All that we can know, or need to know about the mysterious mode of the divine existence, is the proper personality of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and not their unity." (Emmons, iv, 121.) This is bold language surely. We do not understand the writer however to assert, as the words might seem to imply, that the divine unity is not a matter of revelation, but only that it is a doctrine which we are not capable of understanding; and in this we fully concur, provided we are shut up to his idea of divine personality.

The view now under consideration has led these who adopt it to a method of speaking of the sacred Trinity which seems to us altogether objectionable. They are accustomed to represent the divine persons as consulting together, forming plans, and enjoying mutual intercourse and companionship. "Society," says the writer to whom we have already referred, "is the source of the highest felicity. And that society affords the greatest enjoyment, which is composed of persons of the same character, of the same disposition, of the same designs, of the same pursuits. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are three equally divine persons in the one living and true God, are perfectly united in all these respects; and therefore God's existing a trinity in unity necessarily renders him the all-sufficient source of his own most perfect felicity. We can not conceive of any other mode of existence so absolutely perfect and blessed." (Emmons, iv, 115.)

We ask now whether there be not, in all this, the essential element of tritheism. We put it to every candid and intelligent mind, whether if the doctrine of divine unity were altogether stricken out of the Bible, and in place of it stood the revelation of three Gods, it would be possible to speak of the society and companionship mutually enjoyed by the three, in terms plainer, more direct, and appropriate, than the above.

This is language by no means peculiar to one author, or one school of divines. We find it not in the lectures of theologians, and the pages of controversial writers, merely, but not unfrequently even in those elementary treatises designed to convey the first ideas of sacred truth to the mind of childhood. What other impression can be left upon the mind of the child, or of the simple-hearted adult, by such representations, than that these three persons of the Godhead are very much like any other three persons, better pleased with each other's society and converse, than with solitude; and when he comes afterward to learn that nevertheless, God is one being, is he not fully prepared to perceive in this simplest of all ideas, which man can possibly form of the Deity, a mystery which he can never expect to understand or explain.

And what is the authority for all this? Do the Scriptures thus speak of God? If they do, we will no farther object. But how

is this? Where do we read of three divine persons as thus conversing together, and enjoying each other's society? Where do we read of the Father's consulting with the Son respecting the work of redemption? "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." "Then said I, Lo I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, Oh my God." Does this language refer to the distinction originally and eternally existing in the divine nature, the true and proper trinity of the Godhead, or is it not rather and most manifestly spoken with reference to the incarnate Word, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? And when from the opening heavens a voice proclaims, at the baptism of Jesus, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," are we to infer from this, that the same distinction, of personality in the human sense, always existed between the two, as at that moment, and that there was from eternity the same occasion for such language to be addressed by one to the other?

When shall we come to remember that the language of the sacred writers respecting Christ the Messiah, the God-man, does not necessarily apply, and can not fairly be made to refer, to the primitive and original nature of the divine Being, as he existed. from eternity, prior to all manifestations of himself in time? Indeed, are not the very terms, Father, Son and Spirit, terms borrowed from, and having special reference to, the economy of grace, and of man's redemption? Do they not derive their special significance and force as terms, from the manifestation of God in Christ our Savior to redeem lost man, and the operation of God in his Spirit to sanctify and renew him? Are the terms Father, Son and Spirit, ever employed, in fact, by the sacred writers, to denote that original distinction existing in the divine nature from eternity, which constitutes the foundation for this personal development, and with which alone we are concerned in treating of the mode of the divine existence? That such a distinction in the divine nature exists, and has existed from eternity, the foundation of whatever developments or manifestations of himself the Deity has made, in time, and to our race, this we believe to be the doctrine of the Scriptures. But is it to this original distinction in the nature of the Godhead that the terms Father, Son and Spirit apply, as used in the Scriptures? Is the term Father applied to the Deity, in the sense now intended, as denoting the first of a trinity of persons, prior to, and irrespective of the incarnation? Is the term Son, in a similar sense, applied to the Deity, prior, and without prospective reference to that wonderful event, the coming among men of one who was in the beginning with God, and who was God? Are the terms Logos, and Son, used indiscriminately in the sacred writings, and without distinction of meaning? Is the term Holy Spirit in like manner used to designate the divine Being, as he is in himself, and from eternity, prior

to, and independent of, all operation, and influence, of that Being upon the hearts of men? These positions are almost universally assumed, but certainly without authority from the Scriptures. If this be so, if these terms, as used in the sacred writings, refer not to the original nature of the Godhead, but to the Deity as he stands related to the economy of man's redemption, then what becomes of the theory now under discussion, and where is any man's authority for this whole matter and method of representing the one God of the Scriptures as existing from eternity in a distinct and complete three-fold personality like that of three men, and enjoying that society, converse and companionship which would result from such a relation? Such a view we believe to be at once inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture, and at war with reason, which is utterly unable to reconcile this statement with the acknowledged and proper unity of the divine Being. But in this we are digressing from the main purpose of our inquiry.

What then is the result of the present investigation? What shall we conclude to be the true doctrine respecting this subject? Evidently this. While the Scriptures teach the absolute and supreme divinity of the Son, they also in the plainest and most positive terms teach the absolute unity of God. While, therefore, we are not at liberty to put such a construction on passages which indicate a certain distinction in the divine nature, as will in any way conflict with this idea of God as one simple, undivided essence, or being, we must still allow a distinction to exist, and to be eternal, and to constitute the foundation of that development which the Deity has been pleased to make of himself in revelation, and in the economy of grace, as Father, Son, and Spirit.

