1847.]

Schleiermacher's Objections.

53

while, on the other hand, the doctrinal view prevalent in the church maintains, that the threeness is something purely internal, and originally separate in the Godhead, even when viewed. apart from these different modes of action; and that the Godhead would have been Father, Son and Spirit in itself, in an eternal manner, if it had never created anything, never been united with an individual man and never dwelt in the community of believers." Now, although the latter is the orthodox view, yet if we adopt the expression of Petavius-gigni carnem assumpturum, we may set aside the question whether a generation is to be assumed without regard to the incarnation, as one that rests upon a needless, not to say, an empty abstraction. And thus the first hint which Schleiermacher, at the close of his System of Theology (S. 707 of the first, 592 of the second edition) gives towards a new elaboration of the doctrine of the Trinity, will be found in fact to lie nearer to the prevalent view than he himself seems to believe.

There is an objection of Schleiermacher's, bearing upon the points discussed in this section, to which we will just refer in closing it. In reference to the divine causality, which according to our doctrine is to be viewed as undivided, he puts two cases. Either the divine causality belongs wholly to the one Godhead as such, to the Persons, however, only so far as they are in the Godhead, and not so far as they are distinguished from each other; or, this causality belongs to the three persons as such, and to the unity of nature only so far as it consists of these persons. The first view, now, Schleiermacher thinks has never been able to gain currency, because in it the threeness recedes more than the prevalent tendency allowed; hence the other has been generally adopted, but yet not without some secret opposition; for, properly speaking, according to this view the whole divine causality must be considered as threefold; but since, in that case, the divine unity would become merely nominalistic, it has been assumed, that every act in all three is also one and the same, not that in every one there is its own act; in so saying, however, we do not refer the act to the persons but to the divine nature in its unity-Most certainly! but what follows from this? Nothing else, but that Schleiermacher is not correct in saying, that of these two views the first has never been able to gain currency, and that the second has been generally espoused. In respect to the ope

1 Glaubenslehre § 189, 3. S. 699 of the first ed. § 171, 4. S. 585 of the second.

ra attributiva, the expression chosen by Schleiermacher is almost word for word the received formula; and this is also clear in the

very name of the opera essentialia. In respect to the opera oeconomica, this formula, especially in its second part, is not wholly applicable; but yet that which Schleiermacher gives as the second view is still less applicable to these operations. But, between these two views, there is a third, viz. that the divine causality is to be ascribed to the one Deity, and to the Persons ratione ordinis et patefactionis (conf. Hutter's locc. p. 112). When Schleiermacher adduces, now, as proof that, with the first view, the threeness is really maintained almost only in reference to the special act of the persons, such points as these; that the Son himself became man, while the justifying agency is attributed to the one and undistinguished divine nature; that the Holy Spirit as such is poured out upon believers, while that divine agency which guides and vivifies the Christian community, is attributed to the one and undistinguished divine nature; all this, with some enlargement of the conceded almost, the doctrinal theology of the church will recognize as being its own position, in accordance with the above intermediate view.

§ 8. Concluding Reflections.

We have endeavored to explain the doctrinal formulas and positions of the church with more than usual care, and to fortify them with the declarations of the most esteemed theologians, because among their opponents as well as friends, we not seldom see the want of that more exact acquaintance with them, without which they can neither be justly judged, nor fittingly defended. Indeed, it often happens, that it is something wholly different from the real doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the church, which the one attacks, and the other tries to establish. But perhaps, as we have gone along, the question has forced itself upon some, whether such prolonged and subtle investigations are in any correct proportion with the importance of the doctrine for religion and Christianity? whether the chief thing, the proper religious element, is not rather kept out of sight, than made clear and impressive by all this pains-taking? For it is not to be denied, that not only the formulas, which are the residuum of the discussions upon this doctrine, but also the discussions themselves, and the

1 Glaubenslehre S. 700 of the first ed, which is here more clear than the second.

1847.]

Relation of the Doctrine to the Bible.

55

endless works which have been devoted to them in all ages of the church, are better fitted to awaken and nourish every other kind of emotions and reflections, than those of a religious nature. How then can we justify the importance which our Evangelical theology has always assigned to these doctrinal positions, if not from their bearings upon Christian piety? Shall we do it because these positions are decisively revealed in the Holy Scriptures? But it has been often repeated and conceded, that the principal notions around which this doctrine revolves, are either foreign to the Bible,as ουσία and ὑπόστασις, τρόπος υπάρξεως and ἀποκαλύψεως, τρίας and ὁμοουσία; or that they do not seem to have the same significancy in the Bible as in doctrinal theology —e. g. γεννηθῆναι, ἐκπορευθῆναι, πέμψαι, and even Πατήρ and υιός Veou. Shall we do it on speculative grounds? Speculation may decide for itself, what importance this doctrine has for it in its own sphere, but so far as a system of doctrines is concerned, especially the Evangelical, the speculative elements have never been the chief thing; and on this account we have all along held fast to the position, that we can consider them of value, only so far as they help to illustrate what is elsewhere established. Many a one might then be inclined to agree with De Wette's' conclusion: "That this doctrine, since it is said to be established only upon the Bible, but is not there contained in the form in which the church receives it, had better be looked upon as antiquated, and be exchanged for the doctrine of the Bible, historically and scientifically defined and illustrated."

