7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father immeasurable, the Son immeasurable, and the Holy Spirit immeasurable.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. 12. And so there are not three uncreated, nor three immeasurable, but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.

13. So the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.

14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipo

tent.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.

18. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.

19. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess of each one, that each person is God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion from saying three Gods or three Lords.

20. The Father is not made, nor created, nor begotten.

21. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

22. The Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Father; not created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

23. Therefore there is one Father, and not three; one Son, and not three; one Holy Spirit, and not three.

24. And in this Trinity there is none before or after, none greater or less, but all three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal. 25. So that everywhere we must adore the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity.

26. Whoever, therefore, would be saved, must think thus of the Trinity.

The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity.

Is there any substantial truth in the doctrine of the Trinity?

The fact that so many nations of the world, outside of Christianity, have believed in some kind of Trinity, or, at any rate, some kind of Triad, would lead us to believe that there is a foundation for it in the nature of things. We find such a Triad in the systems of religion originating in India, Persia, Egypt, Scandinavia; also in Buddhism and in Platonism. In the Christian Church, the history of this doctrine is interesting and important. Some sort of Triad, or Trinity, existed in very early times, although the Orthodox form was not established until later.

At first, the prevailing doctrine is that of SUBORDINATION; that is, that the Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father. But, as the Son and the Spirit were also called divine, those who thought thus were accused of believing in three Gods. Some then said, that the FATHER was alone divine; and these were called Monarchians. Others, wishing to retain the divinity of the Son and Spirit, and yet to believe in one God, said that the divinity in the Father, in the Son, and in the Spirit, was essentially the same, but that the divinity of the Father was the fountain from which that of the Son and Spirit was derived. This was fixed as Orthodox at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325; and was the beginning of Orthodoxy in the Church. It was a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis, which were represented on the one side by ARIUS, who maintained that the Son was created out of nothing; and by SABELLIUS on the other hand, who maintained that the Son was only a mode, manifestation, or name of God: God being called the Father, as Creator of the world; called Son, as Redeemer of the world; and

Spirit, as Sanctifier of the world. The Council of Nice declared that the Son was not a manifestation of God, as Sabellius said; nor a creation by God, as Arius said; but a derivation from God.* Just as the essence of the fountain flows into the stream derived from it, so the essence of the Father flows into the Son, who is

derived from him. Here, then, we have the three formulas of the early Church,- that of ARIUS, who says, "The Son was created by the Father, and is inferior to him; that of SABELLIUS, who says, "The Father, Son, and Spirit are manifestations of God, and the same essence;" and ORTHODOXY, as the Council of Nice, trying to stand between them, and saying, "The Son is derived from the Father, and is of the same essence with him.”

The Church, ever since, has been like a ship beating against head winds between opposing shores. It has stood on one tack to avoid Arianism or Tritheism, till it finds itself running into Sabellianism; then it goes about, and stands away till it comes near Arianism or Tritheism

*The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to Sabellianism. The term ouοovolos (of the same essence) was a Sabellian term. Sabellianism could, in fact, stand most of the tests of modern Orthodoxy, since it maintains three persons and one essence, μíav iñóσтаow and трíа лрóошла; and SCHLEIERMACHER, in one of his most elaborate treatises (Ueber den Gegensatz zwischen der Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen Vorstellung von der Trinitat. Theolog. Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1822), has sought to rehabilitate Sabellianism. MOSES STUART translated this treatise, and plainly advocated a similar view. HASE (Kirchengeschichte, § 91) defines the view of Sabellius as making "Father, Son, and Spirit the different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity unfolding itself in the world-history as the Triad." Perhaps (see "Baur") the chief peculiarity of Sabellius is in making the Triad begin and end with the process of revelation. The Monad is God in himself: the Triad is God in the process of self-revelation (BAUR, "Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit," and "Lehrbuch der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte ").

again. Unitarianism is on both sides: on one side in the form of one God, with a threefold manifestation of himself; on the other side in the form of a Supreme God, with the Son and Spirit subordinate. It has always been very hard to be Orthodox; for, to do so, one must distinguish the Persons, and yet not divide the substance, of the Deity. In keeping the three Persons distinctly separate, there was great danger of making three distinct Gods. On the other hand, if one tried to make the Unity distinct, there was danger that the Persons would grow shadowy, and disappear.

The heaviest charge against the Church doctrine of the Trinity is, that, driven to despair by these difficulties, it has at last made Orthodoxy consist, not in any sound belief, but only in sound phrases. It is not believing any thing, but saying something, which now makes a man Orthodox. If you will only use the word "Trinity" in any sense, if you will only call Christ God in any sense, you are Orthodox.

The errors in the popular view concerning the Trinity, as it is at present held, seem to me to be these:

1. The Trinity is held as a mere dogma, or form of words, not as a reality. It is held in the letter, not in the spirit. There is no power in it, nor life in it; and it is in no sense an object of faith to those who accept it. They do not believe it, but rather believe that they ought to believe it. There are certain texts in Scripture which seem to assert it, certain elaborate arguments which appear convincing and irrefutable. On the strength of these. texts and these arguments, they believe that they ought to believe it. But it is a matter of conscience, not of heart; of logic, not of life; of law, not of love. It is not held as a Christian doctrine ought to be held, with the heart; but only philosophically, with the head. If it should cease to

be preached for a few years in Orthodox pulpits, it would cease to be believed; it would drop out of the faith, or rather out of the creed, of the community. Unitarianism has extended itself, without being preached, from the simple reading of the Bible. But Trinitarianism cannot be trusted to its own power. It has no hold on -the heart. Here, in Massachusetts, the ministers left off preaching the Trinity; and the consequence was, that the people became Unitarian. Unitarianism in New England was not diffused by preaching: it came of itself, as soon as the clergy left off preaching the Trinity. This shows how worthless, empty, and soulless the doctrine was and is. Instead of this formal doctrine, we want something vital.

2. Another objection to the present form of the Trinity is, that it is not only scholastic, or purely intellectual, but that it is also negative. It is not even a positive doctrine. It is often charged against Unitarianism, that it is a mere negation; and, in one sense, the charge is well founded. Unitarianism is a negation, so far as it is a mere piece of reasoning against Orthodoxy; but, as asserting the Divine Unity, it is very positive. But the doctrine of the Trinity is a mere negation, as it is usually held; because it is an empty form of denial. It only can be defined or expressed negatively. The three Persons are not substances, on the one hand; nor qualities, on the other hand. It is not Sabellianism, nor is it Arianism. Every term connected with the Trinity has been selected, not to express a truth, but to avoid an error. The term 66 one essence" was chosen in order to exclude Arianism: the term "three Persons," or subsistences, was chosen in order to avoid Sabellianism.

Because the doctrine is thus a negation, it has failed of its chief use. It has become exclusive; whereas, when stated truly, as a positive truth, it would become inclusive.