Chapter II--Doctrine of the Trinity

CHAPTER II.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

In the nature of the one God there are three eternal distinctions which are represented to us under the figure of persons, and these three are equal. This tripersonality of the Godhead is exclusively a truth of revelation. It is clearly, though not formally, made known in the New Testament, and intimations of it may be found in the Old.

The doctrine of the Trinity may be expressed in the six following statements: 1. In Scripture there are three who are recognized as God. 2. These three are so described in Scripture that we are compelled to conceive of them as distinct persons. 3. This tripersonality of the divine nature is not merely economic and temporal, but is immanent aud eternal. 4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence. 5. The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are equal. 6. Inscrutable yet not self-contradictory, this doctrine furnishes the key to all other doctrines. These statements we proceed now to prove and to elucidate.

Reason shows us the Unity of God; only revelation shows us the Trinity of God, thus filling out-the indeilnite outlines of this unity and vivifyinjr it. The term 'Trinity' is not found in Scripture, although the conception it expresses is Scriptural. The invention of the term is ascribed to Tertullian. The Montanists first defined the personality of the Spirit, and first formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. The term 'Trinity' is not a metaphysical one. It is only a designation of four facts: (1) the Father is God; (2) the Son Is God; (3) the Spirit is God; (4) there is but one God.

Park: "The doctrine of the Trinity does not on the one hand assert that three persons are united in one person, or three beings in one being, or three Gods in one God (tritheism); nor on the other hand that God merely manifests himself in three different ways (modal trinity, or trinity of manifestations); but rather that there are three eternal distinctions in the substance of God." Smyth, preface to Edwards, Observations on the Trinity: "The church doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there are in the Godhead three distinct hypostases or subsistences—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—each possessing one and the same divine nature, though In a different manner. The essential points are (1) the unity of essence; (3) the reality of Immanent or ontological distinctions." See Park on Edwards's View of the Trinity, in Bib. Sac., April, 1881: 333. Princeton Essays, 1 : 28—"There is one God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are this one God; there is such a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as to lay a sufficient ground for the reciprocal use of the personal pronouns." Joseph Cook: "(1) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God; (2) each has a peculiarity incommunicable to the others; (3) neither is God without the others; (4) each, with the others, Is God."

For treatment of the whole doctrine, see Dorner, System of Doctrine, 1: 344-465; Twesten, Dogmatik, and translation in Bib. Sac, 3 : 502; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:14.5-199; Thomasius, Christ! Person und Werk, 1: 57-135: Kahnis. Dogmatik, 3 : 203-229: Shedd, History of Doctrine. 1 : 240-385; Farrar, Science and Theology, 138; Schaff, Nicene Doctrine of the Holy Trinity', in Theol. Eclectic, 4 :209. For the Unitarian view, sec Norton, Statement of Reasons, and J. F. Clarke, Truths and Errors of Orthodoxy.

I. In Scripture There Are Three Who Are Recognized As God. 1. Proof8 from the New Testament

A. The Father is recognized as God,—and that in so great a number of passages (such as John 6 : 27—"him the Father, even God, hath sealed," and 1 Pet. 1 : 2—"foreknowledge of God the Father") that we need not delay to adduce extended proof.

B. Jesus Christ is recognized as God. (a) He is expressly called God.

In John 1 : 1—Qebt i/v & ?.6yoc—the absence of the article shows 9eof to be the predicate (cf. 4 : 24—irveiifia 6 Gtdf). This predicate precedes the verb by way of emphasis, to indicate progress in the thought = 'the Logos was not only with God, but was God' (see Meyer and Luthordt, Comm. in loco). "Only o Myot can be the subject, for in the whole Introduction the question is, not who God is, but who the Logos is" (Godet).

In Bom. 9 : 5, the clause 4 £>v M navruv 6cor tvhr) r/-6c cannot be translated * blessed be the God over all,' for uv is superfluous if the clause is a doxology; ciXoy^rdc precedes the name of God in a doxology, but follows it, as here, in a description" (Hovey). The clause can therefore justly be interpreted only as a description of the higher nature of the Christ who had just been said, To Koto aapaa. or according to his lower nature, to have had his origin from Israel (see Tholuck, Com. in loco).

In Titus 2 : 13, iirityavtmv Tfjs i6!-r)<; Tov ficynXm Oeov nal cuTy/mi rifiuv 'If/aov Xpioroi we regard (with Ellicott) as "a direct, definite, and even studied

declaration of Christ's divinity "=" the appearing of the glory

of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (so Eng. Bevised Version). 'Ejnpdvtm is a term applied specially to the Son and never to the Father, and iuyd>jn> is uncalled for if used of the Father, but peculiarly appropriate if used of Christ. Upon the same principles we must interpret the similar text 2 Pet. 1 : 1 (see Huther, in Meyer's Com.: "The close juxtaposition indicates the author's certainty of the oneness of God and of Jesus Christ").

In Heb. 1 : 8, fpof ot rbv vi6v • & tipdvog oov, <S 6eof, eif Tov a'tijva is quoted as an address to Christ, and verse 10 which follows*—" Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth "—by applying to Christ an Old Testament ascription to Jehovah, shows that A Oedt, in verse 8, is used in the sense of absolute Godhead.

In 1 John 5 : 20—iofiev hv r<jj aXrjiitvi^, ev viy avnw 'Ij/aov XpiaT<f>. ovr6( koriv 6 <Ui?#ivcif 8c<Sf —" it would be a flat repetition, after the Father had been twice called 6 aXi)9ivo\, to say now again: 'this is 4 oX^rfivdf 6e<Sc.' Our being in God has its basis in Christ his Son, and this also makes it more natural that Ovtoc should be referred to ii<p. But ought not 6 afa/ttivdc then to be without the article (as in John 1 : 1—Of of rjv 6 }6yo$)? No, for it is John's purpose in 1 John 5 : 20 to say, not what Christ is, but who he is. In declaring what one is, the predicate must have no article; in declaring who one is, the predicate must have the article. St. John here says that this Son, 011 whom our being in the true God rests, is this true God himself" (see Ebrard, Com. in loco).

Other passages might be here adduced, as John 20: 28—"Mj lord and my God ": Col. 2: 9—"in bin dwelleth all the fulnsss of the Godhead bodily ": PhiL 2: 6—" being in the form of God ": but we prefer to consider these under other heads as indirectly proving Christ's divinity. Still other passages once relied upon us direct statements of the doctrine must be given up for textual reasons. Such are Acts. 20 : 28. where the correct reading is in all probability not iKKkwiav Tou Stov, but tKK\itaiav rov Kvpiov (so ACDE Tregelle8 and Teschendorf: B and K, however, have roi e«oD. The Rev. Vers, continues to read "church of God"; Amer. Revisers, however, read "church of the Lord "—see K/.ra Abbot's investigation in Bib. Sac. 1878 : 3I3-3.12); and 1 Tim. 3:16, where it is unquestionably to be substituted for though even here id>ii'«pwi»ii intimates pret'xistence.

In John 1:18. although Tischendorf (8th ed.) has iiovoyt^t vi6s, Westcott and Hort (with K*BC*L Pesh. Syr.) read novoytviis «*«<*, and the Rev. Vers, puts " the only begotun God' in the margin, though it retains "the only begotten Son " in the text. Harnaek says the reading ^oi-oyo-rjs ee<* is established beyond contradiction; see Westcott, Bib. Com. on John, pages 32, 33. If so. we have here a new and unmistakable assertion of the deity of Christ. Meyer says that the apostles actually call Christ God only in John 1 :1 and 20 : 28. and that Paul never so recognizes him. But Meyer is able to maintain his position only by calling the doxologies to Christ, in 2 Tim. 4: 18, Heb. 13: 21 and 2 Pet. 3 :18. post-apostolic.

It is sometimes objected that the ascription of the name God to Christ proves nothing as to his absolute deity, since angels and even human judges are called gods, as representing God's authority and executing his will. But we reply that, while It is true that t he name is sometimes so applied, it is always with adjuncts and in connections which leave no doubt of its figurative and secondary meaning. When, however, the name is applied to Christ, it is, on the contrary, with adjuncts and in connections which leave no doubt that it signifies absolute Godhead. See Ii. 4 :16—" Thou shall be to him at God"j 7 :1—"See, I have made thee a pod to Pharaoh": 22:28—"Thoa Shalt not revile God [marg.the judges], nor curse a ruler of thy people": Ps. 82 :1—" God standeth in the congregation of God [among the mighty]; he judgeth among the gods"; 6—" I said. Te are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High ": 7—" nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Cf. John 10 : 34-36—" If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came" (who were God's commissioned and appointed representatives), how much more proper for him who is one with the Father to call himself God.

As in Ps. 82 : 7 those who hud been called gods are represented as dying, so in Ps. 97: 7— "Worship him, all ye gods"—they are bidden to fall down before Jehovah. Ann. Par. Bible: "Although the deities of the heathen have no positive existence, they are often described in Scripture as if they had, and are represented as bowing down before the majesty of Jehovah." This verse is quoted In Heb. 1: 6—"let all the angels of God worship him "— i. e. Christ. Here Christ is identified with Jehovah. The quotation is made from the Septuagint, which has "angels" for "gods." "Its use here Is in accordance with the spirit of the Hebrew word, whicli includes all that human error might regard as objects of worship." Those who are figuratively and rhetorically called "gods" are bidden to fall down in worship before him who is the true God, Jesus Christ. See Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1:314; Llddon, Our Lord's Divinity, 10.

