Firstly, it must be borne in mind that the doctrine of the Godhead forms but part of a great revelation of God, and therefore the interpretation of any given part will not contradict any other section of that revelation; the doctrine must take its true and proper place in the scheme which God has manifested and must be consonant in each of its phases with the general plan of God, as is properly shown by that eminent Trinitarian, Thomas Hartwell Horne:-

"No doctrine is admissible, or can be established from the Scriptures, that is either repugnant to them, or contrary to reason or to the analogy of faith. . . . The different parts of a revelation which comes from God must all be reconcilable with one another, and with sound reason." -Vol ii., P. 551.

And further he observes:-

"An obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, or figurative text must never be interpreted in such a sense as to make it contradict a plain one. In explaining the Scriptures, consistency of sense and principles ought to be supported in all their several parts; and if any one part be so interpreted as to clash with another, such interpretation cannot be justified. Nor can it be otherwise corrected than by considering every doubtful or difficult text, first by itself, then with its context, and then by comparing it with other passages of Scripture, and thus bringing what may seem obscure into a consistency with what is plain and evident." -Vol. ii., p. 414.

Attention is particularly directed to these extracts as containing a thoughtful and most reasonable exhortation on the interpretation of Scripture. The influence of inspiration itself is annulled if a different course is pursued.

Dr. Hagenbach in History of Doctrine, quoting Gfrorer upon this power of inspiration says:-

"Considering the high opinion regarding the inspiration of the sacred writing, and the dignity of what is revealed in them, we should expect as a matter of course, to meet with careful interpreters who would diligently investigate the exact meaning of every part of Holy Writ. But the very opposite has taken place. Inspiration is done away with by that most arbitrary of all modes of interpretation, the allegorical." -Vol. i. p. 80.

In addition, Dr. Wardlaw, a Trinitarian, writes in The Discourse on the Socinian Controversy, vol. viii., p. 256:-

"It is reasonable to expect, that those doctrines which form the leading articles of any system should be plainly stated in the book which professes to make that system known."

Finally, there are one or two phases of this matter remaining, which should be stated, but which upon other subjects, it would be quite unnecessary to mention.

First, the impossibility of arriving at a comprehensive understanding of the "teaching of the Bible" by choosing isolated texts and basing a doctrine upon them. It is necessary to take a broad view of the work which God has commenced in relation to man, and to realise how each action of God has its true and proper place in His work, and each description is in coincidence with the necessities of that action. It will then be impossible to arrive at a wrong conclusion in the teaching of any part of Scripture, for no place will be found in God's plan for a false doctrine. John Selden, a Trinitarian, complains of the abuse of Scripture by arbitrarily selecting a passage and dogmatising upon it, in Table Talks, p. 20:-

"We pick out a text here and there; whereas, if we take it altogether, and consider what went before, and what followed after, we should find it meant no such thing."

UNSCRIPTURAL WORD

There is also immense danger in the introduction of words to express ideas, which are alien to the Bible. Probably nothing was so prolific a cause of error in early times as the use of unscriptural words. No doubt by reason alone of their lofty nature and their superficially dignified characters, were they introduced; a custom which before long increased and continued, until this at first comparatively small matter entirely superseded Biblical language, and finally even Biblical doctrine. Philosophic expressions brought in philosophic ideas, which produced as Dr. Aloshiern has recorded, "a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined." When doctrines of the Bible are under consideration, let the examination exclude all words which are not clearly allowed in that book. Bishop Taylor has written a very apposite paragraph upon this point. He says:-

"St. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid 'the profane newness of words;' that is, it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture, and with that simplicity, openness, easiness and candour, and not with new and unhallowed words."

In view of these reasonable conditions advanced for the most part from the Trinitarian side, it will be well to continually take the chief declarations on such doctrinal matters as the Godhead from plain and certain expressions, leaving all other statements to be compared with, and to receive their meaning from, the general teaching of inspired writers. The reasonableness of this exhortation will be appreciated more fully when the eastern character of the Scriptures is borne in mind, together with the numerous transcriptions which they have been subject to, and the multitude of translations through which they have passed to us; all contributing to the chance of ambiguity in the expression, and doubt as to the full equivalence of the original existing in the translation.

