1. The first class of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there are the three subjects named, and that there is a difference between them; that the Father in cer- tain respects differs from the Son, etc.; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belonjj necessarily to the divine nature, and possess e(pial divine honor. In proof of tills, the second class of texts must be adduced. The foUowin;;' texts are placed in this class:
jMatt. xviii, 18-20. This text, however, taken by it- self, would not prove decisively either the personalitij of the three sulvjects mentioned, or their cqadliti/ or <//- v'mily. For (u) the subject into which one is 'baptized is not necessarily a person, but may be a doctrine or re- lii/ion, (h) The person in whom one is ba|)tized is not necessarily (iotl, as 1 Cor. i, 13. " )Vere ye baptized in the name of FaulV'" (c) The coiniection of these three subjects does not prove their personalitij or eqinilili/. We gather one thing from the text, viz. that Christ considered the doctrine respecting Father, Son, and Holy (ihost as a fundainental doctrine of his religion, because he requires all his followers to be botmd to a jirofession of it when admitted by baptism into the Church.
1 Pet. i, 2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of (iod the Father, through sauctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." From what is here said of the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily follow that he is a personal sidyect; nor, from the predicates here ascribed to Christ, that he is necessarily divine. This passage, therefore, taken by itself, is insufiicient.
2 Cor. xiii, 14, '• The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy (ihost, be with you all." Here we might infer, frotn the parallelism of the third member of the passage with the two former, the persomility of the Holy .S|)irit ; but we could not justly infer that they possessed equal au- thorifi/, or the same nature.
John xiv, 2() offers three different personal subjects, viz. the Comforter, the Father, and Christ; but it is not sufficiently proven from this passage that these three subjects have equal divine honor, and belong to one divine nature.
Matt, iii, 16, 17 has been considered a very strong proof-text for the whole doctrine of the Trinity. But though three personal subjects are mentioned, viz. the voice of the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and Christ, yet nothing is here said respecting their nature.
1 John V, 7, 8 are generally admitted to be s{)urious; and, even if allowed to be genuine, they do not deter- mine the nature and essential connection of the three subjects mentioned.
2. We now turn to the second class of texts, viz. those in which the Father. Son. and Holy Ghost are separate- ly mentioned, and in which their nature and mutual relation are taught. These texts prove (a) that the Son and H(dy Spirit, according to the doctrine of the New Test., are divine, or belong to the one divine nature; and (b) that the three sulijeets are personal and equal.
(1.) The Deity oj'f/ie Fattier. — When the term Father is applied to God. it often designates the whole god- head, or the whole divine nature; as Gtof 6 IIar;/p. 1 Cor. viii, 4-6 ; John xvii, 1-3. He is often called QtoQ Kai UaTi'ip, i. e. Gtog o Dnr/'/p, or Otbt; oq iitti TlaTijp, as Gal. i, 4. All the arguments, therefore, which prove the existence of God prove also the deity of the Father.
(2.) The Deity of Christ. — To prove the deity of Christ we present three classes of texts.
(a.) The following are the principal texts in which divine names are given to Christ:
John i, 1, 2. Christ is here called 6 Aoyoc (the Word), which signified among the Jews and other an- cient people, when applied to God, ererythiny by ivhich God reveals himself to men, and makes known to them his will. Hence tliose who ma<le known the divine will to men were called by the Hellenists Xoyot. It was jjrobably on this accoinit that John declared Jesus to be the Logos which existeil tv apx'J i that the Logos was with God, and the Loyos was God. In this passage the principal proof does not lie in the word Aoyoc, nor even in the word Bfr'Ci which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly riders; but to what is ])redicatcd of the Aoyoc, ^''^- tbat he existed from eter- nity with (iod, tliat the world was made l>y him, etc.
John XX, 2!S. Here Thomas, convinced at last that Christ was actually risen from the dead, thus addresses him, "My Lord and my (iod." This must not be con- sidered an exelamati((n of surprise or wonder, as some have understood it ; for it is ((receded In- the phrase fiTrti' ai'TiiJ,"he said this to him." Thomas probably remembered what Jesus had often said respecting his superhuman origin (v, 8, 10, 17), and he now saw it all confirmed by his resurrection from the dead.
Phil, ii, 6, "Who, being in the form of (iod, thought it not robbery to be eipial with (iod." There it is said of Christ that he is 'itra OtqJ, Deo cequalis ; not ojxoiog Q&jj, aifTiSrtoc. SfOf/fCfXoc. similis Deu — terms applied by Homer to kings and heroes. The term i'croc Be(fi, on the contrary, is never applied to a finite or created being. Hence the Jews (John v, 18) considered it as blasphemy in Christ to make himself 'iaov Otijj.