(6) Old Testament descriptions of God are applied to him.

This application to Christ of titles and names exclusively appropriated to God is inexplicable, if Christ was not regarded as being himself God. The peculiar awe with which the term 'Jehovah' was set apart by a nation of strenuous monotheisti as the sacred and incommunicable name of the one self-existent and covenant-keeping God forbids the belief that the Scripture writers could have used it as the designation of a subordinate and created being.

Hat 3 : 3—"Make ye ready the way of the lord"—is a quotation from Is. 40 : 3—"Prepare ye... the way of Jehovah." John 12 : 41 —" These things said Isaiah, because he saw bis glory: and he spake of him" [f. c. Christ] —refers to Is. 6 :1—" In the year that King Uzziah died I saw Jehovah sitting upon a throne." So In Eph. 4 : 7, 8 —"measure of the gift of Christ... led captivity captive "—is an application to Christ of what is said of Jehovah In Ps. 68 :18. In 1 Pet 3 :15. moreover, we read, with all the great uncials, several of the Fathers, and all the best versions: "sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord"; here the apostle borrows his language from Is. 8:13, where we read: "The Lord of hosts, him shall ye sanctify." When we remember that, with the Jews, God's covenant-title was so sacred that for the Kethlb (=" written ") Jehovah there was always substituted the Keri (—" read "—imperative) Adimal, in order to avoid pronunciation of the great Name, it seems the more remarkable that the Greek equivalent of 'Jehovah' should have been so constantly used of

Christ. Cf. Rom. 10 : 9- "confess Jesus as Lord" : 1 Cor. 12 : 3—"no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in

the Holy Spirit."

It is interesting to note that 1 Maccabees does not once use the word 8co>, or «iipio«, or « any other direct designation of God unless it be odoaw (<•/. "swear... by the heaver, "— Mat 5 :34). So the book of Esther contains no mention of the name of God, though the apocryphal additions to Esther, which are found only in Greek, contain the name of God in the first verse, and mention it in all eight times. See Itissell, Apocrypha, in Lange's Commentary: Liddon, Our lord's Divinity, 93; Max Mllller on Semitic Monotheism, in Chips from a German Workshp, 1:337.

(c) He possesses the attributes of God.

Among these are life, self-existence, immutability, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence. All these attributes are ascribed to Christ in connections which show that the terms are used in no secondary sense, nor in any sense predicable of a creature.

Life: John 1: 4—" In him was life "; 14 : 6—" I am the life." Self-exUtence: John 5 : M—" have

life in himself " ; Heb. 7 :16—"power of an endless life." Immutability: Heb. 13 : 8—"Jesus Christ is the same

yesterday and to-day, yea and forever." Truth: John 14 : 6—" I am the troth "; Rev. 3 : 7—" he that is

true." Love: i John 3 :16—" Hereby know we love" < Ttjv iyan^v = the personal Love, as the personal Truth) "because he laid down his life for us." Hotineu■' lake 1: 35—" that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God " ■ John 6 : 69—" thou art the Holy One of God "; Heb. 7 : 26—" holy, guileless, undented, separated from sinners."

Eternity: John 1:1—*' In the beginning was the Word." Godet says iv ipxfi — not 'in eternity,' but 'in the beginning of the creation'; the eternity of the Word being an inference from the V— the Word leas, when the world was created; cf. Gen. 1:1—" In the beginning God created." But Meyer says, iv apxfi here rises above the historical conception of "in the beginning in Genesis (which includes the beginning of time itself) to the absolute conception of anteriority to time; the creation i» something subsequent. He finds a parallel In Prov. 8 :23—iv ipxi *P° ^TO" TiiF •jvji< wmijojai. The interpretation 'in the beginning of tho gospel' Is entirely unvxegctical; so Meyer. So John 17 : 5— "glory which I had with thee before the world was"; Eph. 1:4—"chose us in aim before the foundation of the world." Dorner also says that ■V ipx fi in John 1:1 is not' the beginning of the world,' but designates the point back of which it is impossible to go, i. c. eternity; the world is first spoken of in versa 3. John 8 : 58—" before Abraham was born, I am "; CoL 1:17—" he is before all things "; Heb. 1: II—the heavens "shsl! perish; but thou continuest" ; Rev. 21: 6—" I am the alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

Omnipresence: Mat. 28 : 20—" I am with you alway "; Eph. 1: 23—" the fulness of him that tlleth all in all." Omniscience: Mat. 9 : 4—" Jesus knowing their thoughts "; John 2 : 24, 25—" knew all men .... knew what was in man"; 16 : 30— "knowest all things"; 1 Cor. 4 : 5—"until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts "; Col. 2 : 3—"in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden." Omnipotence: Mat. 28 :18—" ill authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth"; Rev. 1: 8—"the Lord God, which is and which was and which is to come, the almighty."

(d) The works of God are ascribed to him.

We do not here speak of miracles, which may be wrought by communicated power, but of such works as the creation of the world, the upholding of all things, the final raising of the dead, and the judging of all men. Power to perform these works cannot be delegated, for they are characteristic of omnipotence.

Creation; John 1: 3—" All things were made through him "; 1 Cor. 8 : 6—" one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things"; Col. 1:16—"all things have been created through him, and unto him"; Heb. 1:10—"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands"; Rev. 3 :14—"the beginning of the creation of God" «•/. Plato: "Mind is the ipxi of motion"). Upholding: Col. 1:17—"in him all things consist" (marg. "hold together"); Heb. 1: 3-"upholding all things by the word of his power." iiaieini/ the dead and judging the world: John 5 : 27, 28—"authority to execute judgment"; "all that are in the tombs shall hear hiB voice, and shall come forth "; Mat 25 : 31,32—" sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations."

See Liddon, Our Lord's Divinity, 153. Per contra, see Examination of Llddon's Bampton Lectures, 11. Christ's work In the world as Kevealer of Qod and Redeemer from sin is also, to the believer, a proof of his divinity. We do not here urge this argument, for the reason that opponents of the doctrine In question, having- low views of the nature of that work, assume that It could have been wrought, as they believe that Jesus' miracles were wrought, by communicated power.

(c) He receives honor and worship due only to God.

The address of Thomas, in John 20 : 28, cannot be interpreted as a sudden appeal to God in surprise and admiration, without charging the apostle with profanity. Nor can it be considered a mere exhibition of overwrought enthusiasm, since it was accepted by Christ. As addressed directly to Christ and as unrebuked by Christ, it can be regarded only as a just acknowledgment on the part of Thomas that Christ was his Lord and his God.

John 20 : 28—" Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Alford, Com. in lorn: "The Soclnian view that these words are merely an exclamation is refuted (1) by the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews; (2) by the •'«* auicp; (3) by the impossibility of referring the 6 Kispioc no" to another than Jesus: see Terse 13; ( 4) by the N. T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nominative with an article; (5) by the psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one Just convinced of the presence of him whom he dearly loved should, instead of addressing him, break out into an irrelevant cry; (6) by the further absurdity of supposing that, If such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded anything so beside that object; (7) by the intimate conjunction of »€irio-T«u«as."

John 5 : 23—" that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father "; lets 7 : 59—" Stephen, calling upon the lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, roceite my spirit" «•/. Luke 23 : 46—Jesus' words: "rather, into thy bands I commend my spirit"); Rom. 10 : 9—" confess with thy month Jesus as lord "; 13—" whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (c/. Gen. 4 : 26—"Then bsgan msn to call upon the name of the Lord"); 1 Cor. 11: 24,25—"this do in remembrance of me" — worship of Christ; Eeb. 1: 6—"let all the angels of God worship him "; Phil. 2 :10,11—" in the name of Jesus every knee should bow .... every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ": Rev. 5 :12-14—" worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power 2 Pet 3:18—

"Lord and Savior Jesus Christ To him be the glory "; 2 Tim. 4 :18 and Eeb. 13 : 21—" to whom be the glory for ever and ever "—these ascriptions of eternal glory to Christ imply his deity. See also 1 Pet 3: 15—" sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," and Eph. 5 : 21—" subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ" Here Is enjoined an attitude of mind toward Christ which would be Idolatrous if Christ were not God. Sec Liddon, Our Lord's Divinity. 206,366.

(/) His name is associated with that of God upon a footing of equality.

We do not here allude to 1 John 5 : 7 (the three heavenly witnesses), for the latter part of this verse is unquestionably spurious; but to the formula of baptism, to the apostolic benedictions, and to those¹ passages in which eternal life is said to be dependent equally upon Christ and upon God, or in which spiritual gifts are attributed to Christ equally with the Father.

The formula of baptism: Hat. 28 :19—"baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Eoly Ghost"; cf. acts 2 : 38—" be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ"; Rom. 6 : 3—" baptised into Christ Jesus." "In the common baptismal formula the Son and the Spirit are coordinated with the Father, and tit ivo^a has religious significance." It would be both absurd and profane to speak of baptizing Into the name of the Father and of Moses.

