Chapter II--Doctrine of the Trinity

McCosh: The works of the Spirit are Conviction, Conversion, Sanctifleation, Comfort. Denovan: The Spirit Is the Spirit of conviction, enlighteninent, quickening, in the sinner; and of revelation, remembrance, witness, sanctification, consolation, to the saint. The Spirit enlightens the sinner, as the flash of lightning lights the traveler stumbling on the edge of a precipice at night; enlightens the Christian, as the rising sun reveals a landscape which was all there before, but which was hidden from sight until the groat luminary made it visible. Christ's advocacy before the throne is like that of legal counsel pleading in our stead; the Holy Spirit's advocacy in the heart is like the mother's teaching her child to pray for himself. On the relations of the Holy Spirit to Christ, see Owen, in Works, 3: 152-159. On the Holy Spirit's nature and work, see works by Faber, Smeaton, and Tophel; also C. E. Smith, The Baptism in Fire; J. P. Thomson, The Holy Comforter; Bushnell, Forgiveness and Law, lost chapter; Bp. Andrewes, Works, 3 ; 107-400.

3. Generation and procession consistent with equality.

That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in Psalm 2 : 7. "This day have I begotten thee " is most naturally interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine nature. Neither the incarnation, the baptism, the transfiguration, nor the resurrection mark the beginning of Christ's Sonship, or constitute him Son of God. These are but recognitions or manifestations of a preexisting Sonship, inseparable from his Godhood. He is "bom before every creature" (while yet no created thing existed— see Meyer on Col. 1 : 15) and "by the resurrection of the dead" is not made to be, but only "declared to be," "according to the Spirit of holiness" (= according to his divine nature) "the Son of God with power" (see Philippi and Alford on Rom. 1 : 3, 1). This Sonship is unique—not predicable of, or shared with, any creature. The Scriptures intimate, not only an eternal generation of the Son, but an eternal procession of the Spirit.

Psalm 2 : 7--" I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said onto me, Thou art my son; This da; have I begotten thee"; see Alexander, Com. in Iwn; also Cora, on Acta 13 : 33—"' To-day' refers to the date of the decree itself; but this, as a divine act, was eternal,—and so must be the Sonship which it affirms." This begettingof which the Psalm speaks is not the resurrection, for while Paul in Acta 13 : 33, refers to this Psalm to establish the fact of Jesus' Sonship, he refers in Ida 13 : 34, 35, to another Psalm, the sixteenth, to establish the fact that this Son of God was to rise from the dead. Christ is shown to be Son of God by his incarnation (Heb. 1 : 5, 6—" when he again bringeth in the first-born into the world he aaith, And let all the angels of God worship him"), his baptism (Mat 3 :17—" this is my beloved Son "), his transfiguration (Mat 17 : 5—" this is my

beloved Son "), his resurrection (lets 13 : 34, 35 —" as concerning that he raised him up from the dead he

aaith also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption"). Col. 1 : IS—"the firstborn of all creation "—irpturoroKof ira<7>)? «Tiffcw?^" begotten first before all creation" (Julius Mtlller, Proof-texts, 14); or " first-born before every creature, (. e. begotten, and that antecedently to everything that was created" (Elllcott, Com. in loco; so also Llgrhtfoot). "Herein" (says Luthardt, Compend. Dogmatik, 81, on Col. 1 :15) "is indicated an antemundane origin from God—a relutiou internal to the divine nature."

On Rom. 1:4 (opto-fcVi'ro* = "manifested to be the mighty Son of God") see Lange's Com., notes by Schiiff on pages 56 and 61. If Westcott and Hort's reading 6 poroycrirs e<6v. "the only begotten God," in John 1:18, is correct, we huve a new proof of Christ's eternal Sonship. Meyer explains iavroi in Rom. 8 : 3—"God, sending his own Son," as an allusion to the metaphysical Sonship. That this Sonship is unique, is plain from John 1:14,18— "the only begotten from the Father .... the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father"; Rom. 8:32—" his own Son"; Gal. 4 : 4—" sent forth his Son "; ('/. Prov. 8 : 22, 31—" when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was by him as a master workman "; 30 : 4—" Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest?" The eternal procession of the Spirit seems to be implied in John 15 : 26—" the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father "; Heb. 9 : 14—" the eternal Spirit."

