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 burning 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 Presbyterrius (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 according 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 language can utter this mystery, Theology, both scientific and practical, demands that the Trinitariaa phraseology be ordered with careful precision as at least guarding the truth against the approach of error. After all that may be said as to the inadequacy of human words, and the absence of definitions from Scripture, it still remains true that many others besides those of the New Testament must be used both in teaching and in worship. As it regards the scientific terminology of the doctrine, it is well to be familiar with the terms that express the relations of the One to the Three-in-One. No thoughtful student will either discard or undervalue them.—Popz, Compend. of Chr. Theology, I, pp. 285, 286.

is not a trinity of essence or being, but a trinity of Persons, a plurality within the one being of God. This is the most simple conception possible. In affirming that the substance is numerically one and the same, the Church guards against the error of supposing this unity to be similar to that of human nature, which may be the same in two or more human individuals. In this case the human nature is generically the same, but not so numerically; whereas in the Godhead it is not only generically the same but numerically so—otherwise we should have three individuals or three Gods. This leads to Tritheism but not to the Christian conception of the Trinity. It was for this reason that the Church rejected not only Arianism but also semi-Arianism. The latter held that ‘Christ or the Son was not a created being but a generation, in which the substance or essence of the Son was not that of the Father but only like it, that is homojousios (6j.totoikrtoc) instead of homoousios (⁶j.~o-o*noc). While unity belongs to God in the sense of the simplicity and indivisibility of His being, it implies more than this, for the unity of the Divine Being must transcend all necessity, all human limitations and finite conceptions. It is used, therefore, to express symbolically what otherwise is outside the range of human consideration. In the case of human persons previously cited, by virtue of a common generic nature they become a class, and the term unity is applied to each individual as a member of that class. But this is not applicable to God. He is not one of a class. Hence in this sense of the definition, God is not an individual, that is, unity cannot be thus applied to Him. But an individual may be defined otherwise, that is, in the sense of a Being who can exist independently or alone. Dorner uses the term “soleness” to express this independency. In this sense, God only has individuality, for He alone is absolute being. It is in this sense also that we apply the term unity to God. “Unity is not in any sense determinative of what God is in Himself,” says Dr. Miley. “Just the reverse is the truth. God is the deepest unity because He only is absolute spirit, existing in eternal personality, with the infinite perfection of moral attributes. This deepest unity, is therefore, in no sense constitutive or determinative of what God is in Himself, but is purely consequent to the infinite perfections which are His sole possession. Unity is therefore in no proper sense an attribute of God.”—MILEy, Systematic Theology, I, p. 217.

The Trinity of Persons. While the Scriptures associate the Divine Trinity chiefly with the historic redemptive process, this does not give us ground to suppose that it is, therefore, merely an “economic” Trinity or a Trinity of manifestations such as Sabellianism holds. The Church has always maintained that the Trinity expresses not only God’s outward relation to man, but His inner relation to Himself; and therefore, that there is an “essential” as well as an “economic” Trinity. It does this on the ground of clear scriptural teaching. It believes that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1: 1). In the divine declaration that the Word was with God, and that the Word was itself God, it finds inner distinctions in the Godhead, a distinction between God and God, and a relation of God to God. St. Paul unfolds the same truth in another scripture, But God hat/i. revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (I Cor. 2: 10). Here conjoined with a statement concerning the economic or revealing Trinity, is another of equal import concerning the essential Trinity. The Spirit is not, according to this scripture, merely an activity directed outwardly toward the world, but is directed inwardly also, the Spirit being God who searches God. Hence on the basis of both Scripture and reason, the Church has maintained a distinction between the economic Trinity or the revelation of God to the world ad extra (irpcc,roc arroicaX v’~icwc) , and the essential Trinity

It is impossible to define the unity of God: the word unity in human language gives no adequate notion, barely serving to defend the doctrine from every opposite error. Hence it is our wisdom to study it in the light of its exhibition in Scripture: marking the uses to which the doctrine is applied, the scriptural method of stating it, and the confirmations of the truths which may everywhere be found in the one and uniform economy of nature.—Pops, Compend. Chr. Theology, I, p. 255.

or the revelation of God to Himself ad intra (irpdiroc vmipfaoc).

