Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors Part 49

Thus it appears that it took the Church from A.D. 325 to A.D. 680 to settle the questions concerning the relation of Christ to G.o.d. During all this time, opinion vacillated between Arianism on the one hand and Sabellianism on the other. At the end of this period, the Church had become consolidated, and strong enough to compel submission to its opinions: but the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity remained unsettled for several centuries more; and finally the Eastern Church separated altogether from the Western Church on this point. The whole Greek Church remains, to this day, separated from the Latin Church on a question belonging to this very doctrine of the Trinity. So much, then, for Dr. Huntington's a.s.sertion, that the Trinity is a doctrine which can almost literally be said to have been believed "always, everywhere, and by all."

IX. The doctrine of the Trinity is opposed to the real divinity of Christ and to his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the Church in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Our final and chief objection to the Trinity is, not that it makes Christ divine, but that it does _not_ make him so. It subst.i.tutes for the divinity of the Father, the Supreme G.o.d, which Unitarians believe to dwell in Christ, a subordinate divinity of G.o.d the Son. This is subordinate, because derived; and, because derived, dependent. The Son may be said to be "eternally generated;" but this is only an eternal derivation, and does not alter the dependence, but makes it also to be eternal. The tendency of the Church doctrine of the Trinity is always to a belief, not in the supreme divinity dwelling in Christ, but in a derived and secondary divinity.

How is it, for example, with the Nicene doctrine concerning Christ? Dr.

Huntington claims Nice as Trinitarian. (p. 361.)

But what says Prof. Stuart concerning the Nicene doctrine? Listen.

"The Nicene symbol presents the Father as the Monas, or proper G.o.dhead, in and of himself exclusively; it represents him as the _Fons et Principium_ of the Son, and therefore gives him superior power and glory. It does not even a.s.sert the claims of the blessed Spirit to G.o.dhead, and therefore leaves room to doubt whether it means to recognize a Trinity, or only a Duality." (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835, quoted by Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 264.)

And how is it with the ante-Nicene fathers, whom Dr. Huntington also considers to be Trinitarian? else certainly his rule of "always, everywhere, and by all," does not hold. If, for the first three hundred years after Christ, there were no Trinitarians, it cannot be said that the Trinity has "always" been held in the Church. Listen, again, to Prof.

Stuart, whose learning no one can question.

"We find that all the Fathers before, at, and after the Council of Nice, who harmonize with the sentiments there avowed, declare the Father only to be the self-existent G.o.d." (See the whole paragraph in Wilson, Trin.

Test., p. 267.)

"To be the author of the proper substance of the Son and Spirit, according to the Patristical creed; or to be the author of the _modus existendi_ of the Son and Spirit, according to the modern creed,-both seem to involve _the idea of power and glory in the Father, immeasurably above that of the Son and Spirit_." (Moses Stuart, Bib. Repos., 1835.)

So Coleridge a.s.serts that "both Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach a subordination of the Son to the Father, independent of the incarnation of the Son.... Christ, speaking of himself as the coeternal Son, says, 'My Father is greater than I.' " (Wilson, Trin. Test., p. 270.)

According to the Trinitarian doctrine, then, we do not find G.o.d-the Supreme G.o.d, our heavenly Father-in Christ; but a derived, subordinate, and inferior Deity. Not the one universal Parent do we approach, but some mysterious, derived, inscrutable Deity, less than the Father, and distinct from him. Do we not, then, lose the benefit and blessing of the divinity of Jesus? Can we believe him when be says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father?" No; we do not believe that, if we are Trinitarians; but rather, that, having seen him, we have seen "THE SON;" whom Coleridge declares to be an inferior Deity; over whom Bishop Pearson, in his "Exposition of the Creed," says, the Father holds "preeminence,"-the Father being "the Origin, the Cause, the Author, the Root, the Fountain, the Head, of the Son." The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore opposed, as Swedenborg ably contends, to the real divinity of Christ.(96)

But it is equally opposed to his real humanity. It constantly drives out of the Church the human element in Christ. Dr. Huntington is astonished at Unitarians not perceiving that the humanity of Christ is as dear to Trinitarians as his Deity; yet it cannot be denied, that the mysterious dogma of deity has quite overshadowed the simple human life of our dear Lord, so that the Church has failed to see the Son of man. All his highest human traits become unreal in the light of this doctrine of his deity. He is tempted; but that is unreal, for G.o.d cannot be tempted. He prays, "Our Father;" but this also is no real prayer, for he is omnipotent, and can need nothing. He encounters opposition, hatred, contumely, and bears it with sweetest composure; but what of that? since, as G.o.d, he looked down from an infinite height upon the puny opposition. He agonizes in the garden; but it is imaginary suffering: how can G.o.d feel any real agony, like man? Jesus ceases to be example, ceases to be our best beloved companion and brother, and becomes a mysterious personage, inscrutable to our thought, and far removed from our sympathy.

