The Trinity by James Orr

I. God is triune. It is this great truth, yet wondrous mystery of the Being of God, we are now to consider. Let us see, first, how we arrive at this idea or notion of God as Trinity. Here the first thing to be affirmed is that the divine Trinity, while meeting the need of a complete spiritual view of God, is yet essentially a doctrine of revelation. I mean by this that it is not a doctrine which would have been known, or which we could have put forth with confidence, on grounds of reason alone, but one which first comes to light in the course of God's historical Self-revelation. The contrary of this is often maintained. You will find brilliant books in which the idea is advocated that the whole notion of the Trinity comes to us from Greek philosophy, or other foreign sources. Now I do not mean that philosophy, or rational thought, has no points of contact with this doctrine. It is indeed a most instructive fact - not one which injures our faith, but which manifestly strengthens and corroborates it - that, in all ages, whenever men have set themselves seriously to think out their idea of God, they have found themselves driven, on philosophic grounds, to abandon the idea of bare unity in God, and to introduce the thought of living movement and of self-distinction into their conception. It was so in ancient Platonism; it was so in mediaeval Mysticism; it has been so in modern systems.

Nevertheless, it was certainly not from philosophy that the Biblical writers, or the early Church, got this doctrine, any more than they got from it the idea of God Himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is, in truth, got by induction from the facts of the Christian revelation, and aims simply at gathering up and correctly expressing what is involved in these facts as regards the nature of God ; just as in any other sphere of knowledge we arrive at general truths by inductions in that sphere. Take, e.g., the knowledge which each one possesses of the faculties of his own mind. You know in consciousness that the mind - the self is one and indivisible; yet it subsists in a plurality of powers and activities, which you discover, distinguish, and name, from your observation of them. Or take such a fact in physical science as magnetism. You know - what you could never learn by a priori reasoning - that every magnet has a north and a south pole. How do you get that knowledge ? By observation and induction from the facts of magnetism presented to you. How, then, do I know that God is Triune ? Not by metaphysical reasoning, but by induction from the facts of God's revelation of Himself in the Old and New Testaments, specially in the Gospel of redemption.

Redemption, as the Scripture reveals it, has three great Fountain-heads - each divine - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and these three are One God. In illustration of this inductive method, note how the Apostle John rose to the conviction of the identity of the historical Jesus, with that "Word" which was in the beginning with God, and was God (John i. i). Was it by abstract reasoning, or learning in the school of Philo? No; it was, as John himself emphasizes, from what he had himself seen and heard of Jesus in His historical manifestation : "We beheld His glory; glory of the Only-begotten of the Father," &c. (John 1:14; 1 John 1:3).

II. The doctrine, then, is obtained by observing and collating what is declared in Scripture, and discovered in the process of human salvation, regarding these divine Persons.

In proceeding to more special proof of this doctrine we naturally turn, first, to the well-known Trinitarian formula in the direction for Baptism, in Matt., xxviii. 19. This is the cardinal text on the subject: "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The passage is the more interesting that it occurs, not in St. John, or in the Epistles, but in one of the Synoptic Gospels, and is put into the mouth of the Lord Himself, as part of His last solemn commission to His disciples.

Observe then carefully, on this subject, that it is not three names into which disciples are to be baptised -not into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit - but one name, which is threefold; the one " name " of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It has to be borne in mind what was before said of the " name " of God in the Bible; that it is not a mere vocable, but is always an expression of some aspect of God's nature. The single, yet threefold, name into which we are baptised is expressive therefore of what is most distinctive in the Christian revelation of God.

If we look further into this formula, which, I think, goes to the root of the matter, we find a great deal more regarding this mystery of the divine nature.

