_Christian Theology by Milton Valentine, D.D., LL.D Copyright 1906, Lutheran Publication Society Printed Philadelphia, PA. by The United Lutheran Publication House_ Pages 290-333 ----------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER III. THE TRINITY. The Scriptures clearly teach that there is One, and only One God, and that this One God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To desinate the great truth thus taught, theology, from its earliest days, has appropri- ated the word Trinity[1] (Greek. _Trias_, Latin _Trinitas_, Triunity). Our Lutheran Church, in harmony with catholic Christianity, confesses: "The decree of the Nicene Council concerning the unity of the divine essence and of the three persons is true and without doubt to be believed, to wit: that there is one divine essence, that is called and is God, eternal, without body, indivis- ible, of infinite power, wisdom, goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible, and yet that there are three persons of the same essence and power, who also are co-eternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."[2] The Trinity is a truth, the knowledge of which we ---------------------------------------------------- [1] First formally adopted by a Synod at Alexandria, A.D. 317. Augustine distinguishes between Trinity and Triplex, and says: "God is not to be thought of as triplex." ("On Trinity," Book VI., ch. vii.,8.) Gerhard follows this and say: "That is triune which, one in essence, has three modes of subsistence; that is triplex which is compounded of three. We say God is triune, but we are forbidden by the Christian religion to say that He is triplex" (threefold). Theo- logians, hoever, often ignore this distinction and use the word _threefold_; not, however, in the sense of compounded of three sub- stances, but as having a threefold mode of being. [2] "Augsburg Confession," Art. I. ------------------End of Page 290-------------------------- owe purely to the revelation of the Holy Scriptures. It is not a discovery of rational theism. Natural theology cannot reach it. It can, and does, indeed, certify the _existence_ of a Supreme Personal First Cause or Creator, and discovers some of His attributes, but evidently cannot reach the _mode_ of His existence. He alone can reveal this. The various so-called trinities of pagan mythologies or philosophies are found to have nothing essentially in common with the Christian Trin- ity, being so thoroughly different in relation and con- ception as to show naturalistic thinking a blank as to this truth, outside of the illumination of Biblical teach- ing.[1] Hence, only what the Scriptures declare or directly imply must determine the content and form of this doctrine. Even as revealed and defined according to the data of revelation, it stands in theology as a mys- tery--a truth involving inscrutable features and rela- tions--the _Bathe tou Theou_, of I Cor. ii.10. This recogni- tion of it as a mystery by no means consents that it may be declared an absurdity, which is sometimes self-contra- dictory and incredible. The Trinity merely transcends the reach of human means of full understanding--as is the case with thousands of other realities in the realm of cosmic existence about us. We accept the facts of nature, whose full truth is insoluble. So the Trinity, since divinely revealed and certified, comes within the sphere of a rational faith, with numerous deep and significant harmonies that afford ground for rational vindication. After all the labors of Biblical scholarship in recent years, much of it under the influence of reconstruct- -------------------------------------------------------- [1] On Trinity in Chinese Religion, Legge's "Religion in China," pp. I67-I89. On Hinduism, "Religious "Systems of the World" (Macmillan & Co.), pp. II5, I99; Bose's "Hindu Philosophy," p.60. -----------------End of Page 291-------------------------- ive temper, we must still claim that justly interpreted the Old Testament revelation, while not explicity teaching a Trinity of the Godhead, nevertheless truly _foreshadows_ this divine reality. In its records of the creative work and providential administration, this is reflected through the implications of fact and language. Peculiar forms of thought and expression, here and there surprising the reader's attention, are in such deep and suggestive harmony with the full teaching of the Christian disclosures as strongly to imply that the divine Spirit of inspiration was already speaking out of the center of this great truth. It may be that a plural- ity in the Godhead may not lurk in the use of the plural term _Elohim_ for God; but it is very significant that both "God" and "the Spirit of God" appear in the very first lines in the statement of the creation, as well as in various passages in the later Scriptures (Gen. i. I-2; Job xxvi. I3; Ps. civ. 30; Neh. ix. 20; Isa. lxiii. I0; xlviii. I6).[1] It looks quite like the shap- ing force of the yet undisclosed mystery, when the narrative phraseology represents plurality, fellowship, and counsel in the Deity (Gen. i. 26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8), or gives a threefold benediction in the Aaronic formula (Num. vi. 24-26), and the _trisagion_ ascription of Isa. vi. 3. Nor can we rightly avoid, if we permit the New Testament revelation to shed back its light upon the preparatory dispensation, recognizing in the numerous Old Testament theophanies actual manifesta- tions of the revealing Son before the incarnation.[2] -------------------------------------------------------- [1] This last seems to imply that the Divine Spirit is not an impersonal thing or influence, but a personal Being or Agent. [2] See Hengstenberg, "Christology of the Old Testament," Vol. I., pp. 109-121 (T. & T. Clark). -------------End of Page 292----------------------------- Equally sure are the foreshadowings of the Trinity in the numerous passages concerning the Messiah which indicate His sonship and divinity, as Ps. ii. 7; Isa. ix. 6; Micah v. 2, and the gift of the Holy Spirit in Joel ii. 28; Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 27. While these and other assumptions and adumbrations of the Trinity were insufficient to enable men to read it clearly or certainly, they, nevertheless, formed the underlying basis on which the movement of redemption was unfold- ing and the result was preparing. Delitzsch well says: "The Trinitarian conception of God ... is a reflex even of the Old Testament facts of revelation. God and the Spirit of God are already distinguished upon the first pages of the Holy Scriptures, and between both, the Angel of God stands as the Mediator of the Covenant, according to Gen. xvi., and as Leader of Israel, according to Ex. xiv. I-9. The Angel of His pres- ence, according to Isa. lxiii. 9, is the Saviour of His people."[1] Yet it must be conceded that these Old Testa- ment passages, taken together, do not necessarily carry the conception beyond that of a threefold manifestation of God, or what is usually designated an "economic Trinity." But the truth comes into explicit revelation in the New Testament. And here it comes, not so much in the way of formal _announcement_ as in an unqualified assumption of it as the fundamental conception of the real nature or being of God, upon which the great move- ment of providence and redemption is advancing and consummating its grace. It is openly placed as the basis of the essential facts of mercy and salvation. It is in the activity of God as triune that the divine love ---------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Old Testament History of Redemption," p. 173 (Curtis' edition). ---------End of Page 293--------------------------------- reaches down to man, and opens the way of forgiveness of sin and recovery to spiritual and eternal life. The threefold forms of divine grace are directly and formally laid back upon the trinitarian reality in the Godhead. This is not yet the place to give the full Scripture evi- dence on this point. It is enough here to fix in mind that, whatever advances may appear in Christ's expres- sions of a conscous identiy with God, the _fact_ of such consciousness is certain, if the Gospel accounts are at all reliable, and that the divine claim is recognized and woven-up by the apostles in the very texture of the view they give of the way of salvation and the practical rela- tions men sustain to God. It is this fundamental posi- tion and practical bearing that make the doctrine of the Trinity so vital in the theological system. It is not something merely speculative, an abstract, barren meta- physic. It is centrally constitutive _principle_ of Chris- tianity. It is placed in such living relation to the whole soteriological provision and to the consequent actual life of faith, love, and worship to which it invites and binds men, as to become incorporate in _all_ the distinguish- ing doctrines of the faith. It not only becomes an essen- tial part of our conception of the Absolute, Self-sufficing Personality of God, with all fullness of blessedness in Himself and power to go forth in creational activity for origination of other being, but through the conjoint offices of Justifier, Redeemer, and Sanctifier enters profoundly into personal Christian experience.[1] It was inevitable that the theology of the Church, after the Apostles, should seek to realize and fix for itself the true sense and content of the New Testament facts and language. The faith of the Gospel was bound up --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Sartorius' "Doctrine of the Divine Love," pp. 11-22. -----------------End of Page 294--------------------------- therewith too vitally, at the points of incarnation, the cross, resurrection, and divine mediation, to permit the Church either to drop the question or to be content with anything short of a definite settlement of the essential veri- ties involved. The theological impulse was quickened by the appearance of different forms of denial of the truth, annulling the integrity and fullness of the faith. So this truth of the Trinity, expecially in connection with the question of the person of Christ, became the first great subject for theological settlement. The beginning of this settlement connected itself with the use of the Baptismal Formula (Matt. xxviii. 