Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors Part 46

That the _word_ TRINITY is not to be found in the New Testament, and that it was invented by Tertullian, is a matter of little consequence; but that the doctrine itself should be nowhere stated in the New Testament we conceive to be a matter of very great consequence. We have seen that Dr.

Huntington's attempt to show that it _is_ stated in the baptismal formula is a failure. If not stated there, we presume that he will not maintain that it is stated anywhere. We therefore agree with Neander in saying, that, whether the doctrine be true or not, it is not taught distinctly in the New Testament. If taught at all, it is only taught inferentially; that is, it is a matter of reasoning, not a matter of faith. It is metaphysics: it is not religion.

II. The second reason why Unitarians reject the Church doctrine of the Trinity is this:-

That every statement of the Trinity has proved, on examination, to be either, (1.) A contradiction in terms; or, (2.) Unintelligible; or, (3.) Tritheistic; or, (4.) Unitarianism under a Trinitarian form.

Let us examine this objection. What is the general statement of the Trinity, as made by the Orthodox Church, Catholic and Protestant?

Fortunately, this question is easily answered.

Orthodoxy has been consistent since the middle ages in its general statement, however much it may have varied in its explanations of what it meant by that statement.

The doctrine of the Trinity, as it stands in the creeds of the churches, is this:-

There is in the nature of G.o.d three persons,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,-and these three are one being. They are the same in substance, equal in power and glory. Each of these three persons is very G.o.d, infinite in all attributes; and yet there are not three G.o.ds, but one G.o.d.

According to the general doctrine of Orthodoxy, the unity of G.o.d is in being, essence, and substance; that is, G.o.d is one being, G.o.d is one essence, G.o.d is one substance. The threefold division stops short of the being of G.o.d: it does not penetrate to his essential nature: it does not divide his substance.

What, then, is the Trinity? It is a Trinity of persons.

But what is meant by "person," as used in this doctrine? According to the common and familiar use of the word at the present time, three persons are three beings. Personality expresses the most individual existence imaginable. If, therefore, the word "person" is to be taken according to the common use of the phrase, the doctrine of the Trinity would be evidently a contradiction in terms. It would be equivalent to saying, G.o.d is one being, but G.o.d is three beings; which again would be equivalent to saying that one is three.

Now, Trinitarians generally are too acute and clear-sighted to fall into such a palpable contradiction as this. It is a common accusation against them, that they believe one to be three, and three one; but this charge is, in most cases, unjust. This would be only true in case they affirmed that G.o.d is three in the same way in which he is one; but they do not usually say this. They declare that he is one being,-not three beings.

They declare that the threefold distinction relates to personality, not to being, and that they use the word "person," not in the common sense, but in a peculiar sense, to express, as well as they can, a distinction, which, from the poverty of language, no word can be found to express exactly. Thus St. Augustine confessed, long ago, "We say that there are three persons, not in order to say anything, but in order not to be wholly silent." _Non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ut ne taceretur._ And so Archbishop Whately, in the notes to his Logic, regrets that the word "person" should ever have been used by our divines; and says, "If _hypostasis_, or any other completely foreign word, had been used instead, no idea at all would have been conveyed, except that of the explanation given; and thus the danger, at least, of being misled by a word, would have been avoided."

(1.) _The Unintelligible Statement._

The Trinitarian thus avoids asking us to believe a contradiction; but, in avoiding this, he runs upon another rock-that, namely, of not asking us to believe anything at all; for if "person" here does _not_ mean what it commonly means, and if it be impossible, from the poverty of language, to define precisely the idea which is intended by it, we are then asked to believe a proposition which Trinitarians themselves are unable to express.

But a proposition which is not expressed is no proposition. A proposition, any important term of which is unintelligible, is wholly unintelligible.

To make this matter clear, let us put it into a conversational form. We will suppose that two persons meet together,-one a Unitarian, the other a Trinitarian.

_Trinitarian._ You do not believe the Trinity? Then you cannot be saved.

No one can be saved who denies the Trinity. It is a vital and fundamental doctrine.

_Unitarian._ Tell me what it is, and I will see if I can believe it. What is the Trinity?

_Trin._ G.o.d exists as one being, but three persons.

_Unit._ What do you mean by "person"? Do you mean a person like Peter, James, or John?

_Trin._ No; we use "person" from the poverty of language. We do not mean that.

_Unit._ What, then, do you mean by it?

_Trin._ It is a mystery. We cannot understand it precisely.

_Unit._ I have no objection to the doctrine being mysterious; I believe a great many things which are mysterious; but I don't want the _language_ to be mysterious. You might as well use a Greek, or a Hebrew, or a Chinese word, and ask me to believe that there are three _hypostases_ or three _prosopa_ in Deity, if you do not tell me what you mean by the word "person."

_Trin._ It is a great mystery. It is a matter of _faith_, not of _reasoning_. You must believe it, and not speculate about it.