FOOTNOTES

1 The following pa.s.sage, from an article in the "Independent," by Henry Ward Beecher, is valuable, perhaps, as the testimony of one who has "summered it and wintered it" with Orthodoxy:-

"Does anybody inquire why, if so thinking, we occasionally give such sharp articles upon the great religious newspapers, 'The Observer,'

'The Intelligencer,' and the like? O, pray do not think it from any ill will. It is all kindness! We only do it to keep our voice in practice. We have made Orthodoxy a study. And by an attentive examination of 'The Presbyterian,' 'The Observer,' 'The Puritan Recorder,' and such like unblemished confessors, we have perceived that no man is truly sound who does not pitch into somebody that is not sound; and that a real modern orthodox man, like a nervous watch dog, must sit on the door-stone of his system, and bark incessantly at everything that comes in sight along the highway. And when there is nothing to bark at, either he must growl and gnaw his reserved bones, or bark at the moon to keep up the sonorousness of his voice.

And so, for fear that the sweetness of our temper may lead men to think that we have no theologic zeal, we lift up in objurgation now and then-as much as to say, 'Here we are, fierce and orthodox; ready to growl when we cannot bite.' "

2 Thus Theodore Parker ("Experience as a Minister") speaks of a review of his "Discourse on Religion" in a Trinitarian work, which did it no injustice.

3 According to the "Chart of Religious Belief" in Johnston's Physical Atlas, there are in the world 140,000,000 of Catholics, 70,000,000 of Protestants, 68,000,000 of the Greek Church, and 14,000,000 of minor creeds. _About_, in his "Question Romaine," gives the Roman Church 139,000,000. He says, "The Roman Catholic Church, which I sincerely respect, is composed of 139,000,000 of individuals, not including the little Mortara."

4 Mr. Taylor shows that the Church, A.D. 300, was essentially corrupt in doctrine and practice; that the Romish Church was rather an improvement on it; that Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, and Athanasius are full of false doctrine; and that a Gnostic theology, a Pagan asceticism, and a corrupt morality prevailed in the Church in those early centuries.

5 Of course we do not mean to charge our Orthodox friends with believing in persecution. We only show that _if Orthodoxy is in the letter_, they _ought_, consequentially, to believe in persecution.

No doubt Protestantism has put an end to persecution. When Luther came, all believed in persecution; now, no one does. This is because the Reformation contained a double principle: first, that we are saved by faith, not by sacraments, and that faith is the belief of doctrines; second, that to see them aright, we must use our own minds, and consequently seek for truth as the paramount duty of life. But in order to seek effectually, we must seek freely-hence the right of private judgment as against authority in Church and State. The last principle is that of toleration; the first is the principle of intolerance. The last has proved the stronger, because it rests on the logic of things, the other only on the logic of words.

6 Heb. 11:1.

7 Jacobi-whose words have been said to let the thoughts s.h.i.+ne through, as wet clothes around the limbs allow the form to be seen-says that all knowledge begins with faith. Faith is, according to Jacobi, (1) a knowledge proceeding from immediate revelation; (2) knowledge which does not need, and cannot have, proofs; (3) much more certain knowledge than any derived from demonstration; (4) a perception of the super-sensual world; (5) A well-grounded and reliable prepossession in favor of certain truths; (6) a faith which sees, and a sight which believes; (7) a vision, an impenetrable mystery, a perception of the thing in itself.

8 See "Broken Lights," p. 207, note.

9 A story is told of a clock, on one of the high cathedral towers of the older world, so constructed that at the close of a century it strikes the years as it ordinarily strikes the hours. As a hundred years come to a close, suddenly, in the immense ma.s.s of complicated mechanism, a little wheel turns, a pin slides into the appointed place, and in the shadows of the night the bell tolls a _requiem_ over the generations which during a century have lived, and labored, and been buried around it. One of these generations might live and die, and witness nothing peculiar. The clock would have what we call an established order of its own; but what should we say when, at the midnight which brought the century to a close, it sounded over the sleeping city, rousing all to listen to the world's age? Would it be a violation of law? No; only a variation of the accustomed order, produced by the intervention of a force always existing, but never appearing in this way till the appointed moment had arrived. The tolling of the century would be a variation from the observed order of the clock; but to an artist, in constructing it, it would have formed a part of that order. So a miracle is a variation of the order of nature as it has appeared to us; but to the Author of nature it was a part of that predestined order-a part of that order of which he is at all times the immediate Author and Sustainer; miraculous to us, seen from our human point of view, but no miracle to G.o.d; to our circ.u.mscribed vision a violation of law, but to G.o.d only a part in the great plan and progress of the law of the universe.-_Ephraim Peabody._