For example, the Father in this formula is divine. No one doubts that. Few will deny either that the Spirit is divine. There is discussion about the Personality of the Holy Spirit, but not much about His divinity. Must it not, then, in simple consistency, be held that the second member in this triune circle, namely, the Son, also is divine? Suppose another name put into the formula, and it be read: "Baptising them into the name of the Father, and of Isaiah (or Paul, or John), and of the Holy Spirit," how utterly incongruous we should feel it to be. But we do not feel this incongruity when the name of the Son is inserted. Why ? Because our faith, instructed by the Scriptures, regards Jesus, the Son, as divine. Otherwise He would have no right to a place in this formula. The Father is the Father of the Son ; the Son is the Son of the Father. Both, in the nature of the case, are divine.

I have said that few deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But many question His Personality. The Spirit is, it is often said, not a Person, but an influence. But look at the formula once more. The Father plainly is Personal, is He not ? The Son also undoubtedly is Personal. Must we not, therefore, in all fair reasoning, hold that the third member in this sacred circle - the Holy Spirit - is likewise Personal. Else again the formula would lose its consistency.

As a result we have a triple distinction in the unity of the Godhead - each member conceived as divine, each as Personal.

It might readily be shown that the same doctrine of a threefold distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the unity of the Godhead, underlies the teaching of the whole New Testament. Everywhere in the New Testament is the recognition of three great Principals, or Agents, in the work of human salvation, called by these three names. The baptismal formula just considered is one illustration. Another is found in the familiar Apostolic benediction in 2 Cor. xiii. 14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." Here, as in the former case, we have mention made of three co-ordinate Sources of salvation - the name of Christ being even put first - and we have only again to apply the test we applied to the baptismal formula, and suppose a man's name -Paul's or John's - inserted instead of Christ's, to see how incongruous and false it would be.

Other passages of the same order in the New Testament are i Cor. xii. 4-6: " Diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit . . . Diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord. . . . Diversities of workings, but the same God " (cf. Eph. iv. 4-6) ; i Pet. i. 2 : " According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ " ; Rev. i. 4, 5 : " From Him who is, and who was, and who is to come ; and from the seven Spirits that are before His throne; and from Jesus Christ," &c. Here the Spirit, elsewhere spoken of as single (Ch. ii. 7, ii, 17, &c.), and united with the Father and Christ as the source of "grace and peace," is symbolised as sevenfold in manifestation.

In a very large number of other New Testament passages it is instructive to notice how closely the Father and Jesus Christ are bound together as conjoint sources of blessing. Thus, in the constant greeting of the Epistles : " Grace to you and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. i. 7, and generally). This, again, is inconceivable, if Christ be not regarded as in nature divine. The direct proofs of Christ's own divinity in the Gospels and Epistles are here in place, but will better be considered in connection with Christ's Person.

If this, now, is the full Christian idea of God, it is not unreasonable to expect that at least anticipatory indications of the doctrine will be found all along the line of revelation ? It may be that occasionally theologians have tried to read too much New Testament doctrine into the Old Testament. But if God, as we believe, is really triune - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - it is surely impossible that some preludings of this will not be manifest in His earlier revelations. Such preludings we actually find.

(1) There is, as already stated, the name Elohim itself - a name which belongs absolutely to the Old Testament. Plural in form, and used, as was seen, with a singular verb, the name expresses at least that God is not simple unity, but has fullness of life in Himself (a fact which itself implies differentiation and distinction). Connected with this is the idea of Self-converse in God, as in the narrative of the Creation : " Let us make man in our image," &c. (Gen. i. 26; cf. iii. 22 ; Is. vi. 9).

(2) There is, again, as one of the most remarkable things in the earliest or patriarchal age, that singular form of revelation in the Angel of God, or Angel of Jehovah. Again and again in the earlier books you have appearances of the Angel of Jehovah, and revelations made through Him; and the peculiarity of the Angel is that, while distinguishing Himself from Jehovah, He is yet, again, in some mysterious way, identified with Jehovah, speaks in His name, nay, is declared to be Jehovah Himself. Thus, in connection with Hagar, Gen. xvi. 7, 12; with Abraham, Gen. xxii. 11-18; with Moses, Ex. iii. 3-6, &c., Jehovah's "name" (nature) is in the Angel (Ex. xxiii. 21). Most writers in the Church, from Justin Martyr and Tertullian down, have seen in these appearances of the Angel a forecast - a pre-revelation - of that distinction of God and His " Word " which comes to light in the New Testament.