The Scripture terms 'generation' and 'procession,' as applied to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, are but approximate expressions of the truth, and we are to correct by other declarations of Scripture any imperfect impressions which we might derive solely from them. We use these terms in a special sense, which we explicitly state and define as excluding all notion of inequality between the persons of the Trinity. The eternal generation of the Son to which we hold is

(a) Not creation, but the Father's communication of himself to the Son. Since the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not applicable to the divine essence, but are only applicable to its hypostatical distinctions, they imply no derivation of the essence of the Son from the essence of the Father.

The error of the Nicene Fathers was that of explaining Sonship as derivation of essence. The Father cannot impart his essence to the Son and yet retain it. The Father is /mis trinltatU, not fom ileltatis. See Shedd, Hist. Doet., 1:308-311; per contra, see Bib. Sac, 41: 698-760.

(6) Not a commencement of existence, but an eternal relation to the Father,—there never having been a time when the Son began to be, or when the Son did not exist as God with the Father.

If there had been an eternal sun, it is evident that there must have been an eternal sunlight also. Yet an eternal sunlight must have evermore proceeded from the sun. When Cyril was asked whether the Son existed before generation, he answered: "The generation of the Son did not precede his existence, but he always existed, and that by generation."

(c) Not an act of the Father's will, but an internal necessity of the divine nature,—so that the Son is no more dependent upon the Father than the Father is dependent upon the Son, and so that, if it be consistent with deity to be Father, it is equally consistent with deity to be Son.

The sun Is ns dependent upon the sunlight as the sunlight la upon the sun; for without sunlight the sun is no true sun. So God the Father is as dependent upon God the Son. as God the Son is dependent upon God t he Father; for without Son the Father would be no true Father. To say that aseity belongs only to the Father is logically Arlanism and Subordinationism proper, for it implies a subordination of the essence of the Son to the Father. Essential subordination would be inconsistent with equality. See Thoinasius. Christi Person und Werk, 1: 115.

(d) Not a relation in any way analogous to physical derivation, but a lifemovement of the divine nature, in virtue of which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation, and in virtue of which the Father works through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit.

The subordination of the pemon of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority. The possibility of an order, which yet involves no inequality, may be illustrated by the relation between man and woman. In office man is first and woman second, but woman's soul is worth as much as man's: see 1 Cor. 11 : 3—" the head of eyery man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the bead of Christ is God." Edwards, Observations on the Trinity, 22—'' In the Son the whole deity and glory of the Father is as it were repeated or duplicated. Everything in the Father is repeated or expressed again, and that fully, so that there is properly no inferiority." On the Eternal Sonship, see Weiss, Bib. Theol. N. T., 424, note; Treffrey, Eternal Sonship of our Lord; Princeton Essays, 1:30-5(1; Watson, Institutes, 1 : .WU-,",77; Bib. Sac, 27 : 288. On the procession of the Spirit, see Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1 : 387; Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1 : IM7-350.

The same principles upon which we interpret the declaration of Christ's eternal Sonship apply to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, and show this to be not inconsistent with the Spirit's equal dignity and glory.

We therefore only formulate truth which is concretely expressed in Scripture, and which is recognized by all ages of the church in hymns and prayers addressed to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, when we assert that in the nature of the one God there are three eternal distinctions, which are best described as persons, and each of which is the proper and equal object of Christian worship.

We are alike warranted in declaring that, in virtue of these personal distinctions or modes of subsistence, God exists in the relations, respectively, first, of Source, Origin, Authority, and in this relation is the Father; secondly, of Expression, Medium, Revelation, and in this relation is the Son; thirdly, of Apprehension, Accomplishment, Realization, and in this relation is the Holy Spirit.

John Owen, Works, 3 : 64-92—"The office of the Holy Spirit is that of concluding, completing, perfecting. To the Father we assign opera nalurtr; to the Son, ojwa yratiw procurate; to the Spirit, opera graluc applieatie. All God's revelations arc through the Son or the Spirit, and the latter includes the former.

VL Inscrutable, Yet Not Self-contradictory, This Doctrine FurNishes The Key To All Other Doctrines.

1. The mode of this triune existence is inscrutable.

It is inscrutable because there are no analogies to it in our finite experience. For this reason all attempts are vain adequately to represent it: (a) From inanimate things—as the fountain, the stream, and the rivulet trickling from it (Athanasius); the cloud, the rain, and the rising mist {Boardman); color, shape, and size (F. W. Bobertson); the actinic, luminiferous, and calorific principles in the ray of light (Solar Hieroglyphics, 34).