The apostolic benedictions' 1 Cor. 1: 3—"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jeans Christ"; 2 Cor. 13 :14—"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Eoly Ghost be with you all." "In these benedictions grace is something divine, and Christ has power to Impart it. But why do we find 'God,' instead of simply 'the Father,' as in the baptismal formula? Because it is only the Father who does not become man or have a historical existence. Elsewhere he Is specially called 'God the Father,' to distinguish him from Qod the Son and God the Holy Spirit (Gal. 1 :1, 3; Eph. 3 :14; 6 : 23)."

Other pannage*: John 17 : 3—" this is life eternal, that thej should know thee the only trne God, and him whom thou didst send, eren Jesus Christ"; Mat. 11: 27—" No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father. save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him " ; 1 Cor. 12 : 4-6 '■ the same Spirit... the same Lord [Christ] .... the same God" (the Father) bestow spiritual gifts, e. g. faith: Rom. 10 :17—" belief oometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ"; peace: Col. 3 : IS—" let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts." 2 Thess. 2:16—" Now our lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father .... comfort your hearts —two names with a verb in the singular intimate the oneness of the Father and the Son (Lillie). Rev. 22 : 3—" the throne of God and of the Lamb."

(g) Equality with God is expressly claimed.

Here we may refer to Jesus' testimony to himself, already treated of among the proofs of the supernatural character of the Scripture teaching (see page 91). Equality with God is not only claimed for himself by Jesus, but it is claimed for him by his apostles.

John 5 :18—"called God his own Father, making himself equal with God"; Phil. 2: 6—"who. being in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" — counted not his equality with God a thin? to be forcibly retained. Christ made and left upon his contemporaries the impression that he claimed to be God. The New Testament has left, upon the great moss of those who have read it, the impression that Jesus Christ claims to lie God. If he is not God, he is a deceiver or Is self-deceived, and, in either case, ChfiKtnx, m nan Dew, mm hanw. See Nicoll, Life of Jesus Christ, )87.

(A) Further proofs of Christ's deity may be found in the application to him of the phrases: 'Son of God,' 'Image of God '; in the declarations of his oneness with God; in the attribution to him of the fulness of the Godhead.

Mat. 26 : 63, 64—" I adjure thee by the living God. that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said "—It is for this testimony that Christ dies. Col. 1:15—"the image of the invisible God "; Heb. 1 : 3—"the effulgence of his [the Father's] glory, and the very image of his substance " ; John 10 : 30—" 1 and my Father are one "; 14 : •—" he that hath seen me hath seen the Father "; 17 :11, 22 —" that they may be one even as we are one "; Col. 2 : 9—"in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily "; ef. 1:19 —"for it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell," or (marg.) "for the whole fulness ot God was pleased to dwell in him." John 16 :15—" all things whatsoever the Father hath are mine "; 17 :10—" all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine."

(i) These proofs of Christ's deity from the New Testament are corroborated by Christian experience. *

Christian experience recognizes Christ as an absolutely perfect Savior, perfectly revealing the Godhead and worthy of unlimited worship and adoration; that is, it practically recognizes him as Deity. But Christian experience also recognizes that through Christ it has introduction and reconciliation to God as one distinct from Jesus Christ, as one who was alienated from the soul by its sin, but who is now reconciled through Jesus' death. In other words, while recognizing Jesus as God, we are also compelled to recognize a distinction between the Father and the Son through whom we come to the Father.

Although this experience cannot be regarded as an independent witness to Jesus' claims, since it only tests the truth already made known in the Bible, still the irresistible impulse of every person whom Christ has saved to lift his Redeemer to the highest place, and bow before him in the lowliest worship, is strong evidence that only that interpretation of Scripture can be true which recognizes Christ's absolute Godhead. It is the church's consciousness of her Lord's divinity, indeed, and not mere speculation upon the relations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that has compelled the formulation of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity.

In the letter of Pliny to Trajan, it Is said of the early Christians " quod essent sollti carmen Cbristo quasi Deo dleere invicein." The prayers and hymns of the Church show what the church has believed Scripture to teach. Dwlght Moody is said to have received his first conviction of the truth of the gospel from hearing the concluding words of a prayer, "For Christ's sake, Amen," when awakened from physical slumber in Dr. Kirk's church, Boston. These words, wherever uttered, Imply man's dependence and Christ's deity. See New Englander, 1878: 432. Dr. Shedd: "The construction of the doctrine of the Trinity started, not from the consideration of the three persons, but from belief in the deity of one of them "—Christ.

In contemplating passages apparently inconsistent with those now cited, in that they impute to Christ weakness and ignorance, limitation and subjection, we are to remember, first, that our Lord was truly man, as well as truly God, and that this ignorance or weakness may be predicated of his human nature alone; secondly, that the divine nature itself was in some way limited and humbled during our Savior's earthly life, and that these passages may describe him as he was in his estate of humiliation, rather than in his original and present glory; and, thirdly, that there is an order of office and operation which is consistent with essential oneness and equality, but which permits the Father to be spoken of as first and the Son as second. These statements will be further elucidated in the treatment of the present doctrine and in subsequent examination of the doctrine of the Person of Christ.

There were certain things of which Christ was ignorant: Mark 13 : 32— "of that day or tha< hour knowelh no one, not even the angels in hsayen. neither the Son, but the Father." He was subject to physical fatigue: John 4 : 6—"Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus bj the well." There was a limitation connected with Christ's taking of human flesh: Phil. 2 : 7—"emptied himself, taking the form of a serrant, being made in the likeness of men"; John 14 : 28— "the Father is greater than L" There is a subjection, as respects order of office and opertition, which is yet consistent with equality of essence and onenoes with God: 1 Cor. 15 : 28—"then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." This must be interpreted consistently with John 17: 5—"glorify thou me with thine own self with the glorj which I had with thee before the world was," and with Phil. 2 : 6. where this glory Is described as being " the form of God" and "equality with God."

It Is inconceivable that any mere creature should say, " God is greater than I am," or should be spoken of as ultimately And in a mysterious wny becoming "subject to God." In his state of humiliation Christ Whs subject to the Spirit (Acta I : 2—"after that he had giren

commandment through the Holy Ghost"; 10 : 38 — " God anointed him with the Holy Ghost for God was with

him "; leb. 9 :14—" through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God " ), but In his state of exaltation Christ is Lord of the Spirit ( tcvpiov irvtvfiaTos—2 Cor. 3 :18—Meyer), giving the Spirit and working through thu Spirit. Beb. 2 : 7, marg.—"Thou mauest him for a little while lower 'han the angels." On the whole subject, see Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 262, 351; Thomnsius, Christi Person und Werk, 1: fll-64; Llddon, Our Lord's Divinity, 127, 207, 458; per contra. see Examination of Liddon, 232,294.

C. The Holy Spirit is recognized as God.

(a) He is spoken of as God; (6) the attributes of God are ascribed to Mm, such as life, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence; (c) he does the works of God, such as creation, regeneration, resurrection; (d) he receives honor due only to God; (e) he is associated with God on a footing of equality, both in the formula of baptism and in the apostolic benedictions.

(at Spoken of <u Qod. acts 5 : 3, 4—" lie to the Holy Ghost not lied onto men, bnt into God";

1 Cor. 3 :16—" je are a temple of God .... the Spirit of God dweileth in you "; 6 :19—" jour body is a tsmple of tie Holy Ghost "; 12 : 4-6- " same Spirit.... seme Lord .... sime God, »ho worketh all things in ill"—" The divine Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax, in such a way that we pass from the Spirit who bestows the gifts to the Lord [Christ] who is served by means of them, and Anally to God, who as the absolute first cause and possessor of all Christian powers works the entire sum of all charismatic gifts in all who are gifted " (Meyer lit loco).

(b) Attribute* of Qod. Life: Rom. 8:2—"Spirit of life." Truth: John 16 :13—"Spirit of truth.'' Love: Rom. 15 : 30—"loye of the Spirit." Holiness: Rph. 4 : 30—" the Holy Spirit of God." Eternity: Bob. 9 :14—" the eternal Spirit." Omnipresence: Ps. 139: 7—" Whither shall I go from thy spirit?" Omniscience: 1 Cor. 2 :10—" the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Omnipotence: 1 Cor. 12 :11—"ill these [including gifts of healings and miracles] worketh the' one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will."

(c) Works of God. Creution: Gen. 1: 2, marg. — " spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters.' ■Casting out of demons: Mat. 12 : 28, marg.—"if I by the Spirit of God oast out demons." Conviction of sin: John 16 : 8—" eonvict the world in respeot of sin." Regeneration: John 3 : 8—" born of the Spirit" Tit 3 : 5—" renewing of the Holy Ghost" Resurrection: Rom. 8 :11—" quicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit"; 1 Cor. 15 : 45—" The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

(d) Hoiwr due to Ooil. 1 Cor. 3 :16—" ye are s temple of God ... the Spirit of God dwelleth in you "—he who Inhabits the temple is the object of worship there. See also the next Item.