19). That formula served not only as itself an expression of the Trinitarian belief of the early Church, but as a con- venient basis on which to gather its advancing determi- nations of the content and definitions of the doctrine. It was thus gradually expanded so as to make distinct affirmations of faith with respect to each "name" of the Three (Triad), with explanatory terms according true divinity to each, until it reached the completed form of the so-called "Apostles' Creed." From the second cen- tury on, every phase of speculation that seemed to en- danger the traditional and Scripture teaching on the subject was earnestly discussed, and the conclusions reached were carefully formulated in chosen and guarded terms. At the first OEcumentical Concil, at Nicaea, A.D. 325, called together especially by the rise of the Arian heresy as to the Person of Christ, the immediate interest was satisfied with an explicit and positive for- mulation of the Church's Trinitarian faith with respect to the true and full deity of the Son--leaving the gen- erally recognized divinity of the Holy Spirit stand as accredited in the Apostles' Creed--as follows: ------------End of Page 295------------------------------- "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord _Jesus Christ_, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousia) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day He rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. "And in _the Holy Ghost_. "But those who say `there was a time when He [the Son] was not'; and `He was not before He was made'; and `He was made out of nothing'; or `He is of another substance' or `essence', or `The Son of God is created,' or `changeable' or `alterable,' such the catholic and apostolic Church condemns." The second OEcumentical Council, at Constantinople, A.D. 381, carried forward the credal formulation of the Trinitarian faith by adding clauses affirming the true divinity of the Holy Spirit, against the disturbing teaching of the "Macedonians," or "Pneumatoma- chians."[1] "We believe in one GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. "And in one LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance (homoousia) with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Hefele, "History of Church Councils," Vo. II., p. 350, note. -----------End of Page 296-------------------------------- our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incar- nate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. "And we believe in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father;[1] who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the prophets." With this Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the dog- matic development of the doctrine of the Trinity by the Eastern Church substantially ended. The subseqent insertion of the "_filioque_" ("and from the Son"), in the clause on the Holy Spirit's procession, by the Western Church, and the elaborate definitions and explanations of the so-called Athanasian Creed, also peculiar to the West, were not meant so much as additions to the con- tent of the Church's doctrine, as explications and safe- guards of it as already essentially included in the previ- ous symbols. As the Lutheran and Anglican Churches have formally embodied the Athanasian Creed, as well as the Apostles' and the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan, in their doctrinal standards, its statement on the subject have a proper place here in this glance at the progress of thought through which the Church gave permanent theological setting to its Trinitarian faith: ----------------------------------------------------------- [1] The addition, "and from the Son" (_filioque_), as now used, was added by the Western Church, at the third Council of Toledo, in Spain, A.D. 589, but has never been received by the Eastern Church. -------------End of Page 297--------------------------------- "The catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither con- founding the Persons nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Ghost is infinite. The Father is eternal; the Son is eternal; the Holy Ghost is eternal. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three infinites; but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son is Almighty; and the Holy Ghost is Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So likewise the Father is God; the Son is God; and 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; and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords; but one Lord. For as we are compelled in Christian truth to acknowledge each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost if of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in the Trinity none is before or after -------------End of Page 298----------------------------- another, none is greater or less than another; but all three persons are co-eternal and co-equal. So that in in all things, as above said: the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped." It is manifest that these metaphysical affirmations which, together with the assertion of the double proces- sion of the Spirit, completed the confessional development of the Trinitarian view in the Western Chruch, were meant mainly to fortify the Nicene faith against all Arianism and all forms of teaching that imply an essen- tial subordination of the persons or subsistences of the Godhead. Our understanding of the Trinity must find its ulti- mate validity, not in the traditions of the past and for- mulations of Councils, but from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. The ecclesiastical formulations are authoritative only as they express, as they essentially do, the doctrine of the word of God. In further considering the subject some leading facts must here be brought into distinct and guiding view. 1. The Scripture clearly base the Trinitarian con- ception of God upon the _Divine Unity_. In logical re- lation the Unity is first. Nothing is more fundamental in the Christiaan Scriptures than that there in only ONE Being that is God. He is ONE AND ALONE. The repudiation of polytheism is absolute. No shadow touches the pure monotheism of Christianity. The fun- damental conception of God is _Unitarian_--in the sense of the absolute Oneness of the Divine _Essence or Being_. The very proofs of the Trinity find their full conclusive force only when viewed in the light of the Biblical doc- trine that polytheistic worship is impiety. The Unity of the God-head is the presupposition for the Trinity. ---------------End of Page 299------------------------ Remove the Unity, and the rendering homage to Three becomes the thing which the Christian conception of God condemns as flagrant offense. The inviolable onenesss of the true God, as alone and unapproachably Eternal Deity, is the starting point in the true Christian thought of the Trinity. 2. The _revelation_ of the truth of the Trinity has been made in the work and history of redemption, and thus comes as a reflection from these Divine _activities_. This fact compels us to recognize the theological dis- tinction between the _immanent_ (ontological) Trinity and the economic. A simply economic Trinity, merely a threefold form of _manifestation_, or outward action (_opera ad extra_), as in Sabellianism, is, of course, conceivable. But the revelation in the Christian Scriptures, in its dis- tinctly practical character, unmistakably makes the threefold forms of divine working in creation, redemp- tion, and sanctification, stand in a trinal distinction within the Godhead, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the immanent Trinity. The revelatory movement brings to light the inner Trinity (_opera ad intra_) in and through the threefold form of activity. God's truth in acting externally is also truth within His own Being. The manifested Trinity is made to mirror to us the eternal correspondent reality in the divine Life. In the acting of the One God, there is, from beginning to end of the revelation, the acting of three Personal subsist- ences, represented as existing and divine, with rights to supreme love and worship within the full unity and fellowship of the One and ony God. _Both_ facts are to be borne in mind--the absolute Unity of the Divine Essence or Being and the tripersonality of the Eternal Life. The revelation of the immanent Trinity reaches --------------End of Page 300-------------------------- us through the manifested or economic Trinity. The detail of the Scripture proofs of this will be given later. 3. To secure clearness in the Scripture doctrine, as properly assured in the faith of the Church, the recog- nized Trinitarian terminology must be distinctly remem- bered. In it two classes of words are applied to God-- one class when His _unity_ or _oneness_ is referred to; the other when the triune _distinctions_ are expressed. Those applied to His existence as One, are: _essence_ (Latin _essentia_, Greek, _ousia_), _substance_ (Lating _substantia_), _nature_ (Latin, _natura_, Greek, _phusis_), _being_ (Greek, _ho on). That is, in respect to that in which God is one, we use the terms essence, substance, nature, being. Those applied to denote the distinctions, as three, are _Person_ (Latin, _persona_, Greek, _hupostasis_), _Subsistence (Latin, _subsistentia_).