too little to do with this in- terpretation. There may have been—there doubtless was—a deep sympathy of the Divine with the suffer- ing human nature of Christ, while God did not die. ‘The Father that dwelt in him,’? sympathized with him in all things. But we are told that the Sonship of Christ is ‘Sa mysterious and ineffable relation ;?? and we are cau- tioned against approaching it for examination, but with great awe. We should, indeed, always approach the sacred Scriptures, to examine into their meaning, with very great reverence, and with a deep feeling of our need of Divine aid, in order to a right and full under- standing of them. But in regard to “‘ the mystery of this [eternal] generation,”’ the proper feeling of awe in view of the subject, should have had its influence a lit- tle sooner—before we had altered or added to Divine revelation. Then, it would seem, we should under- stand the term, ‘‘ only begotten Son of God,’ as de- noting, most beloved Son—most favored and honored of God, as the Messiah. No other “ corresponding” sense of the term, seems to be required or justified by the Scriptures. The same is true of *‘ corresponding distinctions’? in the nature of the Godhead, other than the revealed at- tributes of God, as the adequate cause of the develop- ments which he has made. ‘The same principles of interpretation which would justify the one, would jus- tify the other. The same principles which lead us to A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 75 reject the doctrine of “ eternal generation,” would lead us to reject the doctrine of ‘ eternal’’ or “ correspond- ing distinctions’? as a matter revealed—whatever there may be, which is not revealed. The same remarks apply to the doctrine of “ the eternal procession of the Spirit.”’ It has nothing but a literal or “ corresponding”? interpretation to support it—an interpretation which the nature of the subject does not require or permit. This doctrine as taught in the schools, supposes that the Holy Spirit, “as to the manner of his being,’’* proceedeth from the Father and the Son. In the Ni- cene Creed it is as follows; “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father.”? In the Athanasian Creed, “ The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”? In the Arti- “cles of the English Church ; ‘The Holy Ghost pro- ceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one sub- stance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.’? Dr. Owen and Dr. Miller adopt the language of the Latin church, calling it “spiration.”? _ The latter representst the Holy Spirit “Cas being, in a Divine and incomprehensible sense, the Spiration or Breath of the first and second” Persons of the Trinity. This theory of “ the eternal procession of the Spirit,” is derived from the following passages of Scripture: * Watson’s Theol. Inst. p. 221. t Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 75. 76 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. John 14: 26. 15:26. 16:7. ‘‘ But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach: you,” &c. ‘“* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”? ‘‘If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.’’ On this subject, Bishop Pearson remarks :* ‘* Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. First, at is ex- pressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father.’’ Again: ‘‘ Because the Holy Ghost proceed- is ever sent by the Holy Spirit; because neither of. them received the Divine nature from the Spirit; but ‘both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because the Divine nature, common to both the Father and the Son, was communicated by them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare ex- pressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father ; so do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.”’ | | In like manner, “it is expressly said’? by Christ himself, .in this same interview with his disciples,— referring to the bread and wine in the sacramental sup- * Discourses on the Creed. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 7 per,— this is my body—this is my blood.”? But the Protestant church does not construe this language lite- rally. Why not? Why should we not say that in some “ mysterious and ineffable sense,”’ the consecrated bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ ; that “it is impossible for us to know the mystery of this”? transubstantiation ; and that ‘‘ it is not lawful to search into these heavenly mysteries ;”? as well as to say these things of eternal generation and eternal pro- cession? No good reason appears for interpreting these declarations of Christ, in his last conversation with his disciples, on principles so radically unlike. In respect to “the procession of the Spirit,”’ the language of Christ does not seem to refer to “the manner of his being’’—not to teach us how the Holy Spirit came to be what he is; namely, by having ‘‘ the Divine nature communicated’? to him by the Father and the Son. The doctrine of transubstantiation seems, from the language employed, to come much nearer to plausibility, than the doctrine of eternal procession. But the lan- euage of Christ seems plainly and simply to teach us what the Holy Spirit would do, under the preaching of the gospel, after that Christ should have finished his work as a preparation, from which these gracious Di- vine influences were to “‘ proceed,”’ or result. He an- nounced the fact, and gave his disciples a promise for their comfort and encouragement. | - The plain and obvious meaning of the above passa- ges, quoted from the last discourse of Christ with his disciples just before he suffered,—stripped of antique 78 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. philosophy and mysticism,—appears to be this: When the way was actually prepared for the salvation of men, by the sufferings and death of the Son of God, and when the gospel came to be preached to the nations ; then, according to the eternal purpose of God, Christ declared that these special Divine influences should accompany the word preached, and render it effectual to the conversion and sanctification of men. In other words, the gracious operations of the Spirit, in this whole work of sanctification, ‘‘ proceed’’ from what the Father and the Son have done in devising and execut- ing, thus far, the plan of redemption. From these doings and sufferings, as a preparation, “* proceed”’ the Spirit’s various and gracious operations in extending and completing the work, as thus begun. ‘These va- rious influences would not have been put forth, nor would men have been converted, sanctified and saved, had not God devised the plan and sent his Son, and had not Christ come and died upon the cross. They “* proceed,”? or result, from what the Father therefore and the Son have done in the work of redemption. The Spirit, in the exercise of his gracious agency, proceedeth from them. Such language as proceedeth, send, come, &c., applied to the Holy Spirit, should not be interpreted in a sense ‘< corresponding”’ to the literal meaning of the terms ; as though the Spirit of God was not everywhere pre- sent, and had to be sent, as a subordinate agent, from one place to another, according to the exigencies of the case ; but it refers especially to the results of Christ’s A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 79 work—to the gracious influences of the Spirit, exerted in carrying forward and completing the great work of man’s redemption. This language is hwman language ; and the representation is very much like that which is employed in speaking of the affairs of men. A man is supposed to be, where he acts ; and to go, in order that he may act in a given place where he was not before ; or he is sent, to perform a special service, where his presence is needed for that purpose. The same lan- guage is applied to God, with reference to the display of his power, justice, grace, and glory in various re- spects. Accordingly it is said, (Gen. 11 : 5.)—‘t The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.’’? Had he not seen it be- fore? Is he not everywhere present? (v. 7.)—‘‘ Go to, let us go down, and there confound their lan- guage’’—declaring what he would do. (Exod. 19: 20.)—‘‘ The Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount ;’’ he there displayed his glorious power and majesty; communicating with Moses, and through him with the people. He is known to be present by his doings. Yet he was “not in the earth- quake,”? but in “‘ the still small voice.”” In like man- ner, Christ says, ‘‘ the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name??—meaning that He would then manifest his gracious and powerful influences in en- lightening, comforting and encouraging the disciples, and rendering them successful in their work. The meaning of such language as proceedeth, send, &c.—if we duly consider that, in talking to us, God uses the 80 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. language and speaks after the manner of men,—gseems not difficult; and if it is not generally and rightly ap- prehended, this may be owing to customary modes of association, conception, and philosophizing, rather than to any inherent difficulty in the subject itself. It would seem, from the considerations which have been presented, that the scholastic theories of “ eternal »? ** eternal procession,’”’ and ‘eternal dis- ~ generation, tinctions in the nature of the Godhead,’’—not the eternal Scripture truths which they are honestly intended to ulustrate and help sustain,—originated in the same philosophy, and are maintained by the same principles of interpretation. In respect to the two former theo- ries, the venerable Dr. Miller very consistently re- marks,* that ‘‘ the several parts of this system must stand or fall together. ..... . Those who deny the eternal generation of the Son,” as a doctrine taught in the Scriptures, ‘‘ will naturally, and unavoidably, deny the eternal procession of the Spirit,”? as a doc- trine taught in the Scriptures. For this plain reason : that they rest on the same scholastic foundation. To these he might have added the ¢hird theory above, and that of transubstantiation. The same mode of inter- pretation and philosophizing which leads to the adop- tion of one of them, tf carried out, would lead to the adoption of them all. The theories of ‘ eternal gene- ration,’’ ‘‘ eternal procession,’ and “eternal distinc- tion,”? are triad sisters—daughters of the Nicene phi- * Letters to Prof, Stuart, ed. 1823, p. '73. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 8i losophy, and descendants of the New Platonic. This sisterhood of theories,—to which that of transubstan- tiation properly belongs,—cannot with propriety be separated. Moreover, in regard to the argument for distinctions in the nature of the Godhead, now under consideration, we would say, it is an acknowledged principle that it is unphilosophical to assign more causes than are clearly adequate to the effect. If so, it is unphilosophical to assign distinctions, other than the revealed’attributes of God, as the only adequate cause of the developments which he has made of himself to men. Not only so, but it is likewise wnscriptural to assign unrevealed, unknown distinctions as the cause of effects which the Bible ascribes to his revealed attributes. What good reason is there, then, for insisting that there must be a “‘ corresponding distinction’? in the very nature of the Godhead, in order to account for what he has actually revealed of himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? Is the mind of man, apart from“its customary associa- tions and modes of philosophizing, driven to the ne- cessity of such a supposition, in order to find a satisfac-- tory resting-place in the revelation which God has made of himself to man? Surely, the mind of man cannot be so driven beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, into the awful secret—the internal na- ture—of the great Eternal himself, unless by its own philosophizing ! Infinite wisdom, benevolence, holi- ness, justice, mercy, power,—these are the “ corre- sponding Bees adequate to all the effects in * 82 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. question. What other “ effect”? is there, which cannot find an ‘‘ adequate cause”? in the love of God? With the learned and venerable author, whose argument is under consideration, we “‘ incline to say that distinction [that mysterious ‘ something’ in the Godhead] must be an attribute’’—the great Love of God—an attribute not hidden, but revealed. And yet, for centuries, we haye been groping around in the dark, with subtil dialectic feelers of Platonic or Nicene origin, to discover some other corresponding, unrevealed distinction in the -na- ph of the Godhead, when, but for our philosephy, the ‘adequate cause”? is plainly to be seen on almost every page of the New Testament. Were we to make a summary statement of the case, in accordance with what has been advanced in this chapter, it would be this: There is in God a NATURE, prompting him to all the developments which he has made of himself in creation, providence, and redemp- tion, and to whatever developments have anywhere been made of God, or may yet be made of him in the coming ages of time or eternity. What need of Say- ing more? What more is revealed 2 It is not denied, in this Biblical view of the Trinity, that there is, apart from all Divine manifestation, a real distinction of three, or three hundred Persons in the very nature of the Godhead itself: but it is distinctly maintained, that this is not necessary to account for these Divine developments ; that it is more a matter of philosophical speculation and supposed necessary infer- ence, than of actual revelation, and -that it is extra- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 83 scriptural, and therefore not to be claimed as Divine verity. In addition to the remarks already made on these positions, we quote the following: “ Trinitarians have generally held and freely conceded, that this doctrine of Persons in the Godhead is not directly taught in the Scriptures ; they have held it as a theory, but as the only theory that will satisfactorily explain the various and apparently diverse statements of the sacred writers on this subject.”* Prof. Knapp also remarks, that “the theologians of former times generally blended their own speculations and those of others on .the sub- ject of the Trinity, with the statement of the doctrine of the Bible?’t—a practice which is yet by no means discontinued. “Tt cannot be denied that the doctrines of the Chris- tian church were for a long time in the keeping of men, who made no proper use of the Bible in their studies— who speculated, daringly, recklessly about God and things Divine. Cut off m a great measure from the actual world, and having little experience of the real wants of men, and of the fitness of God’s revealed truth to meet those wants, they gave themselves up to specu- lation, as the ultimate end of their intellectual exist-- ence. The result was what might have been expecied of men thus circumstanced. They encumbered the simple word of God with their own fancies. They eramped it to make it conform to their own scholastic * The Congregationalist, (Boston,) June 29, 1849, p. 2. col. 2. + Theology, p. 181, col. 2. ; 84 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. molds. It was in that age, that many mere human notions were set afloat, which, passing down to after times, were currently received as truths. These specu- lations have shaped to a greater or less degree the thoughts and opinions of almost all men. Consider- ing that this has been the condition of the human mind in past centuries, it is at least fair to suggest to those who hold the older forms of theological doctrine, that they are quite as likely to be somewhat under the do- minion of mere human philosophy, as others. It is at least fair that they should diligently consider their own case, and not take it for granted that they alone are free, and other men in bondage. ....... Our only aim is, to lead men to a fair and candid estimate of themselves, and not too hastily to suppose, that all forms of doctrine, just so far as they “‘ differ from their own, are necessarily wrong. The ‘ traditions of the elders’ are no more to be received as authority, now, than in the times of the Pharisees.’’* These remarks are just and timely. Yet there are some, who cannot endure that any theological doctrine —that of the Trinity, for example—should not be fitted to “their own scholastic mold.” If they see a form that has not been shaped according to this pattern, they cast their eye backward, along the line of centu- ries, for some heretical name which may be applied to it, and answer as an argument,—at least for an argu- mentum ad invidiam, or ‘‘mad-dog’”? argument,—in- * The Congregationalist, June 22, 1849, p. 2, col. 6. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 85 stead of meeting it with scriptural, common-sense, and manly arguments adapted to “‘ the common mind.”? We have recently counted thirteen such names applied to a single case of this kind, without counting them all. The following has somewhat recently been put forth from a Chair of Theology,* as the sum and substance of Orthodoxy on this subject :— ‘* The Unitarian believes in one God in one Person ; while the Trinitarian believes in one God in three Persons. And these three must be, not fictetious, dramatic, represen- tative persons, like the characters in a romance or a play ; but real, substantial, eternal distinctions, in the one undi- vided essence of the Godhead. So the Church has always understood the subject. ..... So the matter must be understood ; or there is no real, valid distinction between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian—none which is at all worth contending for—none which does not lie in mere words, and fancies, and figures of speech.”? In the first sentence above, the word Person is twice used, but obviously in different senses; and yet they are mentioned as if used in the same sense: otherwise, the statement has no consistent meaning, and no force. Tn the first instance, ‘‘ one Person’? means, one infinite Being. In the second, the Professor would not be un- derstood to mean three infinite Beings. Do Trinita- rians profess to believe in three Gods? We are not aware that ‘“ Unitarians believe in one God in one Person,’ as the word is used in the common theory of the Trinity. For in that case, they would not “ be- lieve in one God’? at all; but only in so much of God * Rey. Enoch Pond, D.D. 86 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 2 as is denoted by one Person. In speaking of the Fa- ther, Dr. Miller says; “‘ He is not, he cannot be God — without them,’’—the other two Persons,—‘ and there- fore, he is not alone the supreme God.”’* But if the word Person, above, is used in different senses, how does it appear, from this Professor’s statement, that Unitarians do not believe in the God of the Bible? But “‘those three must be real, substantial, eternal distinctions, in the one undivided essence of the God- head.?? Where is this taught? Not in the Bible. For, ‘‘ Trinitarians have generally held and freely con- ceded, that this doctrine of Persons in the Godhead, is not directly taught in the Scriptures ; they have held it as a theory ;”? and yet they are not at all agreed as to what this “theory”? is. There are almost as many forms of it, as there are theologians who hold to a theory. ‘This is no modern view of the subject. Ht- lary says of it, in his day; that “there were as many creeds as opinions, and as many doctrines as inclina- tions. Homoousian is rejected and explained away. Every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries.”? And yet most theologians of the present day, in connection with great diversity and inconsis- tency of representation, varied oftener than ‘ moon,’? do still hold, substantially, to one or the other of the two forms of the common theory, which have — every been specified. But if it is not taught in the Scrip- tures, where is it taught ? In rum Scuoous. “ The- * Letters to Prof. Stuart, p. 278. The ztalecs are his own. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 87 ologians” have “blended their own speculations with the statement of the doctrines of the Bible ;”? and thus, these speculations have been wrought into creeds, to be received as Divine verities ; and the dissentient, pro- nounced ‘‘a heretic, incapable of salvation.2? Yet it is said; “So the church has always understood the subject.”’ “The church !?? It has been very much like an army. The will of the latter is that of their several commanders; determined, it.may be, in Council ; nevertheless, the will of the few, if not of a single mind. Ifa soldier does not obey orders, properly given and understood; he is punished with great severity. So it has been with the members of the church. T hey must receive and abide by the articles of faith estab- lished by Councils ; or they have been punished by fire and faggot, ky banishment, by excommunication and anathema, by church censure, by branding with heretical names,—thus defaming or destroying their characters, if not taking their lives,—or in whatever way the taste and fashion of the age apply coercion, in such a case. Generally, the church has not been per- mitted to think aloud on this subject,—except in one or another set of terms,—or individuals to act for them- selves. If they have ventured to do so, ae have had to suifer the consequences. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was banished and recalled repeatedly, according to the party in power. Sometimes one party prevailed, and sometimes another. In one Council, he was condemned by ninety bishops, 88 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. as a heretic. In another Council he was declared ‘* in- nocent,”? by one hundred bishops; “‘ and Pope Julius confirmed this sentence, in conjunction with more than three hundred bishops assembled at Sardis, from the East and West.” ‘Of the forty-six years of his official life, he spent twenty in banishment, [on account of his religious opinions,] and the greatest part of the remainder in defending the Nicene Creed.”* How much freedom of thought and of belief was allowed ‘the church?’ in those days, and for a long line of centuries afterward? Of the whole church, how many ~ suffered martyrdom, on one side or the, other, for their religious opinions,—each in its turn declared to be . “heresy,’’—it would be no easy matter to ascertain. After all; ‘so the church has always understood the subject !?? How could they understand and believe otherwise, unless they were prepared to go to the stake ? Look now to Protestant England—perhaps the most favored portion of Christendom. How much freedom of thought and of discussion on the subject of the Trinity, has been there enjoyed by the church? There has always been a disposition to think and reason on the subject, among those—and they have been not a few—who were not, satisfied with the common theory ; and some men of clear and independent minds would sometimes speak out ; but the strong arm of civil and ecclesiastical law has very often been put forth to sup- * Encyclop. Amer.; Art. Athanasius. ¥ ——- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 89 press it ; and when not actively put forth, its bad in- fluence has been widely felt. As early as the thirteenth year of the Protestant queen Elizabeth, 1571, a law was enacted, entitled, “ An Act for Ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion ; by which it is provided, ‘ That if any eccle- siastical, or which shall have ecclesiastical livings, shall advisedly maintain, or affirm any doctrine directly con- trary or repugnant to the Thirty-nine Articles, being convented before the bishop of the diocese, shall per- sist therein, or not revoke his error, or after such re- vocation eftsoon [agazn, or thereafter] affirm such un- true doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming, and per- sisting, or such eftsoon affirming, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesiastical promotion ; and it shall be lawful to the bishop of the diocese, or the ordinary, to deprive such person so persisting, or lawfully convicted of such eftsoons affirming, and upon such sentence of deprivation pronounced, he shall be indeed deprived.’ ?’* So in the ninth year of king William III., 1695, royal “ Directions” were issued by the “head of the Church’’ and “ defender of the faith,” to the ‘‘ Arch- bishops and Bishops, for the preserving of unity in the church, and the purity of the Christian faith, concern- ing the Holy Trinity.”? In these ‘ Directions,” the persons addressed were required “‘ to see that’? the * The Thirty-Nine Articles, &c. Acts of Parliament and Proclama- tions concerning Ecclesiastical Matters, &c.; ed. London, 1724; pp, 165-6. 90 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. following things were “‘ observed within their several dioceses.”’ | 4. That no preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture, do presume to deliver any other doctrine con- cerning the blessed Trinity, than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and is agreeable to the Three Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.” [“The Three Creeds—JVicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed.’? | ‘9. That in the explication of this doctrine they carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of expression as have been commonly used in the Church.’’ It is further-declared in the same instrument ; ‘* And whereas we also understand, that divers persons, who are not of the clergy, have of late presumed, not only to talk and to dispute against the Christian faith con- cerning the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, but also to write and publish books and pamphlets against the same, and industriously spread them through the king- dom, contrary to our known laws established in this realm; We do therefore strictly charge and command you, together with all other means suitable to your holy profession, to make use of your authority accord- ing to law, for the repressing and restraining of all such exorbitant practices. And for your assistance we will give charge to our judges, and all other our civil officers, to do their duty herein, in executing the laws against all such persons as shall by these means give A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 91 occasion of scandal, discord and disturbance in our church and kingdom.’’* In order to suppress the spirit of inquiry which was awake on this subject, and the disposition which was | manifested to discuss it; it was thought necessary a few years afterward,—the first year of George I., — 1714,—again to issue the above “* Directions,’ with some additions, against those who “* presumed not only to talk and to dispute,” “but also to write and pub- lish books and pamphlets” concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. The fourth article in the instrument of this date, is; ‘‘ That none of the clergy, in their ser- mons or lectures, presume to intermeddle in any affairs of state or government, or the constitution of the realm, save only on such special feasts and fasts as are or shall be appointed by public authority ; and then, no further than the occasion of such days shall strictly require. Provided always, that nothing im this Direc- tion shall be understood to discharge any person from preaching in defense of OUR ROYAL SUPREMACY estab- lished by law, as often, and in such manner, as the first canon of this Church doth require.” Kingeraft and priestcraft went hand in hand, in those days. They countenanced and supported each other ; and all this, to help support God’s truth, and keep out heresy; lest innovation in the Church should lead to innovation in the regal state ! But it would seem that this effort to suppress freedom of thought and discussion, was not * The book last referred to, pp. 95-6. 92 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. altogether successful ; for, in the year 1721, the same “Directions” were again issued, containing algo the edict. by Queen Elizabeth, already cited.* The writer of this has no later account of these matters. These are some of the ways and means by which it has come to pass, that “‘so the church has always understood the subject.”? The representation seems to be, that this understanding of the doctrine, by ‘ the Church,”’ has resulted from a general, careful and free examination of the Scriptures ; otherwise, it is not to the purpose at all, and has no force or meaning as evi- dence in the case. But on this point, we shall have more to say hereafter. We only say now, in passing, that, so far is this from being true, the most stringent means have generally been employed to prevent any other conviction or the adoption of any other views than those which were cast in the same ‘ scholastic molds’’—none but those which conformed to the stereo- typed terms of established Creeds and Articles of Reli- gion. Sure evidence this, that such theory and forms of language are orthodox—according to the true and proper sense of the Scriptures ! “So the church has anways understood the sub- ject.”? Those forms of doctrine laid down in ancient Creeds and Articles of Religion, have, indeed, anti- quity on their side, as the doctrines of the Bible. So has monarchy, as the only authorized form of civil government. It has been held, by almost all the na- * Ibidem, pp. 157-9; and 165-7. — ——- rae 2. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 93 tions of Christendom since the commencement of the Christian era, as the only form of civil government established by Divine authority. Are we, therefore, bound to receive it as the only form which has “ Di- vine right?’ on its side—the only one authorized or sus- tained by the principles of the Bible? If not; then, why are we bound by the forms or the language in © which the doctrine of the Trinity has been presented from remote antiquity, because they have been long received by the church, in the circumstances specified ? If the argument from antiquity is good in the one case, it is good in the other; and republics should forthwith become converted into monarchies, But as we, in this country, justly claim the right to examine and judge for ourselves in the one case; so have we an equal right to do the same, in the other case. We have mentioned a prominent and very efficient reason, why the common theory of the Trinity has been so long received, and how it has come to pass that ‘‘ so the church has always understood the subject.”’ It has not been so, because that theory is plainly taught in the Scriptures ; nor, on account of any obscurity or indefiniteness in the Book of revelation : but, when the theory was formed and adopted, this Book was very generally interpreted, according to unsound principles, and its truths seen through the medium of the philoso- phy then prevalent ; and having been once adopted and extensively received, and strong parties formed in re- ference to it, it was no easy task, in later days, espe- cially in the circumstances which have been specified, 94 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. for individuals openly to reject it; however clearly they might have seen its repugnance to comnion sense and the Scriptures. { | But there is another reason for the continued preva- lence of this theory, somewhat different from, and yet allied to the former one, even when there was sufficient light to produce an opposite conviction ; if all had been permitted freely to canvass the subject, and to profess their real convictions. We do not refer to the influ- ence of Aabit, in several respects, in retaining long- established forms of doctrine and of language ; power- ful as that influence always is: but we refer to the influence resulting from what may be called, the par- ticular structure of society, at any given time—of men occupying exalted stations, civil, literary, and eccle- siastical—notwithstanding the abundance of light, and frequently the prevalence of conviction to the contrary. This might be illustrated by various examples: we will _ name two of them. For a long period after the discovery of the Coperni- can or true system of astronomy, it was generally believed to be contrary to the obvious teachings of revelation; because the Bible speaks of the sun as ? setting,’? “going down,’’ and the like. People generally, and even the better informed, were ‘‘ rising, slow to learn what Galileo and a few others tried to teach them,—what common sense might have taught them,—that the Scriptures were given us, “not to teach philosophy, but religion.’? According to the custom of those times, for maintaining what they be- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 95 lieved the Scriptures to inculcate ; Galileo, then about seventy years of age, was summoned to Rome, to an- swer to the charge of heresy, before the Inquisition. He was tried by the pope and cardinals, in their way of doing such things, and the system he had main- tained, condemned. He was sentenced to abjure his system ‘‘on the Gospels.” A part of his sentence is expressed in the following terms :—- “4, The proposition that the sun is the center [of the system] of the world and immovable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical ; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. ‘© 9. The proposition that the earth is not the center ‘of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered at least erroneous im pail This sentence he solemnly ratified, by signing it with his own hand. (June 22, 1633.) ‘* Rising from his knees after this solemnity, he whispered to a friend, “It moves, for all that.’ ?’ This solemn farce did not disprove the Copernican system of astronomy ; and it has long since been universally received as true, “* for all that.”’ | So in the other case: That the common theory of the Trinity is not the true ‘‘ center’’—the great central truth—of revelation, and that the Bible was not given * Penny Cyclopedia, Art. Galileo. Also Edinb. Encyc. 96 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. to teach us the “‘ philosophy” of the Trinity—‘“ the mode of the Divine existence,”’ but the attributes of God and his relations to us and the creation around us ; there is sufficient light clearly to see and perceive. Denounce a Biblical Trinity without the common the- ory, as “ formally heretical ;?? bring the influence of men in exalted station to bear against it, because, ‘‘ so the Church has always understood the subject ;”’ ar- raign those who hold it before some ecclesiastical tri- bunal, and require them to make a solemn recantation, or be cast out as heretics ; still, ‘‘ it moves’”—the doc- trine is true, “‘ for all that.”’ No inquisitorial process, however modified its form, can annihilate God’s truth, or convert false philosophy into Divine verity. It is well known that for a long period, a belief in witchcraft—unreasonable and monstrous as that wicked absurdity is—was very generally prevalent among all classes of society, both in Great Britain (to say nothing of continental Europe) and in her American colonies. During that period, a book was published, called “‘ Seot?s Discovery of Witchcraft ;”? with a long title naming its method, and assigning the reason of its publication—“‘ for the undeceiving of judges, justices, and juries, and for the preservation of poor people, &c.; with a treatise also upon the nature of spirits and devils, &c.” “Tt is said that this curious book, so elaborately written upon these uncommon subjects, first published by Reginald Scot, Esq., in 1584, had, for a whale, a very good effect upon the kingdom, in carrying off those . ‘ ‘ a al a See OE Se i Te A BIBLICAL TRINITY. O7 dregs of superstition to which (as the case of Joanna Southcote has proved) England seems naturally sub- ject, by the paroxysms into which it has so frequently relapsed. James Ady, Esq., in his Perfect Discovery of Witchcrafé, published in quarto about 1661, ob- served, that Mr. Scot’s book did, for some time, make great impression upon the magistracy, and also upon the clergy ; but that, since that time, England had shamefully fallen from the truth which it began to re- celve.”? 3 King James the First wrote a Dialogue, called Demon- ology, first printed in Edinburgh in 1597, intended as an answer to Scot’s Discovery; and instead of confuting him, “‘ not one of Scot’s arguments was answered ; but the king had continued in the groundless affirmation of the tenets refuted by Scot, and unwarranted either by scripture or reason. ‘The king’s sentiments, he (Ady) observed, might bring Scot’s work into contempt among persons dazzled by great names; but with those of discernment, and unbiased judges, such an antago- nist would only raise the credit of the work opposed.* It seems, then, that so great an absurdity as witch- craft, continued to be received by all classes of persons, loig after it had been clearly refuted, and the truth respecting it had begun extensively to prevail. In the account referred to, John Wesley is spoken of as a be- liever in the doctrine. Even “ the upright and con- scientious Sir Matthew Hale, at a distance of three * For this account of Scot’s Discovery see The Entertaining Maga- zine ; London, 1815, v. 3, pp. 189—192, 263—266,.etc., ete. 5 98 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. long reigns, [from the publication of Scot’s Discovery, | was a firm believer in witchcraft; .and almost another century was necessary to put the people at. large in anything like a proper train to get rid of these shocking and absurd opinions.’”? The.influence of wealth, of rank, of power helped to sustain this belief, amid the abundant light which had been shed upon the subject. This doctrine had centuries of general reception to prove its soundness and truth; if such a thing be valid evidence, on which we can safely and properly depend. But if such evidence is not a good and safe founda- tion to rest upon, in such a case as the above, why take it as a basis, or any part of a basis, for the com- mon theory of the. Trinity? Why claim it as valid evidence that the theory is taught a or inferable from the Book of revelation, as was pertinaciously claimed for witchcraft; and that “it must be true 2s Ai Lat can be found in the Scriptures, without looking at them through the medium of false philosophy ; then let it be made to appear, and let it be universally received as true. The attentive reader must have perceived that the point of comparison before us is, the general reception of the doctrine or theory, for a long period; and not the doctrines or theories themselves, which are brought into juxtaposition for the sake of illustration. That general principle—found in the structure of society—which operated so powerfully to sustain witch- craft for centuries, when there was light enough to show it—when. it was clearly shown—to be an absurd, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 99 wicked, and abominable imposture; has operated for a much longer period, in-connection with other things, to AID in sustaining .a theory which had its origin in the Platonic, the New Platonic, or Nicene philosophy, applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures. That general principle still operates, through the influence of wealth, station, office, power, organization—Associa- tion, Council, Presbytery, Convention, etc.—all highly useful and very important, when properly employed and duly regulated by the principles of the gospel and the common rights of conscience—all in a measure indispen- sable; yet a principle possessing, in its central. and re- moter parts, a sort of ubiquity of overpowering influ- ; ence, tending, if misemployed and abused, to, suppress the free investigation of the Scriptures and the profes- sion of any results not fashioned in the same ‘‘ scholas- tic molds.”? ‘* So the church. has always unierees the subject.?? ‘i _ “So the matter must be understood ; or there 1s, ‘no real valid distinction between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian—none which i is at all worth contending for— none which does not lie in mere words, and fancies, and. figures of speech. » Ts it 60.2. _Is that all which dis- tinguishes a Trinitarian from a Unitarian—all which : worth contending for in what is properly called “orthodoxy” on this subject, and. which results from what ig revealed respecting the Father, Son, and Spirit 2 2 Are not the supreme Divinity of each of these ; ; fhe real condition of man as a sinner; ; God’s great love manifested in giving his Son to be the Savior of the 100 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. world ; the sinner’s justification by faith in a crucified Redeemer ; and many other important truths insepa- rable from the revelation of the Godhead as made to man—are not these. “‘ worth contending for??? Are they nothing, compared to that theory? But the Professor believes in these doctrines; and perhaps he considers them, not only as taught in those very “ dis- tinctions,’’ but as incapable of being maintained with- out them. But these Scripture doctrines depend no more, for their maintenance and support, upon that theory of “‘ eternal distinctions in the one undivided essence of the Godhead ;”? than they do upon the philo- sophies of ancient Greece and Rome. They are inde- pendently taught in the Scriptures, and rest upon the veracity of God. ‘* The Bible—the Brsxe is the re- ligion of Protestants.”’ What! These distinctions the whole, in point of importance, of Trinitarian orthodoxy—all “which is worth contending for’?’—nothing else “‘ which does not lie in mere words, and fancies, and figures of speech !”’ Prof. Knapp says: ‘“‘ these particular formulas and theories, however much they may be regarded and in- sisted upon, have nothing to do with salvation.”’* Ne- ander also, in his History of the Christian Religion and Church, (v. 1, p. 572,)—a work which needs no com- mendation here,—speaking of ‘‘ the doctrine of the Trini- ty,”’ (by which we understand him to mean the common theory—the doctrine as it has been held,) remarks, * Theology, p. 131, c. 1. 4 i: . sas gig eR sm _A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 101 that “‘ this doctrine does not strictly belong to the fun- damental articles of the Christian faith; as appears sufficiently evident from the fact, that 2 as expressly held forth in no particular passage of the New Testa- ment; for the only one in which this is done, the pas- sage relating to the three that bear record, (1 John 5 : T,) is undoubtedly spurious,’’? And yet we are told that these distinctions are “‘ the only thing worth con- tending for!’ On the contrary, as God has not seen fit to reveal them, and they originated in the schools, they are no part WHATEVER of genuine orthodoxy. There are three kinds of orthodoxy. Biblical ortho- doxy; presenting simply, as Divine verity, what the Bible actually teaches. 'This is the only genuine ortho- doxy; for the Bible is the only true standard of ortho- doxy. Then there is Scholastic orthodoxy; including more or less, perhaps all, of what the Bible reveals, and much more beside; namely, the scholastic addi- tions—the costume in which the schools have presented Scripture truths. But the above representation of “eternal distinctions in the one undivided essence of the Godhead,”’ [what do we know about his essence, beside his attributes and relations, as he has revealed them 2] is no part of Biblical truth. It is simply the scholastic part of what is called orthodoxy on this sub- ject, separated from the Biblical. It is, therefore, nothing less, and nothing else than Spurious orthodoxy. (Of this kind of orthodoxy, there is not a little.) So far from being the only thing worth contending for, it is not worth contending for at all. And if “there is 102 A BIBLIGAL TRINITY. no real, valid distinction between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian” but this, it is a great pity they should have been contending about it so long. If it be indeed so, they’ had better all take simple Biblical ground, leave off contending altogether, receive as Divine truth what the Bible plainly teaches, and imitate more fully the example of their Divine Master. ~ They may discuss the subject, in the spirit of Christ,—allowing all the same right of private judgment and the same rights of conscience,—with very great benefit to themselves and the cause of truth. But harsh disputation, uncharita- ble contention, and the calling of hard names, are un- worthy of Christianity, and of the age. It has been further put forth from the same Chair of ‘Theology, that “the Trinity... .. is a revelation of God. Must it not be supposed, then, to reveal him as he is? [Certainly.] Would the great I Am make to his creatures a false representation of himself? [By no means. It is not the Sateen but scholastic phi- ‘losophy that has made ‘‘a false representation” of God.] | Would he make a representation by which ninety-nine hundredths of his professed followers, from the time of the revelation to the present hour, have ‘been deceived 2? No: the Bible never deceived one of them. It deceived them no more than it deceived the rejecters of the Copernican system of astronomy $ which was believed to be contrary to the obvious mean- ing of the Bible. It deceived them no more than it deceived believers in witchcraft; because it is written, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ;?? (Ex. 22:18;) A BIBLICAL TRINITY.» 