_Unit._ Believe _it_? Believe _what_? I am waiting for you to tell me what I am to believe. I am ready to exercise my faith; but you are tasking, not my faith, but my knowledge of language. I suppose that you do not wish me to believe _words_, but thoughts. I wish to look through the word, and see what thought lies behind it.

Now, it seems to us that this is a very fair demand of the Unitarian. To ask us to believe a proposition, any important term of which is unintelligible, is precisely equivalent to asking us to believe no proposition at all. Let us listen to Paul: "Even things without life, giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? _for ye shall speak into the air_.... For, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian; and he that speaketh, a barbarian unto me."

It is of no use to talk about mystery in order to excuse ourselves for not using intelligible language. That which is _mysterious_ is one thing; that which is _unintelligible_ is quite another thing. We may understand what a mystery is, though we cannot comprehend _how_ it is; but that which is unintelligible we neither comprehend nor understand at all. We neither know _how_ it is, nor _what_ it is. Thus, for example, the fact of G.o.d's foreknowledge and man's freedom is a mystery. I cannot comprehend how G.o.d can foreknow what I am to do to-morrow, and yet I be free to do it or not to do it. I cannot comprehend how Jesus should be delivered to death by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of G.o.d, and yet the Jews have been free agents in crucifying him and accountable for it. These things are mysteries; but they are not unintelligible as doctrines. I see what is meant by them. There is no obscurity in the a.s.sertion that G.o.d foreknows everything, nor in the other a.s.sertion that man is a free agent. I can see clearly what is implied _in both statements_, although my mind cannot grasp both, and bring them together, and show the way in which they may be reconciled. So, too, infinity is a mystery. We cannot comprehend it. Our mind cannot go round it, grasp it, sustain it. Our thought sinks baffled before the attempt to penetrate to the depth of such a wonderful idea. But we understand well enough what is meant by infinity. There is nothing obscure in _the statement_ of the fact, that the universe is unbounded. So the way in which a flower grows from its seed is mysterious. We cannot comprehend how the wonderful principle of life can be wrapped up in those little folds, and how it can cause the root to strike downward, and the airy stalk to spring lightly upward, and the leaves to unfold, and, last of all, the bright, consummate flower to open its many-colored eye. But certainly we can understand very well _the statement_ that a flower grows, though we do not comprehend how it grows.

Do not, then, tell us, when you have announced a doctrine, the language of which is unintelligible, that you have told us a mystery. You have done no such thing. Your proposition is not mysterious: it is unintelligible. It is not a mystery: it is only a mystification.

(2.) _The Tritheistic Statement._

Leaving, then, this ground of mystery, and attempting to define move clearly what he means by three persons and one substance, the Trinitarian often sinks the Unity in the Triplicity, and so runs ash.o.r.e upon Tritheism. This happens when he explains the term "person" as implying independent existence; in which case the Unity is changed into Union. Then we have really three G.o.ds: the FATHER, who devises the plan of redemption; the SON, who goes forth to execute it; and the HOLY SPIRIT, who sanctifies believers. If there are these three distinct beings, they can be called one G.o.d only as they are one in will, in aim, in purpose,-only as they agree perfectly on all points. The Unity of G.o.d, then, becomes only a unity of agreement, not a unity of being. This is evidently not the Unity which is taught in the Bible, where Jesus declares that the _first of all the commandments is_, "Hear, O Israel! the Lord our G.o.d is ONE Lord."

Moreover, against such a Trinity as this there are insuperable objections, from grounds of reason as well as of Scripture. For G.o.d is the Supreme Being, the Most High; and how can there be _three_ Supreme Beings, three Most High G.o.ds? Again: G.o.d is the First Cause; but if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each G.o.d, and all equal in power and majesty, and have each an independent existence, then there are three first causes; which is evidently impossible. Again: one of the attributes of G.o.d is his independent or absolute existence. A being who depends on another cannot be the Supreme G.o.d. The Father, Son, and Spirit, therefore, cannot depend on each other; for each, by depending on another, would cease to be the independent G.o.d. But, if they do not depend on each other, then each ceases to be G.o.d, who is the First Cause; for that being is not the First Cause who has two other beings independent of him. Other arguments of the same kind might be adduced to show that there cannot be three necessary beings. In fact, all the arguments from reason, which go to prove the Unity of G.o.d, prove a unity of nature, not of agreement.

