|
|
CHAPTER XV
THE TRINITY
The evangelical doctrine of the Trinity
affirms that the Godhead is one substance, and that in this one substance
there is a trinality of persons. Perhaps the simplest statement of this truth
is found in the Nicene Creed which declares “There is but one living and true
God.
And in the unity of this Godhead there be
Three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity: the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.” The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the deepest and most
sacred in the Christian system. Stearns points out that St. Augustine in
beginning one of the books in his treatise on the Trinity breathes the
following prayer: “I pray to our Lord God himself, of whom we ought always to
think worthily, in praise of whom blessing is at all times rendered, and whom
no speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both help for
understanding and explaining that which I design, and pardon if in anything I
offend” (De Trinitate, v. i, 1) . Whether or not God would have revealed
Himself as Trinity, if man had continued sinless, we need not inquire. We do
know that it is in the mystery of redemption that this truth comes into clear
vision. Reason may have suspected it, but only in the redemptive Christ has it
been made visible. Nor can we enter into this most sacred sanctuary of the
Christian faith by way of human knowledge, but only through Christ who is the
Way as well as the Truth and the Life.
The Experiential Basis of the Doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity
is in the Bible as humid air. The cool wave of reflection through which the
church passed, condensed its thought and precipitated what all along had been
in solution. While there are philosophical views of the Trinity, yet
philosophical analysis probably never could have produced, and certainly did
not produce it.
It arose as an expression of experience, and
that too, of an experience which was complex and rich. The doctrine is an
attempt at simplification, stating and summarizing briefly what is given more
at length in the New Testament. It was religion before it was theology, and in
order to be effective must again become in each of us, religion as well as
theology.
The doctrine of the Trinity is
not, therefore, a merely
- theoretical or speculative one. It is
intensely practical. With it is bound up our eternal salvation. It is revealed
historically in close connection with redemption, and not merely as an abstract
metaphysical or theological conception. God the Father sent His Son into the
world to redeem us; God the Son became incarnate in order to save us; and the
Holy Spirit applies the redemptive work to our souls. The Trinity, therefore,
is vitally involved in the work of redemption, and it is from this practical
and religious aspect of the doctrine that the truth must be approached. Because
of its bearing on human conduct and destiny, it has been necessary to define it
metaphysically in order to prevent its perversion by speculative thought. The
doctrine, while receiving contributions from the various systems and types of
philosophy, does not owe its origin to any of them, and can never be fully
explained by them.
The experience of the apostles and early disciples was intensely
religious, rich, luxuriant and all-compelling. The Epistles of St. Paul which
form an open gateway to the thought and life of the New Testament, reveal a
full-fledged organized religion, a Church living in the ardent belief that
Christ as the divinely glorified Son of God, was giving its life to it by the
Holy Spirit. But later Judaism into which this new religion came was also a
fully organized religion, aflame with faith in one God, the revealed law of
God, and the coming of the kingdom of God. It held at least some belief also,
in a Messiah who should be connected with the Spirit of the Lord, and by this
means inaugurate the new kingdom. What happened between these two viewpoints
must furnish the clue to a solution of the problem. First, Jesus had ap
peared in a ministry like that of the old
prophets, had later been recognized as the Messiah by some of His disciples,
had then claimed the title at Jerusalem, was then regarded with religious awe
by His disciples, discredited and put to death by the rulers, leaving behind
Him an utterly discouraged and desolate following. Second, there had followed
immediately many appearances of Jesus risen and glorified, and these had turned
the testimony of the disciples into one of triumphant joy. Third, after a brief period of tarrying in Jerusalem, there had been the
bestowal of the Holy Spirit according to promise; and this had issued in
confident and successful missionary effort. These facts were sufficient to
bridge the gap, and accounted for the success of the gospel ministry through a
continuation of the mystical presence of Christ in the Church. Increasing
attention was of necessity given to Christ in the thought of the Church. He was
proved to be the Messiah by the resurrection from the dead, and the bestowal of
the Divine Spirit. Hence He was invoked in prayer, and without sharp personal
distinctions was called God.
THE SCRIPTURAL DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
DOCTRINE
It is to the
sacred Scriptures we must turn, as a foundation for our faith in both the unity
and triunity of God. As God can be known only through His self-revelation, so
also the Trinitarian distinctions which re~ late to the inner life of the
Godhead can be known in no other wag (Cf. I Cor. 2: 10-12).
The Unity of God. That the Lord our God is one Lord, is a truth
asserted or implied throughout the entire body of Scripture. In earliest times
the Israelite confessed his faith as he does now in the words, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4). In the midst of
the most seductive forms of polytheism, it was necessary that the Israelite be
thoroughly instructed in the divine unity. The first and fundamental
commandment therefore was, Thou shalt have no other
gods
before me (Exod.
20:3). Hence we find such statements as the
Lord he is God; there is none else beside him (Deut. 4: 35. Cf. also I
Kings 8: 60). Of Jehovah Isaiah says, I
am the Lord: that is my name:
and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven
images (Isa.
42: 8; and again, I am the first, and I
am the last; and beside me there is no God (Isa. 44: 6). Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no
God; I know not any (Isa. 44: 8). In the New Testament we find the same
explicit statements. And Jesus answered
him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, 0 Israel; The Lord our God is
one Lord (Mark 12: 29). And this is
life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jestts Christ,
whom thou hast sent (John 17: 3). Is
he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the
Gentiles also (Rom. 3: 29). There is
none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (I Cor. 8: 4-6). Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but
God is one (Gal. 3: 20). (Cf. also I Tim. 1: 17, 2: 5 and James 2: 19.)