103 and, “ There shall not be found among you... .. a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” (Deut. 18 : 10, 11.) How natural for both of these classes of persons to. reason: ‘‘ Would the great I Am make a false repre- sentation”? of his works, any more than “ of himself 2”? - Would he “ make a false representation’? of the state of things which was, or was to be, among his own pco- ple, and among other nations of the world; or of the proper method of treating those who professed to be, or were accused’ of being, “ consulters with familiar spirits?” ° It was an unfair inference from what was yevealed. The Bible did not deceive ‘the “* professed’ followers”? of Christ; but their ¢eachers unwittingly, and their philosophy deceived them. The Bible re- yeals God in his attributes and relations ;—ecnough for us to know, it would seem from his own revelation, in order that we may understand and do our duty ;—but the philosophy of the schools represents him as existing in wnrevealed, and therefore unauthorized “ substan- tial distinctions’? —“ or distinct persons’’—“ in the one undivided essence of” his being. Yes, scholastic phi- losophy; overstepping the boundaries of human know- ledge as fixed by revelation, and entering, through its own interpretation of the written word, the secret ‘re- cesses of God’s essential being—that Holtest of Holies, which no created intelligence is competent to survey or reveal—this philosophy presumes to explain the mode of his existence. The mode of his existence! Who knows the real, hidden import of such language? Who 104 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. knows the mode of his own existence? The mode of his existence—that awful secret kept within Himself— what human tongue can tell? But the doctors taught this unauthorized, presumptuous, and dark philosophy ; and yet the “ doctors disagreed”? among themselves, as to the meaning of “some learned distinctions which they regarded as true,” quarreled about “ their philo- sophical theories,’ denounced one another as “here- tics,” excluded one another ‘from salvation,’’ perse- cuted and killed one another. In their zeal for their own peculiar views, they failed to participate, as they might have done, in ‘‘ the undeserved benefits’? result- ing from a practical belief of what God has revealed respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and ex- hibited anything but the spirit of the gospel—all this, to maintain what they considered the truth, respecting the mode of the Divine existence! Further : Suppose it to be true, as this Professor thinks it is, that “ninety-nine hundredths”? of the pro- fessed followers of Christ have believed in the common theory of the Trinity; what does this prove ?—that it is taught in the Scriptures? or if not, that the Bible has deceived them? About the same proportion that have received this theory, have also received the theories of “eternal generation”? and “‘ eternal procession ;7? and a very large proportion of these have received, in addition, the theory of “‘ transubstantiation.’? Does this Professor receive these doctrines as true,—all, or any of them,—because “‘ ninety-nine hundredths,” or some other large majority, of the visible church have “so 7 rc 4, ~ Bn ae ye Ones Pee ee) ae ee a a Ee Va Se an er Set eee a i a ee Oe ONES ie oN, eet a ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 105 understood the subject??? We suppose he does not; or did not. If so, then the very argument he urges for eternal distinction, and seems to consider wnanswer- able, he totally disregards, in reference to eternal gene- ration and eternal procession. His argument, if good for anything, proves these doctrines to be true ; for, if they are not true, much the largest part of the professed followers of Christ have been deceived. But this is not all. The representation seems to be, that this “ninety-nine hundredths” of the visible church have been deceived by a careful examinatior of the Scriptures. How else could this “ revelation of God” have deceived them? But, from the days of the apostles to the time when the art of printing was dis- covered, how many of the professed followers of Christ, compared with the whole number, ever read the Scrip- tures at all? Probably not one ina thousand. How, then, could the Bible have deceived them? Not at all, by its direct teaching ; but simply through their relt- gious teachers, most of whom received this theory from Creeds and Councils—‘‘ men, who made no proper use of the Bible in their studies—who speculated, daringly, recklessly about God and things Divine.”’ Shut out in a great measure from the world as it is, “and having little experience of the real wants of men,..... they gave themselves up to speculation,-as the ultimate end of their intellectual existence.”? Not only before, but long after the first printing of the word of God, ~ (and would that we could say it is not extensively true even now!) both preachers and hearers looked at the fi 106 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: Scriptures, when their speculations did not take the place of revealed truth, through the medium of a false philosophy, and they saw not the truth as it is. Nay; they were long forbidden—as we have seen—by the most stringent human laws, to depart from the lan- guage or the proper meaning of the terms in which these speculations had for centuries been embodied. And when such laws have not been in force, many other influences, not less powerful, have operated to produce substantially the same results. _ | The same kind of influence still exists and operates, in various portions of the church. We read in a reli- gious paper, not long since, that the Rey. Dr. ~, of - -, at his inauguration as Professor in a Theo- logical Seminary, “‘ presented himself before the con- grégation, and read the form of assent to the Confession - of Faith of the’ — Church, and affixed his signa- ture to a solemn ‘pledge, to teach nothing contrary thereto.’ Suppose this learned and able Professor, in his future investigations’ of the Scriptures, should be convinced that some of the philosophy of the Confession of Faith is unsound, and inconsistent with the Bible and ‘conimion sense ;—what is he to do? He must either conceal his real convictions of the truth, and teach nothing on the subject; or resign, and receivé the opprobrium—if nothing more—of his brethren very extensively.- Is the pledge, in such a form, consistent with freedom of thought and of investigation, or with the rights of conscience? He may not inquire what the Scriptures teach, but what the Confession of A BIBLICAL .TRINITY. 107 Faith—what “the church’? teaches. How does this differ, 1s principe, from what Protestants condemn in the Romish church, as to the right of every man to — examine the Scriptures for himself, and to receive as Divine truth, whatever he, in his own conscience, be- lieves' to be there taught? Whatever else such a pledge is, or is not, it is a Bar to freedom of thought and investigation, and to the reception and setting forth of that which, it is honestly believed, the Scriptures plainly teach. This is oné means by which the com- mon theory of the Trinity has been so long and so ex- tensively maintained. Thus it has come’to pass, from various causes, that “s6 the church has always: understood the subject.” It seems hardly possible to‘make a sober statement, in its proper meaning, more adverse to the truth, or an argument more radi¢ally unsound, than the statement and the argument we have now been considering. We have a few things-more to say of the Monothe- istic form of the common ‘theory of the Trinity, com- pared with a Biblical Trinity. If we have a correct understanding of the subject, that form, stripped of its inetaphysical and apparently unintelligible technicali- ties, do¢és not differ materially from the simple Trmity of the Scriptures, as set forth'on the preceding pages. Prof. Stuart has well expressed it, when he says he believes, “1. That God is one, numerically one, in essence and attributes. In other words, the infinitely perfect Spirit, the Creator and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has nwmerically the 108 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. same essence, and the same perfections, so far as they are known to us. ‘To particularize : the Son possesses” not simply a similar or equal essence and perfections, but numerically the same as the Father, without divi- sion, and without multiplication. 2. The Son (and also the Holy Spirit) does, in some respect truly and really, not merely nominally and logically, differ from the Father.”’* By saying ‘ that God is one,’? he - means, ‘*that there is in him only one intelligent ~ agent.”+ When he speaks of ‘distinctions in the Godhead,” (which we have already considered,) ‘ the nature of which is unknown to us, and the actual ex- istence of which is proved by the authority of the Scriptures only ;?’+ we suppose he means, that they are proved by inference from various passages, and from the use of the pronouns, I, Thou, He—which will be considered hereafter. Again he says; ‘‘ Nor is it within the compass of any effort that my mind can make, to conceive how numerical sameness of substance and attribute, is compatible with distinct conscious- nesses, wills, and affections.’’t | What light does all this cast upon the theoretic dis- tinction of three Persons in the yature of the Godhead itself? ‘* There is in him only one intelligent agent’? —denominated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— with one set of Divine attributes; any one of these Persons ‘* possessing not simply a similar or equal essence and perfections,”’ to either of the others, “‘ but * Miscellanies, p. 18. t+ Id., p. 42. t Id., p. 63. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 109 numerically the same, without division, and without multiplication.””> They do, ‘Sin some respects truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, differ _ from’’ one another; as noticed at the commencement of this chapter. This ‘‘ one agent,’’ with one set of attributes common to the three Persons, acts as the Father—is the Father. This ‘one agent,?’ with numerically the same (not similar or equal) attributes, acts as the Son—is the Son.* ‘This ‘‘ one agent,”’ with numerically the same attributes, acts as the Holy Spirit—is the Holy Spirit. It must be so, according to the Monotheistic form of the common theory, or there are two agents without the attributes essential to an intelligent, holy agent ; whether finite or infinite. The Father is represented as loving the Son, [is reference here had to his Divine nature 2] and the Son as loving the Father; the Holy Spirit as loving both, and they him, with numerically the same affections, ‘* without division, and without multiplication.”” But we have been able to find no passages of Scripture m which the Father is represented as loving the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the Father ; but many passages, in which the Father is represented as loving his only begotten Son—the Messiah—*“‘ the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ;”? and this Son, as loving the Father. How, then, does this representation of the Mono- theistic form of the common theory, differ from that * Using the term Son as a proper aes according to the explana- tion before given. 110 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. which has been presented in the preceding pages, oF a to conceive of any didsheres: save in words, in meta- physical terms used to express a mere human theory, invented long ago, and from time to time, modified till it has come into a shape differing little, if at all, eX- cept in these metaphysical and unintelligible terms, from the simple Trinity of the Scriptures. “ One in- telligent agent,” in the exercise of ‘ nwmerically the same perfections,”? acting in different capacities and re- lations, as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— God, only in his relation to us and the creation around us, God as developed by his attributes’’?*—seems to be the one only living and true God, who is revealed to us in the Scriptures ; ; without including distinctions in the very nature of the Godhead itself. These distinctions, if they really exist, are unrevealed except by inference, far-fetched and fanciful ; unknown as to their nature —unknown as to what shed really are ; beyond the reach of human knowledge ; and unauthorized by the Scriptures. ; on Then let us drop these unknown, unintelligible, merely inferential, and scholastic distinctions ; and re- tain simply what the Bible plainly reveals to us of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and we have left, the simple Trinity of the Scriptures—without theory, without metaphysics, and adapted to “‘ the com- mon mind,”? to which God has made a revelation of * Stuart on Heb. v. 2, p. 315. a) ao A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 411 himself with reference to the work of man’s redemp- tion. Here we leave the Monotheistic form of the common theory of the Trinity with the ‘common sense of the Christian community. We now proceed to consider, more particularly, the Tritheistic form of the common theory of the Trinity. How extensively this is held by theologians of the pre- sent day it would be somewhat difficult to ascertain. One author* remarks: ‘“‘ Trinitarians have’ said,'a thousand times, that they use’ the word’ Person not Sipe. as denoting a perfectly distinct conscious- ness, understanding, and will.”” If not ‘‘ perfectly dis- tinct,’’ how distinct is it? What is it short of perfec> tion? But others have'said, a great many times,— for we have not counted them,—that they do hold it: That this form of the common theory is held by a large portion of the Christian church seems to admit of ‘no question.” Those especially who receive what is tech- nically called ‘the: Covenant - of Redemption??—a theory yet to ‘be considered—would seem ‘to hold it as a matter of course. For, such a transaction as that is reptesented to: have been, between three Persons, having one ‘set of’ Divine attributes 7m common, seems to be something more than ‘a faa aah ab- surdity. eae 2 Dr. Doddridge in his lectures, giving an account of the manner in which the Trinity has been held by dis- tinguished theologians, says: ‘‘Mr. Howe [Rev. John * Dr. Pond. 112 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Howe] seems to suppose, that there are three distinct, eternal spirits, or distinct intelligent hypostases, each having his own distinct, singular, intelligent nature, united in such an inexplicable manner, as that upon account of their perfect harmony, consent, and affec- tion, to which he adds their mutual self-consciousness, they may be called the one God, as properly as the different corporeal, sensitive, and intellectual natures united, may be called one man. ‘“* Dr. Waterland, Dr. Ab. Taylor, with the rest of the Athanasians, assert three proper distinct Persons, entirely equal to and independent upon each other, yet making up one and the same being. ** Bishop Pearson, with whom Bishop Bull also agrees, is of opinion, that though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the whole Divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from both to the Spirit; yet so as that the Father and Son are not separate or separable from the Divinity, but do still exist in it, and are most intimately united to” it. This was likewise Dr. Owen’s scheme.’’* Those who .can. receive such ‘‘inexplicable,”’ unre- vealed, and contradictory statements for Divine ver- ities, and take shelter under the shadow of a mystery of their own creating, ‘‘ charging it all to the weakness of our understanding, and not to the absurdity of the doctrine” or statement ‘“‘ itself,’ are prepared to re- ceive almost anything for revealed truth. * Lectures, 2d ed. London, 1776, pp. 402, 3. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 113 Dr. Barrow, in his Defense of the Trinity, remarks —and the statement has been sanctioned by Richard Watson, as being ‘‘ well expressed, by as great a mas- ter of reason and science.as he was of theology’?—that “there is one Divine nature or essence, common unto three Persons incomprehensibly united, and ineffably distinguished ; [who knows that ?] united in essential attributes, distinguished by peculiar idioms and rela- tions ; all equally infinite in every Divine perfection, each different from the other in order and manner of — subsistence ; [where is that revealed ?] that there is a mutual existence of one in all, and all in one; a com- munication [an eternal communication ?] without any deprivation or diminution in the communicant; an eter- nal generation, and an eternal procession without pre- cedence or succession, without proper causality or de- pendence; a I'ather imparting his own, and a Son receiving his Father’s life; and a Spirit issuing from both, without any division or multiplication of essence.”’ How far does this come short of an infinite absurdity, and ‘‘an eternal contradiction??? The same writer adds: ‘* These are notions which may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree ; [exactly so;] but ought not to stagger our faith in asserting that they are true.’? What, then, cannot be made out from the Bible, and received as Divine verity? The venerable Dr. Woods very justly remarks, (Works, vy. i. p. 442,) that “the test, by which we must deter- mine the truth or falsehood of any statement of this doctrine, or any theory respecting it, is the word of / 114 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. God. > As the theory or ‘statement above eC gives an unnatural and forced construction to those texts which relate to it, we certainly cannot receive it.?? In “a sermon on the doctrine of the Trinity, preach- ed by one of the most eminent and venerable of living theologians,” of our own country, it was stated »—as reported in The Independent for Aug. 2, 1849 ,—that “the personality of the Son as distinct from that of the Father on the one hand, and from that of the Holy Spirit on the other, is just the same thing, Just as com- plete, just as definite as the personality of one man in | distinction from that of other men. Each of the three Persons is a distinct and complete moral agent, having his own distinct understanding, will and consciousness. To prove that this is what is meant by ‘ Persons’ in the Trinity, it is only necessary to remember that when we conceive of Peter, James, and John as per- sons, we conceive of them as being each a distinct and complete moral agent, and as having each his own dis- tinct powers and faculties of moral agency. The three Persons, then, according to this definition, were in every intelligible sense three Gods; and accordingly, that identical phrase, ‘ three Gods,’ was used by the preacher, more than once or twice—whether deliberately or inadvertantly we cannot tell-——as the aptest formula to express his doctrine of three Divine Persons.”’ ? The preacher ete explained to the reporter, that his statement was ‘misunderstood, ? and that ‘the words were extempore, and from their liability to misapprehension as tritheistic, were not wisely chosen.”? A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 115 We hardly expected this, in a discourse prepared with so much forethought, from one who had spent so many years in studying and teaching theology. Notwith- standing this disclaimer of intentional tritheism,— which no one supposes,—the above premises—“ each of the three Persons, a distinct and complete moral agent, having his own distinct understanding, will and A abancnes like ‘Peter, James, and cine sent to us ‘‘in every intelligible sense, three Gods.’ This is the fair and logical deduction. A clear and ac- tive mind would perceive this result—quick and clear as a flash of light—and an ingenuous one, off tts guard, bring it out as the inevitable result of the premises, and say fearlessly and truly that the three Persons are “three Gods ;?? though on a sober second thought, such a mind would perceive the slip, and be very likely to draw back. But if the preacher ‘was not there, when the [reporter’s] lash fell,”? his premises were there, and the logical conclusion close by their side to share their fate. It is better not to propound a use- less theory which is “not directly taught in the Serip- tures,” for the sake of getting as far as possible from an alleged “‘heresy ;?? and safer for both parties to keep close to the Bible; then there will be no heresy to be rebutted, or “ tritheism repudiated.” In The Congregationalist for Aug. 17, 1849, there is a report of a sermon on the subject of the Trinity, preached in Boston on the previous Sabbath, by the worthy and venerable Dr. Lyman Beecher. It is given 116 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. us by a competent and responsible reporter ;* and we may be sure, in ¢Ais instance, that we have the sense of the preacher. ‘“‘ His first object was to define personality. As used among men, it is applied only to beings possessing intelligence, will and affections—the essential elements of free agency and accountability as subjects of law and moral government. Material things and animals are never called persons. “‘ He concluded that the word person is not in the Bible applied to the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but asserted and proved that all the elements of personality as above defined were ascribed to each of them. To each is ascribed a separate intellect, will, affections, and actions. ‘The Father sent the Son [as to his Di- vine nature ?] to be the propitiation for our sins. The Son left the bosom of the Father. He was with God, he was God, he made all things, he became flesh and dwelt among us.” . Where is it revealed that “the Son left the bosom of the Father ?’”? It is written, ‘‘ The only begotten Son, who 1s in the bosom of the Father’’—who is pre- éminently beloved and honored of the Father—who occupies the highest place of honor, friendship, inti- macy, and affection. This is. evidently spoken of the Messiah—the Son of God after the incarnation—“ the man Christ Jesus.’ Was he not greatly honored in being appointed and sent forth as “‘ the Mediator be- eo * Dr. Edward Beecher, one of the editors of that paper. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 117 tween God and men?”? While executing his commis- sion here on earth, did he not enjoy in a very high degree the friendship, intimacy, and affection of the Father? ‘The language in question is never applied to | the Logos, or the Word—the Divine nature of Christ before the incarnation ; but to the Son of God since that event. There never was a time after the child Jesus was born till the Son of God expired on the cross, never since this event, and we may well be assured there never will be a period in all coming ages, when the Son is not “in the bosom of the Father.” To say, then, that ‘the Son left the bosom of the Fa- ther,”’ is a supplement to Divine revelation. It is said above, ‘‘ He (the Son) was with God, Tee he became flesh and dwelt among us.”? In the Bible it is; ‘‘ The Logos—the Word was with God. The same was in the beginning with God. The Word became flesh.’? But none of these things are said of the Son of God. The Scriptures do not so use that term. If we use it so, it must be used simply as a proper name, referring to his Divine nature, and meaning the same as the Logos, or the Word. But if it is used above, as it appears to be, to designate him as in reality the Son in his Divine nature—the com- panion of the Father in eternity—this is not so re- vealed. If it be true, we must wait for another revela- tion to teach it to us, before we are authorized to affirm it as Divine verity. Dr. George Hill, late Principal of St. Mary’s College at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, in his 118 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ‘¢ Lectures in Divinity”? remarks ;* “In the language of the New Testament, the Christ, or Messiah, and the Son of God, are used. as, equivalent, interchange- able terms.”? So we regard it. But further, from the report of the sermon. “ All the attributes which constitute a real Divine personality are so ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy. Spirit, as agents distinct from each other, that were there no doctrine of a Unity of the three taught, there would be evidence of the existence of three distinct and wholly independent Gods. The personality ascribed to them is a full and perfect personality. The per- sonality is more clearly, definitely and practically re- vealed, than the unity of the Godhead. Each person has his own sphere in the work of redemption, each is worshiped, as God—and each regards the others with infinite affection.”’ ! ‘‘ They are united in ends, feelings, and plans; but there is a higher unity than this. It is a unity that averts the idea of tritheism, and makes the three persons but one being, one God. But what-is that by which this unity is effected? Whether it is called essence, or substance, or substratum, it is something the nature of which is not revealed. Its effect is revealed; it unites the three persons in one God.’’ ‘* Finally, he set forth in a most impressive light the delightful view given by this doctrine, of infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind. The idea of an * Philadelphia ed. 1844, p. 249. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. “119 infinite solitary being, devoid of all society of his own grade, is painful and chilling to the mind. Creatures cannot ever become the peers of God, or fully meet the social wants of his infinite nature. In the Trinity, these wants are met and fully satisfied. We rejoice in ~ the j joy of God, and feel that his j joy is full.” We have now the Tritheistic form of the common theory of the Trinity, pretty fully and clearly set before us. But, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1849, there is an elaborate article on the Trinity, by Dr. Edward Beecher of Boston, Massachusetts, containing a more full development of this Tritheistic theory, than is contained in his report of the sermon of his vene- rable and ever-to-be venerated father, in part just quoted ; from which article we make a few extracts. ‘They will be chiefly taken from pages 728-732. The author of the article says, that his ‘‘mode of reasoning ig strictly philosophical ;”? because, “‘in the natural world, that theory is held to be true which ac- counts for all the facts and gives harmony to the sys- tem.”” He thinks that the theory of the Trinity which he advocates “ gives an easy and adequate account of all these facts, and unites all parts of the Bible in one system. It is therefore true. On all sound principles of reasoning it must be true.” | But all the facts are fully accounted. foes in the Scriptures, without any theory at all. It is no theory that God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a well attested fact ; and it is much more ** philosophical’’—aye, reverential— an 120 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. to leave it where God has left it, than to undertake to explain his wnrevealed nature by applying to the de- velopments he has made of himself, such philosophy as darkens what he has made plain. God has told us, with sufficient plainness, that he has so revealed him- self, to glorify himself in the salvation of men and in promoting the welfare of his great kingdom. This ‘“ gives an easy and adequate account of all these facts, and unites all parts of the Bible in one system.”? Such presumptuous philosophy, therefore, as ventures beyond the boundaries of human knowledge in ra to explain the mode of the Divine existence, “on all sound principles of reasoning”? in such matters, “must be”? false. “Tt (this doctrine or theory) consists in the great, simple, majestic fact of infinite tripersonality.”? This is similar to the statement made on the same subject, by the seven authors of a Review (of whom the writer of the article in question is one) in The Christian Ob- servatory for June, 1849, p. 268: “That which dis- tinguishes a Trinitarian from a Unitarian is this: A belief in an original three-foldness in the nature. of God.” As to this grand distinction of “a Trinitarian from a Unitarian’’—this exaltation of a theory to an eminence above great and momentous truths clearly revealed,—we have already remarked in this chapter ; and those remarks apply equally to the statement just quoted. All the truths of the Bible can stand better— with far less incumbrance—without this theory than with it. A BIBLICAL TRINITY.: 121 Further, from the.article in the Repository. “ But while we decline to adopt the generation and procession development of antiquity, we are free to confess that we | prefer it to the ground assumed by some, that we do not know what person means, in the doctrine of the Trinity, and that it is some unknown, three-fold distinc- tion in a God whose essence, will, and attributes are one. This is not what the Bible reveals... .. . - Its natural development is Sabellianism. . ... . It (the generation and procession development) pre- sented, in its full power, the great idea of tripersonality in God.” ‘¢ Absolute, unmitigated personal unity in an infinite mind, is a cold, unsocial idea. ....... The desire of an equal to love, does not strike us as an im- perfection in an infinite person; nay, it would seem to us imperfect without it. If this is so, what would be the social state of an infinite, eternal, solitary mind 2 Who, in the universe, could worthily understand and reciprocate the love of an infinite heart? Toward whom could such a heart overflow?” After expanding these thoughts in application to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as “three infinite, self-existent,”? com- panionable ‘minds,”’ or spirits, the writer speaks “ of delightful intercourse, and of perfect unity in thought, feeling, plans and action, between the blessed persons of the Trinity. “These ideas lie on the face of the Scriptures. [Just as green lies on the face of the paper that is seen through green glasses. | They are the very things that 6 122 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. affect the mind. [So-do the fancy and the imagination affect the mind; not only in natural, but in spiritual things.] They are involved m any clear view of the plan of redemption. [Not exactly so; but those things are involved in the plan of redemption whieh Gop has revealed of himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spi- rit.| They are essential to any definite and affecting conception of the love of God. [But multitudes have had ‘definite and affecting conceptions of that love,” who did not entertain the views of this writer ; and therefore they.are not “ essential.”?} When it is said of the Father, that he spared not his own Son, [the Logos—the Divine nature of Christ 2] but gave him up for us all, and that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ; our whole power to feel or mea- sure the love of God, lies in the reality which we at- tach to their separate personality and ardent mutual love.”’ << We would much sooner believe in three separate, infinite, self-existent spirits, [but he does believe in ‘three such spirits, or “‘ minds,” supposed to be united ‘1a scholastic substratum,] than in one solitary God, who in the wide universe could find no equal to love.” ‘We reject tritheism because it 1s not a fact ;—be- cause the Bible does not teach it, but rather the essen- tial unity of God. | “ But we are free to confess that such an idea of trstheism as we can form, would be far better to us than such unity, as leaves only a Sabellian Trinity as its ultimate logical development. [We would much rather A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 123 believe in the God revealed in the Bible, than either “ of them; or in any scholastic theory.] There is some- | thing lovely, affecting, sublime, in the mutual love and perfect social intercourse of three infinite, self-existent minds.”? But is there not something much more “‘ love- ly, affecting, sublime, in the mutual love and perfect social intercourse of” thirty thousand “‘ infinite, self- existent minds ?”? Exactly ten thousand times more so. The latter is ‘‘ the great idea,” after all—if we are to follow our own views of what is “‘ lovely, affecting, sub- lime,”? in God, rather than what he has revealed of — himself in his holy word. The writer adds, toward the close of his article, ‘From all human speculation in the annunciation of the Trinity as a revealed doctrine, we abstain.”’ But, if the preceding statements developing the Tritheistic theory of the Trinity, do not contain ‘ speculation” — the most daring, presumptuous, audacious, and be- nighted—we should not know where to look for it; unless it be, in ancient or modern pantheism, or in the vagaries of Swedenborg. Why! compared with a part of the foregoing statements, some of the very heathen were more consistent, and more scriptural too, in their ‘views of God. Horace says of Jupiter, the father of the gods and of men: “nec aut simile, aut secun- dum”’—there is nothing like him, or second to him. The main topics to be discussed, in considering this Tritheistic theory of the Trinity and its claims to be received as truth, —revealed or unrevealed,—are the following : ; 124 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 1. That there are in God “three infinite, self- existent minds,” or “three distinct and competent moral agents,’’ called “* Persons,” with three sets of Divine attributes. 2. That.these three infinite, self-existent minds, or distinct. and competent moral agents, are so united in one “‘ essence, substance, or substratum,’’ as to consti- tute one Divine Spirit, or Being. “‘ It unites the three Persons in one God.” 3. That these three infinite, self-existent minds, or ‘“* Peers of God,’? furnish the great Jehovah with “infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind,?— “* society of his own grade ;”? these separate and mutual Divine conditions being essential to “‘ any clear view of the plan of redemption,” to “ fully meet the social wants of his infinite nature,” to “‘ the mutual love” of the Persons of the Godhead, and to their individual and joint felicity. 1. How does it appear, that there are ‘‘ three infi- nite, self-existent minds’?—“ an original three-foldness in the nature of God,’’—“‘ three distinct and compe- tent moral agents, each having his own distinct under- standing, will, and consciousness,”’ or “a separate in- tellect, will, affections, and actions,”’ and all the attri- butes of the Godhead? It is not quite so clear as some seem to suppose, that all this is revealed in the Bible. But we are told, (Bib. Repos.) that this theory [‘‘ fact ???] is taught in ‘‘ those texts which imply or teach a plurality of persons in the Godhead ;??—such as the following: Gen. 1 : 26; Let us make man in A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 125 our image, after our likeness. 8:22; Behold, the — man is become as one of us. 11:17; Let ws go down and see. Deut. 6:4; Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God (literally Gods) is one Jehovah. Isa. 6:8; I heard the voice of Jehovah, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? : We had supposed that all able, thorough, and judi- cious critics had done quoting these and such like pas- sages, as proof in the case, long ago. But almost any- thing, to prop up a tottering theory, which many intel- ligent Christians rather regard as a public nuisance to be abated. Waving our own remarks for the present, we quote those of Prof. Stuart, on this point :* ‘‘ Nor does the appeal to the plural forms of expression in the Old Testament justify the modes of representation in ques- tion; [viz. ‘‘ society, and covenanting transactions, and deliberative counsel, and the like, in the Godhead itself ;’] such as, ‘ Let us make man; Let us go down and see; The man is become as one of us; Who will go for us? and ‘the like. All these modes of ex- pression seem naturally to spring from the almost con- tinual use of the plural form Elohim, as the name of God. But he who has well studied the genius of the Hebrew language, must know that this often makes an intensitive signification of words by employing the plural number ; and particularly that this is the fact in regard to words designating dominion, lordship, ete. * Bib. Repos. July, 1835, pp. 102, 3. AQ6 hit A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Such is the case not only with Elohim, but also with _ many others, even when they designate single objects. Elohim, is for the most part as much as to say, su- preme God. But if any still insist on the argument to be drawn from this, as evincing of itself a plurality in the Godhead, what shall be said of its use in Ps. 45: 6, '7, where first the Son and then the Father is each respectively called Elohim ? Is there then a plurality of persons in the Son, and in the Father too ? ‘It is then on the ground of this plurality as to form in the name of God, that we may most naturally account for such modes of expression as, ‘Let us make man,’ etc. At all events, the subject of such plurality of names is encompassed with so many diffi- culties, when viewed in any other light, that nothing positive can safely be built upon it, in respect to plu- rality in the Godhead; an expression, by the way, against which the graver or more cautious writers on the subject of the Trinity are often warning us, because of its polytheistic aspect.”’ Sate Prof. Knapp also remarks,* respecting the ancient use of the word before us, (Elohim,) that it is derived from an Arabic word, which signifies to reverence, to honor, to worship. ‘‘ Hence (he says) it comes to pass that it is frequently applied to kings, magistrates, judges, and others to whom reverence is shown, and who are regarded as the representatives of the Deity npon earths Paes sO. Pie, 2 de ee ae The * Theology, p. 93. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 127 plural of this word, Elohim, although it denotes but one subject, is appropriately used to designate Jeho- vah by way of eminence. In this fact, many theolo- gians have thought they perceived an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity, though they have no sufficient ground for supposing that. this doctrine was known at so early a period. And without resorting to this sup- position, the application of this plural name to a singu- lar subject may be explained from an idiom of the ancient oriental and some other languages, by which anything great or eminent was expressed in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or majestaticus.) Ac- cordingly, Eloha, (the singular,) augustus, [majestic, | may be considered as the positive degree, of which Elohim, (the plural,) augustissimus, [most majestic, | is the superlative.”’ We have here the critical judgment—with reasons hard to gainsay—of two eminent Biblical scholars, one from the Western and one from the Eastern continent, in regard to the evidence of a plurality of persons in the nature of God, to be derived from ‘the plural forms of expression in the Old Testament.’? This, perhaps, is sufficient. Much more need not be said on this point ; but we will add a few things. ‘* And Ged said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in HIs own image.”’ This language is understood to express determination, — And God determined to make man in his own im- age, after his own likeness,’’—without supposing that he also intended to teach us thereby, the mode of his 128 | A BIBLICAL TRINITY. existence. ‘* God said,’’ is a form of expression used throughout the narrative: “‘ God said, Let there be light, and there was light?—‘ God determined to cre- ate light, and light was.? Does the language require us to believe that he literally spake thus? or simply that such was his determination, consequent upon which the thing existed? ‘God determined to make man. So God created man.’ The Scriptures usually speak of God very much after the manner of men; as having eyes, ears, a mouth, a hand, an arm ; as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, stretching out his hand. It is said; ‘‘ God came from Teman—he had horns coming out his hand—thou didst ride upon thine horses _ —thou didst march through the land in indignation— thou didst walk through the sea with thine horses, through the heap of great waters—he put on righteous- ness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head ; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.”’? Yet we . are not to construe these expressions literally ; but to seek out their true sense—the truth—intended to be communicated by the terms. When a man is about to do an important thing, and wishes to proceed with de- liberation and act with discretion, he considers with himself, and perhaps speaks audibly: ‘‘ Let us con- sider—let us see what to do.?? When he has deter- mined on the thing, he may speak out; and say: ‘I will do this, or that.”? But in so saying, he does not intend to tell us anything as to the origin or mode of hig existence. He is deliberating, so as to come to a wise _ A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 129 determination. That is the object of his method of proceeding. God does not, like man, need to jeperuter i in order to act wisely—at least, he has not told us so; but he makes himself and his doings known to us in lan- guage conformed to the manner of men; leaving it for common sense to decide as to the meaning of what he says of himself, for the express purpose of being un- derstood—not for the purpose of casting a mist before our eyes, so that we cannot see what he means—not to cause contention, uncharitableness, alienation and dis- cord among those whom he would teach the knowledge of himself and his works. God seems, by the language under consideration, to have intended to teach us, that he came to a wise determination in respect to man’s creation—that man is the product of Divine wisdom, as well as power. But it is claimed that the plural form in Hebrew, Elohim, teaches this doctrine of tripersonality in the nature of God. Why then does not the same plural form in Ex. 21:4, 6, denote plurality of persons in man? “If his master [adonim, masters] have given him a wife,?? &c. ‘* Then his master [plural, masters| shall bring him unto the judges ; [elohim, gods—magistrates;] ..... and his master [ado- nim, masters] shall bore,”? &c. How would it sound, if these plurals were rendered into English ? Quite as well as to ‘‘ call Charlemagne the great emperors, to denote his special dignity !’? (Bib. Repos. p. 715 5) or to say in English, ‘ Jehovah our Gods is one Je- 130 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. hovah.”? This mode of expression accords with the Hebrew idiom, but not with the English; and there- fore to put that idiom into English in order to render it ridiculous, is not fair or sound argumentation. The plural pronoun is used, not only in Hebrew but in English, as it is in the question, ‘“‘ Who will go for us ??? but not the plural name. Thus it is in the forms of royalty; as we remember to have read in our boyhood: ‘* Wer by the grace of God, king [not kings| of Great Britain, France and Ire- land, defender [not defenders| of the faith,’’ etc. This idiom is common—not to say universal—with editors (sole editors) and writers of reviews; and that too with the discrimination just noticed. Nay; this very writer of the article in question has observed it him- self, p. 791: ‘So far as the wants of owr own mind [not minds] are concerned, we would much sooner be-. lieve in three separate, infinite, self-existent spirits,”’ &c. He may say we, and our ; but to speak of his own minds, “‘ to denote special dignity,” is as far from ¢ being idiomatic, as “‘ calling Charlemagne the great emperors.” Moreover, the idiom of a language cannot be trans- ferred to another language, without doing more or less violence to its idiom. Accordingly, the Seventy learned Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek, hence called the Septuagint—a part of it, the Penta- teuch, between two and three centuries before the Christian era—have observed this principle. They have translated Elohim in the singular, (6 Oc0s) as it A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 181 _is in our translation of the Bible. They, surely, un- derstood the meaning of the word; but they have given no intimation that it denotes plurality in God. The writers of the New Testament, in their quotations from the ancient Scriptures, have uniformly done the same thing. But none of them, if Elohim (designating the true God) teaches plurality in his nature, have given us the sense of that word in their translation or quota- tions. Would they not have done so had such been the fact? and would not fidelity, in so important a matter as this is represented to be, have required it of them ? So, in Ex. 21:4, 6; the Seventy have rendered the Hebrew plural of masters, into the singular, (6 xdgvos— master,) as in our Bible. In like manner, our trans- lators have observed the English idiom, in rendering other plural words. In Ps. 45:17; 47:1, 3, 9, and other places, they have rendered plural words— plural also in the Septuagint—(Acol, #47, daois,) in the singular— people.’