(3) We have, yet again, in the Old Testament, the ideas of the Word and of the Wisdom of God (cf. Prov. viii. 22 ff.)--ideas developed in the later Jewish schools into the doctrine of the " Memra," or Word of God, and in the Alexandrian school (Philo) into the doctrine of the " Logos," both providential preparations for the New Testament doctrine (cf. Westcott's Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 147-152).

(4) Lastly, there is the abundant Old Testament teaching on the Spirit of God. The Spirit is no mere forth-putting of the power or energy of God, but is an active, abiding principle in God, which, as revelation goes on, has attributed to it more or less clearly a Personal character (Is. xl. 13 ; xlviii. 16).

Here, then, already are outlined in no indistinct way the leading features of the New Testament doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Spirit.

III. There is, of course, a great deal that one would like to say on this doctrine of the Trinity considered in itself - difficulties that have been raised regarding it, questions that arise out of it - but I only take up one or two of the points that lie nearest the surface.

1. I dare say, for one thing, there is a feeling in many minds - it has often been expressed - to the effect that, even if the doctrine of the Trinity be true, it is not a very vital or practical doctrine. It is something subtle, so it is said, something speculative, something difficult to understand - something, therefore, which belongs to the theory of religion rather than to vital Christian faith. So the plain Christian is exhorted to set aside this doctrine, and confine himself to the simple practicalities of the Christian religion.

Now, I wish to say strongly that I take this to imply an utter misunderstanding of the real state of the case. It is this feeling, I know, which has given rise historically to a great deal of what we call Unitarianism. But it seems to rest, nevertheless, on a serious misconception.

First of all, this doctrine, as I regard it, is not unimportant, but goes down, as I tried to show before, to the very foundations of our Christian faith. If you take it away, tamper with it, put it aside, you will speedily find that you have altered your conception of Christianity, and that there is not a doctrine in the Christian system but suffers in consequence. But, apart from this, I should like to say, second, that in my judgment, and, I believe, in that of those who have gone most deeply into this subject, the doctrine of the Trinity, so far from being a bare speculative doctrine, is one of the utmost practical value in our Christian thinking. Of so great value is it that, if anyone once comes to realise what is involved in it, he will never again part with it, or be able to feel that he has the right conception of God without it. There is really no help to the understanding in conceiving of God, as the Unitarian does, as simple, undifferentiated unity; while there is much aid in thinking of God as, in His own eternal Being, at once Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To illustrate this, suppose the other view to be taken, and the idea or doctrine of the Trinity in God to be set aside. See what follows. For one thing, ask how, in that case, you must conceive of God Himself. I spoke before of the relation of this doctrine to the love of God. It seems plain that, if this doctrine is rejected, you have no alternative but to conceive of God as subsisting through the eternal ages before the creation of the world as a vast solitary Ego, with no one to love, no one to have communion with, no possibility of fellowship, or Fatherhood, or social affection of any kind. For love, as was said earlier, in the nature of the case, involves an object of love. Communion implies those between whom there is communion. So that, if you take away some such distinction in God as we associate with the Trinity, you take away from Him, apart from the world, and before the world, the possibility of Fatherhood and love.

You say, perhaps, that these things are there at least as potentialities, or possibilities, in God, to be brought into exercise when moral beings are created. You say that God had in His eternal mind at least the purpose of creating the world - of calling into existence the universe, angels, men - so, looking forward, God could see myriads of objects of His Fatherly love and care. Yes, but does this meet the difficulty about Fatherhood and love in God's own nature? Surely not. First of all, it means, does it not, that God is made actually dependent on His own world for being Father, for being love, for having fellowship and communion ? It is not that God is love in Himself, and then out of that love creates a world. For love in His eternal essence He cannot be if He is an eternally solitary Being.

