CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity</title><script src="https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/js/cmp/cleanmediacmp.js?ver=0104" async="true"></script><script defer data-domain="newadvent.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content="The term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three persons being truly distinct one from another"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.newadvent.org/bestoftheweb?format=xml"><link rel="icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><meta name="robots" content="noodp"><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../utility/screen6.css" media="screen"></head> <body class="cathen" id="15047a.htm">   <div id="capitalcity"><table summary="Logo" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="left"><a href="../"><img height=36 width=153 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></td><td align="right"> <form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0"/> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9"/>  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label> <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel"/>  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label> <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel"/> </form> <table summary="Spacer" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td height="2"></td></tr></table> <table summary="Tabs" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../"> Home </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_white_on_color" href="../cathen/index.html"> Encyclopedia </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../summa/index.html"> Summa </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../fathers/index.html"> Fathers </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../bible/gen001.htm"> Bible </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../library/index.html"> Library </a></td> </tr></table> </td> </tr></table><table summary="Alphabetical index" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"> <a href="../cathen/a.htm"> A </a><a href="../cathen/b.htm"> B </a><a href="../cathen/c.htm"> C </a><a href="../cathen/d.htm"> D </a><a href="../cathen/e.htm"> E </a><a href="../cathen/f.htm"> F </a><a href="../cathen/g.htm"> G </a><a href="../cathen/h.htm"> H </a><a href="../cathen/i.htm"> I </a><a href="../cathen/j.htm"> J </a><a href="../cathen/k.htm"> K </a><a href="../cathen/l.htm"> L </a><a href="../cathen/m.htm"> M </a><a href="../cathen/n.htm"> N </a><a href="../cathen/o.htm"> O </a><a href="../cathen/p.htm"> P </a><a href="../cathen/q.htm"> Q </a><a href="../cathen/r.htm"> R </a><a href="../cathen/s.htm"> S </a><a href="../cathen/t.htm"> T </a><a href="../cathen/u.htm"> U </a><a href="../cathen/v.htm"> V </a><a href="../cathen/w.htm"> W </a><a href="../cathen/x.htm"> X </a><a href="../cathen/y.htm"> Y </a><a href="../cathen/z.htm"> Z </a> </td></tr></table></div> <div id="mobilecity" style="text-align: center; "><a href="../"><img height=24 width=102 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></div>  <div id="mi5"><a href="../">Home</a> > <a href="../cathen">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> > <a href="../cathen/t.htm">T</a> > The Blessed Trinity</div> <div id="springfield2"> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-top' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <h1>The Blessed Trinity</h1> <a href="https://gumroad.com/l/na2">Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...</a> This article is divided as follows: <div class="bulletlist"><ul> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#I">Dogma of the Trinity</a></li> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#II">Proof of the doctrine from Scripture</a></li> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#III">Proof of the doctrine from Tradition</a></li> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#IV">The Trinity as a mystery</a></li> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#V">The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology</a></li> <li><a href="../cathen/15047a.htm#VI">The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology</a></li> </ul></div> <h2 id="i">The dogma of the Trinity</h2> The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian religion</a> the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> that in the unity of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> there are Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, the Father, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>, these Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> being truly distinct one from another. <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> Thus, in the words of the <a href="../cathen/02033b.htm">Athanasian Creed</a>: "the Father is <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, and yet there are not three <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Gods</a> but one <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>." In this Trinity of <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is begotten of the Father by an <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> generation, and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> proceeds by an <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> procession from the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and <a href="../cathen/11251c.htm">omnipotent</a>. This, the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> teaches, is the <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> regarding <a href="../cathen/06612a.htm">God's nature</a> which <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a>, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son of God</a>, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a> as the foundation of her whole <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatic</a> system. In <a href="../bible">Scripture</a> there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in <a href="../cathen/14625a.htm">Theophilus of Antioch</a> about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> [the Father], His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> and His Wisdom (<a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.15</a>). The term may, of course, have been in use before his <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a>. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0407.htm">On Pudicity 21</a>). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first <a href="../cathen/04478a.htm">creed</a> in which it appears is that of <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen's</a> pupil, <a href="../cathen/07015a.htm">Gregory Thaumaturgus</a>. In his <a href="../fathers/0601.htm">Ekthesis tes pisteos</a> composed between 260 and 270, he writes: <blockquote>There is therefore nothing <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a>, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, nor the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> without the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).</blockquote> It is manifest that a <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> so <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mysterious</a> presupposes a <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Divine revelation</a>. When the fact of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>, understood in its full sense as the speech of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> to <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a>, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> follows as a <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> consequence. For this reason it has no place in the <a href="../cathen/09212a.htm">Liberal</a> <a href="../cathen/12495a.htm">Protestantism</a> of today. The writers of this school contend that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity, as professed by the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, is not contained in the <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a>, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> and <a href="../cathen/12174a.htm">Macedonian</a> controversies. In view of this assertion it is <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by <a href="../bible">Holy Scripture</a>. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative <a href="../cathen/12738a.htm">religion</a> to the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">men</a> to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation. <h2 id="ii">Proof of doctrine from Scripture</h2> <h3 id="A">New Testament</h3> The evidence from the <a href="../cathen/06655b.htm">Gospels</a> culminates in the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptismal</a> commission of <a href="../bible/mat028.htm#vrs20">Matthew 28:20</a>. It is manifest from the narratives of the <a href="../cathen/05645a.htm">Evangelists</a> that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> only made the great <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Twelve</a> step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Eternal Son of God</a>. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>, the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>, in His place. Finally after His <a href="../cathen/12789a.htm">resurrection</a>, He revealed the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptizing</a> them in the name of the Father, and of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a>" (<a href="../bible/mat028.htm#vrs18">Matthew 28:18</a>). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">"the Son"</a> are distinct <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> co-ordinate with the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and excludes altogether the supposition that the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> understood the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> not as a distinct <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>, but as <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> and their unity of <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a>. Among the <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">Jews</a> and in the <a href="../cathen/01634a.htm">Apostolic Church</a> the Divine name was representative of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>. He who had a <a href="../cathen/13055c.htm">right</a> to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the <a href="../cathen/14336b.htm">supernatural</a> powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">One Omnipotent God</a> in whom the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believed</a>. Indeed the unity of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is so fundamental a tenet alike of the <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">Hebrew</a> and of the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian religion</a>, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old</a> and <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testaments</a>, that any explanation inconsistent with this <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> would be altogether inadmissible. <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> The <a href="../cathen/14336b.htm">supernatural</a> appearance at the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptism</a> of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> is often cited as an explicit <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> of Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The <a href="../cathen/05645a.htm">Evangelists</a>, it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a>, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. Yet, apart from <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> subsequent teaching, the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatic</a> meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> and the Baptist were privileged to see the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Mystic Dove</a>, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messias</a>. Besides these passages there are many others in the <a href="../cathen/06655b.htm">Gospels</a> which refer to one or other of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> in particular and clearly express the separate <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> and Divinity of each. In regard to the First <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> it will not be <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> to give special citations: those which declare that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> is <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">God the Son</a>, <a href="../cathen/01179a.htm">affirm</a> thereby also the separate <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> of the Father. The Divinity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the <a href="../cathen/14389b.htm">Synoptists</a>. As this point is treated elsewhere (see <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">JESUS CHRIST</a>), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the <a href="../cathen/14389b.htm">Synoptists</a>, in which <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> bears <a href="../cathen/15677a.htm">witness</a> to His Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>. <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>He declares that He will come to be the judge of all <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">men</a> (<a href="../bible/mat025.htm#vrs31">Matthew 25:31</a>). In <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">Jewish</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messianic</a>, prerogative.</li><li>In the <a href="../cathen/11460a.htm">parable</a> of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the <a href="../cathen/12477a.htm">Prophets</a>, one and all, are represented as the servants (<a href="../bible/mat021.htm#vrs33">Matthew 21:33 sqq.</a>).</li><li>He is the Lord of <a href="../cathen/01476d.htm">Angels</a>, who execute His command (<a href="../bible/mat024.htm#vrs24">Matthew 24:31</a>).</li><li>He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messias</a> a step long since taken by all the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> but explicitly as the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son of God</a>: and He declares the <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> due to a special <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> from the Father (<a href="../bible/mat016.htm#vrs16">Matthew 16:16-17</a>).</li><li>Finally, before <a href="../cathen/03143b.htm">Caiphas</a> He not merely declares Himself to be the <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messias</a>, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son of God</a>. He is instantly declared by the <a href="../cathen/12407b.htm">high priest</a> to be guilty of <a href="../cathen/02595a.htm">blasphemy</a>, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messias</a> (<a href="../bible/luk022.htm#vrs66">Luke 22:66-71</a>). </li></ul></div> <a href="../cathen/08492a.htm">St. John's</a> testimony is yet more explicit than that of the <a href="../cathen/14389b.htm">Synoptists</a>. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/joh020.htm#vrs31">John 20:31</a>). In the prologue he identifies Him with the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> exists with <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, Who is <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (<a href="../bible/joh001.htm#vrs1">John 1:1-18</a>). The <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanence</a> of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> in the Father and of the Father in the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is declared in <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> words to St. Philip: "Do you not <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believe</a>, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs10">14:10</a>), and in other passages no less explicit (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs7">14:7</a>; <a href="../bible/joh016.htm#vrs15">16:15</a>; <a href="../bible/joh017.htm#vrs21">17:21</a>). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> also does in like manner" (<a href="../bible/joh005.htm#vrs19">5:19</a>, cf. <a href="../bible/joh010.htm#vrs38">10:38</a>); and to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> no less than to the Father belongs the <a href="../cathen/02062e.htm">Divine attribute</a> of conferring <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> on whom He will (<a href="../bible/joh005.htm#vrs21">5:21</a>). In <a href="../bible/joh010.htm#vrs29">10:29</a>, <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> expressly teaches His <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">unity of essence</a> with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> as by the Father. <a href="../cathen/12652a.htm">Rationalist</a> critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs28">14:28</a>). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> declares His dependence on the Father (<a href="../bible/joh005.htm#vrs19">5:19</a>; <a href="../bible/joh008.htm#vrs28">8:28</a>). In point of fact the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a> involves that, in regard of His Human <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> should be less than the Father. No argument against <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a> can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a>, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the <a href="../cathen/02062e.htm">Divine Nature and perfections</a> flow to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. (On the essential difference between <a href="../cathen/08492a.htm">St. John's</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> as to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> and the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Logos</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many <a href="../cathen/12652a.htm">Rationalists</a> have attempted to trace it, see <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">LOGOS</a>.) In regard to the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Third Person of the Blessed Trinity</a>, the passages which can be cited from the <a href="../cathen/14389b.htm">Synoptists</a> as attesting His distinct <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> are few. The words of <a href="../cathen/06330a.htm">Gabriel</a> (<a href="../bible/luk001.htm#vrs35">Luke 1:35</a>), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a>, to signify <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. For the same reason it is dubious whether <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> warning to the <a href="../cathen/11789b.htm">Pharisees</a> as regards <a href="../cathen/02595a.htm">blasphemy</a> against the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> (<a href="../bible/mat012.htm#vrs31">Matthew 12:31</a>) can be brought forward as <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a>. But in <a href="../bible/luk012.htm#vrs12">Luke 12:12</a>, "The <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a> shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (<a href="../bible/mat010.htm#vrs20">Matthew 10:20</a>, and <a href="../bible/luk024.htm#vrs49">Luke 24:49</a>), His <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with <a href="../bible/mat028.htm#vrs19">Matthew 28:19</a>, postulate the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a> of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm">14</a>, <a href="../bible/joh015.htm">15</a>, <a href="../bible/joh016.htm">16</a>). We have in these chapters the <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> preparation for the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptismal</a> commission. In them the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> are instructed not only as the <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, but as to His office towards the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (<a href="../bible/joh016.htm#vrs13">16:13</a>) to bring back their <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">minds</a> the teaching of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs26">14:26</a>), to convince the world of <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sin</a> (<a href="../bible/joh016.htm#vrs8">16:8</a>). It is evident that, were the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> not a <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>, <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> could not have spoken of His presence with the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> as comparable to His own presence with them (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs16">14:16</a>). Again, were He not a Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> it could not have been expedient for the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> should leave them, and the <a href="../cathen/11469a.htm">Paraclete</a> take His place (<a href="../bible/joh016.htm#vrs7">16:7</a>). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> from the Father and from the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> (<a href="../bible/joh015.htm#vrs26">15:26</a>; cf. <a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs16">14:16</a>, <a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs26">14:26</a>). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs17">14:17-18</a>), while the presence of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is the presence of the Father (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm#vrs23">14:23</a>). In the remaining <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a> writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> of the <a href="../cathen/01634a.htm">Apostolic Church</a> in the three Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. In certain texts the coordination of Father, <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> leaves no possible <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in <a href="../bible/2co013.htm#vrs13">2 Corinthians 13:13</a>, <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a> writes: "The grace of our <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a>, and the charity of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, and the communication of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a> be with you all." Here the construction shows that the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostle</a> is speaking of three distinct <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. Moreover, since the names <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a> are alike Divine names, it follows that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> is also regarded as a Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>. So also, in <a href="../bible/1co012.htm#vrs4">1 Corinthians 12:4-11</a>: "There are diversities of <a href="../cathen/06689a.htm">graces</a>, but the same <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, who worketh all [of them] in all [<a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">persons</a>]." (Cf. also <a href="../bible/eph004.htm#vrs4">Ephesians 4:4-6</a>; <a href="../bible/1pe001.htm#vrs2">1 Peter 1:2-3</a>) But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, the teaching of the <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a> regarding <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is free from all ambiguity. In regard to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the <a href="../cathen/05150a.htm">Doxology</a> in reference to Him. The <a href="../cathen/05150a.htm">Doxology</a>, "To Him be <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> for ever and ever" (cf. <a href="../bible/1ch016.htm#vrs38">1 Chronicles 16:38</a>; <a href="../bible/1ch029.htm#vrs11">29:11</a>; <a href="../bible/psa103.htm#vrs31">Psalm 103:31</a>; <a href="../bible/psa028.htm#vrs2">28:2</a>), is an expression of praise offered to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> alone. In the <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a> we find it addressed not alone to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father</a>, but to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/2ti004.htm#vrs18">2 Timothy 4:18</a>; <a href="../bible/2pe003.htm#vrs18">2 Peter 3:18</a>; <a href="../bible/rev001.htm#vrs6">Revelation 1:6</a>; <a href="../bible/heb013.htm#vrs20">Hebrews 13:20-21</a>), and to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> the Father and <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> in conjunction (<a href="../bible/rev005.htm#vrs13">Revelations 5:13</a>, <a href="../bible/rev007.htm#vrs10">7:10</a>). <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the <a href="../cathen/07176a.htm">Hebrew</a> <a href="../cathen/01146a.htm">Adonai</a>, just as <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (Theos) represents <a href="../cathen/05393a.htm">Elohim</a>. The two are equally Divine names (cf. <a href="../bible/1co008.htm#vrs4">1 Corinthians 8:4</a>). In the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostolic</a> writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father</a>, and Kyrios of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> (see, for example, <a href="../bible/1co012.htm#vrs5">1 Corinthians 12:5-6</a>); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (<a href="../bible/1co003.htm#vrs5">1 Corinthians 3:5</a>; <a href="../bible/1co007.htm#vrs17">7:17</a>) or Theos of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. The <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a> from time to time apply to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> passages of the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a> in which Kyrios is used, for example, <a href="../bible/1co010.htm#vrs9">1 Corinthians 10:9</a> (<a href="../bible/num021.htm#vrs7">Numbers 21:7</a>), <a href="../bible/heb001.htm#vrs10">Hebrews 1:10-12</a> (<a href="../bible/psa101.htm#vrs26">Psalm 101:26-28</a>); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (<a href="../bible/act009.htm#vrs31">Acts 9:31</a>; <a href="../bible/2co005.htm#vrs11">2 Corinthians 5:11</a>; <a href="../bible/eph005.htm#vrs21">Ephesians 5:21</a>), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father</a> and of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/act002.htm#vrs21">Acts 2:21</a>; <a href="../bible/act009.htm#vrs14">9:14</a>; <a href="../bible/rom010.htm#vrs13">Romans 10:13</a>). The profession that "<a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus</a> is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, <a href="../bible/rom010.htm#vrs9">Romans 10:9</a>; Kyrios Iesous, <a href="../bible/1co012.htm#vrs3">1 Corinthians 12:3</a>) is the acknowledgment of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus</a> as Jahweh. The texts in which <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a> affirms that in <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> dwells the plenitude of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> (<a href="../bible/col002.htm#vrs9">Colossians 2:9</a>), that before His <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a> He possessed the <a href="../cathen/06612a.htm">essential nature of God</a> (<a href="../bible/phi002.htm#vrs6">Philippians 2:6</a>), that He "is over all things, <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> <a href="../cathen/02599b.htm">blessed</a> for ever" (<a href="../bible/rom009.htm#vrs5">Romans 9:5</a>) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his <a href="../cathen/05509a.htm">Epistles</a>. The <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> as to the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> <a href="../cathen/10326a.htm">ministers</a>: "As they were ministering to the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord</a> and <a href="../cathen/05789c.htm">fasting</a>, the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a> said to them: Separate me <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">Saul</a> and Barnabas . . ." (<a href="../bible/act013.htm#vrs2">Acts 13:2</a>). He directs the missionary journey of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (<a href="../bible/act016.htm#vrs7">Acts 16:7</a>; cf. <a href="../bible/act005.htm#vrs3">Acts 5:3</a>; <a href="../bible/act015.htm#vrs28">15:28</a>; <a href="../bible/rom015.htm#vrs30">Romans 15:30</a>). <a href="../cathen/02062e.htm">Divine attributes</a> are affirmed of Him. <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>He possesses omniscience and <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">reveals</a> to the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mysteries</a> <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> only to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (<a href="../bible/1co002.htm#vrs10">1 Corinthians 2:10</a>);</li><li>it is He who distributes <a href="../cathen/03588e.htm">charismata</a> (<a href="../bible/1co012.htm#vrs11">1 Corinthians 12:11</a>);</li><li>He is the giver of <a href="../cathen/06701a.htm">supernatural life</a> (<a href="../bible/2co003.htm#vrs8">2 Corinthians 3:8</a>);</li><li>He dwells in the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> and in the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">souls</a> of <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a> men, as in His temple (<a href="../bible/rom008.htm#vrs9">Romans 8:9-11</a>; <a href="../bible/1co003.htm#vrs16">1 Corinthians 3:16</a>, <a href="../bible/1co006.htm#vrs19">6:19</a>).