[1] Whenever we speak of that in God in which the Trinitarian distinctions exist we employ one or other or all of these terms. It needs here to be remarked and fixed in mind that the word _Persons_, thus used to express the trinal distinctions in the Godhead, is not applied in precisely the same sense as when applied to men. Here arises one of the chief difficulties in the explanation and understanding of this truth--the inadequcy and ambiguity of the term "person." There is a tendency to carry with it from the human connotation some elements of meaning not at all applicable in relation to the divine ----------------------------------------------------------- [1] The term _prosopon (mask, face, presence), _to upokeimenon_ (subsis- ence), were also used by the Greek trinitarians in this connection. The term _hupostasis_ was used till about the middle of the fourth cen- tury in the first class, so used in the original Nicene Creed (Hefele, "History of Christian Councils," pp. 294-295. Subsequently trans- ferred to the second class as a synonym for _ousia_. ------------End of Page 301------------------------------------- existence--to adhere too closly to the human analogy. Human personality has an individuality and separate- ness which will not answer for the conception to be formed of the modes of the subsistences of the Godhead. For instance, the term "person," when used of man, signifies a subject subsisting by itself, _with its own sepa- rate essence, like_ the essence of other men, but yet not theirs; but in the Trinity there is ony one undivided and indivisible essence or being. There are many men, but not three Gods. Though we say that each _man_, as a person, partakes of the "_one human nature_," yet the "_human nature_," or "_humanity_," of which we thus speak, is an _abstract concept_, having no real concrete existence except in individual men. But the "nature or substance" of God is not a mere concept, but actually or concretely exists as the _one individible essence_ which is God; and the meaning is that in this one _undivided nature_ there are three diffences or distinctions some- what analogous to the personal characteristics of man. The nature of the whole Godhead is _personal_, and per- sonality markes it in all the three distinctions or subsit- ences in which it exists as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The natural sense of the word, drawn from individuals who form a _class_ of beings, tends to push thinking in the mould of tritheism--three Gods, the divine class of personalities. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE. The aim of this is, not to fathom this deep mystery or attempt fully to explain the infinite reality, but simply taking the revealed elements of it, to bring the essential features together in their necessary rela- tions and in a total self-consistent view. It seeks to --------------End of Page 302---------------------------- be true to the data of revelation and so to combine the truths of the divine Unity and Tripersonality as to exclude incongruent or self-contradictory conceptions, and present the whole view in a form open to the unhindered acceptance of a rational faith. In the light of the theological discussion of the past we may rightly formulate the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity in the following propositions and explanations: I. The fundamental Unity of God: _There is one God, numerically one as excluding and denying any other--one God, indivisible in essence, substance, nature, and being_. All the Scripture proofs of pure monothe- ism assume this. This Essence (Substance) in which the Unity stands, it must be remembered, is _Spirit_-essence. II. The tripersonality, based on the Unity: _This one individisble Essence or Being, One God, exists eternally as three Subsistences, Hypostases or Persons, three forms of personal Godhead (morphe theou_, Phil.ii.6), Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--all being of the same Essence, but each distinguished by certain incommunicable peculiarities or relations not predicable of the others. These incom- municable properties, by which One is Father, One is Son, and One the Holy Spirit, form, not _impersonal_ dis- tinctions, but determinate personality which employs the pronouns "I," "Thou," and "He." Tripersonality as truly belongs to God as does Unity. This involves no contradiction. For He is One and Three, not in the same respects, but in different respects. In respect of Essence He is One; in respect to His self-conscious Eternal Life He is Three--in total Being triune. III. The relations between the Persons or Subsist- ences: I. _The three Persons exist eternally as One Being, or --------------End of Page 303---------------------------- indivisible Essence, that is God_. This statement simply holds the tripersonality with the unity of the pure Christian monotheism. 2. _Inasmuch as they are one Essence or Being, all the essential attributes belonging to that Essence, belong to each Person_. This proposition simply reminds us that the same Essence or Substance must hold _through- out_ all the attributes which mark and identify it _as_ the same. All the essential divine attributes belong to the Father; all the essential divine attributes belong to the Son; all the essential divine attributes belong to the Holy Spirit. The affirmation rests the tripersonality in the unity, and relates the Persons as equal in essence. 3. They subsist _in_ each other. This statement is employed both to guard the truth of the unity, One Essence, and to exclude the idea that the Persons or Subsistences have their divine character independently of each other, after the manner of three human persons possessing the same humanity. It excludes also all idea of subordination or inequality, and answers to words of our Lord Himself: "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me" (John x.38). This feat- ure of the relation has been designated most frequently by the Greek term _perichoresis_, a moving round, or by the Latin _immanentia, immeatio, circumincessio_, or _inexistentia mutua et singularissima_, all expressing the idea that the Tripersonality is wholly within the very life-movement of the divine existence. The specifica- tion thus means that the Persons of the Godhead are -------------------End of Page 304----------------------- such, _i.e., divine Persons, not _by and in_ themselves, but each _with and in_ the others. They cannot _be_ God-- either one or all--separate. They cannot be separated; and if conceived separated, the concept would not be a true concept of God; the result would be tritheism, or three co-equal beings, no one with the fullness of God- head. The Father is not God or Father without the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son is not God without the Father and the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost is not God without the Father and the Son--but each _is_ God in and with the others. Sartorius aptly says: "All that the Father hath is the Son's (John xvi.15); and the latter is, not through Himself, but through the Father, His essential equal, the express image of His being (Col. i. 15; Phil. ii. 6).... Not as though the Son were, or as though He had, another being beside the infinite Father; for if each had His own to Himself, they would then not have had all in common; they would then have confronted each other in mutual limitation, in a dualistic manner, having, so to speak, infinity, not almighty, but half-mighty, as two half-goods. No, says Christ, I and the Father are one (John x.30, 38); the Son is not _beside_ the Father as a second God, but _in_ Him, in His bosom (John i. 18), in the one infinite glory of His being, a sharer thereof (homoousios) through the infinite unenvious love of the Father (John xvii, 24), who reserves nothing egotistically to Himself, but imparts all to Him, without thereby losing or alienating anything" (John iii. 35).[1] This subsitence _in_ each other explains the fact, here- after to be noted, that while the Father, Son, and Spirit are specialized personal subistences, and manifest them- -------------------------------------------------------- [1]"Doctrine of the Divine Love," p. 10. -------------------End of Page 305------------------------ selves in special activities, or _opera ad extra_, the distin- guishing work of one may be ascribed also to the others. Though the Son is the revealer, the Father may be said to reveal Himself, for He does so in and through the Son (Heb. i.2; John v.17, 19; xiv. 9, 11; 2 Cor. v. 19; John v. 22; compare with Acts xvii. 31). Wheatever the Holy Spirit does Christ may be said to do; for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, as well as of the Father. Augustine carefully pointed out how the Three Persons of the Trinity were associated in every divine economic activity, as evidence against the encroaching of tritheism and subordination upon the Divine Unity.[1] This interpenetration, intercommunion, and intercom- munication express the oneness of the divine life in all. The Father is not Father or God without the Son. The Son is not Son or God without the Father. One can- not be thought without the other. They are _correlates_. 