(2.) Others have expressed themselves so boldly on the subject of the Trinity that they have seemed to ap- proximate towards trilhnsm; in wliich class we may mention jMatthew Gribaldus of Padua, in the ItJth cen- tury, who maintained that the divine nature consisted of three equally eternal spirits, between whom, however, he admitted a distinction in respect to rank and perfec- tions.
(3.) Some modern writers have inclined to adopt the Sabellian theory, among wliom were Servetus (q. v.), Grotius, Silvce Siici'O' ; Stejihen Nye, Doctrine of the Trinity (Lond. 1701). In this clasj we jilace the hy- pothesis of Le Clerc, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit designate the different moditications of tlie ih- vine understanding, and the plans which God forms. This is the error into whicli Weigtl and Jacob Bohme fell. !Manv of the modern (ierinan theologians have so explained the Trinity as to lose the idea of three divine persons, for which they have substituted either three distinct powers or attributes (as Meier, Seller, Claudius, and TiiUner), or a threefold agency in God — three eternal actions distinct from each other (as S. G. Schlegel, Kant, Tieftrunk, Daub, Schelliug, De Wette, and Fessler).
(4.) The .1 rian theory has also found advocates among Protestant theologians, especially tliose of the 18th cen- tury (e. g. Whiston, Harwood, and Wettstein) ; but the system which has met with the most approbation is that more relhied subordinationism taught by Samuel Clarke, Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (Lond. 1712).
(5.) The Socinians or Photinians. Tlie founders of this sect were Lajlius Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus (q. v.), who brought over considerable numbers to their doctrine in Poland and Transylvania.
(6.) A new theory on the Trinity was proposed by Dr. Urlsperger, Kurzr/efisstes System seines Vortrags von Gottes Dreyeinir/keit (Augsburg, 1777, 8vo). He en- deavored to unite the three theories — the Arian, Sabel- lian, and Nicene — by making a distinction between tri- niias essentialis, the internal threefold distinction neces- sarily belonging to the divine nature, and trinitas aco- nomica, the three persons revealed to us in the work of redemption.
It is proper to say that "the conclusion is obvious that, while we are taught by the Scriptures to believe in three equal subjects in the Godhead, who are de- scribed as persons, we are still iniable to determine in what manner or in wliat sense tliese three have the di- vine nature so in common tliat there is only one God" (Knapp, Christ. Theology, § 34-44). See Person.
III. Practical Value of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. — The idea of a triune being — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost^ — is not by any means to be considered as separate from that of the nature and attributes of God. This apparent tritheism can be considered as the con- clusion of true deism, and as a safeguard in the most momentous questions. Polytheism, pantheism, and du- alism have been to some extent employed to vivify and |)rove the truth of religion; but we w(udd present tlie practical advantages of the doctrine of the Trinity in quite a different manner:' not as serving merely to prove another proposition without being also true in itself, but as aiding us in arriving at the knowledge of God's nat- ure with an efficacy which is essentially inherent to its objective and permanent recognition. God may be con- sidered either as not true or lofty enough, or not good
and holy enough, or not essentially active enough ; these may be consiiiered the possible faults of a given system of deism. So long, then, as it distinguishes only between God and the worhl, and not between (Jod himself, it re- tains always a tendency either to return to |)antheism or to deny the existence of an absolute being. An ab- solute safeguard against atheism, polytheism, panthe- ism, or dualism cannot be found except in the doctrine of the Trinity ; for the distinction existing between the Divine Being and the world is better made and observe<l as an absolute one by those wlio worship the triune God than by those who do not. Tliose monotheistic systems which were the most strenuously opposed to tlie idea of a Trinity, such as Judaism and Mohammedanism, have, by reason of their dryness and emptiness, led to the grossest pantheism.
From the doctrine that the Word, who was God, be- came flesh, follows the necessity of considering God as personally united with sinless humanity, but at the same time, also, the necessity of drawing a clear distinction lietween the divine essence and mere human nature. Faith in the everlasting holy love, which is God, can only be rendered theoretically and practically perfect by the knowledge of the perfect, eternal object of the self- consciousness and love of God; i. e. by the thought of the love of God for his only begotten Son. Finally, the idea of the fulness of God's creative and imparting nature can only be preserved from diminishing by the Trinitarian doctrine of a Holy (ihost. Whatever diffi- culties may result from the Christian idea of different divine persons, when brought into connection with the personality of the divine essence, the apparent contra- diction is yet susceptible of a solution; even when we do not consider that the Primitive Church did not, for a long time, recognise these three persons but as only iSt6T)]rtg, vTzonTunnQ, etc.