THE

NEW

ENGLANDER.

No. XXIX.

FEBRUARY, 1850.

ART. I.-THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

God in Christ: three discourses delivered at New Haven, Cambridge and Andover; by HORACE BUSHNELL, Hartford. Theophany; or the Manifestation of God, in the Life, Character, and Mission of Jesus Christ; by Rev. ROBERT TURNBULL, Hartford.

On the Character and Works of Christ; by WILLIAM B. HAYDEN.

We have placed before our readers the titles of these several works, not with the design of reviewing and discussing their particular contents, but rather as affording the occasion for presenting some thoughts upon the general subject thus indicated.

The attention of the religious community has been very generally drawn of late to the long agitated, much disputed, much calumniated doctrine of the Trinity. Recent discussions have given new interest and importance to the subject;-a subject which can never be without interest indeed to the reflecting mind, but upon which, at the present moment, the most diverse and conflicting opinions are found to prevail, among those who are at once the sincere friends, and the earnest champions, of truth. By some the divine tri-personality, by others the divine unity is regarded as the element of chief importance, and is earnestly contended for, as in danger of being overlooked. The minds of men are enquiring more earnestly now, than at any time, perhaps, for the last fifty years, for some definite, true and solid ground of belief touching these matters. A patient and careful re-examination of the whole subject, seems to be demanded. We hope that the present article will contribute in some degree to this result, at least by inducing the reader to enter for himself upon such re-examination.

The Scriptures, in the plainest terms, assert the unity of God, and as plainly do they ascribe divinity to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Nowhere however do they put these things together, by way of explanation; nor do they offer any solution of the apparent discrepancy.

The moment we undertake to do this for ourselves, we find ourselves in difficulty-a difficulty which seems insurmountable, and of which we become only the more thoroughly and painfully conscious by all our efforts to overcome it.

For any such investigation, the Scriptures afford us no other aid, than simply to furnish the correct data which must lie at the basis of all our reasoning. This, however important and even indispensable in itself, does not remove the labor or the difficulty of the undertaking.

Such being the state of the case, the subject one involved in difficulty, and the Scriptures furnishing no direct information or assistance with regard to it, shall we pass the matter by, as something quite inexplicable, and beyond our reach, which it is of no use for us to investigate, and which it is even presumptuous for us to attempt? Shall we regard the silence of Scripture as an indication that God does not design to unfold this mystery of his being to us creatures of yesterday who know nothing?

So some may possibly conclude. And yet it would seem as if every man who reads the Bible, and meditates on what he reads, must sometimes put these two things together in his mind,-the unity of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and of the Spirit,—and compare them, and ask himself how these truths consist with each other, and seek in his thoughts some solution of the problem, some explanation of the apparent discrepancy. Every reflecting man will do this. Some method of meeting this difficulty, some theory respecting the matter, he will be likely to have; and if it is not a right, then it will surely be a wrong theory. For centuries this subject has been the fruitful source of error, discussion, contention, heresy, sect, in the Christian world. This only shows, not the folly and fruitlessness of thinking on these things at all, but the importance of thinking clearly and rightly on them.

The proper inquiry would seem to be, What view of this matter is on the whole most in accordance with the teaching of Scripture? In the absence of any direct positive testimony on the point, what may be fairly and legitimately inferred from what the Bible does affirm respecting the divine being?

awe.

The subject is one which should, however, be approached with It is no theme for proud and vain philosophizing, or selfconfident speculation. He who approaches it should come humbly, and put off the shoe from his foot, for he is to tread on sacred ground; reverently let him come, as Moses drew near the bush that burned, as the Elders of Israel approached the mount that quaked, and beheld from afar the God of their fathers.

The theme before us does not properly involve the discussion of the divine unity, nor the true and proper divinity of the Son and Spirit; but assuming these doctrines to be clearly taught in the Scriptures, and the proof of them already before the mind, the specific inquiry then arises, How do these two things consist with each other? It is just at this point that we meet the doctrine of the trinity, properly speaking. Just here all our inquiries and all our difficulties begin.

There are two summary methods of disposing of the whole subject-methods not as satisfactory however as they are summary. One is, to deny that there is any room for inquiry or reasoning in the case; to resolve the whole subject into mystery and there leave it, thus shutting out all investigation. Mystery doubtless there is, pertaining to the subject of the divine existence; some things respecting it not known, and not to be known by us. Possibly however the mystery may arise in part from our own want of clear perception and definite statement. The fault may be in great measure our own. Mystery is one thing, and mystification is another. We do well to see to it that there is not, in our mode of treating the subject, something of the latter element along with the former. Mystery is one thing, and contradiction in terms is another. How are we to show that we are not justly chargeable with the latter? If we have too much reverence for the Scriptures to admit for a moment that they contain contradictions, there may be minds less reverent, and it becomes us so to state our belief, and so to interpret our Bibles, that these less reverent minds shall not find in our statements what they can fairly construe into, and what to them shall really seem to imply and amount to, absolute contradictions. It is not sufficient to make statements of which we do not ourselves see the consistency, and then dismiss the whole matter with the remark that the subject is one involved in mystery.

