 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
This article is divided as follows:
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the centraldoctrine of theChristian religion — thetruth that in the unity of theGodhead there are ThreePersons, the Father, theSon, and theHoly Spirit, these ThreePersons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of theAthanasian Creed: "the Father isGod, theSon isGod, and theHoly Spirit isGod, and yet there are not threeGods but oneGod." In this Trinity ofPersons theSon is begotten of the Father by aneternal generation, and theHoly Spirit proceeds by aneternal procession from the Father and theSon. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, thePersons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated andomnipotent. This, theChurch teaches, is therevelation regardingGod's nature whichJesus Christ, theSon of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes toman as the foundation of her wholedogmatic system.
InScripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three DivinePersons are denoted together. The wordtrias (of which the Latintrinitas is a translation) is first found inTheophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity ofGod [the Father], HisWord and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before histime. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form oftrinitas inTertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages ofOrigen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The firstcreed in which it appears is that ofOrigen's pupil,Gregory Thaumaturgus. In hisEkthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothingcreated, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without theSon, nor theSon without theSpirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that adogma somysterious presupposes aDivine revelation. When the fact ofrevelation, understood in its full sense as the speech ofGod toman, is no longer admitted, the rejection of thedoctrine follows as anecessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in theLiberalProtestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that thedoctrine of the Trinity, as professed by theChurch, is not contained in theNew Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of theArian andMacedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it isnecessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded byHoly Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparativereligion to thedoctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compellingmen to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.
The evidence from theGospels culminates in thebaptismal commission ofMatthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of theEvangelists thatChrist only made the greattruthknown to theTwelve step by step.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself theEternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another DivinePerson, theHoly Spirit, in His place. Finally after Hisresurrection, He revealed thedoctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of theSon, and of theHoly Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and"the Son" are distinctPersons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of theHoly Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a ThirdPerson co-ordinate with the Father and theSon, and excludes altogether the supposition that theApostles understood theHoly Spirit not as a distinctPerson, but asGod viewed in His action on creatures.
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike theGodhead of thePersons and their unity ofnature. Among theJews and in theApostolic Church the Divine name was representative ofGod. He who had aright to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded thesupernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all thePersons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these ThreePersons are thatOne Omnipotent God in whom theApostlesbelieved. Indeed the unity ofGod is so fundamental a tenet alike of theHebrew and of theChristian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of theOld andNew Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with thisdoctrine would be altogether inadmissible.
Thesupernatural appearance at thebaptism ofChrist is often cited as an explicitrevelation of Trinitariandoctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. TheEvangelists, it istrue, see in it a manifestation of the Three DivinePersons. Yet, apart fromChrist's subsequent teaching, thedogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none butChrist and the Baptist were privileged to see theMystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of theMessias.
Besides these passages there are many others in theGospels which refer to one or other of the ThreePersons in particular and clearly express the separatepersonality and Divinity of each. In regard to the FirstPerson it will not benecessary to give special citations: those which declare thatJesus Christ isGod the Son,affirm thereby also the separatepersonality of the Father. The Divinity ofChrist is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by theSynoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (seeJESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from theSynoptists, in whichChrist bearswitness to His DivineNature.
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of theSynoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity ofJesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with theWord, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from alleternity exists withGod, Who isGod (John 1:1-18). Theimmanence of theSon in the Father and of the Father in theSon is declared inChrist's words to St. Philip: "Do you notbelieve, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7;16:15;17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, theSon also does in like manner" (5:19, cf.10:38); and to theSon no less than to the Father belongs theDivine attribute of conferringlife on whom He will (5:21). In10:29,Christ expressly teaches Hisunity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by theSon as by the Father.
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which theSon declares His dependence on the Father (5:19;8:28). In point of fact thedoctrine of theIncarnation involves that, in regard of His HumanNature, theSon should be less than the Father. No argument againstCatholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of theSon upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitariandogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom theDivine Nature and perfections flow to theSon. (On the essential difference betweenSt. John'sdoctrine as to thePerson ofChrist and theLogosdoctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which manyRationalists have attempted to trace it, seeL.)