(c) Asmciated with Qod. Formula of baptism: Mat 28:19—" baptising them into the name of the Pathar and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." If the baptismal formula is worship, then we havehere worship paid to the Spirit. Apostolic benedictions: 2 Cor. 13 :14—" The grace of the lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." If the apostolic benedictions are prayers, then we have here a prayer to the Spirit. 1 Pet 1: 2—" foreknowledge of God the Father .... sanctiloition of the Spirit. .. sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

As spirit is nothing less than the inmost principle of life, and the spirit of man is man himself, so the Spirit of God must be God (see 1 Cor. 1: 11—Meyer). Christian experience, moreover, expressed as it is in the prayers and hymns of the church, furnishes an argument for the deity of the Holy Spirit similar to that for the deity of Christ. When our eyes are opened to see Christ as a Savior, we are compelled to recognize the work in us of a divine Spirit who has taken of the things of Christ and has shown them to us; and this divine Spirit we necessarily distinguish both from the Father and from the Son. Christian experience, however, is not an original and independent witness to the deity of the Holy Spirit: it simply shows what the church has held to be the natural and unforced interpretation of the Scriptures, and so confirms the Scripture argument already adduced.

This proof of the deity of the Holy Spirit is not invalidated by the limitations of his work under the Old Testament dispensation. John 7 : 39— "for the Holy Spirit was not yet"—means simply that the Holy Spirit could not fulfil his peculiar office as Revealer of Christ until the atoning work of Christ should be accomplished.

John 7: 39 is to be interpreted In the light of other Scriptures which assert the agency of the Holy Spirit under the old dispensation (Ps. 51:11—"take not thy holy spirit from me") and which describe his peculiar office under the new dispensation (John 16 :14,15—"he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you"). Limitation in the manner of the Spirit's work in the O. T. Involved a limitation In the extent and ptnecr of it also. Pentecost was the flowing forth of a tide of spiritual influence which had hitherto been dammed up. Henceforth the Holy Spirit was the spirit of Jesus Christ, taking of the things of Christ and showing them, applying his finished work to human hearts, and rendering the hitherto localized Savior omnipresent with all his scattered followers to the end of time.

For proofs of the deity of the Holy Spirit, see Walker, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Hare, Mission of the Comforter; Parker, The Paraclete: Cardinal Manning, Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1: Stl-350. Further references are given In connection with the proof of the Holy Spirit's personality.

2. Intimations of the Old Testament.

The passages which seem to show that even in the Old Testament there are three who are implicitly recognized as God may be classed under four heads:

A. Passages which seem to teach plurality of some sort in the Godhead. • (a) The plural noun OTI^N is employed, and that with a plural verb—a use remarkable, when we consider that the singular was also in existence: (6) God uses plural pronouns in speaking of himself; (c) Jehovah distinguishes himself from Jehovah; (d) a Son is ascribed to Jehovah; {e) the Spirit of God is distinguished from God; (/) there are a threefold ascription and a threefold benediction.

(a) Gen. 20 :13—" God caused [ plural J me to wander from my father's house"; 35 : 7—" built there an altar, and called the place El-Bethel: because there God was revealed [ plural J unto him." (/>) Gen. 1 : 26—" Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ; 3 : 22—" Behold, the man is become as one of us"; 11: 7—"Go to, let us go down, and there confound they- language "; Is. 6 : 8—" Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (c) Gen. 19 : 24 —" Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehorah out of heaven "; Hot. 1: 7— "I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, end will save them by Jehovah their God." (d) Ps. 2 : 7—"Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee " . Prov. 30 : 4—" Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is bis name, and what is his son's name, if thou knowest?" (e) Gen. 1:1, and 2, marg.—" God created .... the spirit of God was brooding "; Ps. 33 : 6—" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; And all the host of them by the breath [spirit] of his mouth "; If. 48 :16—" the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit" ; 83 : 7,10—" loving kindnesses of Jehovah ... grieved his holy spirit" (/) Is. 6 : 3—the trisagion: "Holy, holy, holy "; Sum. 6 : 24-26—"The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: The Lord make bis face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."

It has been suggested that as Baal was worshiped In different places and under different names, as Baal-berith, Baal-hanan, Baal-peor, Baal-zebub, and his priests could call upon any one of these as possessing' certain personified attributes of Baal, while yet the whole was called by the plural term' Ilauliin,' and Elijah could say: "Call ye upon your Gods," so' Elohim ' may be the collective designation of the God who was worshiped in different localities; see Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 229. But this ignores the fact that Haal is always addressed In the singular, never in the plural, while the plural' Elohim' Is the term commonly used in addresses to God. This seems to show that' Baalim ' is a collective term, while ' Elohim ' is not. So when Ewald, Lehre von Gott, 2: 333, distinguishes five names of God, corresponding to five great periods of the history of Israel, Hz. the "Almighty " of the Patriarchs, the "Jehovah" of the Covenant, the " God of Hosts" of the Monarchy, the " Holy One " of the Deuteronomlst and the later prophetic age, and the " Our Lord " of Judaism, he ignores the fact that these designations are none of them confined to the times to which they are attributed, though they may have been predominantly used in those times.

The fact that DTlSt* is sometimes used in a narrower sense, as applicable to the Son (Ps. 45 : 6; c.f. Heb. 1 : 8), need not prevent us from believing that the term was originally chosen as containing an allusion to a certain plurality in the divine nature. Nor is it sufficient to call this plural a simple 'pluralis majeslaticus'; since it is easier to derive this common figure from divine usage than to derive the divine usage from this common figure— especially when we consider the constant tendency of Israel to polytheism.

Ps, 45 : 6; c/. Heb. 1: 8—" of the Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever." Here It is God who calls Christ "God" or " Hohim." The royal style of speech was probably a custom of much later date than the time of Moses. Pharaoh does not use It. In Gen. 41: 41-44, he says: "I have set thee over all the laud of Egypt I am Pharaoh."

This ancient Hebrew application of the plural to God is often explained as a mere plural of dignity,— one who combines in himself many reasons for adoration (D from P|sk to fear, to adore). Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1 :128-130, calls it a "quantitative plural," signifying unlimited greatness. The Hebrews hod many plural forms, where we should use the singular, as 'heavens' instead of ' heaven,'' waters' instead of ' water.' We too speak of 'news,'' wages,' and say ' you' instead of ' thou'; see F. W. Robertson, on Genesis, 12. But the ancient Christians saw in this plural an allusion to the Trinity, and we are inclined to follow them. So Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tremens. Theophilus, Bplphanius. Theodoret. See Conant, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 198; Green, Hebrew Grammar, BOB; Girdlestone, 0. T. Synonyms, 38, 63; Alexander on Psalm 11: 7; 39 :1; 58:12.

B. Passages relating to the Angel of Jehovah.

(a) The angel of Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah; (6) he is identified with Jehovah by others; (c) he accepts worship due only to God. Though the phrase 'angel of Jehovah'is sometimes used in the later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadowed his final coming in the flesh.

(a) Gen. 22:11. 16—"'the angel of Jehovah called unto him [Abraham, when about to sacrifice Isaac] .... by myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah"; 31:11, 13—"the angel of God said unto me [Jacob] . ... I am ths God of Beth-el." iM Gen. 16 : 9,13—"angel of Jehovah said unto her .... and she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her. Thou art a God that seoth "; 48 :15,16—" the God which hath fed me .... the angel which bath redeemed me." (e) Bx. 3 : 2, 4, 5—"the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him. ... God called unto him out of the midst of the bush .... put off thy shoes from off thy feet"; Judges 13 : 20-22—" angel of the Lord ascended . , . Manoah and his wife ... fell on their faces . .. Manoah said ... We shall surely die, because we hare seen God,"

The "angel of the Lord" appears to be a human messenger in Haggai 1:13—"Haggai the Lord's messenger"; a created angel In Hat. 1:20—"an angel of the Lord [called Gabriel] appeared unto" Joseph; in acts 8 : 36—" an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip "; and in 12 : 7—" an angel of the Lord stood by him" (Peter). But commonly, In the O. T., these appearances seem to be preliminary manifestations of the divine Logos, as in Gen. 18 : 2,13—" three men stood over against him [Abraham] .. . and the Lord said unto Abraham "; Dan, 3 : 25, 28—" the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the godr.

.... Biassed be the God who hath sent his angel." The N. T. "angel of the Lord" does not permit,

the O. T. "angel of the Lord" requires, worship (Rev. 22 : 8, 9—" See thou do it not"; cf. Ex. 3 : 5—" put off thy shoes"). As supporting this interpretation, see Hengstenberg, Christology, 1:107123; J. Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. As opposing It, see Ilofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1: 329,378; Kurtz, History of Old Covenant, 1:181. On the whole subject, see Bib. Sac, 1879 : 593-615.

0. Descriptions of the divine Wisdom and Word.

(a) Wisdom is represented as distinct from God, and as eternally existing with God; (ft) the Word of God is distinguished from God, as executor of his will from everlasting.

(a) Prov. 8 :1—" Doth not wisdom cry?" Cf. Mat. 11:19—" wisdom is justified by her works"; Luke 7 : 35— "wisdom is justified of all her children ": 11: 49—"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles"; Prov. 8 : 22, 30, 31—"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before bis works of old.... I was by him, as a master workman: and I was daily his delight.... and my delight was with the sons of men "; cf. 3 :19—" The Lord by wisdom founded the earth," and Heb. 1: 2—" bis Son .... through whom .... he made the worlds." (b) Ps, 107 : 20—"He sendeth his word, and bealeth them "; 119 : 89—" For ever, 0 Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven "; 147 :15-18—" He sendeth out his commandment.... He sendeth out bis word."