It is with good reason that De Wette here says, "the doctrine of the Bible scientifically defined and illustrated." For, many as are those, who, in later times, have brought the doctrine of the Bible into contrast with that of the church, there are still very few among them, who would be taken seriously at their word, and would receive the doctrine precisely as it stands in the Bible, as expressing the full truth. And even he who sees in it a divine revelation will hardly be able, as a theologian, to abide by the mere letter of the Scriptures, without further examination. For, apart from the difficulty of determining what the exact doctrine of the Bible is in all its relations, in consequence of the great variety of modes in which the subject in all its bearings, is presented by the different Biblical writers; it contains in itself too

In his Dogmatik der Lutherischen Kirche. De Wette is so frequently referred to in this Article, because this work is used by Dr. Twesten as his textbook in these Lectures.

many references to notions, whose exact meaning and authority may seem doubtful, and there remain so many questions to be answered, so many by-ways to be avoided, that it would not be possible to stand by the letter alone, without further investiga tion.

We have indeed, as everywhere else, so here, to wonder at the wisdom with which the Scripture imparts those truths which not understanding of the wise can fathom, in a form which is intelligible even to the unlearned; since it presents the divine mysteries in that aspect, in which they are manifestly and most adapted to our religious wants; so that we may rather experience their power in the heart, than speak about them in lofty words (xa' ὑπεροχὴν λόγον ἢ σοφίας, 1 Cor. 2: 1). The Scriptures do not speak of the perplexing union of the threeness with the oneness; nor of a divine essence which is common to three persons, and numerically one; nor of the three persons which subsist in the Godhead, and yet do not divide it. Manifold as have been the attempts to make such things a part of the experience of the Christian church, by means of formulas impressed upon the memory, and images presented to the imagination, by speculative categories or in mystic vision; every one must still feel the broad difference between all this and the clearness of the Scriptural statements, so simple in their depth and fulness. In the centre is placed Christ, in whom the Word has become flesh, and the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily; and so near does he stand to us, being made like us, so easily grasped in our conceptions,' by our feelings, and even by our senses (1 John 1: 1), that the personality of the Son of God, which is thus brought before us in clear vision, does not seem to present to us any difficulty. And when we also read that the same Christ, thus evidently set forth before our eyes (Gal. 3: 1), so that we see and hear him, came from heaven, was with God, and equal with God, is the light and life of the world, without whom nothing was created; or that he has been again received to heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, guarding and guiding his followers with divine power, judg ing the living and the dead; all this is no stumbling-block, because we have here presented perfectly clear and definite conceptions, which by these predicates are only extended as it were, in two opposite directions, and brought into connection with the infinite. In connection and contrast with him, the Father is described as the being who sent his only begotten Son into the world. In him we see the eternal power and Godhead, which,

1847.]

The Biblical Form of the Doctrine.

57

from the creation of the world, are understood from the things that are made (Rom. 1: 20); the one true God (John 17: 3), who did not leave himself without a witness, even when he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14: 15-17), but who now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, and to believe in him whom he has raised from the dead (Acts 17: 24-31). And here again the distinction between the two persons does not seem to us obscure, neither does the union of the Father with him who is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, who is in the Father, as the Father is in him (John 14:9-11). The Holy Ghost, finally, whom we receive from the Father, through the Son, is described as the being whose opera tions we may discern in our own minds; for it is he who witnesses to our spirits that we are the children of God (Rom. 8: 16); who intercedes for us, with groanings which cannot be ut tered (Rom. 8: 26); of whom we are told that he is the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2: 12), and the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8: 9), therefore one with them, and yet different, as is that which is given from him who gives; as is the one that is sent from him who sends (Rom. 5: 5. Gal. 3: 5. 1 Thess. 4: 8. John 14: 26. 15: 26. 20: 22. 1 John 4: 13). If, in the apostolic times, there is to be found no trace that the confession of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in this mode of viewing it, created any difficulty or opposition, this is something easy to be understood; and we may also see in it an example and norm for our times and for all times, as to the mode in which this doctrine is to be presented in ordinary discourse. Whatever makes it weighty and edifying in Christian experience, we may easily attach to this mode of representation; whatever gives employment only to the understanding, and involves it, as many believe, in inextricable problems, is here left in the back-ground.

But as theologians we cannot avoid reflecting upon these difficult points; for, on the one hand, so far as faith is concerned, we must seek to unite biblical conceptions with biblical words, in order to guard against doubt, and confirm belief; and, on the other hand, our intellect, although it may not presume to penetrate the

According to the oldest and most universally received Confession, not, merely in its Occidental or Roman form, which we are accustomed to call the Apostolical, but also as it was handed down in the Oriental churches, and recognized and more clearly defined at Nice. Very different is the character of the so-called Athanasian Creed, or the Symbolum Quicunque, which, however, on that very account, is less adapted to general use.