In regard to theThird Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from theSynoptists as attesting His distinctpersonality are few. The words ofGabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in theOld Testament, to signifyGod as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definiterevelation of thedoctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whetherChrist's warning to thePharisees as regardsblasphemy against theHoly Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward asproof. But inLuke 12:12, "TheHoly Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, andLuke 24:49), Hispersonality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection withMatthew 28:19, postulate theexistence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14,15,16). We have in these chapters thenecessary preparation for thebaptismal commission. In them theApostles are instructed not only as thepersonality of theSpirit, but as to His office towards theChurch. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back theirminds the teaching ofChrist (14:26), to convince the world ofsin (16:8). It is evident that, were theSpirit not aPerson,Christ could not have spoken of His presence with theApostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a DivinePerson it could not have been expedient for theApostles thatChrist should leave them, and theParaclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculineekeinos. The distinction of theHoly Spirit from the Father and from theSon is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by theSon (15:26; cf.14:16,14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of theSon (14:17-18), while the presence of theSon is the presence of the Father (14:23).
In the remainingNew Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was thebelief of theApostolic Church in the three DivinePersons. In certain texts the coordination of Father,Son, andSpirit leaves no possibledoubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in2 Corinthians 13:13,St. Paul writes: "The grace of ourLord Jesus Christ, and the charity ofGod, and the communication of theHoly Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that theApostle is speaking of three distinctPersons. Moreover, since the namesGod andHoly Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows thatJesus Christ is also regarded as a DivinePerson. So also, in1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities ofgraces, but the sameSpirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the sameGod, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. alsoEphesians 4:4-6;1 Peter 1:2-3)
But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the ThreePersons, the teaching of theNew Testament regardingChrist and theHoly Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard toChrist, theApostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signifiedbelief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of theDoxology in reference to Him. TheDoxology, "To Him beglory for ever and ever" (cf.1 Chronicles 16:38;29:11;Psalm 103:31;28:2), is an expression of praise offered toGod alone. In theNew Testament we find it addressed not alone toGod the Father, but toJesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18;2 Peter 3:18;Revelation 1:6;Hebrews 13:20-21), and toGod the Father andChrist in conjunction (Revelations 5:13,7:10).
Not less convincing is the use of the titleLord (Kyrios). This term represents theHebrewAdonai, just asGod (Theos) representsElohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf.1 Corinthians 8:4). In theApostolic writingsTheos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name ofGod the Father, andKyrios of theSon (see, for example,1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we findKyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5;7:17) orTheos ofChrist. TheApostles from time to time apply toChrist passages of theOld Testament in whichKyrios is used, for example,1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7),Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31;2 Corinthians 5:11;Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently ofGod the Father and ofChrist (Acts 2:21;9:14;Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun,Romans 10:9;Kyrios Iesous,1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment ofJesus as Jahweh. The texts in whichSt. Paul affirms that inChrist dwells the plenitude of theGodhead (Colossians 2:9), that before HisIncarnation He possessed theessential nature of God (Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things,Godblessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of hisEpistles.
Thedoctrine as to theHoly Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to theChurch'sministers: "As they were ministering to theLord andfasting, theHoly Ghost said to them: Separate meSaul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of theApostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf.Acts 5:3;15:28;Romans 15:30).Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitariandoctrine are all expressly taught in theNew Testament. The Divinity of the ThreePersons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity ofessence is not merely postulated by the strictmonotheism of men nurtured in thereligion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in thebaptismal commission ofMatthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and theSon, expressly asserted inJohn 10:38. That thePersons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, thedoctrine of the first procession is contained in the very termsFather andSon: the procession of theHoly Spirit from the Fatherand Son is taught in the discourse of theLord reported by St. John (14-17) (seeH G).
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of thedoctrine of the Trinity must exist in theOld Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merelybelieved that theProphets had testified of it, they held that it had been madeknown even to thePatriarchs. They regarded it ascertain that the Divine messenger ofGenesis 16:7,16:18,21:17,31:11;Exodus 3:2, wasGod the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf.Justin,Dialogue with Trypho 60;Irenaeus,Against Heresies IV.20.7-11;Tertullian,Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus,To Autolycus II.22;Novatian,On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when theinspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus,Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus,To Autolycus II.15;Hippolytus,Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, withSt. Paul, of theSon (Hebrews 1:3; cf.Wisdom 7:25-26), but of theHoly Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of thedoctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf.Gregory Nazianzen,Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil,Against Eunomius II.22;Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)
Some of these, however, admitted that aknowledge of themystery was granted to theProphets andsaints of theOld Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5;Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for therevelation in some of theprophecies. The namesEmmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) andGod the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of theMessias make mention of theDivineNature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospelrevelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead theJews to recognize that theSaviour to come was to be none other thanGod Himself. TheSeptuagint translators do not even venture to render the wordsGod the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "theangel of great counsel."