? Bishop Horsley has designedly violated the idiom of our language, by rendering it in the. plural form, ‘‘ peoples,’? not only to give the sense but the form of the original, It is true that people is a noun of multitude ; but not more so than nation, and that in the singular. The word (27) people, here means, as it often does, nations, as dastin- guished from the Jews ; i. e. the heathen,—a word derived from %6»y, —gentiles, pagans ; a sense which the mere English reader hardly gets. Such is the rendering in Ps, 44; 2; “ How thou didst drive out 132 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. the heathen with thy hand.” It is idiomatic in our language, to address an individual in the use of the plural pronoun you, with a plural verb; as— you are the author ;” for “thow art the author.2’? But this cannot be transferred to another language without vio- lence to its idiom. [Try it, in Latin or Greek, to name no other language: Vos quoque, Brute /] But the plural form designating an individual, is used in Hebrew to denote rank, authority, respect, rev- erence, sovereignty ; but not, so far as appears, to express plurality in the individual to whom it is ap- plied. Such is the fact in Exodus 21 : 4, 6; already quoted. Soin Ex. 7:1: ‘ Jehovah said unto’ Moses, See, I have made thee a god (elohim—gods) to Pha- raoh?’—in accordance with Hebraistic idiom. In’? Chron. 10:9, and 1 Kings 12:9, the plural form denotes sovereignty ; as in other passages referred to. King Rehoboam, who had rejected the counsel of the old men, said to the young men, “ What advice give ye; that we [the king] may return answer to this people which have spoken to me ???—singular and plural both, as in the question, ‘Whom shall J send, and who will go for us ?”? In the latter passage, as Prof. Knapp remarks (p. 132), “the plural form may be explained either as pluralis majestaticus [the plural of majesty or supremacy], or as denoting an assembly for consul- tation. The chiefs of heaven are described. as there collected ; and God puts to them the question, whom shall we make our messenger ?” This latter repre- sentation is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22: ‘I saw Je- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 133 hovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right ‘hand and on his left. [Literally so?] And Jehovah said, Who shall. per- suade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- gilead 2 And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will persuade him. And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.”’ | Should there be a doubt as to the meaning of this plural form, in any of the passages just quoted— whether it truly and properly denotes sovereignty or supremacy—that doubt may be removed, by consider- ing another example, which appears to be decisive. (Ezra 4: 11,18.) In the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, certain disaffected persons—enemies to the re- building of the house of God at Jerusalem—prepared a letter which they “sent unto him, even unto Artax- erxes the king ;”? to whom he made reply, ** Peace, and at such a time. The letter which ye sent unto us [Artaxerxes the king] hath been plainly read before _ me.”? He then, in the exercise of his individual sove- reignty, ordered the work to cease; and it ceased ac- _cordingly. Here is no allusion whatever to any “ as- sembly for consultation.”? Nothing appears but the determination of a despotic monarch, asserting his own supremacy in the use of the plural form, common in & é§ 0: Beth A BIBLICAL TRINITY. such cases. ‘There seems to be no way of evading this conclusion. | . Besides, it is evident that the plural form, Elohim, - when applied to Jehovah, is not used to denote plurality in the nature of the Godhead, from the manner in which it is applied to false gods. In 1 Kings 11 : 33, we find the plural form applied to each of three false gods: ‘* Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess [feminine plural] of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god [plural] of the Mo- abites, and Milcom the god [plural] of the children of Ammon.’’ Was there a plurality in this goddess, and in each of these gods? Clearly, the word is employed, in each case, to denote a single individual, according to Hebraistic usage. It is used twice, in the same way, in Judges 16: 23. “‘ Then the lords of the Philis- tines gathered them together for to offer a great sacri- fice unto Dagon their god, [elohim,] and to rejoice: for they said, Our god [plural] hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.’’? This word is used in the same manner in the next verse; and applied to Jeho- vah in v. 28. In Judges 18 : 22, it is applied to an angel, who was sent as a messenger from heaven to Manoah and his wife. They spoke of him as “the man of God,?? and ‘the man”? simply, and proposed to provide for him an entertainment ; not knowing that he was an angel of Jehovah. He declined the proposal, and told them, if they would offer a burnt-offering, to offer it to Jehovah. That is just as the angel did that appeared to John in A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 135 the Apocalypse, Rev. 19 : 10, when the latter fell at his feet to worship him: ‘ See thou do it not: Iam thy fellow-servant: worship God.”? The same thing is repeated inch. 22:9. After the angel had ascended in the flame that went up from the altar, and thus left them, and they “knew that he was an angel of Jeho- vah,’?? Manoah said, ‘‘ We shall surely die, because we have seen God”—Elohim. They simply used it as a term of respect and reverence, which they applied to one whom they understood to be an angel. In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, the same plural word is used several times, to designate the golden calf which Aaron made for the people to wor- ship. The people said to Aaron, ‘‘ Up, make us gods, [elohim, a god,| which shall go before us; for, as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what has become of him.’ And he made ‘‘ a molten calf ;’? and they said, ‘‘ These: [plural pronoun too] be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’’? And Aaron “built an altar before 17.”—v. 5. “ Then I cast it (the gold) into the fire, and there came out this calf.””—y. 24. In the whole narrative, there is no allusion whatever to more than one image, and the whole account shows that there was but one. And yet elohim.is applied to it, just as it is to Jehovah, and to the false gods before mentioned. The Seventy, con- trary to their usual custom, render this word here, in the plural—gods. To be consistent with their general practice, both they and our English translators should 136 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. have rendered the word in the singular—a god: “* Make us a god, &c., as for this Moses,’’—our leader, ruler, elohim,— we know not what has become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol.”,—Acts 7: 40, 41. The pas- sage here quoted, gives us the plural, ‘ gods ;’? doubt- less taken from the Septuagint, the version of the Scriptures in most common use among the Jews at that time. But this is not all. This plural form is used in a similar manner in the New Testament. The apostle Paul uses it in the same way, and for the same general purpose for which it is used in the passages which have been quoted from the Old Testament. Into the Co- yinthian church which he had gathered, false teachers had intruded themselves, who endeavored to injure him in the estimation of that church, and to set at naught his claims and his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. They took advantage of his absence and long delay to visit that interesting field of his la- bors, to make good their false accusations. In his defense of himself from the charges brought against him, | (2 Cor. c. 10-18,) he goes into a particular account of the matter, boldly maintains his rightful claims to the apostleship, and asserts his authority, in a style of address suited to the occasion. “If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we Christ’s.—(10 : 7.) Let such an one think this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, cig see — A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 1387 such will we be also in deed, when we are present.— (v. 11.) But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to ws, a measure to veach even unto you.”—(v. 13.) This style runs through the remainder of the epistle; in which this apostle shows, (11 : 28,) that he has “daily, the care of all the churches.’’ Here is the firm language of his asserted claim to be an authorized apostle; expressed in the ap- propriate style of authority—the plural forms of the Old. Testament, and the common form of claiming and publicly asserting authority or supremacy, (so in Gal. 1: 8, 9,) in all ages. ; There is no good reason to believe that this plural form of expression, of which we have been speaking, was adopted by ancient kings—Jewish or pagan—from the language employed by God respecting himself, in the Bible ; but very good reasons to the contrary. The derivation of the word in question from the Arabic, as mentioned by Prof. Knapp, and the fact that God speaks to us in the language and after the manner of men, in order that he may be clearly understood by men, prove this conclusively. He speaks of himself as “a Great Kine,’ and as having a kingdom, a throne, a scepter—all taken from the usages and the language of men; not adopted by men from God’s representa- tion of his doings, or of the mode of his existence. This whole argument in favor of a plurality of per- sons in the nature of God, from the plural forms of expression in the Old Testament, is too regardless of 138 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: the Hebrew idiom, too fanciful, and too arbitrary, to have any weight with critics who are not incorrigibly devoted to a troublesome theory. As to the evidence in favor of the Tritheistic theory, from Matt. 28 : 19, we have but a word to say. The writer of the article in question remarks respecting it: ‘* No view is at all consistent or even tolerable but this, that this passage was designed to present to the mind the three Divine persons or agents by whom salvation is secured, and the work of each in all its parts.’—p. 719. The preceding statement seems ‘‘ consistent’? with nothing but this Tritheistic theory, or absolute tritheism; nor is it ‘‘ even tole- rable,” as a representation of what the Scriptures teach on the subject. This passage, in connection with the rest of the New Testament, reveals to us Gop—“ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,”’ with special reference to the commencement, progress, and completion of the work of man’s salvation. This is not theory—but REVEALED TRUTH. But, ‘ three distinct and competent moral agents in the nature of God,” is theory, and not REVEALED truth. Under one or another of the above or similar terms, and in various connections, God has revealed his purposes of merey to man, and all the momentous truths of. redemption by Jesus Christ. If we go beyond the record, we pass the boundaries of human knowledge on this subject, and enter the illimitable field of human speculation, contradiction, and absurdity. Other passages adduced by this writer as evidence of A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 139 the truth of this theory, are examined elsewhere, on these pages. ; 2. The second topic to be considered under this Tri- theistic theory, is, that these three infinite, self-existent minds, or distinct and competent moral agents, are so united in one ‘ essence, substance, or substratum, as to constitute one Divine Spirit, or Being. ‘* It unites the three Persons in one God.”’ The reason, then, that they are not, in every intelli- gible sense, ‘‘ three distinct and wholly independent Gods,’’ is, confessedly, their union in the manner de- fined. What, then, is this supposed entity, called by any one of three names, which—out of three infinite, self- existent minds, three distinct and competent moral agents, three Persons as really distinct, in every other sense, as Peter, James and John—so unites them as to constitute one God? “It is something [as before quoted], the nature of which is not revealed.” But how do we know that this hidden substratum is a real- ity, and not a scholastic fiction? Is it revealed as a reality? This does not appear on the pages of inspira- tion. It is revealed that there is one, only one, living and true God—-“ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” These three, in the language of a certain ~ ‘¢ Minority Report”’ on the subject of the Trinity, are “three subsistences in the Divine nature ;” that is, each of the three-has a “real being” there.—(Web- ster.) Each must have a “real being’’—a real ex- istence—or be a non-entity. Where is it revealed that 140 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. “‘three subsistences,’? or three Persons, in the Divine nature, are united, by means of a common substratum, in one God? Christ, ‘the Son of man’? and “the Son of God,” says: ‘‘I am in the Father and the Fa- ther in me. I and my Father are one.” But this language does not teach, or imply, that he refers to a union of his Divine nature with the “ distinct person” of the Father. Plainly, it is a union of “the Son of man’? with “the Father that dwelt in him.?? But no such language is ever used in reference to the Holy Spirit and the Father; and no such union as is claimed between the Holy Spirit and the Father is ever af- firmed in the Scriptures. What do any of us know about this substratum ? We are told there ‘‘ must be’? something to unite the “* three subsistences,”’ ‘the three distinct Persons, in one God ;”? and we may as well call it by this name— substratum—as anything else; seeing it is that re- specting the nature of which we know nothing. But what valid evidence is there, that there is a “ some- thing’? which unites three sets of Divine attributes in one God; when it is not revealed that three sets of Divine attributes exist at all? We know nothing of any substratum which unites one set of Divine attri- butes in God. All we know is, that God possesses certain qualities, and that he performs certain acts of different kinds or classes which we properly refer to him as their author ; and we say, in reference to these qualities and to each class of acts—as a matter of con- venience in thinking, writing, and speaking on the sub- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. : 141 ject—that he has such and such attributes—e. g. om- nipotence, omniscience, wisdom, benevolence, etc. But none of us know anything of their being united in a substratum. We only know that they belong to God ; and hence we say—referring them to him—that he has these several attributes. Should it be said, that we cannot conceive of these attributes as belonging to the Divine mind, or as existing, unless they are united in a substance or substratum ; the proper reply would be, that we can conceive of it as well without the supposed substratum as with it. That does not aid its concep- tion at all. It is sufficient to know and to say, that God possesses the attributes and performs the acts in ques- tion. This appears to be the limit of human knowl- edge on the subject; and the supposed yet unknown substratum, does not help us beyond that limit one hair’s breadth—unless it.be into mist and absurdity. If we are otherwise incapable of conceiving of the thing, that is proof positive of no such entity as is claimed, but only of our incapacity. The truth is not dependent for its existence or its nature on our capa- city to conceive of it. Water has been converted into ice, whether we have seen it or can so conceive of it or not. Again ; do we know anything definitely, respecting this substratum ? Are we sure it has a “‘ real being ?” Where is the evidence? Take away from anything its attributes, and what remains? Take away from mat- ter one of its attributes—extension—and what is left? Merely a mathematical point, without any uniting sub- 142 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. stance or any attributes at all. Take away from the true God his attributes, or suppose them taken away, -and what is left? Where is the uniting substratum ? It is gone; and we know not that it was ever there. The only thing, after all, which prevents the Trithe- istic theory of the Trinity from being pure tritheism, in every possible sense of the word, is, so far as human knowledge is concerned, a mere non-entity. God has indeed a nature, including the whole of what he is; but the evidence that there is a God, to whom certain properties or attributes belong, does not prove a sub- stratum. No evidence of its existence has been pro- duced, but simple asswmption ; and this, “like the baseless fabric of a vision, leaves not a wreck behind.”’ But still, they tell us we cannot prove that this dis- tinction of three Persons in the Divine nature, united in one substratum, is absurd or inconsistent with the Divine unity, because we do not know anything about it—it is “‘ an awful mystery.”? That is, they hide the subject in the thickest Egyptian darkness, where none of us can see or feel anything but darkness itseif, and then tell us we cannot prove, amid total darkness, what it requires light either to prove or disprove! It is in- deed “a mystery,” or rather a thick mist cast before our eyes, to shun the labor of explanation and proof, and to conceal the absurdity which would otherwise be a little too glaring. We might say in return, that they cannot prove there is any such distinction in the nature of God, or any such union of three Persons in a common substratum, as they affirm. We may fairly y A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 143 put this theory with those of “ eternal generation” and “¢ eternal procession,” and say of them all, as Dr. Em- mons says of the latter two, that they are “ such mysteries as cannot be distinguished from real ab- surdities.”’* But we have not yet done with the Tritheistic form of the common theory of the Trinity. A few things more must be said of the word person, as used in this theory, in a peculiar sense. “It (the word) is applied only to beings possessing intelligence, will and atffec- tions.”’ 'To such beings it is applicable. It is applied to men and to God. And it is as appropriate and as scriptural, when applied to angelic existence, as when it is applied to Divine existence. Suppose, then, that God sends to this world an em- bassy of three angelic persons, equal in intellect, know- ledge, holiness, and all personal attributes, and united together in one’ Divine commission—this embassy fur- nishes as good an example of one angelic being, as three Divine persons, each with his own distinct intel- lect, susceptibility, will, and other Divine attributes, all united in one scholastic substratum, does of one Divine being. This Divine commission forms as com- plete a union of three such angelic persons in one com- plex being, constituting a trinity in unity, as a con- ceivable or even possible scholastic entity does of three Divine persons in one complex being, constituting a Trinity in unity. The persons in each case are repre- * Sermons, v. 1, p. 81, ed. 1815. 144 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. sented as equally distinct, equally competent moral agents, equally well united in one, having the same na- ture, and perfectly harmonious. Indeed, we might go farther ; for the materials have been furnished ready to our hands, in a defense of the common theory of the Trinity. A Reverend Doctor in one of the high places of the church, appearing in marked opposition to the “‘ heretical’? views of a neigh- bor, said in his own pulpit, that “the several Persons of the Trinity are as distinct from each other as Peter, James and Paul.’? We have, then, only to consider these three good men ‘‘ full of the Holy Ghost,’’ united in one Divine commission to evangelize the nations, and going forth together with one heart in their work ; and we have three persons in one complex being, con- stituting a human trinity in unity. In each case— angelic, scholastic, and human trinity—the three per- sons have.alike the attributes of three fully competent moral agents, are equally distinct, and are as really united in one complex being, constituting a trinity in unity, in one case as much as in either of the others. The union is none the less complete when formed by a Divine commission, than by a scholastic substratum. The persons in each of the three trinities, are alike “¢ three in one respect, and one in another respect.”’ It has been further said, in illustration of this sub- ject, that “‘when an army is said to be ‘ one body,’ it means that though composed of thousands of bodies, there is one respect in which they cannot be considered A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 145 as two.”’* But there is this wide difference between the army and the Trinity. In the latter, one Person, one agent, comprehends, virtually, the physical and moral force (so to speak) of the whole Trinity. Itis — so; or, according to the theory we are considering, there are—contrary to the Bible—three Gods. But in an army of ten thousand men, one person, one agent, includes only one ten-thousandth part of the physical and moral force of the whole army. They are no less ten thousand distinct agents—ten thousand men, be- cause they are united in one army—“ one body ;’’ the soul of which is the will of their commander. But they have ten thousand distinct and independent wills—just like any other ten thousand men—and if they choose they can rebel, and scatter to the four winds. How does such a union in $ ‘one body” help our conceptions of a scholastic Trinity, or make it any the less absurd ? We might say, in like manner, that the whole human race are one, in some important respects—one in their common father—one still, as a race, properly designa- ted by the word man; as the three Persons in the common theory of the Trinity are designated by the word God. ‘Those of the latter have one and the same nature ; and so have those of the former. In the scholastic theory of the Trinity, as it is com- monly represented, when we view the Father sending the Son, considered in respect to his Divine nature, and both uniting to send the Holy Spirit, considered as * Difficulties of Religion, p. 232. nha 146 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. a competent moral agent distinct from two other com- petent moral agents, it seems impossible for the mind to be satisfied that the three are truly equal. Make what effort we please—try as hard as we can—it 1s extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to rid our- selves of the impression—the real, practical convic- tion—that the Father only is supreme ; and that the Son and Spirit are subordinate, not only in office, but in nature. | This tritheistic theory, after all the statements and explanations which have accompanied it, does really comprise and set forth “ three Gods.”? Common minds—for whom the gospel was especially intended— whatever efforts they or their teachers may make to the contrary—can hardly fail so to understand and receive it. Indeed, there is only a metaphysical, hair-splitting distinction between this theory and bald tritheism—a ‘distinction without a difference. | ° 8. The third topic to be considered in this theory is, that these three infinite, self-existent minds, or “ Peers of God,’? furnish the great Jehovah with “infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind”— “society of his own grade ;” these separate and mutual Divine conditions being essential to “ any clear view of the plan of redemption,”’ to “ fully meet the social wants of his infinite nature,’ to “the mutual love”? of the Persons of the Godhead, and to their individual and joint felicity. Society in a mind, the society of three minds ‘‘ in the Divine mind.”? What an idea! Every mind has the A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 147 “ society” (if we may call it so) of its own thoughts, feelings, conceptions, plans, purposes, etc. Newton had not a little pleasant “‘ society’? in his own mind, while engaged in his investigations and discoveries in science. — The man who has committed some great crime, and is in consequence confined in a solitary cell, has not the most agreeable “ society”? which can be imagined. But, as to the idea of “‘ three infinite, self-existent mands,”’ three Persons furnishing “‘ infinitely blessed society in the Divine minp’?—“ society of his own grade””— three ‘‘ Peers of God” in one Divine Being, associating together, deliberating, counseling, planning, covenant- ing with one another; one of them “ eternally gene- rated’ by another, and by him sent to execute his pur- poses; one “‘ eternally proceeding’’ from two, and sent by them both to complete the work before commenced 3; “these are notions which may well puzzle our reason in conceiving how they agree.’? Some of them seem hardly ‘6 orthodox.”? When were these “ notions’’ revealed— to whom—where found in the Book of revelation ? Or, are they the creatures of the imagination, the pro- ductions of metaphysical philosophy ? There seems to be no good reason for the effort made by one of these writers, to keep up a distinction be- tween mind and spirit ; using mind to designate each Person of the Trinity taken separately; and spirit, the Being in whom they are all united in one. John Howe—a name greatly and justly revered—speaks, in the passage already quoted, of “‘ three distinct, eternal spirits, each having his own distinct, singular, intelli- 148 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. gent nature, united .... . in the one God.” In the report of the sermon preached in Boston, the reader may have already noticed that the preacher spoke of *‘ infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind,’’ not spirit. But whether this is the language of the preacher or of the reporter, does not appear. ‘The Divine mind, is God; as really as the Divine spirit. ‘Three Divine minds, or three Divine spirits, are ‘‘ three distinct and wholly independent Gods.”? This distinction is ob- served, apparently, to shun the obvious appearance of absurdity or tritheism. But it is an arbitrary dis- tinction, without a difference. He might as well have used these two words in the reverse order. . Nor does it appear, from the Scriptures, that three Persons in the nature of God, exercise “* ardent mutual love”? toward each other. He who was “‘ the Son of man” and ‘the Son of God,’ said, when on earth, ‘The Father loveth the Son;”? and this Son loved the Father with ardent affection. But it is not said, ‘‘ the Father loveth”’ the Logos, or the Holy Spirit; or they him. This representation is a part of that scho- lastic philosophy which is everywhere apparent. “‘ So- ciety in the Divine mind,’’ is likewise a part of the same philosophy. God has not told us anything of his “ social state??—or whether any such state appertains to ‘an infinite mind’’—any more than he has of the mode of his existence. All his teachings relative to the subject in any way have the contrary aspect. It is bald assumption. As was said above, every mind may enjoy the “so- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 149 ciety”? of his own thoughts, feelings, purposes, ko. 5 and if it can plan great and noble deeds for noble ends, with the infallible certainty that its purposes will be accomplished, here is enjoyment of the highest order— “ society”? even for “an infinite, self-existent mind.’’ What human mind is not, in a similar way, furnished with rich and abundant sources of enjoyment? But when we consider an infinite mind, possessing inex- haustible resources of every kind, of which we can form no adequate conception whatsoever—such a mind, forming its plans and purposes in eternity, and all along carrying them into effect far back m ages past; yea, millions of centuries, it may be, beyond our utmost con- ceptions of past eternity; and then as much farther back, and farther still, to a period ald but infinitely re- mote—whither our imaginations cannot’ fly, though moving for ages with lightning-speed—this infinite Be- ing all the while extending his dominions, by the multi- plication of worlds and systems diffused through the 1m- mensity of space, and peopling the universe with innu- merable intelligences of his own beneficent creating ;— when we consider these things, shall we speak or think of him as “a solitary God??? Shall we set our im- aginations or our philosophy to furnish sucH A BEING with “equals to love’’—‘ society of his own grade,” that he may have “delightful intercourse’’ with his “ Peers,”? and thus be infinitely happy! If so, what will not human philosophy undertake to do for God, in order to “fully meet the social wants of his infinite nature 2”? 150 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. It is to be presumed that God has always taken care to have objects enough to love, in order to be happy ; and that he is able still to take such care successfully, without the aid of scholastic philosophy. Were all of us at liberty to follow our own views of what is lovely and sublime, in the mutual love and perfect social in- tercourse of infinite, self-existent minds in God, we might carry this “‘ great idea’’ still farther. We might then say, that no reason appears, from the na- ture of the case, why there may not be a much larger number, as well as fhree such minds, united in one ~substratum. Why, then, may there not be an indefi- nite number of such minds thus united, and filling im- mensity—a number far beyond our finite conceptions to comprehend—thus magnifying our views of infinitely blessed society in God? What anidea! How affect- ing and sublime! It throws that other “ great idea’’ so far into the shade as to render it hardly visible. In our honest endeavors to find in the great Je- hovah, ‘‘ society of his own grade,”’ we should take care that we do not lay ourselves open to the Divine rebuke: “* Thou thoughtest that J was altogether such an one as thyself.”? What! Shall we deify the crea- tures of our own imagination, and then demand that others shall render to these images all that reverence which is due to the God of the Bible? Shall we “‘sit and speak against our brother,’? and refuse him that charity and fellowship which are due to him as a Chris- tian and a minister of Christ, because we do not relish all his philosophy, or all the flights of his fancy ever a a A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 151 { on the wing? But what fancy was ever more erratic, more extravagant, more daring, more lawless, more reprehensible, than that which presumes to enter the third heaven, and there busies itself with forming a society of equals for the one only living and true Gop! Such fancy may yet receive a rebuke from Him who sitteth on the throne, and be told to come down from its aspirings, and keep its proper place; and its possessor—however able his intellect or fruitful his fancy—to be content with “receiving the kingdom of God as a little child.” “If I were hungry, I would not tell ruEE!’’ God does not need our aid im pyro- viding for him social intercourse and happiness. And it becomes us all to keep our imaginations and our phi- losophizing within due bounds, in matters appertaining to God; to be humble, docile, obedient, charitable, long-suffering, forbearing, forgiving, lovers of “ the brotherhood,”’ and faithful followers of him who “ went about doing good,” and “ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.”? Let us act as though we had not forgotten that the right of private judgment, the rights of conscience, and the right of forming and expressing our own views of Divine truth, belong alike to all; but recompense, to the Lorn. It has been further argued in favor of the common theory of the Trinity, in each of its forms, that the Bible uses the three personal pronouns, I, Thou, He, in application to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; implying mutual address, and communication with each other as distinct Persons, in eternity. But it is evi- 1 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. dent that there is much more plausibility in this argu- ment before examination than real weight to it after- - ward. Indeed, after considerable search, we have not been able to find anything which deserves to be called argument on the subject; though a traditionary state- ment of this kind is very common. We commenced the examination of this particular topic with the following inquiries distinctly before the mind: How are these pronouns applied to the Persons of the Trinity ? And how do the Father and the Holy Spirit speak of and fo each other? After searching the Scriptures for hours without finding any satisfactory answer to the latter question, and then for other hours with as little success, we at length came to the conclu- sion—which subsequent.examination has confirmed— that the Father, the Logos (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, never address each other. It is believed, after a careful examination, that there is no such representa- tion of this subject, as some have claimed, to be found in the Scriptures. If it were so represented, before the - commencement of this world’s probation, the argument would be much more plausible than it is. When the Scriptures represent the Father as ad- dressing the Son, or the Son the Father—before the incarnation—we believe it will be found, on careful ex- amination, that there is always ; prophetic reference to the Messiah, the Father addressing, or speaking of, the Son by anticipation, and the Son the Father. A few examples will serve for illustration. One is found in Ps. 2: 7-12: “I will declare the decree: the Lord s ee 2. eee | idly ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ; 153 hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”? This is evidently an address, not to the Divine nature of Christ, but to the future Messiah. Prof. Knapp remarks respecting it: ‘ This Psalm was always understood by the Jews, and by the writers of the New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But he is here represented under the image of a king, to whose government, according to the will of God, all must submit. And it is the dignity of this king, or Messiah, of which the Psalmist appears here to speak. ee Paes The passage would then mean, Thou art the king (Messiah) of my appointment : this day have I solemnly declared thee such. ‘That the phrase to-day alludes to the resurrection of Christ, is proved by a reference to Acts 18: 30-34. The writers of the New Testament everywhere teach that Christ was proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection from the dead. Rom. 1:3,4. In this Psalm, therefore, the Messiah is rather exhibited as king, divinely-appointed ruler, and head of the church, than as belonging to the Divine nature.”* Of course, then, it is not the Divine nature which is here addressed, but the future Messiah. ; The same is true of Psalm 110:1: ‘* Jehovah said unto my Lord (Messiah), Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”’? Here, Je- hovah is plainly distinguished from the Messiah. “‘ Sit on my right hand, until I (Jehovah) completely subdue * Theology, p. 132, 3. 7% 154 ' A BIBLICAL TRINITY. thine enemies.” It is, therefore, prophetically ad- dressed to the Messiah, not to his Divine nature. It is clearly so ; otherwise, the representation would be, that the first Person of the Trinity, possessing all the Divine attributes, engages to subdue the enemies of the second Person of the Trinity, possessing likewise all the Divine attributes—either ‘‘ numerically the same,”’ or those which are ‘similar or equal?’—but yet not sufficient for the subjugation of his enemies ! From such an interpretation of the passage, if duly considered, the common sense of men will surely turn away. The passage in Ps. 40: 7, 8, is also to be under- stood as prophetic anticipation. But this will be par- ticularly considered in another place. é Psalm 45:6, 7. ‘ Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scep- ter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wicked- ness: therefore God, [therefore, O God,] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel- lows.”? ‘‘ That this whole Psalm relates to the Mes- siah, has been generally believed by Jewish and Chris- tian commentators.’’—(Stwart.) Respecting this passage, Prof. Knapp remarks, that “the name Elohim is sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, therefore, necessarily prove that the person to whom it is here given must be of the Divine na- ture.”? Prof. Stuart also says of it: “‘ that the whole Psalm relates to the Messiah, as mediatorial king, can searcely be doubted by any one who compares together ee —— A BIBLICAL TRINITY. - 8 all its different parts. The king is called Elohwm, God. Does the word God here denote the Divine, or the kingly nature or condition of the Messiah? Most interpreters, who admit the doctrine of the Savior’s Divine nature, contend for the first of these senses, as I have myself once done in a former publication. But further examination has led me to believe that there are grounds to doubt of such an application of the word God, in this passage. The king, here called God, has for himself a God: ‘thy God hath anointed thee.’ The same king has associates, i. e. others who in some respects are in a similar condition or ofice. As Di- vine, who are associates with the Savior? Besides, his equity, his government, his state, as described in Ps. 45th, are all such as belong to the king Mes- siah.”* That this passage is a prophetic address to the Mes- siah, in reference to a period subsequent to his first personal appearance on earth, can hardly admit of a reasonable doubt. Such is its general bearmg, as treated in the first chapter to the Hebrews. Zechariah 13 : 7, is often quoted, not as an address of the Father to the Son, but as a declaration of the Father respecting the Son—the second Person of the Trinity: ‘‘ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.”’ * Com. on Heb., y. 2. p. 58. 156 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Let us first consider to whom this statement had original reference. ‘‘ Awake, O sword, against my shepherd ;’’ the imperative for the future ; as is com- mon in prophetic writings: meaning, “* the sword shall awake—be actively employed—against my shepherd.” But who is ‘‘ my shepherd ?”’ God is called the shepherd of his people. The twenty-third Psalm commences with the declaration : “6 Jehovah is my shepherd ; I shall not want.’? In the eightieth Psalm, the writer thus begins his ad- dress: ‘Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel; thou that leadest Joseph like a flock.”? In the fourth verse, this shepherd is addressed as “* Jehovah, God of hosts.” In Ps. 79: 13, it is said: “So we thy people, and sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks forever.”’ Jehovah was the shepherd, or supreme ruler of his people Israel: he governed and protected them, and supplied their wants. Those whom God appointed as: rulers under him, were under-shepherds. In Jer. 23: 2, 4, it is said: ‘‘'Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel, against the pas- tors [shepherds] that feed my people; Ye have scat- tered the flock, and driven them away. And I will. set up shepherds over them, which shall feed thenm.”. In Ezek. 24:8, God says: “neither did my shepherds search for the flock; but the shepherds feed them- selves, and feed not the flock. In Isa. 44: 28, he says of Cyrus: ‘‘he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure.”’ | In Zech. 11 : 16, 17, Jehovah says-of the ‘‘ foolish A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 157 shepherd :’’ ‘‘ For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd [a ruler| in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off. Woe to the idol shepherd [the unfaithful ruler—scribes, priests, and doctors of the law—] that leaveth the flock.”? In the next chapter (12 : 5, 6), these shepherds are called “‘ the governors of Judah’? —the plural being sometimes used, and sometimes the singular—one for a class : ‘In that day I will make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a shéaf; and they shall devour all the people round about.’ God is threatening evil against “‘ the foolish shepherds,” ‘‘ the idol shepherds,” or false shepherds, as well as against his people through them. Of these shepherds he continues to speak in the thirteenth chapter, and breaks out (v. 7,) in the language of the passage we are considering : *‘ Awake, O sword, against my shep- herd?’—a subordinate shepherd; as is said of Cyrus: “Che is my shepherd.”’ Just as a principal agent says of another, who acts wnder him: “he is my agent.” That the Seventy understood by the word rendered in our translation shepherd, one of a class, namely, “ the foolish shepherds,”’ is evident from the fact, that they have rendered it in the plural, tods mopévasg pov ; against my shepherds. 'The word rendered fellow, in - the latter part of the parallelism, they render tov zoA¢- tyy wou, my subject (one of a class), my people. One definition which Schleusner gives to this Greek word is, subjectus principis, the subject of a prince, or king. This latter member of the parallelism has a similar 158 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. but a wider sense than the former one (in which men- tion is made of ‘‘ my shepherd’’), including the people of Israel generally, as well as the shepherds. There is nothing in the context which leads us to suppose that there is a change of the subject here, from the class of persons already mentioned, to another person, ‘‘ the chief Shepherd’’—the Messiah ; but much to the con- trary. Much less, does it designate the Divine na- ture of the Messiah,—whatever theory may be formed of his Person. | Something must be said, of the alleged application of this passage by Christ to himself, as though it were originally spoken of him. He says (Matt. 26 : 31), “ All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”? But this is not an accurate quotation, either from the text of the Hebrew or of the Septuagint ; as any one may see, on a comparison. ‘There is probably an allusion to it: but in what way? Quotations are made in the New Testament from the Old, with very great latitude. In Matt. 2:15, language is used with much more pre- cision than in the former case, and applied to the child Jesus, in Egypt: he “‘ was thére until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”? But by what prophet was it thus spoken of him? ‘The only passage to be found, which is in any way similar to this, is in Hosea 11:1: ‘“*’'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and Ae ee eee ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 159 called my son out of Egypt.’’ But this, evidently, is history. How, then, could the sacred writer say, “* that it might be fulfilled,’ &c.? There is no good reason to believe that the passage quoted, had, in its . place, a reference to anything but the calling, or bring- ing of the people of Israel out of Egypt. But the lan- guage is much modified, and thus applied to the return of the child Jesus from Egypt. So the passage in ques- tion is modified, and applied to describe the scene which was presented, when Christ was seized by the Jews, and his disciples fled. Grotius suggests, that this language had passed into a proverb; and that the sense of the passage is something like this: ‘“‘ As it is wont to be said, and as we remember it is somewhere written : When the shepherd is smitten, the sheep are scat- tered.”—(Kuinoel.) A passage in Josephus is thought to confirm this opinion (4ntig. B. 8. 15. 4). When Ahab waged war against the Syrians, and Micaiah was called to prophesy as to its result, he said: ‘* God had showed to him the Israelites running away, and pursued by the Syrians, and dispersed upon the moun- tains by them, as are flocks of sheep dispersed when their shepherd is slain.’? 