10 Trench, "Notes on the Miracles of our Lord."

11 We use the term "plenary inspiration" rather than "literal inspiration," or "verbal inspiration," for "_literal inspiration_"

is a contradiction in terms, like "_bodily spirit_."

12 Tholuck, in his Essay on the Doctrine of Inspiration, ascribes the origin of the belief in the infallibility of Scripture to this supposed need of an authoritative outward rule of faith among Protestants. He says, "In proportion as controversy, sharpened by Jesuitism, made the Protestant party sensible of the necessity of an externally fortified ground of combat, in that same proportion did Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the outward authoritative character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that infallible authority which it had lost through its rejection of inspired councils and the infallible authority of the pope. In this manner arose, not earlier than the seventeenth century, those sentiments which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible production of the Divine Spirit,-in its entire contents and its very form,-so that not only the sense, but also the words, the letters, the Hebrew vowel points, and the very punctuation were regarded as proceeding from the Spirit of G.o.d."-_Tholuck's Essay-Noyes's __"__Collection.__"_

13 The doctrine of the Roman Catholics, as stated by Moehler, a distinguished Roman Catholic, is as follows:-

"The doctrine of the Catholic Church on original sin is extremely simple, and may be reduced to the following propositions: Adam, by sin, lost his original justice and holiness, drew down on himself, by his disobedience, the displeasure and judgments of the Almighty, incurred the penalty of death, and thus, in all his parts,-in his body as well as soul,-became strangely deteriorated. Thus his sinful condition is transmitted to all his posterity as descended from him, entailing the consequence that man is, of himself, incapable-even with the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from without (not excepting even the one in the Old Covenant)-to act in a manner agreeable to G.o.d, or in any other way to be justified before him, save only by the merits of Jesus Christ."

The doctrine of the Church of England concerning original sin and free will is in its ninth and tenth articles, and declares that,-

"Original sin is ... the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil, ... and therefore in every person born into the world it deserveth G.o.d's wrath and d.a.m.nation....

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon G.o.d. Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to G.o.d, without the grace of G.o.d by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will."

The early Fathers took different views of the origin of sin.

Tertullian ascribed it to human _impatience_. "Nunc ut compendio dictum sit, omne peccatum impatientiae adscribendum." (Tertul. _De Patien._ 5.) Origen thinks _laziness_ the cause of sin; sin is a negation-_not_ doing right. Justin Martyr ascribes the origin of sin to _sensuality_. Origen (after Philo) considered the story of the fall as an allegory, and a type of what takes place in all men.

14 See, in the Appendix, an examination of Professor Shedd's article.

15 Ovid. Metam. 7:18.

"Si possem, sanior essem.

Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet, video meliora, proboque, Deteriora sequor."

See, also, the story, in the Cyropaedia, of Araspes and his two souls.

16 See Dr. c.o.x's Sermon on Regeneration, reviewed by Dr. Hodge, in "Essays and Reviews."

17 Luther, in his "Table-talk," says of his preaching against the pope, and the enormous labors it entailed, "If I had known then what I now know of the difficulty of the task, ten horses should not have drawn me to it." "At that time Dr. Jerome withstood me, and said, 'What will you do? They will not endure it.' But said I, 'What if they _must_ endure it?' "

18 See Raumer, "Geschichte Europas," zweiter Band.

19 G.o.d in Christ, by Horace Bushnell, p. 193, &c.

20 Heb. 2:9, 17, 18. 4:15. 5:8, 9.

21 No sooner was Socrates dead than he rose to be the chief figure in Greek history. What are Miltiades, Pericles, or Alcibiades to him?

Twenty years after Joan of Arc was burned by a decree of the Roman Catholic Church, the same Church called a council to reconsider and reverse her sentence. Twenty years after the death of Savonarola, Rafaelle painted his portrait among the great doctors, fathers, and saints in the halls of the Vatican. Within a few years after John Brown was hanged, half a million of soldiers marched through the South chanting his name in their songs. Abraham Lincoln was killed, and he is now the most influential figure in our history.