"But why argue against Tritheism?" you may say. "Are any Tritheists?" Yes: many Trinitarians are in reality Tritheists, by their own account of themselves. There are many who make the _Unity_ of G.o.d a mere unity of agreement, and talk about the society in the G.o.dhead, and the _intercourse_ between the Father, Son, and Spirit.(91)

Opposed to this kind of Trinity is another view, in which the Unity is preserved, but the Trinity lost. According to this view, G.o.d is one Being, who reveals himself in three ways,-as Father, as Son, as Spirit,-or sustains three relations, or manifests himself in three modes of operation. The Trinity here becomes a nominal thing, and is, in reality, only Unitarianism with an Orthodox name. This kind of Trinity also is very prevalent, and is the one really maintained by men of high standing in the Orthodox Church, both in Europe and America. According to this view, the word "person" in the doctrine of the Trinity means the same as the corresponding word in Greek and Latin formerly meant; namely, the outward character, not the inward individuality. Thus Cicero says, "I, being one, sustain three persons or characters; my own, that of my client, and that of the judge"-_Ego unus, sustineo tres personas_.

This view of the Trinity is commonly called Modalism, or Sabellianism, and is also widely held by those who call themselves Trinitarians. It is, in fact, only Unitarianism under a Trinitarian name.(92)

(3.) _The Subordination View._

Avoiding these two extremes, and yet wishing to retain a distinct idea of Unity and Tri-personality, the Trinitarian is necessarily driven upon a third view, in which the Father is the only really Supreme and Independent Being, the Son and the Holy Spirit subordinate and dependent.

This view, which is called the subordination scheme, or Arianism, is Unitarianism again in another form; and this view also is entertained by many who still retain the name of "Trinitarians." According to this view, the Son and the Holy Ghost are really G.o.d, but are so by a derived divinity. G.o.d the Father communicates his divinity to the Son and the Holy Ghost. This is the view really taken in the Nicene Creed, though adopted in opposition to the Arians, and was the doctrine of the earliest Church Fathers before the Arian controversy began. In the Nicene Creed, we read that the Son is "G.o.d of (??) G.o.d, Light of (??) Light, true G.o.d of true G.o.d;" the "_of_" here being the same as "from," and denoting origin and derivation.

This doctrine seems, in reality, to have less in its favor than either of the others. By calling the Son and Holy Spirit G.o.d, it contrives to make three distinct G.o.ds, and so is Tritheism; and yet, by making them dependent on the Father, it becomes Unitarianism again. Thus, singularly enough, this attempt at making a compromise between Unity and Trinity loses both Unity and Trinity; for it makes three G.o.ds, and so loses the Unity; and yet it makes Christ not "G.o.d over all," not the Supreme Being, and so loses the Trinity.

Between these different views, between Tritheism, Sabellianism, and Arianism, the Orthodox Trinity has always swung to and fro,-inclining more to one or to the other according to the state of controversy in any particular age. When the Arian or Tritheistic views were proclaimed and defended, the Orthodoxy of the Church swung over towards Sabellianism, making the Unity strong and solid; and the Trinity became a thin mode or an airy abstraction. When Sabellianism, thus encouraged, came openly forward, and defended its system and won adherents, then Church Orthodoxy would hasten to set up barriers on that side, and would fall back upon Tritheistic ground, making the Threefold Personality a profound and real distinction, penetrating the very nature of Deity, and changing the Unity of Being into a mere Unity of Will or agreement. We will venture to say, that there has never yet been a definition of the Trinity which has not been either Tritheistic or Modalistic; and Church Orthodoxy has always stood either on Tritheistic or on Sabellian ground. In other words, the Orthodox Trinity of any age, when searched to the bottom, has proved to be Unitarianism, after all-Unitarianism in the Tritheistic or in the Sabellian disguise; for the Tritheism of three coequal, independent, and absolute G.o.ds, is too much opposed both to reason and Scripture to be able ever to maintain itself openly as a theology for any length of time.

The a.n.a.logies which are used to explain the Trinity are all either Sabellian or Tritheistic. Nature has been searched in all ages for these a.n.a.logies, by which to make the Trinity plain; but none have ever been found which did not make the Trinity either Sabellianism or Tritheism.

They are either three parts of the substance, or else three qualities or modes of the substance.

Thus we have instances in which the three are made the three parts of one being, or substance; as in _man_,-spirit, soul, body; thought, affection, will; head, heart, hand.

One Being with three distinct faculties is Tritheism: one Being acting in three directions is Sabellianism.

Time is past, present, and future. Syllogism has its major, minor, and conclusion. There are other like a.n.a.logies.

St. Patrick took for his ill.u.s.tration the three leaves of trefoil, or clover. Others have imagined the Trinity like a triangle; or they have referred to the three qualities of s.p.a.ce,-height, breadth, width; or of fire,-form, light, and heat; or of a noun, which has its masculine, feminine, and neuter; or of a government, consisting of king, lords, and commons; or of executive, legislative, and judiciary.

This survey of Church Trinity shows that it is either one in which,-

1. The persons are not defined; or an unintelligible Trinity.

2. Or which defines person and Unity in the usual sense; or a contradictory Trinity.

3. Or which defines person as usual, and the Unity as only Union; or Tritheism.