'To the event above de- scribed, Christ evidently refers, in John 16 : 32, with- out any allusion to Scripture prophesy: ‘* Behold the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scat- tered every one to his own, and shall leave me alone.” Christ is often spoken of in the New Testament and referred to in the Old, as a shepherd ; and such he was, and is; but that the passage in Zech. 18 : 7, had 160 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. any original reference to the Messiah, there is no good reason to believe. . The passage in Ps. 102 : 25-27, is commonly sup- posed to be addressed to the Divine nature of Christ ; particularly, as the language is applied to him by the apostle, in the first chapter to the Hebrews. It is fair to suppose that this Psalm is what it pur- — ports to be; and there is no good reason to doubt that the writer of the explanatory title in Hebrew, under- stood its real import; especially when it is compared with the Psalm itself. This ancient title is, as rendered in our translation, “‘ A prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the Lorp’’—Jehovah. Such is the import of the Psalm. It is a prayer in the form of a Psalm, or sacred song, adapted to the condition of a deeply afflicted individual, perhaps one of a class—a whole people—composed by one of their number; the writer himself feeling the full weight of the grievous burden. Such being the plain import of the Psalm, there is no internal evidence that it originally referred to Christ. The writer commences with pouring out his com- plaint before Jehovah, and continues through eleven verses. Then the contrast is presented, between the suppliant and the Bemg addressed; and the writer of the Psalm takes comfort in the eternity and mercy of God toward his church, to whom his promises, as he endures forever the same, will never fail—(vs. 12, 13). He then speaks (v. 14,) of the delight which God’s people take in everything appertaining to Zion. In a, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 161 consequence of his interposition in her behalf, even the heathen would be led to fear Jehovah; and he would be glorified—(vs. 15, 16). The writer then goes on to express his confidence that God would regard the prayer of the afflicted, and take favorable notice of their condition ; whether understood of an afflicted indi- vidual, or of his afflicted people in general—(vs. 17-22). In v. 23, the writer’s own depressed condition comes up again. In the very next verse (24), it continues: “I said””—who said? Doubtless the afflicted petitioner. “T said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.” Then follows the passage before us: ‘‘ Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth : and the heavens are the work of thy hands. ‘They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.’’ The writer then concludes the Psalm with expressing his confidence, that the children of God’s afflicted people would be established In prosperity. ; This is what the Psalm purports to be—a prayer of the afflicted—the poor, the distressed—to JEHOVAH. Who is this Jehovah? It is the God of Israel—Jeho- vah of hosts. It is He who was the shepherd of his people in ancient times ; He who took care of them, provided for them, ruled over them; ‘‘ He who was with the church’’—the people of Israel—‘‘in the wil- derness.”” It is He who, ever since the first intima- 162 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: tions of mercy to man, has been carrying on a gracious administration of affairs toward this world—the same God who was manifested in the flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; the same who, according to Christ’s oft-repeated declaration, ‘‘ dwelt in him,’’ ag his Father and his God. He it is, who “laid the foundation of the earth,’? whose ‘‘ years are throughout all generations,’ and “‘ who is God over all, blessed forever.”? On account of His own indwelling in ‘“ the Son of man,”—for, “‘in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,’’—the apostle, in the first chap- ter to the Hebrews, truly and properly applies this language, which was originally addressed to Jehovah, to Christ himself; through whom as mediator, as the Messiah, the probationary government of this world is, and has been from the first, administered. This Psalm, then, was composed by an afflicted indi- vidual, as the representative of a class, and addressed to Jehovah, who dwelt in the Son of God ; so that this Son—using the term in the widest sense as a proper name-—may be addressed as Jehovah, who ‘ made the worlds.”? That the language in question was originally addressed by the first Person of the Trinity to the second Person, possessing ‘‘ numerically the same’? Divine attributes as the first, or those which are “ simi- lar or equal’? to his, but “distinct”? from them; the Scriptures do not seem to afford a particle of proof. It is not wise to set ourselves to make out a whole system of divinity from the first verse of Chronicles,— ‘¢ Adam, Sheth, Enosh,’??—nor to claim that we find ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 163 Christ in every passage of the Old Testament. Such a method of interpretation only serves to cast suspicion and doubt on those passages which plainly speak of a Messiah to come. In regard to this class of passages, let the true sense be set forth and maintained; and let other passages be understood according to their proper import. “ All Scripture is profitable,’? some in one way, and some in another. Let each part express that meaning which its nature and the circumstances of the case require. ‘Then the Holy Scriptures will be rightly and most easily understood, and thost honored, as the word of God. In the Mew Testament, Christ often speaks of the Father, and prays to his Father, God : but we are not to understand this as spoken of his (Christ’s) Divine nature— all the fullness of the Godhead [or, in his own language, ‘the Father,’] that dwelleth in him ;” but of him as “‘ the Son of man,” or “‘ the Son of God.”’ Otherwise, we should represent such passages to mean, that the Divine nature of the Son prayed to the Divine nature of the Father—one Divine person in the God- head praying (through the Messiah) to another Divine person in the Godhead. But surely, this is not in ac- cordance with the simplicity of the Scriptures, or with revealed truth itself. Christ, who commonly speaks of himself as “the Son of man,” represents this Son of man as praying to the Father. The same Person prayed, who died: but the Divine nature of Christ did not die. It does not relieve the subject at all, to say 164 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. that his Divine and human nature both prayed. Not so the Scriptures, or common sense. Those passages of the Old Testament, then, which speak of the Son of God, are prophetic anticipations of the Messiah. They refer to what would take place during the mediatorial dispensation ; not to what tran- spired in reference to the Logos (or Son of God) before that dispensation was introduced. And those passages of the New Testament, in which the Son speaks of the Father, or prays ¢o him, are to be understood in refer- ence to his human nature. Let us now consider how the three pronouns in ques- tion, are used in reference to the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, in the Scriptures. It may be remarked, as the result of a careful ex- amination of the subject, that the Holy Spirit is spoken of in the third person, in the use of the pronoun he ; but is never, either by the Father or the Son, addressed in the second person, thou : at least, we have not been able to find such an instance. By whom is he thus designated, in the third person? Is it by God the Father, 1 distinction from the Son and Holy Spirit ? It is believed that a clear case of this kind, in which the Father speaks fo the Spirit, or of the Spirit, can- ' not be found in the Scriptures. Commonly—and so far as we have been able to find, universally—he is spoken of in the third person, by the Holy Spirit him- self, under the name of Jehovah, Spirit of Jehovah, and the like. It has been said that ‘* Spirit of God,’’ in the Old Testament, often means simply God himself. . A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 165 But is it God the Father, God in Christ, or God the Holy Spirit? Each one of these, according to the Scriptures, is God himself. Is it God unrevealed— God in the abstract ? Of such a being, we know nothing. ' Who was it that inspired the prophets, and gave them their message to the people to whom they were sent? We are told, that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”?—(2 Pet. 1: 21.) Yet this “ moving’? agent, when he delivers his mes- sage to the prophet, calls himself “the Spirit of Jeho- hovah,” “ Jehovah of hosts,’? or simply “* Jehovah.” Under this latter name, he gave Isaiah his message to Jacob: “1 will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring’—(44 : 2, 3). So in Zech. 4:6: ‘ This is the word of Jehovah unto Ze- rubbabel, saying; Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts.”? Yet He who ‘¢ moved”? the prophet and gave him this message, was “ the Holy Ghost.’? The meaning is: “ but I will do it myself.”? So in Ezek. 86 : 25, 26, &c.: “ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.”? Who is the Divine agent in the work of sanctification here described, if not the Holy Spirit ? Throughout the book of Joel, the Holy Spirit, by that prophet, speaks to his people, under the name of Jeho- vahie * It shall come to pass afterward, that I will 166 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. pour out my Spirit upon all flesh’’—gentiles as well as Jews. In other language: “I will put forth those gracious influences, which shall produce the effects in question.”’—Joel 2: 28; Acts 2:17. It should be observed, that it is not God the Father, who inspired the prophet, and who speaks of the out- pouring of the Spirit. Nor can the speaker be God considered as moral governor simply, i. e. without reference to this world’s probation: for that would be a palpable contradiction ; inasmuch as he is speaking of men in reference to their salvation. But it is the Spirit of Jehovah, or the Holy Spirit, who spéaks of himself in the third person, by a term designating his peculiar office and agency in the work of redemption, - for the very purpose of giving his peculiar work promt- nence, and making the impression upon men that it is done by his special, gracious interposition in their be- half: ‘‘ I will pour out my Spirit’’—“ I will put forth abundant, gracious, spiritual influences, which shall produce great and glorious results in the kingdom of the Messiah.”? ‘The figure is taken from the effects of abundance of rain, upon the parched ground in very warm climates—rapid, great, and happy effects. The rain is ** poured out,’’? to produce these effects. So the Spirit is “poured out,’’—abundant, gracious Di- vine influences shall be granted, producing the happiest results. It is believed that when the Holy Spirit is mentioned—mentioned as he is, in the third person— reference is always had to his peculiar office and agency—to those Divine operations which the Scrip- o ge ie Left eler A BIBLICAL’ TRINITY. 167 tures ascribe to God, in his gracious dispensations toward men. ‘ This practice of speaking of one’s self in the third person, for the purpose of giving prominence and effect to a particular office or relation, is a very common thing; and in ordinary cases, well understood. A father, wishing to make a happy and an abiding im- pression upon his son, by means of the relation between them, says to him: ‘‘ Think of the instructions of your anxious father, whenever you are exposed to tempta- tion; and be sure that your correct deportment will always give him great pleasure.’’? So a dying mother, to her wayward son: ‘‘ Remember this last advice of your mother, when she is gone.”’ In like manner, the presiding officer in a public meeting, speaks of himself in the third person: “‘ The Chair,” or ‘ the Modera- tor”—thus, in a modest and dignified manner, giving prominence and effect to his office and its relation to the assembly. The same method is used in the follow- ing sentence: ‘*‘ The President of the United States will never give his sanction to such a measure ; it would be a disgrace to him, and to the nation.” In like manner, the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, speaks of himself in the third person—after the manner of men —with reference to his peculiar office, and to that gra- cious agency which he exerts in various ways, favor- ing, defending, and extending the Messiah’s kingdom. A method of speaking similar to that which has been dwelt upon, is common in the Scriptures, on ordinary occasions. The Psalmist says: “ they seek my soul, ? 168 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. to destroy it ;?? not his soul in distinction from his body ; but simply ‘‘ me,’? or my life, ** to destroy it.” ‘¢ My soul is among lions ;”? “I am among lions”— powerful enemies who seek to tear me in pieces. ‘* My soul cleaveth unto the dust ;’’ I myself, body as well as soul. Similar to these, is Hag. 2: 5: ‘* According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you ;”’ so I remain among you. Isa. 48:16, is often named (e. g. by Watson and others) as containing ‘* the whole doctrine of the Trinity :”? ‘‘ And now Jehovah (the Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) hath sent me (the Messiah).”? On the word rendered Spirit, Prof. Knapp remarks :* that “‘it means here, as it always does when used by the prophets in this connection, the direct, immediate command of God. To say, then, the Lord anv urs Sprait hath sent me, is the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a direct, immediate com- mand.”? Or, Jehovah, even his Spirit, i. e. Jehovah himself hath sent me. But the interpretation, on which the Professor comments, alters the common the- ory materially. In this, the Father and the Son send - the Spirit; but in that, the Father and the Spirit send the Son. But if ‘ me,’’ in this passage, means the Messiah, then it does not mean the Divine nature —‘‘ all the fullness of the Godhead,’’ that ‘‘ dwelt” in the Messiah. | The result of the argument is this: The Son of man, * Theology, p. 133. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 169 or the Son of: God in time—not the Logos in eternity— addresses the Father directly, and the Father hin— directly or prophetically ; and the Son speaks of the Holy Spirit in the third person, Ae ; but never ad- dresses the Spirit in the second person, thou. And, generally, when God is represented as speaking, he speaks in the first or third person, in the singular or plural number, after the manner of men; but one Per- son in the nature of the Godhead, is not represented as addressing another Person in the nature of the God- head. What, then, is the amount of the traditionary state- ment we have been considering, relative to the use of the personal pronouns, I, Thou, He ? From a care- ful examination it would seem, that it has no force, and no application to the case; these pronouns not being employed by the different Persons of the Trinity among themselves. But the manner in which they are used, very naturally and happily accords with the Bibli- cal view of the Trinity, as set forth on the preceding pages. | From what has been advanced on the general subject, it is evident that this distinction of three Persons, in the nature of the Godhead itself, as presented in the common theory of the Trinity, is not actually taught in the Scriptures. If so, wHaT 1s GAINED by insisting upon it as an article of faith? The supreme Divinity of the Son and Spirit—the great thing aimed at in that theory—is as fully taught without it as with it. N ay, the supreme Divinity of each of these is much more 8 170 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. clearly and fully taught in the simple Trinity of the Scriptures than in the common theory. This theory, as we have seen, virtually teaches the derivation of the second and third Persons, and their inferiority to the first—the Father ; who is represented as “‘ the fountain of the Deity,” who ‘‘begets’’ the second Person, and from whom or from both, the third “ proceeds.” This “ pro- inferiority of nature—a nature “‘ begotten’”’ or ceeding”—is virtually contained in that theory; not- withstanding the entire equality of the three Persons, ‘in eggence and attributes,” is affirmed. ‘The asser- tion of such equality, though made with the utmost sincerity, is an unavailing effort to reconcile what ap- pears to be intrinsically absurd, what, indeed, is arre- concilable with the plain teachings of the Bible. What, then, is gained by this scholastic philosophy ? “Tf God, only in his relations to us and the creation around us, God as developed by his attributes, and not as he is in himself or considered in respect to his wnter- nal esserice, be revealed to us in the Bible, why not be content with what the Scriptures have taught, without forcing sentiments upon the sacred writers which have been excogitated only by metaphysicians of later days ?’’* But some are not content with this. ‘They must have something beside to help sustain the Scriptures. - They maintain that the common theory is necessary to defend the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity ; to drive * Stuart on Heb. v. 2, p. 315. es a Ce +) ee Oe a A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 171 out and keep out heresy. This was the grand reason - for adopting it at first, and the one often assigned for holding on to it still; and many do hold on to it, as. though it were articulus vel stantis vel cadentis eccle- si@—the very palladium of the Christian church. Bishop Watson says: ‘ In fact, it was by the adop- tion of the two great theological terms éuootovws and inooracis [homogeneous and person, about the meaning _of which there was much contention], that the church reared up impregnable barriers against the two leading heresies, into which almost every modification of error, as to the person of Christ, may be resolved.”?* But they did a great deal more, in this way, by excommuni- cating and burning heretics. - Dr. Woods also says: ‘ Substance i is a metaphysi- cal term, [exactly so], originally introduced into the Trinitarian creed, and still employed, to confront Arianism.” The Doctor is right about it, it is even so. But it is far better “‘to confront Arianism,’? So- cinianism, and any other theological ism that is wrong, with the simple word of God. That word is far more intelligible to the common mind—to any human mind— more consistent with itself and with common sense, and ‘possesses infinitely higher authority in matters of faith. John Marck, an eminent Protestant divine, who was born in Friezland in 1655, and died in 1731, published a book entitled the Marrow of Christian Theology. It is a condensation of his voluminous theological sys- * Theol. Instit. p. 162. 172 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. tem, (a standard work of great authority in the univer- sity at Leyden), and a work of uncommon merit—mul-_ tum in parvo. In his Medulla, remarking on the sub- ject of the Trinity, the author says, among other things, that “the words Person and Trinity are necessary, the present state of the church, TO EXCLUDE HERESY ; -although the words themselves are not explicitly found in Scripture; for heretics use even Scripture terms in a perverted sense. And they manage very badly who yield so much to them on account of their aversion to these distinctions, as not to speak at all concerning the mystery of the Father, Son and Spirit.”’* : It is confessed then, and insisted, that the terms Person and Trinity are necessary—that they cannot be dispensed with—that the church of God is unsafe and his revelation insufficient, without the help and protection of these uninspired auxiliaries. Not only are these terms carefully and confidently affirmed to be necessary, but the need is explained as well as affirmed. And why this pressing need ?—what the Divine exi- gency that can and must be relieved by these human inventions ? : They were not—so it seems—necessary to be. given by inspiration of God; for such a necessity would im- * “Nomina Persone et Trinitatis, in presenti statu Ecclesie, ad arcendam heresin, sunt necessaria, etiamsi explicite in Scriptura non legantur: quia sensu detorto nominibus Scripture utuntur etiam here- tici. Et male agunt omnino, qui tantum his ex odio terminorum cedunt, ut nonnisi de Mysterio Patris, Filii et Spuritus loquantur.” Vide “ Johannis Marckii Curtstian& Turotociz Meputua didactico- elenctica. Editio tertia AMSTELZDAMI, anno M, DCC,V.” p. 65. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 173 ply defect and oversight in what is so given. They were not necessary for the understanding of revealed truth; for such necessity would involve the absurd sup- position of a revelation not revealed. ‘They were not necessary, for the wise or the unwise, till centuries after the efficacious diffusion of Christian light among civilized and barbarous nations. For all these objects, as is virtually and necessarily admitted, they were un- necessary and superfluous; but only and absolutely necessary, as it would seem, for a certain brief exi- gency, viz., “‘ the present state of the church’??—more than a century and a half now gone by; but then, in- dispensable -to be incorporated in creeds and covenants as tests of faith and terms of fellowship, for the sole and blessed purpose of “excluding heresy!?? v: A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 199 that the meaning of the Greek word in this passage, rendered was in our version, is, ‘‘ was existing, or was already in existence.”? If so, why can we not properly give to the preposition which follows it, the sense of, as to, in respect to, or consider it as used periphrasti- cally, and present a most important meaning of the passage, without being driven to the necessity of say- ing, or implying that we mean, ‘‘ God was with him- self 2”? We may suppose the sacred writer of this passape, to have had in his eye a notion of some of the philoso- phers of his time, respecting the AZons—a kind of sub- ordinate gods, emanations from the supreme Divinity —a notion adopted by some of the philosophizing or heathenizing teachers of Christianity ; and that he ex- presses in the passage before us, the proper meaning of the word Logos ; a word (or its equivalent) then in use among the Jews, and well understood; at least by the more enlightened part of them. According to this view of the case, the sacred writer presents his thoughts with remarkable skill, and in a most methodical man- ner; admirably adapted to correct erroneous views of the subject, and to enlighten and confirm his readers in the knowledge of the truth. He speaks : 1. Of the Being himself,—here called the Logos,— antecedent to all Divine manifestation—{vs. 1, 2). What the writer says of him, at the outset, is con- tained in four statements, or affirmations. (1.) The first is, that “at the very beginnng of the creation, the Logos was existing ;’? or was already 200 A BIBLICAL TRINITY: in Sa implying that he was prepaevent and eternal. (2.) The second is a little explanatory of the first, and is as much as to say: ‘‘ The Logos was already existing 100s. toy Oedr, in respect to his Godhead—the Divine nature itself, or wn the condition of God ;’ no manifestation of God having yet been made. The sacred writer here speaks of this Being it one particu- lar point of view, viz.: in reference to-his Godhead. This method of speaking is frequently and familiarly employed. Ina time of great: political excitement, a man wholly incompetent to the office is appomted a Judge. A political opponent says of him: “* Well—I am satisfied of one thing; the Judge will not live — long.”’? ‘* What!’? says another, ‘‘ will his enemies take his life?’ ‘No: I speak of the Judge, not the man.”? In this common way of expressing our thoughts, the writer speaks of the truly Divine nature of this Being, designating him by the name, ‘‘ the Lo- gos,’ long before the occasion of its application to him occurred. One reason of this is very obvious ; he was about to speak of the manifestations of this Being, particularly of his manifestation in the flesh. Such a use of special names,—as we have before had occasion to observe,—is very common. Thus we say; ‘ Abra- ham was born in Ur of the Chaldees’’—ninety-nine years before the name was given him. (8.) The third is a brief statement, in plain terms, designed to confirm what had been said before: ‘* The Logos was God ;” or, was existing as the true God A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 201 himself ; though as yet uwnrevealed. Therefore, he was not a derwed being, nor an emanation from God. (4.) The fourth is a comprehensive declaration, presenting in one statement the substance of the three preceding ones, viz: “‘ The same Being of whom I speak, was, at the very beginning of all things, ex- isting as it respects the Divine nature only—as God ; when he began to manifest himself, whether in the production of spirit or of matter, then it was, that I speak of him as the Logos; i. e. God manifesting himself. ”? So much, relative to the Being himself. The writer speaks: 2. Of the manifestation of this Being,—in ae re- spects.—(vs. 3, 4). (1.) In creation : “ He created all things,—not one thing was created without his pence, Of course, he was not himself created. (2.) In redemption: “ In him was “fe 3” the whole of life—self-existent and spiritual life; “and this life was the source of Divine and saving knowledge to men.’? ‘The writer speaks : 3. Of the moral condition of those on whom he un- dertook to bestow spiritual life (v. 5): ‘ They were in the thickest moral darkness ; so thick, as not to com- prehend—receive and retain—the light which shone upon them.” : This appears to be essentially the view vio the Logos, which is presented by the sacred writer, in the first five verses of his Gospel. He makes the same general Statement, setting forth the Supreme Divinity of the g* 202 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Logos several times, according to his frequent manner of stating important truth, in varied language, and with some diversity of thought, all serving to explain, confirm, and impress the general truth, and partaking more or less of the nature of Hebrew parallelism. Who shall say that the passage, thus understood, does not evince consummate wisdom, skill, order, harmony, aud knowledge of the subject, in the sacred writer ? He has, indeed, presented his thoughts. in the simple style of the Hebrew-Greek, or rather, we might say, in the Johannéan idiom; and it would be somewhat difficult to present each form of the thought literally, and at the same time fully, in the idiom of our own language; but not more difficult, than so to present many other truths contained im the original Scriptures. Could we enter exactly into the views of this writer, and see all the circumstances present to his mind, as he saw them, there would doubtless be far less diffi- culty in understanding this passage, than has generally been felt. This, however, is not the fault of the sacred writer, but of the reader. It has been well said,* that ‘‘ every writer has special reference to his own times ; to those for whom he primarily writes ; not to future times, so as to neglect his contemporaries. The obscurity which arises from this mode of writing is not a necessary one ; but results merely from the change which time makes in languages. It is an obscurity common to all good ancient writers ; for the ground of * Stuart’s Ernesti’s Interp. Andover ed., 1822. p. 61. a fig — - A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 203 it lies in the ignorance of later readers, and not in the writers.’ No one who may have a different view of the above passage from that which has just been given, if he has a manly, opposing argument in store, will attempt to express this view deterally throughout, in English terms, according to the Hebrew-Greek or Johannean idiom ; like saying, ‘‘ Jehovah our Gods is one Jeho- vah,”’ or “‘ calling Charlemagne the great emperors, to denote special dignity.”? An exact literal rendering of many passages, without any explanatory words, would do violence to the sense, or to the idiom of our lan- guage, or both. We have been confirmed in the preceding view of the passage before us, by the manner in which the word Logos is used in the Targums, or translations into the Chaldee of the Hebrew Scriptures. ‘‘ When the Jews returned from Babylon, the mass of them spoke the Chaldee language, modified in some degree by the ancient Hebrew. Hence it became necessary that this same mass should have the Scriptures trans- lated mto the Chaldee or Hebrzeo-Chaldaic dialect.??— (Stuart). Different portions of the ancient Scriptures were translated by different individuals; and hence they received names accordingly. Taken together, they were called the Targums ; and the translators, - the Targumists. We remember to have heard it long since stated, by competent authority, that the phrase, ‘the Word of Jehovah,” is used for Jehovah six hun- dred times in these Targums. We wish here to intro- 204 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. duce Prof. Stuart’s account of the use of this phrase in these books. He says, in the article already referred to (pp. 20, 21): ‘¢ This expression [the Logos or Word of Jehovah] is employed in the Targums, in cases almost without number, instead of the simple Jehovah or Elohim of the Hebrew text. In particular, wherever the Hebrew represents the Divine Being as in action, or as reveal- ing himself by his works, or by communications to in- dividuals ; in a word, wherever God operates ad extra [externally] and thus reveals himself, it is common for the Targumists to say that his Word operates, or makes the revelation. A few Si itiee are necessary to show the manner of this. “In Ex. 19:17, the Hebrew runs thus: ‘ And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God ;’ in the Targum, ‘To meet with the Word of the Lord.’ Job 42 : 9, (Heb.): ‘ The Lord accepted Job ;’ in the Targum, ‘ The Word of the Lord accepted Job.2 Ps. 2: 4, (Heb.): ‘The Lord shall have them in derision ;? in the Targum, ‘ Zhe Word of the Lord shall deride them.’ Gen. 26: 3, (Heb.): ‘I will be with thee ;? Targum, ‘ My Word shall be thy helper.’ Gen. 39 : 2, (Heb.): ‘The Lord was with Joseph ;’ Targum, ‘ The Word of the Lord was with Joseph.’ Lightfoot, that great master of Rabbinical learning, says of these and the like cases: ‘ So, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them.’—Hor. Bib. in Johan. 1:1. Specially is this the case, when God is represented as transacting affairs of mo- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 205 ment between himself and his people. Thus in Lev. 26:46, (Heb.): ‘ These are the statutes which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel ;’ Targum, ‘Between his Word and the children of Isracl.? Deut. 5:5, (Heb.): ‘I stood between you and the Lord, at that time;’? Targum, ‘I stood be- tween you and the Word of the Lord.? Deut. 20: 1, (Heb.): ‘ The Lord thy God is with thee ;’? Targum, ‘ Jehovah is thy God, his Word is with thee.’ “Such is the striking usage of the Targumists, in respect to the phrase Word of God. They carry it indeed still further, and often express by Memra [the Chaldee Word, in question] the emphatic pronouns my- self, thyself, himself... ... +... Thus Memra [the Logos] came, by usage among the Jews, to be employed not only to designate God as acting, or making some revelation of himself or of his will, but to be employed as a kind of intensive periphrastic pro- noun to designate God himself. The transition was not unnatural. That which is often employed to ex- press God revealed, may easily come at last to express the idea of God simply considered.”’ Here we have the nucleus of the whole subject. The Chaldee word for Logos, designating God reveal- ing himself, was in use and well understood among. the Jews, in the time of John; the Hebrew being a dead language. We are gratified in having so full an account of the matter, before it is too late to make use of it, in illustration of the subject. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Logos was the most 206 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. appropriate word John could have used to designate God revealing himself to man, in a degree and with a clearness and fullness which he had never done be- fore. ‘Christ, the Light of the world, was the first who fully developed the Godhead: ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath deelared him.’ In the connection in which this passage stands, the impli- cation is that neither Moses, nor any other Old Testa- ment writer, has made a full disclosure of the gospel- doctrine respecting God. ‘ Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ ’—(Stuart.) God revealed himself by Moses, and by other ancient prophets, but preém- inently so by Jesus Christ. He plainly “ declared,” or revealed, the Godhead to man. ‘* God in Christ?’ was God (the Logos) manifesting himself in the work of redemption. The phrase, the Logos or Word of God, anciently had three meanings. The Jewish sense was, Jehovah. This has been particularly noticed. The Alexandrine Jewish sense was that of an emanation from the Su- preme Being; not, in the fullest and highest sense, the Supreme God. If we understand it correctly, Philo Judaeus Alexandrinus used the term in this sense. The third, or heathen sense, was that of an inferior god, ‘‘ the creator of the world ;”’ which some of the oriental philosophers ‘‘ distinguished from the Supreme Divinity by the name of demiurge.””—(Mo- sheim.) Plato calls it intelligence, creator, (demiurge,) Locos, and wisdom.—( Knapp.) Rr a ee ee ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 207 Other periphrastic modes of expression are used to designate the true God, beside the one already dwelt upon. Ina multitude of instances, as every attentive “reader of the Scriptures must have observed, the name. of Jehovah, or name of the Lord, or of God, is used for Jehovah, or God himself ; my name, for me ; and thy name, for thee. We shall refer to a few of them. 1 Chr. 22:7: “It was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lorn (Jehovah) my God ;”? for, “unto Jehovah my God.” So, 2 Chr. 6: 7, 10. In Ps. 20:1: ‘The Lorp hear thee in the day of trouble ; the name of the God of Jehovah defend thee ;?? for, “the God of Jacob defend thee.’ So, Ps. 44 : 205° 695:°30 3113-2 38.5 "Rom.. 22:24, ef al. My name is very often used for me; as in 2 Sam. 7:13: “ He shall build an house for my name?”— for Men, L Kings}. 25-8 ° 181955 1) Chr 298, 40.5 2: Chyr-. 62 °8,°9:;-Pa-°01 2143 Jer. 23: OFS Zech - Pere Malidceh 2 pone aie et tal. Thy name is, in a great number of instances, used for thee. 2 Sam. 22:50: “I will sing praises unto thy name’’— unto thee.”? So, Ps.9:23;18:49; 61: arOO: 2s 702 is 99 2 85-145 91; 2's John 19 98 Acts 9:14, et passim. Some periphrastic mode of designating the true God, was very common among the Hebrews. One reason of this may be found in that reverence which they cherished toward God, and manifested especially toward that “‘in- effable name,”? JeHovan, by which he was called. After the captivity in Babylon this reverence degene- 208 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. rated into superstition; so that the Jews ceased to repeat the name, and forgot its pronunciation. The Seventy render it by Kégus, Lorn, even in Ex. 6: 3. So do our English translators, generally ; and, as the reader has. doubtless observed, it is, in such cases, printed in small capitals, to distinguish it from another word, which is also translated Lord. | In view of what has been already advanced, we feel constrained to dissent from the following statements, contained in the learned and able article to which reference has repeatedly been made: ‘‘'To say, then, that the Logos is with him, must mean, that there is a diversity of some kind between the Logos and God ; although the writer has not undertaken to define in what that diversity consists.”—p. 31. ‘ An intimate connection [or community] between God and the Lo- gos may be asserted, and be credible, without any ex- planation of the manner of that connection.’”’—p. 37. But we had before been told by this venerable author (p. 16), that the Greek verb (4) rendered was, means here was existing : “‘ At the beginning, the Logos was existing.’? How does it appear that this verb has not the same meaning in the very next mem- ber of the same sentence? Does the nature of the subject prove this? It does not.so appear. Does the language of the second member of the sentence prove it? If so, it must be the word xpos—with, or this in connection with the word God. But if we follow “ our exegetical guide,’’ and at the same time duly consider the meaning which, according to this learned Professor, ‘ ° wy A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 209 and able lexicographers, this preposition sometimes has, shall we not be constrained to say, that the mean- ‘ing of this member of the sentence is: ‘‘ The Logos was existing 7m respect to God—as to the Divine na- ture, or very God ;’’—especially, when it is immedi- ately added: “‘ the Logos was God,” or was existing as “true God—supreme God ??? There would then be “some diversity between God and the Logos”— the same as between God unrevealed and God reveal- ing himself. This sense of the passage does not re- quire more expletive words, not in the original, to give in English the full sense of the text, than do a great many passages of the original Scriptures; as any scho- lar may.see by looking into those Scriptures, and as any English reader may see by looking at the italic words in his English Bible. (Leave out those italic words, and see how it will read.) This author clearly shows, on pp. 82, 33, that there are many passages of Scripture which cannot be translated literally and give the sense, because our language or our idiom is not competent so to do vt ; a defect not peculiar, but com- mon to the translation of all languages. Nor does the passage before us, understood as above, and expressed in some of the forms already given, depart more from the literal meaning of the original words, than is requi- site In giving the true sense of many other passages of the same sacred writer. ; In John 14 : 23, it is said: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come (7gds) unto him, and make our abode 210 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. (wa9%) with him.’? Who thinks of understanding this language literally? Plainly it is to be understood in a modified sense; and just so much modified as the nature of the subject requires. It doubtless expresses high favor, intimate communion and fellowship; and of course 1s understood in a modified sense. Bloomfield, remarking on this passage, says: ‘‘ God is said to come to men, when he promises or bestows peculiar benefits on them; also to dwell or remain with those whom he especially favors ; and also to leave and de- , part from those whom he ceases to benefit.” Christ says, John 14: 11: ‘Believe me, that I am an the Father, and the Father in me.?? How was the Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son? Can we say, ** David was in Jonathan, and Jonathan in David?” If the nature of the subject is to have any- thing to do with determining the sense of the passage just quoted, why not also of the declaration, “the Logos was with God ?” If we may interpret the former phraseology in a modified sense, as denoting intimate spiritual, union, fellowship, friendship, why not, in accordance with the nature of the subject, in- terpret the /atter declaration, as denoting the oneness and sameness of the Logos with the real nature of God —with very God himself? This would be exactly in accordance with the teachings of “our exegetical guide.’ ; We had occasion, in the first chapter of this work, to introduce a remark of Prof. Stuart relative to the use of the preposition dia, in Rom. 5:19. He is right in ‘ . ; . ee Se en en Ape Oe ae ree een oot) a A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 211 saying that we cannot ‘‘ lay any stress on the preposi- tion itself as determining either for or against’? the point in question there; but must examine “ the general nature of the whole phrase ;’>—yes, and what is else- where revealed respecting the same subject. So we say of the preposition ~9¢s—with, in the passage before us. To judge of its meaning here, we must look not only at “the general nature of the whole phrase,’? but at the general subject of the Godhead as revealed in the Scriptures ; in other words, we must proceed in our investigations, in the light of “our exegetical guide.”’ It would not be in exact keeping with such an occupa- tion, to go into hair-splitting niceties as to the classic use of a Greek preposition (though such use favors our in- terpretation), employed by a fisherman of Galilee, in the plain and simple style of the apostle John, when its meaning often—not to say generally—depends on the character of the company in which it is found. In deciding such a question as this, it is important to consider the great lJatitude of meaning with which prepositions are used. Schleusner gives to the Greek preposition zg0s, twenty-five meanings, when used with the single case which it governs in the passage before us —the accusative. The last one is the meaning we have given to it in this passage. To dia, he gives thirty meanings, beside subordinate ones; and to ev, thirty- one meanings. The proper meaning in each case is to be ascertamed by actual examination. In English, Webster gives to the preposition with, fifteen mean- ings ; by, fourteen; fo, twenty-eight or twenty-nine. 212 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. He adds: “‘ In the foregoing explanation of to, it is to be considered that the definition given is not always the sense of to by itself, but the sense rather of the word preceding it, or connected with it, or of to in connection with other words.”? What is the meaning _ of the preposition fo, in these lines of Watts 2 “ OQ, may I live to reach the place Where he unveils his lovely face !’* The meaning evidently is not, “O, may I live long enough to reach the place ;” but, ‘‘ so as to—so that I may reach the place.’? The foregoing remark of Webster is true of prepositions in general, and of the Greek preposition in question. Our object in these remarks is, to show that it will not do to build an important theory—important if true—on a preposition, the meaning of which often depends entirely on the nature of the subject, or on the connection in which it is found. When Paul says that one class of persons are ‘‘ justified by faith,” and another class ‘‘ through faith ;?? we are not to suppose that he is speaking of different methods of justification. The interpretation already given to the passage be- fore us, “‘ the Logos was with God,”? does not modify the so-called /iteral meaning of the language, any more than the declaration, ‘I am im the Father and the Father in me,” is modified by the common interpreta- * Edition of 1816, and in Dwight. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 218 tion of it. The same remark applies to the phrases, *¢ Walk an the Spirit? (Gal. 5:16; ‘So walk ye a him”? (Col. 2: 6); “‘ He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1 Jn. 4:16). The com- mon interpretation of this whole class of passages— which is not small—modifies their hteral meaning as much as does that given of the passage under examina- tion. Such modification of Scripture language is very often required by the nature of the subject, and is espe- cially to be expected in regard to the language of one who is remarkable for writing ‘‘ in a loose and popular way,” for common, plain, uneducated men; and not ‘in a learned and philosophical manner,”’ for philo- sophical minds. We do this in both of the cases just mentioned, for the same reason; because the nature of the subject requires it. And why is it not as philo- logical, as philosophical, as rational, as scriptural, as unobjectionable an interpretation in the one case, as in the other ? Still, some insist ‘on interpreting the phrase in ques- tion literally—or quasi-literally—as denoting ‘so- ciety,’ and therefore a distinction of Persons in the very nature of the Godhead, in order to form that society. They begin by stating—truly enough—that the Bible teaches there is but one God; and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. These they have called “‘ different revelations ;” the latter one implying a metaphysical distinction of three Persons in the very nature of this one God—in- stead of understanding it ina more simple way. They 214 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. then fortify their position by the argument from igno- rance : ‘* We do not any of us know enough of the inter- nal nature of God to affirm, that these ‘ different revela- tions’ are contradictory, or that the facts which they disclose respecting the nature of God are absurd. We therefore conclude that they are true.”” ‘The proper answer to be given to such an argument is: ‘‘ Neither do you know enough of the internal nature of God, to assert that they are not contradictory and absurd: therefore, leave this subject where the Bible leaves it. Stop right THERE !” Now, let this argument change sides: let us apply it to the other view which has been taken of the Trinity ; viz., that God, revealed as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, acts in three different capa- cities and relations in the work of redemption. The argument is this: “‘ We do not any of us know enough of God and his government, to affirm that this view of the Trinity is not perfectly consistent with his nature, attributes, and relations to the universe. We are not competent to disprove this position, or show it to be absurd ; therefore, it must be true. Nay, more; this view of the Trinity, 7s true because it is so revealed, even if more than this is true; viz., even if there are three eternal distinctions or three Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself.’