The earlier Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and later the schoolmen and the Reformers, made use of analogies to illustrate their teachings concerning the Trinity, though not to explain it. The human logos or word, they said, is spoken and thereby emitted from the human soul without loss from its essence, so the eternal generation of the Son left the divine nature unimpaired. Likewise the reason or wisdom or God mediates the divine essence without subtracting from it. The most common illustration, however, was borrowed from the human consciousness and has come down to us from the primitive Fathers. In modern times it has been given its most perfect form by the mediating theologians, Nitzsch, Wiesse, Dorner and Martensen. These writers have sometimes been charged with being Hegelian in their

For if God be indeed Trinity in Unity, then there is every reason to suppose that the works of His hands should, in some degree at least, reflect His nature, and especially that man, who is created in the image of God, should evince in his nature certain analogies which indicate a triune Creator. And what an abundance of such indications meets our eye, so long as we do not forget that we cannot expect to find within the limits of created life analogies perfectly corresponding with that which is incomparable and unique! Christian thinkers, even in olden times, discovered traces of the Trinity in the life of the human spirit; and hence Augustine and others speak of a human trinity, consisting in the threefold function of feeling, thought and will. And indeed, these principal faculties of the spirit present us, as it were, with a threefold cord, the threads of which are distinct and yet one, and they give us some idea of the united and harmonious co-operation of the three Divine Persons. No single one of these functions of feeling, thought, and will can be exercised without the simultaneous activity of the others     In like manner, the process of our thought will explain to us in some degree the pre-existence of the Son as the Logos or Word of the Father. In our human consciousness a certain thought always simultaneously produces the corresponding word; we can only think in conceptions and words, for our thought is inward speech. 5o, too, God’s thought of Himself necessitates the utterance of the Word which represents this primal thought; but the divine utterance is at the same time a real act, and hence this inner Word in God as a being equal to Him. True, in our human self-consciousness we do not, by conceiving ourselves, produce a second self: we all the time have only one ego. But we are only creatures, not the creative source of life: and even our human consciousness is still imperfect. But the case is different with God, who is the eternal and almighty source of life and power. His self-consciousness is absolutely perfect, and hence the intellectual image of Himself, which He has conceived, may become a real substantial antitype of the Father. In any case, we have an analogy to the Trinity in the thought, its product the word, and the unity of both, the spirit.”—CHRIsTLUS, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, pp. 275, 276.

modes of thought, especially as it concerns the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Hegel’s philosophy makes God the thesis and the world the antithesis. This made the world necessary to the idea of God’s existence and led to pantheism and agnosticism. The Trinitarian theologians, on the other hand, found the synthesis within the Trinity itself, God the Father being the subject, God the Son the object, and God the Spirit the bond of union or perfectness. “When, therefore, following in the footsteps of the Church,” says Bishop Martensen, “we teach that not merely the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally pre-existed and are independent of creation, we say that God could not be the self-revealed, self-loving God, unless He had eternally distinguished Himself into an I and Thou (into Father and Son), and unless He had eternally comprehended Himself as the Spirit of love, who proceeds forth from that relation of antithesis in the divine essence” (MARTBN5EN, Chr. Do gin., p. 107). To this it is sometimes objected that the distinctions in the human mind are merely ideas, not real distinctions. The objection rests upon a failure to distinguish the difference between created and uncreated self-consciousness. The created mind is bound down by the antithesis between being and thought, and therefore its self-consciousness can develop only in connection with the world outside of itself. But in God, thought and being are one, and the movement by which the divine self-consciousness is completed, is not merely of the divine subject but also of the divine substance. The three ego centers, therefore, are not merely forms of consciousness but become hypostatic distinctions or forms of subsistence. This, then, is the first step in the argument from self-consciousness, i.e., that the three focal centers in created self-consciousness must be regarded as hypostases or real subsistences in uncreated or Divine Self-consciousness.