The other method is to deny the premises, in order to clear the difficulty; to cut what we can not untie. Equally unsatisfactory and unphilosophical is this method. The Scriptures teach the divinity of the Son and of the Spirit, as clearly as they teach the unity of God. They attach as much importance to the one doctrine as to the other. It would never have occurred, probably, to any one receiving the Scriptures, to doubt or call in question the former truth, were it not for the apparent difficulty of reconciling that with the latter. No caudid mind will be satisfied however with any such method of meeting the difficulty, as that now under consideration. For the question at once arises, What right have we to sacrifice either of these doctrines to the other, inasmuch as they rest each upon the same authority, and seem to be supported each by the same kind and degree of evidence? And, if either is to be sacrificed to the other, which shall it be?

What reason is there for preferring one to the other? What right have we to say this shall stand and not that? One has no more

right to start with the doctrine of the divine unity, and say "God is one, therefore Jesus Christ can not be God," than another has to take as his starting point the true and proper divinity of Christ, and say, 66 therefore God is not one, and those passages which seem to teach this are to be taken in a modified sense.' Indeed, if one were driven to take either of these positions, the latter certainly would be preferable; for the passages which teach the unity of God are neither so many in number, nor so plain, direct, and positive, in their language, as those which teach the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Rejecting then at once such outside and summary methods of dealing with the subject, no sooner do we set ourselves fairly and earnestly to meet the case, than we perceive that there are these three distinct and essential elements to be kept in view, compared and harmonized ;—the DIVINE UNITY;—the INDIVIDUALITY of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit :-the DIVINITY of each. That only can be the true method of stating and explaining the doctrine of the divine existence, which shall place these three elements in harmony with each other, in their just and due proportions, permitting no one of them to be lost sight of, no one of them to stand in real or even apparent contradiction to either of the others.

It is perfectly obvious from this outline or analysis of the subject, that nothing would be easier than so to state the doctrine of the divine existence, as to involve real and irreconcilable contradiction; nay, that without great care and precision in the use of terms it will inevitably be so stated. If you make the unity of the Supreme Being to be absolute, strict, numerical unity, and at the same time admit the distinct individuality, (in the strict and proper sense of the word,) of the Son and the Spirit, then you can not consistently affirm that the Son and the Spirit are truly and properly divine, but only in some secondary and modified sense; and to assert their divinity in the strict and absolute sense, is, in such a case, absolute self-contradiction. It is to affirm and to deny with the same breath. If, on the other hand, you start with the absolute and true divinity of Christ and of the Spirit, and also maintain their distinct, separate individuality, in the ordinary sense of that term, you can no longer consistently maintain the strict numerical unity of the Godhead, but only a specific unity, or homogeneousness of the three divine persons.

For want of care on this point, and of a well defined perception of the relations of these three elements to each other, much confusion has arisen; and to this source also many of the objections may be traced, which, not without reason it must be confessed, have at various times been urged against the doctrine of the Trinity, thus stated.

It is further evident that, in order to a clear, consistent statement of the doctrine, some one of these three elementary ideas must be somewhat modified so as to coincide with the others. Every one who undertakes to explain and elucidate this subject feels the necessity of this, and virtually, whether consciously or not, proceeds on this principle. It is worthy of note, that the various theories and opinions which at any time, in the lapse of centuries, since the matter came under discussion in the Christian church, have been proposed with reference to this doctrine, have all been so many efforts to solve the problem in this way, viz., by modifying some one of these three distinctive and essential elements. This is in fact the only way in which it was possible to proceed. All such theories and proposed methods, however many and various, may therefore be reduced essentially to three; and it will aid us in our present investigation, to be able thus to grasp by a few threads, as it were, the whole history of the doctrine. Let us then for a moment pursue this analysis.

If we suppose the first and second of these essential elements to be retained in their strict and full sense, and the third to be modified so as to meet them, we obtain the following statement. God is one-absolutely, numerically one. The Son and the Spirit are individually and properly distinct from the Father, as any conscious intelligent existence is distinct from any other. The Father alone, therefore, is strictly, and in the highest sense divine; the Son and Spirit are divine only in a limited and modified sense. This, in its essential features, is the Arian theory, though much older than Arius. It was the theory of Origen and the Platonic fathers of the second and third century. If on the contrary we maintain in their integrity the second and third of these elements, and modify the first, we obtain directly the opposite view, viz., the Son and the Spirit are really and absolutely divine, as truly so, and in the same sense, as the Father. They possess likewise distinct individuality: each thinks, feels, wills, acts, for himself, The Father, Son and Spirit are one therefore, not in the absolute and strict sense, but only specifically, as Paul and John are onei. e., in sentiment, feeling, principle, &c.—or else one by reason of partaking one and the same nature. This may be called the tritheistic theory. The early Christian fathers seem generally to have taken essentially this view. For two or three centuries it was the prevailing orthodox view. It entered largely into the discussions of the Nicene council. Many modern trinitarians would also fall into this class were their views definitely stated and closely analyzed.

If now we retain in their strict sense and form the first and the third of these elements, and so shape the second as to coincide, we obtain the following statement of the doctrine. God is strictly, absolutely one. The Son and Spirit are really and absolutely