The Triunity of God. That God is equally regarded
as a Trinity is also clear from the Scriptures. The proof is usually drawn from
the theophany at the time of Christ’s baptism; and from the fact that in the
Scriptures, divine names, divine attributes, divine works and divine worship
are ascribed respectively to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
The baptismal formula is the fundamental text, in which two Persons are united
with the Father, in a manner not elsewhere found in the Scriptures. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
(Matt. 28: 19). Closely associated with the baptismal formula are the
benedictions which link together the three names of Deity. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen (II
Cor. 13: 14); and the gifts of the Spirit
also as in I Cor. 12: 4-6, Now there are diversities of
gifts, but the same Spirit. And
there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
And thcrc are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. Since those who acknowledge
the existence of a personal God never question His Fatherhood, it is evident
that the question concerning the Trinity resolves itself into the proof of the
Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Old Testament Conception. There has been much
discussion in theology as to whether or not the Old Testament gives us a
revelation of the Trinity. Among the older dogmatists, Quenstedt maintained
that since this doctrine is necessary for salvation, it must have been clearly
taught in the Old Testament and known to the Old Testament saints. Calovius
likewise taught that the doctrine is explicit in the Old Testament, and found
fault with Calixtus for teaching that it was only implicitly there. Modern
thought, however, seems to favor the position of Calixtus. Dr. Stump, a
Lutheran theologian of the present time, breaks with the thought of the older
dogmatists of his church, and asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity is not
explicitly taught in the Old Testament, that it is a New Testament truth and
could not be known until revealed in Christ, that the Jews never found it
there, and had we no revelation but that contained in the Old Testament we
should be in ignorance of the doctrine (STUMP, The Christian Faith, pp. 47, 48). We may safely take the position that
the doctrine of the Trinity, like all other New Testament truths, was
contained in germ in the Old Testament; but only with the revelation of God in
Christ could it come to full development. In the clear light of the Christian
disThe doctrine
of the Trinity, like every other, had in the mystery of
the divine education in the
Church, its siow development. Remembering the law, that the progress of Old
Testament doctrine must be traced in the light of the New Testament, we can
discern throughout the ancient records a preintimation of the Three-One, ready
to be revealed in the last time. No word of ancient record is to be studied as standing alone; but according to the
analogy of faith, which is no other than the one truth that reigns in the
organic whole of Scripture.—PoPE, Cornpendiwm of Christian Theology, I,
p. 260.
our
fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hear, ing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive (Acts 28: 25, 26). Here then
the Trisagion is by later Scripture regarded as a reference to the Trinity. The
descriptions of the Messiah found in the Old Testament refer implicitly to the
Trinity also, but these will be considered in a later paragraph. It is
sufficient to mention but two of them here. Isaiah in referring to the Messiah
says, And now the Lord God, and his
Spirit, hath sent me (Isa. 48: 16) words manifestly spoken by the Messiah
who declares Himself to be sent by the Lord
God and his Spirit. The second reference is similar and is found in Haggai
2: 4-7, I am with you, saith the Lord of
hosts: according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of
Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you; fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord
of hosts;. .. . I will shake all nations, and the Desire of
all nations shall come. Here there is a threefold reference to the Lord of hosts, his Spirit, and the Messiah as the Desire of all nations.
The Son and the Spirit in the Old Testament. There is no direct and
immediate foreannouncement of the Son in the Old Testament, because the
Fatherhood of God was not as such revealed. Both the Fatherhood and the Sonship
are New Testament revelations and the one waited for the other. But the idea of
sonship permeates the entire Old Testament Scriptures, from the first verse of
Genesis to the last verse of Malachi. Occasional mention of the Son may be
admitted also. We have already indicated that intimations of the Second Person
of the Trinity are to be found first of all in such expressions as “the Angel
of Jehovah,” “the Word or Wisdom,” and the descriptions of the Messiah. The
“Angel of the Lord” refers directly to the eternal Logos, who while distinct
from Jehovah is yet Jehovah himself. And
the angel of
the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the
second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord (Gen. 22: 15, 16). Here the
“angel of the Lord” is clearly identified with Jehovah. It was the ‘angel of
the Lord” who called to Moses out of the burn-
ing bush and said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God (Exod. 3: 6). (Cf. also,
Gen. 16: 9-11; Gen. 48:
14; Exod. 23: 20, 21; Judges
13: 20-22). The second intimation of the Divine Sonship is found in the use of
the terms “Word” and “Wisdom,” which express in a clearer manner the Divine
Logos which was to become incarnate in the likeness of men. The “Word” appears
in veiled form in the third verse of Genesis. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light (Gen. 1: 3).
The word “said” is the first intimation of the Logos or Word. This appears in
clearer form in the personification of Wisdom found in the eighth chapter of
Proverbs, and a portion of the ninth. Here Lady Wisdom appears in contrast with
Madame Folly (Prov. 9: 13-18). Doth not
wisdom cry? The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his
works of old Then was I by him, as
one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before
him (Prov. 8: 1, 22, 30). We may say, therefore, that the Word appears at
first in abstract form, then as personified, and later as the Word made flesh (John 1: 1-18). It is in the
descriptions of the Messiah that we find the clearest vision of the Second
Person of the Trinity as the Divine Son. For
unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the g3vernment shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The
mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Isa. 9: 6).
Throughout the Gospels, from
Gabriel’s testimony to the angel greater than he, downwards, there is no
question that the Jehovah-Angel is Jehovah himself, and that Jehovah himself
reappears in the name Lord, very often though not exclusively. Not Esaias
alone, but all the Old Testament writers, saw his glory and spake of
him
(John 12:41). But the uncreated minister of Jehovah’s will is not
generally in the Old Testament foreannounced as the Son, any more than Jehovah
is revealed as the Father. This, however, is not quite wanting. The link that
connects the Angel of the Face in the ancient with the Son in the later
Scripture is threefold. He is in the Psalms and Prophecy termed the Son expressly, the word
or Oracle of God or hypostatised wisdom; and He is called Adonai or Lord, the
Mighty God, But these more occasional testimonies flow into a general
representation of the future Messiah; and as such they must be reserved for the
fuller exhibition of the Mediatorial Trinity, and the Person of Christ.—Poes, Compendium
of Christian Theology, I, p. 263.
52, Acts 1:24,7:59,60, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 5:13).
Here may be mentioned also the doxologies, ascriptions of praise, and
benedictions. To him be glory, both now and forever. Amen (II Peter 3: 18). Unto him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own
blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Rev. 1: 5, 6). Grace to you,
and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1: 7). The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and! the
communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all (II Cor. 13: 14).
The
personality and deity of the Holy Spirit does not require the same extended
discussion, as that which has just been given to the deity of the Son, inasmuch
as many of the principles involved have already been considered. That the
Person of the Holy Spirit is distinct from that of the Father and the Son is
clearly taught in the Scriptures. He is called “the Spirit,” “the Spirit of
God,” “the Holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of glory.” He is spoken of by our Lord as
“the Comforter” or “another Comforter.” That the Holy Spirit is more than an attribute
or an influence is brought out clearly in the words of our Lord, I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever (John 14: 16). But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14: 26). Here the Holy Spirit is
expressly stated to be the Third Person, as the Father is the First and the Son
the Second in the Holy Trinity. There are certain texts, also, where it would
be mere redundancy to speak of the Holy Spirit as a power or influence from
God. God anointed Jesus
of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10: 38). That ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost (Rom. 15:
13). Here it is evident that
the Holy Spirit cannot be regarded as a power, but must be thought of as a person.
Again, there are distinct symbolical representations
of the Holy Ghost, as the dove at the baptism
of Jesus and the rushing wind and the tongues of fire at Pentecost. But the
highest evidence is the fact that the personal pronoun with a neuter noun is
used in reference to the Holy Spirit. It is a departure from the ordinary rule
to use a masculine pronoun with a neuter noun, says Dr. Charles Hodge, unless
the masculine is warranted by the fact that the person referred to may be
called “He.” Hence the use of the masculine pronoun is strong evidence that
the writers of Sacred Scripture intended to set forth the personality of the
Holy Spirit.
The deity of the Holy Spirit
may be proved scripturally, by a collation of texts as in the case of the
Divine Sonship. The name of God, His attributes, His works and His worship are
all applied to the Holy Spirit. We can give only a few instances of the many
found in the scriptures: Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not
lied unto man, but unto God (Acts 5: 3, 4). The Apostle Paul in his reference to
spiritual gifts attributes them to that self-same Spirit and concludes with the
statement that it is the same God which worketh all in all (I Cor. 12: 6-11). He also
applies the term “Lord” to the Holy Spirit, Now the Lord
is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (II Cor. 3: 17). The work of
Inspiration, as has been pointed out, is peculiarly the office of the Spirit.
Hence we read that God spake unto the
fathers by the prophets (Heb. 1: 1). St. Peter attributes this inspiration
to the Spirit, holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1: 21) and further
to the Spirit of Christ which was in them
(I Peter 1: 11).
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DOCTRINE IN THE
CHURCH
During the
apostolic and subapostolic period, the doctrine of the Trinity was held in an
undogmatic form. There was no scientific or technical expression of it, nor was
there any necessity, until heresies arose which demanded exact and guarded
statements. The fact
Both Irenarns and Tertullian connected the
Son and the Spirit with the Father to form a triad which tended toward either
dytheism or tritheism accordingly as the Spirit was regarded as personal or
impersonal. To safeguard against this, the idea of subordination was introduced
which gave precedence to the Father and led immediately to what Tertullian
first called Monarchism. “To be sure the plain people,” he says, “not to call
them ignorant and common—of whom the greater portion of believers is always composed
.
. . . shrink back from the
economy They are constantly throwing
out the accusation that we preach two gods and three gods We hold, they say, the monarchy” (Adv.
Prax 3). Thus there arose the acute problem of attempting to relate Christ to
God and yet preserve the belief in monotheism. Monarchism was a vain attempt to
reconcile the Trinity with the essential unity of the Godhead, and took many
forms. They all agreed in denying the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and
maintained that the Father alone is God. The first, or Dynamistic form, which
regarded Christ as a creature, found its development in Origen’s
subordinationism and later in Arianism. The second form, known as Modalistic or
Sabellian, identified Christ with the Father and regarded the Trinity solely as
economic, that is, simply as three modes of
manifestation. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were therefore the same
Divine Person manifesting Himself in different capacities.
Antitrinitarian Theories. Theologians usually classify
the Antitrinitarian theories as (1) Monarchianism;
(2) Nominal Trinitarianism; and (3) Humanitarianism.
Dr. Shedd and Dr. Foster both use this classification. (1) Monarchianism. The Monarchians, through a misapprehension of the nature of divine unity,
held that the Trinity was irreconcilable with it. God the FaThe earliest tradition not
only spoke of Jesus as sciSpioc, o’wr~5p and
&~5ácncaXoc, but as 6 vib~ roD OeoV, and this name was firmly
adhered to in the Gentile Christian communities. It followed immediately from this that Jesus belongs to the
sphere of God, and that, as is said in the earliest preaching known to us, one
must think of Him cit repl OeoD.— HARNAcK, Hist. of Dogma, I, p. 186.
ther was the only Person, who becoming
incarnate they called God the Son, or Logos. In this incarnate form, it was the
Father himself who suffered for the sin of mankind. For this reason they were
called Patripassionists or Father-sufferers. They denied a proper soul in the
person of Jesus Christ, maintaining that He was God in alliance with a physical
organization, but having no real human nature. The principal representatives of
this form or Monarchianism were Praxeas (c. 200), who was opposed by Tertullian
in his tract, Adversus Praxean; Ncetus
(c. 230) opposed by Hippolytus in his Contra
Hceresin Nceti; and Beryl (c. 250) an
Arabian bishop who later was convinced of his error and renounced his
Patripassionism. (2) Nominal Trinitarianism. This form of Monarchianism
held that Christ was divine but not true Deity. The distinction between
“divinity” and “deity” has held an important place in the history of
Trinitarianism. The Logos was not regarded as a Person, but only the Divine
Wisdom or Reason which emanated from Essential Deity, and united itself in a pre-eminent
manner with the man Jesus at His birth. Because illuminated in a higher degree
than any of the prophets before Him, the man Jesus was called the Son of God.
The chief representative of Nominal Trinitarianism was Paul of Samosata,
Bishop of Antioch (c. 260). He was pronounced heretical by two Antiochian
synods, and after much delay was deposed from his office. Sabellius occupied a
mediating position between this and the preceding forms of Monarchianism. His
teachings will be presented in a later paragraph. (3) Humanitarianism. The Humanitarians asserted
the mere and sole humanity of Christ and denied His divinity in any form. Some
held to the ordinary humanity and others to an extraordinary humanity. Here we
may class the Ebionites, Theodotians, Artemonites, Alogi and Cerinthians. They
were so far afield from the commonly accepted teachings of Scripture that the
Church engaged in no conflict or controversy with them.
Sabellianism. This form of Monarchianism adopted the Modal
Theory of the Trinity. It rejected the theory
of three hypostases or Persons, and
substituted, instead, three prosopa or faces or semblances,
corresponding to the three dispensations of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. The doctrine was first taught by Praxeas in Rome, Ncetus in Smyrna and
Beryl in Arabia, but it remained for Sabellius (c. 250-260) Presbyter of Ptolemais
in Pentapolis to more fully develop the error which has taken his name. He held
that God manifested Himself in three personal modes. God as Father is Creator;
and manifested through the Incarnation the same God is known as the Son and
fulfills the office of redeemer; and lastly, as the Holy Spirit, God carries on
His spiritual ministry in the Church. The principle is pantheistic for it is
the same God evolving Himself as Jehovah, then more clearly to His creatures as
the Son, and still more fully and spiritually as the Holy Spirit. The only
point which satisfied the Christian faith was the deity of the Son, but in
asserting this, Sabellianism denied the distinct personality of the Father and
the Holy Spirit. Its opposition to the scriptural position was clear, for there
the Father is constantly addressing the Son, and the Son the Father. Dr. Shedd
regards the position of Sabellius as midway between Patripassionism and Nominal
Trinitarianism. He belongs to the first class in that he denied that Christ was
merely an ordinary man upon whom the Divine Logos exerted a peculiar influence,
and affirmed that the Logos power belonged to the proper personality of Christ.
He approaches the second class in that he regards the Logos and the Holy Spirit
as two powers (Svvctj~tac) streaming forth from the
Divine Essence, through which God works and reveals Himself (Cf. SHEDD, History of Christian Doctrine, I, p. 257). The decisive blow against Monarchianism
was struck by Origen of the Alexandrian School, in his De Principiis or First Principles, a work
generally acknowledged to be the first positive and systematic presentation of
Christian doctrine.
Arianism. At the other extreme from Sabellianism is Arianism,
which takes its name from the Presbyter
rius (256-336),
who held an important position in the
Church of Alexandria at the time the
controversy with Bishop Alexander began, about 318 AD. There were two stages in
the full development of Arianism, (1) that of subordinationism as advocated by
Origen, but which assumed various forms as presented by different writers:
and (2) Arianism proper, which found
expression in the teachings of Anus himself.
1. The Subordinationism of
Origen grew out of an attempt to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in the
light of the current philosophy of his time. The Gnostics had upheld the
Monarchian principle, by maintaining a series of emanations from what was
known as Primal Being. The Neo-Platonists, especially Philo, had modified
Platonism and applied this philosophy to the theology of the Old Testament. The
Logos according to both Plato and Philo was the collective term for the ideal
world. It was the Divine Reason, which containing in itself the ideas or types
of all things, became in turn the living principles by which all actual
existences are formed. In the development of the Philonic Logos, the term came
to be used in a twofold manner: (1) as transcendent Reason, apart from its
manifestation, to which the term Logos
endiathetos (X~yoc evSuW€rog) was applied; and (2) as a personal
existence begotten in the Divine Essence, and as such the Divine Archetype or
Firstborn of Creation. To this term Logos
pros phorikos (X6yoc irpoo-çbopuc6c) was applied, although Philo
used other terms especially vMc or life, So’ea or
glory (as used in the New Testament) and 8d’mpoc e€6~ a second or other God. In
the first or transcendent sense, the Logos was merely impersonal and eternal
reason. It was the sum or total of all the ideas and types, which in an abstract
sense, existed as the archetypal forms in which created existences were to
appear. In the second or personal sense, especially in its later development,
the
The writers during the first
three centuries of the church may be classified as follows: (1) The catholic
doctrine of the Trinity: Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras,
Iren~us, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria,
Cyprian, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome. (II) Monarchians or Unitarians:
Theodotus, Artemon and Paul of Samosata. (III) Patripassionists or Sabellians:
Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus of
Bostra and Sabellius.
Logos was the sell-manifestation of God,
which in creation had its birth and was sent forth or projected, as giving
form and life to all things. It was divine but subordinate, divinity but not
deity, except in a limited and accommodated sense. Those who held to the
Monarchian principle, attempted to explain the Trinity on the basis of the
concealed or hidden God, revealing Himself by two Powers streaming forth like
rays of light from the sun. The one was an illuminating Power, the Logos or
Divine Reason, existing first as the reflective reason of
the Deity by which He is capable of rational intelligence (X6’yoc Ev&cWEroc), and second, the outworking of
that self-expressive reason, whereby He creates and communicates with His
creation, (Xdyoc ‘rrpocr4’optKo’c). As the Logos was the
illuminating Power, so the Holy Spirit was the enlivening Power, but neither
were regarded as hypostases, only emanations. Justin Martyr, Tatian and Theophilus,
on the other hand, applied the term Logos to Christ, but in the sense of
hypostasis, and therefore asserted His personality. Justin in his Apologia (I, 13) declares, “We worship
the Creator of this universe Again we
have learned that He who taught us these things, and who for this end was born,
even Jesus Christ
was the Son
of Him who is truly called God; and we esteem Him the second place. And that we
with reason honor the Prophetic Spirit in the third rank, we shall hereafter
shew.” While Christ was by this means exalted above all creatures, it did not
meet the demands of the Christian consciousness, in that it made the divinity
The learned
Christians of the second century confined their discussions of the Trinity
largely to the Logos, a term applied in the New Testament to Christ. These
philosophizing Christians connected in general the same idea with the term
Logos as was done by Philo and the other Platonists, and consequently in many
instances drifted far from the Johannine conception. The Neo-Platonists
understood by the term Logos, the infinite understanding of God, which they
conceived to be a substance which emanated with its functions from God. They
supposed that it belonged from eternity to His nature as a power, but that
agreeably to the divine will, as Justin expresses it, it began to exist out of
the divine nature, and is therefore different from God its Creator and Father,
and yet as begotten of Him, is entirely divine. The Holy Spirit was more rarely
mentioned by these early Fathers, and their views respecting Him are far less
clearly expressed than concerning the Son.—Cf. KxAPP, Christian
Theology, p.
149.
of Christ essentially subordinate, and His
generation antemundane, but not eternal. They saw that after all the
distinction between the hidden God (6 Seóc) or
God in Himself, and the Logos, (866c), or God in nature, was but a
revamping of the pagan pantheism which makes the universe a manifestation of
the existence of God.
It is at this
point that the work of Origen begins, his deductions being of such importance
that they mark an epoch in the history of Trinitarianism. Origen lifted the
doctrine of the Logos to a higher plane, and introduced in his speculative
thought, the idea of eternal generation. Tertullian had identified the Logos
with the Son, and both he and Irena?us differed from Justin in that they
employed the word “Son” more frequently than the term “Logos.” They thereby
brought more of the personal element into the doctrine. But Origen grasped more
fully than his predecessors the idea of son-ship and its importance. This led
him to assert that the Son was as truly a hypostasis as the Father, and that to
either, the personal pronouns could be strictly applied. He associated the Holy
Spirit in dignity with the Father and the Son, but maintained that He had not
the same immediate relation to the Father as did the Son, although He has
direct knowledge and searches the deep things of God. Origen endeavored to
harmonize the Trinity of Persons with the unity of essence by employing the
idea of eternal generation. By this he meant, the eternal generation of the Son
by the will of the Father. There are two momenta here, first, a subordination of the hypostasis of the Son to that of the Father in
respect to essence, and second, creation as opposed to
emanation. Origen opposed the idea that the Logos was merely antemundane and
came into full expression through birth in creation, and asserted instead an
eternal existence of the Logos. He objected to the position of the emanationists
that the Son is generated out of the essence of the Father, and maintained that
the generation of the Son proceeds eternally from the will of the Father. He was concerned primarily with the personality of
the Son as over
against Monarchianism, but he so interpreted
this
relationship as to make the Son subordinate in essence. Basing his discussion
upon John 1: 1 he makes a distinction between God (®€6c) as
divinity, and the God (6 &6c) as deity. He uses, therefore, the
article in referring to the Father or God as unbegotten, and omits it when the
Logos or Word is denominated God. This leads him to adopt that form of
subordinationism which holds that the Son does not participate in the
self-subsistent substance of the Deity and therefore it is not proper to use
the term homoousios (61.tooiicnoc)
of the Son as being consubstantial with the Father. This furnished the basis
upon which Anus later developed his idea of the creaturehood of Christ. Yet at
the same time, Origen denied that Christ was a creature, insisting that he is
of a nature “midway between that of the Uncreated and that of all creatures.”
This distinction between the Son and the created universe, he maintains, lies
in this, that the Son derives his divinity (®E~c) immediately from the
Absolute Deity (6 e€~c), while the universe derives its being immediately
through the Son who is the Logos or first ground and cause of all things. In
proof of this he cites John 5: 26, For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself, that
is, God the Father (6 O€I~c) has given to God the Son (®e?ic) to have life in Himself; and therefore He becomes the Creator of the world,
which in relationship to God, is one degree farther removed. In this sense He
cannot be classed wholly with the creatures. Origen, therefore, denies “that
there was a time when He was not,” and on this ground was cited as an authority
by the Athanasians in their opposition to the Arians.
2. Arianism
proper was the most formidable enemy encountered in the development of the
Trinitarian doctrine. Anus was from the school of Lucian of Antioch, where the
dynamic Monarchianism of Paul Samosata was the dominating influence. This,
conjoined with the Jewish idea of transcendency, prejudiced him in favor of the
unity of God to the disparagement of the Trinitarian concept. Anus sought to
find a place for Christ
above that of creation, and yet outside the
Godhead. Beginning with the idea of subordinationism as advanced by Origen, the ultimate
effect of his teaching was to make both Christ and the Holy Spirit created
beings. God alone was eternal, and could not therefore communicate His
substance to any created being. Furthermore, he regarded the unity of God in
such a transcendent manner, that it not only excluded all distinctions within
the Godhead, but also all contacts without it. When God would create the world,
it was necessary for Him first to create the Son or “Word” as His Agent. The
Son as a creature suggests that God was not always Father but became such only
in the creation of the Son, who, therefore, was of a different essence from
the Father. The Son, however, was different from other creatures by way of
pre-eminence, so that we may speak of him as “God only Begotten.” Anus explains
his view in a letter addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia as follows: “But we
say and believe, and have taught and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten,
nor in any way unbegotten, even in part; and that He does not derive His subsistence
from anything subjacent; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted
before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable,
and that He existed not before He was begotten, or created, or determined, or
established. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that
the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning. We repeat it—for
this we are persecuted, and also because we say that He is from nothing. And
this we affirm, because He is neither part of God, nor of anything subjacent.”
According to Anus, Christ took only a human body in the incarnation, not a
human soul; and the Holy Spirit bears the same relation to the Son that the Son
does to the Father.
As the
doctrine of the Trinity grew out of the devotional life of the Church and not
out of philosophy, so it was its devotional consciousness and not its philosophy
that rejected the Arian heresy. If Christ was not God, then to worship Him was
idolatry. Again as
Athanasius pointed out, Arianism destroyed
the ground of redemption in Christ. If He was neither God nor man, He could not
be a mediator; and if He could not himself know the Father, how could He reveal
Him to others. Thus the Church then, as since that time, has rejected every
attempt to make Christ a mere creature. The chief value of the Arian
controversy lay in the fact that it forced the Church to clarify its belief in
the Trinity, and to so state this belief as to include Jesus Christ within the
eternal being of God. This it has done in the Nicene Creed (325) and its later
revision at Constantinople (381), sometimes known as the Nicico-Constantinopolitan
Creed. A more explicit statement is also given in the so-called Athanasian
Creed of later date (449 A.D.). After a brief notice of the Trinitarian developments
as found in the writings of the schoolmen and the Reformers, we shall give
attention to the various forms in which the doctrine of the Trinity is stated,
and summarize the results as generally held in the Church.
The Schoolmen and the Reformers. The Trinitarian doctrine underwent some
change in the controversy over the single or double procession of the Holy
Spirit, but otherwise the Nicene statement was generally accepted by the
schoolmen. Through the influence of John of Damascus, the Eastern Church
confirmed the creed and adopted the doctrine of a single procession, the Holy
Spirit proceeding from the Father only. Following this the emperor Charlemagne
called a synod at Aix4a-Chapelle in 809 A.D. which added the word fihioque to the creed adopted at
Constantinople, thus confirming the doctrine of the Western Church that the
Spirit proceeded from the Father “and from the Son.” Of necessity, therefore,
the doctrine of the Trinity challenged the philosophical ingenuity of the
scholastics and the imagination of the mystics. The dominant philosophy of the
universals greatly influenced the thought of the schoolmen. John Scotus Erigena
(c. 800-877) of Gnostic or Neo-Platonist tendencies, leaned toward
Sabellianism. He declared that there were no distinctions in the divine
essence corresponding to the names
Father, Son and Spirit. Roscelinus on the
other hand was a nominalist in philosophy and therefore regarded the term God common to the three Persons as a mere name, the
abstract idea of a genus under which the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
to be comprehended. By this position he laid himself open to the charge of
tritheism. Abelard, also a nominalist (10 79-1142) fell into Sabellian views by
maintaining that Power, Wisdom and Love were the three persons of the Trinity
and that any distinction was merely nominal. Gilbert de Ia Porree (1076-1154)
was a realist in philosophy but reached the same results as Roscelinus. He was
charged with separating the persons much as did Anus. The error of
Sabellianism, according to Gilbert, was a failure to distinguish between the quo est and the quod est, that is, we may say that the Father, Son and Spirit are one, but not that God is Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. He distinguished between God and the Godhead as between
humanity and man, the former being the universal form in which man exists, but
not man himself. This was an attempted compromise between the realist position
in regard to the essence, and the nominalist position concerning the three
persons. Gilbert was accused of reviving the error of Tetratheism held by
Damian of Alexandria, but was not formally condemned. Anselm (1033-1109) was an
extreme realist and defended the unity of God against the tritheistic position
of Roscelinus.
