following remarkable proposition, and still more remarkable illustration and confirmation of it.

$ 190. (Glaubenslehre).

"That the doctrine [of the Trinity] may entirely correspond with that pious feeling of which Christians are conscious and which acknowledges a higher nature, EVEN THAT WHICH IS TRULY AND PROPERLY DIVINE, in Christ and the Holy Spirit, the three Persons of the Godhead MUST BE PLACED ON A PERFECT EQUALITY. This, although every where and at all times demanded, has not been done by any of the [public] formulas of the churches."

Illustration and Confirmation.

"(1) It is quite plain, that the declaration which asserts that 'the three persons of the Godhead are equal in substance, power, and glory,' is of itself an unsatisfactory and insufficient explanation. In its origin it was designed only to oppose, in a polemic way, those representations in which the super-human in Christ and the Holy Spirit was attributed to some being subordinate to the Godhead; and so far as this opposition to such view goes, it is sufficiently definitive. But after all, nothing more is done by this than to repel the idea of inequality.

"If now, on the other hand, something positive is to be taught by any particular declaration, this rule may be safely. laid down in respect to such declaration, viz., that in representing the distinction between the three persons, nothing is admissible which will convey the idea of an inequality between them. This requisition can never be fulfilled, unless the distinction between the persons is so defined, as not in any way to infringe upon their perfect equality; which is what has not hitherto been accomplished by any of the Symbols in common use.

"Let us examine the fundamental points in the representations of the Athanasian Symbol. The Father and the Son are said to be distinguished by the fact, that the Father is eternally unbegotten, [i. e. has eternal ayevvnoia]; the Son is from all eternity begotten, but never begets.

"Now one may represent eternal generation to be as remote as possible from all temporary and organic generation, yet there remains one idea, after all, which never can be removed from this view of the subject; and this is, that the relation of depen

dence is of necessity conveyed by such modes of expression. Now if the Father has from eternity exerted his power to beget the Son; and the Son has never exerted a power to beget any person of the Godhead, (which of itself seems to make a great dissimilarity between the first and second persons of the Godhead); and moreover, if there is no relation of dependence between the Son and another person of the Godhead, which can serve as an equivalent for the relation of dependence that exists between the Father and Son; then does it seem plainly to follow, that the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son, and the glory which the Father has in respect to the Son, must be greater than the glory which the Son has in respect to the Father.

"The same must be true, also, in respect to the Spirit; and this, whether we assume (with the Greek church), that he proceeds from the Father only, or (with the Latin one) that he proceeds both from the Father and the Son. In the last case, the Son is supposed to have only one incapacity, compared with the Father, [viz. that of not begetting]; in the former [i. e. where the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father only], he has a double incapacity, [viz. that of not begetting, and that of not causing the procession of the Spirit], in case nothing proceeds from him and he begets nothing. At all events, the Spirit must be supposed to have this two-fold incapacity, [for he neither begets nor causes procession]; and he is moreover in a relation of dependence, for the proceeding from, or the being breathed forth, necessarily implies a relation of dependence, as well as the being begotten. It is moreover a dependence different from that which belongs to the first and second persons of the Godhead; although no one indeed can tell what it is in itself, or how it differs from the being begotten.

"On the ground of the Latin church, the Spirit is dependent on the Father and the Son; and in this case the Son has one capacity in common with the Father, [viz. that of causing procession of the Spirit]; and in this respect he has a pre-eminence over the Holy Ghost. On the ground of the Greek church, the Spirit depends only on the Father, and is then in this respect like to the Son, inasmuch as the one is begotten by the Father, and the other proceeds from him.

"On each and every ground of this kind, the Father has preeminence over the other two persons; and the only question disputable is, whether the second and third persons are altogeth

er alike and equal in their common subordination to the Father, or whether there is subordination also between the second and the third.

"The canon then which requires such a representation of the persons in the Trinity, as will not make them in any respect unequal, is not answered by such modes of representation as these.

(2) "The same proposition, [viz. that the common modes of representation have hitherto been imperfect], may be made out in another way, by a consideration of the usual manner in which the subject of the Trinity has been treated. When proof has been required in particular, with respect either to the attributes or the active powers of any particular person of the Trinity, the matter is almost exclusively managed in the following way; viz., nearly every one of the strictly dogmatic theologians produces his proofs respecting the Son and the Spirit; but in respect to the Father, the whole matter is taken for granted, and the production of proof is deemed superfluous. If now the idea of a perfect equality among the persons of the Godhead lay at the basis of their scheme of doctrine, and a dependence of the Son upon the Father were not regarded as really implied by the very nature of their respective designations; then the proof respecting the first person would be felt to be as necessary as that respecting the other persons; and it would no more be assumed in the one case, than in the other. Nay, one might as well begin with the second or third person, in the argument, as with the first, and say: Because this or this is clear and certain respecting the second or third person, therefore it must be true of the first, inasmuch as they stand on the relative footing of perfect equality.

