CHAPTER IV.

TRINITARIANISM UNINTELLIGIBLE, OR SELF-CONTRADICTORY.

SECT. I. VARIOUS STATEMENTS AND CONTRADICTORY DEFINITIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

...

I 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 his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; and I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, &c.— NICENE CREED, as quoted from the Book of Common Prayer. [Dr. ADAM CLARKE, who has been accused of heresy for denying the eternal generation of Christ, very sensibly asks, in his Chron. Succes. of Eccles. Liter. vol. i. p. 259, “how can such expressions, begotten of the Father before all worlds-begotten, not made, be admitted, and the eternity of Christ's divine nature be credited?" And yet the Creed, in which these expressions occur, has been defended by many who professedly believe in "the eternity of Christ's divine nature."]

The catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding 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 eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. ..... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost

....

....

is 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 this Trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. — ATHANASIAN CREED, so called. [Respecting this creed,

which is one of the formularies of faith adopted both by the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Episcopal Church, S. T. COLERIDGE, in Table Talk, vol. i. pp. 77-8, makes these remarks:-" The Athanasian Creed is, in my judgment, heretical in the omission, or implicit denial, of the Filial subordination in the Godhead, which is the doctrine of the Nicene Creed, and for which Bull and Waterland have so fervently and triumphantly contended; and by not holding to which, Sherlock staggered to and fro between Tritheism and Sabellianism."]

nonsense.

Το

It is plain the persons are perfectly distinct, for they are three distinct and infinite minds, and therefore three distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent being; and to say there are three divine persons, and not three distinct, infinite minds, is both heresy and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and John. DR. WILLIAM SHERLOCK: Vind. of the Doct. of the Trinity, sect. iv. p. 66; sect. v. p. 105. [Without here quoting more largely from this celebrated author, it may suffice to give the following summary of SHERLOCK's opinions, from Dr. South's Defence of Considerations, pp. 52, 53: —“In his discourses upon the Trinity, he calls the three persons in the Godhead three minds, three spirits, three substances, essences, and natures. these expressions he adds, in his last book, three selfs, three is's, three singulars, three sames, three wholes, one absolute divinity, with two internal processions, &c." So obnoxious were the principles involved in the use of these terms, but which, it is to be feared, are held by many Trinitarians, that the university of Oxford-declaring in favour of Dr. SOUTH, who fell under the imputation of explaining away the Trinity, and supporting the Sabellian scheme — passed this censure on the Tritheistic opinions of Dean SHERLOCK: "That the assertion, there are three infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, is false, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church, and particularly to the received doctrine of the church of England."]

To find out the true sense of the word person as applied to the Trinity, we are to consider what was the true sense of the word persona in approved Latin authors. It did signify the state, quality, or condition of a man, as he stands related to other men. Hence are

those phrases frequent: Personam imponere, to put a man into an office, or confer a dignity upon him; induere personam, to take upon him the office; sustinere personam, to bear an office, or execute an office; disponere personam, to resign the office; so agere personam, to act a person. So that there is nothing of contradiction, nothing absurd or strange, for the same man to sustain divers persons, or

divers persons to meet in the same man, acccording to the true and proper notion of the word person. Thus, Tully, Sustineo unus tres personas; meam, adversarii, judicis; "I, being one and the same man, sustain three persons; that of my own, that of my adversary, and that of the judge." And David was, at the same time, son of Jesse, father of Solomon, and king of Israel. Now, if three persons, in the proper sense of the word person, may be one man; what hinders but that three divine persons, in a sense metaphorical, may be one God? And what hinders but that the same God, distinguished according to these three considerations [those of God the Creator, or God the Father; God the Redeemer, or God the Son; and God the Sanctifier, or God the Holy Ghost], may fitly be said to be three persons? Or, if the word person do not please, three somewhats, that are but one God? -DR. JOHN WALLIS: Three Sermons, pp. 58-61. [The doctrine here propounded, which is nothing else than "Unitarianism in a mist," has been advocated by some of the finest minds in the orthodox body; but the question is, does its classic beauty correspond with scriptural simplicity?]

We must say, that there are relations in the divine substance, which distinguish the persons, since these persons cannot be absolute substances. But we must aver, too, that these relations are substantial. At least, we must say, that the divine persons are not the same concrete, under different denominations or relations; as a man may be, at the same time, both a poet and an orator. We must say, moreover, that these three persons are not as absolute substances as the whole.— LEIBNITZ. It is certain that we must conceive, as co-existing in God, three eternal and really different actions; the action of activity, of idea, and of the desire of all possible good within and without him. Three really different actions, co-existing from eternity, necessarily presuppose three really different and operative substrata. It is thus, through the aid of reason illuminated by the Scriptures, we come to know, that the Power, the Understanding, and the Will of God, are not merely three faculties, but three distinct energies; that is, three distinct substances. TOELLNER, of Frankfort.