4. The incommunicable, or untransferable peculiari- ties which distinguish the subsistences internally, as made known in the Scriptures, mark the following re- lations: (_a_) As to the first Person, Himself _unbegotten_, eter- nally Father--the relation characterized by the terms _begetting, genesis, generatio_, with respect to the Son; and _spiratio_ with respect to the Holy Spirit. (_b_) As to the second Person, _begotten, only begotten, filiatio_, or _generatio passiva_, with respect to the Father; and, according to the Western Church faith, also _spiratio_ with respect to the Holy Spirit. (_c_) As to the third Person, _proceeding, ekporeusis, pro- cessio_, with respect to both the Father and the Son. For the source of the term "proceeding," see John xv.26. ----------------------------------------------------------- [1] "De Trinitate," III., Pref. iv., 21. ----------------End of Page 306----------------------------- We need here, as with regard to the term Person, to guard carefully against understanding the various words employed in marking these relations simply in the sense of the human relations and experiences from which they are drawn. The transcendent realities in the Trinity, in the being of the eternal Spirit, cannot be exactly or adequately names in human speech, as they are beyond all human experiences which mould our words. The point of truth that we are seeking here to designate is, that these intransferable, tripersonal rela- tions, in whatever form they may exist, are not mere aspects of manifestation, but _internal_ in the Godhead, denoting eternal modes of the divine Essence _ad intra_, or as life-activities in God's very being. They are, so to speak, constitutional and immanent modes of the divine Essence, in which that Essence lives or energizes internally from everlasting to everlasting, and by which it is trinalized in three-form distinctions called Persons. This statement is not made to explain _how this can be_, but simply to hold together before our view the content of what the Scriptures manifestly speak of as a _fact_. It will help our understanding of the use and signifi- cance of these terms as marking the Trinitarian personal relations, to keep in mind the following points: (I) That it is in _Spirit-Being_ that these activities and relations are affired to exist. God is not matter. The whole conception of dead material must be put far aside. SPIRIT is in its very nature and essence active. It is _life_ --nothing dead, inert, rigid, immobile in it. Especially must the Absolute and Infinite Spirit be absolute and pure eternal life or movement.[1] "The Father hath life in Himself"--is the "living God." Before all worlds --------------------------------------------------------- [1] Dorner, "System of Christian Doctrine," I., p. 375. --------------End of Page 307---------------------------- He was active in Himself, all-sufficient in His own being, the eternal _pleroma_, the "fullness," absolute Life, abso- lute intelligence, love in exercise, omnipotence of will, perfection of blessedness, embracing in Himself the sub- ject and object of knowledge and love. These internal and eternal activities are not dependent for their exist- ence or movement on the existence of other being than God. While, if thought in the forms and limitations of _material_ being, the idea of the Trinitarian tripersonality would constitute blank contradiction, yet such reality in the Infinite and Absolute Spirit, who is eternal life-move- ment, is surely not beyond a possibility. (2) These realities of _begetting_ or _generation_ and _spiration_ are not to be thought of as _creative_ activities. They do not originate anything external to God, or other than God. They add nothing to the sum of being, as does the creative working of God in the making of orig- inated cosmic existences. They make no new essence, but express modes in the absolute eternal essence. They denote each a "form of God" (_morphe Theou_). No origi- nated creature-being can form part of the eternal God --unless pantheism be the true philosophy. (3) They are _eternal, without beginning or end. This is the truth, for the expression of which, as related to the Son, Athanasius employed the phrase "eternal genera- tion." An eternal Father means an eternal Son. The ab- soluteness that belongs to the very being of God belongs to every reality in His constitution. These peculiarities are as eternal as is His essence or being. "In this Trin- ity," says the Athanasian Creed, "there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all the three per- sons are co-eternal and co-equal." Accordingly when, in ecclesiastical theology, the Father is called the _first_ -------------End of Page 308-------------------------------- Person, the Son the _second_, and the Holy Ghost the _third_, no temporal succession or order in time is to be understood--only a timeless relation of the trinal modes. In order to keep out confusing error, emphasis must, at this point, be laid on the attribute of _aseity_, as belong- ing to the whole Godhead, to the divine Being as such. And the predicate dare not be surreptitiously explained in terms of positive causation, as _self-_causation, "self- origination," "self-production, by virtue of which God eternally _makes_ Himself what He is," as is done by Julius Mueller,[1] followed by Dr. Dorner.[2] For the fundamental Biblical, as well the rational idea of God is that He is the absolute eternal and immutable Being; and this, surely, excludes the whole notion of origination or creation, whether by another or by _Himself_, whether wholly or in part. _Aseity_, no more than self-existence, can legitimately be allowed to stand as an expression as to _how God came to be_, but only as a term which marks Him as without begin- ning and absolutely above the category of origination--a predicate affirming, not the way of His _becoming_, but a feature of what He _eternally has been, is, and shall be,_ without origination or end. It cannot, therefore, be allow- able to think of God as _originating_ the Trinality of the Godhead, as though there was a time when He was not Tripersonal in His Being--an assumption that surrep- titiously runs through much of the modern speculative effort after an explanation of the Trinity. This would strive violently against the divine immutability, as well as against the proper sense of "self-existence" as ex- clusive of the notion of _begun_ Being. To keep the Christian doctrine of God self-consistent, the Triper- -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Doctrine of Sin," II.p.170. [2] "System of Christian Doctrine," I., pp. 420, 449. ---------------End of Page 309---------------------------- sonality must be held as absolutely grounded in the very being of God. The Christian faith is that both the Unity of Essence and the Tripersonality of God are equally eternal. The true conception and representation must be that God eternally _lives_ His tripersonal life-- not that He originates or produces it. And this con- ception does not need to be reduced to one that holds Him as bound in rigidity or immobility, or as a self-less fate. We have only to bear in mind that as the abso- lute Essence and Personality He is _Spirit_, the eternal _Life_, the eternal "I Am." He lives in holy and full _freedom_ the life of His absolute nature. In Him the seeming contradiction between Absolute Being and freedom is resolved. (4) Further, these subsistences are _necessary, i.e._, they so belong to the divine nature that they are not de- pendent on a special choice or subject to a contary one. The word necessary, must, however, not be understood as implying something _against_, or even without God's will. More precisely the reality must be conceived as grounded in the divine _nature_, which, though eternally free, acts, and, for the very reason of its absolute and infinite perfections, must act consistently with itself. The Tri- personal peculiarities are not a thing of option--to take up or lay aside. They are a feature of the Absolute Ex- istence. Without them God would not be God. In this respect, as well as in respect to being eternal, these _opera ad intra_ differ from the divine activities in crea- tion, redemption, and providence, which are the free acts of the divine love and election. All these immanent, untransferable properties or activi- ties are, therefore, to be conceived of as eternal modes in the Essence of Godhead, and mean no origination, but ----------End of Page 310----------------------------------- unoriginated, eternal, non-contingent movement and relations within the unoriginated and eternal Je- hovah. 5. In designating these Subsistences _Persons_, the Personality which we thus affirm distinctively of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not to be thought of as inconsistent with or exclusive of the Personality which we predicate of God in His unity. It is not a fourth Personality. The Christian faith holds it fundamental that the One and only God is a personal Being--the abolute and infinite Personality. For in the fundamen- tal oneness of Essence and the reality of a living inter- penetration (_perichoresis_), the hypostatical distinctions are not Persons separately--they cannot exist in separa- tion--but _in_ and _with_ each other, _i.e._, they are grounded in the common personal characteristic which belongs to the undivided essence or Being. We must bear in mind that all the fullness of perfect personality is an attribute of God as the absolute Essence, the whole Godhead. Personality is not one of the incommunicable peculiarities of one or another of the subsistences, but a common property of the nature that belongs to all. It is modified (from _modus_) in each Hypostasis according to the special modes expressed, but not defined or described, by the terms "begetting," "begotten," "pro- ceeding." The hypostatical distinctions thus express modes of the life of the Divine Essence (_modi sub- sistendi_); and the common quality or essential attribute of personality is specialized in the person of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The distinct or peculiar _form (morphe theou_) of the personal conscious- ness in each divine Person is intransferable; but not the fact of personal consciousness--the fact of personal -------------End of Page 311---------------------------- consciousness being the intrinsic fact of the total Essence, in which each and all participate. This receives explaining light from the Scriptures, which prove it. Without doubt the Scriptures do show that while generic consciousness, so to speak, belongs to the nature of God in His unity, the specialized forms of it in each Person of the Trinity are so distinct that each possesses a consciousness covering the distinc- tion. The