Little further, need be stated. All that the subject under review requires is a calm, reasoned inquiry into the evidence in each section when any difference of opinion exists as to the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Not immediately considering any references to be "allegorical" or "figurative" when the context does not allow or claim it so: but a proper and impartial verdict being given in accordance with the time of the revelation and the position and purpose of the writers. Nor should refuge be taken in the old cry of "mystery" when the evidence seems to make against our received beliefs and cherished traditions. For God, who made the revelation to man, has also endowed him with faculties to receive it. God does not ask us to account for His existence, for that He knows to be beyond man's finite mind. God informs us that "He is," and that there are certain attributes in relation to Himself, which He calls upon us to acquaint ourselves with and to believe. Therefore, to affirm that what God has caused to be "written for our learning" is in excess of the abilities which He has given, is to affirm inconsistency and incommensurableness upon the part of the Creator. God has plainly and simply declared what is necessary for us to know; therefore let us humbly and reverently receive His word, examine it, be guided by it, but above all, believe it. For "this is life eternal," said Christ, "to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

The various phases of thought in the matter of the "mystery" of this doctrine are well portrayed in the following extracts.

Dr. Symonds says that

"It has been an opinion invariably received in all Protestant countries, that whatever is necessary to be believed is intelligible to all persons who read the Scriptures with no other view than to investigate and embrace the truth. It would be easy to produce a cloud of authorities to this purpose." -Dr. Symonds, Expediency of Revising the Present English Version of the Epistles, p. 15.

Dean Swift writes in his Sermon on the Trinity, produced in his Works, vol. ii., p. 142, that

"It is manifest, that God did never command us to believe nor his ministers to preach, any doctrine which is contrary to the reason he hath pleased to endow us with."

Dr. South, too, pens some apposite words against this contention of the sanctity of the subject by reason of its mystery: -

"It is well the difficulties of subduing the understanding are too great to be mastered; for a slight reflection will serve to convince us, that the necessary consequences of a blind resignation of judgment would be far more fatal to Christianity than all our present divisions. What blasphemies and contradictions may and have been imposed upon men's belief, under the venerable name of mysteries? And how easy are villianous practices derived from an absurd faith? ... Another condition necessary to render a thing capable of being believed is, that it implies no contradiction to our former knowledge. I cannot conceive how it is possible to give our assent to anything that contradicts the plain dictates of our reason, and those evident principles from whence we derive all our knowledge." -- Considerations on the Trinity, pp. 2,3.

Again, much the same contention is made by the Archbishop Secker, also a Trinitarian, in his Sermons, vol. iv., p. 384: --

"Indeed let any proposition be delivered to us, as coming from God, or from man, we can believe it no farther than we understand it: and therefore if we do not understand it at all, we cannot believe it at all -- I mean explicitly; but only be persuaded, that it contains some truth or other, though we know not what. Again, were any doctrine laid down which we clearly saw to be self-contradictory, or otherwise absurd, that could never be an object of our faith. For there is no possibility of admitting, upon any authority, a thing for true which we evidently perceive to be false. Nor would calling such doctrines mysterious, mend the matter in the least. For, indeed, there is no mystery in them: they are as plain as any in nature: as plainly contrary to truth, as anything else is agreeable to it."

Extracts from several very well-known writers (all Trinitarians), are here given to illustrate how statements and definitions, mutually contradictory and wholly absurd, are published in all seriousness and sincerity. To this doctrine Dr. Watts refers in one of his hymns: -

"Almighty God, to Thee
Be endless honours done;
The undivided Three,
And the mysterious One!
Where reason fails with all her powers,
There faith prevails, and love adores."

Rather let the wording be reversed as the Rev. Edward Young has beautifully written in Night Thoughts: --