A still higher stage of preparation is found in thedoctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. InProverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before hismind a realperson (cf.verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs inEcclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of theangels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived asperson. Thenature of thepersonality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works ofGod, but thatIsrael is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).
In theBook of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished fromJehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of theglory of thealmighty God. . .the brightness ofeternal light, and the unspotted mirror ofGod's majesty, and the image of hisgoodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf.Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that thecreation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in laterJudaism this exalteddoctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests someknowledge of a secondpersonality in theGodhead, constitutes arevelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in theOld Testament do we find any clear indication of a ThirdPerson. Mention is often made of theSpirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that theSpirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signifyGod considered in His working, whether in theuniverse or in thesoul ofman. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The OneGodhead is above all declared byMoses, and the twofoldpersonality (of Father andSon) is strenuously asserted by theProphets. The Trinity is madeknown by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).
In this section we shall show that thedoctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by theCatholicChurch and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to theArian andMacedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider thefaith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in theliturgical forms of theChurch. The highestprobative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a singleindividual, but the publicbelief of the whole body of thefaithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions ofChristians on the subject were vague and confused, and that theirliturgical forms reflect this frame ofmind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. AnyChristian might be called on to seal with his blood hisbelief that there is butOne God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to theOne True God," is typical of many such replies in theActs of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamentaltruth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether theircreed wasmonotheistic, ditheistic, ortritheistic. Moreover, weknow that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. Thewriters of that age bearwitness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with thetruths offaith (cf.Justin,First Apology 60;Irenaeus,Against Heresies III.4.2).
(1) Baptismal formulas
We may notice first thebaptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed byChrist (Matthew 28:19) clearly express theGodhead of the ThreePersons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added.Baptism, with its formal renunciation ofSatan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of theidolatry ofpaganism and thesolemnconsecration of thebaptised to theone true God (Tertullian,De Spectaculis 4;Justin,First Apology 4). The act ofconsecration was the invocation over them of the Father,Son, andHoly Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and ThirdPersons ascreated beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd.St. Hippolytus has expressed thefaith of theChurch in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver ofregeneration withfaith forsakes theEvil One and engages himself toChrist, renounces the enemy and confesses thatChrist isGod . . . he returns from the font ason of God and a coheir ofChrist. To Whom with the allholy, thegood and lifegivingSpirit beglory now and always, forever and ever.Amen" (Sermon on Theophany 10).
(2) The doxologies
Thewitness of thedoxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to theSon, and to theHoly Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitariandogma that theArians found itnecessary to deny that it had been in use previous to thetime of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii).
It istrue that up to the period of theArian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through theSon, in theHoly Spirit," had been more common (cf.Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians 58-59;Justin,First Apology 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarianbelief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the ThreePersons, but their operation in regard toman. We live in theSpirit, and through Him we are made partakers inChrist (Galatians 5:25;Romans 8:9); and it is throughChrist, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise toGod (Hebrews 13:15).
But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to theSon, and to [with] theHoly Spirit," was also in use.
(3) Other patristic writings
Thedoctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among theapologists we may noteJustin,First Apology 6;Athenagoras,A Plea for the Christians 12. The latter tells us thatChristians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that theyknowGod and HisLogos, what is the oneness of theSon with the Father, what the communion of the Father with theSon, what is theSpirit, what is the unity of these three, theSpirit, theSon, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that anapologist, writing forpagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with thisdoctrine.
Amongst polemical writers we may refer toIrenaeus (Against Heresies I.22 andIV.20.1-6). In these passages he rejects theGnostic figment that the world wascreated byaeons who had emanated fromGod, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches theconsubstantiality of theWord and theSpirit by WhomGodcreated all things.
Clement of Alexandria professes thedoctrine inThe Pedagogue I.6, and somewhat laterGregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in hisCreed.
(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings
Yet further evidence regarding theChurch'sdoctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that ofhereticalsects.
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third centuryproves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitariandoctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of theerror, was condemned by a localsynod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the sameheresy atRome c. A.D. 220, wasexcommunicated bySt. Callistus.
It isnotorious that thesect made no appeal totradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared — atSmyrna, atRome, inAfrica, inEgypt. On the other hand,St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the"Contra Noetum", claimsApostolic tradition for thedoctrine of theCatholicChurch: "Let usbelieve, beloved brethren, in accordance with thetradition of theApostles, thatGod the Word came down fromheaven to theholy Virgin Mary tosaveman."
Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260)Denis of Alexandria found that theerror was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed adogmatic letter against it to twobishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between thePersons, he termed theSonpoiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that theSon is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused ofheterodoxy toSt. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with thetrueCatholic doctrine on the point in question. TheBishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of hisorthodoxy entitled"Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had beenerroneous. He expressly professes hisbelief in the consubstantiality of theSon, using the very term,homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone oforthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to thedoctrinal standard of theChurch. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of thePersons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality.
The information we possess regarding anotherheresy — that ofMontanus — supplies us with furtherproof that thedoctrine of the Trinity was theChurch's teaching in A.D. 150.Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when aCatholic he still holds as aMontanist (Against Praxeas 2); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the ThreePersons, their distinction, theeternity ofGod the Son (Against Praxeas 27). Epiphanius in the same way asserts theorthodoxy of theMontanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that theMontanists had accepted any novel teaching from theCatholicChurch since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clearproof that Trinitarianism was anarticle of faith at atime when theApostolic tradition was far too recent for anyerror to have arisen on a point so vital.
Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitariandoctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. TheSocinian writers of the seventeenth century (e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not withAthanasius, but withArius.Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his greattheological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into graveerrors. On the other hand, theirorthodoxy was vigorously defended by theAnglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently byBossuet,Thomassinus, and otherCatholictheologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicenebelief of theChurch:
We shall examine these four points in order.
(1) Inproof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of theSon with the Father, passages are cited fromJustin (First Apology 13, 32),Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3),Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.2),Hippolytus (Against Noetus 14),Origen (Against Celsus VIII.15). ThusIrenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3) says: "He commanded, and they werecreated . . . Whom did He command? HisWord, by whom, says theScripture, the heavens were established. AndOrigen (Against Celsus VIII.15) says: "We declare that theSon is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And thisbelief we ground on the saying ofJesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I."
Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the ThreePersons insofar as they are equally possessed of the DivineNature or we may consider theSon and theSpirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source ofGodhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since theArian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole source of all, may be termed greater than theSon. ThusAthanasius, Basil,Gregory Nazianzen,Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of theCouncil of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat ourLord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to HisGodhead (cf.Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in thecreation of the world the Father commanded, theSonobeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed byLatin writers who insist thatcreation and allGod's works proceed from Him as One and not from thePersons as distinct from each other. But thistruth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.
(2)Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 60)Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.20.7-11),Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27;Against Praxeas 15-16),Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with theessentialnature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of theSon. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the ThreePersons as such, and not from theGodhead viewed as one. NowRevelation teaches us that in the work of thecreation andredemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through theSon. Through Him Hemade the world; through Him Heredeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it wasbelieved by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of theSon. Moreover, inColossians 1:15, theSon is expressly termed "the image of the invisibleGod" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of aneikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf.St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work ofrevealing the Father belongs bynature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.
(3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that theSon wascreated are found inClement of Alexandria (Stromata V.14 andVI.7),Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5),Tertullian (Against Praxeas 6;Against Hermogenes 18-20),Origen (Commentary on John I.22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), andTatian terms theWord the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father."
Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. InColossians 1:16,St. Paul says that all things werecreated in theSon. This was understood to signify thatcreation took place according to exemplarideas predetermined byGod and existing in theWord. In view of this, it might be said that the Fathercreated theWord, this term being used in place of the more accurategenerated, inasmuch as the exemplarideas ofcreation were communicated by the Father to theSon. Or, again, the actualCreation of the world might be termed thecreation of theWord, since it takes place according to theideas which exist in theWord. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses.
The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse,Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in theSeptuagint and the oldLatin versions, "TheLordcreated (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to theSon, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom wascreated (Origen,De Principiis I.2.3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the ThreePersons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned withArianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequenterrors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous.
(4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to theCreation of the world theWord was not a distincthypostasis from the Father. These are found inJustin (Dialogue with Trypho 61),Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5),Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians 10), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.10);Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10);Tertullian (Against Praxeas 5-7;Against Hermogenes 18). Thus Theophilus writes (To Autolycus II.22):
What else is this voice [heard inParadise] but theWord of God Who is also HisSon? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His ownmind and thought [i.e. as thelogos endiathetos, c. x]). But whenGod wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the utteredWord [logos prophorikos], thefirstborn of allcreation, not, however, Himself being left withoutReason (logos), but having begottenReason, and ever holding converse withReason.
Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of theStoicphilosophy: thelogos endiathetos andlogos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that theseapologists were seeking to explain theChristian Faith to theirpagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. SomeCatholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although theChurch herself was never involved in theerror (seeL). Yet it does not seemnecessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatible withorthodoxbelief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regardedProverbs 8:22, andColossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which theWord, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also intime. Thistemporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act ofcreation. They viewed this as the complement of theeternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creativeideas which from alleternity the Father has communicated to theEternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly theeternity of theSon, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense.
It should further beremembered that throughout this periodtheologians, when treating of the relation of the DivinePersons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with thecosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question ofcreation and deal with the threefoldPersonality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of theGodhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible.
TheVatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the termmystery intheology. It lays down that amystery is atruth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart fromDivine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil offaith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of theDivine message. Throughanalogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what isrevealed, but we cannot attain that fullerknowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of amystery, the office of the naturalreason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it onReason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates thelaws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.
TheVatican Council furtherdefined that theChristian Faith containsmysteries strictly so called (can. 4). Alltheologians admit that thedoctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of allrevealedtruths this is the most impenetrable toreason. Hence, to declare this to be nomystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, ourLord's words,Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth theSon, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality ofPersons in theGodhead is atruth entirely beyond the scope of anycreatedintellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the DivineNature is affirmed.St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "Thetrue profession of themystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae — "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with theEunomians, who declared that the DivineEssence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by thehumanmind, led many of theGreekFathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the DivineNature, more especially in regard to the internal processions.St. Basil,Against Eunomius I.14;St. Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures VI;St. John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).
At a laterdate, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64),Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."),Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), andRichard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons whyGod should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation ofphilosophy torevealeddoctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after theAristotelean system had obtained recognition fromtheologians was this question thoroughly treated. In theintellectual ferment of thetimeAbelard initiated aRationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim aknowledge of the Trinity for thepaganphilosophers, but his own Trinitariandoctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm'serror was due not toRationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas".Hugh andRichard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced byAbelard's teaching.Raymond Lully's (1235-1315)errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned byGregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailingRationalism manifested itself in severalCatholic writers. Frohschammer andGünther both asserted that thedogma of the Trinity was capable ofproof.Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that theVatican Council issued thedecrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated,error on the part ofRosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).
TheGreekFathers approached the problem of Trinitariandoctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days ofSt. Augustine, has becometraditional inLatintheology.
InLatintheology thought fixed first on theNature and only subsequently on thePersons.Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of theNature: theNature is regarded aslogically prior to thePersonality. Hence, becauseGod's Nature is one, He isknown to us as OneGod before He can beknown as ThreePersons. And whentheologians speak ofGod without special mention of aPerson, conceive Him under this aspect.
This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinctPersons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name ofGod (Theos) more especially belongs; theSon, proceeding from the Father by aneternal generation, and therefore rightly termedGod also; and theDivine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through theSon. ThePersonality is treated aslogically prior to theNature. Just ashumannature is something which theindividual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on theindividual, so the DivineNature is something which belongs to thePersons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.
The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question ofcreation. AllWesterntheologians teach thatcreation, like allGod's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separatePersonalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, eachPerson exercises a separate office.Irenaeus replies to theGnostics, who held that the world wascreated by ademiurge other than thesupreme God, by affirming thatGod is the one Creator, and that He made all things by HisWord and His Wisdom, theSon and theSpirit (Against Heresies I.22,II.4.4-5,II.30.9 andIV.20.1). A formula often found among theGreekFathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by theSon in theSpirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil,On the Holy Spirit 38;Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too,Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10) says thatGod has fashioned all things by HisWord and His Wisdom creating them by HisWord, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). TheNicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess ourbelief "in oneGod the Father Almighty, Creator ofheaven and earth . . . and in oneLord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in theHoly Ghost."
TheGreekFathers did not neglect to safeguard thedoctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in theWest. Theconsubstantiality of thePersons is asserted bySt. Irenæus when he tells us thatGodcreated the world by HisSon and HisSpirit, "His two hands" (Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and ThirdPersons are not substantially distinct from the First. A morephilosophical description is thedoctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence betweenSt. Denis of Alexandria andSt. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend theMonad [the FirstPerson] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in theMonad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV, 504). Here theconsubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that theSon andSpirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.
Thisdoctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. TheGreekFathers regarded theSon as the Wisdom and power of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, theSpirit as His Sanctity. Apart from theSon the Father would be without His Wisdom; apart from theSpirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus theSon and theSpirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers andfaculties are mereaccidental perfections, in theGodhead they are subsistent hypostases.Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and ThirdPersons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the FirstPerson as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source ofDeity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them.