first Person is conscious that He is the Father, and not the Son, when He says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear yet Him" (Matt. xvii.5). The second Person is conscious that He is the Son, and not the Father, when He says: "O Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John xvii. 5). The third Person is conscious that He is the Spirit, when He receives the things of the Father's love and Christ's work, and "shows them" to men (John xvi. 14). And manifestly, from equally illuminating points of Scrip- ture, the self-consciousness of God as the one essence, one God, must cover these distinct personal relations in the whole complete divine self-consciousness, viz.: the Paternal, the Filial, and the Spiritual relations, embrac- ing them all and each in a perfect knowledge that includes the whole ineffable reality of Deity (I Cor. ii. 10-11; John xvi. 7). It is scarecely permissible to speak, as Dr. Dorner does,[1] of the Absolute Personality as a "result" or "product" of the three "modes" of the Godhead, as if the three Persons, as such, possessed it as a primary reality in such a way as jointly to give the attribute of Absolute Person- ality to the Divine Essence. Rather should we think ------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "System of Christian Doctrine," I., p. 448. ---------------End of Page 312-------------------------------- that the Absolute Personality of the one _nature_ or _being_ is _in_ the distinctive Persons, not as a triple repetition of the one and whole God, but in each in a manner cor- responding to the mode of life in each. God is personal through and through. Rather, therefore, we must accept other forms of expression used by Dr. Dorner alongside of the representation above, viz., in substance: `The one absolute Personality is present in each of the divine distinctions in such a way that, though not of themselves and singly personal, they participate in the One Divine Personality, each in its own manner. The one absolute Personality is the unity of the three modes of the divine existence which share therein. Neither is personal without the others. In each, in its own man- ner, is the whole Godhead.'[1] 6. The relation between the ontological or immanent Trinity and that called the _economic_ or _dispensational_, as simply forms of divine _manifestation or activity (opera ad extra_), is that the latter reflects or reveals the former. Thus in the work of creation the Father creates by or through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. In redemp- tion the Father sends the Son, the Son is sent and effects the conditions for reconciliation, and the Holy Spirit becomes our Sanctifier. Neither creation nor redemption is an immanent, absolute, or necessary work of the divine nature, but the transitive, free activity of love and good- ness. The movment of free thought during the last century, though critically aggressive in its hostility, as not dis- lodged the doctrine of the Trinity from the faith and appreciation of the Church. It seems, indeeed, to have awakened doubt in many minds as to the validity of ----------------------------------------------------------- [1] "System of Christian Doctrine," I., pp. 449-450. ---------------End of Page 313------------------------------ some of the special definitions and speculative deter- mination by the older theology, but, in large part without skepticism as to the great fact of a tri-personal life within the Godhead as an absolute and immutable ground of the threefold manifestation as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It may, however, be fairly claimed that to many minds, most thoughful and acute, the Trinitarian faith has received support and confirmation by the reaches of philosophical thought. Based on suggestions of idealistic philosophy as to the internal cognitive life and movement of the Absolute Spirit, the speculations of various theologians, as Marheineke, Martensen, Sartorius, Liebner, Julius Mueller, Dorner, John Caird, Stoudenmaier, have caught glimpses of what has seemed to them a most assuring illumination of the reality of the Trinity. Sometimes, as with Stoudenmaier, it takes the form of simply linking the conceivability of the work of creation, like that of redemption, with the faith of trinitarian theology: "The possibility that there should be a world outside of God lies in the Trinitarian life of the Godhead, and in truth is grounded in it alone. For only through this, that God as the Triune forms for Himself a perfect world (_kosmos teleios_), can He, without Himself becoming world, posit a creation outside of Himself and stand over this crea- tion, high and exalted, as its Lord, Leader, Conductor, and Source of Blessing. The Divine Love, already satisfied in the interior of the Godhead through the Trinitarian life, proceeds outward, not of necessity, but with absolute freedom."[1] Most generally and most directly, however, is the explanation sought in the analogy furnished by the essential movement of the life of --------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Dogmatik," Vol. III., p.8. --------------End of Page 314------------------------------- intelligent personal consciousness. In human personality, self-knowledge involves an objectifying of self, a becom- ing both subject and object, the seer and something seen, and then the recognition of their identity as completing the total movement of consciousness in unity. First, the conscious personality exists; then, in knowing itself, it produces an objectivized self, and, further, through the perception and affirming of the identity, completes the whole course and reality of conscious- ness. _Man's_ personal consciousness thus holds three forms of life-movement--the living personality _per se_; the objectivized product of self-knowledge; and then the action that resumes the second again into the conscious unity. It is admitted that in the human personality, because of its finiteness and imperfections, the life of thought and love never fully realizes itself in a perfect image or identical objectivized self, and so, as an illustration, never actualizes the fullness of the tri- une life as the reality must be conceived in God. It is claimed, nevertheless, that it presents the necessary _momenta_ and order of personal spirit-life, generically, without which personality itself is unthinkable.[1] So, it is offered as helpfully mirroring the essential truth of the divine Trinality. As applied to God, whether physically based, as it sometimes is, simply on the divine intelli- gence, or, also, on the divine love,[2] the parallel repre- sents Him, in His eternal and complete knowledge of Himself, as necessarily setting Himself before His own vision as a duplicate of Himself, of the same essence and in all attributes His co-equal, accompanied with the completing movement that recognizes and maintains the ------------------------------------------------------------ [1] Martensen, "Dogmatics," sec. 15. [2] Sartorius, "Doctrine of Divine Love," pp. 11-14. -------------End of Page 315-------------------------------- unity of the Divine in the Spirit of love. In thus knowing Himself as subject and object through this image in identical fullness of Being and attributes, He becomes a dual existence, "God with God" (John i. I); but the personal consciousnesss not stopping in this diremption, by a further movement it unites both again in the oneness of the absolute Being. The weakness of this illustration, offered as an explanation and certificate of the Trinity, is that in human personality self-knowledge does _not_, in fact, through this process of self-objectifying, establish a second personality. The consciousness in human per- sonality, in self-knowledge, is simply an action of the faculty of intelligence, and the objectivized ideal of self is merely in _thought_, not _in re_, a concrete second personal entity. The human personality, the individual man, does not become tripersonal, but remains absolutely unipersonal--failing to present the very reality which the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity seeks to explain and assure. The source whence the offered illustration is drawn does _not_ exhibit tripersonality, but only uni- personality, with a single consciousness, but with powers of idealization. The human analogy, in fact, would illustrate the idea of a unipersonal God. Those who have employed the similitude have, in a measure, felt and acknowledged this shortcoming and inadequacy, and have sought to supplement it in one method by re- minding that the divine thought and knowledge have a completeness and take forms that transcend the human. We are told, for instance, in substance, that in man the self-consciouness is never perfect, because, in his limi- tations, he is never able to set before himself a repro- duction fully identical; but that in God the reproduction ------------End Of Page 316------------------------------- is the perfect action of a perfect eternal Being, forever thinking forth a perfect thought, or uttering forth from Himself a true and unerring Word, that comprehends and expresses all that His being contains. The perfect Mind, it is said, with a self-consciousness complete and faultless, may be aware of these three aspects of being and know Himself in them. And it is added, these three essentials of self-consciousness may well be _real_ to Him as they are _not_ to men; and when we think of the Per- fect Being, it does not seem impossible that to Him each of the three should be a center of conscious life and activity, and that He should live in each a life corres- ponding to its quality. The assertion that He lives such a life is the assertion of the Divine Triunity.