? But these “‘ different revelations”? are not contradic- tory; they are entirely consistent: it is only men’s interpretations of them that conflict. The revealed truths are not absurd; but only the constructions and A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 915 inferences which men put upon and derive from them. Tt is not the sacred writer who needs to be freed from absurdity ; but the human interpreter, who, by his own interpretation, has created that absurdity. It is this interpreter who conflicts with revelation ; not revela- tion with itself. Sound philosophy does, indeed, re- quire us to receive these truths as they are revealed, but not his interpretation of them; for that is not re- vealed. The mistake lies in substituting the interpre- tations or inferences,—which he gets by looking at the Scriptures through antique scholastic glasses of uneven surface, discoloring and distorting them,—for the truths themselves as they are revealed. Would he only lay aside his scholastic glasses and look at what is actually revealed, with his naked eye and in the light of our common “ exegetical guide,”? he would see the truth as it iss If it were trwe—which is questionable—that there is a possibility of such a union of three Persons in the very nature of the Godhead, as a “society,” constituting but one God, still, we are not any of us competent to prove or to affirm such a union as a reality, until we have another revelation setting it forth ; for the Scriptures do not affirm it. We do not - gay that all this is as clear as sun-light } but it is so clear that common eyes, if they do not look at the object through a false medium, can see it plainly, in its length and breadth. The argument from ignorance, therefore, even if granted, proves just nothing at all, except that—we are ignorant. 216 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. \ The error in respect to this subject, lies in three unwarrantable assumptions. 1. In taking language appropriate to men, and ap- plying it to God as if literally true, and yet in © apparent opposition to the general tenor of the Scrip- tures, that there is but one Jehovah, one God, one infi- nite Divine agent in the universe. 2. In ascribing to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost the properties or attributes of three distinct individu- alities—three distinct and competent Divine agents ; and then, to avoid the appearance and evade the charge of tritheism, uniting these three eternal distinctions, these three sets of Divine attributes, these three distinct and competent moral agents, in one substratum—an un- known, unintelligible, metaphysical non-entity (so far as appears), which does not alter the real facts of the case at all. ‘The Independent for April 26, 1849, referring to a certain view of the Trinity, makes the following per- tinent and timely remarks: ‘‘It is no better than the guast emanation-theories of the Arian and Athanasian controversy—no better than the theory of three sets of attributes inhering in one substance; which to our view is nothing else than an empty clatter of words which in their combination have no real meaning. Discussion on such a subject—theory, hypothesis, ex- planation, or whatever it may call itself—the moment it attempts anything more than the ascertainment of the facts revealed in the record, sinks into an unfathom- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 217 able abyss ; and therefore the faith of all Christians is constantly tending to work itself free of all dogmatism on this point, and to rest in the GREAT FACTS, With all the impenetrable mystery which hangs around them.”’ [We would rather say, ‘* whatever impenetrable mys- tery may hang around them.’’| Itis evenso. And these heavings which are sometimes very manifest in the Christian community, are no mistaken indications of an effort, on the one part, to throw off this burden of a theory, and on the other to retain it, as though it contained the very essence of all spiritual life. These three distinct and competent moral agents (so assumed) taken separately, are, for convenience’ sake, called Persons ; but thus united together, they are called one Being—one God. And yet, so repre- sented, they are—in every intelligible sense—three dig- tinct, eternal, harmonious Divinities, consulting and co- venanting together and communicating happiness to one another; though metaphysically united in one substance or substratum. ‘This ‘* one substance”? is only saying that they do not acknowledge, but (in words) wholly dis- card, the notion of three Gods. We accept it as an intentional disclaimer, but not as the truth, nor as, in any proper sense, a fit explanation of the truth. Theo- retically and virtually they are a “‘ society” of three distinct, united, equal, infinite, eternal and harmonious Beings, designated by the specific name of God. So the whole human race, consisting of innumerable indi- viduals, is called by the specific name of man. The former have one common nature, and are united in one 10 218 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. substratum : the latter are homogeneous in nature, and are united in a common humanity. It is extremely difficult to keep up this distinction i Persons and this union in one Being, with perfect con- sistency. At one time, each of the three is a distinct and competent moral agent—one “ mind ;”’ then, pres- ently, all the three are included “ in the Divine mind.” Even Prof. Stuart, who holds the common theory of the Trinity in the least exceptionable form,—the same as the simple Trinity of the Scriptures, with the exception of a few metaphysical terms, to us unintelligible,— sometimes speaks, without his usual caution, and from a seemingly unconscious necessity, of more “ beings”? than one, inthe Godhead. He says (Bib. Sacra, p. 32): “ An actual literal space-relation is out of the question, as has already been hinted, for the. Logos and God are spiritual BEINGS, yea purely spiritual.” So difficult 1s it to preserve a consistent use of terms, in setting forth the common theory. And it seems not very material to the subject itself, whether, with one or another of the writers quoted on the preceding pages, we sige of each Person taken separately, as one “* spirit,’’ one minds. or one “ being;”? or of the three united in one God, as ‘the Divine spirit,” ‘‘ the Divine mind,” or “ the Di- vine being.”? They are virtually three Gods. 3. In maintaining that these assumptions are to be received as the genuine teachings of revelation ; treat- ing them as Divine verities, and the non-reception of them in this light as dangerous heresy. The most effectual argument in the support and defense of this 4 | : — 4 NE UW tyiniertinreti ie ny ce * A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 219 assumption has been the argumentum ad invidiam, or *“‘mad-dog” argument. To this have been added, that of civil and ecclesiastical law, employed in a manner accordant with the taste and fashion of the age; that of an excited, overpowering public opinion ; and what- ever else has promised to be effectual, in the circum- stances of the case. : But these assumptions can by no means be admitted in the general argument ; for they are not derived from the Scriptures by fair interpretation, but by dialectic subtilty. Fair interpretation, in the light of “ our exegetical guide,’’ does not, either necessarily or con- sistently, imply that the phrase, “ the Logos was with God,” means with him socially—with him as an asgo- ciate “¢ Person,” a ‘ Peer,” or a “distinct and com- petent moral agent” in the very nature of the Godhead. ‘Such an artificial distinction built on a grammatical circumstance of such minuteness” as the use of the preposition in this phrase, “is not at allin the spirit of John.’’ If true in this instance,—and it needs more evidence than has yet been produced, to establish it,— it must be a singular case; it is not Johannean. But if God designed to reveal to man the real existence of three Persons in the Divine nature itself,—after having so distinctly and so often asserted his oneness in the Old Testament, in language addressed to the common sense of men, and by that sense to be received and un- derstood, and after Christ himself personally had taught the same truth in the same language,—would it _ nothave been more in accordance with God’s usual course 220 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. of proceeding, to have somewhere revealed so important a truth, as this is claimed to be, more plainly ? Is it his known method to reveal highly wmportant truths, which yet seem wholly inconsistent with those which he has clearly taught, so obscurely that his children, who really desire to know and do their Father’s will, are greatly perplexed and distressed in their humble efforts to ascertain what he means? Some persons, indeed, looking through a certain scholastic medium, find—or think they find—the common theory taught almost everywhere. They discover it in the natural language of devout adoration, and of intense emotion in religion, in poetry, in eloquence, and in music; as may be daily seen or heard. Yes, the seraphim taught it, when Isaiah heard them THRICE crying, one to another, “ Holy ! holy ! holy ! is Jehovah of hosts ; the whole earth is full of His glory!’ The four living creatures, whom John saw and heard in his Apocalyptic vision, each one having six wings full of eyes within and around—these rapt spirits taught it, when they rested not day or night, saying, ‘‘ Holy / holy! holy ! Lord God Almighty, who was and 2s, and 1s to come vine Such persons put under contribution to this theory almost everything in nature, but most of all, a fruitful imagination. Still, if any think that this Greek preposition in the passage before us, supplies them with a telescope of such magnifying power and perfect transparency, that they can penetrate into the Divine nature itself, and discover there evident distinctions which lay a founda- emi NO A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 221 tion for three Persons in the very nature of the God- head ; and 2f they are properly authorized so to use it,—they have a perfect right to do so, on their own responsibility. Yet it is very doubtful, to say the least, whether this sacred writer intended to furnish them with such a telescope; clear, it may seem to their own imaginations, but dark, very dark, to many a humble inquirer after the truth which God has re- vealed. In so many ages, and in so many instances all along, from very early Christian times down to the present, has this been the fact with respect to the common THEORY, that we can hardly say of it, as is said of “‘ life and immortality,”’ that it is ‘‘ brought to light by the gospel.” A few other passages demand examination, as they are supposed to have an important bearing upon the theory in question. One of these is in John 3:13: “No one (ovdes) hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.”? Was “‘ the Son of Nee at the time when he uttered these words, ‘‘in heaven ?”? Was he not on the earth ? Did he ever, literally, ‘‘ come down from heaven,’ as he afterward ascended up? What, then, is its mean- ing ? In remarking on this passage, Bloomfield says: “‘ The phrase ascended up to heaven, is used agreeably to the language commonly employed of one who an- nounced any revelation—that he had ascended to heaven and fetched his knowledge from thence.’? He piv oys A BIBLICAL TRINITY. adds: ‘‘ The sense then is, ‘ And no one has ever as- cended to heaven, to bring down this information from heaven, nor can any one except the Son of man (i. e. the Messiah), reveal the counsels of God for the salva- tion of man;’ i. e. No one knoweth the counsels of God but I, who came down from God’’—I, who am commissioned to announce this revelation of his will. God graciously manifested himself to man, in the per- son of Jesus of Nazareth. His being commissioned and sent forth as the Messiah, and endowed with the requisite knowledge to be communicated to men, of God and the way of salvation—this was his “* coming down from heaven.”’ i Prof. Mayer remarks respecting this passage: ‘* The words were evidently spoken in a tropical sense ; for in their literal acceptation they have no consistent mean- ing. ....... The figurative idea which is con- ceived, is that of a royal council and a council-chamber in heaven, where the affairs of the kingdom of God are discussed, and purposes are decreed. Some of these decrees are sent down to mankind on earth by messen- gers of God, inspired men, and thus become things on earth ; that is, things revealed and known to men, and accessible to them; but other decrees are still reserved in heaven, as secrets of state, and are known only to the king and to those who are in his confidence and in- timacy. Compare Deut. 30: 11,12. Jesus had told Nicodemus of earthly things, of things already revealed through the prophets, such as the necessity of a new birth, a new heart and a new spirit ; and because Nico- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 223 demus was slow to believe him, he asked, by way of rebuke, ‘ How will ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things ?—of things which are yet among the mysteries of God? And to assure this Jewish ruler that no other person could make those heavenly things known to men, he remarked, ‘ No man hath ascended up to heaven,’ etc. The sense of these words is, therefore, no other than this: No man has entered into the secret counsels of God which are reserved in heaven, but he that came down, as it were, from heaven, with a com- mission from God, to make them known ; even the Son of man, who is intimate with God and has access to his secret purposes.’’* There is no more difficulty respecting the meaning of this passage, whether we consider God—the Father, the Logos, the Holy Spirit, or all the fullness of the God- head—as dwelling in him, and communicating to him all the knowledge requisite in the case, and performing by or through him all that Divine work which was needful to be done; or consider “‘ the second Person of the Trinity” (according to the common theory) as dwelling in him. There is no more of his “ being in heaven,”’ or ‘‘ coming down from heaven,’? in the one case than in the other. But there seems to be an im- pression on many minds, that there was a literal or quasi-literal leaving of heaven, by the second Person of the Trinity—that the Son of God im eternity, did actually ‘‘leave the bosom of the Father’? when the * Bib. Repos., Jan. 1840, p. 155. 294 ' A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Logos became incarnate, and was, for the time being, no more in heaven, and possessed no more Divine glory or enjoyment there, as he always had done; but that he literally took up his abode on earth for some years, —existed and operated, enjoyed and suffered, only here. But the Scriptures, understood according to the He- brew or Hebrew-Greek idiom, in which they were writ- ten, appear to teach no such doctrine as this. It seems evidently to be a figment of that scholastic philosophy, in which the general subject of the Trinity has been enveloped for centuries. Similar to the above, is the passage in John 6 : 62: ‘* What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ?? ‘The Son of man—the Mes- siah. ‘*Before’? when ? Doubtless, before the Lo- gos became incarnate. But where was ‘the Son of man’’ before the incarnation? As Messiah, he had no existence till the occurrence of that ever-memorable event. Hz who, in the fullness of time, became mani- fest in the flesh, existed im heaven, not as “ the Son of man’’—the Messiah, but as very God. To that glori- ous, blessed world, the disciples did, afterward, see him (the Messiah) ascend up.—Acts 1: 9, 10. But the passage in John 17 : 5, has been regarded as plainly implying or teaching the idea of “‘ society” — of the Divine nature of the Son before the incarnation ‘¢in connection or community’’ with the Divine nature of the Father: ‘‘ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.’? ‘This meaning, however, ap- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 2925 pears to depend entirely upon the dark medium through which the passage has been viewed. It has been as- sumed, or regarded as already proved,—and of this proof the passage before us has been considered as a very material part,—that there is more than one Per- son, more than one “ distinct and competent moral agent,’? in the very nature of God. This, however, is little else than reasoning in a circle. But if we look at the passage with the naked eye of common sense and in the light of ‘‘ our exegetical guide,”’ instead of view- ing it through a medium which multiplies its images— producing “‘ three distinct and competent moral agents in God,’’—it will present before us for contemplation and adoration, one infinite, eternal, immutable, incom- prehensible and perfect Divine agent—“‘ one Jehovah,” manifesting himself variously and graciously; yet not asa ‘“‘ society’? of infinite Divine agents, but as one only living and true God ; just as it appears to be, to the unsophisticated ‘“‘ common mind.” ““ Glorify thou me.’? Who utters this petition ? It is he who calls himself ‘‘ the Son of man,’ the Mes- stah ; he who is the ‘‘ Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Surely “our exegetical guide’’ does not teach us that the Divine nature which dwelt in the Son, prayed to the Divine nature of the Father. It was the Son himself—‘‘ the man” who acted as ‘ mediator.”? He prayed to God his Father, that he would glorify him—the Son—the Messiah. But what was it to glorify the Messiah ? It was, to make it manifest to all that he was the Messiah—to ae (0: 226 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. honor him as such, by sanctioning his doings, raising him to his throne (but not for the sake of his own per- sonal agegrandizement), and rendering effectual the work which he performed as the ambassador of God to man—to give efficacy to the gospel when preached to men, and make it the means of their salvation. So far as these things are done, just so far. the Messiah is honored— glorified.”” This he desired, not for his own private gratification, but to honor God, and for the great cause in which he was engaged. It is evident he included all this in his prayer, because he extended his petition to all who were or should become his fol- lowers. He prayed that God would, in the way already specified, glorify the Son (the Messiah), that the Mes- siah might thereby glorify God his Father. This would be the case in respect to all who should obtain ** eternal life’’-—who should ‘‘ know,’’ i. e. acknowl- edge, love and obey the only true God, and Jesus who was anointed and sent forth among men as the Mes- siah. He thus prayed for himself as the Messsah, and for the success of his work in all future time. By this success, God the Father, who had devised the plan and sent his Son to perform a certain work, and his Son, the Messiah himself, would be ‘‘ glorified.” His mind was evidently intent upon the success of his peculiar work down to the end of time. This was the burden of his prayer. It was the object of his coming into the world, and that for which he was about to die. * Glorify thou me with thine own self.”? God is “slorified”? by means of this work of saving men; A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 227 which originated with him, and is carried on and will be carried out by his gracious agency. So the Mes- siah himself, who was greatly honored in being ap- pointed to that office, would be “ glorified?”—honored— _ _ extolled, in connection with the supreme honor which would redound to God his Father, as the originator and author of it all. His language neither here nor elsewhere seems to justify us in the supposition that, in the midst of his prayer for his disciples and followers and fer the success of the cause in which he was just going to die, he turned off his attention from the subject which everywhere else filled his heart, to pray for the personal enjoyment of that Divine glory which his Divine nature actually possessed in connection with the Father, “‘ before the world was,” but of which his God- head was now deprived in his humiliation. Did the immaculate Son of God while here on earth—did our great High Priest who is now passed into the heavens,— ever before manifest such a regard to himself and his own personal gratification? Who that duly considers his self-denying principles, practice, life, can believe him now—with a full knowledge of the sufferings which were just before him, and which of necessity bore upon his mind, and with a heart overflowing with love to his Father, his followers and his kingdom—now for the first time, filled with longing for that Divine glory which he (referring to his Godhead, the Logos) had in heaven before the incarnation? or, that he—the Mes- siah who prayed—was, in these circumstances, pouring out such intense longings to witness that Divine, eter- 228 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. nal, uncreated glory which he had never beheld? No: such’a theoretic, contracted view of his capacious love must not be needlessly attributed to Jesus, the great Messiah. He is continuing his last prayer for the same benevolent, noble object—-the glory of the Mes- siah’s peculiar work in the success of the gospel down to the end of time. There are two ways in which this passage may be interpreted,—to say nothing of minor shades of mean- ing,—both of which have just been alluded to, and one of which is doubtless the true one. 1. One interpretation is given of the passage in ac- cordance with a scholastic theory, which is, that there are three Persons—three eternal distinctions, or three infinite, self-existent minds—in the nature of God. According to this theory, the passage before us is un- derstood to mean, that the second Person of the Trinity— either an eternal distinction, or an infinite, self-existent mind—existed in intimate connection or in blessed go- ciety with the first Person, and possessed, in common with him, Divine and eternal glory ; of which glory, dur- ing the period of the incarnation, the second Person was deprived : Christ, therefore, in his last prayer with his disciples, offered up an earnest petition to the first Person, his Father, that this Divine glory might be restored to the second Person—the Logos, or Son of God in eternity,—as it was at the beginning, “‘ before the world was.’? Where all this is taught, except in the interpretation of certain difficult passages (rendered difficult by scholasticism) to fit this theory, does not ae A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 229 appear. “ Trinitarians have generally held and freely conceded, that this doctrine of Persons in the Godhead as not directly taught in the Scriptures.” This is true ; and we must wait for another revelation, before we can receive it as revealed truth—truth “ directly taught ;”” for the wildest theories have been claimed, as taught by inference. We therefore, after what has been said of this theory on the preceding pages, dismiss its kindred interpretation of the passage before us, as not in accordance with what is revealed ; but only with a theory. 2. The other interpretation accords with Scripture facts, or-with truths which are explicitly revealed. For, it is revealed, that God did honor or * glorify”? his Son Jesus, the Messiah, in anointing him to that office for the,work of mediation between God and men ; in raising him from the dead and exalting him to heaven ; and in giving success to his gospel in the sanctification and salvation of men. It is revealed, that he will continue thus to honor or “ glorify’? him as the Messiah, till all the redeemed from among men, from first to last, are gathered into heaven 3—with plain intimations, that his glory as Messiah will not then disappear. It is also revealed, that whatever God actually does, he eternally purposed to do—‘ be- fore the world was.” We are not taught in the Scrip- tures, that God does anything without plan—without purpose, or that he forms new plans or purposes all along, as though he did not “ see the end from the be- ginning.” Noy, if God has thus glorified the Messiah, 230 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. and if he will continue to glorify him so long as the Messiah shall be known in heaven as the Savior of his redeemed ones; then, he eternally purposed to do so—‘‘ before the world was.’’? Not only will God glorify his Son, the Messiah, in a manner suited to his office and his work for the salvation of men; but he will also, by the same means of his own devising. and by his gracious agency in carrying out his plan, glorify himself preéminently, in the full accomplish- ment of his object. In cannection with thus glorifying himself, God also glorifies his Son Jesus. ‘This view, then, is in strict accordance with truths which are clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures ; and this ap- pears to be the natural and Scriptural interpretation of the passage, if we follow ‘‘ our exegetical guide.” But it has been supposed that the latter part of the passage, “ with the glory which “TI had with thee be- fore the world was,” is “ fatal’’ to the view which has now been expressed. Yet, in the light of the general subject, it is far otherwise. With thee, maga ool. This has been understood here, to denote ‘‘ society,”’ or what is equivalent to it. But this Greek preposi- ~ tion governing the dative, is susceptible of a different meaning, as in Rom. 11: 25, and 12:16: “wise in your own conceit,” rag’ &avtis—within yourselves— in your own estimation. This preposition also means before, in the sight of ; as in Rom. 2: 11: “* There is no respect of persons with God’’—before God—in the sight of God. The sense of wagé in either place is not very different from its meaning, in the passage A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 231 before us. But we do not depend on the meaning of the preposition alone, here or elsewhere. Lexicogra- phers often tell us that a word ig used in a particular sense, only in a few places, or in one place. How do they know that ? Is it not from a careful eramina- tion of those places, or of that place, where it is found, and from what they know of the general or particular subject ? | But if such is the proper way to ascertain the par- ticular meaning of words or phrases in ordinary cases, why not in this case? May we not proceed in this manner to ascertain the meaning of a passage in the New Testament, on a peculiar subject, without first ascertaining whether the words are used in classic and heathen authors, as they appear to be used here? What, in the mean time, has become of “our exegeti- cal guide?” If we find words used in classic authors, as they evidently appear to be used in the Scriptures, it does, indeed, strengthen the conviction, that we have not misjudged in the matter ; but are we not to follow ‘our guide,”? unless that follows strictly in the track of those authors, whose meaning must. be ascertained in the same way ? This would not be following iT at all. In such case, what would become of the Christian sense of such words as those which are translated vir- tue, humility, faith, grace, righteousness, and the like—words which have a very different meaning in heathen and in Christian authors? It is plain, then, that we should proceed in our investigations, in the light of the general subject (in connection with the 2382 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. context) to ascertain what particular words, or phrases, or sentences mean; without being “ fatally’? pre- vented from doing so, by the light of classic authority or the dimness of scholastic philosophy. On this principle, we feel justified in giving, nay, required to give, to the passage before us, the meaning which has been expressed, and which is briefly this: “That the Son of God prayed that God his Father, in connection with glorifying himself supremely in the work of man’s salvation, would also glorify him as the anointed Messiah, even with that glory which he eter- nally purposed in himself that his Son should receive ; as made known in his promise repeatedly recorded in the Scriptures.”—Ps. 2 : 6-12; Isa. 53 : 10-12; et. al. In like manner it is declared, 1 Pet. 1 : 20, that Christ, who shed his ‘‘ precious blood’? for the redemp- tion of his people, “‘ verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.’? God eternally purposed to send his Son the Messiah to perform the work in question, to accomplish it through him, and to honor him ac- cordingly, in so doing. The language here and in the passage under consideration, is similar to that which is employed to set forth what God had determined to do for those whom he would save through Christ’s media- tion: ‘* According as he hath chosen us in him [by means of him—through his mediation] before the foun- dation of the world, that we should be holy, and with- out blame before him in love.”’—Eph.1:4. ‘* Ac- < [ iad oki hae A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 233 cording to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus [through his mediation], before the world began ; but is now made manifest by the ap- pearing of our Savior Jesus Christ.?’—2 Tim. 1: 9, 10: In the general import of his prayer, there is a plain distinction indicated between the Supreme glory of the Father and that which he supplicates for himself as Messiah. He who prays, does not ask for himself the glory which belongs to God_ his Father, and which would redound to him; but for-that which was pro- mised to him as the Messiah. He prays for that which is proper for each, and which belongs to each. Is this “‘ blasphemy ?”’ Is it not done with the utmost propriety? Is it not in perfect keeping with the whole subject, and just as it should be 2 Those, likewise, who are ** predestinated, called, and justified”’ through the mediation of Christ, and who “ suffer with him,” will “be also glorified with him.””—(Rom. 8 : 30, 17.) This is declared and promised. Ig it not, then, in the fullest sense proper, and a duty, for them to pray that they may realize this promise? If so, why was it not in the highest degree proper for the Messiah to pray, that the promise made to him in reference to his ap- propriate work may likewise be fulfilled? Then will it, in the issue, be true preeminently, “that God in all things”? will “be glorified through Jesus Christ,—to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen !”°—1 Pet. 4: 11. 7 This view of the passage before us seems to be in perfect keeping with the plain import of the Messiah’s 934 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. last prayer for the success of his mediation. Accord- ingly, he begins: ‘ Father, the hour is come—the hour appointed for me to die; glorify thy Son (the Messiah), by carrying on and completing the work thus begun, that thy Son also may thereby glorify thee. I have glorified thee since I have been on the earth, en- gaged in my mission: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do here, as the Messiah. And now, O Father, complete this work ; and in connection with thus glorifying thyself, glorify thy Son also, as thou didst eternally purpose, and hast promised to do. As thou didst commit this work to my hands, so have I committed the publication of thy truth to my disciples. Give them complete success; sanctify them through thy truth, and all those also who shall believe on me through their word, to the end of time.” The Messiah proceeds to pray, that all who were then, or who should afterward become, his followers, “may be one ;?’—how one? What union is this? ** As thou, Father, art in me?—the Messiah. He had often said, ‘‘ the Father zs in me ;”? “ the Father that dwelleth in me,” i. e. abideth permanently. There was an abiding union, an indwelling of the Father in the Messiah; God acting in, by, through him as the Messiah ; so that it was proper for him to Say, in reference to himself as the ‘‘ the Son of man,’? I know not ‘* that day and hour ;”’ and in reference to God his Father that dwelt in him, “before Abraham was, I am.”’ This indwelling formed a perfect union of pur- pose, of desire, of attachment, of object, and of effort A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 235 to accomplish it. He prayed that ‘‘ they’? might “ be one in us,’’ in these respects. He says nothing rela- tive to a union of his Divine nature, considered as ‘‘ a distinct and competent moral agent,’? with the Divine nature of the Father, considered as another “‘ distinct and competent moral agent.”? He has left this parti- cular out of sight—unrevealed ; just where he evidently intended it should be left; and no human philosophy can make any advance toward such a revelation. “The glory which thou hast conferred on me,” in appointing me to take a part with thee in the blessed work of saving men, and which thou hast promised me hereafter ; the same glory ‘‘ I have given them,”’ by appointing them to take a part in the same work, and promising them a share in that happiness and honor which thou wilt confer on all who codperate with us for this end. ‘* Father, I earnestly desire that they also whom thou hast given me, may be gathered together in heaven, and may witness and participate in that hap- piness and honor which thou hast purposed and promised to bestow upon thy Son.”’ John 17 : 24: “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”? The love here specified, doubtless was,—not the love which the Father, as one Person in the Godhead, bore to the Logos as another Person in the Godhead, but—that eternal love which the Father bore to his beloved Son, ‘‘ the man Christ Jesus.”’? Just as God loved his elect people before the foundation of the world. 1 John 4:19; 2 Thes. 2: 13 3. Eph.-1 2 4. 236 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. But the passage in Phil. 2 : 5-8, has been supposed _ to teach or to imply the truth of the common theory of the Trinity. We give it in the language of Prof. Stuart’s translation, (Miscell. p. 112), which the reader can compare with the common version, and perhaps with the original Greek: ‘ Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire, but taking the condi- tion of a servant, being made after the similitude of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he*humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”? Evidently this translation gives, with much greater exactness than that in our common ver- sion, the sense of the original text. Though Christ was really God, yet he did not regard that claim “‘ as an object of solicitous desire,”’—he did not eagerly seize the opportunity to make this high but just claim, before men, while here among them. This sense of the text accords with the matter of fact. He did not make a show of doing so, but he often forebore to make that claim which he might have made without arrogance. What, then, did he do? In general, he treated the subject very much as though he had no such rightful claim at all—calling himself “‘ the Son of man,’? appearing as a man, a servant obedient to the will of Him that sent him on his errand of mercy, and humbling himself still more in the completion of his work, than he had done while living among men without a place to lay his head,—he became obedient even unto A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 237 death—the very death of the cross. It was, therefore, very much to the purpose that the apostle exhorted Christians to imitate the example which Christ had set. them. Jesus himself was not in the habit of making a direct claim to Supreme Divinity, and of saying that he was the true God. His great aim seems to have been to establish his claim to the Messiahship—that he was the Son of God and Savior of the world. He did the other more indirectly, e. g. by saying, “the Father is 1 dwelleth in me, He doeth the work.”’ But John 5: 17,18: ‘‘ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,”? has been claimed as a direct admission on his part of his equality with God, in the highest sense of the terms; “‘ making himself equal with God.” The context, however, on a careful examination, ap- pears to teach us a different doctrine. The Rev. Dr. Mayer seems to have presented a very just view of this passage. He says (Bib. Repos. Jan., 1840, pp. 144-6): “ Jesus having healed the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, the Jews charged him with a criminal violation of the sanctity of the day, and sought for that reason to put him to death. The de- sign of Jesus was to prove his innocence of the crime of violating any law of God; and for this purpose he says to them: ‘ My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ Upon this ‘the Jews sought the more to kill him, because,’ as the apostle tells us, ‘ he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his 238 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Father, making himself equal with God.? Did John believe that Jesus had broken the Sabbath? Certainly not. Neither, therefore, did he believe that Jesus made himself equal with God, in the sense in which the Jews understood him, or affected to understand him. In his judgment the allegation that Jesus had made himself equal with God, in their sense, by saying that God was his Father, was about as true as the charge that he had broken the Sabbath by healing the impo- tent man. ‘The answer of Jesus shows what sort of equality he meant: it was an equality guoad hoc : an equality consisting in this, that both the Father and he wrought on the Sabbath day. ...... Tae ae So far from claiming that equality with God which the interpretation we are opposing ascribes to him, he en- tirely disclaims it.”’ In that remarkably tender and affectionate interview which Christ had with his disciples just before he offered up his last prayer, he remarked: ‘‘ I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now.”’ He then adds : John 16: 18: “* Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.’’ In order to understand this passage correctly, it is necessary to enter, as far as possible, into all the cir- cumstances of the case, as they then existed. The disciples had been with Jesus for several years, enjoying his affectionate counsels and faithful instruc- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 239. tions ; and they loved and revered him as their Lord and Master, and trusted in him as the Messiah. But they had, in some respects, very erroneous views of his | kingdom. They thought it was to be a temporal king- dom, “‘ restored to Israel ;”” he the king, and they his ministers of state. He had instructed them in the knowledge of his spiritual kingdom, as they were “ able to bear it.” Now he told them that he—who had hitherto been their teacher, guide, comforter—should soon leave them, and go his way to him that sent him on his mission to men; but that he would pray the Father, and He would give them another paraclete— ‘chhov mugdxlntov, another comforter, who would supply his place, and give them all needful instruction and aid in their work. At this announcement that their Mas- ter was soon to leave them, they were filled with sad- ness. Jesus they knew—he had instructed them—he had endowed them with special gifts when needed— they had leaned upon him; but as to this “ other para- clete’’-—this new aid which was promised them— whether the views of their master relative to his king- dom and to them, as they had understood the subject, would thereby be carried out, was to them a matter of some solicitude. He told them not to be troubled ;_ but as they believed in God, so to believe in him as their Messiah ; that he was going to prepare mansions for them in his Father’s house, and then he would return and take them home to dwell with him. But they seemed not fully to understand him. ~ He told them it was expedient for them—better for them, ~ 240 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. for they would more fully understand his doctrine and their duty—that he should go away; otherwise, the Paraclete (the promised endowment now personi- fied and used with the article as a proper name), the Comforter would not come to them; but after he had departed, he would send him. In the mean time (while he should be absent from them), this Comforter would abide with them continually, bring to their re- membrance whatsoever he had said to them, aid them in their work, and instruct them in matters of the deepest interest ; but which now they were not able to bear. In this state of mind, understanding the subject but imperfectly, and full of doubt and solicitude,—_ though they had very great confidence in their Mas- ter,—it was natural for them to feel that they could not be sure what course this Paraclete would pursue; nor, whether he might not manage differently from what their Master would do, if he were present. But, as Jesus had often told them before, that he did not himself come to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him,—that he had no separate interest of his own to seek, but did only what he had received commission from his Father to do,—and was cooperating with him in carrying out the purposes of his grace in the salva- tion of men; so now, he assured them that. this Para- clete, “‘ the Spirit of truth,’? who was to be their teacher and guide, would have no separate interest of “his own to pursue, but would adhere strictly to the course which had been marked out for him (the Mes- siah) by his Father. In THis respect, it would be as — A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 241 though he was only a subordinate agent, obedient to the will of his superior, as the Messiah had been, and teaching only what he should “hear,” or receive from God; i. e. he would pursue the same course which Jesus had pursued. In thus instructing them and ren- dering their efforts to extend his kingdom successful, Christ says: “ He shall glorify me,” the Messiah (as already explained) ; “for he shall receive of mine ;— dauBdver, take the doctrine, or, truth which appertains to my kingdom, ‘‘and shall show it unto you’’—com- municate it to you, as shall be needful. “ All things that the Father hath are mine ;’—my doctrine and that of the Father, appertaining to the mediatorial dis- pensation, are one and the same thing ;—“therefore es I, that he shall take of mine,”—my doctrine,— “and shall show it unto you.”’ The Jews, and other Eastern nations, were very much in the habit of personifying abstract truth and inexplicable fact, and so of representing it as a real person. Something like this appears to be done here, in respect to that Divine illumination, aid, and com- fort, which God, in his gracious dispensations, would impart to the apostles, as they went forth to their work. To interpret these expressions literally,— he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak,”—thus making the Spirit a dis- tinct and subordinate agent, would be acting on the very principle which has led to the doctrines of eter- nal generation, eternal procession, and transubstan- tiation. i 242, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. The passage in 1 John 5: 7, 8, has been regarded by many persons, as clear and decisive evidence of the truth of the common theory of the Trinity: ‘ For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.”’ But that part of this passage which we have included in brackets is now generally regarded by critics, who have thoroughly investigated the subject, as spurious. Prof. Stuart says of it (as before quoted), that “if not proved to be spurious, it is at least thrown into a state so doubtful that no con- siderate inquirer would at present think of appealing to it as authority.” Neander says, “it is undoubtedly spurious.” Prof. Knapp expresses the same opinion. Philip Limborch, a celebrated Professor of Divinity in Holland, of the Armenian persuasion, born at Am- sterdam in 1643, wrote a book entitled, Theologia Christiana ; of which there were four editions within thirty years from its first appearance, in 1686. In the first edition, now before us (4to., Amst., p. 102), he says he declines using the passage in question as a proof-text, ‘“ because it is wanting in many ancient © Greek and Latin manuscripts, as also in the Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic versions, by many of the fathers it was not acknowledged [as genuine], and many dis- tinguished men contend that it is superfluous (abun- dare) in the text, and intruded by some human hand. Mr. Barnes, in his commentary on the passage, gives A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 243 the result of an investigation of the subject; and as it is a very good summary statement of the case, we shall : introduce most of it to-the attention of the reader. After omitting the contested part of it, which we have included in brackets, the passage will read thus: ‘ For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” Mr. B. says: “The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following : “1. It is wanting in all the earlier Greek manu- scripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the sixteenth century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age; one the Co- dex Montfortianus, or Brittanicus, written in the begin- ning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text taken partly from the the third edition of Stephen’s New Testament, and partly from the Complutesian Poly- glott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be wanting in ald the early Greek manuscripts. “2. It is wanting in the earliest versions, and, in- deed, in a large part of the versions of the New Tes- tament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions—one of which was made probably in the first century ; in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclayonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. 3. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in 244. A BIBLICAL. TRINITY: their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity—a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine ; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century. If the passage were believed to be genuine; nay, if it © were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor, it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the Divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been refer- red to. But it never was; for it must be plain to any one who examines the subject with an unbiased mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted ~by Athanasius, Cyprian, &c. (Wetstein, II., 725), are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been ac- quainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. “4. The argument against the passage from the external proof, is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine. ‘“((1.) The connection does not demand it. It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of certain things which bear ‘ witness’ to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah ; certain things which were well known to those to whom he was writing—the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this, to say that in heaven there are ‘three that bear witness’—three A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 245 not before referred to, and having no connection with the matter under consideration ? ““(2.) The language is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term Logos, or Word (6 A6yos, John 1: 1, 14; 1 John 1: 1), but it is never in this form, ‘The Father, and the Word ;’ that is, the terms ‘ Father’ and ‘ Word? are never used by him, or by any other sacred writers, as correlative.* — DOOD. 13 309s D208 244 las Dn Bes and the Gospel of John, passim. Besides; the cor- relative of the term Logos, or Word, with John, is not Father, but God. See John 1:1; Comp. Rev. 19°: 33, “‘(3.) Without this passage the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. Theréare three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. ‘These are referred to in verse 6, and in immediate connection with this, in the argument (v. 8), it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point and is harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses elsewhere ; to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three—the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the * Good evidence this, by the way, of the wnsowndness of that argu- ment or statement which substitutes Logos for Son, in the passages which speak of God as creating all things “by his Son,” or “by Christ ;”” as mentioned in the preceding chapters of this work. He ‘created all things “by (on account of) his Son” the Messiah, but not by the Logos. The Father and the Logos “are never so used by him (John) , or by any other sacred writers,” ; 246 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. “5. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note ina book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it be- came too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the sixteenth cen- tury, while it was wanting in all the earlier manu- scripts. ‘6. The passage is now omitted in the best edi. tions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.??* The passage in Isa. 58 : 10-12, has been very ex- tensively understood to favor the common theory of the * See also Mill. N. Test., pp. 379-386 ; Wetstein, II. 721-727, Father Simon, Crit. Hist. N. Test,; Micheelis, Introd. N. Test., IV. 412, seq., et al. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Q47 Trinity, inasmuch as it is supposed, in connection with Ps. 40: 7,8, and John 14: 26; 15 : 26; 16: 7, to give an account of a transaction in eternity, technically called *‘the Covenant of Redemption.” The first named passage is here given in the language of Lowth’s translation, which is regarded as expressing the sense of the original with greater accuracy than that of the common version. “Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush him with afflic- tion. If his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, he shall see a seed which shall prolong their days, and the gracious purpose of Jehovah shall prosper in his hands. Of the travail of his soul he shall see [the fruit], and be satisfied ; by the knowledge of him shall my servant justify many; for the punishment of their iniquities shall he bear. Therefore will I distribute to him the many for his portion; and the mighty people shall he share for his spoil; because he poured his soul out unto death, and was numbered with the transgres- sors ; and he bare the sin of many, and made interces- sion for the transgressors.” The purport of this passage has been understood to be that the first Person in the Trinity, the Father, proposed to the second Person, the Son in eternity, to undertake the future redemption of man, by assuming human nature and dying on the cross; with the pro- mise of a rich reward for so doing. The acceptance of this proposal by the eternal Son, or the Logos, has been supposed to be recorded in Ps. 40: 7, 8, (quoted in Heb. 10:-7), ‘‘ Then said I, Lo, I come: in the 248 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”? To the transaction thus far described, as having taken - place in eternity, some add that the first and second Persons of the Trinity proposed to the third Person, the Holy Spirit, to undertake the work of sanctifying men; and he accepted the proposal, and made the en- gagement accordingly. This is supposed to be intimat- ed in the passages referred to above, in the Gospel of John. Thus the Father sent the Son, and these two Persons united in sending the Holy Spirit, who “ pro- ceeded” from them both. This transaction, supposed to have taken place in eternity, between the several Persons of the Trinity, is what is denominated the Covenant of Redemption. But it seems almost incredible that such a theory should ever have been made out from such premises ; and especially that it should have been claimed as ac- tually taught in such passages as those just cited. If the imagination is to be allowed such a range as this in making out the meaning of Scripture, there is hardly any visionary absurdity which cannot claim—and with a very good grace—to have the support of revelation; nay, to be actually taught there. Such visionary ab- surdity only follows in the track marked out for it by the principles of interpretation adopted in forming the theortes of a scholastic trinity, the covenant of re- demption, eternal generation, eternal procession, and transubstantiation. The passage in Isaiah has always been understood, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 249 both by Jewish and Christian expositors, to relate to the Messiah. It is evidently a prophetic account of his humiliation, sufferings and death, and of their happy and glorious results. It begins with the declaration that “it pleased Jehovah’’ to afflict him, just as it has “pleased”? him to afllict his people, in one way or an- other, in all ages of the world. It declares that if or when he “ shall make a propitiatory sacrifice”? of him- self, he shall witness, in its happy results, the eternal salvation of multitudes of the human race; that ‘the gracious purpose of Jehovah,’’ with respect to the sal- vation of men, would “ prosper’? through his mediation ; that he would “ be satisfied,”? in beholding the abun- dant fruit of his sufferings; and that by a practical “‘knowledge’’ of the Messiah, multitudes would be “¢ justified,”’ or treated as righteous ; for, by his media- tion, he would remove their exposure to the punishment due to their sins. The Messiah having thus, in pro- phetic vision, completed the spiritual conquest of the world, a rich reward is promised him, in language ap- propriate to him as a conquering prince, and taken from the ancient custom of distributing the spoils of © victory after the battle is over; declaring that this is done ** because”? he submitted to great degradation and suffering,—to the very death of the cross,—allowing himself to be “numbered with the transgressors,” or regarded and treated as were those who suffered justly aS malefactors. This appears to be the plain, general import of the passage before us. If so, what is there in it which 250 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. has even the remotest appearance of a proposal to the Son wm eternity to undertake the work of man’s re- demption? Nothing of this appears there. But it discloses ‘‘ the gracious purpose of Jehovah,’’ formed in eternity, relative to the salvation of men, the coming of the Messiah for the accomplishment of the object, and its glorious results. 3 The passage in the 40th Psalm, quoted in the 10th of Hebrews, evidently has no reference to the Divine nature of the Messiah, the Logos, uttering this lan- guage before the incarnation, and addressing God as ‘““my God.”? Neither the plain import of the passage itself, nor the common sense of men, gives any counte- nance to such an interpretation. The passage is obvi- ously to be understood as a prophetic anticipation of what the Messiah would virtually say while he was engaged in his mission among men, and as the real import of what he did, in his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross: ‘‘ Father, not my will, but thine be done.”? Here and everywhere his lan- guage virtually is, “* Lo ! I come, O God, to do thy will.”’? ‘* In the volume of the book it is written con- cerning me”’—‘the rites of the ceremonial law, re- corded in the ancient Scriptures, set forth my work and sufferings as the Messiah.’? This appears to be the natural and proper import of the passage now under consideration. The other passages referred to in the Gospel of John, relative to the part which—it has been supposed —the Holy Spirit covenanted to perform in the work A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 251. of redemption, have already been examined. The purport of them is, that from the Father’s sending his ~ Son to perform the work of mediation, and the Mes- siah’s actual performance of the work assigned him— that from these as a preparation (actual or prospec- tive), the Holy Spirit “‘ proceedeth”’ in the all-impor- tant work of sanctifying and saving men. That such a transaction between the several Per- sons of the Trinity, possessing one set of Divine attri- butes iz common, and these ‘‘ numerically the same,?’ should have been actually performed, is a “ notion?’ too palpably absurd to be entertained for a moment. But the form in which this view is supposed to be held, where it is held at all, is, that it was a covenant trans- action between three distinct and competent Divine agents, each with his own proper Divine attributes. This, however, in the view of that common sense of men to which the Scriptures are addressed, is nothing less and nothing else than pure tritheism; notwith- standing the disclaimer of intentionally so representing or holding it; and in the absence of all explicit revela- tion to that effect, it cannot properly be received as the truth, in opposition to one great, leading, all-per- vading truth of the Scriptures. ' These are all the passages which it is considered important to examine, in this connection, on account of their special bearing upon the general subject. It is 80 regarded, because there are but two great princi- ples of interpretation, in accordance with one or the other of which such passages will be understood by 252 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. those who hold to the Supreme Divinity of the Son and Spirit. The former of these principles is contained in the common theory of the Trinity. Seen through this scholastic medium, these passages have mainly one complexion—one import—“ tripersonality in the nature of God.”? The latter of these principles is contained in the great, leading truth of revelation, that there is but “one Jehovah??—“ one God,”’ as the sub- ject 1s viewed by the unperverted common sense of men. ‘T’hose who deny the real “ Divinity of Christ,”” and say,—‘‘ It may mean that he was Jehovah, the only living and true God ; in that case, the proper ex- pression would be, that we do not believe in the Deity — of Christ ;”*—such persons may reject both of these principles. But the passage just quoted, may have been spoken in reference to the common theory of the Trinity, and not at all in reference to the latter prin- ciple, as here applied to the interpretation of these passages. This principle is not a theory ; any more than the declaration, that ‘‘ in the beginning God cre- ated the heaven and the earth,” is a theory. A fact, or a revealed truth, is not a theory. On this latter principle,—by those who receive it,—the whole class of passages in question will naturally be understood in substantial accordance with that view of them which has here been presented. * Rev. G. W. Burnap’s Discourses on Popular Objections to Uni- tarian Christianity ; p. 31. CHAPTER IV. MISCELLANEOUS. In the preceding chapters, we have considered the - subject of the Godhead as revealed to man—the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. We have examined the common theory of the Trinity in its Monotheistic and Tritheistic forms, and the main arguments by which these have commonly been defended ; and have spoken of the sufficiency of the word of God itself, without the aid of scholastic philosophy, to sustain the truth which he has been pleased to reveal to man. We have also examined some additional passages of Scripture, which have been claimed as teaching or implying the truth of the common theory. A few miscellaneous matters re- main to be considered, before bringing this discussion to a close. Notwithstanding this theory has been so long and so extensively held among the professed disciples of Christ, ‘there have been many, in various ages, from its first adoption down to the present time, who did not receive it as Divine truth ; while yet, so far as appears, many 254 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. of these have manifested as much real attachment to the word of God as their opponents. For a period of years, as we have before had occasion to observe, one party prevailed for some time, and then the other. Nor does it appear that those who held to this theory acted more in accordance with the principles or pos- sessed more of the spirit of the gospel, than many who rejected it. Intolerance was, indeed, the spirit of the age; but not therefore justifiable. The reception of their scholastic views of Divine truth was thought to be necessary, in order to salvation. Those views—the costume in which they presented revealed truth—they, without doubt, honestly regarded as a part of that which was actually revealed; but they did not concede to others that right of Hage judgment in the inter- pretation of the Scriptures, which they claimed for themselves.. It was exercised by them at their own peril. As a matter of curiosity to some, and of convenience to others, we here present those ancient formulas of faith, which are frequently denominated, The Three Creeds. The earliest of these is doubtless that which is called The Apostles’ Creed ; not because it was sup- posed to have been drawn up by the apostles, but be- cause it was regarded as embodying the great truths which they taught. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 255 THE APOSTLES’ CREED.* *‘T believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried ; he descended into hell ; the third day he arose again from the dead; he as- cended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body ; and the life everlasting. Amen.’’ The WNVicene Creed is so called, because it was adopted by the general Council at Nice, in the year 3825. It was ‘‘ designed to be thenceforward the only standard of orthodoxy.”’? But the general Council held at Constantinople, in the year 381, made some addi- tion to this formula ; which is here inserted, and in- cluded in brackets. We give.the whole from the original Greek, in Knapp’s Theology, p. 154. * The Book of Common Prayer: Oxford, 1781. 256 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. THE NICENE CREED. “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible: and m one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father; by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and which are in earth; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down, and became flesh, and was in human condition, suffered, and rose the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy Ghost [the Lord, the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets]. But those who say, that there was a time when he (the Son) did not exist, and that before he was begotten he did not exist, and who say that he was made of nothing, or of another substance or being, or that the Son of God was created, modified, or transformed,—the whole Church anathematizes.”’ The Athanasian Creed was of later date. It was not drawn up by him whose name it bears; but it was written originally in Latin, some time after his death, and was accepted as embodying the results of those A BIBLICAL TRINITY.’ O57 protracted controversies in which Athanasius was en- gaged, stating and defining the doctrines for which that distmguished father so long contended. It may be regarded as the Creed of the Western fathers, as the Nicene Creed was of the Greek or Eastern fathers. THE ATHANASIAN CREED.* ** Quicunque vult. ‘¢ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled ; with- out doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this : ‘ That we worship one God in Trinity, and-Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty coéternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal ; * The Book of Common Prayer ; Oxford, 1781. 258 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. Ags also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated ; but one uncreated, and one incom- prehensible: so likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty; and yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God ; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion, to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none ; neither created nor be- gotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity, none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another ; but the whole three Persons are co€ter- nal together, and coéqual. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. ‘¢ Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salva- tion, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 259 believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world ; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting ; equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood ; who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ ; one, not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the man- hood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For, as the rea- sonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and man ig one Christ ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God almighty ; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming, all men shall rise again with. their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting ; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. “This is the catholic faith ; which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.’’ Such is the language—the costume, and such the spirit of toleration, in which the great truths of revela- tion were held in those early ages of the church. Nor did they originate with these Creeds. Both the lan- 260 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. guage and the philosophy in which these truths are here presented, were of an earlier date, and were simi- larly held by many of the Ante-Nicene fathers, and doubtless introduced gradually, in accordance with the prevalent philosophy of the age, some time in the second century. Having been long employed with different degrees of precision and formality, this philo- sophical language had come to be held by a large pro- portion of the fathers, as sacred ; and it was at length, in times of earnest controversy, embodied in the two latter creeds, especially the last, with the utmost pre- cision and accuracy. Thus embodied, it has been held, more or less generally, as orthodox ; i. e. it was considered to be in accordance with the Scriptures. Hence it came to be regarded as sacred and inviolable ; possessing authority equal at least to that of the Scrip- tures; and it was the rule of judging of soundness in the faith. The great effort seems to have been, not simply to maintain what the Bible really and plainly teaches ; but also, THOSE SCHOLASTIC FoRMs of lan- guage and of doctrine; as though Brble truth could not otherwise be maintained. The two things came to be held as one-and inseparable. It is interesting to observe, how the doctrine of the Trinity was preached in England, two centuries and a half ago. For this purpose, we shall introduce a few paragraphs from a work of Samuel Otes, of Corpus College, Cambridge, and rector of Marsham and South Keppes, in Norfolk ; who died about the beginning of A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 261 the seventeenth century.* His ‘‘ Exposition of the General Epistle of Saint Jude”? was “‘ preached in a weekly lecture to a public audience on the market day, at Northwalsham in Norfolk.’? Some time after his death, it was published by his son, Samuel Otes; in 1633; fol. The lectures are without date; except as it is incidentally mentioned, that the forty-first was preached in 1602. ‘* The market day’? at that time was on the Sabbath ; for the accommodation of the ~ people. That practice was gradually discontinued ; and in the time of Charles II., 1667, markets on that day were prohibited.+ These extracts are from the third sermon upon the first verse of Jude. The preacher says : ** For all our sanctification and holiness is from the Lord, as it appeareth plainly by the words of my text ; Sanctified of God the Father : Causa efficiens sancti- ' tatis ; the efficient cause of holiness is God the Father: Instrumentalis causa fides ; the instrumental cause is faith ; for Fides cor purtficat, faith purifieth the heart. © Materialis causa, the material cause, est energia sanc. titatis que est in Christo, for of his fullness we have all recewed, even grace for grace. Formalis causa, the formal cause, est nostra renovatio ab impuris qua- litatibus ad puras et integras, is our renewing from impure qualities to pure and sound: Finalis, Dei cul- tus, the final, God’s worship, to the honor of God and the edifying of our neighbor. . * Bibliotheca Brit.; Otes. + Penny Cyclop.; Markets. 262 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ‘“‘ But yet observe with me, that though sanctifica- tion be attributed to the Father, yet the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not excluded ; for we hold the principle of the schoolmen, opera Trinitatis quoad extra sunt indivisa ; the outward works of God are common to the whole Trinity; and so are we sanctified by Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet sanctification is here ascribed to the Father, as being the ground and first author thereof. For the Son sanctifieth by meriting sanctification ; the Holy Ghost sanctifieth by working | it; but the Father sanctifieth, both by sending his Son to merit it, and also by giving the Holy Spirit to work it. Thus opera Trinitatis, the outward works of God - are common to the whole Trinity. Sed opera Trinita- tis quoad intus est singularia ; the inward works of God are singular, and proper to some Persons of the Trinity: ut patri potentia, filio redemptio, spiritu sanctificatio tribuitur ; as‘ power is ascribed to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanctification to the Holy Ghost; and yet these now and then be attributed to all three Persons. Quod Ursinus ; servato ordine agendi, for as the Father and the Holy Ghost do re- deem, and yet mediately by the Son; so the Father and the Son do sanctify, yet mediately by the Holy Ghost. The proper or incommunicable works of the Trinity are the inward eternal and hypostatical properties ; as thus: pater generat, the Father begetteth, the Son 1s begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceedeth ; and yet the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Ghost either Father or Son. The other works of the A-BIBLICAL TRINITY. 268 Trinity are indivisible, howsoever sometimes distinct ; as creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanc- tification to the Holy Ghost. Peter Martyr saith thus: Pater ut fons, filius ut flumen, spiritus ut rivus ab utroque procedens ; the Father as the foun- tain, the Son as the flood, the Spirit as the river pro- ceeding from both. ‘The fountain is not the flood, nor the flood the fountain, nor the river either fountain or flood ; and yet all these be one water. So the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Spirit either Father or Son, and yet but one God. Et hi tres sanctificant, and all these three sanctify; quoth Lactantius. 4b uno omnia, per unum omnia, a quo, per quem, in quo omnia, unus a se, unus ab uno, unus ab ambobus, una tamen et eadem operatio: all things from one, all things by one, all things in one; from whom, by whom, and in whom are all things; one of himself, one from one, one from both, and yet one and the same operation. Tres sunt in trinitate, non statu, sed ordine ; non essentia, sed forma; non protestate, sed specie ; unus status, essentiea et protestatis, quia sunt unus Deus. There be three Persons in the Trinity, not in state and condition, but in order ; not in essence, but in form; not in power, but in kind; for there is one and the same state of essence and power, because these three Persons be but one God. *‘ But to leave this: The Persons of the Trinity are here distinguished ; they are sanctified of God the Father, and reserved unto Jesus Christ. The Persons of the Father and the Son are discerned [distinguished], 264 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. as in all other places: Pater quast fons exuberans ; jilius ut rivus defluens ; ille ut sol, hic ut radius ; alle ut os, hic ut vox procedens : non autem separantur, sicut nec rwus a fonte, nec radius a sole, nec vox ab ore: quia aqua fontis est in rivo, et solis lumen in radio, et oris virtus in-voce: The Father as the foun- tain abounding, the Son as the river flowing; he as the sun, this as the beam; he as the mouth, this as the voice proceeding: they are not separated, as neither the river is separated from the fountain, nor the beam from the sun, nor the voice from the mouth; for the water in the fountain is in the river, as the light of the sun is in the beam, and the virtue [power] of the mouth is in the voice. “‘ The distinction of the Persons obscurely delivered in the Old Testament, in the New is made clearer than the noon-day. For at the baptism of Christ, the Son was seen; the Holy Ghost descended like a dove. Again: Christ bad them baptize, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Again: This was Paul’s farewell to the churches: The grace of our Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Again: Saint John saith, That there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Also the place, Luke 1: 35: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God; doth sufficiently prove the A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 265 Trinity ; which places, the Confession of Belgia quoted against Jews, Mahometans, Marcion, Mans, Sabellius, Somositanus,”’ etc. (pp. 82-34.) The author of this Exposition was an able man, as the whole work shgws, and distinguished in his day ; and these representations of the Trinity may be re- garded as a fair specimen of the form in which it was then held by intelligent men. How much they aid us in bringing forth to the light what the Scriptures have left in the dark, and in understanding what is not re- vealed of the Godhead, the reader can judge. The great outlines of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity are there, the Supreme Divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit; but the filling up is from the Athanasian Creed, under the guidance of the imagination ; and the costume is scholastic. Some of the illustrations, how- ever, hardly comport with the idea of the supreme _- Divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Though the foun- tain, the flood, and the river ‘‘ be one water,” yet the latter two are derived from the former one. But there is no doubt this author, in common with many others, thought he saw enough in the Scriptures to justify the representations which he made of the Trinity ; just “ As learned Commentators view In Homer, more than Homer knew.’” The Rev. Samuel Willard, ‘‘ of the South Church,’’ Boston, Mass., and President of Harvard College, Cambridge, delivered a course of Lectures—two hun- dred and fifty in number—on The Assembly’s Shorter 12 : 266 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Catechism. Some years after his death these were published (4to. 1726), with a Preface, by the Revs. Joseph Sewall and Thomas Prince, pastors of the same church, under the title of Body of Divinity ; which work contains a very complete view of the doctrine of the New England churches, at the time in which the author lived. Mr. Willard was a learned, eminent, and most influential divine, whose writings were re- ceived with great respect. Speaking of the Trinity, he says (pp. 97-101) : ‘¢ The Divine allsufficiency displays itself unto us in God’s essences and subsistences.”? (He had already treated of the Divine unity.) “‘ This one is three. The doctrine of three Persons in the unity of the Divine essence is one of the great mysteries of religion, and beyond the comprehension of the human under- standing.’ | ‘C1. In the Divine essence there are certain Divine | subsistences. . . . . Though there be but one God, that one God subsists in a diverse manner. ... . He is three ; not three Gods, but three manners of bemg are in this one God.”’ ‘©2. These subsistences are distinguished from the essence, as the relation of a being is from the being itself. . . . A relation is less than an essence... . ... A man differs modally from himself considered ag aman, and as a master, and as a servant ; which, though it be but a dark resemblance to this great truth, yet it is such as God accommodates us with. Thus, then, though God the Father be God, yet he is A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 267 not Father as he is God, but as he begets the Son. Hence these relations are assigned to him in the con- crete, and not in the abstract.”’ s ‘¢ 3. These subsistences are significantly called Per- SOLS seria: Person in our account is an individual subststence of a rational being.”’ Prof. John Wollebwus, of Basle, in Switzerland, in his Compendium of Christian Theology, which was used as a classic in Harvard College, in 1776, makes the following statement on the same subject: ‘‘ The Persons of the Deity are subsistences, any one.of which has the whole essence of God; nevertheless differing in incommunicable properties.* Further, from Willard. **4.°A Divine person may be thus described: It is the Divine essence subsisting under an individual rela- tive property. ‘* Here are three things : *““(1.) That the essence and subsistence go together to constitute a Divine person. Subsistence adds to substance its individuation, or its distinct manner of being.”’? [Save the metaphysical terms, and the as- sumption that all this is included in the Divine nature itself,—a grave matter for human philosophy to as- sume,—how does this representation of Person differ from that given at the beginning of the second chapter | of this work 2—the Being himself and his manifesta- tion. | * Persone Deitatis sunt subsistentie, quarum quelibet essentiam Dei totam habet, proprietatibus interim incommunicabilibus differen- tes. Londoni: 1750, p. 13. 7 268 A BIBLICAL TRINITY, **(2.) These subsistences are so many several rela- tions of the Godhead to itself.’’ “¢(3.) Not a relation alone, but a relative property denotes a Divine Person. It must be a particular in- dividuating relation. It must be proper to this Person, and distinguish him from the other Persons; and there- fore it must not be that which is common to more than one.”’ . ‘¢ They (the three Persons) are equal in operation: all the works of. efficiency are done by them jointly. They are all the works of God, flowing from the essence, which they are all concerned in: all three made the world.’’ In hike manner, Dr. Woods says (Works, v. 1, pp. 41, 42): ‘ Divine works generally belong in common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and yet there are official works, as we may call them, which belong, not exclusively indeed, but in a special man- ner, to one of the Three. God, absolutely considered, sanctifies; the Father sanctifies; the Son sanctifies ; but the work belongs in a peculiar sense to the Holy “Spirit.?? ‘“‘ There is one important exception. The work of making atonement for sin, and all that Christ did in his human nature, belong to him exclusively.” “The practical view is attended with far less difficulty than the speculative view.” | “ God absolutely considered”?—what igs that? Is it God acting as moral governor simply, i. e. God as he is revealed to the angels, or as he was revealed to Adam ood A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 269 before his fall, who sanctifies men? Such is not the God who is revealed to man; for, since the “ first father’s fall,’’ the God so revealed is “* God in Christ.”’ Is it God ‘‘ without restriction, limitation, or reference’’ to any of his manifestations to men—is this “* God absolutely considered?’ The revealed Sanctifier of men is a different Being from this. Is it the true God himself, manifesting himself variously and under dif- ferent names, as Jehovah, God,—the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, ‘‘ one of the Three,’’ but more commonly the last,—or unger some other name by which he is called, who is the Sanctifier of men? ‘This is exactly the view of the subject which has been presented in the foregoing pages. But, instead of saying that ‘‘ the outward works of God are common to the whole Trinity, but the inward works of God are singular [belong to different Divine agents|—the eternal and hypostatical properties’? of each Person ; that “‘ all the works of efficiency are done by them jointly,—flowing from the Divine essence,— all three made the world ;’? and that ‘‘ Divine works generally belong in common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;’? (not to add, ‘‘ which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved ;’’)—-instead of so representing the matter, how much: more simple and natural is the way in which the Scriptures speak on these subjects? Which is Divine teaching, and which is human philosophy ? No wonder that “ the practi- cal view is attended with far less difficulty than the speculative view.”’? The former is given in the Bible, 270 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. for practical purposes; the latter is furnished by the schools, with endless contention. ‘Dr. Jeremiah Taylor says, “that he who goes about to speak of the mystery of the Trinity, and does it by words and names of man’s invention, talking of essences and existences, hypostases and personalities, priorities and co€qualities, &c., and unity in plurali- ties, may amuse himself and bud a tabernacle in his head, and talk of something he knows not what ; but the good man, that feels the power of the Father, and to whom the Son is become wisdom, ganctification, and redemption, in whose heart the love of the Spirit of God is shed abroad, this man, though he understands nothing of what is unintelligible, yet he alone truly un- derstands the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.??* Are we, then, under obligation to regard this ancient scholastic -philosophy of the Trinity as sacred and in- violable, because it has been so long associated in the pious mind with the most sacred truths of revelation, and furnished the costume in which they have been presented? If not in accordance with the Scriptures, interpreted by that common sense of men to which they are addressed, why should this philosophy be regarded as true, any more than the ancient scholastic philosophy of the human mind? Much of this latter philosophy, particularly “‘the doctrine of ideas, which had kept possession of the schools for upward of two thousand years,’’? Decartes refuted. In this empire of Meta- * Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 403. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. OTL physics, notwithstanding the efforts which were made to resist it, the Cartesian philosophy ‘ soon obtained possession of the schools, and drove Aristotle from the throne.’’*. The new philosophy, however, contained some absurdities, “‘ such as his (Decartes’) vortices and innate ideas,’’? which soon shared the same fate from **the cautious and sensible system of Locke, who rejected what was false, or unwarranted, and retained, explained, and amplified what was useful.’’? Then followed Reid and Stewart in a similar manner. Thus the real truth repecting the nature of the human mind and its im- pressions and operations was gradually brought to light, and ‘‘the barbarous language of the scholastic learning” laid aside. That false philosophy did not alter the truth ; nor did the discovery and rejection of the former do any injury to the latter. The human mind still exists and operates as it always has done ; even when the science of mind was enveloped in the mists and absurdities of the scholastic learning. So, the planets retain their full dimensions, and move on in their respective orbits just as they always have done, notwithstanding the Copernican or true system of Astronomy has taken the place of that ancient system which represented all the heavenly bodies as revolving around the earth as its center. But it is. always bet- ter—far better—that the truth itself stmply should be received, on any subject, rather than erroneous views of it; even though very much of that truth be still-re- * Edinb. Encylopedia. 972 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. tained in the system. Especially is it so in respect to the great practical truths of revelationtruths which take hold on time, and which take hold on eternity. But there is a very common notion which stands in the way of any material progress in theological science, so long as it is held and cherished. This is, that no discoveries or umprovements in Theology are to be ex- pected. ‘That heavenly-minded man, Dr. John H. Rice, uttered a similar sentiment, in his sermon before the General Assembly at Philadelphia, some thirty years ago. But some men of far-reaching minds, as Robinson and Edwards, have thought differently. : ‘¢ No discoveries or improvements in Theology”’— this is ambiguous. The revelation itself, as it came from its Author, man will not be able to “‘improve ;”’ nor will he ‘ discover’? what is not revealed of things unseen. Yet many think they have discovered in the unrevealed nature of God, something which lays a foundation for distinctions or distinct Persons there, furnishing ‘‘ infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind.”? Still, it is acknowledged to be “ a mystery ;” i. e. a thing not revealed. Yet they tell us, it may be revealed that there is such “‘a mystery,’ though it is not explained. But this “‘ may be’ is no proof that it 1s really so ; though it often seems to be regarded as a sufficient proof. If the soundness of this their conclusion is questioned, they immediately take refuge in thick darkness ; whether this be an amprovement, or not. But in respect to Theology as a human science, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. on38 there is ample room for discoveries and improvements. There is no good reason for supposing that the Nicene and Athanasian fathers possessed theological science, philosophy, and language, in such perfection that we have nothing to do but to perpetuate their views and their language ; any more than that Aristotle and his followers possessed the true philosophy of the human mind in such perfection, that to depart from it is wholly unwarrantable. The former had before them the facts made known. in the Scriptures ; the latter had before them the human mind and its operations. We have, in both these respects, the same facts or truths made known to us, in the same ways, with the additional benefit of subsequent investigations. As the fathers examined the Scriptures, and came to such results in doctrine as seemed to them most in accordance with truth, viewed in the light of their own philosophy; so should we, guided by common sense, examine the same Scriptures in the light of “ our exegetical guide,” and come to such results as accord strictly with revealed _ truth. Those fathers had not “ the keys of the king- dom’”’ given to them in such a sense as to justify them in saying of their own views of Divine truth—“ which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” He who really believes in Christ as the true Messiah, may yet be saved, even though he should not receive the ancient scholastic philosophy of the Trinity ; while some who receive it, and regard themselves in the fullest sense as “the children of the kingdom,”? may “be cast out.” — 12* 274 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. If the reception of those scholastic views of the ‘Trinity is to be regarded as indispensable to salvation, or to credible evidence of piety and sanity, or to the reputation of Biblical orthodoxy, or to the charity and fellowship of the brotherhood in any of these respects, what becomes of such men as Richard Baxter and Isaac Watts ?—men whose names will be remembered with affection, with vencration, and with gratitude to God by his children, centuries after the names of their scrupulous rejecters shall have been forgotten ; unless some signal act of bigotry should confer upon them that kind of earthly immortality which has fallen to the lot of the Pharisees of old. And how much does the favorable opinion of those persons deserve to be esteemed, whose charity and fellowship are so strait- ened and cramped by the spirit of caste, that even Jesus himself, if he did not sanction their scholastic views and conform to their settled practice, but thought fit.to eat with publicans and sinners and without wash- ing his hands,. would seem to be regarded as unsound in the faith ? ‘“‘ Mr. Baxter seems, as some of the schoolmen did, to have thought the three Divine persons to be one and the same God, understanding, willing, and beloved by himself ; or wisdom, power, and love ; which he thinks illustrated by three essential formalities (as he calls them), in the soul of man, viz., vital active power, in- tellect, and will ;.and in the sun, motvon, light, and heat.”