But more than this. How is it supposed possible for God to find an adequate object for His affections and fellowship in those finite spirits He has made, or purposes to make ? We know very well that, in our own human love, any soul that has depth in it needs a soul of kindred depth, in order that there may be a complete relation of love. I go even further. Is there any human soul that can find itself satisfied with the love of any finite being, or with all finite love taken together ? Is it not true of every one of us--do we not affirm it in our every-day teaching and preaching--that our souls can only find their complete rest in the infinite God, in an infinite love? You remember Augustine's famous saying: "O God, Thou has made us for Thyself, and our souls are ever restless till they rest in Thee." Our finite souls need an infinite Object to rest in. How, then, is God, the Infinite One, Himself to find an object for His Fatherly love, commensurate with His infinitude, in our finite souls ? Where is He to find that Other--that Fellow to Himself --who shall be the perfect image of Himself, and the absolutely satisfying Object of His love ? Here it is that the great truth of the Trinity comes in--the truth that God, in His own eternal being, in His own eternal life, is not that absolutely solitary One we have been supposing ; but that, through this Self-distinction in His nature--the eternal Son in the bosom of the Father, and, with the Father and the Son, the Eternal Spirit, there is a life of love and fellowship, a reciprocal communion in God Himself.

You begin to see, I trust, how deep-reaching this doctrine of the Trinity is. It teaches us, as I said at the first, that it is not in the relation of God to the world and man, but in the relation to the Eternal Son, that the spring of Fatherhood is found in the heart of God. So Fatherhood comes to be of the essence of God, which it could not be in any other way.

2. There is a difficulty, I well know, which presses on many minds, in the use of the word " Person" to describe this distinction in the nature of God. We speak of " three Persons in the Godhead," but the imperfection of this word " Person" has always been felt. " Person" with us means a separate individual; in God it denotes a distinction within the divine nature itself, comparable to no other. To suppose the " Persons" of the Godhead to be actually distinct individuals would be to fall into the form of error called " Tritheism." The word " Person " is not found in the Nicene Creed. Yet it is difficult to find a better word to express the thought that the distinctions in the Godhead are not simply, as it is phrased, " modal " (which is the error called " Sabellianism"), but imply a true distinction of self-consciousness, and will, and love-- and I and Thou and He--in the divine nature, Father, Son, and Spirit being each Self-conscious centres of knowledge, will, and love. If this real distinction, implied in all that is said of Son and Spirit in the Scriptures, is not to be lost hold of, it would seem that the word Person, or some synonym, cannot be avoided to express it.

In the inner relations of these divine " Persons " to one another there is no doubt much that is mysterious; yet enough is revealed regarding Them to enable us to distinguish them with propriety. The Father, in the language of the old theologians, is the Fans Deitatis-- the original Fountain-Head or principle of the Godhead; therefore in Scripture is frequently called " God" absolutely (e.g., John i. I; xvii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14). The Son is the eternal " Image " of the Father (Col. i. 15)-- the "Brightness of His Glory" (Heb. i. 3)--the principle of revelation in creation, providence, and redemption ; hence called the " Logos " or " Word " of God (John i. i, 2). The Spirit is the principle of Self-knowledge in the Godhead (i Cor. ii. 10, n), the Source of divine energies and of all gracious and holy influences ; hence His peculiar name, " Holy Spirit." In the language of theology, the Son is spoken of as " begotten " (cf. John i. 16: " The only-begotten Son"), this with the view, first, of distinguishing the mode of His origin from " creation" (the Son Himself is the Creator of all, John i. 2), and, next, of indicating that He is of the Father's own substance--"very God of very God"; and the Spirit is described as " proceeding" from the Father and the Son (John xv. 26)--" breathed forth," as the name indicates. But here we enter a region in which, confessedly, language is but a symbol to express that which in its nature is ineffable. "Not that it may be spoken," said Augustine, "but that it may not be left unspoken."