[1] But it will be observed that in this development of the speculative view the merely ideal selfhood, simply the _conception_ of self objectified, is gradually emphasized, and at last sur- reptitiously transformed and made to assume the char- acter and rank of distinct concrete personality. It dis- regards the fundamental distinction between thought and a thinker, between knowledge and an intelligent, knowing personality. Even with respect to God this distinction must be counted immutably valid, if we wish to avoid the most confusing mysticism. It is clearly beyond the logic of the premises, _i.e._, the _thought_-proc- cesses and forms of human personal _knowledge_ of self, to proceed to invest the thought and knowledge, in which God knows Himself, with the attributes of substantive existence and distinct personality. Despite the process in man, man remains only unipersonal; and the use of the analogy shows rather how the self-knowing process of personal consciousness _fails_ to present tripersonality. ------------------------------------------------------------ [1] See Prof. W.N. Clarke's "Outlines of Theology," pp. 174-175. -------------End of Page 317---------------------------------- The effort of some theologians to supply this inade- quacy in the analogy, takes a dogmatic, but illegitimate, form when they undertake to obliterate the distinction between the Being and thought or knowledge of God. Admitting that the analogy has not bridged the differ- ence between ideal and real personality, they invoke the old theologoumenon of the divine "simplity," which would allow no such distinction, and declare that, with God, to be is the same as to know, and to think is the same as to will; and upon this they assume that the divine thought of self necessarily actualizes another and a third substantive personal self. But we are warned against the use of this expedient by the inex- orable logic of the admission of the unwarranted dogma of absolute simpicity, viz.: that it would compel us to concede that all the theological distinctions between the divine Essence and attributes and between the different attributes are only our subjective conceptions, and not at all objectively real in God Himself, although these distinctions are as deeply imbedded in Scripture teach- ing as are the distinctions of Tripersonality, for whose establishment we would sacrifice them. Moreover, if in God thought and willing and being are one and the same, we must necessarily view creation as eternal and abso- lute as the divine Existence itself, and also equal in ex- tent or measure with the Divine Thought. To apply that ancient groundless theologoumenon as really true would revolutionize our theology in its fundamental features. We must, therefore, decline to accept it to bridge over the lack in the offered human analogy for the Trinitarian truth. The effort of theology, however, in framing this offered explanatory illustration is not to be looked upon as --------------End of Page 318---------------------------- without value. For it exhibits a trinal reality of thought-life, which helps us to _approach_ the conception of Triune Being. While it does not exhibit an instance of essential tripersonal Being, and thus form a demonastra- tion of its truth, it nevertheless does offer three thought- centers, upon the basis or in view of which "it does not seem _impossible_," as Dr. Clarke well expresses it, that in God there should be, in each of them, the further reality of self-conscious personal life and action. It shows the _possibility_ of the Trinitarian truth to be open to the acceptance of faith. The only need, as well as the only problem in the case is not to _prove_ the Trinity, but to show that the Trinal Personality is not necessarily inconsistent with the Personal Unity--tripersonal in one respect and unipersonal in another. It justifies and invigorates faith by showing its credibility. The utility, in general, of illustrations of this deep mystery, of which there has been a succession in many forms from the days of Ausgustine, depends upon the care with which they are guarded from claiming to do more than they really do. It is not the accomplished, but the unaccomplished part of the claim that invites criti- cism and doubt instead of confidence. Up to a certain point they are lawful and helpful. They open the way to see how harmony may take the place of apparent con- tradiction by viewing the problem from different angles or in the light of genuine analogies. "But the Trinity in Unity, being the mode of the existence of the Eternal, is a thing essentially unique, and is therefore lifted far above the possibility of complete comparison or illustration."[1] It is a justified judgment which Dr. Moule expresses, ------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Outlines of Christian Doctrine," p. 25, by H.C.G. Moule, Cam- bridge, England. ---------------End of Page 319------------------------------ that the student or teacher does wisely to deal very sparingly in such treatment of the doctrine, and in what he says to bear in mind the transcendence of the problem. PROOFS OF THE DOCTRINE. Our further view of the Trinity must be in the way of recalling, more specifically, the Scripture _proofs_ of the truths embraced in the foregoing propositions. They will be found in examining what the Scriptures say of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the _manifested_ Trinity, reflecting and certifying the _immanent_ Trinity. For the proof of the Unity of God there is no need of anything here, as the explanation and evidence of this have been given in the examination of the attributes. Here only the proofs of the trinality are required--that the One God exists as three Subsistences with divine Personality. The proof must take the form of Scrip- ture evidence that each, in the sense defined, is, in and with the others, truly God, with all the attributes of essential Deity. I. _Of the Father_. There is no dispute as to the true Deity of the Father in the primary conception in which Christian theology assigns Fatherhood to Him, among those who believe in the existence of a God at all. A Fatherhood, through creation, is ascribed to Him. The Fatherhood within the Godhead, not His Deity, is denied. Nor is there any dispute as to His _personality_, except by pantheists or agnostics. Christian theology, at this point, is not en- gaged in seeting off a divine Trinality against atheism, but against an absolute monadic Deity. Pantheism, by denial of a personal God, becomes equivalent to --------------End of Page 320---------------------------- atheism. But Unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit, con- cedes the divinity and personality of Him whom the Scriptures call Father. 2. _Of the Son_. That the Son, in and with the Father and the Spirit, is God and a distinct Person, emerges in tracing the affirmations in the Scriptures concerning Him as mani- fested in Jesus the Christ, with whom He is identified. This identity is the basis of the reasoning and the con- clusion. The same passages of Scripture, by speaking of the Christ, are proofs at once of both personality and divinity. The proofs are cumulative: (_a_) His pre-existence is categorically affirmed both by Himself and the apostolic explanation. He Himself declares: "Before Abraham was, I am" (John viii.58); "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man" (John iii. 13); "For I am come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but he will of Him that sent me" (John vi. 38); "What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was before" (John vi. 62)? "And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John xvii. 5). Equally emphatic statements are made by the apostles, whom we are warranted in regarding as speaking by a wisdom divinely given them for their peculiar service: "Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Him- self, taking the form of a servant, being made in the like- ness of men" (Phil. ii. 6-7); "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. The same was in the ---------------End of Page 321------------------------------ beginning with God" (John i. 1-2). Also of like force, Gal. iv. 4; Col. i. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Heb. i. 2-3. It is to be noted that these passages, with others which might be quoted, carry back this pre-existence of Christ, as the Son of God, so as to declare it not only before His incar- nate life, but before all worlds, "before all things," "in the beginning with God." And in that pre-existence He is lifted above all creature being, in "form of God," "the brightness of His glory." (_b_) The Divine attributes are ascribed to Him: _Self- existence_: "Life in Himself," as the Father has (John v. 26). _Eternity_: "With God" when there was no crea- tion, _i.e._, in eternity (John i. 1-2), "He is before all things" (Col. i 17): "The Power of an Endless Life" Heb. vii. 16). _Immutability_: "The same yesterday, to-day, and forever" (Heb. xiii. 8). _Omnipotence_: "Who is and was and is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. i. 8); "Upholding all things by the word of His power" (Heb. i.3); "Able to subject all things to Himself" (Phil. iii.21); "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. xxviii. 18). _Omnipres- ence_: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. xviii. 20); "Go ye, make disciples of all nations,...I am with you always" (Matt. xxviii. 