the logical and legitimate conclusion of a cumulative argument which rested on the evidence of many biblical statements, of which they themselves could furnish no sufficient or satisfactory explanation. The argument from each text may be nullified or largely set. aside, when taken singly and alone; but a great number and variety of such evidences, taken as a whole, and exhibiting a manifest coherency, may not thus be set aside.

God.

Thus, for example, the plural form of the name of God (Dribs) in the Hebrew Scriptures has often been adduced as plural form of proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. A sim- the name of ilar application has been made of the threefold use of the divine name in the priestly blessing (Num. vi, 24–27), and the trisagion in Isa. vi, 3. Even the proverb, "A threefold cord is not quickly broken" (Eccles. iv, 12), has been quoted as a proof-text of the Trinity. Such a use of Scripture will not be likely to advance the interests of truth, or be profitable for doctrine. A repetition of the divine name three or more times is no evidence that the worshipper thereby intends a reference to so many personal distinctions in the divine nature. The plural form may as well designate a multiplicity of divine potentialities in the deity as three personal distinctions, or it may be explained as the plural of majesty and excellency. Such peculiar forms of expression are susceptible of too many explanations to be used as valid proof texts of the Trinity.

of

So, again, of the passage in Gen. xix, 24, often quoted in the Trinitarian controversies. "The name Jehovah," says Language Watson, "if it has not a plural form, has more than one Gen. xix, 24. personal application. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' We have here the visible Jehovah who had talked with Abraham raining the storm of vengeance from another Jehovah out of heaven, and who was, therefore, invisible. Thus we have two Jehovahs expressly mentioned, the Lord rained from the Lord,' and yet we have it most solemnly asserted in Deut. vi, 4, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.' Much more natural and simple, however, is the explanation which recognises in this repetition of the name Jehovah a Hebraistic mode of statement. "It is," says Calvin, "an emphatic repetition." Browne remarks: "Aben Ezra, whom perhaps a majority of Christian commentators have followed in this, sees in these words a peculiar 'elegance or grace of language;' 'the Lord rained from the Lord' being a grander and more impressive mode of saying, 'the Lord rained from himself." 1 Theological Institutes, vol. i, p. 467.

999 1

It is a common idiom in Hebrew to repeat the noun instead of using a pronoun.

vah.

99 1

The theophanies of the Old Testament have also been adduced Angel of Jeho in maintaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But whatever else may be made of the argument, it furnishes no sound proof that the Godhead consists of a number of distinct persons. The Angel of Jehovah, so mysteriously identified with Jehovah himself (Gen. xvi, 7, 10, 13; xxii, 11, 12, 15, 16), and in whom is the name of Jehovah (Exod. xxiii, 21), is not necessarily a manifestation of one person of the Godhead rather than another, but may be explained as a singular manifestation of Jehovah himself without any idea of personal distinctions in his nature or essence. But while this is admitted on the one hand, it ought not to be denied, on the other, that in the light of New Testament revelations of Christ, as the revealed wisdom and power of God, we may discern in the Old Testament Angel of Jehovah a manifestation of him who in the fulness of time took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (Phil. ii, 7). It was, moreover, a part of the theology of the ancient synagogue that this angel was the Shekinah, or manifested power and mediation of God in the world.

A similar disposition may be made of many other proofs of the New Testament Trinity which have been cited from the Old Testament, doctrine of God. but passing into the New Testament we cannot but be impressed with the language used in John i, 18: "No one has ever seen God; God only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he made him known.' This remarkable statement leads one to ask, Who is this only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, and reveals God, or makes him known? In the first verse of the same chapter he is called the Word (ó λóyoç), and is said to have been "with the God" (πρòç Tòv vɛóv), and the further statement

99 2

1 Speaker's Commentary, in loco.

2 The more familiar and almost equally well-supported reading, "only begotten Son," conveys essentially the same mysterious and wonderful suggestion. "Both readings," says Hort, "intrinsically are free from objection. The text (God only begotten), though startling at first, simply combines in a single phrase the two attributes of the Logos marked before (Veós, ver. 1, μovoyɛvýs, ver. 14). Its sense is 'One who was both θεός and μονογενής.” The substitution of the familiar phrase ὁ μονογενής υἱός for the unique μονογενής θεός would be obvious, and μονογενής, by its own primary meaning, directly suggested viós. The converse substitution is inexplicable by any ordinary motive likely to affect transcribers. There is no evidence that the reading had any controversial interest in ancient times. And the absence of the article from the more important documents is fatal to the idea that OC was an accidental substitution for YŌ.”—Appendix to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, p. 74.

