trine will fare better than under Gottschalk and Jansenius cannot be foretold. Long established prejudice may yet prevail over the love of truth and consistency. But whatever may be the result of this local controversy, the doctrine has nothing to fear, being based on the triple foundation of sound reason, Christian experience, and the word of God.-TR.] ARTICLE IV. OF THE DOCTRINE OF FATHER, SON, AND SECTION XXXIII. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. This doctrine thus exhibited is called a mystery (in the theological sense), because there is much in the mode and manner of it which is unintelligible. The obscurity and mystery of this subject arise from our inability to answer the question, In what sense and in what manner do these three so share the divine nature as to make only one God? But as the learned employed themselves in attempting to answer this question, and endeavoured, by the help of philosophy, to establish certain distinctions, they fell, of course, into explanations more or less opposed, and from this diversity of opinion, into strife and contention. They began to persecute those who dissented from some learned distinctions which they regarded as true, to denounce them as herectics, and to exclude them from salvation. In their zeal for their philosophical theories, they neglected to inculcate the practical consequences of this doctrine, and instead of joyfully partaking of the undeserved benefits which are bestowed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they disputed respecting the manner of the union of three persons in one God. Jesus requires that all his followers should profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (Matt. xxviii. 19;) and by so doing, he places this doctrine among the first and most es 1. It is an established truth, that there are many things in the divine nature which are unlike anything which belongs to us, and of which, therefore, we have no knowledge. For, as has been already shewn, s. 18, II., it is impossible for us to form a distinct notion of any attributes or perfections which we ourselves do not possess, or even to see at all how such attributes can exist. To conclude, therefore, that any par-sential doctrines of his religion. That it is so ticular attribute could not belong to the Divine Being, simply because we might be unable to understand it wholly, or perhaps at all, would be extremly foolish. Vide Introduction, s. 6, ad finem. If the Bible contains a more particular revelation of God, and if this revelation, in a clear and incontrovertible manner, proposes a doctrine of faith, then must such doctrine, however incomprehensible and inexplicable, be received by us as true. That the Bible does contain such a revelation has already been maintained in the Introduction, and in the Article on the Holy Scriptures; that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in this revelation remains now to be proved; and upon the truth of these two propositions the whole subject depends. 2. The doctrine of a Trinity in the godhead includes the three following particulars, (vide Morus, p. 69, s. 13,)—viz., (a) There is only one God, one divine nature, s. 16; (b) but in this divine nature there is the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three, (called subjects, persons, and other names of similar import in the language of the schools;) and (c) these three have equally, and in common with one another, the nature and perfections of supreme divinity. This is the true, simple doctrine of the Trinity, when stripped of refined and learned distinctions. According to this doctrine there are in the divine nature THREE, inseparably connected with one another, possessing equal glory, but making unitedly only ONE God. is proved from many other declarations both of Jesus and his apostles. The doctrine is, moreover, intimately connected with the whole exhibition of Christian truth. It is not, therefore, a doctrine which any one may set aside at pleasure, as if it were unessential, and wholly disconnected with the system of Christianity. But while Jesus requires us to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he has nowhere taught us or required us to believe the learned distinctions respecting this doctrine which have been introduced since the fourth century. The undeserved benefits which they had received from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were the great subjects to which Jesus pointed his followers in the passage above cited, and in others; that they were now able to understand and worship God in a more perfect manner, to approach him as their father and benefactor in spirit and in truth; that their minds were now enlightened by the instructions given them by the Son of God, who had been sent into the world to be their teacher, and that their souls were redeemed by his death; that in consequence of what Christ had already done, and would yet do, they might be advanced in moral perfection, and made holy-a work specially ascribed to the aids and influence of the Holy Spirit; these are the great truths which Jesus requires his followers to believe from the heart, in being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He did not reveal this doctrine to men to furnish them with matter for speculation and dispute, and did not, therefore, prescribe any formulas by which