19-20); "The fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. i.23). _Omniscience_: "In whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowl- edge hidden" (Col.ii.3); "I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts, and will give unto each one of you according to your works" (Rev.ii.23); "Knowest all things" (John xvi.30). (_c_) The works of God are ascribed to Him: _Creation_: "All things were made by Him" (John i.3, 10); "By ---------------End of Page 322-------------------------- Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" (Col. i.16). _Preservation and Providence_: "By Him all things con- sist" (Col. i.17); "Upholding all things" (Heb. i.3); "Lo, I am with you to the end of the world" (Matt. xxviii.20). _Judgment_: "When the Son of man shall come in His glory...He shall sit upon the throne of His glory, and before Him shall be gathered all nations" (Matt. xxv. 31-32); also 2 Cor. v. 10; Acts xvii. 31. These works can be characteristic of God only. (_d_) The distinctive titles and names of God are ascribed to the Son: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"; "Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne is for ever and ever" (Ps. xlv. 6 and Heb. i.8); "Take heed to feed the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood" (Acts xx. 28); "Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God" (Phil. ii.6). Exception is something taken to the argu- ment from the Old Testament use of the term "God," as applied to Christ, that it is also applied to angels, and even to men--beings not divine; for example, Ex. vii. I, "And the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made thee a god (elohim) to Pharaoh"; Ps. lxxxii. 6, "I have said ye are gods." But the connection shows the modified sense of "God" in these exceptional cases. But the use of it by the apostles was manifestly for the very purpose of being understood as meaning true Deity. And not the designation God (Elohim) alone is so used, but that name of awe, which God appropriated to Himself, _Jehovah_, "I am," is expressly thus applied, as, _e.g._, when of Jehovah, high and lifted up upon a throne, His train filling the temple and the seraphim -------------End of Page 323------------------------- crying, "Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah," the apostle John (xii. 41), speaking of _Christ_, says, "These things said Esaias, when He saw His glory and spake of Him." A similar instance is found when Peter (I Peter iii. 15) employs Isaiah's "Sanctify the Lord (Jehovah) of hosts" (viii. 13), as the basis of the plea, "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord"; and also in Heb. i. 8-10, where an old Testament ascription to Jehovah is applied to Christ. (_e_) He is expressly declared to be God (John i. I). "The Word"--in verse 14 becoming incarnate-- "was God." This is explicity. The form in Greek (Theos en ho logos), joining the article with Logos, fixes this as the subject and Theos as the predicate, which alone is consistent with the evident fact that St. John was not attempting to define what God is, but who the Logos is. St. Paul (Rom. ix. 5) declares: "Of whom [the fathers] as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." A legitimate exegetical process can make nothing less of this than an affirmation that, along with His human nature from the chosen people, Christ's higher nature was true God. "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. ii. 9). I John v. 20 is equally explicit: "This is the true God and eternal life." For as has been well said, "it would be a flat repetition, after the Father had been twice called ho alethinos, to say now again, `this is alethinos Theos'." Further, since the "eternal life," which Christians have from God, is always declared to be in His Son (see vs. 11, 12, 13), it is most natural that _houtos_ should be referred to _huio_, Son. In this way the grammatical law of nearest antecedent and the self-consistency of meaning are preserved. ------------------End of Page 324-------------------------- (_f_) Jesus' claim to be "the Son of God," in the face of the fact that this was understood to mean equality and identity with God. This claim was repeated in manifold forms and situations most impressive, being maintained to the last as a truth in testimony to which He was ready to die (Matt. xvi. 16; Luke xxii. 70; John x. 33-38; xiv. 9; xvi. 15; xvii. 5, 10, 11, 21; Matt. xxvi. 63-64). (_g_) In the baptismal formula Christ unites Himself as the Son in equal divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matt. xxviii. 19). To be baptized "into the name" of God expresses the establishment of a cove- nant status in His saving grace; and the form necessarily carries with it the implication of an equal relation of both the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father to the divine name (_onoma_) and the one only divine nature. It would be violently incongruous, even a blasphemy, to unite the name of a creature with that of God in such a status. Nothing short of a recognition of the threefold _divine_ causality for salvation and spiritual life can fit and explain the terms of the formula. The formula used as a benediction has the same force. (_h_) The true divinity of Christ is witnessed by its har- mony with the clearly supernatural and miraculous powers that marked His person. His teaching was a revelation of the thought and plan and heart of God such as the sages of the world never reached, and that fully accords with the claim: "All things that the Father hath are mine" (John xvi. 15); and His miracles of power and love exhibit activity that finds explana- tion only in the sphere of divine might and prerogatives. "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, -------------End of Page 325----------------------------- that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I in Him" (John x. 37-38. See also John v. 36; v. 21). While the characteristics of a true humanity are undeniably evident in His life, they are not more so than are the mind and working of God. (_i_) The true and natural sequence of all this is that we find Him claiming and accepting _divine worship_. "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that hath sent Him" (John v. 22-23). The inspired apostles, in interpreting the person of the Son, exalt him to the position of supreme homage, not only by man, but by all creatures, angels, principalities, and powers (Phil. ii. 9-11; Heb. i. 6; Rev. v. 12-13). The strength of this claim, right from the midst of the Chris- tian Scriptures, is rightly appreciated only when viewed in connection with the solemn rigor with which they assert and maintain the principle that worship dare be given only to the one true God (Ex. xx. 3-5; Matt. iv. 10; Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8-9). To deny the deity of the Son is to put the Scriptures at war with their funda- mental doctrine and make Jesus a teacher of idolatry and the apostles idolaters. But surely no teacher ever lived whose piety was more purely monotheistic, and whose mind carried clearer distinctions between the only true object of worship and any that is not, than were exibited in Jesus Christ and carried in the intentions and spirit of the apostles. There was no confusion in their minds. This adds full certainty to the conclusion that in this claim and ascription of worship, they directly _meant_ to affirm true Deity of the Son. This epitome of the chief evidences of the true ----------End of Page 326-------------------------------- divinity of the Son is to be taken as only a partial pre- sentation. The full proof appears only when all the Old and New Testament picturing of the promised and given Redeemer are traced in complete outline and in the symmetry of all the elements and features of His unique personality. In these features the rays from the divine have gone so penetratively as to be interwoven in the evangelical narrative almost everywhere, so that thou- sands of passages bear contributory evidence and give the truth its complete and impressive certitude. The few texts quoted are but summit passaages in the Bibli- cal delineation, whose light is reflected everywhere. To eliminate from the New Testament the whole mass of evidence of this truth, in all its shaping presence for the forms of thought and expression, would tear and rend the very warp and woof of the writing into hopeless inconsequence. It will, without doubt, be seen and acknowledged, so soon as attention is directed to the point, that these same Scripture teachings, thus briefly sketched, requiring recognition of the Son as truly God, are also, at the same time, evidence of His distinct _personality_. For the personality that is attributed to the Christ as the Son of God incarnate is attributed equally to Him in His pre-existent sonship. Surely, the world has never seen a more distinct, positive, and impressive personality than the Christ of the Scripture history. But when He declared: "Before Abraham was I am," and prayed: "Now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory I had with Thee before the world was," He made His personal selfhood range back into that existence when He had not yet "come into the world." This immense testimony to the divinity of the Son -----------End of Page 327---------------------------- becomes, if possible, more decisive when compared with the utter weakness of the objections which anti-trini- tarians have been wont to allege from the Scriptures against it. The main incentive to deny it is, of course, the incomprehensibility of the Trinity. Confessedly, it is a mystery, a great mystery, as admitted by St. Paul (I Tim. iii. 16).