052. II. Mystery Of The Trinity.

II. Mystery Of The Trinity.

1. Above our Reason.—The Scriptures give the facts of the Trinity, but without any doctrinal combination, and without any explanation of their seeming contrariety. There is no solution of the mystery for our reason. Whoever attempts an explication of the doctrine must treat it either superficially or in a fruitless speculation. The highest attainment is in a scriptural and accordant statement of the constituent facts, with the doctrinal result.

2. Without Analogies.—The mystery of the doctrine naturally incites an outlooking for illustrations which may bring it into the apprehension of thought. In the literature of the question we find the results of such incitement. Attempts at illustration began with the early Christian fathers and have continued to the present time. Joseph Cook, following the example of so long a line of predecessors, gives an illustration in his own impressive mode of thought and expression.^[265] Christlieb, also recent in the treatment of the doctrine, is elaborate in the use of analogies.^[266] Our criticism of such illustrations, whether of ancient or modern use, is that they are without sufficient basis in analogy, and therefore useless for both reason and faith. The notice of a few instances may suffice for the force of this criticism.

^[265]Boston Monday Lectures, “Orthodoxy,” pp. 62, 68 ^[266]Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, pp. 275-278. The triple facts of intellect, sensibility, and will unite in the personality of mind. True; but no ground remains for any personal distinctions either in the mind or in the powers which constitute its personality. No possible distinction between personal mind and its constitutive powers or between these powers can have any analogy to the personal distinctions of the Trinity. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis are so related in thought as to constitute a trinity in unity. Perhaps not. For such a result the three must completely co-exist in thought, and the possibility of such a co-existence is far from sure. Further, analysis holds as closely with these forms of thought as they do with each other. With this fact, the four might combine in as complete a unity of ‘thought as the three. All analogy of the three with the Trinity is thus shown to be fallacious. Besides, modes of thought can have no analogy to the personal subsistences of the Trinity. There is a trinity of dimensions in the unity of space, and a trinal distinction of past, present, and future in the unity of time. These dimensions and distinctions, however, are purely relative, and without any reality in the absolute unities of space and time. Even if realities, they still could have no likeness to the Trinity. We think in propositions, and cannot else think at all. A proposition is a trinity of subject, predicate, and copula. All this is true; but the distinction of parts in a proposition has no analogy to the distinction of persons in the Trinity, and for the obvious reason that in the former case there are no personal qualities as in the latter. Man in personality is a trinity of body, soul, and spirit. This trichotomic anthropology is not settled as a truth. If it were, the instance would still be useless. Body and soul, as apart from mind, have no personal quality. Hence the distinction of natures in the unity of man can have no analogy to the distinction of persons in the unity of God. Luminosity, color, and heat combine in the unity of light. But light is no such a unity as personality. Nor have its properties any personal quality. There is no analogy to the Trinity. Such illustrations are really useless for both reason and faith, and we think it better to omit them.

There is a widely prevalent trinitarianism in pagan philosophy and religions, but it is valueless for the Christian doctrine, except as an indication that trinitarianism is rather attractive than repulsive to speculative thought. It is valueless because so very different in its contents. The doctrine of the Platonic philosophy, and of Brahmanism and Zoroastrianism, so far as representing a trinal distinction of divine persons, is rather tritheistic than trinitarian. There is in neither a union of the divine persons in the unity of God. The doctrine of emanation, so prevalent in these systems, carries with it the sense of inferiority or a lower grade in the emanations. Hence, so far as in these systems we find a trinal distinction of divine persons, they are neither truly and essentially divine, nor yet a trinity in any proper sense of the Christian doctrine.^[267] This doctrine, without any antecedent in philosophy, or in the speculations of pagan religions, has its sure and only ground in the Scriptures.

^[267]Knapp:Christian Theology, p. 145; Shedd:History of Christian Doctrine, vol. i, pp. 243-245.

3. A Credible Truth.—The objection most commonly urged against the doctrine of the Trinity is its mystery; whereas this is in itself no valid objection. If all mysteries were in credible, the sphere of truth would be infinitely narrowed. The world within us and without us is replete with mystery. The facts of nature which are combined in the many forms of science are open to observation, but the laws of nature, without which there is no true science, are realities only for rational thought, and in themselves a profound mystery. What do we know of cohesive attraction? or of the forces of chemical affinity? or of gravitation, acting, across the measureless spaces that separate the stars, and binding all systems in the harmony of the heavens? or of life in the manifold forms of its working? or of the power of the will, which in all voluntary agency reveals itself in our own consciousness? We know forces in their phenomena, and in the laws of their action, but forces themselves are for us an utter mystery. If we must dismiss all mysteries, the higher truths of science and philosophy must go with the higher truths of religion as no longer truths for us. But mystery is no limit of credibility. The principle is as valid for the doctrine of the Trinity as for science and philosophy. Were the constituent facts of the doctrine m contradictory opposition, it would be incredible, but for that reason, and not because of its mystery. Unitarianism may assert their contradictory opposition, and even make a plausible case, but only on such a modified statement of the facts as violates polemical justice. The facts as posited by Trinitarians are not contradictory. Hence, the doctrine, however profound a mystery, is properly accepted as a truth of the Scriptures. It has the credibility of the Scriptures themselves.