In the Apocryphal book entitled Wisdom, 7 : 28.28, wisdom is described as " the brightness of the eternal light," "the unspotted mirror of God's majesty," and "the linage of his goodness "—reminding us of Heb. 1: 3—"the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance." In Wisdom, 9 : 9, 10, wisdom is represented as being present with God when he made the world, and the author of the book prays that wisdom may be sent to him out of God's holy heavens and from the throne of his glory.

It must be acknowledged that in none of these descriptions is the idea of personality clearly developed. Still less is it true that John the apostle derived his doctrine of the Logos from the interpretations of these descriptions in Philo Judseus. John's doctrine (John 1 : 1-18) is radically different from the Alexandrian Logos-idea of Philo. This last is a Platonizing speculation upon the mediating principle between God and the world. Philo seems at times to verge towards a recognition of personality in the Logos, though his monotheistic scruples lead him at other times to take back what he has given, and to describe the Logos either as the thought of God or as its expression in the world. But John is the first to present to us a consistent view of this personality, to identify the Logos with the Messiah, and to distinguish the Word from the Spirit of God.

Dorner, in his History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1:13-45, and in his System of Doctrine, 1: 348, 349, irlves the beet account of Philo's doctrine of the Logos. He says that Philo calls the Logos if>x«yyeAcre, apgupnSt, ievnpoc dtot. Whether this is anything more than personification is doubtful, for Philo also calls the Logos the noa^ot t-oirrov. Certainly, so far as he makes the Logos a distinct personality, he makes him also a subordinate being. It is charged that the doctrine of the Trinity owes its origin to the Platonic philosophy in its Alexandrian union with Jewish theology. But Platonism had no Trinity. The truth is that by the doctrine of the Trinity Christianity secured Itself against false heathen ideas of God's multiplicity and Immanence, as well as against false Jewish ideas of God's unity and transcendence. It owes nothing to foreign sources.

We need not assign to John's gospel a later origin. In order to account for its doctrine of the Logos, any more than we need to assign a later origin to the Synoptics in order to account for their doctrine of a suffering Messiah. Both doctrines were equally unknown to Philo. Philo's Logos does not and cannot become man. So says Dorner. Westcott, in Bible Commentary on John, Introd. xv-xvlli, and on John 1:1—"The theological use of the term [in John's gospel] appears to be derived directly from the Palestinian Mcmra, and not from the Alexandrian Loco*." See also Revllle, Doctrine of the Logos in John and Philo: Godet on John, German transl.. 13,135; Cudworth, Intellectual 8ystem, 2 : 320-333; Pressense, Life of Jesus Christ, 83; Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1:114-117; Liddon, Our Lord's Divinity, 59-71; Conant on Proverbs, 53.

D. Descriptions of the Messiah.

(a) He is one with Jehovah; (6) yet he is in some sense distinct from Jehovah.

(a) Is- 9 : 6—" onto us a child is bom, unto as a son is given .... and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prinee of Peace "; Micah 5 : 2—" thou Bethlehem .... which art little .... out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth hare been from of old, from, everlasting." (o) Ps. 45 : 6, 7—" Thy throne, 0 God. is for ever and ever.... therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee"; Mai. 3 :1—"I send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; and tho messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in." Henderson, in his Commentary on this passage, points out that the Messiah is here called "the lord " or " the Sovereign "—a title nowhere given in this form (with the article) to any but Jehovah; that he is predicted as coining to the temple as its proprietor; and that he is identified with the angel of the covenant, elsewhere shown to be one with Jehovah himself.

It is to be remembered, in considering this, as well as other classes of passages previously cited, that no Jewish writer before Christ's coming had succeeded in constructing from them a doctrine of the Trinity. Only to those who bring to them the light of New Testament revelation do they show their real meaning.

Our general conclusion with regard to the Old Testament intimations must therefore be that, while they do not by themselves furnish a sufficient basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, they contain the germ of it, and may be used in confirmation of it when its truth is substantially proved from the New Testament.

That the Doctrine of the Trinity is not plainly taught in the Hebrew Scriptures is evident from the fact that Jews unite with Mohammedans in accusing trlnltarians of polytheism. It should not surprise us that the Old Testament teaching on this subject

ia undeveloped and obscure. The first necessity was that the unity of God should be insisted on. Until the danger of idolatry was past, a clear revelation of the Trinity might have been a hindrance to religious progress. We should not therefore begin our proof of the Trinity with a reference to passages in the Old Testament. We should speak of these passages. Indeed, as furnishing intimations of the doctrine rather than proof of it. Yet, after having found proof of the doctrine in the New Testament, we may expect to find traces of it In the Old which will corroborate our conclusions. As a matter of fact, we shall see that traces of the idea of a trinity are found not only In the Hebrew Scriptures but in some of the heathen religions as well.

II. These Three Are So Described In Scripture That We Are ComPelled TO CONCEIVE OF THEM AS DISTINCT PERSONS.

1. The Father and the Son are persons distinct from each other.

(a) Christ distinguishes the Father from himself as 'another'; (6) the Father and the Son are distinguished as the begetter and the begotten; (c) the Father and the Son are distinguished as the sender and the sent.

(a) John 5 : 32. 37—" it is another that beareth witness of me.... toe Father which sent me, be hath borne witness of me.' (b) Ps. 2 : 7—" Thou art nj Son: this day have I begotten thee "; John 1 : 14--" the only begotten from the Father"; 18—" the only begotten Son ": 3:16—"pro his only begotten Son." (e) John 10:36—"Say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?" Gal. 4^: 4—" when the fulness of the time earns, God sent forth his Son."

2. The Father and the Son are persons distinct from the Spirit.

(a) Jesus distinguishes the Spirit from himself and from the Father; (6) the Spirit proceeds from the Father; (c) the Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son.

(a) John 14 :16.17—" I will pray the Father, and he will pre you another Comforter, that'he may be with you for erer, oven the Spirit of truth "—or "Spirit of the truth," = he whose work it is to reveal and apply the truth, and especially to make manifest him who is the truth. Jesus had been their Comforter; he now promises them another Comforter. If he himself was a person, then the Spirit is a person. (b) John 15 : 26—" the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father." (c) John 14 : 26— "the Comforter, eren the Holy Spirit, whom tin Father will send in my name "; 15 : 26—"when the Comforter is oome. whom I will send unto you from th' Father": Gal. 4 : 6—"God sent forth the Spirit of bis Son into our hearts." The Greek church holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only; the Latin church, that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. The true formula Is: The Spirit proceeds from the Father thrmigh or by (not'and') the Son. Jiee Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1:282, 283.

3. The Holy Spirit is a person.

A. Designations proper to personality are given him.

(a) The masculine pronoun inrivoc, though nvev/ia is neuter; (b) the name vapA^tiro^, which cannot be translated by 'comfort', or be taken as the name of any abstract influence. The Comforter, Instructor, Patron, Guide, Advocate, whom this term brings before us, must be a person. This is evident from its application to Christ in 1 John 2 : 1—"we have an Advocate—Kap&K?.riTov—with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

(a) John 16 :14—" le (cnivot) shall glorify me "; in Eph. 1:14 also, some of the best authorities, Including Teschendorf (8th ed.), read 6c, the masculine pronoun: "who is an earnest of our inheritance." (b) John 16 : 7—"if I go not away, the Comforter will not oome unto you." The word wapa*A»r"K, as appears from 1 John 2 :1, quoted above, is a term of broader meaning than merely "Comforter.'' The Holy Spirit is. indeed, as has been said, "the mother-principle in the Godhead," and "as one whom his mother comforteth" so God by his Spirit comforts his children (Is. 66 :13). But the Holy Spirit is also an Advocate of God's claims in the soul, and of the soul's Interests in prayer (Rom. 8 : 26—"maketh intercession for us ). He comforts not only by being our advocate, but by being our Instructor, patron, and guide; and all these Ideas are found attaching to the word irapinAijTof in Rood Greek usage. See Creraer, Lexicon of N. T. Greek, (n voce. The Idea of encouragement Is Included In It, as well as those of comfort and of advocacy.

B. His name is mentioned in immediate connection with other persons, and in such a way as to imply his own personality.

(a) In connection with Christians; (ft) in connection with Christ; (e) in connection with the Father and the Son. If the Father and the Son are persons, the Spirit must be a person also.

(a) Acts 15 : 28 "it itemed good u the Holy Ghost and to us." </i> John 16 :14—" he shall glorify me; for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you "; cf. 17 : 4—"I glorified thee on the earth." (c) Mat. 28:19—" baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; 2 Cor. 13: 14—" the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all"; Jude 21 —"praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God. looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ"; 1 Pet. 1 :1, 2—" elect.... acoording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanotification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

C. He performs acts proper to personality.

That which searches, knows, speaks, testifies, reveals, convinces, commands, strives, moves, helps, guides, creates, recreates, sanctifies, inspires, makes intercession, orders the affairs of the church, performs miracles, raises the dead—cannot be a mere power, influence, efflux, or attribute of God, but must be a person.