the one or the other could have been excited. The same is true of this doctrine as of the Lord's supper. Those who partake of this ordinance in the manner which Christ commanded, answer the ends for which it was instituted, and secure their spiritual profit, however much their views may differ with regard to the manner of Christ's presence in the symbols. Besides, it is certain that no particular distinctions respecting this doctrine were enforced by the church as necessary conditions of communion during the first three centuries. And accordingly we find that Justin the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other distinguished men of the catholic party, made use of expressions and representations on this subject which are both discordant with each other, and which differ totally from those which were afterwards established in the fourth century. Then for the first time, at the Nicene Council, under the influence of Athanasius, and in opposition to the Arians, were those learned and philosophical formulas, which have since been retained in the system of the church, established and enforced. That a belief in these formulas should be declared essential to salvation, as is done in the Athanasian creed, cannot but be disapproved. This creed, however, was not composed by Athanasius nor was it even ascribed to him before the seventh century, though it was probably composed in the fifth. The principle that any one who holds different views respecting the Trinity, salvus esse non poterit, (to use the language of this symbol,) would lead us to exclude from salvation the great majority even of those Christians who receive the doctrine and language of the Council of Nice; for common Christians, after all the efforts of their teachers, will not unfrequently conceive of three Gods in the three persons of the Godhead, and thus entertain an opinion which the creed condemns. But if the many pious believers in common life who entertain this theoretical error may yet be saved, then others who believe in Christ from the heart, and obey his precepts, who have a personal experience of the practical effects of this doctrine may also be saved, though they may adopt other particular theories and formulas respecting the Trinity different from that commonly received. These particular formulas and theories, however much they may be regarded and insisted upon, have nothing to do with salvation. And this leads us to remark, that learned hypotheses, refined distinctions, and technical phrases, should never be introduced into popular instruction. They will never be intelligible to a common audience, and will involve the minds of the common people and of the young in the greatest perplexity and confusion. So judged at one time the Emperor Constantine: οὐ δεῖ τοίας ζητήσεις νόμου τινος ἀναγκὴ προστάτε τειν, οὐδὲ ταῖς πάντων ἀκοαῖς ἀπρονοήτως πιστεύειν, Epist. ad Arium, Ap. Socr. i. 7. Would that he himself had afterwards remained true to these principles! [Vide Neander, Allg. Gesch. Christ, Rel., b. i. Abth. 2. s. 616.] Plan pursued in this Article. The theologians of former times generally blended their own speculations and those of others on the subject of the Trinity with the statement of the doctrine of the Bible. Within a few years a better plan has been adopted, which is, to exhibit first the simple doctrine of the Bible, and afterwards, in a separate part, the speculations of the learned respecting it. In pursuance of this plan we shall divide the present Article into two chapters, of which the FIRST will contain the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, and the SECOND, the History of this Doctrine, of all the changes it has undergone, and of the distinctions and hypotheses by which the learned in different ages have endeavoured to define and illustrate it. CHAPTER I. BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. · SECTION XXXIV. IS THIS DOCTRINE TAUGHT IN THE OLD It has always been allowed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully revealed before the time of Christ, and is clearly taught only in the New Testament. But, at the same time, it was supposed from some passages in the Old Testament that this doctrine was to a greater or less degree known to the Israelites at the time when the New Testament was written, at least that a plurality in the godhead was believed by them, although perhaps not exactly a Trinity. In proof of this opinion, such passages as Gen. i. 26 were cited by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, and other ecclesiastical fathers. Vide Mangey on Philo, De Opif. mundi, p. 17. This opinion was universal in the protestant church during the sixteenth century, and at the beginning of the seventeenth. The first who questioned it was G. Calixtus, of Helmstadt, who in 1645 published an Essay, De Trinitate, and in 1649, another, De myster. Trinitatis, an ex solius V. T. libris possit demonstrari? He | kings to speak of themselves in the pluralwas, however, vehemently opposed by Abr. e. g., 1 Kings, xii. 9; 2 Chron. x. 9; Ezra, iv. Calovius, and others. And the opinion for- 18. In Isaiah, vi. 8, God asks, who will go for merly held by the theologians continued to us (?)