4. A Vital Truth of Christianity.—The doctrine of the Trinity is no speculative abstraction, but a central truth of the Gospel, and closely articulated with all that is evangelical in Christian theology. Without it the religion of Christ falls away into a mere moral system. The divine Fatherhood is largely the theology of professedly Christian Unitarianism, however rationalistic it may be. Its frequent utterance is m a tone of fondness and assurance. Reference to expressions of Christ cannot be omitted, even though all that is supernatural be denied him. No other ever put such meaning into the words, “The Father,” “Your Father,” ‘‘My Father,” ‘‘Our Father.” Unitarianism may pervert their meaning, but cannot overstate their plenitude of truth and grace. As we previously pointed out, the divine Fatherhood is given only through the divine Sonship. Our own existence is through the creative work of God; and we are his offspring only in a figurative sense. No higher sense of his Fatherhood is given simply through our creation. The divine Fatherhood, with its plenitude of grace and love, is given only through the divine filiation of the Son. It cannot be given in any form of professedly Christian Unitarianism or Rationalism. It was not given in the older Socinianism, though it held so strongly the miraculous conception of Christ; for in any rational sense of this fact the divine agency was operative simply in a creative mode. Arianism has no other mode of the Son’s existence. Semi-Arianism,homoiousian as to the nature of the Son, is too indefinite respecting both his nature and mode of existence to give any true sense of the divine Fatherhood in correlation with the divine Sonship. These deepest truths are given only with the doctrine of the Trinity. The divine Fatlierhood is at once real and revealed through the divine filiation of the Son. Christianity could not part with this truth without infinite loss. Our religious consciousness needs it, and the more with the truer sense of sin and the deeper exigencies of our moral and spiritual life. In the intensest expressions of God’s love emphasis is placed on the Sonship of Christ, through whose mediation he achieved our redemption (John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:10). The divine Fatherhood as revealed in the divine Sonship is the only sufficient pledge of his grace and love. Hence for this pledge we are carried into the central truths of the Trinity. The atonement is bound up with the doctrine of the Trinity, as It is groundless without the true and essential divinity of the Son. It is not meant that Arianism formally rejected the atonement, but that, with such a Christology, it was illogically retained. It is true that Arianism represents the Son as very great—so great as to be the Creator of all things. If, however, as this doctrine holds, the Son was himself a created being, he could not create the heavens and the earth, nor any part of them; and this representation of his greatness must be an extreme exaggeration. A created being cannot create other existences. His powers, however great, must still be finite, and therefore infinitely short of creative energy. Neither could a created being, and therefore finite and dependent, redeem a sinful race. Only the divine Son could make an atonement for sin. It is noteworthy that the sacred writers present the infinite greatness of Christ in connection with his redeeming work, as though the former were a necessary assurance of his sufficiency for the latter. It was the Word, who was God, and maker of all things, who was incarnated in our nature for the purpose of our redemption (John 1:1-3; John 1:14). The Son, through whose blood we have redemption and remission of sins,, created all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers—all things (Colossians 1:14-16). There is significance in such association of these truths. The divinity of the Son is to be understood as the necessary ground of his atonement and the assurance of its sufficiency. Without his divinity there is no atonement for sin. But his divinity is a central and determining truth of the Trinity; so that the atonement is indeed bound up with this doctrine. It is therefore a vital doctrine in Christianity. The offices of the Holy Spirit in the economies of religion, and particularly in Christianity, as previously pointed out, are manifold and profound. It must follow that the character of Christianity as a religion is largely involved in the question of his personality and divinity. Without these truths the agency of the Spirit cannot stand in the same light as with them. Neither can the fruits of his agency stand in the same light. Conviction for sin, regeneration, assurance of a gracious sonship through the witness of the Spirit, the help of the Spirit in the duties of life and his consolations in its sorrows, the graces of the Christian life as the fruits of the Spirit—these cannot have the same meaning without their source in the personal agency of the divine Spirit. There is a falling away of Christianity into a mere moral system. Christ is a wise teacher and a good example, but not a divine Saviour. The personal agency of the Spirit in the Christian life lapses into the motives of the Gospel and the moral culture of one’s self. So vital is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and with it the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity. The sacrament of baptism, so significant of our moral and spiritual need, and so assuring of all needed help from the baptism and Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, in whose name we are baptized, would be quite meaningless without the truths which we combine in the doctrine of the Trinity. The apostolic benediction, which invokes for Christians the love of God, and the grace of Christ, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, would be equally meaningless. The formula of baptism and the invocation of the benediction are not meaningless, but profoundly significant of the deepest truths of Christianity. With these truths the doctrine of the Trinity is given. The vital offices of the Son and the Spirit in the economy of redemption and in the salvation which the Gospel reveals may be further emphasized by a brief but significant text: For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Ephesians 2:18). This one great privilege is for both Jews and Gentiles. The privilege is great because there is salvation for us only in this access to the Father. It is attainable only through the redemptive mediation of the Son for us, and the gracious work of the Spirit within us. Each office requires a personal divine agency, and both the Son and the Spirit must be divine persons. These truths are simply central to the all-pervasive sense of Scripture respecting the offices of the Son and the Spirit in our salvation. In their combination we have the doctrine of the Trinity. It follows that the rejection of this doctrine is the rejection of these vital truths. The doctrine of the Trinity deeply concerns the Christian life. Bishop Butler clearly points out the obligations of duty arising from the relations in which the Son and the Holy Spirit stand to us in the economy of redemption and salvation. These duties arise from moral grounds, just as the duties which arise with the relations in which we stand to each other and to God. As related to others, we are under the obligations of justice, truth, kindness, charity; as related to God, we are under the obligations of reverence, obedience, and love: so, as related to the Son and Spirit, we are under obligations of reverence, honor, love, trust, gratitude, fear, hope. In what external manner this worship is to be expressed is a matter of pure revealed command ; as perhaps the external manner in which God the Father is to be worshiped may be more so than we are ready to think. But the worship, the internal worship itself, to the Son and Holy Ghost, is no further matter of pure revealed command than as the relations they stand in to us are matter of pure revelation; for the relations being known, the obligations to such internal worship are obligations of reason, arising out of those relations themselves. In short, the history of the Gospel as immediately shows us the reason of these obligations as it shows ns the meaning of the words Son and Holy Spirit.”^{[268] [268]} Analogy, part ii, chap, i, sec. 2. As the duties of the Christian life are thus concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity, so, with this doctrine, there are the weightier truths for our faith and experience, and indeed for the whole practical life of religion. “Whether in comparison with pure Unitarianism or even the highest form of Arianism, there is an infinite fullness and depth of truth in the true and essential divinity of the Son and the Spirit, with the incarnation and atonement of the one, and the vital agency of the other in our spiritual life. These distinctive truths of the Trinity embody the weightiest motives of the Gospel, and thus give to the faith which truly embraces them the greatest practical efficiency, while at the same time they deepen and intensify the experiences and practical forces of the inner Christian life. Hence it is that in the history of the Church we find with the doctrine of the Trinity the most spiritual, practical, and evangelistic type of Christianity. Trinitarians may fall short, and far short, of their faith in both the inner and outer life. Still for them there are the highest possibilities of both. There are not such possibilities with any anti-trinitarian creed. As the religious faith departs from the doctrine of the Trinity it must in a like measure lose the significance of the mediation of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit in the religious life. By so much does Christianity fall away from its true evangelical form toward a mere moral system. In pure Unitarianism this fall is quite complete. From this ground no evangelical development of Christianity is possible. It is an open truth that the deepest and most earnest Christian life of the present, whether as an inner experience and practical force, or as an outward endeavor toward the evangelization of the world, is with the Trinitarian Churches.