The second step in the argument is concerned with the nature of the Logos. As in human consciousness the self becomes conscious of itself, the act of self-cognition furnishing both subject and object in one being or substance, so God the Father out of the depths of His own eternal nature, sees the image of His own Ego in a second subsistence, which is the eternal Logos or Son. It is for this reason that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Son as the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person (Heb. 1: 2,3). Here the word “brightness” is the effulgence or outshining of the glory or doxa (&~v airav’yctcrjaa njc and the “express image” (~apaKr~p Ic vflOtTTWTECOV avrov), the exact image or impress of the substance (l)lTocrrcfotcoc) of Him; thus sustaining (or making manifest) all things by the word of His power. As in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the author of this Qpistle identifies the Logos as the intermediary of creation witffJesus Christ, who as the incarnate Son of God becomes the Mediator of redemption. His statement concerning the glory of the Son is therefore followed immediately by another which relates to His redemptive purpose, declaring that when he had by himself purged our sins (having made purification for sins), He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (or at the right hand of the Majesty in high places).

It is worthy of note, that there is in the Old Testament an intimation of this conception of the Logos, found more especially in the description of Wisdom as previously mentioned. God becomes manifest to Himself in Wisdom which was with Him in the beginning, and rejoiced always before His face. Then was I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men (Prov. 8: 30, 31). The Jewish conception of wisdom, however, was impersonal. It was the eternal image of the world, the heavenly pleroma,

Nitzsch maintains that the Divine Ego, in order to have a living personality, must not only view its second “other self” as an object, but also revert to itself by a further act as a third subject, in that it comprehends its “alter ego” as the real image of itself. Thus if God be conceived as the Primal Ego, and from this basis begets an objective alter Ego, the thesis and antithesis would still remain severed or incomplete until a third Ego proceeds from the Divine essence through the medium of the second. and thus fully consummates the personality.

uncreated and supernatural, but as yet only personified. So also the Philonic Logos was a (Kdo~toc vo~’ro’c) merely a term for the heavenly world, and though uncreated was likewise impersonal. St. John, therefore, struck a deep note when by the pen of inspiration he declared that the Logos was the Son, and that as such He was not only the spoken Word but the speaking Word, not only a revelation, but a Revealer, not only personified Wisdom, but the eternal Word, which was in the beginning with God, and was God (John 1:1). God therefore is not only the Father of the creature or the idea, but of the Logos who is the vehicle of the idea, without whom no single thought would present itself to the Father as an object, different from Himself. This is the true conception of eternal generation which has been so prominent in the controversies of the Church—not an event in time or even before time, but an eternal relationship without which personality is impossible. It was for this that the Arians were striving, but they failed in that they made generation so completely a birth out of the will of God instead of His essence, that the Son became a mere creature, of which they affirmed that there was a time when he was not.

The third step in the argument for the evangelical doctrine of the Holy Trinity is concerned with the nature of the Spirit and His relation to the Father and the Son. It is evident that if the revelation of the Father had terminated in the Son, this relation would have been one of necessity and not of freedom. It is the work of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, to glorify this necessary relation into one of freedom and love. The relationship existing between the Father and the Son is therefore ethical as well as metaphysical. God’s relation to the world, then, is not merely one of contemplation, as the pantheists teach, but one of creation motivated by divine love.

The evangelical doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, perfectly satisfies the unifying principle of the human mind. The self-revealing energy of God is revealed also as personal activity in the Logos, manifested from the foundation of the world, and reaching its climax in the Word made flesh. The incarnation is then but the focussing of that personal Light which lighteth every man coming into the world. The pre-existence of Christ is not only a religious but a philosophical truth, in which man and God are conjoined, in both natural and moral relations. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4: 6). Thus in this second hypostasis we have the Word as the “exact image” or true revelation of the Father, and also the Word as the Revealer, the “effulgence” or outshining of His glory. The third hypostasis, or the Spirit, has reference, not to the self-revealing energy, but to the self-imparting energy of God, which likewise is a personal activity. As the self-revelation of God advances there is a constantly increasing display of the self-imparting energy of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Divine Word must come to full expression in the incarnation, before the Holy Spirit could come in the fullness of pentecostal glory. As the self-revealing energy of God found its perfection in the unique personality of Jesus Christ the Son; so the self-imparting energy of God reached its highest expression in the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. Here is the deep and abiding significance of the words of our Lord, It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you (John 16: 7).