[1] But the mystery is interpeeteed as a self- contradiction or a contradiction of reason--which it is not. It is psychologically and metaphysically unwar- ranted, to confound the distinction between what is con- tradictory of reason and what is simply above it, or beyond the reach of its cognitive resources. An aspect of self-contradiction appears only when attempt is made to image the mystery in the forms of the representative imagination which has no materials but such as are drawn from limited human experience. But the truth in the Trinity is transcendent, a reality in the mode and measure of the absolute and infinite Being. Human ex- perience does not cover all the possibilities of personal life. The reality in God can be known only by His dis- closure of it. Its truth rests on His Word. While above proof by reason, it is above legitimate denial by it. For mystery is a characteristic of much in the whole realm of nature where facts abound whose inner modes have proved inscrutable by the human mind. We may justly say that "a God fully known would not be God." But when, under this incentive from the fact of "mystery," ------------------------------------------------------ [1] The question of the text, as between _Theos_ and _hos_, is immaterial. For if _hos_ should be the true reading, its antecedent "can be none other than Christ" (Huther, in Meyer's Commentary), as required by the purport of the attached clauses. "Was manifest in the flesh" compels identification with the Son as the pre-existent Logos, in the "form of God." -------------End of Page 328------------------------- effort has been made to adduce from the Scriptures coun- ter-evidence to that on which the Church accepts the truth of the divinity of Christ, the result cannot be regarded as successful. The counter-reasoning is drawn from various passages which seem to imply _subordination_ or _inferior- ity_ of the Son. Some of these refer to _work or activity_, as, for example, the Father is said to "send" the Son, to have "raised Him from the dead," "Given Him work to finish." But it is to be noted that _sending, giving work_, etc., express activities in the economy of salvation, as _opera ad extra_; mark relations or activities in the economic, not the immanent Trinity. And while it is said that "God raised Him from the dead," Christ says also: "I have power to lay down my life and I have power to take it again" (John x. 18), and "Destroy this temple and in three days I will build it again" (John ii. 19). Some passages refer to _worship_ by Christ. He _prays_ to the Father and submits to His will. But it is to be remembered that this was involved in His becoming true _man_. Prayer and submission belonged to Him as true man. Moreover, prayer is essentially _communion_ with God, and as such is not inconsistent with the equality of persons in the Godhead. In other passage, Christ speaks of a limitation of His knowledge, for example: as to the time of His second coming and the end of the world (Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32). But the interpretation of this declared ignorance is found in the economic relations of Christ in the state of voluntary self-emptying in which the Son was "found in fashion as a man." The point is not what the Son knows in the "form of God," but what He knew in the "form of a servant." We must accept it as true that Christ did not know, when He so affirmed. But is was a truth of the limitation under which the ----------------End of Page 329------------------------- divine Son voluntarily came in His condition of humilia- tion on earth. To whatever degree Christ exercised the prerogatives of knowledge and power during His minis- try, it is in accordance with a just view of His person that He largely "emtied Himself" of the "use" of them, except so far as they were necessary for the accom- plishment of His earthly mission of salvation. It is entirely conceivable that, as a declaration of the _time_, "the day or the hour," when He should come again and the world-dispensation should close, was not an essential part of either His redemptory or teaching mission, the Logos-power of omniscience as to it was not carried down into Christ's consciousness in the state of humilia- tion. Similar answer must be made with respect to Christ's direct assertion of inferiority: "My Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28). The statement applies to the economic relation, in the condition of self-humilia- tion taken by the Son in the mediatorial work. Over against it, as to essential equality, must be taken His assertion: "I and my Father are one" (John x. 30). It thus becomes evident that the few passages supposed to be counter to Christ's full divinity lack direct pertinency and are insufficient to overthrow the clear, positive, and continued teaching on the subject.[1] --------------------------------------------------------- [1] The positive denials of the true Deity of Christ have come from three classes: (1)_Humanitarians_, who make Him a mere man, as the Ebionites of the ancient Church, and the Socinians or Unitarians of modern times. (2) The _Arians_ of the fourth century, and their fol- lowers since, who make Him the first and loftiest creature, created from nothing and at the will of God, and the divine instrument of the creation of all things else. (3) _Semi-Arians_, who attempted a mid- dle ground between the orthodox view of the _homoousion_ doctrine and the _homoiousion_ conception, _i.e._, not of the _same_, but only of a _like essence with the Father. ---------------End of Page 330------------------------------- _3. Of the Holy Spirit_. That the Holy Spirit, in and with the Father and the Son, is God and a personal subsistence, is shown in the same way. The appellation, "the Spirit," is, of course, not used to designate His essence, but His distinctive personality. As to substance, He is no more _spirit_ than the Father or the Son. But theology, in this connec- tion, employs it as designative of His distinctive person- ality, because of the mode of His peculiar relation, _i.e._, by "spiration," _Spiritus quia spiratus_, just as the Son is called Son because "begotten." The first part of the twofold affirmation, the Deity of the Spirit, either essentially or modally, is usually con- ceded. Some denials, however appeared in the early Church. Both Arius and Eunomius represented Him as a creature, created by the Son, who Himself had been created by the Father. This teaching placed the Spirit as a "creature of a creature," _ktisma ktismatos_. But the proofs of His divinity run parallel with those of the Son. (_a_) The name and titles of God are given Him. In Ex. xvii. 7, the Jews are said to have "tempted Jeho- vah," and in Heb. iii. 7-11, this tempting is identified as a tempting of the Holy Spirit. In Acts v. 3, 4, the lying of Ananias to the Holy Spirit was lying "to God." (_b_) Divine attibutes are ascribed to Him, _e.g._, _Omni- presence_ (Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8); _Omniscience_ (I Cor. ii. 10); _Eternity_ (Heb. ix. 14). (_c_) Divine works are ascribed to Him: _Creation (Gen i.2; Ps. civ. 30); _Miracles_ (I Cor. xii. 9-11); _Resurrection of the dead_ (Rom. viii. 11). (_d_) Baptism is in His name, equally with the name of the Father and the Son (Matt. xxviii. 19). ---------------End of Page 331--------------------------- The second part of the affirmation, His personality, as over aginst all notions of conceiving the term as the designation of a simple "energy," " an influence," or a mere mode of divine operation, is equally certain from the whole tenor of the SCripture representation. (_a_) The attributes and activities of personality are ascribed to Him. He knows (I Cor. ii. 11); He wills (I Cor. xii. 11); He speaks (Rev. ii. 7; Acts viii. 29; Matt. x. 20); He teaches (John xiv. 26); He testifies (John xv. 26). (_b_) The personal forms of pronoun are applied to Him --as is specially apparent in the Greek Testament, John xiv. 16, _allon parakleton; xiv. 26, ho de parakletos; xv. 26, ho parakletos hon; xvi. 13, hotan de elthe ekienos, to pneuma tes aletheias. This use of _ekeinos_, referring to the neuter _pneuma_, is strongly significant; John xvi. 14, ekeinos eme doxasei. (_c_) Personality, as well as divinity, is implied in the equal relation given Him with the Father and the Son in both the baptismal formula (Matt. xxviii. 19), and in the Pauline benediction (2 Cor. xiii. 14). Neither a creat- ure nor a mere mode of agency could be thus spoken of. There could be no consistency in uniting in such co-ordi- nate plane with the Father and the Son a mere mode of energy or influence from them. (_d_) The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit also involves His personality (Mark iii. 28, 29; Matt xii. 31, 32). For this sin, said to be unpardonable, is put in contradistinction to sin against the other persons of the Godhead. If the Spirit were only a power or influence, blasphemy aginast God Himself would be made a less sin than against a mere mode of influence from Him. To the objection made to this teaching, that the Holy ------------End of Page 332-------------------------------- Spirit is nevertheless spoken of as "given," "poured out," "Sent," and that "He shall not speak of Himself," the proper and sufficient answer is that such expressions, like the similar ones in reference to the Son, refer to _economic_ or _official_ work, express relations in the economy of salvation. "Poured out" is, of course, a figurative expression referring to the influence and gifts in which He comes to men--as truly so as when believers are said to "put on Christ." That He does not "speak of Him- self," means that economically He does not act in private or separate aim, but in the unity and harmony of the plan of salvation, and with respect to the mediatorial activity of the Son, carrying forward and applying the provided redemption. Thus the second proposition, that the one God exists eternally in the three personal subsistences, each in and with the others truly God, is proved and required by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. The Church's con- ception of the _relations_ between the persons of the Godhead, as thus explained, has been determined, not speculatively or by arbitrary dogmatism, but simply in accordance with the fundamental affirmations of the Scriptures, fixing two things, viz.: the truth of the One- ness and the truth of the Trinality of God. The office of reason and logic in the matter has been simply to shape the aggregate conception of God so as to exhibit and maintain these two fundamental postulates. --------------End of Chapter on Page 333------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-2123 Fax: (260) 452-2126