To allow of a full and proper comparison between what is to be found in Scripture and this doctrine it is necessary to appreciate to what the doctrine of the Trinity requires the Bible to subscribe. It is not sufficient to discover the mere mention in the Old and New Testaments of the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it must state to uphold the Trinity that these three do not in any separate case form the Godhead; that the Son by Himself is not God; but that the Godhead is constituted by the presence of the Three. Further, that each and all must be affirmed to be existent from eternity; that "none is afore or after other;" that during the eternal ages of the past when the Father has been existent, so also has the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Again, that these Three are co-equal: "None is greater or less than another," and finally that they are Three Persons
without body, parts, or passions, each having separate and distinct identity, but not complete in any one; and all merging into and forming the final and grand complete Godhead.

The mere discovery of the mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is not countenancing in any degree the complex phases of the Trinity: in such places it simply states the existence of the three persons or powers without defining their nature, or their relationship and office.

WHAT THE BIBLE DOES STATE.

From of old, from the very beginning, God has spoken of Himself as a Unity, without any reservation that He is speaking of Himself as the Father only, and that there are two other contemporary and equal Persons with Him from all eternity. Moses declared to Israel:

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4).

And this proves to be the keynote of the whole of the Bible.

The declaration of Moses, receives its confirmation and endorsement at the hands of Jesus Christ when He repeats the very words to the Scribes of later Israel:

"The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark xii. 29)

By Isaiah the nature of God is expressed in phraseology, probably as clear as words have the power of conveying an idea:

"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. . . . Remember the former things of old: for I am God and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me" (Isa. xlv. 5-7; xlvi. 9).

What can be the meaning of these continually re-iterated personal pronouns, "I" and "Me," if they do not convey the idea of a Unity?

One wonders, too, if this language does convey the idea of a Trinity, what mode of expression and language the Prophet would have employed to teach that God was a Unity. Pronouns of the singular number are here used, and one is told that they denote a Trinity; where through the whole field of language is there, then, a word to express a Unity!

The "I" here declared of God by Isaiah is revealed in the New Testament by Paul as the Father. Jehovah was God only, under the old regime, but He became a God and Father under the new by having given birth through His power, the Holy Spirit, to the Lord Jesus Christ:

"But to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Cor. viii. 6).

The New Testament bears equal testimony to this supremacy of the Father. The God of the Old Testament is the Father of the New, and the Father of the New Testament, is the God of the Old: He changes not.

Paul before Felix was content to abide by the Old doctrine:

"This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers (Acts xxiv. 14).

What that "way" was the apostle informs us in that concise definition of the Christian faith as received by him of the Lord Jesus. He says:

"There is . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephes. iv. 4-6).

Which definition or creed for terseness and comprehensiveness occupies in the New Testament the same place as the declaration of Isaiah occupies in the Old.

It needs not, however, that this phase be lingered over, for the whole of Scripture is of the same tenor; and if one text proves the Unity of God, then a hundred can do no more; while on the contrary, if one reference fails to demonstrate this fact, the constant repetition would not succeed in proving it.

Let it first be appreciated before leaving the subject, that the New Testament is but an invaluable Commentary on the Old, and that in relation to this particular phase, as the Rev. Dr. Flint has admirably focalised in the following extract:

"The God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New. Christ and the apostles accepted what Moses and the prophets had taught concerning God; they assigned to Him no other attributes than had already been assigned to Him." -Encyclopedia Britannica, Art., "Theism."

The position of Jesus Christ is a far more comprehensive subject, for the very reason that He is the centre of all God's promises, and that His work and nature are revealed in great detail by God.

It is so early as the Garden of Eden, subsequent to the fall of man, that Jesus is first mentioned, though, of course, not by name. The work is so indicated as to exclude the possibility of any misconception of the One of whom promise is made. God, speaking to the serpent, says:

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [or he*] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. iii. 15).

*The translation of the Douay version:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel,"

is, according to the general concensus of opinion, quite without authority. The Companion Bible states:

"The corruption of this in the Vulgate into 'she' lies at the root of Mariolatry: the verb in sing. masc. shows that zera (seed) is here to be taken in singular, with Septuagint, i.e., Christ."

Bishop Wordsworth, commenting on Gen. iii. 15, says:

"The modern church of Rome reads Ipsa here in her Version, and applies this prophecy to a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary; and she now cites this text as a ground for her new dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which she endeavoured to make an Article of faith by the Decree promulgated in St. Peter's Church at Rome by Pope Pius IX., on December 8th, 1854, in which the Bishop of Rome said that the Blessed Virgin was pre-announced by God, when He said to the Serpent, 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman, . . . ' and the Virgin 'of the Immaculate Conception' is represented by the Church of Rome in statues and pictures as bruising the head of the Serpent under her feet. The promulgation of this new dogma is enough to show that the church of Rome is not infallible."