The Divine Monarchy. Our previous discussion of the Trinity has been concerned mainly with the metaphysical questions of unity and triunity, and we must now give some attention to the social and governmental

Dr. Sheldon thinks that an intelligible statement of the Trinity is essentially comprised in a formula like this: “Corresponding to the threefold manifestation of Father, Son, and Spirit, there subsist in the Godhead, in a certain logical order, eternal and necessary distinctions, which enter into the divine consciousness and determine the perfection of the divine life. To affirm less than this is to fail to do justice to the total data of the subject. To affirm much more is to resort to unintelligible categories, or to an unintelligible combination of categories” (Cf. SHElDoN, Syst. Chr. Doct., p. 227).

aspects of this important doctrine. What is termed the “Monarchia” of the Father has reference to His preeminence viewed, not from the standpoint of metaphysical essence, but from that of order and relation. It belongs to the offices of the persons and not to their substance. It is the principle of unity in the social aspect of the Trinity, not an inequality in the aspect of the essential Trinity. In the Nicene statement of the monarchy, the Father is not more divine than the Son, or the Son than the Holy Spirit. But in the order of subsistence in that one essence, the Father depends upon Himself alone for His Godhead, the Son derives His Godhead from the Father (God of God 8€6u EK

that is, He is the Word or self-revelation of the Father and therefore eternally dependent upon Him; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from (~K) the Father and the Son (Father through the Son && zrapd), and therefore in order and relation is eternally dependent upon both. As to nature and being, however, the Son does not belong to a grade of divinity lower than that of the Father, but is “very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father.” The filial relationship as Son to Father is second and therefore in this sense subordinate; but the filial essence is equal and co-ordinate with that of paternity, “the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.” Furthermore, the order is not temporal or chronological, but grounded in the three distinctions or

The Trinity is the chief cornerstone of the Christian system. Eliminate that, with what logically follows it, and nothing is left but what is common to all theistic systems of religion known among men. By so much as Christianity has any claims to consideration, by so much more as it contains excellencies confessedly superior to any other system of religion extant among men, by so much more is it authenticated by indubitable proofs as the revelation of God’s will, by so much as man has reason to receive the Bible as his sole and authoritative rule of faith and practice, by so much more is it incumbent upon one who desires to know God and do His will to inquire diligently, honestly, without prejudice, without fear or favor, whether the Bible does or does not teach the church doctrine of the Holy Trinity.—RAYM0ND, Systematic Theology, I, p. 392.

From all this it follows, that the doctrine of the Trinity is the consummation and the only perfect protection of Theism. We have already shown that the theistic conception of God is the only true one; and we may now add, that if this theistic conception is to be effectually guarded against Atheism, Pantheism, Dualism and Deism, it must be expanded into the Trinitarian idea.—Cusisnias, Mod. Doubt and Chr. Belief, p. 271.

subsistences of the one essence, and therefore real and eternal. Hence we have the statement of the creed that “in this Trinity none is af ore or after other, none is greater or less than another; but the whole Three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.” We have previously pointed out some of the errors which arose concerning monarchianism in the earlier or anti-Nicene period, such as the subordinationism of Origen, Arianism and SemiArianism. The Nicene statement of the Trinity marked a decided advance over the previous period in clarity of doctrine, but the theologians found it necessary to guard against two errors. The first was the confusion of essence or substance with personal distinctions. When these two were identified, or at least not clearly separated, the “generation” of a Person meant the generation of the essence, and the “procession” of a person meant the procession of the essence. This resulted in a difference of essence and as a consequence, the multiplication of deities, or tritheism. The second error was closely allied with the first, and consisted in a confusion of the ideas of generation and creation. Generation was regarded as creation from nothing; and the procession of a person from another, meant the creation of that person out of nothing by the former. This reduced the Son and the Holy Spirit to mere creatures. The Nicene theologians corrected the first error by making a sharp distinction between substance and subsistence, between essence and persons. They regarded these as two distinct and separate conceptions. To the first belonged the unity of the Godhead, to the second, the triunity. Hence it was possible to combine the unity of the essence with the trinality of persons. The generation or procession of one person from another did not, there-

Referring again to the Athanasian Creed we may say that “The catholic faith is this: that 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.”

fore, necessitate a difference of essence, and the two could be combined without any contradiction of terms. The second error was corrected by regarding the Father and Son as correlatives, so that the one could have no existence without the other, and the hypostasis of the one demanded the hypostasis of the other. In Origen’s teaching, the Father was a Monad existing anterior to the Son in the order of nature, and the Holy Spirit subordinate to both, rather than being divine and coeternal hypostases. And while Origen held to eternal generation, he made this to lie more in the will of the Father

The Fathers illustrated their idea of this eternal and necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous body, which necessarily radiated light the whole period of its existence. Thus the Son is defined in the words of the Nicene Creed, “God of God, Light of Light.” Thus the radiance of the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its source. By this illustration they designed to signify their belief in the identity and consequent equality of the Divine Persons as to essence, and the relative subordination of the second to the first, and of the third to the first and second as to personal subsistence and consequent order of operation (Cf. A. A. HODGE, Outlines of Theology, p. 155).

Bishop Pearson maintains that the pre-eminence consists in this, “that He is God not of any other but of Himself, and that there is no other Person who is God, but is God of Himself. It is no diminution to the Son, to say that He is from another, for His very name imports as much; but it were a diminution to the Father to speak so of Him; and there must be some pre-eminence, where there is place for derogation. What the Father is, He is from none; what the Son is, He is from Him; what the first is, He giveth; what the second is, He receiveth. The first is Father indeed by reason of His Son, but He is not God by reason of Him; whereas the Son is not so only in regard to the Father, but also God by reason of the same.”—pEAnsow On the Creed, p. 35.

The early Arian and Semi-Arian teachers laid so much stress on the Oetcn-~c or divinity of the two subordinate Beings. They were regarded as the bond, or rather the intermediary links, between the Absolute and the conditioned, the Infinite and the finite: looking toward the creature they were firstborn or rather first created before the worlds; but looking Godward they were more directly emanations of the Monad than the creature. The doctrine was a speculative substitution for the Gnostic errors of a~onic emanation      Early Arianism also has been sporadic. It has molded opinion very extensively in later Christendom: never shaping a formulary or founding a sect, but influencing the thoughts of many thinkers and coloring the sentiments of poetry, and infusing itself into the devotions of many who are almost unconscious of their error. The history of the Arian tendency in England is an important and instructive one: it brings in some great names in our Philosophical and theological literature; but it shows that the healthy common sense of readers of Scripture never has and never will accept this compromise. Either the New Testament must be rejected as final authority and the Deistic Rationalism of Unitariapj~~ accepted, or, the Scriptures being received as the rule of faith, the fullness of the Godhead must be adored in the incarnate Son.—PopE, Coinpend. Christian Theology, .1, p. 283.

than in the necessity of His nature. The Arians, therefore, making a distinction in essence as well as persons, held to a higher and lower form of divinity a 6 Seic and a S€~c. Athanasius insisted upon the identity of essence and therefore maintained the homo-ousia as over against the difference in essence or heter-ousia, held by the Arians. The Semi-Arians in an attempt at mediation proposed the term homoi-ousia or like essence, but this was also rejected by the orthodox theologians. We may say, therefore, that the Nicene Trinitarianism harmonized the doctrine of the one substance with the three Persons, by insisting upon the necessity of this generation and procession, as over against the voluntary idea of the Arians. They inferred from their idea of voluntary generation that there was a time when the Son was not. Against this, the orthodox affirmed that the generation of the Son was a necessary consequence of the divine nature, and hence was as independent of the volitional action of the Father as was the existence of any of the Divine attributes. This was a long step forward. It needs now the doctrine of the Circumcession, to guard against too strong a tendency toward an undue separateness of the Persons and their divine missions.

The Circumcession or Perichoresis. The circumcession or perichoresis comes from the Greek word impi~e⁵ p~qutc or o-vjiirept~Sp’qcrtc as previously pointed out in our definition of terms. The Latin equivalents are

Dr. Shedd summarizes the teachings of the Nicene theologians as to generation and creation in these brief statements: (1) Eternal generation is an offspring out of the eternal essence of God; creation is an origination of a new essence from nothing. (2) Eternal generation is the communication of an eternal essence; creation is the origination of a temporal essence. (3) That which is eternally generated is of one essence with the generator; but that which is created is of another essence from that of the creator. The substance of God the Son is one and identical with that of the Creator. The Father and Son are one nature, and one Being, God and the world are two natures and two beings. (4) Eternal generation is necessary, but creation is optional. The filiation of the second Person in the Trinity is grounded in the nature of Deity; but the origination of the world depends entirely upon arbitrary will. It is as necessary that there should be Father and Son in the Godhead, as that the Godhead should be eternal, or self-existent; but there is no such necessity for creation. (5) Eternal generation is an immanent perpetual activity in an ever-existing essence; creation is an instantaneous act, and supposes no elements of the creature in existence.—SHEDD, History of Christian Doctrine, I, pp. 317, 318.

interactio, intercommunio or interexistentia. The term signifies an intercoherence of the Persons of the Trinity, or that property, which by reason of identity of essence, they can communicate with each other without confusion of persons. It guards the unity of the Godhead, by affirming that the three Persons do not exist alongside of each other as sep~arate individuals, but that they permeate and penetrate one another, and so exist not alongside but in and through one another    As the Divine Monarchy stressed the social aspect of the Trinity, so also does the perichoresis. It affirms that there is unity of purpose and coinherence in action as well as essence. As they were united in the work of creation, so also they are each engaged in the work of redemption, and will each share in the consummation of all things. The divine essence is undivided and indivisible. The whole Godhead is in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. In the Father as the origination of all things; in the Son (Logos) as God’s self-utterance and in the Spirit as His self-consciousness. The circumcession is especially necessary in guarding the religious unity of God, or that approach to the Trinity through religious experience. Reason is primarily concerned with the unity of God, but religious experience with the distinction of Persons. The danger of the one is abstraction, that of the other anthropomorphism. The mind tends to think of personality as that which distinguishes one individual from another. Tritheism, therefore, is the practical outcome of the distinction of Persons, unless the perichoresis be fully understood and kept constantly before the individual in his devotional life. And, further, the distinctness of persons tends to emphasize individuality and minify the social aspects of personality, whether considered with reference to the human or the divine. That there is a deep line of cleavage between the individual and social aspects of personality may be allowed, and this doubtless is intensified by sinful pride and selfishness. It is only as we realize that the higher goods of life must be shared in order to be fully realized and enjoyed, that we come to see that human personality is not less but more truly social. This has its perfect prototype in the perichoresis or circumcession, the mysterious indwelling and interpenetration of the three Persons of the Godhead, the promise and potency of spiritual fellowship in the Church. And the glory which thou gayest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one: and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou host

It is generally supposed that Augustine introduced the psychological analogies of the Trinity, maintaining that the complexity of the Trinity finds an image in our own being as memory, reason and will: or “I exist, I am conscious, I love the existence and the consciousness.” Thus in the process of consciousness we discover three “I’s” which form the foci of consciousness, the self that thinks, the self which is thought of, and the self which is conscious of the self thinking of self. This self is at once, subject, object and consciousness of subject and object.—STUMP, The Christian Faith, p. 55.

Liebner, Sartorius and others have drawn analogies from the standpoint of love rather than self-conscious reason. Love demands a process of self_communication which in its highest perfection must be Trinitarian. Love is the transposition of oneself into another person as an alter ego or second self. God who is Love, must therefore transpose Himself into His second Self, which as such is of the same divine nature, since otherwise the act of self_transposition would not be perfect. No less necessary, however, is the conception of a third homogenous Self, by which the infinite equality is mediated so as to produce harmonious unity in distinctions. It is this which fixes the Divine Personality, for mere self_transposition would be equal to infinite restlessness. Thus Spirit is predicated of the whole nature for God is Spirit (John 4:24), and the Lord is the Spirit (II Cor. 3:17). Thus God is one person in three persons in the sense of the perichoresis, each of which is only in and through the others. This apparent contradiction that the several persons should be one and have their full personality only in this unity, is solved by the principle of love (Liebner). Sartorius distinguishes between the love which begets and the love which blesses the Son—the love of the well-pleased Father and the answering love on the Son’s part. The breath of that blessing and answering love is the Spirit. But were He only breath, and not a person, the glorification of the Father and the Son would be egoistical. This egoistical element is removed only if the Spirit who glorifies the Father and the Son is Himself a person. Christlieb gathers up the sentiment of the above as follows: “Love always includes delight in the object loved. If this object be an entirely separate person, the purity of my love is not sullied by my delight. But this is not the case with God. The object of His love is not a Person outside of Him, but His second Self. Here, therefore, the delight in another is at the same time delight in Himself. In order, therefore, that this delight may not appear as self-seeking egoism, God has committed this delight in Himself to a Third Person, which represents the mutual delight of Father and Son in each other; and this Person is the Holy Spirit. When the Father uttered Himself, he begat the Son, the eternal Word. But no speech can take place without breathing, and the breath of that spoken Word was hypostatized in the Spirit, which represents the delight of the Divine Love.—CHRI5Th1~, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, p. 273.

loved me    And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them (John 17: 22, 23, 26).