Gen. 1: 2, marg — "the spirit of God was brooding upon the face of the waters"; 6 : 3—" My spirit shall not strive with man for ever "; Luke 12 :12— "The Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say"; John 3:8—"born of the Spirit"; 16 : 8—" convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment"; lets 2 : 4 -" the Spirit gave them utterance"; 8 : 29—"the Spirit said unto Philip. Go near"; 10 :19. 20—"the Spirit said unto him [Peter], Behold, three men seek thee... go with them ... for I have sent them "; 13 : 2—" the Holy

Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul"; 16 : 6, 7—"forbidden of the Holy Ghost Spirit of Jesus suffered them

not"; Rom. 8 :11— " quicken your mortal bodies through his Spirit"; 26—" the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity

maketh intercession for us"; 15 :19— "in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost"; 1 Cor. 2:10.11—" the Spirit searcheth all things .... things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God " ; 12 : 8-11—distributes spiritual gifts "to each one severally even as he will" ; 2 Pet, 1 ;21—" men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost"; 1 Pet 1: 2—" sanetincation of the Spirit." It is sometimes asked howa person can be given In various measures. We answer, by being permitted to work in our behalf wit h various degrees of power. Dorner: "To be power does not belong to the impersonal."

D. He is affected as a person by the acts of others.

That which can be resisted, grieved, vexed, blasphemed, must be a person; for only a person can perceive insult and be offended. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost cannot be merely blasphemy against a power or attribute of God, since in that case blasphemy against God would be a less crime than blasphemy against his power. That against which the unpardonable sin can be committed must be a person.

Is. 6 : 10—"they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit"; Mat. 12 : 31—"every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven "; lets 5 : 3, 4, 9—" lie to the Holy Ghost ... thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God ... agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord ": 7 : 51—" ye do always resist the Holy Ghost "; Eph. 4 : 30—" grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." Satan cannot be 'grieved.Selfishness can be angered, but only love can be grieved. The passages Just quoted show the Spirit's possession of an emotional nature. Hence we read of "the love of the Spirit" (Rom. 15 ; 30). The unutterable sighings of the Christian In intercessory prayer (Rom. 8 : 26, 27) reveal the mind of the Spirit, and show the infinite depths of feeling which are awakened In God's heart by the sins and needs of men. These deep desires and emotions which are only partially communicated to us, and which only God can Understand, are conclusive proof that the Holy Spirit is a person.

E. He manifests himself in visible form as distinct from the Father and the Son, yet in direct connection with personal acts performed by them.

Hat. 3 :16. 17—" Jesus, when hs was baptised, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saving, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased "; Luke 3 : 21, 22—"Jesus also having been baptised, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came ont of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Here are t he prayer of Jesus, the approving voice of the Father, and the Holy Spirit descending: in visible form to anoint the Son of God for his work. "I ad Jordanem, et videbis Trinitatem."

F. This ascription to the Spirit of a personal subsistence distinct from that of the Father and of the Son cannot be explained as personification; for:

(a) This would be to interpret sober prose by the canons of poetry. Such sustained personification is contrary to the genius of even Hebrew poetry, in which Wisdom itself is most naturally interpreted as designating a personal existence. (6) Such an interpretation would render a multitude of passages either tautological, meaningless, or absurd—as can be easily seen by substituting for the name Holy Ghost the terms which are wrongly held to be ite equivalents; such as the power, or influence, or efflux, or attribute of God. (c) It is contradicted, moreover, by all those passages in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from his own gifts.

(a) The Bible is not primarily a book of poetry, although there is poetry in it. It is more properly a book of history and law. Even if the methods of allegory were used by the psalm 1st and the prophets. It would be puerile to introduce them into the gospels and epistles. Yet it is the gospels and epi9tles which most constantly represent the Holy Spirit as a person, (b) lets 10 : 38—" God anointed him [ Jesus] with the Holy Ghost and with power" = anointed him with power and with power? Rom. 15 :13—"abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Ghost" -- In the power of the power of God? 19—" in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost" =- In the power of the power of God? 1 Cor. 2 : 4—" demonstration of the Spirit and of power" = demonstration of power and of power? (o) Luke 1: 35—"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Host High shall overshadow thee '; 4 : 14—" Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee"; 1 Cor. 12: 4, 8,11—after mention of the gifts of the Spirit, such as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues, all these are traced back to the Spirit who bestows them: "all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will." Here is not only giving, but giving discreetly, in the exercise of an independent will such as belongs only to a person. On the personality of the Holy Spirit, see John Owen, in Works, 3:47-64; Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1:341-380.

III. This Tripebsonamtt Op The Divine Nature Is Not Merely

ECONOMIC AND TEMPORAL, BUT 18 IMMANENT AND ETERNAL.

1. Scripture proof that these distinctions of personality are eternal.

We prove this (a) from those passages which speak of the existence of the Word from eternity with the Father; (6) from passages asserting or implying Christ's preexistence; (c) from passages implying intercourse between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world; (d) from passages asserting the creation of the world by Christ; (e) from passages asserting or implying the eternity of the Holy Spirit.

(a) John 1:1,2—¹¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God "; cf. Gen. 1:1—" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth "; Phil. 2 : 6—"being in the form of God .... on an equality with God." (/)) John 8 : 58—" before Abraham was bom, I am "; 1:18—" the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father"; Col. 1 :15-17—" firstborn of all creation" or "before every creature .... he is before all things." In these passages "am" and "is" indicate an eternal fact; the present tense expresses permanent being. Rev. 22 :13,14—" I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and (he last, the beginning and the end.' (c) John 17 : 5—" 0 Father, plorify Uun me with thine on self with the fclor? which I hid with thee before the world m"; 24—"thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (d) John 1 : 3—"111 things were nude through him "; 1 Cor. 8: 6—" one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things " ; Col. 1 :16— "all things hare been created through him, and unto him "; Heb. 1: 2—" through whom also he made the worlds "; 10—" Thou, lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the cravens are the works of thy hands." (e) Gen. 1:2—" the spirit of God was brooding "—existed therefore before creation; Ps. 33 : 6—" by the word of the Lord were the heavens nude; and all the host of them by the breath [spirit] of his mouth "; Heb. 9 : U —" through the eternal Spirit."

2. Errors refuted by the foregoing passages. A. The Sabellian.

Sabellius (of Ptolemais in Pentapolis, 250) held that Father, Son, and Holy Qhost are mere developments or revelations to creatures, in time, of the otherwise concealed Godhead—developments which, since creatures will always exist, are not transitory, but which at the same time are not eternal a parte ante. God as united to the creation is Father; God as united to Jesus Christ is Son; God as united to the church is Holy Spirit. The Trinity of Sabellius is therefore an economic and not an immanent Trinity—a Trinity of forms or manifestations, but not a necessary and eternal Trinity in the divine nature.

Some have interpreted Sabellius as denying that the Trinity is eternal a parte post, as well as a parte ante, and as holding that, when the purpose of these temporary manifestations is accomplished, the Triad is resolved into the Monad. This view easily merges in another, which makes the persons of the Trinity mere names for the ever-shifting phases of the divine activity.

The best statement of the Sabellian doctrine, according to the interpretation first mentioned, is that of Scbleiermacher, translated with comments by Moses Stuart, in Biblical Repository, 8: 1-116. The one unchanging: God Is differently reflected from the world on account of the world's different receptivities. Praxeas of Rome (200), Noetus of Smyrna (230), and Beryl of Arabia (250) advocated substantially the same views. They were called Monarchlans (noVvi ipx¹)). because they believed, not in the Triad, but only in the Monad. They were called Patrlpassians, because they held that, as Christ is only God in human form, and this God suffers, therefore the Father suffers.

A view similar to that of Sabellius was held by Horace Bushnell, in his God in Christ, 113-115, 130 »]., 173-175, and Christ in Theology, 119, 130—" Father. Eon, and Holy Spirit, being incidental to the revelation of God, may be and probably are from eternity to eternity, Inasmuch as God may have revealed himself from eternity, and certainly will reveal himself so long as there are minds to know him. It may be, in fact, the nature of God to reveal himself, as truly as it is of the sun to shine or of living mind to think." He does not deny the immanent Trinity, but simply says we know nothing about it. Yet a Trinity of Persons in the divine essence itself he called plain tritheism. He prefers "instrumental Trinity " to " modal Trinity " as a designation of his doctrine. The difference between Bushnell on the one hand, and Sabellius and Scbleiermacher on the other, seems then to be the following: Sabellius and Sehlelermaoher hold that the One hctomcx three In the process of revelation, and the three are only media or mod«» of revelation. Father, Son, and Spirit are mere names applied to these modes of the divine action, there being no Internal distinctions in the divine nature. This is modalism, or a modal Trinity. Bushnell stands by the Trinity of revelation alone, and protests against any constructive reasonings with regard to the immanent Trinity.

It is evident that this theory, in whatever form it may be held, is far from satisfying the demands of Scripture. Scripture speaks of the second person of the Trinity as existing and acting before the birth of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit as existing and acting before the formation of the church. Both have a personal existence, eternal in the past as well as in the future— which this theory expressly denies.