is made that he "was God." Creation is ascribed to him (ver. 3), and he is declared to be the life and the light of men (ver. 4). This Word, it is added in verse 14, "became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory-glory as of an only begotten from a Father full of grace and truth." It is quite possible that polemic writers may make too much of these wonderful words. What it is to be with the God, and also to be God, may well be treated as a mystery too deep for the human mind to solve. The Word which became flesh, according to John i, 14, may fairly be understood to be identical with him who, according to Paul in 1 Tim. iii, 16, embodies "the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory." This can be no other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of man. When, now, we observe that the apostles were commissioned to "go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. xxviii, 19;) that Paul invokes "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit," to be with all the brethren of the Corinthian church (2 Cor. xiii, 13); and that John invokes grace and peace upon the seven churches of Asia "from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the land" (Rev. i, 4, 5), we may with good reason conclude that God, as revealed in the New Testament, consists of Father, Son, and Spirit existing in some mysterious and incomprehensible unity of nature. From such a basis the exegete may go on to examine all those texts which indicate in any way the person, nature, and character of Christ: his pre-existence, his divine names and titles, his holy attributes and perfections, his power on earth to forgive sins, and other prerogatives and works ascribed to him, and the command for all men and angels to worship him. The fact that "God is. Spirit" (John iv, 24) allows us readily to conceive that the Holy Spirit and God himself are one in substance, and the manner in which our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter whom he will send (John xv, 26; xvi, 7), and whom the Father will send in his name (xiv, 26), points by every fair construction to a distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Putting all these together we find so many far-reaching and profoundly suggestive declarations concerning these divine persons, that we cannot logically avoid the conclusion enunciated in the creed, that "the Father

Mysterious distinctions in the

divine nature.

is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God."

Abstain from

assertions and

ings.

...

But in the systematic elaboration of this argument the theologian should carefully abstain from unauthorized assertions. unauthorized A theme so full of mystery and of majesty as the nature disputed read- of God, and his personal revelations in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, admits of no dogmatic tone. Assertions like the following from Sherlock are no advantage to the interests of truth: "To say they are three divine persons, and not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense. The distinction of persons cannot be more truly and aptly represented than by the distinction between three men; for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and John." This is being wise above what is written, and is as harmful to valid argument as citing and urging texts where the reading and punctuation are doubtful, or where (as in the case of 1 John v, 7) the evidence of interpolation is overwhelming. No man should assume to explain the mysteries of Deity.

ment.

The doctrine of atonement in Christ is thus set forth in the Vicarious Atone- Canons of the Synod of Dort: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." The Westminster Confession of Faith expresses it thus: "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." It is probable that to many evangelical Christians neither of these forms of statement is satisfactory, while yet, at the same time, they would not reject them as unscriptural. They contain several phrases which have been so mixed with dogmatic controversy that many would for that reason decline to use them, and prefer the simple but comprehensive statement of the Gospel: "God so loved the world that he gave the Son, the only begotten, that every one who believes in him should not

1 Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 66, 105. London, 1690. Equally dogmatic, on the other hand, is the declaration of Norton concerning the doctrines of the Trinity and the twofold nature of Christ: "There is not a passage to be found in the Scriptures which can be imagined to affirm either of those doctrines that have been represented as being at the very foundation of Christianity."-Statement of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ, p. 63. Third edition, Boston, 1856.

2 See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. iii, p. 586.

'Ibid., p. 621.

perish, but have life eternal" (John iii, 16). This Scripture does not say that the Son was given as 66 a sacrifice and satisfaction for sin," or that the procedure was a "perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself" in order to "fully satisfy the justice of the Father," and "purchase reconciliation for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." But, as Alford well says: "These words, whether spoken in Hebrew or in Greek, seem to carry a reference to the offering of Isaac; and Nicodemus in that case would at once be reminded by them of the love there required, the substitution there made, and the prophecy there uttered to Abraham (Gen. xxii, 18) to which 'every one who believes' so nearly corresponds."

99 1

When we proceed to compare with this Scripture its obvious parallels (as Rom. iii, 24-26; v, 6-10; Eph. i, 7; 1 Peter i, 18, 19; iii, 18; 1 John iv, 9), and bring forward in illustration of them the Old Testament idea of sacrifice, and the symbolism of blood (see above, pp. 268, 269), we may construct a systematic exhibition of the doctrine of atonement which no faithful interpreter of the Scriptures can fairly gainsay or resist. It is not a special dogmatic exposition of any single text, or a peculiar stress laid upon isolated words or phrases by which a scriptural doctrine is best set forth, but rather by accumulation of a number and variety of passages bearing on the subject, the meaning and relevancy of each of which are obvious.

The awful doctrine of eternal punishment has been greatly confused by mixing with it many notions which are desti- Eternal Puntute of valid scriptural proof. The refinements of ishment. torture, delineated in the appalling pictures of Dante's Inferno, should not be taken as guides to help us in understanding the words of Jesus, even though we be told that the Gehenna, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark ix, 48), and "the outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. xxv, 30), authorize such horrible portraitures of the final doom of the wicked. The fearful representations of divine judgment and penalty set forth in Scripture need not be interpreted literally in order to enforce the doctrine of the hopeless perdition of the incorrigible sinner, and the exegete, who assumes in his discussion that the literal import of such texts must be held, weakens his own argument. Far more convincing and overwhelming is that mode of teaching which makes no special plea over the etymology or usage of some disputed word (even though it be aiúvios), but rather holds up to view the uniform and awful indications of hopeless ruin and utter exclusion from the glory of God which the

1 Greek Testament, in loco.