Luther: "When logic objects to this doctrine that it does not square with her rules, we must say: 'Multer taceat in ecclesia.'" Luther called the Trinity a flower, in which might be distinguished its form, its fragrance, and its medicinal efficacy ; see Dorner, Gesch. prot. Tbeol., 189. In Bap. Rev., July, 1880: 434, Geer finds an illustration of the Trinity in infinite space with its three dimensions. For analogy of the cloud, rain, mist, see Boardman, Higher Life. Solar Hieroglyphics, 34 (reviewed in New Englander, Oct., 18T4: 789)—" The Godhead is a tripersonal unity, and the light is a trinity. Being immaterial and homogeneous, and thus essentially one in its nature, the light includes a plurality of constituents, or in other words is essentially three in its constitution, it* ■constituent principles being the actinic, the luminiferous, and the calorific; and in glorious manifestation the light is one, and is the created, constituted, and ordained emblem of the tripersonal God "—of whom it is said that "God is light, and ia him is Do darkness at all¹¹ <1 John 1:5). The actinic rays are in themselves invisible; only as the luminiferous manifest them, are they seen; only as the colorific accompany them, are they felt.

(6) From the constitution or processes of our own minds—as the psychological unity of intellect, affection, and will (substantially held by Angustine); the logical unity of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (Hegel); the metaphysical unity of subject, object, and subject-object (Melanethon, Olshausen, Shedd).

Augustine: "Mens meminit sui, lntelllgit se, diligit se; si hoc cernimus, Tiinitatem oernimus." Calvin speaks of Augustine's view as "a speculation fur from solid." But Augustine himself had said: "If asked to define the Trinity, we can only say that it is not this or that." John of Damascus: "All we know of the di viue nature is that it is not to be known." By this, however, both Augustine and John of Dumuscus meant only that the precise mode of God's triune existence is unrevealed and inscrutable. Hegel calls God "the absolute Idea, the unity of Life and Cognition, the Universal that thinks itself and thinkingly realizes itself in an infinite Actuality, from which, as its Immediacy, it no less distinguishes itself again "; see Schwegler, History of Philosophy, 321, 331. Hegel's doctrine of God as the eternally begotten Son is translated in the Journ. of Spec. Philos., 15: 395-404. The most satisfactory exposition of the analogy of subject, object, and subject-object is to be found in Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1: 385, note 2. See also Olshausen on John 1:1; H. N. Day, Doctrine of Trinity in Light of Recont Psychology, in Princeton Rev., Sept., 1882: 159-179: Morris, Philosophy and Christianity, 122-1G3.

Neither of these furnishes any proper analogue of the Trinity, since in neither of them is there found the essential element of tripersonality. Such illustrations may sometimes be used to disarm objection, but they furnish no positive explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, and, unless carefully guarded, may lead to grievous error.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not self-contradictory.

This it would be, only if it declared God to be three in the same numerical sense in which he is said to be one. This we do not assert. We assert simply that the same God who is one with respect to his essence is three with respect to the internal distinctions of that essence, or with respect to the modes of his being. The possibility of this cannot be denied, except by assuming that the human mind is in all respects the measure of the divine.

The fact that the ascending scale of life is marked by increasing differentiation of faculty and function should rather lead us to expect in the highest of all beings a nature more complex than our own. In man many faculties are united in one intelligent being, and the more intelligent man is, the more distinct from each other these faculties become; until intellect and affection, conscience and will assume a relative independence, and there arises even the possibility of conflict between them. There is nothing irrational or self-contradictory in the doctrine that in God the leading functions are yet more markedly differentiated, so that they become personal, while at the same time these personalities are united by the fact that they each and equally manifest the one indivisible essence.

Unity Is as essential to the Godhead as threeness. The same God who In one respect Is three, In another respect is one. We do not say that one God Is three Gods, nor that one person Is three persons, nor that three Gods are one God, but only that there is one God with three distinctions in his helm?- We do not refer to the faculties of man as furnishing any proper analogy to the persons of the Godhead; we rather deny that man's nature furnishes any such analogy. Intellect, affection, and will in man are not distinct personalities. If they were personalized, they might furnish such an analogy. F. W. Robertson (Sermons, 3: 581, speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as best conceived under the figure of personalized intellect, affection, and will. With this agrees the saying of Socrates, who called thought the soul's conversation with itself.