Stuart: Since God Is revealed as Three, he must be essentially or immanently three, back of revelation; else the revelation would not be true. Dorner: A Trinity of revelation is a misrepresentation, if there is not behind it a Trinity of nature. Twesten properly arrives at the threeness by considering-, not so much what is involved in the revelation of God to us, as what is involved in the revelation of God to himself. The unscrlpturalness of the Sabellian doctrine is plain, when we remember that upon this view the Three cannot exist at once, and that when God says "Thou art mj beloved Son" (Ule 3 : 22), he is simply speaking* to himself. John 1:1—" In ttta beginning was the Word, ind the Word was with God, and tho Word wis God "—" sets aside the false notion that the Word became permmal first at the time of creation, or at the incarnation " (Westeott, Bib. Com. in loco). See Bushnell's doctrine reviewed by Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 433-473. On the whole subject, see Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person of Christ, 2: 153-169; Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1: 259; Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, 1: 256-905; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1: 88.

B. The Arian.

Arias (of Alexandria; condemned by Council of Nice, 325 ;) held that the Father is the only divine being absolutely without beginning; the Son and the Holy Spirit, through whom God creates and recreates, having been themselves created out of nothing before the world was; and Christ being called God, because he is next in rank to God, and is endowed by God with divine power to create.

The followers of Arius have differed as to the precise rank and claims of Christ. While Socinus held with Arius that worship of Christ was obligatory, the later Unitarians have perceived the impropriety of worshiping even the highest of created beings, and have constantly tended to a view of the Redeemer which regards him as a mere man, standing in a peculiarly intimate relation to God.

It is evident that the theory of Arius does not satisfy the demands of Scripture. A created God, a God whose existence had a beginning and therefore may come to an end, a God made of a substance which once was not, and therefore a substance different from that of the Father, is not God, but a finite creature. But the Scriptures speak of Christ as being in the beginning God, with God, and equal with God.

For statement of the Arian doctrine, see J. Freeman Clarke, Orthodoxy, Its Truths and Errors. Per contra* see Schaff, in Bib. Sac, 21:1, article on Athanasius and the Arian controversy. The so-called Athanasian Creed, which Athanasius never wrote, is more properly designated as the Symlmlum Qniciimque. It has also been called, though facetiously,'the Anathemaslan Creed.' Yet no error fai doctrlae can be more perilous or worthy of condemnation than the error of Arius (1 Cor. 16 : 22—" if any man lor-th not the Lord, let him be anathema"; 1 John 2: 23—" whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father"; 4 : 3—"ererj spirit that ooniesseth not Jeans is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist").

On the doctrines of the early Socinians, sec Princeton Essays. 1: 195. Davidis was persecuted and died in prison for refusing to worship Christ, and Socinus was charged, though probably unjustly, with having caused his imprisonment. Dr. Samuel Clarke, when asked whether the Father who had created could not also destroy the Son, said that he had not considered that question. On the whole subject, see Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism; Blunt, Dictionary of Heretical Sects, art.: Arius; Guericke, History of Doctrine, 1: 313, 319. See also a further account of Arianism in the chapter of this Compendium on the Person of Christ.

IV. This Trtpersonaijtx" Is Not Tkitheism; For, While There Are Three Persons, There Is Etjt One Essence.

(a) The term 'person' only approximately represents the truth. Although this word, more nearly than any other single word, expresses the conception which the Scriptures give us of the relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is not itself used in this connection in Scripture, and we employ it in a qualified sense, not in the ordinary sense in which we apply the term 'person' to Peter, Paul, and John.

Tho word 'person' la only the Imperfect and Inadequate expression of a fact that transcends our experience and comprehension. Bunyan: "My dark and cloudy words, they do but hold The truth, as cabinets encase the gold." Three Gods, limiting each other, would deprive each other of Deity. While we show that the unity is articulated by the persons, it is equally important to remember that the persons are limited by the unity. With us personality implies entire separation from all others—distinct individuality. But in the one God there can be no such separation. The personal distinctions in him must be such as are consistent with essential unity. This is the merit of the statement in the Symbolum Qulcumour (or Athanasian Creed, wrongly so called): "The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord; yet there are not three Lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the same truth to say that there are three Gods or throe Lords." See Hagenbacb, History of Doctrine, 1: 270.

(6) The necessary qualification is that, while three persons among men have only a specific unity of nature or essence—that is, have the same species of nature or essence,—the persons of the Godhead have a numerical unity of nature or essence—that is, have the same nature or essence. The undivided essence of the Godhead belongs equally to each of the persons; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, each possesses all the substance and all the attributes of Deity. The plurality of the Godhead is therefore not a plurality of essence, but a plurality of hypostatical, or personal, distinctions. God is not three and one, but three in one. The one indivisible essence has three modes of subsistence.

The Trinity Is not simply a partnership, in which each member can sign the name of the firm; for this is unity of counsel and operation only, not of essence. God's nature is not an abstract but an organic unity. God, as living, cannot be a mere Monad. Trinity is the organism of the Deity. The one divine Being exists In three modes. The life of the vine makes iteelf known in the life of the branches, and this union between vine and branches Christ uses to illustrate the union between the Father and himself. (See John 15 :10—" If ye keep my commandments, ye snail abide in my love; even as I bare kept my Father's commandments, and abide in bis lore"; cf. verse 5—"I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, slid I in him, the same beareth much fruit"; 17 : 22, 23—"that tbsy may be one, even as we sre one; I in them, and thon in me." So, in the organism of the, body, tlje arm has Its own life, a different life from that of the head or the foot, yet has this only by partaking of the life of the whole. See Dorner, System of Doctrine, 1: *50-»63—" The one divine personality Is so present in each of the distinctions, that these, which singly and by themselves would not be personal, yet do participate In the one divine personality, each in its own manner. This one divine personality is the unity of the three modes of subsistence which participate in itself. Neither is personal without the others. In each, In its manner, is the whole Godhead."

(c) This oneness of essence explains the fact that, while Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as respects their personality, are distinct subsistences, there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed, with a single limitation, to either of the others, and the manifestation of one to be recognized in the manifestation of another. The limitation is simply this, that although the Son is sent by the Father, and the Spirit by the Father and the Son, it cannot be said vice versa that the Father is sent either by the Son or by the Spirit. The Scripture representations of this intercommunion prevent us from conceiving of the distinctions called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as involving separation between them.

Dorner adds that "in one is each of the others." This is true with the limitation mentioned in the text above. Whatever Christ does, God the Father can be said to do; for God acta only in and through Christ the Hevealer. Whatever the Holy Spirit does, Christ can be said to do: for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit is the omnipresent Jesus, and Bengel's dictum is true: Ubi Spirltux, iM ChrMiut. Passages illustrating this intercommunion are the following: Gen. 1:1—'• God created''; cf. Heb. 1: 2— "through whom [the Son] also ha made the worlds"; John 5 :17,19—" My father worketh even until nov, and I work .... the Son can do nothing of himself, bnt what he teeth the Father doing; for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner "; 14 : 9—" he that hath seen me hath seen the Father "; 11—" I am in the Father and the Father in me"; 18—"I will not leave jou desolate: I come unto you" (by the Holy Spirit); 15 : 26— "when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto yon from the Father, even the Spirit of truth "; 17 : 21—" that they may all be one; even as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee "; 2 Cor. 5 :19—" God was in Christ reconciling "; Titus 2 :10—" God our Savior "; Heb. 12 : 23—" God the Judge of all " ; cf. John 5 : 22—" neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son "; acts 17 : 31—"judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained."

It is this intercommunion, together with the order of personality and operation to be mentioned hereafter, which explains the occasional use of the term ' Father' for the whole Godhead: as in Eph. 4:6—" one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all [in Christ], and in you all" (by the Spirit). This intercommunion also explains the designation of Christ as " the Spirit," and of the Spirit as " the Spirit of Christ," as in 1 Cor. 15 : 45—"the last Adam became a lifegiving Spirit"; 2 Cor. 3 :17—" How the lord is the Spirit"; Gal 4 : 8—" sent forth the Spirit of his Son "; Phil. 1:19 —" supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (see Alford and Lange on 2 Cor. 3 :17, 18). So the Lamb, in Rev, 5 : 6, has "seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth "= the Holy Spirit, with his manifold powers, is the Spirit of the omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent Christ. Theologians have designated this intercommunion by the terms *rcpixwpTjo-i«, ctrcuHirHCOWto, hitercommunicat to. circukitio, ijiexMt:titin. The word oiaia was used to denote essence, substance, nature, being: and the words irpiio-iuiroi- and iiirotnaais, for person, distinction, mode of subsistence. On the changing uses of the words irpoo-mitoi' and uirdaio<r«, see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : ;B1, note 2. On the meaning of the word 'person' in connection with the Trinity, see John Howe, Calm Discourse of the Trinity; Jonathan Edwards, Observations on the Trinity.

V. The Three Persons, Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, Are Equal.

In explanation, notice that:

1. These titles belong to the Persons.

(a) The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Ghost. The term 'Father' designates that hypostatical distinction in the divine nature in virtue of which God is related to the Sou, and through the Son and the Spirit to the church and the world. As author of the believer's spiritual as well as natural life, God is doubly his Father; but this relation which God sustains to creatures is not the ground of the title. God is Father *primarily in virtue of the relation which he sustains to the eternal Son; only as we are spiritually united to Jesus Christ do we become children of God.

(6) The Son is not God as such; for God is not only Son, but also Father and Holy Spirit. 'The Son' designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.