We have attempted no philosophy of the Trinity. There is for us no present solution of the doctrine. There is, however, a philosophy of its profound significance for the spiritual and practical Christian life. This philosophy we have clearly indicated. God in Christianity is God in Trinity. This doctrine underlies the most vital forces of the Gospel, and on the ground of Scripture we hold it in a sure faith, whatever its mystery for our thought. “That which remains a cross for our thinking is thus at the same time the crown of the Christian conception of God.”^{[269] [269]} Van Oosterzee:Christian Dogmatics, vol. i, p. 293.

General reference.—Hooker: Ecclesiastical Polity, book v, secs. 51-56; Usher: Body of Divinity, chap, iv; Cudworth: Intellectual System, chap, iv; Waterland: Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Works, vol. iii; Burton: Antenicene Testimonies to the Doctrine of the Trinity; Howe: The Oracles of God, lects. xiii-xvi; Bull: Defense of the Nicene Creed; Owen: God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Works (Goold’s), vol. li; Edwards: Observations on the Trinity; Bickersteth: The Rock of Ages; Cook: Boston Monday Lectures, “ rthodoxy;” Taylor: Revealed Theology, The Trinity; Graves: Select Proofs of the Trinity, Works, vol. iii; Christlieb: Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, lect. iv; Kidd: On the Trinity; Treffrey: The Trinity; Dorner: Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Nicene Trinity, vol. ii, pp. 181-346.

Unitarian view.—Clark: Orthodoxy, chap. xvi; Norton: Statement of Reasons; Wilson: Unitarian Principles; Eliot: Unity of God; Forrest: On the Trinity.