TheArian controversy led to insistence on theHomoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflectiveanalysis. The sonship of theSecond Person implies that He has received the DivineNature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like innature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The DivineEssence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the samenature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the DivineNature as communicated to theHoly Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and theSon. Unity ofnature was understood by theGreekFathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the ThreePersons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil,Epistle 189, no. 7;Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom., "John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith III.14). Here we see an important advance in thetheology of theGodhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the ThreePersons as each exercising a distinct and separate function.
Finally we have thedoctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the ThreePersons. The termperichoresis is first used bySt. John Damascene. Yet thedoctrine is found much earlier. ThusSt. Cyril of Alexandria says that theSon is called theWord and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and themind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen).St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of thePersons. In some passages he explains it by thedoctrine already mentioned, that theSon and theSpirit aredynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of thedoctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity ofessence, will, and action in thePersons. Wherever these are peculiar to theindividual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separateexistence (kechorismenos einai). In theGodhead theessence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separateexistence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in theHomoüsia.
It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of theArian andMacedonianheretics than was that subsequently developed bySt. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of theGreekFathers notably nearer to the positions ofLatintheology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the ThreePersons to be but one.Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like theLatins, conceived theNature aslogically antecedent to thePersons. He understands the termGod as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When wepray, whether we say'Kyrie eleison', or 'OGod aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in oneGodhead" (De Trin., II, xix).
Thedoctrine that theSpirit is the image of theSon, as theSon is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greektheology. It is asserted bySt. Gregory Thaumaturgus in hisCreed. It is assumed bySt. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with theMacedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and bySt. Gregory Nazianzen (Orations 31.31-32), of the Three DivinePersons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also inSt. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33),St. John Damascene (Of the Orthodox Faith I.13), etc. This supposes that the procession of theSon from the Father is immediate; that of theSpirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through theSon.
Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the DivineProcession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, inWesterntheology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the ThreePersons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the samedogmatictruth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the laterPhotianheresy that theHoly Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred toH G.)
The Greektheology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from theLatin. MostWesterntheologians base their theory on the name,Logos, given by St. John to the SecondPerson. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which thecreatedintellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. Weknow byrevelation thatGod has aSon; and various other terms besidesSon employed regarding Him inScripture, such asWord, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More weknow not (cf.Gregory Nazianzen,Oration 29.8,Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures XI.19;John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found inGod the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of theGreekFathers understoodlogos not of themental thought; but of the uttered word (Athanasius,Dionysius of Alexandria, ibid.;Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term arevelation that theSon is begotten by way ofintellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations ofhuman sonship (Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius IV;Gregory Nazianzen,Oration 30; Basil, "Hom. xvi";Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi).
We have already adverted to the view that theSon is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from thetime ofOrigen to that ofSt. John Damascene (OrigenapudAthanasius,De decr. Nic.;Athanasius,Against the Arians I;Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus";John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.12). It is based on thePlatonicphilosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from theAristoteleanism of theScholastictheologians. InAristoteleanphilosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No action, transient orimmanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity.God, as the supreme perfection, is from alleternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are notaccidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition thatGod is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His ownimmanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of theGreekFathers frequently presuppose thisphilosophy as their basis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejectingArianism that, if there were atime when theSon was not, it follows thatGod must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power — a conclusion from which evenArians would shrink.
A point which inWesterntheology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why theThird Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed theHoly Spirit.St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and theSon, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (On the Trinity XV.37). To theGreekFathers, who developed thetheology of theSpirit in the light of thephilosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held,reveals to us His distinctivecharacter as the ThirdPerson, just as the namesFather andSon manifest the distinctive characters of the First and SecondPersons (cf.Gregory Thaumaturgus,Declaration of Faith; Basil,Epistle 214.4;Gregory Nazianzen,Oration 25.16). He isautoagiotes, the hypostaticholiness ofGod, theholiness by whichGod isholy. Just as theSon is the Wisdom and Power by whichGod is wise and powerful, so theSpirit is the Holiness by which He isholy. Had there ever been atime, as theMacedonians dared to say, when theHoly Spirit was not, then at thattimeGod would have not beenholy (St. Gregory Nazianzen,Oration 31.4).
On the other hand,pneuma was often understood in the light ofJohn 10:22 whereChrist, appearing to theApostles, breathed on them and conferred on them theHoly Spirit. He is the breath ofChrist (John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.8), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath oflife by which we enjoy thesupernaturallife ofGod's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of theHoly Spirit in thus elevating us to thesupernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that ofWesterntheologians. According toWesterndoctrine,God bestows onmansanctifying grace, and consequent on thatgift the ThreePersons come to hissoul.