The Reformers
were faithful to the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the three Creeds.
They were given to careful analysis, and carried to a higher degree of
perfection the philosophical distinctions worked out with such ingenuity by the
schoolmen. They maintained that the one essence subsisted in three Persons, the
unity being numerical and the triunity hypostatical. They worked out minutely
the distinctions between the properties and the processions, the acts ab intra, generation and spiration, and
the acts ab extra, creation, redemption
and sanctification. The circumcession is peculiarly a doctrine of the
Reformation,
Following the Reformation the
older errors reappeared from time to time, the principal heretical doctrine
being that of Socinianism, which issued later in modern Unitarianism This is a
revival of the ancient Monarchianism, which recognizes the Father only as God,
and denies the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.
THE TECHNICAL TERMS OF THE
CREED
The technical terms in which
the Church has set forth the doctrine of the Trinity demand special consideration.
The terms “substance” and “essence” have already been discussed in connection
with the philosophical conception of God. The terms which now demand
attention are unity and trinity; person, subsistence and hypostasis;
procession, generation and spiration; property and relation; mission and
economy; circumcession and monarchy.
Unity and Trinity. Unity as applied to God is
used in connection with substance or essence, trinity in connection with
persons. Thus Una substantia and Tres Personce first used by Tertullian came to be the accepted formula for expressing
the unity and triunity of God. The term Trias was first used by Theophilus
(c. 180) in connection with God, His Word and His Wisdom. Somewhat later than
this the word trinitas was used by Tertullian. The
formula Una substantia or “one substance” was used
in a philosophical sense to denote a real entity. To Tertullian it was the
underlying being by which things are what they are, and was, therefore, a
deeper term than natura or “nature,” which he used
only to denote the sum-total of the properties of things.
Person, Subsistence and Hypostasis. The Latin word persona presupposes another term
frequently used in theology, that of suppositurn, by which is meant an individual
in the concrete sense. A person is a suppositurn with a rational nature or a
rational individual. The term persona or “person” applies to the
principle of unity, or to the center of that rational nature. In the modern use
of the word, a person is the individual sub-
ject or self (cn)r6c) of a rational nature, self-conscious and self-determining, and includes
also the nature and properties of which it is the subject. This latter, however,
is frequently termed personality in contradistinction to the individual
subject. But in theology the word is never used in this sense. Here it must be
clearly distinguished from the content of the nature of which it is the
subject. It does not include the nature so united, nor the content or system of
experience, nor is it the core or any part of this content. It is rather that
by which the entire system of experience is united, a position of peculiar
importance in Christology. The divine persons are not therefore separate
individuals, but possess in common, one nature or substance, their distinction
lying not in a separate substance, but in the manner in which they share the
same substance. Since human persons are associated with bodies and are
separated in space, it is difficult for us to conceive of persons without the
idea of separateness. By subsistence is meant a distinction within ultimate
substance rather than substance itself. The term is reserved for the
distinctions of the Trinity, and as commonly used is the equivalent of person
or hypostasis.
The term hypostasis (i)irdcrrao-cc) is also used to express the distinctions of
the Trinity, and as such is the equivalent of person or subsistence. The word
originally meant simply being (ot)crta), and in this sense was the exact equivalent of
the Latin word substance (substantia). But it also conveyed another
meaning, that of the abiding reality of a thing which persisted through all
changes and experiences. In this sense it most nearly approaches the term
“ego,” and consequently came to be used in the sense of a subsistence or
person. The use of the term in a twofold sense brought great confusion into the
Church. The Latins used not only the word essence to translate ousia (oi)o-ta),
but they used the word substance (substantia) to translate both hypostasis (l)lr&rrcw-tc) and ousia (oi)o-ta). The word hypostasis therefore became ambiguous.
Augustine says, “That which must be understood of persons accord-
ing to our usage, is to be understood of
substances, according to Greek usage; for they say three substances (hypostases) one essence (essentia) in the same way as we say
three persons, one essence or substance (essentiam
vet substantiarn).” Bicknell points out that those who used ön-&rracnc as a synonym for oOcrta and spoke of pkt frwScrrao-tc seemed Sabellians to those who distinguished between the terms.
Conversely, those who distinguished between them and spoke of rpeic l)lTocrr&ac seemed tritheists to those
who regarded the two terms as synonymous. However at the Council of Alexandria
(362) both uses of the word were recognized, and the formula rp€Zc -i)1Toonb~ec
was approved as orthodox. After
this the Eastern Church settled down to the formula j.cia. oi)cta rpac i5~roorc~oELc and the West retained its Una substantia, Tres Personce (Cf. BIcKNELL, Thirty-nine Articles, p. 65).
Procession, Generation and Spiration. By procession is meant the
origin of one person from another. It belongs to both Son and Spirit in a
general way, but more specifically to the Holy Spirit alone. By generation is
meant an eternal relation which always exists, and not merely an event which
once happened and then ceased to happen. The generation of the Son is usually
referred to in theology as eternal generation. This does not mean that the
Father existed before the Son, or that the attributes of the former are greater
than those of the latter, but that the Father has his nature from Himself, and
the Son has His nature by the gift of the Father (Cf. John 5: 26). The term
spiration is similar to that of generation and is the peculiar property of the
Spirit. As the Son is said to be generated by the Father, so the Spirit is said
to be spirated by the Father, and in a secondary sense by the Son.
