National Republican., 1883-01-13
THE TRINITY.
lecture OF Prof n. $. ChrIds Before the
Young Mems Christian Association.

Young Mems Christian Association,
The subject of Prof. 4. s. Childy lecture
last evening before the Young Mems Chris
tian association was "Tho Trinity" The
lecturer began by referring to q remark of
Webster when, on ono OCCASION coming out
Of an othodoS church, he was met by q
unitarian friend, who said to him, +" So YOU
have been where they teach that one is three,
and three arc one
MY friend" replied Webster. "the arith.
metic of heaven Is something that you aud
do not understand"
l. The simplest possible view of God.
whether unitarian or trinitarian, must involve
mysteries that no human mind can fathom.
We cannot understand the mystery of our
own souls. God must be less than VIC if we
can understand Him. To demand that He
shall be ono whom we can comprehend is TO
demand that there shall be no God. for 10
being whom we can comprehend who
cannot comprehend the dcwdrop or tho vio-
let-wOuld be no God
2. As the being of God is the foundation of
all religion, the trinity is tho foundation of
Christianity, rs Christianity is understood by
the vast mass Of those who profess It. Their
hope rests upon their personal relation to tho
Father and TO the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
To remove this doctrine would involve tho
destruction of Christianity as it Is held to-day
by three hundred millions of the human race.
B. What is the doctrine? IL Is not that
there are three Gods. IL Is not that the one
God manifcsts himself in three different
modes or characters, rs an actor may repre-.
sent now Caesar, now Hamlet, and now Rich
ard III. That Is Sabclliauism. 1t is not that
God Is one in the same sense in which he is
three. That thing may bo one in one sonse
and moro than one in another is perfectly oh.
vious. Man Is one, yet, rs body and soul, he
is two. The soul itself Is ono, yet, as intellect
emotion and will, is thrccfold. Every trian-
gle is one, but in its very nature involves
three angles These arc imperfect analogieg,
but they are good for this: They show that
tncro is q sense in which three may be one,
and one three.
A. The doctrine is that in one divine beint;
the scriptures reveal threClold distinction,
indicated by distinct personal Names attri-
butes, and acts. To give the full proof of the
doctrine would be TO go largely over the
whole bible There is shorter way. II Is
to prove the distinct personality and tho true
deity of Christ. II that can be done tho great
work is done, for it proves plurality in tho
Godhcad, and, q twofoldncss being admitted,
there is no difficulty in admitting II three
fOldncss, | leave there much Of the evidence
until we como to The divinity of Christ.
Tonight let me indicate some of the facts
that compelled the church to go beyond the
simple assertion that God is one.
The speaker then gave rapid sketch of
the scripture passages, in which the strict
unity Of God is modified by plurality, and
in which divine Inscriptions are given alike to
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
As TO the use of the word persOn-the stum-
blmg-blocl of tho doctrine to many-tho
speaker observed: II is to be said frankly
that tho word is not used in its ordinary sense,
that IS, to denote three separate beings. In
deed, it is the very nature of tho doctrine TO
deny such throoness The word is used sim
ply to denote the distinction referred to, and
for which some name must he had. And tho
word person seemed, on the whole, the best
that could be found TO express what, under
any system, must be TN uuiathomahc mys-
tory-tho mode Of the divine existence. This
point was confirmed by quotations from Call
vim and Augustine. They both refuse to make
the term essential if the great fact itself indi-
Gated by il ne retained.
The next subject will be " Creation or Evo-
lutionn