? where the plural form may be explainprevail even into the eighteenth century. But ed either as the pluralis majestaticus, or as dethe opinion of Calixtus has since been revived, noting an assembly for consultation. The and has gradually obtained the approbation of chiefs of heaven (□) are described as there most theologians of the present time, although collected; and God puts to them the question, there are still some who declare themselves in whom shall we make our messenger? as 1 Kings, favour of the ancient opinion. xxii. 20, seq. 3. Texts in which is distinguished from The truth on this subject will probably be found in a medium between the extreme to, and Ds from D. Jehovah rained brimwhich writers on both sides have frequently gone. (1) It is true, that if the New Testament did not exist we could not derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament alone. But (2) it is equally true, that by the manner in which God revealed himself in the Old Testament, the way was prepared for the more full disclosure of his nature that was afterwards made. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and the Son is represented as one through whom God will bestow blessings upon men, and the Holy Spirit is said to be granted to them for their sanctification. Vide Morus, p. 59, s. 1, note 1, 2. But (3) respecting the intimate connexion of these persons, or respecting other distinctions which belong to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is nothing said in the Old Testament. stone and fire from Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 0 our GOD, hear the prayer of thy servant, for the LORD's (Christ's?) sake, Dan. ix. 17. But these texts, by themselves, do not furnish any decisive proof; for in the simplicity of ancient style the noun is often repeated instead of using the pronoun; and so, from Jehovah may mean from himself; and for the Lord's sake may mean for thine own sake—i. e., on account of thy promise. Many other texts may be explained in the same way; as Hosea, i. 7; Zach. x. 12. In this connexion the passage, Ps. xlv. 7, is often cited: therefore, O God (Messiah ?), thy God (the Father) hath anointed thee. But the name D is sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, therefore, necessarily prove that the person to whom it is here given must be of the divine nature. The passage, Ps. cx. 1, "Jehovah said to my Lord," &c. is also cited. Many objections may be made against each But (Messiah) is here distinguished from particular text of the Old Testament, in which Jehovah, and is not described as participating an allusion is perceived to a trinity or plurality in the divine nature, but only in the divine goin God. But these texts are so many in num-vernment, as far as he was constituted Messiah ber and so various in kind, that they impress by God. an unprejudiced person, who considers them all in connexion, with the opinion that such a plurality in God is indicated in the Old Testament, though it was not fully developed or clearly defined before the Christian revelation. These texts may be arranged in the following classes: 1. Those in which the names of God have the form of the plural, and in which, therefore, a plurality in his nature seems to be indicated. The names D, yx, owup, in, are cited as examples; but they afford no certain proof, as they may be only the pluralis majestaticus of the Oriental languages. Vide s. 17. 2. Texts in which God speaks of himself as many. But the plural in many of these cases can be accounted for from the use of the plural nouns,, in. Philo thinks, (De Opif. Mundi, p. 17, ed. Mangey,) that in the passage, Gen. i. 26, Let us make man, God addresses the angels. Maimonides thinks the same of the passage, Gen. xi. 7, Let us go down and confound their language. Vide Mangey, in loc. It is not uncommon in Hebrew for ONJ, 4. Texts in which express mention is made of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit. (a) Of the Son of God. The principal text in this class is Ps. ii. 7, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee, coll. Psalm lxxii. 1; lxxxix. 27. This Psalm was always understood by the Jews, and by the writers of the New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But he is here represented under the image of a king, to whose government, according to the will of God, all must submit. And it is the dignity of this office of king, or Messiah, of which the Psalmist appears here to speak. The name Son of God was not unfrequently given to kings; it is not, therefore, nomen essentiæ, but dignitatis messianæ. The passage would then mean, Thou art the king (Messiah) of my appointment: this day have I solemnly declared thee such. That the phrase to-day alludes to the resurrection of Christ is proved by a reference to Acts, xiii. 30-34. The writers of the New Testament everywhere teach that Christ was proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection from the dead. Cf. Rom. i. 3, 4. In this Psalm, therefore, the Messiah is rather exbibited as king, divinely-appointed ruler, and head of the church, than as belonging to the divine nature. (b) Of the Holy Spirit. There are many texts of this class, but none from which, taken by themselves, the personality of the Holy Spirit can be proved, as it can easily be from passages in the New Testament. The term Holy Spirit may mean, in these texts, (1) The divine nature in general; (2) particular divine attributes, as omnipotence, knowledge, or omniscience; (3) the divine agency, which is its more common meaning. Vide s. 19, II. The principal passage here cited is Isaiah, xlviii. 