" ..... Reason bids,
All-sacred reason '--Hold her sacred still;
Nor shalt thou want a rival in thy flame.
All-sacred reason! source and soul of all
Demanding praise on earth or earth above,
My heart is thine: deep in its inmost folds,
Live thou with life; live dearer of the two.
Wear I the blessed cross, by fortune stamp'd
On passive nature, before thought was born, --
My birth's blind bigot, fired with local zeal?
No; reason re-baptised me when adult;
Weigh'd true and false in her impartial scale,
My heart became the convert of my head,
And made that choice which once was but my fate
'On argument alone my faith is built.'
Reason pursued is faith; and, unpursued
Where proof invites, 'tis reason, then, no more.
And such our proof, that, or our faith, is right,
Or reason lies, and Heaven design'd it wrong:
Absolve we this? What, then, is blasphemy?
Fond as we are, and justly fond, of faith,
Reason, we grant, demands our first regard;
The mother honour'd, as the daughter dear.
Reason the root, fair faith is but the flower.
The fading flower shall die; but reason lives,
Immortal as her Father in the skies.
When faith is virtue, reason makes it so.
Wrong not the Christian; think not reason yours:
'Tis reason our great Master holds so dear;
'Tis reason's injured rights his wrath resents;
'Tis reason's voice obey'd his glories crown;
To give lost reason life, he pour'd his own.
Believe, and show the reason of a man;
Believe, and taste the pleasure of a God;
Believe, and look with triumph on the tomb;
Through reason's wounds alone thy faith can die;
Which, dying, tenfold terror gives to death,
And dips in venom his twice-mortal sting."

--Night Thoughts, "The Complaint," Night IV.

And Wesley, too, sings: --

"Hail, co-essential Three,
In mystic Unity!
Father, Son, and Spirit, hail!
God by heaven and earth adored,
God incomprehensible;
One supreme, almighty Lord.

Thou sittest on the throne,
Plurality in One:
Saints behold thine open face,
Bright, insufferably, bright:
And tremble as they gaze,
Sink into a sea of light."

In the following extract, which is not one whit behind the most remarkable of these incomprehensible statements, Bishop Beverage apparently loses himself in the attempt to "screw up" his thoughts a little to enable him to conceive the inconceivable: --

"I ever did, and ever shall, look upon those apprehensions of God to be truest, whereby we apprehend Him to be the most incomprehensible, and that to be the most true of God which seems most impossible unto us. Upon this ground, therefore, it is that the mysteries of the gospel, which I am less able to conceive, I think myself the more obliged to believe; especially this mystery of mysteries, the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, which I am so far from being able to comprehend, or indeed to apprehend, that I cannot set myself seriously to think of it, or to screw up my thoughts a little concerning it, but I immediately lose myself as in a trance or ecstacy: that God the Father should be one perfect God of Himself, God the Son one perfect God of Himself, and God the Holy Ghost one perfect God of Himself; and yet that these three should be but one perfect God of Himself, so that one should be perfectly three, and three perfectly one; that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, should be Three, and yet but One; but One, and yet Three! O heart-amazing, thought-devouring, unconceivable mystery! Who cannot believe it to be true of the glorious Deity." -Private Thoughts on Religion, Article iii., pp. 52, 53.

The late Bishop of Exeter, the Right Rev. Bishop E. H. Bickersteth, D.D., also in his work, Yesterday, To-day, and for Ever, which might aptly be termed the "Protestants' Dante," describes the meeting of the redeemed in heaven, and the crowning of the Saviour by Jehovah--differentiating thus in the persons of the Godhead: -

"The angels gazed in silent ecstacy:
For now it seem'd as if Jehovah turn'd
The glory of His countenance full-orb'd
Upon the Son; that glory which on us
Shone only as each child could bear its light,
Resting upon the everlasting Son
In all unveil'd effulgence . . . . "

But within a few lines of this description, the Bishop continues the graphic narrative, and fuses the distinct persons into an incomprehensible and mystic Trinity:--

". . . . as in silent awe we knelt and gazed,
And gazing, worshipp'd, we beheld no more
The glory of the Father, Son and Spirit,
Each by itself distinct, but all Triune,
The Trinity in Unity express'd,
One Uncreated, One Almighty, One
Eternal, One Incomprehensible,
One Lord, One God. And God was all in all." -Book xii.

The Bishop also includes the hymn for "The creed of St. Athanasius," in his hymnal Companion, 40:-

". .Mighty Father, blessed Son,
Holy Spirit, Three in One,
Evermore Thy will be done.

Threefold is Thy glorious might,
Threefold is Thy name of Light,
Veil'd before our mortal sight.

Threefold let our praises be,
Great Mysterious One, to Thee,
Undivided Trinity.

Into mystery deeper higher
Thou dost awfully retire
Lowliest reverence to inspire;

That within the golden door,
Sense and sight must wait before,
Faith may enter and adore.

