HOME | BOOKS | SITE MAP | EMAIL
[CONTENTS] || [PREVIOUS] || [NEXT]
So long as the doctrine of the Trinity is urged, as consisting of Three Persons, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance, so surely will the impossibility of such a position be argued. An old truth or a well-worn argument does not by age or constant repetition become on the one hand, error, nor on the other hand, a weak charge to be lightly ignored.
That Trinitarians themselves readily acknowledge the difficulty or the impossibility of the position, is seen by a perusal of their writings.
Cardinal Wiseman freely admits the poignancy of the charge. He says:
"Who will pretend to say, that he can, by any stretch of his imagination or of his reasoning, see it possible how three persons in one God can be but one Godhead?" -Lectures, p. 370.
While the Rev. Dr. Robert Flint, writing his article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on "Theism," calls attention forcibly to the same impossible theory:
"This obligation (of explaining the various expressions 'Person,' 'substance,' 'divine generation,' and 'processions,' etc., etc., and the relation of 'substance and persons'; and the identity and inter-relation of the persons) could only be temporarily and partially evaded or concealed by representing the doctrine as 'a mystery' to be accepted simply on authority, or with blind faith."
This plea of "mystery" has already received attention, but one is sorely tempted to introduce here an irrelevancy, to remark that if this doctrine truly be a mystery, it is beyond man's comprehension, and he therefore is not in a position to perceive nor to think thereon. Such a position, in spite of its absurdity and impossibility of thinking upon, or believing that which can be neither perceived nor comprehended, is what the Athanasian Creed, as already quoted, calls for:
"The Father . . . the Son, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible."
It therefore is obvious of this doctrine that it is admittedly impossible to realize its definition, and accordingly the Creed itself is found contradictory and impossible within its own bounds, when it requires that:
"He therefore that will be saved: must think thus of the Trinity."
If the Creed which alone divulges this great system of mysteries cannot be discovered as an agreeable synthetic whole; how shall confidence be placed in its demands upon us in the most sacred doctrine of the Christian religion? First, let the proverb be applied:
"Physician, heal thyself."
And only when the authors of these statements of faith have satisfied themselves upon a proper basis of unity, let them produce their Creed for reverential examination and Scriptural comparison.
Reverting to the question of the relation of the Persons the following extracts are produced, without comment, to testify how even the disciples of Trinitarianism are willing to admit their confusion and inability to explain their affirmations; that three distinct persons, with faculties and personalities do in the Godhead form but one Substance, one Person:
DR. JOHN HEY:
"When it is proposed to me to affirm that 'in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;' I have difficulty enough! my understanding is involved in perplexity, my conceptions bewildered in the thickest darkness. I pause, I hesitate; I ask what necessity there is for making such a declaration. . . . But does not this confound all our conceptions, and make us use words without meaning? I think it does. I profess and proclaim my confusion in the most unequivocal manner; I make it an essential part of my declaration. Did I pretend to understand what I say, I might be a Tritheist or an infidel; but I could not both worship the one true God, and acknowledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of all." -Lectures in Divinity, vol. ii., pp. 249-251.
DR. JOHN WALLIS, another English Divine:
"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 metaphysical, 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 ' does not please, three 'somewhats,' that are but one God?" -Three Sermons, p. 61.
DR. WM. SHERLOCK, Dean of St. Paul, disputant in "Trinity" Debate with Dr. South:
"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 nonsense. . . . Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as really distinct persons as Peter, James and John." -Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, sec. iv., p. 66, v. 105.
REV. JOHN HUNT:
"Person . . . could only mean an intelligent agent, and in this sense the same God could not be One and yet Three." -Religious Thought in England, vol. iii., p. 29.
THE DUKE OF SUSSEX, one time President of Royal Society:
"This I call at once dogma (the Trinity) and above our comprehension. If they be intelligent agents, they must have three independent wills of their own, and what becomes then of the Unity of the Deity? . . . We cannot be called upon to believe that which we do not understand, and which, after all, is only handed down to us by tradition." --(Quoted Stannus, Origin Doctrine Trinity, pp. 20, 21).
Upon this point of the "Persons," Scripture has some very definite statements. The writer to the Hebrews opening his Epistle, first shows how that God in times past spoke to man by the prophets, but in later times by His Son.
This reference is quite certain and clear; it refers to Jesus when He testified in person and bodily form for the Father's work. Listen, then, to the description of Jesus when on earth by the same writer, and in the same chapter:
"Who being the brightness of his (God's) glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. i. 3).
Listen yet to a fuller statement, which will suffice as the evidence of Scripture. The Apostle Paul says much regarding rules of conduct in the Church, and this further point arises in his instructions and arguments:
"Every man praying, or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head. . . . For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but a woman is the glory of a man " (1 Cor. ii. 4-7).
Therefore the difference is drawn between man and woman in relation to the likeness to God. Could anything be more exact and binding? God indeed is a Person; Scripture has declared it as plainly and as forcibly as words can convey ideas. As surely as Jesus when on earth nineteen hundred years ago was here as a person in bodily form, so surely is God in heaven a Person; for Jesus was, on Apostolic authority, "the express image of His person," and on the same indisputable authority man and not woman is in the form of God. Such being the well-attested "bodily person" of the Father and of the Son, how can the Two Persons blend their Beings with the Third Person of the Holy Ghost into the unsubstantial three-person-Godhead?
Before leaving this matter it is well, perhaps, to point to an apparent contradiction in the Articles of Religion of the Established Church.
Article 1. requires that-
"There is but one living and true God, ever lasting, without body, parts or passions."
Now in this God, the Article declares there to be Three persons converging in one complete and harmonious bodiless whole. For one of the Three to receive a body, and to retain the same eternally, would irrevocably disintegrate this agreement and inter-relationship of the Trinity in Unity; it would deny the very first and fundamental idea of the three-person-God, and continually distinguish between their persons. Yet, this is precisely what Article II. calls upon man to believe -- it must indeed find place for it, as Scripture is so certain upon its declaration that Jesus the second Person--
" . . . took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance (defined in article iv. as flesh, bones, etc.) so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided."
What, one humbly enquires, would be the position of the Son with the body, parts, and passions, with the remaining two Persons in the Godhead, who have neither body, parts, nor passions? The doctrine in the Statement of Faith of the Church is contradictory, and how shall man then believe firmly in God his Creator, and in Christ his Saviour. Yea, indeed!
CHAPTER XIII: The Son Subordinate By Begettal 
TOP | HOME | BOOKS | SITE MAP | ORDER FORM | EMAIL
http://www.antipas.org | email: wm@antipas.org