16, where the whole doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be And now Jehovah. ועתה אדני יהוה שלחני ורוחו ;taught (the Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) hath sent me (the Messiah). has usually been rendered as if it were in the accusative; but it is more properly rendered as a nominative in the Septuagint, the Syriac Version, also by Luther, and the English translators. It means here, as it always does when used by the pro-. phets in this connexion, the direct, immediate, command of God. Cf. Acts, xiii. 2, 4. To say, then, the Lord AND HIS SPIRIT hath sent me, is | the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a direct, immediate command. 5. Texts in which three persons are expressly mentioned, or in which there is a clear reference to the number three. In this class the text, Ps. xxxiii. 6, was formerly placed: the heavens were made by the word (Aóyos, Messiah) of Jehovah (the Father); and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth. But by the word of the Lord, and the spirit of his mouth, nothing more is meant than by his command, will, as appears from the account of the creation. Cf. verse 9, "He spake and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." The threefold repetition of the name Jehovah in the benediction of the high priest, Num. vi. 24, is more remarkable: Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah be gracious to thee; Jehovah give thee peace. But the knowledge of the Trinity at that early period cannot be concluded from a mere threefold repetition of the name of Jehovah, unless it is elsewhere exhibited in the writings of the same author. Of the same nature is the threefold repetition of the word holy by the seraphs, the invisible servants of God, Isa. vi. 3. To account for this repetition we might suppose there were three heavenly choirs; but the question might then be asked, why these choirs were exactly three? It is certainly not impossible that the idea of a trinity in the godhead may be here presupposed, and also in the threefold benediction of the high priest. These choirs are represented in the commencement of the verse as singing one after another, in alternate response, 77. The word might have been sung by each choir separately; and the last words, the whole earth is full of thy glory, by the three choirs united. Thus it appears that no one of the passages cited from the Old Testament in proof of the Trinity is conclusive, when taken by itself; but, as was before stated, when they are all taken together, they convey the impression that at least a plurality in the godhead was obscurely indicated in the Jewish scriptures. SECTION XXXV. OF THOSE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN WHICH FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE MENTIONED IN CONNEXION. SINCE the Old Testament proves nothing clearly or decidedly upon this subject, we must now turn to the New Testament. The texts from the New Testament which relate to the doctrine in question may be divided into two principal classes: (a) Those in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in connexion ; (b) Those in which these three subjects are mentioned separately, and in which their nature and mutual relation is more particularly described. In this section we shall treat only of the first class. But the student will need to be on his guard here, lest he should deduce more from these texts, separately considered, than they actually teach. The doctrine of the Trinity in all its extent and in all its modifications is taught in no single passages in the New Testament. The writings of the apostles always presuppose the oral instructions which they had given to the Christians whom they addressed, and do not therefore exhibit any regular and formal system of doctrines. Hence, in order to ascertain what the doctrines of the gospel are, we must compare different texts, and form our conclusion from the whole. The first class of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there are the three subjects above named, and that there is a difference between them; that the Father in certain respects differs from the Son, &c.; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honour. In proof of this, the second class of texts must be adduced. The following texts are placed in this class :1 Matt. xxviii. 18-20. While Jesus continued in the world, he, and his disciples by his direction, had preached the gospel only among the Jews, Matt. x. 5. But now, as he is about to leave the earth, he commissions them to publish his religion everywhere, without any distinction of nation. He had received authority from God to establish a new church, to receive all men into it, and to exhibit himself as Lord of all, ver. 18; cf. John, xvii. 2, išovsía náons capxós. Wherefore he requires his disciples, ver. 19, to go forth and proselyte all nations, M Christians according to the eternal decree of God the Father, to the intent that ye should be made holy (morally perfect) through the Holy Spirit; and that ye should obey Jesus Christ, and obtain forgiveness through faith in his blood. But from what is here said of the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily follow that he is a personal subject; nor from the predicates here ascribed to Christ, that he is necessarily divine; and so this passage also, taken by itself, is insufficient. 3. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. From the paral the two former, we might perhaps infer the personality of the Holy Spirit. But from the mere collocation of the names of these persons, we could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature. 4. John, xiv. 26. Here are three different personal subjects,-viz., IIapáxantos, Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὁ πέμψει ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ỏvópatí μov (Xpistov). But that these three subjects have equal divine honour, and belong to one divine nature, is not sufficiently proved from this passage, and can be argued with certainty only from texts of the second class. (uadyrevoare návra rà im.) They were to| do this in two ways,-viz., by baptizing (BarTiCorres, ver. 19), and by instructing, (didaoxovTεs, ver. 20.) They were required to baptize their converts, siç tò òvoμua (D22) tov Пarpòs xai τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος—i. e, εἰς τὸν Πατέρα, κ. τ. λ. To baptize in the name of a person or thing, means, according to the usus loquendi of the Jews, to bind one by baptism to profess his belief, or give his assent, or yield obedience, to a certain person or thing. The Talmudists say, the Samaritans circumcise their children in the name of Mount Gerizim, and Christians are asked, 1 Cor. i. 13, 15, were yelelism of the third member of this passage with baptized in the name of Paul? In 1 Cor. x. 3, it is said, πάντες (πατέρες) ἐβαπτίσαντο εἰς Moony, and in Acts, xix. 4, that John the Baptist ἐβάπτισε εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον. This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality, or divinity. For (a) the subject into which one is baptized is not necessarily a person, but may be a doctrine, or religion; as,.7 to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim. (b) The person in whom one is baptized is not necessarily God, as ßartiČew eis Mwony, Hlavov, x. 7. 2. (c) The connexion of these three subjects does not prove their personality or equality. A subject may swear fealty to his king, to the officer under whose immediate government he is placed, and to the laws of the land. But does this prove that the king, officer, and laws are three persons, and equal to one another? And so, the objector might say, the converts to Christianity might be required to profess by baptism their acknowledgment of the Father, (the author of the great plan of salvation ;) of the Son, (who had executed it;) and of the doctrines revealed by God (лvεvμa äуov), for the knowledge of which they were indebted to both the Father and the Son. But let it be once shewn from other texts that these subjects here mentioned are persons, and that they are equal to one another, and this construction is inadmissible. thing, however, is evident from this text-viz., that Christ considered the doctrine respecting Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a fundamental doctrine of his religion, because he requires all his followers to be bound to a profession of it immediately on their being admitted as members of his church, by the initiatory rite of baptism. Vide Morus, p. 59, s. 2. One 2. 1 Pet. i. 2. Peter sends his salutations to Christians, and says to them, that they were admitted into the Christian church xarà xρóyvwow Orov xarρòs, (i. e., according to the gracious decree of God,) év ȧyıasμğ (for eis ayasμόν) πνεύματος, εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ (εἰς) ραντισμόν aïμaros 'Insov Xptorov, plainly referring to the above-mentioned obligations assumed by Christians at baptism. The sense is, Ye are become 5. Matt. iii. 16, 17, where the baptism of Jesus by John is narrated, has been considered as a locus classicus upon this subject. So the ecclesiastical fathers considered it. Whence the celebrated formula, I ad Jordanam, et videbis Trinitatem. This text was called by the ancients Scopaveiά. Three personal subjects are indeed here mentioned-viz., the voice of the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit (EPLOTεpá), and Christ; but nothing is here said respecting their nature; and the phrase, Tiòs ɛov (ver. 17) does not always indicate the divine nature of Christ. This passage then, taken by itself, does not contain the whole doctrine of the Trinity. But the sense of all these texts can be fully determined by the texts of the second class. As to the passage 1 John, v. 7, 8;-the words from év tỷ oùpavý, to v tyy, must be allowed, on all critical principles, to be spurious. But even allowing the text to be genuine, it would afford no strong proof of the entire doctrine of the Trinity. Three subjects are indeed enumerated, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, and τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· but their nature and essential connexion are not determined; for the expression, ouro oi rpeis év ɛiot, at the end of ver. 7, does not refer ad unitatem essentiæ, and thus signify that they make together one divine being; but ad unitatem voluntatis, and so means, as appears from the context, that they are agreed, unanimous, idem confirmant. This is the meaning at the end of ver. 8, as all are compelled to admit, and it is the |