3. The doctrine of the Trinity has important relations to other doctrines.

A. It is essential to any proper theism.

Neither God's independence nor God's blessedness can be maintained upon grounds of absolute unity. Anti-triuitarianism almost necessarily makes creation indispensable to God's perfection, tends to a belief in the eternity of matter, and ultimately leads, as in Mohammedanism, and in modern Judaism and Unitarianism, to pantheism. "Love is an impossible exercise to a solitary being." Without Trinity we cannot hold to a living Unity in the Godhead.

Brit, and For. Evang. Rev., Jan.. 1883: 35-«8—" The problem is to find a perfect objective, congruous and fitting, for a perfect intelligence, and the answer is: a perfect intelligence." The author of this article quotes James Martineau, the Unitarian philosopher, as follows: "There is only one resource left for completing the needful objectivity for God, viz.. to admit in some form the coeval existence of matter, as the condition or medium of the divine agency or manifestation. Failing the proof [of the absolute origination of matter] wo are left with the divine cause, and the material condition, of all nature, in eternal co-presence and relation, as supreme object and rudimentary object," But God's blessedness, upon this principle, requires not merelv an eternal universe but an infinite universe, for nothing less will afford fit object for an infinite mind. Yet a God who is necessarily bound to the universe, or by whose side a universe, which is not himself, eternally exists, is not infinite, independent, or free. The only exit from this difficulty is in denying God's self-consciousness and self-determination, or in other words, exchanging our theism for pantheism.

Unitarianism has repeatedly demonstrated its logical inconsistency by this facili* dencenmw Aeemi. In New England the high Arlanism of Channing degenerated into the half-fledged pantheism of Theodore Parker, and the full-fledged pantheism of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Modern Judaism is pantheistic in its philosophy, and such also was the later Arabic philosophy of Mohammedanism. Single personality is felt to be Insufficient to the mind's conception of Absolute Perfection. We shrink from the thought of an eternally lonely God. "We take refuge in the term 'Godhead.' The literati find relief in speaking of 'the gods.'" Twesten (translated in Bib. Sac, 3: 503)—"There may be in polytheism an element of truth, though disfigured and misunderstood. John of Damascus boasted that the Christian Trinity stood midway between the abstract monotheism of the Jews and the Idolatrous polytheism of the Greeks." See Thomaslus, Christl Person und Werk, 1: 105, 156. For the pantheistic view, see Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 1: 463-524.

B. It is essential to any proper revelation.

If there be no Trinity, Christ is not God, and cannot perfectly know or reveal God. Christianity is no longer the one, all-inclusive, and final revelation, but only one of many conflicting and competing systems, each of which has its portion of truth, but also its portion of error. So too with the Holy Spirit. "As (Jod can be revealed only through God, so also can he be appropriated only through God. If the Holy Spirit be not God, then the love and self-communication of God to the human soul are not a reality." In other words, without the doctrine of the Trinity we go back to mere natural religion and the far-off God of deism—and this is ultimately exchanged for pantheism in the way already mentioned.

Martensen, Dogmatics, 104; Thomaslus, Christl Person und Werk, 150. If Christ be not God, he cannot perfectly know himself, and his testimony to himself has no independent authority. In prayer the Christian has practical evidence of the Trinity, and can see the value of the doctrine; for he comes to God the Father, pleading the name of Christ, and taught how to pray aright by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to identify the Father with either the Son or the Spirit. See Rom. 828—"be that searcheth the hearta [i.e., God] knoweth what is tbe mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."

C. It is essential to any proper redemption.

If God be absolutely and simply one, there can be no mediation or atonement, since between God and the most exalted creature the gulf is infinite. Christ cannot bring us nearer to God than he is himself. Only one who is God can reconcile us to God. So, too, only one who is God can purify our souls. A God who is only unity, but in whom is no plurality, may be our Judge, but, so far as we can see, cannot be our Savior or our Sanctifier.