[Both this and the preceding extract are quoted with marked disapprobation by Professor STUART, who, with the Rev. JAMES CARLILE, Dr. WARDLAW, and others, is opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity as explained in the Nicene and Athanasian formularies of faith.]

My faith is this: - God is the Absolute Will: It is his Name and the meaning of it. It is the Hypostasis. As begetting his own Alterity, the Jehovah, the Manifested-he is the Father; but the Love and the

Life the Spirit proceeds from both.-S. T. COLERIDGE: Table Talk, vol. ii. p. 329. [See the Literary Remains of the same author, vol. iii. pp. 1-3, for a very curious, metaphysical, and unintelligible explanation of "the Identity," "the Ipseity," "the Alterity," and "the Community;" —a passage which is too long for insertion here.]

Theology teaches that there is in God one Essence, two Processions, three Persons, four Relations, five Notions, and the Circumincession, which the Greeks call Perichoresis. A PROTESTANT AUTHOR; apud Archbishop Whately's Elements of Logic, p. 377. [This unhallowed description of what "theology teaches" is reprobated by the distinguished Prelate, who adopts the views of Wallis and South.]

[A few more definitions and explanations, as supplied by the pen of Dr. Drummond, in his excellent work entitled, The Doctrine of the Trinity founded neither on Scripture, nor on Reason and Common Sense, pp. 7, 8, third edition: :- "TILLOTSON calls them (the persons in the Godhead) three differences; BURNET, three diversities; SECKER, three subsistences; others, three postures. LE CLERC thought them to be three distinct cogitations; and that the subject might be explained by the philosophy of Des Cartes. Some are for a specific, some for a numerical unity, and others for both united, though involving a monstrous contradiction. WATERLAND speaks of a threefold generation of the Son, two antemundane and one in the flesh. The substance of the one person,' he says, 'is not the substance of either of the others, but different, however of the same kind or united.' BARROW speaks of the mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one.' 'They are joined together,' says another, by a perichoresis ; and this perichoresis, circumincession, or mutual inexistence, is made very possible and intelligible by a mutual conscious sensation.""

6

Enough of this jargon - of a confusion which could not possibly be "" worse confounded" of a "counsel darkened by words without" the faintest ray of "knowledge." Well may one Trinitarian call such a doctrine "mystery of mysteries;" well may another exclaim, in the language of superlative nonsense, O luminosissima Tenebræ! well may a learned prelate confess, that "Reason stands aghast, and Faith herself is half confounded." After this, let no man, however orthodox in his own conceptions, boast of the necessity of creeds for producing uniformity of faith; and let no one charge Unitarians with inconsistency, because they differ amongst themselves on matters of minor importance; for assuredly, as regards the Deity, do they all unite in using the language of St. Paul, "To us there is but ONE GOD, The Father.”]

SECT. II. — THE DOCTRINE OF A TRIUNE GOD CANNOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE LIGHT OF NATURE.

From the principles of nature the Trinity cannot be made known to us. HACKSPAN: Notæ in Dif. Script. Loca, tom. i. 534.

p.

By the light of nature we may discern the existence, the unity, and the providence of God, but not in respect to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; for the mystery of the Trinity is completely hidden from our natural light. — SALMERON: Comm. tom. iv. p. 505.

We cannot subscribe to the opinion of such of our theologians as have endeavoured to prove, to confirm, and by tedious similitudes to illustrate, this mystery, by arguments derived from nature. The doctrine of the Trinity, we confess, is a mystery which man, how distinguished soever for wisdom and industry, could not discover by the mere consideration of himself and the creatures.-WITSIUS on the Apostles' Creed, Diss. vi. 5, 15.

What is there in the whole Book of God that nature, at first sight, doth more recoil at than the doctrine of the Trinity? How many do yet stumble and fall at it? — Dr. JOHN OWEN: Divine Origin of the Scriptures, p. 132.

Thus much I confess, that take the thing [that one nature may subsist in three persons] abstract from divine revelation, there is nothing in reason able to prove that there is such a thing; but, &c. DR. SOUTH: Sermons, vol. iv. p. 288.

It is a vain attempt to go about to prove this [the doctrine of three persons in one divine essence] by reason; for it must be confessed, that we should have had no cause to have thought of any such thing, if the Scriptures had not revealed it to us. BISHOP BURNET: Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. i. p. 36.

Where is the people to be found, where the individual, who learned the doctrine of the Trinity from the works of nature? I cannot suppose it would ever have suggested itself to a single mind, had it not been communicated, probably among the earliest revelations of God. ROBERT HALL: Works, vol. v. pp. 534–5; Let. lxviii.

[Here it is distinctly admitted, that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity receives no countenance whatever from the study of nature. It will now be shown, from similar authorities, that Trinitarianism is hostile to reason; and afterwards that it is by no means an express doctrine of divine revelation.]