?* * Doddridge’s Lect., p. 402. eee eS ee ee ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 975 - What shail we say of Baxter, if the common scho- lastic theory of the Trinity—either in one form or the ether—is to be regarded as the only statement of the subject which is consistent with holding the vital truths of Christianity? He evidently discarded that theory, as being a true representation of the Trinity as taught in the Scriptures. The question is not, whether his representation of the subject is the best—the one most in accordance with the Scripture account of the mat- ter ; but, was his rejection of the common theory in- * consistent with holding clearly and presenting distinctly and powerfully the great, vital truths of Christianity ? Is there nothing of these in the writings of Richard Baxter,—which have been read by hundreds of thou- sands of persons with the greatest benefit, which are published so, extensively and scattered so widely, like ** leaves for the healing of the nations,’’ and which will undoubtedly be read with profit by increasing numbers from generation to generation? Let the multitudes who have from age to age been turned to God by read- ing his Call to the Unconverted, and the Christians everywhere who have been humbled, animated, com- forted, strengthened by reading his Saints’? Rest and Dying Thoughts, give the answer. 3 ‘Dr. Watts maintained one supreme God dwelling in the human nature of Christ, which he supposes to have existed the first of all creatures; and speaks of the Divine Logos, as the wisdom of God, and the Holy Spirit, as the Divine power, or the influence and effect of it; which he says is a seriptural Person, i. e. 276 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. spoken of figuratively in Scripture under personal characters.’’* It is well known that Dr. Watts, while yet in the meridian of life, rejected the common theory of the Trinity ; not believing it to be taught in the word of God. Yet he received, with the simplicity of a child, whatever he believed that word to contain. His views are distinctly stated in some of his Dissertations. In one of them he says, among other things: ‘‘ So far as our ideas of arithmetic and reason can reach, this seems to be a plain truth: ‘If one infinite spirit be one God, two or three infinite spirits must be two or three Gods.’ And though the patrons of this opinion sup- pose these three spirits to be so nearly united as to be called one God, merely to avoid the charge of poly- theism, yet it must be granted that this one God must, then, be one complex infinite Being, or Spirit, made up of three single infinite beings or spirits ; which is such a notion of the one true God as I think reason nor revelation will admit. And yet, if this were the true notion of the one God, a ts very strange that Scrip- ture should not clearly and expressly reveal it.” He further says: ‘‘ The common explication of the eternal generation of the Son, and eternal pro- cession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, which was authorized in the Latin churches, was de- rived down to us from the Popish schoolmen ; though it is now become a part of the established or orthodox * Doddridge’s Lect., p. 403. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. pat Gi faith in most of the Protestant nations, because at the Reformation they knew no better way to explain the doctrine of the sacred Trinity. They contented them- selves to say it was incomprehensible, and thus forbid all further inquiries.’’ Just as it is said of distinctions, or distinct Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself. In his solemn Address to the Deity, Dr. Watts poured out his soul before God, over this whole subject, in a manner which shows, most clearly, his reverence for the Holy Scriptures, his humility, his teachableness, his earnest desire to understand and receive all that God had taught. This Address entire is rarely to be met with, except in his voluminous works, which few can purchase. As it is directly in point, showing the views of a clear, discerning mind, though still somewhat in darkness, and the feelings of a sincere, devout, and humble Christian on this important subject, the whole of it, as published in the London quarto edition of his works, of 1810, vol. iv., pp. 670-673, will be here in- ‘serted. | The title which the editor prefixes to it 1s as follows : ‘‘The author’s solemn Address to the great and ever- blessed God on a review of what he had written in the Trinitarian controversy, prefixed by him to some pieces’ on that subject, which it was not judged necessary to publish.”? But why so? It was a part of his _“ Works.”? Why “‘not judged necessary,” as well as to publish the Address itself? Is the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity afraid of the light ? Is not God’s truth, in the open field of fair, manly, and earnest dis- 278 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. cussion, stronger than anything which erring and sinful ' man can bring against it? Did not its Author intend that what he has revealed on the subject should be in- vestigated, understood, and received on the authority of his own word ; ‘“ that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God ??? This very hush-up—this effort to keep out everything but darkness, betrays weakness and distrust. Divine truth needs no such aid. But let us listen to the author’s ‘SOLEMN ADDRESS TO THE DEITY. ‘Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with thee concerning thy judgments. Permit me, O my God and Father, to plead with thee concerning the revelations of thy nature and thy grace, which are made in thy Gospel: And let me do it with all that humble reverence, and that holy awe of thy majesty, which becomes a creature in the presence of his God. “‘ Hast thou not, O Lord God almighty, hast thou not transacted thy Divine and important affairs among men by thy Son Jesus Christ, and by thy Holy Spirit ? and hast thou not ordained that men should transact their highest and most momentous concerns with thee, by thy Son and by thy Spirit? Hast thou not, by the mouth of thy Son Jesus, required all that profess his religion to be washed with water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Is it not my duty then, to inquire, who or what are these sacred A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 76!) names, and what they signify? Must I not know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ thy Son, whom thou hast sent, that I may fulfill all my respec- tive duties toward thyself and thy Son, in hope of eter- nal life? Hath not thy Son himself appealed to thee in his last prayer, that eternal life depends upon this | knowledge? And since thou hast made so much use of thy Holy Spirit in our religion, must I not have some knowledge of this thy Spirit also, that I may pay thee all these honors thou requirest from this Divine revelation 2 ** Hast thou not ascribed Divine names, and titles, and characters to thy Son and thy Holy Spirit, in thy word, as well as assumed them to thyself? And hast thou not appointed to them such glorious offices as can- not be executed without something of Divinity or true Godhead in them? And yet art not thou, and thou alone, the true God? How shall a poor weak creature be able to adjust and reconcile these clashing ideas, or to understand this.mystery? Or must I believe and act blindfold, without understanding ? “Holy Father, thou knowest how firmly I believe, with all my- soul, whatsoever thou hast plainly written and revealed in thy word. I believe thee to be the only true God, the supreme of beings, self-sufficient for thine own existence, and for all thy infinite affairs and _ transactions among thy creatures. I believe thy Son Jesus Christ to be all-sufficient for the glorious work of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells 280 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God; he is God manifest in the flesh ; and that the man Jesus is so closely and inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one Person, even as a human soul and body make one man. I believe that this illustrious Person is hereby possessed of Divine dignity sufficient to make full atonement for the sins of men by his sufferings and death, even though sin be accounted an infinite evil; and that he hath all-suflicient power to raise himself from the dead, to ascend to heaven, and fulfill the blessed works for which thou hast exalted him, and to govern and judge the world in thine own appointed time. “TI believe also thy blessed Spirit hath almighty power and influence to do all thy will, to instruct men effectually in Divine truths, to change the hearts of fallen mankind from sin to holiness, to carry on thy work of illumination, sanctification, and consolation on the hearts of all thy children, and to bring them safe to the heavenly world. I yield myself up joyfully and thankfully to this method of thy salvation, as it is re- vealed in thy Gospel. But I acknowledge my dark- ness still. I want to have this wonderful -doctrine of the all-sufficiency of thy Son and thy Spirit, for these Divine works, made a little plainer. May not thy humble creature be permitted to know what share they can have in thy Deity? Is it a vain, sinful curiosity to desire to have this article in such a light, as may not diminish the eternal glory of the unity of the true God, nor of the supremacy of Thee, the Father of all 2 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 981 *¢ Hadst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any place of thy word, that this Divine doctrine is not to be understood by men, and yet they were required to believe it, I would have subdued all my curiosity to faith, and submitted my wandering and doubtful ima- ginations, as far as it was possible, to the holy and wise determinations of thy word. But I cannot find thou hast anywhere forbid me to understand it, or to make these inquiries. My conscience is the best natu- ral light thou hast put within me, and since thou hast given me the Scriptures, my own conscience bids me search the Scriptures, to find out truth and eternal life. It bids me try all things, and hold fast that which is good. And thy own word, by the same ex- pressions, encourages this holy practice. I have, there- fore, been long searching into this Divine doctrine, that I may pay thee due honor with understanding. Surely I ought to know the God whom I worship, whether he be one pure and simple being, or whether thou art a three-fold Deity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ** Dear and blessed God! hadst thou been pleased, in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me which of the different opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou’ knowest with how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy my unbiased heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace the Divine discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real distinct Persons in thy Di- 282 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. vine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of Divine doctrine ; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased to express and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience might with ease find out and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed, all my rea- soning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul. “Thou hast taught. me, Holy Father, by thy pro- phets, that the way of holiness in the times of the Gos- pel, or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a highway, a plain and easy path; so that the wayfaring man, or the stranger, ‘though a fool, shall not err therein.? And thou hast called the poor and the igno- rant, the mean and the foolish things of this world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son, and taught them to receive and partake of the salvation which thou hast provided. But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this, in the explication and defense whereof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilties and dispute, and end- . less mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real Persons going to make A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 283 one true God, be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testa- ment and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings ? “*O thou Searcher of hearts, who knowest all things, I appeal to thee concerning the sincerity of my inqui- ries into these discoveries of thy word. Thou knowest me, thou hast seen me, and hast tried my heart toward thee: If there be any lurking hypocrisy in my heart, any secret bias toward anything but truth, uncover it, O Father of lights, and banish it from my soul forever. If thine eye discovers the least spark of any criminal prejudice in any corner of my soul, extinguish it utterly, that I may not be led astray from the truth, in matters of such importance, by the least glance of error or mistake. “Thou art witness, O my God, with what constancy and care I have read and searched thy holy word, how early and late, by night and by day, I have been making these inquiries; how frequently I have been seeking thee on my bended knees, and directing my humble address to thee, to enlighten my darkness, and to show me the meaning of thy word, that I may learn what I must believe, and what I must practice with regard to this doctrine, in order to please thee, and obtain eternal life. . “ Great God, who seest all things! thou hast beheld what busy temptations have been often fluttering about. my heart, to call it off from these laborious and difficult inquiries, and to give up:thy word and thy Gospel as 284 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. an unintelligible book, and betake myself to the light of nature and reason; but thou hast been pleased by thy Divine power to scatter these temptations, and fix my heart and hope again upon that Savior and that eternal life which thou hast revealed in thy word, and proposed therein to our knowledge and our acceptance. Blessed be the name of my God, that has not suffered me to abandon the Gospel of his Son Jesus! And blessed be that Holy Spirit that has kept me attentive to the truth delivered in the Gospel, and inclined me to wait longer in my search of these Divine truths, under the hope of thy gracious illumination ! _ “TJ humbly call thee to witness, O my God, what a holy jealousy I ever wear about my heart, lest I should do the slightest dishonor to thy supreme Majesty, in any of my inquiries or determinations. Thou seest what a religious fear, and what a tender solicitude | maintain on my soul, lest I should think or speak any- thing to diminish the grandeurs and honors of thy Son _ Jesus, my dear Mediator, to whom I owe my everlast- ing hopes. Thou knowest how much afraid I am of speaking one word, which may be construed into a neglect of thy blessed Spirit, from whom I hope I am daily receiving happy influences of light and strength. Guard all the motions of my mind, O almighty God, against everything that borders upon these dangers. korbid my thoughts to indulge, and forbid my pen to write one word, that should sink those grand ideas which belong to thyself, or thy Son, or thy Spirit. Forbid it, O my God, that I should ever be so un- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 285. happy as to unglorify my Father, my Savior, or my Sanctifier, in any of my sentiments or expressions con-— cerning them. ‘* Blessed and faithful God, hast thou not promised that the meek thou wilt guide in judgment, the meek thou wilt teach thy way? Hast thou not told us by Isaiah thy prophet, that thou wilt bring the blind by a way which they knew not, and wilt lead them in paths which they have not known? Hast thou not informed us by thy prophet Hosea, that if we follow on to know _ the Lord, then we shall know him? Hath not thy Son, our Savior, assured us, that our heavenly Father will give his Holy Spirit to them who ask him? And is he not appointed to guide us into all truth? Have I not sought the gracious guidance of thy good Spirit continually ? Am I not truly sensible of my own dark- ness and weakness, my dangerous prejudices on every side, and my utter insufficiency for my own conduct? Wilt thou leave such a poor creature bewildered among a thousand perplexities, which are raised by the vai®ous opinions and contrivances of men to explain thy Divine truth ? } ‘Help me, heavenly Father, for I am quite tired and weary of these human explainings, so various and uncertain. When wilt thou explain it to me thyself, O my God, by the secret and certain dictates of thy Spirit according to the intimations of thy word? Nor let any pride of reason, nor any affectation of novelty, nor any criminal bias whatsoever, turn my heart aside from hearkening to these Divine dictates of thy word 286 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. and thy Spirit. Suffer not any of my native corrup- tions, nor the vanity of my imagination, to cast a mist over my eyes, while I am searching after the knowledge of thy mind and will, for my eternal salvation. ‘“‘T entreat, O most merciful Father, that thou wilt not suffer the remnant of my short life to be wasted in such endless. wanderings, in quest of thee and thy Son Jesus, as a great part of my past days have been ; but let my sincere endeavors to know thee, in all the ways whereby thou hast discovered thyself in thy word, be crowned with such, abundant success, that my soul being established in every needful truth by thy Holy . Spirit, I may spend my remaining life according to the rules of thy Gospel, and may, with all the holy and happy creation, ascribe glory and honor, wisdom and power to Thee, who sittest upon the throne, ‘and to the Lamb forever and ever.” In this manner did that eminent servant of God pour out his whole heart over the subject. Rejecting the common theory with which his earlier devotional feel- ings had been associated, he was evidently often dis- tressed ; partly from his own theory not being perfectly satisfactory to himself, and partly from the opposition which he knew his recent course and present views would meet with—which in fact they did meet with— from pious friends whom he respected and loved. From some of the views which he has elsewhere ex- pressed, he seems to have had a glimpse of that simple view of the subject which the Bible gives without any A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 287 theory ; but some theory, as a mode of explanation, was deemed necessary, and was in accordance with previous habits, and with the spirit of the age. As his piety was above suspicion, some persons have ascribed the Doctor’s change of views on this subject, to insanity or imbecility. But such an explication of the matter, however good the motive may be in sug- gesting it, does no honor to religion. His personal friend, Dr. Gibbons, in reference to this very point, makes the following statement : “* How it came to pass I know not, but that it has so ‘happened is certain, that reports have been raised, propagated, and currently believed concerning the Doc- tor, that he has imagined such things concerning him- self as would prove, if they were true, that he had lost possession of himself, or suffered a. momentary eclipse of his intellectual faculties; and I could refer my reader to a biographer who gives the world a grave narrative of the particulars of these wild reveries. But I take upon me, and feel myself happy to aver, that these reports were utterly and absolutely false and groundless ; and I do this from my own knowledge and observation of him for several years, and some of them the years of his decay, when he was at the weakest ; from the express declaration of Mr. Joseph Parker, his amanuensis for above twenty years, and who was in a manner ever with him; and, above all, from Mrs. Elizabeth Abney, the surviving daughter of Sir Thomas _ and Lady Abney, who lived in the same family with him all the time of the Doctor’s residence there, a_ 288 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. period of no less than thirty-six years. Can any evi- dence be more convincing and decisive ?” Dr. Watts was a man whose intellect is not to be despised, nor his piety or sincerity to be doubted. What Christian child has not been piously instructed by him? What humble believer in Jesus has not com- muned with him, and offered praise to God in his lan- guage? We heard the venerable Dr. Griffin, with all the glowing ardor of his mind, say of him many years ago on the floor of the General Assembly at Philadel- phia,—particularly m reference to his Psalmody,— ‘Mr. Moderator—there never was but one Watts ’” Dr. Johnson, a High Churchman, says of him, in his Lives of the Pocts: “‘ The truth is, that whatever he took in hand was, by his incessant solicitude for souls, converted to Theology. As’ piety predominated in his mind, it is diffused over his works ; under his direction it may be truly said, Theologia Philosophia ancillatur, philosophy is subservient to evangelical instruction ; it js difficult to read a page without learning, or at least wishing to be better. The attention is caught by indi- rect instruction, and he that sat down only to reason 1s on a sudden compelled to pray. + +++ +++ s He is at least one of the few poets with whom youth and ignorance may be safely pleased ;. and happy will be that reader whose mind is disposed, by his verses or his prose, to imitate him in all but his non-conformity, to copy his benevolence to man, and his reverence to God.” Yet, learned and pious, and eminent as Dr. Watts A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ‘289 was for every virtue, such was the general state of feeling relative to the common or scholastic theory, at the time the foregoing Address was first published, that some of his friends, fearing it would greatly injure his popularity and influence, persuaded him to recall the edition,—which we are told consisted of only fifty copies, containing the Address prefixed to a treatise on the Trinity,—and commit it to the flames. What a fact this, in the history of that theory! This is the way in which it has come to pass, that “so the church has always understood the subject.?? But how does such a proceeding differ, in principle, from suppressing or burning Protestant books in Catholic countries? It is not Divine truih, but a scholastic theory, that will not bear the light. But, in the good providence of God, one copy of that work of Watts escaped the flames ; and half a century afterward, it was found in a bookstore at Southampton (1796); so that it can tell us of the workings of his inquisitive, anxious, humble and devout mind, on this great subject. . And it does tell us, that he was driven to the verge of infidelity ; from which, however, the grace of God—not that scho- lastic theory—preserved him. But many are afraid of ight on the subject, and are anxious to preserve this theory, lest men should become Unitarians or Infidels. This is just like the priestly method of preventing Catholics from becoming Pro- -testants. So long as they can be kept quiet, in the belief of the infallibility of the Pope and the au- thority of the Priest over the conscience, there is 13 290 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. no danger—they will ‘‘believe what the church be- lieves,”” and obey the Priest; but as soon as any of them begin to inquire, read, and think on the subject, and to dowbé of such infallibility and authority, they are at once considered—and not without reason—as © lost to that church, and are doomed accordingly. So it is with reference to scholastic views of the Trinity. The only way to retain them is, to keep people in the dark—merge the subject in ‘‘ awful mystery,” into which it is not lawful to inquire; and if any one should presume to do so, and to doubt of the correctness of such views, pronounce him at once “ guilty of contempt of authority,’’ and ‘‘ cast him out.”? But Baxter and Watts could hold the lwing truths of Christianity, without this scholastic theory, and bring them, in love and with power, to bear upon the conscience and the heart. Why cannot others do the same? What need has God’s truth of scholastic mystery to protect it or give it efficacy ? But the manner in which this theory has commonly been presented and defended, has had great influence in promoting skepticism and infidelity ; especially with those independent, thinking minds, who will not be re- strained from examining into the subject, and who must, without reserve, receive this theory, or be re- garded and treated as “‘heretics.”? A sensible writer in The New Englander for Feb. 1850, p. 18, refer- ring particularly to the Tritheistic form of this theory, says: ‘This method of stating the doctrine of the Trinity A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 291 is particularly unfortunate, since it not only leads the mind that adopts it into unnecessary confusion, and - even error, but by coming into direct and unavoidable collision with one of the plainest truths of revelation, the Divine unity, it brings the doctrine itself into dis- repute, and in many instances occasions its entire re- jection. Itisa sad fact, yet one with which he who ig conversant with the history of doctrines in the church is but too familiar, that in many cases, the Jirst sources of the error and essential heresy which have arisen in the world, to the no small detriment of truth and the human mind, are to be found in the inju- dicious and unreasonable statements and opinions of those who have held the very opposite extreme. Thus unquestionably has it been in the present instance. Not a few have been led to reject the Divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity in ¢oto [true in- deed ; and so Dr. Watts, in the Preface to some of his Dissertations, says it was in his day, and had been be- fore], as the only way of avoiding the really irrecon- cilable contradictions involved in the method of state- ment now under consideration. And this state of things must continue, so long as they who hold the doctrine allow themselves to use terms in this looge and incorrect manner ; applying to the distinctions in the Divine nature [?] the term Person in nearly or quite the ordinary sense of the word ; speaking and thinking of the Father, Son and Spirit, as if they were three distinct Beings, who together constitute the Deity, who consult together, and enjoy each other’s 292, A BIBLICAL TRINITY. society and converse; thus virtually abandoning the doctrine of the simple undivided unity of the Godhead, and, when pressed with the conflicting nature of these two things, taking refuge as a last resort behind the broad shield of acknowledged MysTERY.”’ This is very well said, in the main. But the writer of it seems not yet to have wholly dispensed with the use of scholastic glasses. Those which he wears occa- sionally seem tinged a little with ‘‘ yellow;?’ while the other view, which he opposes, comes through the darkest ‘‘indigo.”? He holds the Monotheistic form of the common theory,—‘‘ distinctions in the Divine nature itself,’’—which is decidedly the least exception- able of the two; but still it goes beyond the record, and has, in some degree, the same effect of occasioning the rejection of important truths actually revealed, which he justly ascribes to the Tritheistic form which he opposes, and refutes. Butt he, too, ‘‘ takes refuge behind the broad shield of mystery.’? Let him look at the whole subject with the naked eye, and in the light of our common “‘ exegetical guide,” and he will doubtless see it as it is, clearly revealed. He will then have no need.of any other “ shield,” but that broader, safer shield of Divine truth. ~ The question may be asked : How it comes to pass, that such a multitude of believers have, for so many ages, received the common theory of the Trinity with confidence and joy as Divine verity, if it is not really taught in the Scriptures? The answer to this question has in part been given already, in what has been said ® A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 993 respecting the position, that ‘so the church has always understood the subject.’? Another reason is, that | their public teaching and Confessions of Faith have led them to believe-that this doctrine or theory of the Trinity, including “ the eternal generation of the Son”? and ‘‘ the eternal procession of the Spirit,’ is ‘* the foundation of all our communion with God, and com- fortable dependence upon him.”’* In other words ; it is because they have associated with that theory, all the great and glorious truths of redemption ; and THESE REVEALED TRUTHS,—n0t the distinction of Per- sons in the very nature of the Godhead, in itself con- ‘ gidered,—have been the real subject of their confidence and joy. But that theory is not at all necessary, to the full and practical reception of these truths. Paul, Baxter, and Watts so received and taught them, and a multitude of devout and humble Christians have so re- ceived them, without that scholastic theory. A vastly greater multitude would doubtless have so received them openly, but for the cogent reasons which have been mentioned in the foregoing discussion. These blessed truths may, indeed, be presented in connection with that theory ; but without it, the same revealed truths appear far more plain, simple, natural, intelli- gible and scriptural, and comparatively free from per- plexing embarrassments and inextricable difficulties. In both ways of presenting the subject, God is repre- sented as having revealed himself to men as the Father, * Savoy Confession ; and adopted in Boston, 1680. 6 7 9 294. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Son, and Holy Ghost, and as acting in these several capacities and relations; and the Being so revealed, and designated by any one of these names, is claimed to be the Supreme God ; whether we include under i, the whole Godhead, scene to the teachings of the ~ Bible ; or only an unknown distinction or a distinct Person in the same, according to the teachings of a superannuated and presumptuous philosophy. No human language can adequately describe Him, whom we cannot find out by searching. In our imper- fect descriptions and illustrations, and in the names employed to designate him, we can only use the lan- guage of approximation. The name Father, applied to God, by no means denotes ald which is meant by that term, when applied to man. Were we to draw out its meaning, in the former case, in all the particulars which it denotes in the latter case, we should run into the most glaring absurdities. There are certain re- spects, in which it is appropriate; and certain other respects, in which it is wholly inappropriate. Bearing this in mind, we might furnish some explanation of what we mean, in saying that the true God viewed in three aspects and relations and acting in three different capacities is one and the same Jehovah, by taking one or two suggestive illustrations. That great moral and spiritual change which takes place when a man becomes a true believer in Jesus, is denominated regeneration, repentance, faith ; accord- a ale A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 295 ing to its aspect and relation toward God as its author, toward sin as its subject, or toward Christ crucified as the object of trust. This whole change is often desig- nated by any one of these terms; though in different aspects and relations. If a person is truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is a Christian. If he has truly repented of his sins, he is a Christian. If he has true faith in a crucified Savior, he is a Christian. So God, creating and governing the universe and making pro- vision for the salvation of men, is the true God. The same God manifested in the flesh, dwelling in the Mes- siah, and in or through him reconciling the world unto himself, is the Supreme God. The same unchange- able Jehovah graciously carrying on his plan of mercy, —converting and sanctifying men, watching over and protecting his church, and promoting her welfare in all _ ages of the world,—is the true and eternal God. But in these several cases, he is presented to us in different aspects and relations, and acts in different capacities (so much is true, even if this is not the whole truth) ; yet all in perfect consistency with one another, and with the great principles of his government. The Supreme Magistrate of the Commonwealth acts in very different capacities, when the public good re- quires it. In ordinary circumstances, he acts in a ciwil capacity in what he does with respect to the en- actment and execution of the laws. In a time of hos- tile invasion especially, he is called to act in a military capacity, suspending, if need be, certain civil rights of the citizens. Again, in the exercise of the pardoning 296 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. power, he revokes the sentence of the law, instead of causing it or leaving it to be executed. These several capacities in which he acts are entirely consistent with each other and with the public good; nay, he is re- quired so to act for the common weal, on account of the occasions which called for the exercise of these diverse public functions. So likewise, the same Su- preme God acts in the several capacities ascribed to him in the Scriptures, in entire harmony with his goy- ernment, with the best interests of his great kingdom, and with the perfection of his whole character as Moral Governor of the universe. These illustrations are merely suggestive, and most obviously, not to be taken in every respect as explana- tory of what is revealed concerning God; any more than the name Father or King when applied to him, is to be understood as meaning the same, in all respécts, as when applied to a man: what is not revealed of God, we do not attempt to illustrate or explain at all. But, to set forth for argument or illustration— George Washington as Proprietor of Mount Vernon, address- ing a petition to George Washington as President of the United States, that he would send George Wash- ington as Military Commander to defend his estate from pillage’’*—to set forth this as a fair, or even plausible illustration of the foregoing Biblical view of the Trinity, would (whether so intended or not) be the very extreme of caricature and absurdity. What in- * Omicron in the N. Y. Evangelist. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 297 telligent and candid reasoner ever represented God as sending himself—-and not rather his Son—to make atonement for sin? Who, that was not wedded to a troublesome theory, ever represented Him as offering a petition to himself, to sanctify men through his own truth and to take care of his church; and not rather, his Son the Messiah—the man Christ Jesus—as offer- ing such a petition to God his. Father? But it shows that the subject, thus unintentionally perverted and caricatured, is seen and perceived through a false medium, of the darkest hue. The foregoing alleged likeness resembles the original no more than a man of straw resembles a real son of Adam. It would be more honorable to deal with the original, the real man,—fairly to be sure,—than to demolish him of straw. | It is natural to inquire, whether the Trinity of the Scriptures is revealed in the Old Testament. ‘The sum and substance of it are there; though it is not revealed as clearly and fully, as in the New Testa- ment, after the incarnation ; and, from the very nature of the case, it was not to be expected, even if possible. In the former, God is revealed as creator and right- eous moral governor, and as having mercy in store for rebellious man; this is the Father. A Messiah to come, one to be offered up as a sacrifice for sin, is -fully set forth in the Mosaic ritual, and plainly referred to and foretold in the Psalms and in the Prophets; this is the Son by anticipation—the manifestation of God in the flesh. God operated on the hearts of men, 13* 298 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. and inclined them to himself; gave them a new heart and a new spirit; watched over, favored, and pro- tected his ancient church amid all her trials ;—this is the Holy Spirit. Here is, substantially, the Trinity as revealed in the New Testament. But these facts by no means prove that there are three Persons in the nature of the Godhead itself; as has before been shown. Much Jess do they prove the truth of the common theory of the Trinity so clearly, that it must have been understood by the whole He- brew nation, and that whcrever any of them went and whoever came among them from heathen nations, all carried away with them a full knowledge of this trinity of Persons in the Godhead; so that the doctrine took everywhere, spread over heathendom, and was incor- porated into all their systems of religion. Yet this has been often and strenuously maintained; and it has been regarded as unanswerable evidence, corroborating the truth of that theory. Now, it does not belong to any of us to account for the origin of all the fanciful forms of heathen idolatry, or else to admit the truth or probability of any theory which may claim support from the prevalence of such idolatry. If the common theory is not taught in the Scriptures ; and especially, if that form of idolatry which is claimed for its support, is directly contrary to one of the plainest truths set forth abundantly in the Book of God, and evidently designed to warn and guard us against the reception of more gods than one; then, we are not bound to account for its origin satisfactorily A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 299 to those who hold the theory, or else to admit that it corroborates such a theory. The light of nature no more teaches tritheism, in any form, than it does poly- theism. Yet some theologians of a lively imagination, and others who have not examined the subject with due care, have thought they found the doctrine of the Trinity ‘‘ evidently received, without a question, in all the four quarters of the globe.” But the facts respect- ing heathen idolatry, in connection with other facts, only prove that there is, in the nature of man, a cer-— tain religious element, which inclines him to worship some God. The heathen have worshiped one Jupiter, the father of the gods and men, three gods, and any number up to ‘ thirty thousand gods ;”’ and almost any other number. We are told, that “the people of Thibet, who are worshipers of Buddha, acknowledge the following trinity, viz.: 1. The Supreme God; 2. The Divine Law; and 8. The created Universe.”’ How has all this come to pass? Plainly, because the heathen, prompted by the religious element in man and without Divine revelation, are led to worship more gods than one. It is exactly in keeping with heathen poly- theism, and pantheism. But the apostle Paul does not seem to have been acquainted with the prevalence among the heathen of any such great truth respecting God, at the time he - wrote his letter to the Romans; at least, he did not give them credit for it. He says of the Gentiles,— the heathen as a body,—that ‘‘ they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.”’ Yet here is one very 300 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. important, yea, fundamental truth respecting him,—a trmity in some form,—which they did ‘retain in their: knowledge.”’ Though it was held in a corrupted form, yet, as held by some heathen philosophers, it was hardly more so, than the form in which it is held by some who have the Bible for their guide. ; But while this apostle did not recognize any such traditionary knowledge or philosophy as prevalent among the heathen, respecting God; yet, in the seventh chapter to the Romans, he does recognize the prevalent philosophy respecting the nature of man, and adapts himself to it, that he might turn it to good ac- _ count. Speaking of those opposite workings in man, which control the human conduct, he represents two distinct and conflicting agents as existing there, and Struggling for the mastery ; according to the prevalent philosophy. Cicero, who died but forty-three years be- fore the Christian era, says in reference to the constitu- tion of man: ‘‘ There is a two-fold energy of the mind, and of nature [the physical man]: one part is situ- ated in appetite, which in Greek is called égu4, which hurries the man hither and thither ; the other in rea- son, which teaches and shows what ought to be done, and what ought to be avoided. Hence it is, that rea- son should govern, and appetite obey.”’* Here Cicero evidently recognizes two conflicting principles or ms * Duplex est enim vis animorum, atque nature: una pars in appe- titu posita est, que est oni) Grace, que hominem huc et illuc rapit alter in ratione, que docet et explanat quid faciendum, fugiendum sit. Ita fit ut ratio presit, appetitus obtemperit. Cic. de Offic. L. I. 28. A BIBLICAL ‘TRINITY. 801° mm man ;, one put there to govern, the other to be gov- erned, but yet is clamorous to have the control. Nor was this philosophy peculiar to the Romans. We find it more distinctly stated by Xenophon (Cyrop. vi. 1), who represents Araspes, the Persian, as saying, in order to excuse his treasonable designs: ‘ Certainly I must have two souls, . . . . for itis not one and the same - which is both evil and good, . .. . and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not to doit. Plainly then I must have two souls ; and when the good one prevails, then it does good ; and when the evil one predominates, then it does evil.”’ Epictetus, too, a Stoic philoso- pher of Wierapolis in Phrygia, says in his Enchiridion (II. 26): “ He that sins, does not do what he would ; but what he would not, that he does.’ This is almost the same language which the apostle uses in his letter to the Romans (7 : 15-25): “‘ For that which I do, I allow [approve] not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that doI. For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.’? The apostle here personifies sin (*} éuagste), pointing out the physical na- ture as its exciting cause, according to the prevalent philosophy ; as though it were a distinct agent—an- other self ; denoting by it, the impulses, passions and affections which lead men to sin. He goes on to say, in substance, that one of these agents, reason, justifies © and approves of the law of God; but that other agent, the physical man, which he calls ‘the flesh,’ is ever 302 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. at war with its claims. Thus the contest goes on be- tween these two opposing agents in man, whether a Christian or not. In view of this ‘conflict in himself, the apostle exclaims: ‘‘ O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?” How am I—how is man to obtain the victory? It is to be done, ‘‘I thank God, through” his grace in ‘¢ Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind [the rational part] I myself [I the same person], serve the law of God ; but with the flesh [the physical part], the law of sin.’ Such is the use which he makes of the prevalent philosophy, presenting in accordance with it —in accordance with fact—most important truths, and showing: the superior excellence and power of the gospel. This apostle does the same thing in Gal. 5 : 16, et seq., as in the foregoing passage: “This I say then, Walk in the spirit [the mind, in Romans—according to the spiritual or rational part], and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh [the other agent]. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to the other [the same conflict as before] : so that ye cannot do [so that ye do not] the things that ye would.” Here is a very striking resemblance to the passage in Romans ; but it is not to our purpose to dwell upon it. While the apostle adopts the prevalent philosophy respecting man, as teaching important truth, and thus turns it to good account; it does not appear that he makes any allusion whatever to a traditionary knowl- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 303° edge of the Divine Trinity, prevalent among the | heathen at that, or any other time. If it did really exist, it was a most important fact; and it is wholly unaccountable, that he should have taken no notice of it: for he might have used it to advantage ; according to an important principle upon which he acted—“ be- coming all things to all men, that by all means he might save some.”? He might have told the Gentiles, that they had a traditionary knowledge of that very Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, which was more clearly revealed in the gospel which he preached ; and he might have used it as a means of bringing them to a correct knowledge and reception of the truth. He did so, on other occasions. When he preached at Athens, certain persons encountered him, and accused him of being ‘‘a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection?»