IV. From this profound subject of the divine Trinity I pass now to speak of the Purpose of God, and of the execution of that purpose in creation and providence. It is in this doctrine of the divine purpose that the transition is made from what God is in Himself to what He is in relation to the world.

Let no one be alarmed when mention is made of the divine purpose. If I touch on this high and difficult theme, it is not with the object of entering into metaphysical discussions upon the " Decrees," or of bringing up the points of controversy between one Christian sect and another, as between Calvinists and Arminians. My intention is to confine myself to those broad basal affirmations which everyone, I am sure, who understands the teaching of Scripture must hold fast by, and to try to show how direct is their bearing on our Christian thought and life.

When we say with Scripture that God has a " purpose " --an eternal purpose ; in Paul's language, "the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. i. 9, n), we mean simply that God has a plan-- an eternal plan--which He carries out in His creation and in His providence; and this, so far from being a far-off, metaphysical thing, is in truth the rockfast foundation of all our Christian thinking about God in His relation to the world. " The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations " (Ps. xxxiii. n).

That in this general sense God has a " plan" in all His acting, few, I think, will be disposed to dispute. If we attribute to God, as all Christians must, self-conscious Personality, and infinite knowledge and wisdom, this already implies, (i) that in all that He does God does not act blindly, but acts with intelligence and motive; and (2) that in all that God does He does not act arbitrarily, but on settled principles of wisdom and goodness. Intelligent action is action governed by the idea of an end, and wisdom, in a good and holy Being, manifests itself in the choosing of the best ends, and of the best means to attain these ends. Thus far there will be general agreement. God's plan, in the nature of the case, must be eternal, and does not alter. His purpose, formed in eternity, He executes in time.

A more difficult question arises when we ask, What is the end which God has in view in this plan of His, or in the purpose which He executes in time ? The manner of its execution, and its relation to human freedom, we leave over to the doctrine of providence. But the question of the end may be glanced at here.

If we raise this question, What is God's great last end in His creation and in His providence ? I think that, on the largest scale, we can only say with the older writers that it must be the manifestation of His moral attributes in their highest possible exercise, or, as it was wont to be put, His own glory. So far we may go with the saintly Jonathan Edwards in his famous Dissertation on " God's Last End in Creation," and say that His own glory is the end. But this does not carry us far enough. What God's end is, is necessarily determined by His character. So we go on to ask: What is it in the Christian revelation which we are taught to regard as of the essence of God's character ? And here the note comes back to us--rings out from the whole revelation of God in Christ--that the essence of God's character consists in love. "God is love," says John (i John iv. 8, 16). This is the highest declaration the Bible ever makes about God. We there fore come to this, that God's plan or purpose, from the Bible point of view, must be regarded as determined by God's love. It must be regarded as framed to carry out in the highest and fullest possible way the ends of love; and we do well in all our inquiries never to lose hold of: this as our guiding clue.

This evidently is a position which requires to be stated with care to safeguard it against abuse. It is necessary to remember that what we call " love " in God is not mere good nature. It is not a soft, yielding benevolence, but is always viewed in Scripture as in harmony with every other attribute in God's character. It is viewed as in consistency with holiness, with righteousness, with truth; with all God's other perfections. What is to be said is that love in God defines the end which all these other attributes are engaged to carry through to its fullest extent.

To illustrate: there is judgment in God; wrath in God. Any theology that tries to cut out the idea of wrath in God will soon find itself in a very limp condition. There is judgment in God--wrath awful and terrible (Rom. i. 18; ii. 8, 9, &c.)--but then judgment and wrath are never put forth in the Bible as something that God delights in on its own account. Judgment, the Bible tells us, is God's "strange work" (Is. xxviii. 21). If the sinner dies in his sins, it is not because God desires that he should die. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that he should return from his way, and live (Ez. xviii. 23). Love, therefore, is still God's end, and His purpose, if we could see it in its entirety, is subservient to the ends of love.