The doctrine of the Trinity has never been fixed and stationary in its theory. At some times it has been the subordination-theory; at other times it has been the consubstantial theory; at other times it has been the identical-substance theory. The one last mentioned is real, though not acknowledged, Modalism, - Sabellianism. And the consubstantial doctrine is real, though not avowed, tritheism. If each three of the divine persons be only consubstantial, possessed of the same generic substance, but not identical, then there are three Gods as truly as three divine persons; for each person must possess an intellect, a sensibility, a self-reflection, and a will, of its own. Otherwise it cannot be a personal being. But if the substance of each be identical, and have but one intellect, consciousness, and will, then the one God must be one person only. Where there is but one assemblage of personal attributes, there can, of course, be but one person.
Very few Trinitarians are fixed in their adhesion to either of the above-mentioned schemes. They take one of them for to-day, and another for tomorrow. But neither the one nor the other will bear scrutiny. Hence the constant oscillation, the shifting of one for the other; and this being done often backward and forward. Then they plunge into the dark dungeon of mystery, and confess that the doctrine can neither be explained nor understood.
The Trinitarian hypothesis is labelled all over with contradictions. The names and words by which it is described and defined are self-conflicting. The names Father and Son contradict the sentiment that they are equal in power and glory. A son cannot, in all respects, be equal to his father. The son depended upon his father for his existence; but the father was not thus dependent upon the son. The names imply inequality and subordination. Sometimes the terms, first, second, and third persons, are employed to designate the three members of the Trinity. But if these members be equal in power and glory, then no one of them can be first person: each one of them is as much first person as the other. No one of them can be second to the first, nor third to the other two.
But it may be alleged, that these are only names of office. If so, then there must be some reason for it. If one of the divine three have an office above the other two, there must be some reason for this distinction. Offices are assigned on account of merit and fitness. The different offices held by the several members of the Divine Trinity indicate their inequality. The servant is not greater than his lord, nor he that is sent greater than he who sent him; but the contrary.
The doctrine under consideration started with an absurdity, - the absurd sentiment that the attribute of intelligence in God became changed into a person, possessing all the perfections requisite to personality, yet leaving God in possession of all the intellect which he had before; and, having produced a second divine person from the attribute of reason, it became easy to produce a third from the divine spirit or power. In the course of a few centuries, the activity of God grew into a personal being, under the appellation of the Holy Ghost. It was consummated by the council of Toledo, Spain, in the fifth or sixth century from the birth of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment