The Blessed Trinity

This article is divided as follows:

I. Dogma of the Trinity;

II. Proof of the Doctrine from Scripture;

III. Proof of the Doctrine from Tradition;

IV. The Trinity as a Mystery;

V. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Greek Theology;

VI. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Latin Theology.

I. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine
of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the
Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God,
the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not
three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is
begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy
Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the
Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the
Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and
omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding
God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth
to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the
foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three
Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the
Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of
Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the
Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term
may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it
appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c.
xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found
in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in
which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus.
In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he
writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in
the 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 the Son, nor the Son
without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and
unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine
revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full
sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the
rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For
this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today.
The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the
Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New
Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century
and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the
Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it
is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by
Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more
extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine ot the
Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature
compelling men 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.

II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE

A. New Testament

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal
commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of
the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the
Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself
the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close,
He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the
Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He
revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this
passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct
Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually
exclusive. The mention of the Holy 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 Third Person co-ordinate
with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the
supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a
distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The
phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of
the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the
Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who
had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he
wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It
is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here
employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine.
Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural,
shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom
the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a
tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is
affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments,
that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be
altogether inadmissible. The supernatural appearance at the
baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of
Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the
Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it
is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons.
Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning
of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the
Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the
Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words
attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.

Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which
refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and
clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In
regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give
special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God
the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the
Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St.
John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere
(see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few
of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which
Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.

�  He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men
(Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was
a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.

�  In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself
as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all,
are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).

�  He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew
24:31).

�  He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not
as Messiah -- a step long since taken by all the Apostles -- but
explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to
a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).

�  Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be
the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question
affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared
by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which
could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias
(Luke 22:66-71).

St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the
Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his
Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31).
In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten
of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God
(John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the
Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do
you not believe, 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, the Son also does in like manner"
(5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father
belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will
(5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity 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 the Son 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 the
Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point
of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard
of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No
argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from
this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the
Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to
Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source
from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On
the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the
Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo,
to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)

In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages
which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct
personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having
regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament,
to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said
to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same
reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as
regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be
brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall
teach you in the what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke
24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken
in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such
teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by
St. John (14-16). We have in these chapters the necessary
preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are
instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to
His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He
shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of
Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident
that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken
of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own
presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it
could have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should
leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover,
notwithstanding the neuter form of the mord (pneuma), the pronoun
used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of
the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in
the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is
sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 26). Nevertheless, He is one
with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the
presence of the Son (14:17, 18), while the presence of the Son is
the presence of the Father (14:23).

In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest
how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in
the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of
Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning
of the writer. Thus in II Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the
communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the
construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct
Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike
Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a
Divine Person. So also, in I Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are
diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are
diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are
diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of
them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; I Peter 1:2-
3.)

But apart from passages such as these, where there is express
mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament
regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity.
In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to
men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief
in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in
reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and
ever" (cf. I Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an
expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we
find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ
(II Timothy 4:18; II Peter 3:18; Revelations 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-
21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations
5:13, 7:10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord
(Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God
(Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. I
Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be
said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios
of the Son (see, for example, I Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few
passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (I Corinthians 3:5;
7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to
Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for
example, I 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; II Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon
the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of
Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus
is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, I
Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The
texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the
plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His
Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philemon
2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans
9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of
his Epistles.

The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His
distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many
passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers:
"As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost
said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He
directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "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.

�  He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries
known only to God (I Corinthians 2:10);

�  it is He who distributes charismata (I Cor., 12:11);

�  He is the giver of supernatural life (II Cor., 3:8);

�  He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as
in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).

�  The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to
Him (I Cor., 6:11; Rom., 15:16), just as in other passages the
same operations are attributed to Christ (I Cor., 1:2; Gal.,
2:17).

To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are
all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the
Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to
count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict
monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom
"subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as
we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew
28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly
asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and
coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine
processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in
the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord
reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST).

B. Old Testament

The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine
of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such
indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely
believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it
had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as
certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 18, 21:17,
31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God 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, "Dial.", 60;
Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", IV, xx, 7-11; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.",
15-16; Theoph., "Ad Autol.", ii, 22; Novat., "De Trin.", 18, 25,
etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the
Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the
Trinity: and one or two (Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", II, xxx, 9;
Theophilus, "Ad. Aut.", II, 15; Hippolytus, "Con. Noet.", 10)
interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with
St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom, vii, 25, 26), but
of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what
would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation
of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Greg. Naz.,
"Or. theol.", v, 26; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil,
"Adv. Eunom.", II, 22; Cyril Alex., "In Joan.", xii, 20.)

Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery
was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation
(Epiph., "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril Alex., "Con. Julian.," I). It may
be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in
some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God
the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of
the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the
Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the
passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to
recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God
Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render
the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their
place,"the angel of great counsel." A still higher stage of
preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books
regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears
personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author
was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real
person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclus.,
24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the
assembly of the Most High", i. e. in the presence of the angels.
This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person.
The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told
thnt the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her
delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special
manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclus., 24:8-13).

In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further
advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She
is. . .a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God.
.the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of
God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (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
the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later
Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have
passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage,
even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in
the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere
in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third
Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there
is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from
Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God
considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul
of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius,
when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and
the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously
asuerted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel"
("Haer.", Ixxiv).

III. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE FROM TRADITION

A. The Church Fathers

In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic
Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any
period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it
will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four
centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in
the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force
must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the
private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of
the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the
notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and
that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a
point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on
to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One 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 the One true God," is typical of many such
replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to
suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf
of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great
confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their
creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we
know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their
religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even
the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith
(cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv, n.
2).

(1) Baptismal formulas

We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge
to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as
prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead
of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another
consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal
renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the
rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration
of the baptised to the one true God (Tert., "De spect.", iv;
Justin, "Apol.", I, iv). The act of consecration was the
invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The
supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as
created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the
service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has
expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who
descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the
Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and
confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son
of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good
and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever.
Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10).

The doxologies

(2) The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form
now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the
Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the
Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous
to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.",
III, xiii). It is true that up to the period of the Arian
controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son,
in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59;
Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly
consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the
coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to
man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers
in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ,
as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Heb.
13:15). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers
which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son,
and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use.

�  In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With
Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to
come" (Mart. S. Polyc., n.14; cf. n. 22).

�  Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the
only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit"
(Paed., III, xii).

�  St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words:
"To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in
Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet.,
n. 18).

�  Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the
Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour
and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, "De Spiritu
Sancto", xxix, n. 72).

�  St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom
among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to
God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou
("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God").

(3) Other patristic writings

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of
ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note
Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12.
The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future
life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos,
what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion
of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity
of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their
distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit.
And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would
weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine. Amongst
polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii,
IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that
the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were
not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of
the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things. Clement of
Alexandria professes the doctrine in "Paedag." I, vi, and somewhat
later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down
in the most express terms in his creed (P. G., X, 986).

(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings

Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished
by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects. The
controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves
conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian
doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was
condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who
propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated
by St. Callistus. It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to
tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it
appeared -- at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other
hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum,"
claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic
Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the
tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven
to the holy Virgin Mary to save man." Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260)
Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the
Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it
to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to
emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son
poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting
that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of
heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and
addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine
on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a
defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in
whioh he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly
professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using
the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone
of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P. G., XXV, 505). The story of the
controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the
Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand
any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of
their consubstantiality.

The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of
Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of
the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian
affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity
when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II,
156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of
the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son
(op. cit., xxvii). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the
orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now
it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any
novel teaching from the Catholic Church 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 clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article
of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent
for any error to have arisen on apoint so vital.

B. Later Controversy

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
Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian
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 with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at
that period engaged on his great theological work, was convinced
by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these
Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their
orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr.
George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and
subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, and other Catholic
theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that
they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene
belief of the Church:

�  That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and
not equal to the Father;

�  that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old
Testament, inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the
Son, however, not so;

�  that the Son is a created being;

�  that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place
in time.

We shall examine these four points in order.

(1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the
equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from
Justin (Apol., I, xiii, xxxii), Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, viii,
n. 3), Clem. Alex. ("Strom." VII, ii), Hippolytus (Con. Noet., n.
14), Origen (Con. Cels., VIII, xv). Thus Irenaeus (loc. cit.)
says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He
command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were
established. And Origen, loc. cit., says: "We declare that the Son
is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this
belief we ground on the saying of Jesus 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 Three Persons insofar as they are equally
possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the
Spirit as derivlng from the Father, Who is the sole source of
Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The
former mode of considering them has been the more common since the
Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to
that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being: tbe sole
source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus
Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianius, Gregory of Nyssa, and the
Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all
treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as
having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii,
7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the
creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The
expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin
writers who insist thst creation and all God's works proceed from
Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other.
But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.

(2) Justin (Dial., n. 60) Irenaeus (Adv. haer., IV, xx, nn. 7,
11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; "Adv. Prax.", 15, 16),
Novatian (De Trin., xviii, 25), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, xxii),
are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible
with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with
that of the Son. 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 Three Persons as such,
and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us
that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the
Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made
the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge
it. Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to
the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only
have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the
Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon
tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken
with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest
what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III,
n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father
belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and
concluded that the theophanies were His work.

(3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son
was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv;
VI, vii), Tatian (Orat., v), Tertullian ("Adv. Prax." vi; "Adv.
"Adv. Hermong.", xviii, xx), Origen (In Joan., I, n. 22). Clement
speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos),
and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon
prototokon) Of the Father. Yet the meaning of these authors is
clear. In Colossians 1:16, St. Paul says that all things were
created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation
took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and
existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the
Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more
accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation
were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual
Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word,
since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the
Word. 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
the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created
(ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was
understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the
question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen,
"Princ.", I, ii, n. 3). It is further to be remembered that
accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three
Persons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the
fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not
concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the
light of subsequent errors 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 the
Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from
the Father. These are found in Justin (C. Tryphon., lxi), Tatian
(Con. Graecos, v), Athenagoras (Legat., x), Theophilus (Ad Autol.,
II, x, 22); Hippolytus (Con. Noet., x); Tertullian ("Adv. Prax.",
v-vii; "Adv. Hermogenem" xviii). Thus Theophilus writes (op. cit.,
n. 22): "What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word
of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into
being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought
[i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to
make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the
uttered Word [logos prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation,
not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos), but
having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason."
Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of
the Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos
were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these
apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their
pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some
Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their
previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism,
although the Church herself was never involved in the error (see
LOGOS). Yet it does not seem necessary 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
incompatibIe with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have
said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly
teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before
all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in
time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other
than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of
the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external
manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the
Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very
same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other
passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it
appears most natural to interpret them in this sense. It should
further be remembered that throughout this period theologians,
when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other,
invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only
later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the
question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality
exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the
Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these
became impossible.

IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY

The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be
attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a
mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of
discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when
revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so
to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv).
In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even
after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege. Through
analogies and types we can form a representative concept
expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller
knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept
are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest.
As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural
reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic
impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason.
"Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it
violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot
do.

The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith
contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians
admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these.
Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to
reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual
denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words,
Matthew 9:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to
declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is
a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The
Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of
the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known
phrase: "The true profession of the mystery 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 the Eunomians, who declared that the
Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion
of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully
comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to
insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more
especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil. "In
Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusdem, "Cat.", VI; St. John
Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.).

At a later date, 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), and
Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is
possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One
and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that
period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but
obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had
obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly
treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated
a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of
the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian
doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to
Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian
principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor
were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond
Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme.
They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the
nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism
manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and
G�nther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of
proof. 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 the First Vatican Council issued the
decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar,
though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was
condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).

V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY

A. Nature and Personality

The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine
in a way which differs in an important particular from that which,
since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin
theology. In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and
only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being,
so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is
regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because
God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be
known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without
special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect. This
is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought
fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to
Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos)
more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an
eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the
Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The
Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as
human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and
which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the
individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the
Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.

The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of
creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all
God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate
Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks
invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person
exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who
held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the
supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He
made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit
(Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula
often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from
the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius,
"Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", n. 38; Cyril of
Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con
Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and
His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom
(gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men
ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us
this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God
the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one
Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in
the Holy Ghost."