Whatever justice or injustice there may be in the charge of Sabellianism very generally brought against Dr. Bushnell, whatever differences there may be between his theory and the PatriPassian or Sabellian system, in these respects at least they would seem to agree, that the Trinity, or distinction of persons, has its source not in the nature of God, but rather in the wants and necessities of man; and that it is therefore not an eternal distinction, but one which is temporal and finite. It is an instrumental arrangement, a vehicle or mode of thought, a revelation of the otherwise unknown and unknowable God.

There may be, and doubtless is, a sense, and an important one, in which this, or something like this, is true. If by impersonation, or trinity of persons, be meant the actual manifestation of God to man under the forms of the incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit, the former redeeming, the latter sanctifying the human soul, then it is indeed a thing which begins, which has relation to time, and which finds its explanation in the exigency of

human wants. But if, as we suppose, it be meant that prior to this manifestation, and from eternity, there did not exist, in the divine nature itself, the foundation for just this development, or that this foundation did not amount to a real distinction in the divine nature, partaking of the character of personality, then as we must think, there lies couched under these forms of expression an error not inconsiderable or unimportant.

But Dr. Bushnell (pp. 145, 146 and 177,) describes the Logos as the faculty of self-expression in the Deity. We are ready to ask then, must not this faculty have existed eternally, and have pertained to the very nature of the Deity? Has the immutable One a faculty to-day which he had not yesterday, and for which until now there was no foundation in his nature? If in like manner we suppose the terms Holy Spirit to denote the divine faculty of operation on the human mind and heart, must not this also have existed eternally in the Deity, a faculty pertaining to his very nature? And are not these two faculties distinct, one from the other? Have we not then, after all, an eternal distinction, existing in the divine nature itself, as the ground and foundation of those impersonations of the Deity which take place in time?

To this distinction we may for convenience, apply the term hypostasis, subsistence or person, if we please, provided we allow neither ourselves nor others to forget that, when thus employed, the word is taken out of its ordinary sense, and used in a manner and for a purpose altogether extraordinary. Here is trinity,trinity in unity. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are God; and these three are one God. This we believe to be the doctrine of the Scriptures. That it is also the Calvinistic doctrine is unquestionable, though a matter of infinitely less importance.

The doctrine of the Trinity, correctly viewed, whatever difficulties it may present to the human mind, does not appear fairly liable to the objections which are frequently urged against it.

It is sometimes pronounced an incomprehensible doctrine. Shall we ask a man to believe what he can not comprehend? By no means. Neither can we allow him to object to it, much less pronounce it untrue. He is in all modesty and propriety shut up to the necessity of being silent; since in order to be sure of the truth or falsity of any doctrine, or statement, one must comprehend it. How else can he know whether it be true or false?

But we protest against the assumption that this doctrine is incomprehensible. Something pertaining to the subject there may be, there undoubtedly is, which we do not comprehend. But what is it? Not the fact, which the Scriptures assert, that God exists, and operates in the economy of grace, as Father, as Son, and as Spirit, and that these three are one God. This is cer

tainly a plain statement, and any intelligent man can understand what it means. The nature of this distinction in the divine being, the modus of it, we do not understand; it has never been revealed to us; and therefore respecting this we affirm nothing. Shall we therefore reject the fact that such a distinction exists, and is matter of revelation? Is this the only thing respecting the Deity which we find ourselves unable to comprehend? How is it as to his self-existence? We admit the fact. Can we tell how a being can be the author of his own existence? God is eternal. Are we sure that we quite comprehend what is meant by this? He is omnipresent. Can we exactly understand how one and the same being can be in all parts of the universe at one and the same instaut? When we read that the word became flesh and dwelt among men, and they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, we read of an event which is in itself a sublime mystery, yet on which all our hopes of eternal life are based. How little do we in fact know of God! Can we find out the Almighty to perfection? Or shall we set aside the plain revelations which he has made of himself, the facts which we do know, because there are other. things which we do not know? No truth-loving mind will do this. We believe that God exists, but we do not know how; that he is self-existent, but it is a mystery we can not explain; that he is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, we also believe, yet here again our philosophy fails us. Ou precisely the same evidence we believe that the one God exists and manifests himself to man as Father, Son and Spirit, and that the foundation of this distinction exists in the divine nature, while at the same time the modus of this existence and manifestation-the exact nature of this distinction-we do not profess to understand. The simple fact we can comprehend and we do believe.

It is sometimes objected to the doctrine of the Trinity that it is contrary to reason.

That statements may be made respecting this subject which shall involve contradiction and absurdity, we readily admit. That such statements have been made, and that not unfrequently, we can not deny. For such statements, neither the doctrine, nor the advocates of it, are responsible, but only the authors of them. We are not called upon to defend all the views which even good and wise and learned men have entertained respecting this matter. That the doctrine of the Trinity in its true form and statement involves any thing contradictory or unreasonable, is more than can be shown. What is it that we assert? Not that God is one being, and yet three beings; not that he has simple unity of essence, and at the same time a three-fold proper individuality; that the Father, Son and Spirit are three persons in the sense

VOL. VIII.