"Such a course, however, no dogmatic theologian takes; and by this uniformity of procedure, as to the method of treating this subject, it becomes perfectly plain that a preference is tacitly conceded to the first person.

"But further; it is usual to treat of the being and attributes of God in and by themselves, before the Trinity is taken into consideration; and having so done, writers appeal to what they have said of God simply considered, as self-evidently belonging to the Father, while at the same time they enter into a course of argument in order to prove that the same being and attributes belong to the Son and Spirit. Thus they tacitly and of course admit, that all which belongs to the Godhead simply considered,

belongs of course to the Father; and in so treating the matter they shew, that (as they consider the subject) the Father does himself constitute the Unity or Movas of the Godhead, and the expressions Μονάς or Μοναρχία and Father, are altogether equivalent.

"This method of representation, though not in the way of intention yet in reality, falls back upon and altogether accords with Origen's avowal, that the Father only is really and simply God; while the Son and Spirit are God merely because they participate in the divine Being.* I am aware that this mode of representation was spurned at by the orthodox party in general of theologians in after times. Yet after all, the very same sentiment did secretly insinuate itself into all their modes of representation, and lies at the very basis of them.

"To the like result should we come, if we should now make comparison of, and should subject to thorough criticism, the philosophical modes of representing the Trinity in ancient and in later times; or if we should attentively examine the distinction made between God concealed and God revealed, a distinction often attempted, but not always in the same way. But this could be accomplished only by a full and detailed illustration of the whole history and state of the doctrine under consideration; which present circumstances do not permit me to give."

Additional Considerations.

"If the remarks already made are well founded, then does it follow, that the true method of representing the doctrine of the Trinity has not yet been hit upon or achieved in the common Symbols. It still remains, according to the tenor of these Symbols and the books of theology, in a state of oscillation between subordination and equality on the one hand, and on the other between Tritheism and such a Unitarian view as is inconsistent with the appropriate honours due to the Redeemer, or with confident trust in the eternal efficacy of his redemption.

"It may appear strange indeed, while so many other doc

* Αὐτόθεος ὁ Θεός ἐστι . . . πᾶν δὲ τὸ παρὰ τὸ αὐτόθεος μετοχῇ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος θεοποιούμενον, κ. τ. λ. [ God (the Father) is very God ; but every thing else besides this very God is made divine by becoming partaker of his Divinity]. Comm. in Johan. IV. p. 50. ed. Ruell. Here the connection sets it beyond doubt, that by autódeos is meant the Father. Comp. Princip. I. p. 62, ed. Ruell.

+

trines of religion which came later under discussion than the doctrine of the Trinity should have been fully and satisfactorily developed and defined, that the doctrine of the Trinity, which was one of the very earliest that was brought into discussion, should still remain invested with an imperfect and unsatisfactory costume. In the mean time it should be remarked, that in the consideration and representation of this doctrine, the wants of our moral nature have not been duly regarded; nor have they been made a basis to build upon, in respect to this doctrine, as they for the most part were in respect to other Christian doctrines in general; which was greatly to their advantage. The importance of the doctrine in itself, and also as compared with other doctrines, seems to have contributed to prevent a different view of it from being taken.

"Here moreover was abundant room for polemic zeal and party spirit, in respect to the externals of doctrine, to put forth their full exercise; and how easy it is to fall into mistakes in such circumstances, every one must know. In such a state of things, moreover, every new oscillation would create a new excitement, which could not be very likely to lead to any happy results.

"It does not follow from all this, however, that no new effort to make a more consistent and unexceptionable representation of the doctrine of the Trinity, may not now be attended with better success. Christianity has become fully established, and all temptation to polytheism among us is removed; and thus a multitude of excitements to vehement polemics, which operated on the Christians of ancient times, have now lost their power. We also now more fully admit than the ancients did, the necessity of employing tropical expressions in regard to the Godhead, and we better understand their true nature.

"If now I may give some hints how our future efforts ought to be conducted, I should say, that we must go back in our inquiries to ancient times, when the ground-work of our symbolic expressions respecting the Trinity was commenced, and which still remains for substance unaltered, and we must endeavour to find, in the history of these early efforts, the misconceptions which led astray, or occasioned a failure as to a more complete representation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

"The first supposition to be examined would be, whether, in order to escape the so-called Sabellian heresy, too much had not been done by the opposing party; inasınuch as (for so the Ni