The following prayer is interesting in view of the invalidity of this translation; it immediately succeeds the preface to The Little Testament of the Holy Virgin, published "with the permission of the superiors":

"O ever blessed Virgin Mary, the avenue of God's tender mercies to man! Thou wert promised from the beginning of the world 'to crush the serpent's head' (Gen. iii. 15)." -Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, p. 760.

The development and continual re-iteration of this purpose of God is one of the most prominent features of the Old Testament Scriptures. To Abraham "a seed" was promised who should receive and bestow the blessings of the covenant made with him; and to Isaac and Jacob the promise was renewed. Later God spoke to David, and abated not one word from His promise:

"Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever" Psa. lxxxix. 35).

All these promises of "a seed" to Eve, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ, for at the time of the prophecy to Mary of the coming birth of Jesus, the angel says:

"Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke i. 31, 32).

While Paul, writing to the churches in Galatia says:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. iii. 16).

And further in the same book he shows that--

"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law" (Gal. iv. 4, 5).

Accordingly, from these Old Testament prophecies, and from the conception of the subject on the part of inspired writers in the New Testament, clinching prophecies in their full application to Christ, is seen the place that Jesus occupies in the "work of the Father." The writer to the Hebrews affirms:

"Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part (R.V., partook) of the same" (Heb. ii. 14).

From this and the forgoing quotations it will be noted that Jesus had been foretold from the very beginning, as a specially provided member of the human race, whose Father should be the Lord God of heaven and earth. That Jesus should by direct begettal be the Son of God; by natural birth the Son of Man; that He, by this beautiful provision of God, should redeem man from the weak position inherited from his forefathers.

No mention at all is made of the incarnation of the second Person of the Godhead; for, indeed, this would frustrate God's determination that man should not have a high priest who would be unable to be sympathetic in the ills and the shortcomings of man, but that the High Priest should be--

"Made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest" (Heb. ii. 17).

And that in the purposes of God, that as at first:

"By man came death,"

So in the working out of His promises--

"By man should come also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 21).

It was but a few years after his birth that Jesus realised that He occupied this place in the plan of His Father. At probably the first feast of passover He attended, He lingered behind and escaped from Joseph and Mary upon their return to their homes, and when they rebuked Him for the delay that was occasioned, He answered with a reply pregnant with meaning, and showing how full was the appreciation of the work which He was shortly to take into His own hands:

"How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Luke ii. 49).

Later, at about the age of thirty years, Jesus left His home and went forth upon His Father's mission. His way was hard, but the Father had prepared Him for His work. Jesus knew the past work of God and He knew that it was for Him to continue it:

"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. . . the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater things than these, that ye may marvel" (John v. 17-20).

Thus all the works which the Son had seen that the Father had accomplished in the past, and all the works which the Father was working in Him then, and would yet work in His brethren for the salvation of the world, He had promised to give Him, and "had appointed Him heir of all things" (Heb. i. 2), for:

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself " (2 Cor. v. 19).

To dilate extensively upon the inconsistencies of the Trinitarian position, would be out of place in this section; but how impossible is their position in this matter! If Christ were the Maker of all things, could He be appointed by God heir of them, heir that would be to all which He had designed, made, and controlled; and further, an absolute incongruity is noted in the former statement, when God, loving His Son, showeth Him all things which He doeth. Jesus had existed from all eternity, and seen the Father working, and had, according to the supporters of this doctrine, participated in it Himself!

God, even while showing His Son what He purposed doing, and while making Him heir of all things, yet reserved to Himself certain things, which Christ recognised. Replying to the question His disciples put to Him immediately before the Ascension:

"Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts i. 6).

He answers significantly:

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts i. 7).

Jesus, however, was able to confess, when He ascended to His Father's right hand that His Father had empowered Him with control in heaven and earth, which illustrates a further development in the relation of the Son to the Father, for earlier in His ministry He had declared that certain times were in the Father's mind exclusively. Jesus said of His second advent:

"Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32).

Which, as in the previous quotations, excludes entirely any teaching which would elevate the Son to equality with the Father; Jesus at the time knew not in every detail the purpose of God; while in His last message to mankind He acknowledges the Father had since shown Him all things which He doeth:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" (Rev. i. 1).

All this language is necessarily quite inconsistent with One who occupies a position equal to the Great God and Creator of all things. He would have power in heaven and earth from the eternal past, and the purpose of the Godhead would be quite open to Him as the Controller, and no revelation of what was to be accomplished on the earth could be compatible with an equal position or an eternal existence.

Again, reverting to the Gospel, which above all the four records is supposed to countenance the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ, but which probably yields the greatest proofs against it, Jesus states in relation to His saving work, that:

"As the Father hath life in himself: so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John v. 26).

It would be possible here, as in the case of the testimony of the Father's supremacy and Unity, to multiply quotations to an almost unlimited extent. If, as in the previous case, the testimony already shown will fail to demonstrate the subserviency of the Son to the Father, and His first and only existence by Mary, then one despairs that language must have lost its force, and the pregnant statements of Jesus in relation to Himself their cogency.

Let us ponder, however, this last quoted passage, for all admit that God is the Fountain of Life, that He upholds all living creatures by His power, as the Psalmist sings:

"With thee is the fountain of life" (Psa. xxxvi. 9).

Therefore as Christ confesses that He has not that power originally in Himself, the only possible deduction to make from this declaration is that He did not form part of that Head which from all eternity was, and still is, the fountain of life.

It is noteworthy that when Jesus appears again the second time to complete the work He has commenced, that He will have a work to perform that will cut at the very root of this corrupt doctrine, and destroy it for ever. Paul writes Timothy to--

"Keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in his time he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto" (1 Tim. vi. 14-16).

It is therefore to be expected that a corrupt doctrine of the Godhead will obtain in some considerable force at the time of the second advent of Jesus Christ, to allow Him to show openly who is the blessed and only Potentate. If at the return of Christ the true God was properly worshipped, then these words of the Apostle would not be so full of meaning as they apparently are to those who shall be found upholding and contending for the Truth. For the only true God could not then be revealed; He would indeed be known and worshipped of all men. This prophecy of the Apostle is tantamount to a declaration that an erroneous conception of the Godhead will generally prevail in the last times.

Jesus will yet reveal the One and only true God, the Great Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, and when He, in accordance with that plan of His Father shall have brought the world into subjection:

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he [the Father] hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 24-28).

How, then, shall Jesus be the second person of the Trinity, when He becomes subject to God All in All, which, if the Trinity were right, would be here intended in its fullest and most mystical character? Words truly fail in their significance if this can be so; but Jesus is not the second person of an incomprehensible Godhead. If Jesus were God, He would, when God was all in all, be subject unto Himself. He is, indeed, the centre of those great and glorious promises that all the world shall acknowledge Him as the Creator's Son, and shall bow the knee to Him; acclaim Him the Saviour of mankind, when the earth is ruled in sincerity, in truth, and in righteousness.

Listen, before closing the consideration of this doctrine to a Trinitarian's comment upon the position of the Son:

"The more I endeavour to realise the manner of thinking and speaking current in the New Testament, the more I feel myself called upon to give it as my decided opinion that the historical Son of God as such cannot be called God, with out completely destroying the monotheistical system of the Apostles." -Lucke, Study and Criticism, vol. i., p. 91.

Of the Holy Spirit but little need be added here as to the teaching of the Scriptures. The Spirit is revealed continually as the power of the Highest, as already quoted from Luke's record: the reference is to the occasion of the angelic promise to Mary:

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke i. 35).

From which and similar statements it is noted that in accordance with the custom of the literature of the East, the writers, to emphasise a matter, repeated the idea successively in different language, so here the quotation is self-illustrative; demonstrating the truth that the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, is the power of the Highest. To further illustrate this fact compare the use of the word in the Old Testament, and note the same express application in the New. Job, describing the creation, says:

"By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens" (Job xxvi. 13).

While the Psalmist, later singing the praises of the Universe, describing the same act as the creation of:

"Thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained" (Psalm viii. 3).

Precisely the same use is made of the Spirit in the New Testament writings. When Christ was challenged with reference to the influence He exerted in the cure of the sick, He is said by the account of Matthew to have replied:

"If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Matt. xii. 28).

But the account of Luke, while agreeing in all details with the first Gospel, records it in slightly different language:

"If I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Luke xi. 20).

So, therefore, the Spirit of God was commonly understood in the days of the men inspired of God, to be that power which, emanating from God, fills the whole of space, works His will, and performs His pleasure in all parts of the universe.

The value of the adjective "holy," prefixed in some cases, is manifest. It is the same power, but in more direct use by the Father, although there is not in any way a general rule to govern the use even under such conditions. Peter, writing of prophecy in old times, says:

"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter i. 21).

But its manifestation by those holy men of old is only that:

"The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Sam. xxiii. 2).

While in the prophecy of the mission of Jesus, He is represented as saying: -

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me" (Isaiah lxi. 1).

Nothing thus expressly is to be understood of the word "holy," for all spirit power has its origin in God, and therefore whether in special manifestation or in general application to the control of the universe the fountain of the power is always traceable to God Himself.

As to the meaning properly attaching to the word "Ghost," reference is invited to a later chapter where that word and the more properly used word "Spirit" are considered.