In Greektheology the order is reversed: theHoly Spirit does not come to us because we have receivedsanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive thegift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continuedexistence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen,Commentary on John II.6;Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11;Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with theHoly Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image ofChrist, He imprints the likeness ofChrist upon us; sinceChrist is the image of the Father, we too receive thetruecharacter ofGod's children (Athanasius, loc. cit.;Gregory Nazianzen,Oration 31.4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed theHoly Spirit is termed the Giver oflife (zoopoios). In theWest we more naturally speak of grace as thelife of thesoul. But to the Greeks it was theSpirit through whose personal presence we live. Just asGod gave naturallife toAdam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath oflife, so didChrist give spirituallife to us when He bestowed on us thegift of theHoly Ghost.
The transition to theLatintheology of the Trinity was the work ofSt. Augustine.Westerntheologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age ofScholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected.
It received its final and classical form fromSt. Thomas Aquinas. But it isnecessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected bySt. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:
In the following exposition of theLatin doctrines, we shall followSt. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of thedoctrine is now universally accepted byCatholictheologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. ThusRichard of St. Victor,Alexander of Hales, andSt. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main toWesterntradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that ofSt. Thomas.
Among the terms employed inScripture to designate the SecondPerson of the Blessed Trinity is theWord (John 1:1). This is understood bySt. Thomas of theVerbum mentale, orintellectual concept. As applied to theSon, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of anintellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by thehumanmind in all acts of naturalknowledge. It is, indeed, offaith that theSon proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a DivinePerson as the term of the act by whichGod knows His ownnature is rightly calledgeneration. This may be readily shown. As an act ofintellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the objectknown. And further, being Divine action, it is not anaccidental act resulting in a term, itself a mereaccident, but the act is the verysubstance of the Divinity, and the term is likewisesubstantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of asubstantial term like innature to thePerson from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of theSon, a difficulty was felt bySt. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the ThreePersons must needs generate a subsistentWord. Since all the Powers possess the samemind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficultySt. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to hispsychology the formation of a concept is notessential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all naturalhumanknowledge. There is, therefore, no ground inreason, apart fromrevelation, for holding that the Divineintellect produces aVerbum mentale. It is the testimony ofScripture alone which tells us that the Father has from alleternity begotten HisconsubstantialWord. But neitherreason norrevelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3).
Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers andScholastictheologians as to the meaning of the namesWord andWisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to theSon, for us to regard theintellectual procession of theSecond Person as at least theologicallycertain, if not arevealedtruth (cf.Francisco Suárez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4;Petavius, VI, i, 7;Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of theGreekFathers, as we have already noticed, interpretlogos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as tointellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation ofProverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of thosetheologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as atheological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well withrevealedtruth.
Just as theSon proceeds as the term of theimmanent act of theintellect, so does theHoly Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. Inhumanlove, asSt. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet theimmanent act oflove arouses in thesoul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thingloved. In virtue of this the object oflove is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to ourintellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. TheHoly Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and theSon as the term of thelove by whichGod loves Himself. He is not thelove ofGod in the sense of being Himself formally thelove by whichGod loves; but inloving HimselfGod breathes forth this subsistent term. He is HypostaticLove. Here, however, it isnecessary to safeguard a point of revealeddoctrine. It is offaith that the procession of theHoly Spirit is not generation. TheSon is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And theAthanasian Creed expressly lays it down that theHoly Ghost is "from the Father and theSon, neither made, norcreated, nor begotten, but proceeding."
If theimmanent act of theintellect is rightly termedgeneration, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty bySt. Thomas,Richard of St. Victor, andAlexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to noteSt. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of hislove. This difference in the acts explains why the namegeneration is applicable only to the act of theintellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name.
Thedoctrine of the procession of theHoly Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of theSpirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in theLatins before histime. He mentions the opinion with favour in the"De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the"De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by theWest. TheScholastics seek forScriptural support for it in the nameHoly Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the namesFather andSon, a name expressive of a relation within theGodhead proper to thePerson who bears it. Now the attributeholy, as applied toperson or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted toGod. It follows therefore that, when applied to a DivinePerson as designating the relation uniting Him to the otherPersons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion toGod. But that by which anyperson is devoted toGod islove. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the nameSpirit (I:36:1). TheLatin theory is a noble effort of thehumanreason to penetrate the verities whichrevelation has left veiled inmystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all thetruths offaith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamentaldoctrine of theChristian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction ofrevelation.