—two “strange gods.’? He said to them: “ Ag I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription; To THE UNKNOWN GoD. Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” He quoted likewise from some of their own poets: “ For we are also his offspring.”? From these things which he found among them,—favoring his object,—he took occasion to preach the gospel to them, with plainness and fidelity; but he did not allude to any knowledge they had of the particular doctrine or theory in question. These things he did, in the very country and city of Plato; who held to a trinity not very different from that aed by some of the early 804 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Christian fathers; yet, contrary to his usual practice in such favorable circumstances, the apostle took no notice of it. Writing to the Romans he says, indeed, that the heathen ‘are without excuse ;” because ‘* the invisible things of? God have been discoverable ever since the creation, “‘ by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” But he says nothing of this sort, respecting a Trinity. There appears to be no valid evidence, that the idea of a Trinity of Persons in God was entertained. by the early Hebrews, as a doctrine which they had received from revelation. Prof. Knapp says that ‘‘ the learned Jews who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine,” had, a considerable time before the coming of Christ, ‘‘ im- bibed many of the principles of the philosophy prevail- ing in the regions where they resided.”’ But he says ‘also, that ‘‘ these principles were wholly unknown to most of the Jews who lived within the bounds of Pales- tine during the lifetime of Christ, and afterwards. They were satisfied with their Pharisao-rabbinic the- ology, and looked for the Messiah as a religious re- former, and a temporal king. ...... It is among these learned Jews out of Palestine that the theory of the Logos is found as early as the first century. .... These opinions, derived partly from Grecian philoso- phy, and partly from Jewish and Christian theology, grew gradually in favor with the more learned Chris- tians ; they were variously developed and modified by the different parties of the early Christian church ; until at length, in the fourth century [about the time A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 805 when the Nicene Creed was adopted], one party ob- tained ascendency for its own peculiar theory and phraseology, to the exclusion of all the rest.’’* The early Hebrews, then, and the Jews of Palestine did not find the common theory in the Old Testament ; ‘the devout Watts’? could not find it, “in a single text ;”’ but Plato and the early Christian fathers did find it—somewhere. We conclude, therefore, that the heathen did not derive their tritheistic notions originally from ancient revelation ; but that the commén theory —not the Trinity of the Scriptures—was derived from heathen philosophy. | This conclusion is confirmed, by the views expressed by some of the early Christian fathers. One of them, Justin Martyr, who was born in Flavia Neapolis, anciently Sychem a city of Samaria, about A. D. 90, was a Platonist until he was more than forty years of age. Of course, he lived about ten years during the lifetime of the apostle John. He became a Christian in the year 132. It was natural that he should carry some of his Platonic notions into Christianity, as the foreign learned Jews did, into Judaism. This he ac- cordingly did. He says: “* Those good men who lived _ before Jesus Christ, were in their circumstances Chris- tians ; for all men who lived according to the seed of the Logos, lived rationally ; but, as the universal Logos is the same with Christ, they lived in a Chris- tian manner, and are not unworthy of the name of * Theology, pp. 146-7. 306 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. Christian. Such were Socrates and Heraclites among the Greeks ; Abraham and others among the Jews.” Justin went to Rome in the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius; and suffered martyrdom in the year 164, in the seventy-fourth or seventy-fifth year of his age. | Tertullian, who was born at Carthage about the middle of the second century, says, that ‘‘ God was before all alone; being both world and place and everything to himself. Alone, because there is nothing exterior to him, and yet not indeed alone, because he had in himself his Reason: for God is rational, and reason was first in him, and this reason is his sensa- tion. The Greeks term it Logos, which we translate Word, and thus our people, for brevity’s sake, say, “In the beginning the Word was with God;’ though it would be more proper fo say Reason, since God was not speaking from the beginning ; although rational : and this he was, even before the beginning; for the very word spoken, consisting of reason, shows the prior existence of this latter.’’ Lartantius, supposed to have been an African, lived in Nicomedia, in the time of Constantine, and died about the year 325. He says: ‘‘ The Word is called Logos by the Greeks ; and this term is more appropri- ate than ours, because it signifies Reason, as well as Word. Now the Son of God is the Reason and Wis- dom of his Father, as well as his word. This Divine Word has not been altogether unknown to the philoso- phers who knew nothing of Christianity. Zeno says A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 307 that it created the universe, and ranged the parts which compose it in due order.”? Augustin was born at Tagaste in Africa, in 354, hecame bishop of Hyppo in 395, and died in 403. He says: “ We believe, we maintain, we teach, as a dogma of our faith, that the Father has begotten the Word ; that is to say, his Wisdom, the creator of all things.” Again: ** Now that which is affirmed of him without relation to another, is that which he has. Thus, as life in itself, and without relation, is affirmed of him, he is the Life itself which he has.” Who can doubt that the early Christian fathers de- ~ rived their notions respecting the Trinity from heathen philosophy,—with which they correspond,—according to the custom of the age, both among Jews and Chris- tians ; especially as some of them entertained similar views of God, before their conversion to Christianity, and regarded some of those philosophers who lived be- fore Christ, as Christians? And yet their views are to be taken as Divine truth / But why call this a Biblical Trinity ? The general reason is implied, in what has already been said on the foregoing pages. More particularly it 1s, 1. Because it presents the simple view which the Bible gives us of the one Jehovah, revealed as the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, without any metaphysical theory as to the mode of his existence. 2. Because it maintains that the view which the Bible gives us, presents -all that we know respecting God as revealed to man,—gsave what his works re- 3808 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. veal,—and that his own testimony in the case furnish- es sufficient evidence of the supreme Divinity of the Son and Spirit, independently of any human theory. 38. It is called a Biblical Trinity, in distinction from a Scholastic Trinity ; which claims the philosophy of the schools on this subject as a part of that which is to be received as Divine truth, and so far binding upon the conscience as to render its reception necessary, in order to an equal share in the charity and fellowship of the brotherhood. Though this Biblical Trinity does not contain the common theory, yet to say that it lacks the revealed doctrine of the Trinity, would be speaking falsely. So much as is here set forth as revealed, is contained in the Scriptures ; even if more is revealed there. It in- cludes all which the common theory is mainly designed to establish and defend ; viz., the supreme Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Biblical Trinita- rlans maintain these revealed truths ; but they stop short of holding any theory as necessary to reconcile and defend them. Scholastic Trinitarians hold the same truths, more or less modified by scholastic the- ories and antique phraseology unwarrantably assumed as the only proper costume in which these truths have a right to appear, or be received. Biblical Trinita- rians, on the other hand, do not believe that the early Christian fathers—worthy and venerable men in their day—were Divinely authorized to do all the thinking for the church down to the end of time, and to pre- scribe the only proper forms of language in which to A BIBLICAL TRINITY. | present Divine truth ; but they hold it to be the right and duty of every man to examine the Scriptures for himself, with the best helps he can obtain, and to re- ceive as Divine truth whatever he finds there revealed ; allowing all others to enjoy the same sacred birth. right. Nor does a Biblical Trinity, as set forth on the pre- ceding pages, “‘ Jean?’ toward this or that ism ;—as some, who are not much given to thinking for them- selves, and hence cannnot or do not discriminate, are apt to say, in order to cast opprobrium upon that which they would gladly disprove if they could ;—but it stands erect, ‘“ fast by the oracles of God,’’ and should be received just as ir is, without having some repul- sive image and superscription (which never mean any- thing) placed over it, as an invidious interpreter. If it is what it claims to be,—a fair representation of the doctrine as revealed in the Scriptures,—whatever meta- physical theory it may lack, it is properly denominated a Biblical Trinity. Should we, then, continue to use the language com- monly employed in writing and speaking on the sub- ject? Just so far as that language conveniently, cor- rectly, and properly expresses the truths revealed and the thoughts we wish to communicate respecting it, without attempting thereby to teach what God has not revealed concerning himself. But much of the lan- guage formerly employed in the schools, and in- the - ancient formulas of faith still received ‘ for substance of doctrine,”’ goes, in its true and proper meaning, far 310 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. beyond the record. There are very many who do not use all the language of the schools,—such as that re- specting eternal generation, eternal procession, and the like,—who yet contend earnestly that they are “‘ The Orthodox.’? They are so, if holding more than the Bible reveals, gives them a just title to that name. But if the Athanasian Creed, and not the Bible, be the only true standard of Orthodoxy; then—to adopt the language of one of their own number, who used it in application to a brother who did not hold his view of “‘yeal, substantial, eternal distinctions in the one un- divided essence of the Godhead’’—they are “ only semt-Orthodox.’? .To be regarded by some men as being ‘* Orthodox,”’ is of much less importance than—- in the exercise of that charity which the gospel requires toward those who entertain different views of Divine truth from our own—to receive and hold the truth as at is revealed, and therefore, as God approves. The Rey. John Robinson, of Leyden, in taking leave of those of his Pilgrim congregation who were about to embark for the wilds of America, gave them, among other excellent counsels, the following salutary advice: ‘‘I must also advise you to abandon, avoid, and shake off the name of Brownists ; it is a mere. nick-name, and a brand for making religion, and the professors of it, odious to the Christian world.’?* The sooner Christians generally imbibe the spirit of this wholesome advice, and act in accordance with it, * Neal’s Hist. of Purit., Am. ed. 8vo., 1817, v. 2, p. 147. ee ee OS ee ee ee ee ee A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 311 the better will it be for the cause of truth and religion in the world. | But the doctrine of the Trinity is claimed to be a mystery, which is to be received submissively, in some form of the common theory, and into which it is not lawful to inquire. One writer has remarked, that “ it is a staggering mystery, how three Persons can be one God; but it stands propounded in the Bible [not quite SO ae and it will be no less a mystery, though we reason and dispute about it to all eternity.”? This latter statement is strictly true, if, with our present’ capacities and present knowledge on the subject, the common theory is to be defended so long. That theory as a mystery, unfathomable as the abyss; but it is a mystery of man’s own creating. Not the Bible, but human philosophy is responsible for it. - They who in- troduced it into Christian Theology, and they who have received and carried out that false philosophy, in all _ its sad results to the peace of the church and to the lives and the souls of men, contrary to the spirit and the principles of the Gospel,—are responsible for what they have done. Many have received and held it, in ignorance of its real origin, character and tendencies, “knowing no better way to explain it,”’ and supposing the truths actually revealed in the Scriptures could not be rightly understood or sustained without it; many, because they have been always taught it, and because it has been associated in their minds with precious re- vealed truths which they have cherished as the life of their souls ; and many, because they preferred to hold 312 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. it in silence as a mystery, rather than incur such op- _ probrium and such a breaking up of connections long held dear, as they think would inevitably result from openly rejecting a mere theory, which they regard as inconsistent, or absurd. But the doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the Scriptures, is no more mysterious than a great many other truths which are plainly revealed there. What is actually revealed respecting it, God, who revealed it with a perfect knowledge of man’s powers of compre- hension, meant he should understand. It would be re- proaching him to say otherwise. An alleged fact, or anything acknowledged as truth, is either mysterious or absurd, which apparently contradicts another acknowl- edged fact, or another known truth. But simple igno- rance of a relative truth or fact, is not sufficient to constitute a mystery. A man may be ignorant whether Athens is in Greece or Italy, and of the time when the Nicene Council assembled ; but either of them may be easily ascertained, and is no mystery 5 it is a case of simple ignorance. But if it should be claimed, on good ‘and sufficient authority, that a‘ton of iron rested in the air for some hours, fifty feet from the earth,—contrary to the principle or known law of gravitation, and with- out any known cause of the phenomenon,—here would be a mystery ; which can be explained only by proving (or at least assuming) a miracle ; otherwise, it 1s a plain absurdity. It is revealed, and therefore a known truth, that there is but one God. Now, af it were plainly re- ‘A BIBLICAL TRINITY. es) i vealed in the Scriptures, that there are three eternal and personal Distinctions, or three Persons, in the — nature of this one God,—“ three distinct and compe- tent moral agents” so “ united in one substratum’? as to constitute one Being—one God; here would be a mystery ; i. e. “something incomprehensible or unin- telligible’’—something, according to the common sense of men, contradictory to a plain, known truth. In such case, we could say with Dr. Watts, that “we would subdue all our curiosity to faith, and submit our wandering and doubtful imaginations, as far as it was possible, to the holy and wise determinations of God’s word,” without any attempt at explanation; for, that which is not revealed concerning God, man cannot re- veal, or explain. But if it is not so revealed, and if what zs revealed (understood in a more-simple and natural way), is consistent with known truth, and quite intelligible—as much so as revealed truths in general, then the doctrine or statement of such Distinctions or Persons in the nature of God, is not a mystery, but a _ plain absurdity. Should it be claimed that the theory in question is a fair inference from what is revealed - then, if the inference be revealed, the alleged truth is revealed ; but if not revealed. then it rests on mere human authority. oh ee But the Scripture sense of the word mystery, is different from the common one. Campbell remarks, in his Dissertation on Mystery, “that this (the Serip- ture sense} is totally different from the current sense of the English word mystery—something incompre- 14 : 314 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. } hensible.”’* He further says: ‘I can only find two senses, nearly related to each other, which can strictly be called scriptural.. The first, and what I may call the leading sense of the word, is arcanum, a secret, anything not disclosed, not published to the world, though perhaps communicated to a select number.” This is that “‘mystery,’? of which Paul says he wag made a minister,’’—‘‘ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.””—(Eph. 3: 8-9). Till re- vealed, these truths were “‘ the wnsearchable riches of Christ ;”? but when made known by this apostle and others, they were to be searched into, and understood. As to the other scriptural meaning of mystery, Campbell remarks: “‘ The word is sometimes em- ployed to denote the figurative sense, as distinguished from the literal, which is conveyed under any fable, parable, allegory, symbolical action, representation, dream or vision. ... . ‘To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to them that are without, all these things are done in parables.’— (Mark 4:11). The Apostles were let into the secret, and got the spiritual sense of the similitude, whilst the multitude amused themselves with the letter, and searched no further.”’ %* So Barnes, on Eph. 1: 9. | A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 815 Respecting the passage in 1 Tim. 8 : 16,—“‘ the great mystery of godliness,’’—the same author justly. observes, that “the purport of the sentence plainly is, ‘ Great unquestionably is the Divine secret, of which our religion brings the discovery ; God was manifest in the flesh,’ ’? &c. The word mystery is not, in the Scriptures, applied to the subject of the Trinity, nor is “the current sense” of the word to be found there; at least, in the New Testament. This doctrine, as revealed in the Bible, is no more mysterious than many other truths revealed there, and which were evidently intended to be understood. But scholastic philosophy often makes mystery of truths which are plainly revealed ; or rather, converts them into an absurdity. For example: It is clearly revealed, as well as a dictate of common sense, that man is both free and dependent—truths easily understood. But these truths are converted into a mystery, by that philosophy which makes him free and dependent in the same particulars. We have been told that a clergyman, many years ago, made the fol- lowing statement on this subject: ‘ that nothing can be free in that particular in which it is dependent ; or, dependent in that particular in which it is free ;— any more than black can be white in that particular in which it is black; or, than white can be black in that particular in which it is white.”? This is plain, com- mon-sense truth ; and when understood, it seems to be self-evident. The mystery, therefore, claimed to be constituted by the coéxistence of human freedom and 816 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. dependence in the same particular, is not a mystery, but a plain absurdity; made such, by scholastic philo- sophy. In like manner, to claim that three distinct and competent human agents are but one man, and three distinct and competent Divine agents are but one God, are alike contradictory; and, if not so revealed, then plainly absurd. All which is needful for man to know concerning God, in order that he may understand and do his duty and be supremely happy, is intelligibly revealed. It would be casting reproach on his Maker to affirm it to be otherwise. What, therefore, is not revealed, is not thus needful ; and no cloud of mystery thrown over any part of revelation by the inventions of men, how- ever well intended, does any service to man or honor to God. If a knowledge of three Persons in the nature of God were needful for us, common sense decides that the God of the Bible would have revealed it so clearly, that it would not then have resulted, as the common theory has done from the first, in endless contention among his own people ; thus invading the peace of the church, and doing great dishonor to religion. As he has not so revealed it in his word, it becomes us all to leave the subject where God has left it. On the subject of Creeds, we have but a few words to say. Properly constructed, they are good and im- portant in their place; but as they are, in themselves considered, of mere human authority, they cannot, without gross usurpation, be put in the place of the Bible. The following language of Prof. Stuart, sup- ee eee a _ A BIBLICAL TRINITY. B17 posed to express the views of the great body of believ- ers, 1s very much to the purpose: “ First of all, we do - sincerely believe in the great Protestant maxim, that THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUFFICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. We do not regard them as secondary and inferior, or a mere supplementary edi- tion of the laws of nature. What they reveal, we take as our creed, our only creed.”’* This is as it should be. But if so, then a human Creed, to be received by the brotherhood, should contain only what the Scrip- tures reveal ; leaving to those who are’ to receive and adopt it as their own, that right of private judgment as to the mode of explaining revealed truth and those rights of conscience, which God has given alike to all— to one as much as to another. Nor has scholastic phi- losophy a Divine right to a place in the common Creed of any brotherhood; nor has any human authority a right to put it there, and then treat the subject as if it were binding upon the conscience. The final appeal should be made, not to the Creed into which that phi- losophy has been so wrought as to become a part of its texture; but to the Holy Scriptures. Some may think that philosophy, as a method of explanation and defense of revealed truth, is in accordance with the word of God. Others think differently ; and one has the right of private judgment in the case, as much as another. The appeal should therefore be made, as the last resort,—not to what has been “ commonly re- * Miscellanies, p. 346. 318 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ceived,”’? or “always so understood,’’ but—to’ the Brste. For, the human mind is at least as well quali- fied now to understand and interpret that holy book, as it was fifteen hundred years ago. Some persons may think that this would set every- thing afloat, and may consider it a matter of rejoicing that there is ‘one church’? which has “a fixed Creed ;”? even though that Creed embodies much an- tique philosophy which has for centuries been enforced by civil and ecclesiastical power, and such assumption of ‘‘ Divine right,’ as naturally excludes the great body of believers from the fellowship of the Christian brotherhood. There is, however, no fixed creed but the Bible. Human creeds have changed, as often as “Cevery moon:?? Many things which the fathers hon- estly received and held as the truth, have long since been set afloat ; and others will doubtless follow them. The best way to have a fixed human Creed, is, to embody, in simple language, no more than the Scrip- tures plainly reveal. But our business at present is with the doctrine under consideration. What language, then, will ex- press simply what the Scriptures reveal on the subject of the Trinity ? ‘A Descendant of the Pilgrims” has given us an article on this subject, which, he says, some of the churches in the land of the “ first comers,”? have used for “these hundred years ;”’ and which they profess that “* they believe, without at- tempting to explain :””—“ God is revealed in the Scrip- tures as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to each A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 319 is attributable the same Divine properties and perfec- tions.”’* This is well expressed, in the main ; and it keeps clear of that philosophy which we have seen in- troduced into an article on the same subject, in another Confession of Faith ; and.which runs thus: “‘ We be- lieve that there is in the nature of God, a foundation laid for the distinction of three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”?? Who was ever Divinely au- thorized to introduce such philosophy—the result of dialectic subtilty—into a Confession of Faith to be re- ceived and adopted by plain, common-sense men as revealed truth, or else to be themselves excluded from the communion and fellowship of a Christian church ? When will theorizers in theology, and they who use what is already prepared to their hands, in forming a Confession of Faith for the common reception of the brotherhood, learn not to put into it that of which they know nothing,—thus requiring assent to what is not. revealed as truth,—but to keep themselves strictly WITHIN the boundaries of human knowledge ? On this topic we would only add, in the language of another : ‘‘ Our belief is that the churches must go back, and make more of the Binur, and less of Creeds, in order to revive the spirit of the primitive ages of Christianity. When they shall be as anxious to pro- mote brotherly harmony, and kindness, and true liber- _ality, as they have for a long time been to inflame sec- tarian zeal, and increase the causes of dissension by * The Independent, Feb. 21, 1850, p. 1. 320 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. sectarian creeds, and to treat with severity and con-: tempt or reproach those who differ from them in mat- ters unessential ; then will the world once more be ‘constrained to say : See how these Christians love one another ! ‘Then, to use the last words of the adorable Savior, ‘ will they all be one ;’ and then (but not till then) ‘ will the world believe that Christ is sent by the Father.’ ??* We come now to inquire: How they who honestly entertain different views of revealed truth, should treat each other, on the ground of that difference? and, How far the exhibition of a life becoming the gospel, on the part of those who thus differ, should affect their judgment and treatment of each other, as Christians or as the ministers of Christ? These are practical questions of serious import; for, the cause of truth, the honor of religion, and the salvation of men, are deeply concerned in the matter. We cannot, however, go into extended remarks on the subject, but must be as brief as possible ; leaving a more full discussion of it, to others. It is worthy of special consideration, that they who hold any part of scholasticism as essential to revealed truth, are apt to be less charitable toward their breth- ren who reject the part which they still reéain, than they are toward those who pertinaciously hold that part of it which they themselves regard as erroneous, and of injurious tendency ; the more scholastic, being * Stuart’s Miscell., p. 75. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 321 most intolerant toward those who are /ess so than them- selves. ‘This shows the bad influence of regarding hu- man philosophy as essential to Divine truth—either ag a part of it, or as necessary to its defense. It is a fact which has often arrested the attention of the men of the world, that Christian denominations—even brethren of the same denomination—whose difference of opinion is comparatively small, frequently seem to be the most warmly opposed to each other. Doubtless the ob- servation of such facts as these gave occasion for the remark of an eminent statesman of England, that ‘“‘The opposition of Christian sects to each other is inversely as the squares of their distances.?? This remark is but too often verified. ‘‘ When the Swiss reformers as the Conference of Marbourg sued for peace and union, Luther repelled them. ..... When the English exiles fled from the bloody oortes ‘of Mary, they were, at the instigation of Lutheran theologians, repulsed in mid-winter from Copenhagen, Rostoch, Lubec and Hamburg, where they sought an asylum ; with a—‘rather a Papist than a Calvinist.? The Lutherans were wont to call their cats and dogs by the name of Calvin.””* . But we need not go so far back, or so far off, in order to find the same bigoted in- tolerance attempting to sustain itself by the excision of a large portion of the church,—men who presumed to .think and interpret the Scriptures for themselves ; or by the cry of heresy, uttered in every variety of form,— * N. E. Puritan, April 9, 1846, 1 ae 822 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. remonstrance, public testimony, accusation, prosecu- tion,—instead of Scripture argument and brotherly love. Protestations of harboring no i// will against the accused, and of painful regret in feeling themselves called upon to take such a position, only make the matter worse. ‘* Ye know not what spirit ye are of.” The drapery is too thin to conceal the nakedness be- neath it. They who honestly entertain different views of re- vealed truth, so long as they hold that truth itself (not scholasticism or infidelity in its stead), and exhibit a - life conformed to the gospel, should not be visited with any ecclesiastical or fraternal disabilities. Otherwise, it becomes bigotry and wrong doing, employed to pro- mote what is claimed to be the cause of truth and righteousness. But real truth and righteousness need no such helpers. Do you say, it is not oppression, be- cause they are at perfect liberty to do as they please, and you do as you please and feel bound to do? But theirs is only ‘‘ the liberty of necessity.”? So Arch- bishop Cranmer had perfect liberty to do as he pleased —either to recant, or to be burnt. He first chose the former, and then the latter. The definition of liberty given by Sir James Mackintosh, against which we have seen no valid objection made, is this: ‘* Liberty con- sists In security against wrong.”? Have they, who are thus prevented from enjoying the common privileges of the brotherhood and from serving Christ as they desire to do, “‘securttyagainst wrong ??’ The wrong is actu- ally perpetrated, by the very means which are em- A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 593 ployed to maintain scholastic views of Bible truth. Our Lord and Master has not authorized us to reject any one who receives Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah, and follows him. If there is found in him “some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel?? and toward his Son Jesus, let us not “ forbid him”? a place in the church or in the pulpit, “because he followeth not with us;’? but rather welcome him in either place,—according to what he is,—as a brother in Christ. What minister of the word is authorized by his Mas- ter, to close his pulpit against his brother, because he does not receive scholasticism into his creed ; and then stand forth on the platform, and plead, in glowing elo- quence, for “ Christian Union’? among all who love our Lord Jesus Christ: including among them, very many who still hold those scholastic views of truth, which a large portion of intelligent, humble, and de- voted Christians have long since discarded, and which he himself rejects. It needs more than a microscopic eye, to see the consistency of such doings. ‘“‘ But why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”? The question then will not be, whether, in this world, we held the scholastic views of truth, or rejected them: whether, by the wise ones, we were called orthodoz, or heterodox ; but more probably, whether we loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and walked humbly before God ; and whether, in obedience to our Master, we habitually exercised due 324 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. charity toward the whole brotherhood of believers, and were conscientiously and faithfully engaged with the requisite self-denial, in “‘ doing the will of our Father who is in heaven.’? Doubtless many things of absorb- ing interest here,—many which now engross the ener- gies of the church and rend asunder “the body of Christ,”’ to the grief of his friends and the joy of his enemies,—will then be seen to have been the offspring of human ignorance and unsanctified zeal, and worth- less as a bubble. Opposite parties in religion have for centuries ren- dered their respective names as odious to each other, by their assumptions and uncharitableness, as Robin- son says those did, ‘‘to the Christian world,’’ who cherished the name of ‘‘ Brownists,”’ in the days of the Pilgrims. It is time that all—of whatever name—who have departed from the plain, simple teachings of reve- lation,—whether to the right hand or to the left,—and have been guided by the darkness of scholasticism, or the pride of reasoning, and thus provoked each the other to make the retort of Job. to his friends, ‘‘ No doubt ye are the people,’ should. get back to the Scriptures of truth. Among the various opinions which have been formed of Divine truth, whether they who have held more or they who have held less than the Scriptures reveal, are most in the wrong, is a question not of the first importancé; but rather, how to get back, as soon as possible—whatever the distance to be passed over may be—to the line of truth and charity marked out by the Bible. This would A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 325 doubtless be a lesson of humility to all parties ; yet one which it would do them no injury to learn prac- tically ; but on the cohtrary, it would have a salutary influence upon all who shall prove to be faithful disci- ples, and upon the cause of truth and piety ; as well as be honorable to God and the gospel of his Son. They need not lay aside all distinctive names ; nor should | they judge each other by classes 3 but let each indi- vidual be regarded, by all the rest, according to his own belief and practice, rather than the merit or de- merit of a name, or a class. Casting the blame on one another, and using names offensively, will not promote the truth as it is in Jesus, nor exemplify true piety or godlike charity. They may have names, for con- venience sake, and use them as names, without assum- ing that any name includes all the truth or all the liberality in the Christian world ; not using them for purposes of caste, like the mutually odious names of rival parties in politics : but, on the contrary, let their names be used like those of The Bible Society, and The Missionary Soctety—significant, convenient, and alike honorable, because of the principles embodied and the work done, for the cause of our glorious Redeemer. When these things shall be exemplified before earth and heaven, by all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, then will they, as one body, and in their several de- nominations, present to the world the beauty and the harmony of truth and love, as imaged forth concerning the above-named Societies in the following expressive language of the poet Montgomery : | 3826 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. “In the Bible Society all names and distinctions of sect are blended till they are lost, like the prismatic colors in a ray of pure and perfect light. In the Mis- sionary work, though divided, they are not discordant ; but, like the same colorss displayed and harmonious in the rainbow, they form an arch of glory—ascending on the one hand from earth to heaven, and on the other descending from heaven to earth—a bow of promise, a covenant of peace, a sign that the storm is passing away, and the Sun of righteousness, with healing in his wings, breaking forth on all nations.” CH APP ER Ars ~ CONCLUSION. Havine thus treated of the various matters which have come before us, let us now consider the natural result to which the foregoing examination brings us— the conclusion of the whole matter. In so doing, we will inquire; What is the difference between the Trinity of the Scriptures and the common theory of the Trinity ? The former of these makes Known to us the one only living and true God,—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,—revealed to man in different capacities and re- lations for the work of redemption. Whether revealed as the Father, as God in Christ, or as the Holy Spirit, he is the same unchangeable Jehovah. By whatever terms, or combination of terms, the Supreme Being is on any occasion designated, he is one and the same God,—though manifesting himself variously, according to the various exigencies to be provided for,—and all- sufficient for every work needful and proper to be done; whether a work actually performed by his own direct and gracious agency, or by his Son, or by any created 328 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. beings whom he sees fit to employ in carrying on and carrying out the purposes of his grace. This God, “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,’’ is that Divine Being who performs all Divine works whatsoever. It is He who “ dwelleth” in the Son (whether called the Son of man or Son of God—the Messiah), and who *doeth the work”? by or through him: “for there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ;’? and “ there is none other God but one.’’? This is the God of the Bible—the Godhead as revealed to man. From this revelation are derived all the great and glorious truths of redemption by Jesus Christ—a work on which depends the salvation of men —a work for which, as one great end, all things were made—a work which reflects the highest glory of the eternal God, to the everlasting admiration of the intel- ligent universe. The common theory of the Trinity, in both its forms, superadds to what is plainly revealed, the inventions of men, for the truth; yet honestly intended to ex- plain—as God has not seen fit to do—what is left un- revealed ; and what, therefore, cannot be necessary for man to know or believe in order that he may do his duty, and obtain everlasting life. This has been thought to be necessary in order to defend the truth actually revealed, from the assaults of error; as though God’s own word—the truth itself uttered on his au- thority—could not ‘‘ stand’? and prevail, without ‘“‘ the wisdom of men’ to sustain it and give it efficacy. Have we yet to learn that “‘ Christ [the blessed truth A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 829 which comes to men through his mediation] is the wis- dom of God, and the power of God 2? and that “ the foolishness of God is wiser than men ; and the weak- ness of God is stronger than men?” If “ the wisdom of men’? is necessary to supply some deficiency in Divine revelation, how does it appear “that no flesh [no man or class of men] should glory in his pre- sence ?”? We are divinely taught, “that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” So Jet it stand, and prevail ; and let all the glory redound to Him who is the exhaustless fountain of truth and love ! But the Monotheistic form of the common theory presents us with three real and eternal distinctions in the nature of God, corresponding to what he has revealed of himself in the work of redemption, and supposed to be certain properties or attributes not revealed in his holy word, yet inferentially set forth ag indicating the mode of the Divine existence ; the Godhead, how- ever, possessing only one set of Divine attributes, com- mon to the Three. The Tritheistic form presents us with three Persons in the nature of God, each having his own distinct Divine attributes—three distinct and competent Divine agents united in one substratum, and forming infinitely blessed society in the Divine mind. A certain writer has been Supposed by some to have advanced a little, and dut a little, upon this represen- tation of the subject; as in the following language : “ The infinite Father can find no companion among the. children of men. . . . .». He must have dwelt in solj- 330 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. tary grandeur, but for this holy and rapturous com- munion with his august brethren of the Trinity. What desolation would pervade the courts of heaven, reach- ing even to the sanctuary of Him ‘ who sitteth upon the throne,’ could a ruthless arm of flesh pluck from his right hand and his left the beloved fellows of his glorious reign !”’* Again: “ The Holy Ghost 1s recounting the sufferings and death of his fellow God.? ¢ _ Now, in view of the foregoing discussion, we would ask: Which of the two—a Biblical Trinity, or the common theory of the Trinity in either of its forms—s plainly revealed in the word of God ? Which is ad- dressed to common sense; and which, to sectarian bigotry? Which is the production of Divine knowl- edge and wisdom ; arid which, in its peculiarity—tfor ‘that which is common to the two has nothing to do with the question—is the offspring of human ignorance and folly? What, then, is the difference between the two, but this: The former came down from heaven ; the latter came forth from the schools ? the one is light : the other, darkness ? - The doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the Scrip- tures, is intelligible, consistent, and free from scholas- tic mysticism; but it has been ‘‘ spoiled [corrupted] through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For, in him dwelleth atx the fullness of the * The Sufferings of Christ. By a Layman. 2d ed., p. 19. + Id. p. 305. A BIBLICAL TRINITY. 831 - Godhead podily.”” If any “ cannot see it so,” it may be well they should be reminded, that it is easier to present truth clearly before the mind, than it is to fur- nish eyes to see it; especially, when the eye of common sense, with the light of revelation, is amply sufficient. It is enough for us, then, that we receive the doctrine simply as the Scriptures make it known, speak on the subject in much the same way in which the Bible speaks, and there leave vt,—faithfully doing the will of God,—till he shall see fit, in some period or other of our existence, to make known other truths concerning himself, which are now hidden from our view. But we do not expect that any great and sudden change, in the views generally prevalent on the subject of the Trinity, will be produced by the discussion in which we have been engaged ; for no single mind, though it were gifted with natural powers equal to any ever be- stowed on man, could be expected to bring about such a change. In any case of this kind, it must take time for intelligent conviction to be wrought in the public mind, and for that mind, under its present embarrassments, to work itself free from scholastic errors long and fondly cherished as a part of Divine truth, associated with the pious feelings, incorporated with all the habits of thinking and speaking on the subject, and entering minutely into the interpretation of so large a portion of the word of God. The author of Saturday Even- ing has somewhere given another reason, particularly applicable to this subject, in the general and truthful statement which follows : ‘ We may, at any time, find 332 A BIBLICAL TRINITY. ten men who have discernment and ingenuousness enough to discover and acknowledge their personal faults ; sooner than one man, who has the greatness of mind to perceive and confess the faults of the ‘SYSTEM under which he has been reared, and which he stands PLEDGED to support.’? Most of those who are taught, are very apt to think much as their teacher does ; especially, if he inculcates his ‘‘ system?’ with ability. Nor are we attempting, in our retirement, to erect a standard which may serve as the rallying point of a new party in Theology. We have only sought to pre- sent the simple truth as revealed in God’s holy word ; leaving it to every man, as his sacred birth-right, to think, judge, and act for himself. But of this we feel confident, that a Biblical Trinity is not ‘‘the Ghost of an old heresy which lived and died some fifteen hundred years ago.’? Whatever the name may be, by which it may be called, that does not change the nature of the thing. Though it should be rejected and despised by many, it may redéppear, till it shall fully bring to light the violence done to Revelation, under the pretext of vindicating its truth. That simple truth we would receive; claiming for ourselves and granting to others the right of private judgment and the common rights of conscience, and remembering our infinite obligations to Him who, “* for us men and for our salvation,’? has revealed himself in various ways, but especially as THE FATHER, THE Son, anp tHE Hoty” Guost. Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra AY 201020 9544 _ DATE DUE HIGHSMITH #45115 a Pk fa NA) hes 53 tats Ae ‘ 43 ecelig}ieeat ithces hiresteraneteteen i i aan ae : ash Sf i eeeh ‘n a ie pete