Dr. Summers closes his discussion on this subject with a quotation from the ever memorable John Hales, who became professor of Greek in Oxford in 1612, and whom Bishop Pearson mentions as a “man of as great a sharpness, quickness, and subtility of wit as ever this or perhaps any nation bred; . . . . a man of vast and iilimited knowledge, of a severe and profound judgment.” Dr. Tigert in an attached note says that he went to the Synod of Dort a Calvinist and left it an Arminian. “At the well-pressing of John 3: 16 by Episcopius there,” he says, “I bid John Calvin good night, as he has often told me.” The following is from the Golden Remains (London 1673) and is a “Confession of the Trinity” by John Hales:

“God is one; numerically one; more one than any single man if unity could suscipere magis et minus: yet God is so one that He admits of distinction; and so admits of distinction that He still retains unity.

“As He is one, so we call Him God, the Deity, the Divine Nature, and other names of the same signification; as He is distinguished, so we call Him Trinity:

Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

“In this Trinity there is one essence; two emanations; three persons or relations; four properties; five notions: a notion is that by which any person is known or signified.

“The One essence is God with this relation, that it doth generate or beget, maketh the Person of the Father: the same essence with this relation, that it is begotten, maketh the Person of the Son: the same essence with this relation, that it proceedeth, maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost.

The two emanations are, to be begotten and to proceed or to be breathed out: the three persons are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three relations, to beget, to be begotten, and to proceed, or to be breathed out.

The four properties are: the first inascibility and inemanability; the second is to generate—these belong to the Father: the third is to be begotten; and this belongs to the Son: the fourth is to proceed or be breathed out; and this belongs unto the Holy Spirit. The five notions are: the first, inascibility; the second is to beget; the third, to be begotten; the fourth spiratio passiva, to be breathed out; the fifth, spiratio activa or, to breathe:

and this notion belongs to the Father and Son alike; for Pater et Filius spirant Spiritum Sanctum.”

The word emanation as used above is not the oriental concept of finiteness proceeding from infinity, but an accommodated use of the term in the Christian sense. But we are ever brought back to the thought that the Being of God is by St. Paul termed a mystery (~ivo-n~ptov), and we are commanded to worship the “Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity” not necessarily to understand it. “The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity,” says Ralston, “is one of those sublime and glorious mysteries which the mind of man, at least while shrouded in clay, cannot penetrate. We may study and meditate until lost in thought, yet never can we comprehend the mode and nature of the divine being” (RALSTON, Elements of Divinity, p. 65). Dr. Pope cautions us concerning the scientific terminology of the doctrine that “it is well to be familiar with the terms that express the relation of the One to the Three-in-One. No thoughtful student will either discard or undervalue them. The Deity is the divine essence or substance or nature; the three are subsistences, hypostases and persons     Nowhere is precision more necessary than in the ordering of the phraseology of worship. The mind and the tongue must be so educated as to recoil from such language as is tinctured with either the Tritheistic, or the Sabellian, or the Arian error. One of the results of careful and reverent study will be the discipline that shall make every word faithful to the equal honor of each of the three adorable persons in the unity of the other two, and in the unity of the Godhead; adoring and praying to each with this sacred reservation. But, after all, we must remember what the ancient Church was never weary of enforcing in relation to this subject; the nature of God is d~j3₁3t₇rog ineffable, unsearchable and unspeakable; the Godhead can be known only by him who is OEo⁶I⁸wcroç, taught of God; and that knowledge itself is and will eternally be only ~ic pApovc in part” (POPE, Compendium of Christian Theology, I, p. 286). Is it any wonder, then, that the Church has not only given us a statement of the Trinity in the creed, but set its teaching to music in the matchless Gloria? Here is summarized all its teachings concerning the Trinity as they are to be used in the service of worship. “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”