Mystery -- 'tis all around;
Mystery -- but holy ground;
Where Thy mercy may be found." -et seq.

Macaulay, too, in reviewing Ranke's History of the Popes, records how that the celebrated Romanist, Ignatius Loyola, declares he saw this mysterious Trinity in Unity. Loyola claims that

"The Holy Virgin descended to commune with him. He saw the Saviour face to face with the eye of flesh. Even those mysteries of religion which are the hardest trial of faith were in his case palpable to sight. It is difficult to relate without a pitying smile that in the sacrifice of the mass, he saw transubstantiation take place, and that as he stood praying on the steps of St. Dominic, he saw the Trinity in Unity, and wept aloud with joy and wonder. Such was the celebrated Ignatius Loyola, who, in the great Catholic reaction, bore the same part which Luther bore in the great Protestant movement."

From such unreasonableness and contradiction one turns away knowing that God, the very essence and origin of all truth and wisdom, has never asked and does not require man to endorse such absurd and fanciful sentiments.

If a doctrine cannot be examined reverently yet closely, and analytically, then that doctrine, all may rest assured, is not a doctrine whose foundation may be discovered in the Bible -- a book which so unreservedly opens its leaves to all who care to examine it, and calls upon seekers for truth to come and participate in its blessings.

"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth no?" (Isa. lv. 1,2).

In Trinitarian author's writings, some very fine sentiments are found to be expressed in relation to this freedom of enquiry.

Dr. Adam Clarke, a most unswerving supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity affirms that: --

"The doctrine which cannot stand the test of rational investigation cannot be true. We have gone too far when we have said, Such and such doctrines should not be subjected to rational investigation, being doctrines of pure revelation. I know of no such doctrine in the Bible. The doctrines of this book are doctrines of eternal reason, and they are revealed because they are such."

And Archbishop, Tillotson, another well-known Trinitarian, writes in his Words, vol. i, p. 19: --

"When we say God hath revealed anything, we must be ready to prove it, or else we say nothing. If we turn off reason here, we level the best religion in the world with the wildest and most absurd enthusiasms. And it does not alter the case much to give reason ill names, to call it blind and carnal reason . . . For our part we apprehend no manner of inconvenience in having reason on our side; nor need we desire a better evidence, that any man is in the wrong, than to hear him declare against reason, and thereby to acknowledge that reason is against him. . . . Some men seem to think, that they oblige God mightily by believing plain contradictions; but the matter is quite otherwise."

Therefore, let the evidence in enquiry after truth in religion be weighed as in all other branches of knowledge and research; taking nothing for granted, but always endeavouring "to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good." It is wholly unsatisfactory to be met with the statement on the threshold of enquiry that "sense and sight must wait before." Let wisdom, rather, pursue her path and manifest the glorious truth of the constitution of the Deity of the heavens.

It is not asked that the Unknowable Creator may be both seen and known, but what reason can be urged that that definition, revealed by Himself for our learning, should be veiled from mortal man! The revelation has been to man; who should seek after the things of God as after hid treasure.

"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding" (Prov. iv. 7).

Endeavour has been made in this introduction that nothing should be asserted that could not be well received by such as now hold views contrary to the beliefs to be afterwards affirmed in this book. Therefore when any doubt might possibly be experienced, or where any historical fact has been mentioned, then liberal evidence has been produced, and produced on all occasions, too, from Trinitarian writers, excepting such extracts, of course, as have been selected from the writings of the early Christians, and maybe an occasional reference to an historian of secular conviction or persuasions other than orthodox.

A last matter should, perhaps, be mentioned here to save any confusion in the acceptance of a revised reading of the Old and New Testament Scriptures in the ensuing parts of this work; and the occasional necessity also of an examination into the renderings of the Authorised Version. Dr. Robert Lowth writing in Isaiah: a new Translation, long before the Revision of 1881, says:-

"Whenever it shall be thought proper to set forth the Holy Scriptures, for the public use of our church, to better advantage than as they appear in the present English translation, the expediency of which grows every day more and more evident, a revision or correction of that Translation may perhaps be more advisable, than to attempt an entirely new one. For as to style and language, it admits of but little improvement; but in respect of the sense and the accuracy of interpretation, the improvements of which it is capable are great and numberless."

CHAPTER III: "The Trinity" Defined