(c) The Holy Spirit is not God as such; for God is not only Holy Spirit, but also Father and Son. 'The Holy Spirit' designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by

i

them to accomplish the work of renewing the ungodly and of sanctifyingthe church.

Neither of these names designates the Monad as such. Each designates rather that personal distinction which forms the eternal basis and ground for a particular selfrevelution. In the sense of being the Author and Provider of men's natural life, God is the Father of all. But even this natural sonshlp Is mediated by Jesus Christ; see 1 Cor. 8 : 6—" one Lord, Jesus Const, through whom are all things, and we through him." The phrase "our Father," however, can be used with the highest truth only by the regenerate, who have been newly born of God by being united to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

See Gal. 3 : 26—" for jt are all sons of God. through faith, in Jesus Christ"; 4 : 4-6—" God sent forth his Son

that we might receive the adoption of sons .... sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, father "; Bph. 1: 5—"foreordained us unto adoption as sons, through Jesus Christ" God's love for Christ is the measure of his love for those who are one with Christ. Human nature in Christ is lifted up into the life and communion of the eternal Trinity.

2. Qualified sense of these titles.

Like the word 'person', the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not to be confined within the precise limitations of meaning which would be required if they were applied to men.

(a) The Scriptures enlarge our conceptions of Christ's sonship by giving to him in his preexistent state the names of the Logos, the Image, and the Effulgence of God.—The term 'Logos' combines in itself the two ideas of thought and word, of reason and expression. While the Logos as divine thought or reason is one with God, the Logos as divine word or expression is distinguishable from God. Words are the means by which personal beings express or reveal themselves. Since Jesus Christ was "the Word" before there were any creatures to whom revelations could be made, it would seem to be only a necessary inference from this titlo that in Christ God must be from Eteroit3^T expressed or revealed to himself; in other words, that the Logos is the principle of truth, or self-consciousness, in God.—The term 'Image' suggests the ideas of copy or counterpart. Man is the image of God only relatively and derivatively. Christ is the Image of God absolutely and archetypally. As the perfect representation of the Father's perfections, the Son would seem to be the object and principle of love in the Godhead.—The term 'Effulgence,' finally, is an allusion to the sun and its radiance. As the effulgence of the sun manifests the sun's nature, which otherwise would be unrevealed, yet is inseparable from the sun and ever one with it, so Christ reveals God, but is eternally one with God. Here is a priuciple of movement, of will, which seems to connect itself with the holiness, or self-asserting purity, of the divine nature.

Smyth, Introd. to Edwards' Observations on the Trinity: "The ontological relations of the persons of the Trinity are not a mere blank to human thought." John 1: i—"In the beginning was the Vord" means more than "in the beginning was the x, or the zero." Godet indeed says that Logos = ' reason' only in philosophical writings, but never in the Scriptures. He calls this a Hegelian notion. But both Plato and Phllo had made this signification a common one. On Mym as = reason + speech, see Llghtfoot on Oolossians. 143,144. Meyer interprets it as "personal subsistence, the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God." Neander, Planting and Training, 389: logos = "the eternal Kevealer of the divine essence." Bushnell: "Mirror of creative Imagination"; "form of God."

Passages representing Christ as the Image of God are Col. 1 :15—"who is the image of the inrisible God "; 2 Cor. 4 : 4—" Christ, who is the image of God" (tU^y); Eeb. 1: 3—" the verj image of his substance" l yap'KTijp T^v uiroo-Tao-euis avrov); here \apajtTTfp means 'impress,' 'counterpart.' Christ is the perfect image of God, as men are not. He therefore has consciousness and will. He possesses all the attributes and powers of God. The word ' Image' suggests the perfect equality with God which the title 'Son ' might at first sight seem to deny.

Christ is spoken of as the Effulgence of God in Heb. 1: J--"who being the effulgence of his glory" (awavyatrna Trj* iof >js); ef. 2 Cor. 4 : 6—" shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Notice that the radiance of the sun is as old as the sun itself, and without it the sun would not be sun. So Christ is coequal and coUternal with the Father.

(6) The names thus given to the second person of the Trinity, if they have any significance, bring him before our minds in the general aspect of Revealer, and suggest a relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to God's immanent attributes of truth, love, and holiness. The prepositions used to describe the internal relations of the second person to the first are not prepositions of rest, but prepositions of direction and movement. The Trinity, as the organism of Deity, secures a life-movement of the Godhead, a process in which God evermore objectifies himself and in the Son gives forth of his fulness. Christ represents the centrifugal action of the deity. But there must be centripetal action also. In the Holy Spirit the movement is completed, and the divine activity and thought returns into itself. True religion, in reuniting us to God, reproduces in us, in our limited measure, this eternal process of the divine mind. Christian experience witnesses that God in himself is unknown; Christ is the organ of external revelation; the Holy Spirit is the organ of internal revelation—only he can give us an inward apprehension or realization of the truth. It is "through the eternal Spirit" that Christ "offered himself without blemish unto God," and it is only through the Holy Spirit that the church has access to the Father, or fallen creatures can return to God.

Meyer on John 1:1—" the Word was with God ": "wpb? Toc 9<6v does not napa T» Ow, but expresses the existence of the Logos in God in respect of intercourse. The moral essence of this essential fellowship is love, which excludes any merely tnodalistic conception." Godet: '* npbs Tov Btov intimates not only personality (Gen. 1: 26--' let us make man') hut movement." Compare John 1:18—" the only begotten Son. which is in the bosom of the Father"—where we find, not iv T<p KoAtrif, but eis roe Kokkov. As h^v «<« rV n6\iv means ¹ went into the city and was there,' so the use of these prepositions indicates in the Godhead movement as well as rest. Dorner, System of Doctrine, 3:183, translates »(xw by 'hinge wan<U *«.' or 'turned toward.' The preposition would then Imply that the Revealer, who existed in the beginning, was ever over against God, in the life-process of the Trinity, as the perfect objectlfication of himself.

Dorner considers the internal relations of the Trinity (System, 1: 412 sg.) in three aspects: 1. Physical. God is cawa tttii. Rut effect that equals cause must itself lie causative. Here would be duality, were it not for a third principle of unity. Trinitas dualitatem ad unitatem reducit. 2. Logical. Self-consciousness sets self over against self. Yet the thinker must not regard self as one of many, and call himself 'he,' as children do; for the thinker would then be, not *d/-couscious, but me.ntr alienatw. He therefore * comes to himself' in a third, its the brute cannot. 3. Ethical. God— self-willing right. But right based on arbitrary will is not right. Right based on passive nature is not right either. Right as being — Father. Right as willing = Son. Without the latter principle of freedom, we have a dead ethic, a dead God, an enthroned necessity. The unity of necessity and freedom is found by God, as by the Christian, in the Holy Spirit. So Dorner.

Ebrard, Dogmatic, 1:173, speaks of the Son as the centrifugal, while the Holy Spirit is the centripetal movement of the Godhead. God apart from Christ is uurevealed (John 1: 18—"Ho man hath seen God at any time"); Christ is the organ of external revelation (18—"the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him "); the Holy Spirit is the organ of internal revelation (1 Cor. 2 :10—" unto us God revealed thorn through the Spirit"). That the Holy Spirit is the principle of all movement toward God appears from Eeb. 9 :14—Christ, "through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without blemish unto God "; F.ph. 2 :18—" access in one Spirit unto the Father " ; Rom. 8 : 26—" the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity .... the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us "; John 4 : 24—" God is a Spirit; and they that worship him mast worship in spirit"; 16 : 8-11— " oonrict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." See Twesten, Dogmatik, on the Trinity; also Thomasiug, Chrlsti Person und Werk, 1: 111.

(c) Iu the light of what has been said, we may understand somewhat more fully the characteristic differences between the work of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit. We may sum them up in the four statements that, first, all outgoing seems to be the work of Christ, all return to God the work of the Spirit; secondly, Christ is the organ of external revelation, the Holy Spirit the organ of internal revelation; thirdly, Christ is our advocate in heaven, the Holy Spirit is our advocate in the soul; fourthly, in the work of Christ we are passive, in the work of the Spirit we are active. Of the work of Christ we shall treat more fully hereafter, in speaking of his Offices as Prophet, Priest, and King. The work of the Holy Spirit will be treated when we come to speak of the Application of Redemption in Regeneration and Sanctification. Here it is sufficient to say that the Holy Spirit is represented in the Scriptures as the author of life—iu creation, in the conception of Christ, in regeneration, in resurrection; and as the giver of light—in the inspiration of Scripture writers, in the conviction of sinners, in the illumination and sanctification of Christians.

Gen. 1:3—''the spirit of God was brooding" ; Lake 1:35—to Mary: "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee " ; John 3 : 8—" born of the Spirit"; It. 37 : 9,14—" Come from the four winds, 0 breath ... I will put mj spirit in you. and ye shall lire "; Rom. 8 :11—" quicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit." 1 John 2 :1—" An Advocate (jrapaKATjToi-) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous " ; John 14 :16, 17—" another Comforter (irapaK^rov), that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth "; Rom. 8 : 26—" the Spirit himself maketh intercession for ui." 2 Pet. 1: 21—" men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost" ; John 16 : 8—" convict the world in respect of sin " ; 13—" when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, ho shall guide you into all the truth "; Rom, 8 : 14—" as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God."

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.