The existence of relations in theGodhead may be immediately inferred from thedoctrine of processions, and as such is atruth ofRevelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of theSon and the procession of theHoly Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitariandoctrine was familiar to theGreekFathers. In answer to theEunomian objection, thatconsubstantiality rendered any distinction between thePersons impossible,Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that thenature [in the ThreePersons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that onePerson differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf.Gregory Nazianzen,Fifth Theological Oration 9;John Damascene,Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Augustine insists that of the tenAristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found inGod (On the Trinity V.5). But it was at the hands theScholastictheologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of thedogma, were found to throw great light upon themystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it.
From the fact that there are two processions inGodhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas andspiratio) and two of procession (filiatio andprocessio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between thePersons. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to theinfinite DivineNature and this is common to the ThreePersons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutelycertain by alltheologians. Equivalently contained in the words ofSt. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated bySt. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and receivedecclesiasticalsanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but ThreePersons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same DivineNature, so they possess the samevirtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of theHoly Spirit.
Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in theGodhead, it follows that the DivinePersons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, theSon the Divine Filiation, theHoly Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mereaccidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is inGod must needs be subsistent. He is the SupremeSubstance, transcending the divisions of theAristoteleancategories. Hence, at one and the same time He is bothsubstance and relation. (How it is that there should be inGod real relations, though it is altogether impossible thatquantity orquality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding themetaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)
It will be seen that thedoctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that thedogma of the Trinity involves thefalsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectlytrue in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in thedogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father andSon are alike identical with the DivineEssence, we are affirming that the SupremeInfiniteSubstance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of theirnature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are ThreePersons in theGodhead none can beinfinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, likequantity orquality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of theGodhead is contained in the oneinfinite DivineEssence. The Father is thatEssence as iteternally regards theSon and theSpirit; theSon is thatEssence as iteternally regards the Father and theSpirit; theHoly Spirit is thatEssence as iteternally regards the Father and theSon. But theeternal regard by which each of the ThreePersons is constituted is not an addition to theinfinite perfection of theGodhead.
The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are ThreePersons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divinemindex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, thedogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on apetitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification ofperson and ofmind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected byCatholicphilosophers as altogether misleading. Neitherperson normind is self-consciousness; though aperson must needs possess self-consciousness, andconsciousness attests theexistence ofmind (seeP). Granted that in theinfinitemind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the samemind will have a three-foldconsciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes ofexistence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of theinfinitemind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.
The question was raised by theScholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates theSon; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father andSon breathe forth theHoly Spirit.St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the changeaction, and its receptionpassion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in theGodhead origination iseternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that theSon possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. Weknow, indeed, that in the DivinePersons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the onePersonality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2).
It has been seen that every action ofGod in regard of thecreated world proceeds from the ThreePersons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . hisSon into the world" (John 3:17), and "theParaclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of theSon and of theHoly Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes twoconditions:
The procession, however, may take place in various ways — by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The secondcondition, too, is satisfied either if theperson sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. ThoughGod the Son was already present in the world by reason of HisGodhead, HisIncarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of theHoly Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to thesoul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative,knowledge and as the object of experimentallove. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, theSecond and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the DivineNature by means of aprocession, may be said to be sent into thesoul. (See alsoH G;L;M;U.)
Among the numerous patristic works on this subject, the following call for special mention: ST. ATHANASIUS,Orationes quatuor contra Arianos; IDEM,Liber de Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto; ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN,Orationes V de theologia; DIDYMUS ALEX.,Libri III de Trinitate; IDEM,Liber de Spir. Sancto; ST. HILARY OF POITIERS,Libri XII de Trinitate; ST. AUGUSTINE,Libri XV de Trinitate; ST. JOHN DAMASCENE,Liber de Trinitate; IDEM,De fide orthodoxa, I.
Among the medieval theologians: ST. ANSELM,Lib. I. de fide Trinitatis; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR,Libri VI de Trinitate; ST.THOMAS,Summa, I, xxvii-xliii; BESSARION,Liber de Spiritu Saneto contra Marcum Ephesinum.
Among more recent writers: PETAVIUS,De Trinitate; NEWMAN.Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism in Theol. Tracts. (London, 1864).
APA citation.Joyce, G.(1912).The Blessed Trinity. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
MLA citation.Joyce, George."The Blessed Trinity."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 15.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm>.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.