Properties and Relations. By properties (proprietates) are meant the peculiar characteristics of the persons; by relation is
meant the order in which one person stands toward another. The properties are
paternity (which means “to be of none”), filiation and procession. Paternity
is the property par excellence of the
Father, filiation is the property of the Son,
and procession the property of the Holy Spirit. The relations are these:
1. The Father to the Son, paternity; the Father to the Spirit,
spiration.
2. The Son to the Father, filiation; the Son to the Spirit, spiration
(Western theology).
3. The Spirit to the Father, procession; the Spirit to the Son
procession, but in a sense different from that of the procession from the
Father.
The Missions and Economies. The relations just mentioned are eternal
processions, sometimes known as opera ad
intra; and
from these the temporal processions or missions are derived. The working out
of these missions
constitutes the economies. They
are not separate
activities of the Persons since
the activity of God is one, but relations to some temporal and external effect, or opera ad extra. It is evident that
distinction must be made between the one who sends and the one who is sent
(John 8:42); and it must be further recognized that the Person sent stands in
some new relation to that to which he is sent (or terminus ad
quem). The
change is not in the Person but
in the economic relation. For this reason the Father is specially related to God’s work in creation;
the Son by incarnation is specially related to God’s work in redemption; and the Holy Spirit by His indwelling is specially
related to God’s work in sanctification. The entire Trinity of Persons of
course comes into the world
(John 8: 42, 14: 23, 16: 7), but the Father does not proceed and therefore is not sent, while
both the Son and the Spirit, though in different ways, proceed from the Father.
The relation of each Person to the temporal effect is therefore different, and
this accounts for the fact that acts are attributed to one Person rather than another. In this sense we may
say (1)
Hall
classifies the Trinitarian terms as follows: There are one Nature, two
processions (Son from the Father, the Spirit from the Father through the Son);
three Properties (Paternity, Filiation and Procession); four relations
(Paternity, Filiation, Spiration and Procession); and five notions (notiones) (Inascibility, Paternity,
Spiration belong to the Father, Fiiation and Spiration to the Son, and
Procession to the Spirit.)
the Father is God above us; (2) the Son is
God with us; and (3) the Holy Spirit is God in us. Thus the religious values
of the economies make the Christian religion the full expression of practical
and spiritual values.
St. Paul used the term economy (oiicovopla) or “law of
the house” in the sense of a dispensation or plan of God’s government. It
carries with it, however, the thought of truth as not having been fully
revealed, and hence the apostle calls it a mystery (j.wo-n5ptov), incomprehensible in its
fullness, but intelligible in so far as it has been revealed. The term
“economical Trinity” has reference to the revelation of God progressively as
Father, then as Son and finally as Spirit. In this sense it is true. It becomes
false only when it is held to be merely aspects of one God, and not eternal
distinctions in the divine essence itself. The twofold idea of the “essential
Trinity” and the “economic Trinity” must be held in firm grasp, if there is to
be any proper view of this fundamental doctrine of ‘Christianity.
Circurncession and Monarchy. Having recognized the distinctness of the Persons of the
Trinity and their religious value, it becomes necessary to emphasize the divine
unity in a new and different manner, not now because of the unity of their
substance, but over and above this in the sense of social unity. The doctrine
of the
Circumcession (ir€pt~ct5pr~crtc or coinherence cnq.LlTEpLxwp’)7cnc)
maintains that
the three Persons permeate or dwell in each other by sharing the one nature,
thereby giving social unity in the plurality of Persons. The Latin equivalents
of perichoresis or mutual permeation
are Interactiio, Interexistentia and Intercommunio. The Monarchia or Divine Monarchy further stresses the unity of the
Godhead by maintaining one source of the Divine Persons, that is, the Father,
and this in the sense of genetic unity or a kinship group.
THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE
The evangelical doctrine of
the Trinity is best expressed in the ancient creeds and articles of faith. The
Athanasian Creed has the most explicit statement. It
says, “We worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity;
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the
Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.”
Article I of the Thirty-nine Articles as revised by John Wesley
and the Methodist bishops of 1789 is as follows:
“There is but one living and
true God, everlasting, without body or parts; of infinite power, wisdom and
goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible.
And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons of one substance, power,
and eternity— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” (Art. I of the Twenty-five Articles of Methodism.) We may say, therefore, that the evangelical
doctrine affirms that the Godhead is of one substance, and that in the unity of
this substance there are three subsistences or Persons; and further, that this
must be held in such a manner as to not divide the
substance or confuse the Persons. We shall therefore, summarize our statement of the doctrine
under four heads as follows: (1) The Unity of the Essence; (2) The Trinity of
Persons; (3) The Divine Monarchy
and (4) The
Circumcession.
The Unity of Essence. The term unity is applied to
the essence or substance of God, trinity to His personality. It is sometimes
asserted that unity and trinity are contradictory terms, but the Church has
never used the one and the three in the same sense. It does not teach that the
three Persons are one in the same sense that they are three; nor does it teach
that the one substance is three in the same sense that it is one. There
While it is
obvious, on the one hand, that no human | | | | |