B. The Divine Unity

The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the
Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a
different treatment from that employed in the West. The
consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenaeus when
he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit,
"His two hands" (Adv. haer., IV, xx, 1). The purport of the phrase
is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not
substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical
description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation
(sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the
correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius
of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold
procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity,
without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in
the Monad 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 the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son
and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not
separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections,
can be regarded as contained within Him.

This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that
with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son
as the Wisdom and power of the Father (I Cor., 1:24) in a formal
sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from
the Son the Father would be without Hls Wisdom; apart from the
Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the
Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in
creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental
perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases. Denis
of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the
Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person 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 of Deity alone, we find in Him
undiminished all that is contained in them.

The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homo�sia. But with
the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the
result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person
implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness,
for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in
nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity
is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of
numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned,
identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of
argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the
Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of
the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the
Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action
(energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess
(Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, "Ep. clxxxix," n. 7;
Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom.," John Damascene, "De fide
orth.",III, xiv). Here we see an important advance in the theology
of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers
invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a
distinct and separate function.

Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By
this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of
the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John
Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril
of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of
the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the
mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen).
St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of
the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine
already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the
Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the
Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation.
He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence,
will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to
the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells
us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the
Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have
not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Fid.
orth., I, viii). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in
the Homo�sia.

It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to
meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that
subsequently developedby St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies
of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably
nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they
were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one.
Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like
the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the
Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole
Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When
we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do
not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity
in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).

C. Mediate and Immediate Procession

The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son
is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology.
It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgeus in His Creed. It is
assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his
controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II,
i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad
Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxi, 31, 32),
of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to
the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St.
Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene
("Fid.orth." I, 13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the
Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the
Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these
expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to
speak, along a straight line (P. G., CLXI, 224). On the other
hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has
ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons 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 same dogmatic truth. It is plain that
these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins
the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to HOLY
GHOST.)

D. The Son

The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain
particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their
theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person.
This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale),
and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by
which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek
writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of
the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension.
We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms
besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word,
Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be
conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Greg.
Nazianzen, "Orat. xxix", p. 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", xi, 19;
John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", I, viii). One explanation only can
be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs
be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene,
"Fid.orth.", I, viii). Indeed it would seem that the great
majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental
thought; but of the uttered word ("Dion. Alex."; Athanasius,
ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in
the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of
intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to
exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of
Nyssa, "C. Eunom.", IV; Greg. Nazianzen, "Orat. xxx", p. 20;
Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi).

We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom
and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This
teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St.
John Damascene (Origen apud Athan., "De decr. Nic.", p. 27;
Athanasius, "Con. Arianos", I, p. 19; Cyril of Alexandria,
"Thesaurus"; John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, xii). It is based on
the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This
differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the
Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is
always conceived statically. No actlon, transient or immanent, 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 all eternity self-moving, ever adorning
Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being
Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these
thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition
that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own
immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him.
The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this
philosophy as their bssis; 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
rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was
not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and
of Power -- a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink.

E. The Holy Spirit

A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some
discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the
Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests
that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son,
and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (De Trin.,
xv, n. 37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of
the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we
have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name,
they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third
Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive
characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaum.,
"Ecth. fid."; Basil, "Ep. ccxiv", 4; Gregory Naz.,"Or. xxv", 16).
He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by
which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by
which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by
which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians
dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God
would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4).

On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of
John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on
them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of
Christ (John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", 1, viii), breathed by Him
into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we
enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of
Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The
office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural
order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from
that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God
bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the
Three Persons come to his soul. In Greek theology the order is
reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have
received sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we
receive the gift. 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 continued existence of the
impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, "In Joan. ii",
vi; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad.
Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes
our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of
Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ
is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of
God's children (Athanasius, loc.cit.; Gregory Naz., "Orat. xxxi",
4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the
Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of
grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit
through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural
life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of
life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on
us the gift of the Holy Ghost.

VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY

The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work
of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the
main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of
Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and
its terminology perfected. It received its final and classical
form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to
indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St.
Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:

�  He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus
is for him not God the Father,but the Trinity. This was a step of
the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of
God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek
system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the
Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible
that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery
from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the
doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius.

�  He insists that every external operation God is due to the
whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save
by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we
have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the
Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of
appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this
conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the
distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

�  By indicating the analogy between the two processions within
the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human
mind (De Trin., IX, iii, 3; X, xi, 17), he became the founder of
the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few
exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer.

In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall
follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now
universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be
observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the
psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard of St.
Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in
the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek
thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St.
Thomas.

A. The Son

Among the terms empIoyed in Scripture to designate the Second
Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is
understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual
concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that
He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual
procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is
generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It
is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a
veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan
Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine
Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is
rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of
intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of
the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an
accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but
the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is
likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the
production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from
Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this
view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St.
Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve
that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent
Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not
follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar
term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According
to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to
thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human
knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from
revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a
Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells
us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His
consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation 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 and Scholastic theologians as to the
meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the
Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second
Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth
(cf. Suarez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petav., VI, i, 7; Franzelin,
"De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an
exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we
have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and
consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching
as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a
mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as
to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In
view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the
sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a
theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with
revealed truth.

B. The Holy Spirit

Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the
intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act
of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3),
even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of
love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were,
an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of
love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the
concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This
experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is
contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the
love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the
sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but
in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is
Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a
point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of
the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten
of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly
lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." If the
immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on
what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The
answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard
of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will
be sufficient here to note St. 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 his love. This difference
in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to
the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production
of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that
character can claim the name.

The doctrine of the procession of the Holy 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 the
Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the
Latins before his time. 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 the West.
The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name
Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and
Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to
the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to
person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed
is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a
Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other
Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His
origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But
that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument
is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a
somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit
(I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason
to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in
mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of
faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller
comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian
religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not
possess the sanction of revelation.

C. The Divine Relations

The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately
inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth
of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and
the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son
and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence
of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine
was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian
objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between
the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold
that the nature [in the Three Persons] 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 one Person differs
from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Greg. Naz., "Or.
theol.", V, ix; John Damascene, "F.O.", I, viii). Augustine
insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and
relation, are found in God ("De Trin.", V, v). But it was at the
hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its
full development. The results to which they led, though not to be
reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light
upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections
urged against it.

From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each
involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be
four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two
of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what
constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be
digtinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute
attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is
common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be
in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely
certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of
St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De
process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction 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 Three Persons. 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 Divine Nature, so they possess the
same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating
principle of the Holy Spirit.

Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities
in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other
than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son
the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here
it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere
accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest.
Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme
Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean
categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance
and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real
relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or
quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a
discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be
out of place in an article such as the present.)

It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides
an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves
the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the
same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom
is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone
it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the
Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are
affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not
with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These
relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are
necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different.
Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead
none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the
others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as
such, is not, like quantity or quality, 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 the
Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The
Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the
Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father
and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally
regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which
each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the
infinite perfection of the Godhead.

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 Three Persons there must be three
self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and
therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words,
the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole
objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted
the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness.
This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as
altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-
consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-
consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind
(see PERSONALITY). Granted that in the infinite mind, 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 same mind
will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways
in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible
to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a
supposition involves a contradiction.

The question was raised by the Scholastics: 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 the Son; the relations of spiration and
procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the
Holy 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 change action, and its reception
passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent
relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is
eternal: 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 the
Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest
that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know,
indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition:
they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for
the one Personality, 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).

D. Divine Mission

It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created
world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what
sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . .
his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh,
whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant
by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is
answered that mission supposes two conditions:

�  That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender
and

�  that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated.

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 second
condition, too, is satisfied either if the person 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. Though God
the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead,
His Incarnation 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 the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the
Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as
the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the
object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of
presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third
Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a
procession, may be said to be sent into the soul. (See also HOLY
GHOST; LOGOS; MONOTHEISTS; UNITARIANS.)

References

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).

G. H. JOYCE


From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the  entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this  worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For  more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.