"Nothing human holds good before God, and nothing but God himself can satisfy God." The best method of arguing with Unitarians, therefore, is to rouse the sense of sin; for the soul that has any proper conviction of its sins feels that only an infinite Redeemer can ever save it. On the other hand, a slight estimate of sin is logically connected with a low view of the dignity of Christ. Twestcn, translated in Bib. Sac, 3: 510 —" It would seem to be not a mere accident that Pclagianism, when logically carried out, as for example among the Socinlans, has also always led to Unltarianism." In the reverse order, too, It is manifest that rejection of the deity of Christ must tend to render more superficial men's views of the sin and guilt and punishment from which Christ came to save them, and with this to deaden religious feeling and to cut the sinews of all evangelistic and missionary effort. See Arthur, on the Divinity of our Lord in relation to his work of Atonement, in Present Day Tracts, 8: no. 35.

D. It is essential to any proper model for human life.

If there be no Trinity immanent in the divine nature, then Fatherhood in God has had a beginning and it may have an end; Sonship, moreover, is no longer a perfection, but an imperfection, ordained for a temporary purpose. But if fatherly giving and filial receiving are eternal in God, then the law of love requires of us conformity to God in both these respects as the highest dignity of our being.

See Hutton, Essays, 1: 232—" The Trinity tells us something of God's absolute and essential nature; not simply what he is to us, but what he is in himself. If Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, God is Indeed and in essence a Father; the social nature, the spring of love is of the very essence of the eternal Being; the communication of life, the reciprocation of affection dates from beyond time, belongs to the very being of God. The Unitarian idea of a solitary God profoundly affects our conception of God, reduces it to mere power, identifies God with abstract cause and thought. Love is grounded in power, not power In love. The Father is merged In the omniscient and omnipotent genius of the universe." Hence 1 John 2:23—" Whatsoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.''

Hutton, Essays, 1: 239—" We need also the inspiration and help of a perfect filial will. We cannot conceive of the Father as sharing in that dependent attitude of spirit which is our chief spiritual want. It is a Father's perfection to originate—a Son's to receive. We need sympathy and aid in this receptive life; hence the help of the true Son. Humility, self-sacrifice, submission, are heavenly, eternal, divine. Christ's filial life is the root of all filial life ill us." See Gal. 2 : 20—" I liye. and jet no longer I. but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of ttod, who loved me, and gave himself np for me." On the practical uses of the doctrine, see Sermon by Gans, in 8outh Church Lectures, 300—310. On the doctrine in general, see Kobie, in nib. Sac, 27 : 262—2»»; Pease, Philosophy of Triuitarlan Doctrine; X. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology, 1 :133; Schultz, Lehre von der Gottheit Christ!.

On heathen trinities, see Bib. Repos., 8 :116; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt and Christian Belief, 268, 28"—" Lao-tse says, 800 B. C,'Too, the intelligent principle of all being, is by nature one; the first begat the second: both together begat the third; these three made all things.' "—The Egyptian triad of Abydos was Osiris, Isis his wife, and Horns their Son. Hut these were no true persons; for not only did the Son proceed from the Father, but the Father proceeded from the Son; the Egyptian trinity was pantheistic In its meaning. See Renouf, Hlbbert Lectures, 29; Rawllnson, Religions of the Ancient World, 46,47. —The Brahman Trimurti, or trinity, to the members of which are given the names Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, is represented in the three mystic letters of the syllable Om, or Aum, and by the image at Elephanta of three heads and one body; see Hardwiek, Christ and Other Masters, 1: 276. The places of the three are Interchangeable. Williams: "In the three persons the one God is shown; Each first in place, each last, not one alone; Of tdva, Vishnu, Brahma, each may be. First, second, third, among the blessed three." There are ten Incarnations of Vishnu for men's salvation in various times of need; and the one Spirit which temporarily Invests itself with the qualities of matter is reduced to its original essence at the end of the icon (Kalpa). This is only a grosser form of Sabellianism, or of a modal Trinity. According to Renouf it is not older than A. D. 1400. Buddhism in later times had its triad. Buddha, or Intelligence, the first principle, associated with Dharma, or Law, the principle of matter, through the combining Influence of Sangha, or Order, the mediating principle. See Kellogg, The Light of Asia and the Light of the World, 184, 355. It is probably from a Christian source. The gropings of the heathen religions after a trinity In God, together with their Inability to construct a consistent scheme of it, are evidence of a rational want In human nature which only the Christian doctrine is able to supply.