</li><li>The work of <a href="../cathen/08573a.htm">justification</a> and sanctification is attributed to Him (<a href="../bible/1co006.htm#vrs11">1 Corinthians 6:11</a>; <a href="../bible/rom015.htm#vrs16">Romans 15:16</a>), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/1co001.htm#vrs2">1 Corinthians 1:2</a>; <a href="../bible/gal002.htm#vrs17">Galatians 2:17</a>).</li></ul></div> To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> are all expressly taught in the <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a>. The Divinity of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essence</a> is not merely postulated by the strict <a href="../cathen/10499a.htm">monotheism</a> of men nurtured in the <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">religion of Israel</a>, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptismal</a> commission of <a href="../bible/mat028.htm#vrs19">Matthew 28:19</a>, and, in regard to the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, expressly asserted in <a href="../bible/joh010.htm#vrs38">John 10:38</a>. That the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> from the Father <a href="../cathen/06073a.htm">and Son</a> is taught in the discourse of the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord</a> reported by St. John (<a href="../bible/joh014.htm">14-17</a>) (see <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">HOLY GHOST</a>). <h3 id="B">Old Testament</h3> The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity must exist in the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a> and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believed</a> that the <a href="../cathen/12477a.htm">Prophets</a> had testified of it, they held that it had been made <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> even to the <a href="../cathen/11548a.htm">Patriarchs</a>. They regarded it as <a href="../cathen/03539b.htm">certain</a> that the Divine messenger of <a href="../bible/gen016.htm#vrs7">Genesis 16:7</a>, <a href="../bible/gen016.htm#vrs18">16:18</a>, <a href="../bible/gen021.htm#vrs17">21:17</a>, <a href="../bible/gen031.htm#vrs11">31:11</a>; <a href="../bible/exo003.htm#vrs2">Exodus 3:2</a>, was <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">God the Son</a>; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a>, <a href="../fathers/01285.htm">Dialogue with Trypho 60</a>; <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103420.htm">Against Heresies IV.20.7-11</a>; <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, <a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 15-16</a>; Theophilus, <a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.22</a>; <a href="../cathen/11138a.htm">Novatian</a>, <a href="../fathers/0511.htm">On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.</a>). They held that, when the <a href="../cathen/08045a.htm">inspired</a> writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (<a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103230.htm">Against Heresies II.30.9</a>; Theophilus, <a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.15</a>; <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">Hippolytus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0521.htm">Against Noetus 10</a>) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a>, of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> (<a href="../bible/heb001.htm#vrs3">Hebrews 1:3</a>; cf. <a href="../bible/wis007.htm#vrs25">Wisdom 7:25-26</a>), but of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310231.htm">Fifth Theological Oration 31</a>; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, <a href="../fathers/290102.htm">Against Eunomius II.22</a>; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "In Joan.", xii, 20.) Some of these, however, admitted that a <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> of the <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> was granted to the <a href="../cathen/12477a.htm">Prophets</a> and <a href="../cathen/04171a.htm">saints</a> of the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Dispensation</a> (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> in some of the <a href="../cathen/12473a.htm">prophecies</a>. The names <a href="../cathen/05404a.htm">Emmanuel</a> (<a href="../bible/isa007.htm#vrs14">Isaiah 7:14</a>) and God the Mighty (<a href="../bible/isa009.htm#vrs6">Isaiah 9:6</a>) affirmed of the <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Messias</a> make mention of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Divine</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the <a href="../cathen/08399a.htm">Jews</a> to recognize that the <a href="../cathen/10212c.htm">Saviour to come</a> was to be none other than <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> Himself. The <a href="../cathen/13722a.htm">Septuagint</a> translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the <a href="../cathen/01476d.htm">angel</a> of great counsel." A still higher stage of preparation is found in the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In <a href="../bible/pro008.htm">Proverbs 8</a>, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> a real <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> (cf. <a href="../bible/pro008.htm#vrs22">verses 22, 23</a>). Similar teaching occurs in <a href="../bible/sir024.htm">Ecclesiasticus 24</a>, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the <a href="../cathen/01476d.htm">angels</a>. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>. The <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">personality</a> is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, but that <a href="../cathen/08193a.htm">Israel</a> is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (<a href="../bible/sir024.htm#vrs8">Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13</a>). In the <a href="../bible/wis000.htm">Book of the Wisdom of Solomon</a> we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from <a href="../cathen/08329a.htm">Jehovah</a>: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">almighty God</a>. . .the brightness of <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> light, and the unspotted mirror of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> majesty, and the image of his <a href="../cathen/06636b.htm">goodness</a>" (<a href="../bible/wis007.htm#vrs25">Wisdom 7:25-26</a>. Cf. <a href="../bible/heb001.htm#vrs3">Hebrews 1:3</a>). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later <a href="../cathen/08537a.htm">Judaism</a> this exalted <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> of a second <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">personality</a> in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, constitutes a <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> of the Trinity. For nowhere in the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a> do we find any clear indication of a Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>. Mention is often made of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit of the Lord</a>, but there is nothing to show that the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> considered in His working, whether in the <a href="../cathen/15183a.htm">universe</a> or in the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> of <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a>. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> is above all declared by <a href="../cathen/10596a.htm">Moses</a>, and the twofold <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> (of Father and <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>) is strenuously asserted by the <a href="../cathen/12477a.htm">Prophets</a>. The Trinity is made <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv). <h2 id="iii">Proof of the doctrine from tradition</h2> <h3 id="A">The Church Fathers</h3> In this section we shall show that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> and <a href="../cathen/12174a.htm">Macedonian</a> controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the <a href="../cathen/09306a.htm">liturgical</a> forms of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. The highest <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">probative</a> force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a>, but the public <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> of the whole body of the <a href="../cathen/05769a.htm">faithful</a>. Nor can it be objected that the notions of <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> on the subject were vague and confused, and that their <a href="../cathen/09306a.htm">liturgical</a> forms reflect this frame of <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian</a> might be called on to seal with his blood his <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> that there is but <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">One God</a>. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">One True God</a>," is typical of many such replies in the <a href="../cathen/09742b.htm">Acts of the martyrs</a>. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their <a href="../cathen/04478a.htm">creed</a> was <a href="../cathen/10499a.htm">monotheistic</a>, ditheistic, or <a href="../cathen/15061b.htm">tritheistic</a>. Moreover, we <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">writers of that age</a> bear <a href="../cathen/15677a.htm">witness</a> that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truths</a> of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> (cf. <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a>, <a href="../fathers/0126.htm#chapter60">First Apology 60</a>; <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103304.htm">Against Heresies III.4.2</a>). (1) Baptismal formulas We may notice first the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptismal</a> formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/mat028.htm#vrs19">Matthew 28:19</a>) clearly express the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">Baptism</a>, with its formal renunciation of <a href="../cathen/04764a.htm">Satan</a> and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the <a href="../cathen/07636a.htm">idolatry</a> of <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">paganism</a> and the <a href="../cathen/14133a.htm">solemn</a> <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecration</a> of the <a href="../cathen/02258b.htm">baptised</a> to the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">one true God</a> (<a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a>, <a href="../fathers/0303.htm">De Spectaculis 4</a>; <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a>, <a href="../fathers/0126.htm#chapter4">First Apology 4</a>). The act of <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecration</a> was the invocation over them of the Father, <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">St. Hippolytus</a> has expressed the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of <a href="../cathen/12714a.htm">regeneration</a> with <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> forsakes the <a href="../cathen/04764a.htm">Evil One</a> and engages himself to <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, renounces the enemy and confesses that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> is <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> . . . he returns from the font a <a href="../cathen/01148a.htm">son of God</a> and a coheir of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. To Whom with the all <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holy</a>, the <a href="../cathen/06636b.htm">good</a> and lifegiving <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> be <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> now and always, forever and ever. <a href="../cathen/01407b.htm">Amen</a>" (<a href="../fathers/0523.htm">Sermon on Theophany 10</a>). (2) The doxologies The <a href="../cathen/15677a.htm">witness</a> of the <a href="../cathen/05150a.htm">doxologies</a> is no less striking. The form now universal, "<a href="../cathen/05150a.htm">Glory be</a> to the Father, and to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and to the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a>," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> that the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arians</a> found it <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> to deny that it had been in use previous to the <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii). It is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> that up to the period of the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> controversy another form, "<a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">Glory</a> to the Father, through the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, in the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>," had been more common (cf. <a href="../fathers/1010.htm">Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians 58-59</a>; <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a>, <a href="../fathers/0126.htm#chapter67">First Apology 67</a>). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a>: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, but their operation in regard to <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a>. We live in the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, and through Him we are made partakers in <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../bible/gal005.htm#vrs25">Galatians 5:25</a>; <a href="../bible/rom008.htm#vrs9">Romans 8:9</a>); and it is through <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (<a href="../bible/heb013.htm#vrs15">Hebrews 13:15</a>). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "<a href="../cathen/05150a.htm">Glory be</a> to the Father and to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and to [with] the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>," was also in use. <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>In the narrative of <a href="../cathen/12219b.htm">St. Polycarp's</a> <a href="../cathen/09736b.htm">martyrdom</a> we read: "With Whom to Thee and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> be <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> now and for the ages to come" (<a href="../fathers/0102.htm">Martyrdom of Polycarp 14</a>; cf. <a href="../fathers/0102.htm">22</a>).</li><li><a href="../cathen/04045a.htm">Clement of Alexandria</a> bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and Father with the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>" (<a href="../fathers/02093.htm">The Pedagogue III.12</a>).</li><li><a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">St. Hippolytus</a> closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> and power with the Father and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> in <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Holy Church</a> now and always for ever and ever. <a href="../cathen/01407b.htm">Amen</a>" (<a href="../fathers/0521.htm">Against Noetus 18</a>).</li><li><a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">Denis of Alexandria</a> uses almost the same words: "To <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father</a> and to His <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus Christ</a> with the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> be <a href="../cathen/07462a.htm">honour</a> and <a href="../cathen/06585a.htm">glory</a> forever and ever, <a href="../cathen/01407b.htm">Amen</a>" (in <a href="../cathen/02330b.htm">St. Basil</a>, <a href="../fathers/3203.htm">On the Holy Spirit 29.72</a>).</li><li><a href="../cathen/02330b.htm">St. Basil</a> further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> when they lit the evening <a href="../cathen/08770a.htm">lamp</a> to give thanks to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> with <a href="../cathen/12345b.htm">prayer</a>: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit of God</a>").</li></ul></div> (3) Other patristic writings The <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the <a href="../cathen/01618a.htm">apologists</a> we may note <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a>, <a href="../fathers/0126.htm#chapter6">First Apology 6</a>; <a href="../cathen/02042b.htm">Athenagoras</a>, <a href="../fathers/0205.htm">A Plea for the Christians 12</a>. The latter tells us that <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christians</a> "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Logos</a>, what is the oneness of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, what is the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, what is the unity of these three, the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an <a href="../cathen/01618a.htm">apologist</a>, writing for <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagans</a>, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. Amongst polemical writers we may refer to <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0103122.htm">Against Heresies I.22</a> and <a href="../fathers/0103420.htm">IV.20.1-6</a>). In these passages he rejects the <a href="../cathen/06592a.htm">Gnostic</a> figment that the world was <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> by <a href="../cathen/01173c.htm">aeons</a> who had emanated from <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantiality</a> of the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> by Whom <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> all things. <a href="../cathen/04045a.htm">Clement of Alexandria</a> professes the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> in <a href="../fathers/02091.htm">The Pedagogue I.6</a>, and somewhat later <a href="../cathen/07015a.htm">Gregory Thaumaturgus</a>, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his <a href="../fathers/0601.htm">Creed</a>. (4) As contrasted with heretical teachings Yet further evidence regarding the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sects</a>. The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proves</a> conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>, was condemned by a local <a href="../cathen/14388a.htm">synod</a>, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> c. A.D. 220, was <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> by <a href="../cathen/03183d.htm">St. Callistus</a>. It is <a href="../cathen/11126b.htm">notorious</a> that the <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> made no appeal to <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a>: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared at <a href="../cathen/14060b.htm">Smyrna</a>, at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, in <a href="../cathen/01181a.htm">Africa</a>, in <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a>. On the other hand, <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">St. Hippolytus</a>, who combats it in the <a href="../fathers/0521.htm">"Contra Noetum"</a>, claims <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">Apostolic tradition</a> for the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>: "Let us <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believe</a>, beloved brethren, in accordance with the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a> of the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, that <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">God the Word</a> came down from <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a> to the <a href="../cathen/15464b.htm">holy Virgin Mary</a> to <a href="../cathen/13407a.htm">save</a> <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a>." <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) <a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">Denis of Alexandria</a> found that the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatic</a> letter against it to two <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, he termed the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heterodoxy</a> to <a href="../cathen/05009b.htm">St. Dionysius of Rome</a>, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a> on the point in question. The <a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">Bishop of Alexandria</a> replied with a defense of his <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">erroneous</a>. He expressly professes his <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> in the consubstantiality of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, using the very term, <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">homoousios</a>, which afterwards became the touchstone of <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrinal</a> standard of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality. The information we possess regarding another <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> that of <a href="../cathen/01711c.htm">Montanus</a> supplies us with further <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity was the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church's</a> teaching in A.D. 150. <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> he still holds as a <a href="../cathen/10521a.htm">Montanist</a> (<a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 2</a>); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, their distinction, the <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> of <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">God the Son</a> (<a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 27</a>). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> of the <a href="../cathen/10521a.htm">Montanists</a> on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the <a href="../cathen/10521a.htm">Montanists</a> had accepted any novel teaching from the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> that Trinitarianism was an <a href="../cathen/01755d.htm">article of faith</a> at a <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> when the <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">Apostolic tradition</a> was far too recent for any <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> to have arisen on a point so vital. <h3 id="B">Later controversy</h3> Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The <a href="../cathen/14113a.htm">Socinian</a> writers of the seventeenth century (e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, but with <a href="../cathen/01718a.htm">Arius</a>. <a href="../cathen/11743a.htm">Petavius</a>, who was at that period engaged on his great <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a>. On the other hand, their <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodoxy</a> was vigorously defended by the <a href="../cathen/01498a.htm">Anglican</a> divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by <a href="../cathen/02698b.htm">Bossuet</a>, <a href="../cathen/14697c.htm">Thomassinus</a>, and other <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>: <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>That the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> even as regards His Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> is inferior and not equal to the Father;</li><li>that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> alone appeared in the theophanies of the <a href="../cathen/14526a.htm">Old Testament</a>, inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, however, not so;</li><li>that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is a <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> being;</li><li>that the generation of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is not <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a>, but took place in <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a>.</li></ul></div> We shall examine these four points in order. (1) In <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> with the Father, passages are cited from <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a> (<a href="../fathers/0126.htm#chapter13">First Apology 13, 32</a>), <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0103308.htm">Against Heresies III.8.3</a>), <a href="../cathen/04045a.htm">Clement of Alexandria</a> (<a href="../fathers/02107.htm">Stromata VII.2</a>), <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">Hippolytus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0521.htm">Against Noetus 14</a>), <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> (<a href="../fathers/04168.htm">Against Celsus VIII.15</a>). Thus <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0103308.htm">Against Heresies III.8.3</a>) says: "He commanded, and they were <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> . . . Whom did He command? His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, by whom, says the <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a>, the heavens were established. And <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> (<a href="../fathers/04168.htm">Against Celsus VIII.15</a>) says: "We declare that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> we ground on the saying of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Jesus</a> Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> or we may consider the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian heresy</a>. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole source of all, may be termed greater than the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Thus <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, Basil, <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../cathen/07016a.htm">Gregory of Nyssa</a>, and the Fathers of the <a href="../cathen/13473a.htm">Council of Sardica</a>, in their synodical letter, all treat our <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord's</a> words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> (cf. <a href="../cathen/11743a.htm">Petavius</a>, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> of the world the Father commanded, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> <a href="../cathen/11181c.htm">obeyed</a>. The expression is not one which would have been employed by <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> writers who insist that <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> and all <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> works proceed from Him as One and not from the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as distinct from each other. But this <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> was unfamiliar to the early Fathers. (2) <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a> (<a href="../fathers/01285.htm">Dialogue with Trypho 60</a>) <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0103420.htm">Against Heresies IV.20.7-11</a>), <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> ("C. Marc.", II, 27; <a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 15-16</a>), <a href="../cathen/11138a.htm">Novatian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0511.htm">On the Trinity 18.25</a>), Theophilus (<a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.22</a>), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as such, and not from the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> viewed as one. Now <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Revelation</a> teaches us that in the work of the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> and <a href="../cathen/12677d.htm">redemption</a> of the world the Father effects His purpose through the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Through Him He <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">made</a> the world; through Him He <a href="../cathen/12677d.htm">redeemed</a> it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believed</a> by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Moreover, in <a href="../bible/col001.htm#vrs15">Colossians 1:15</a>, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is expressly termed "the image of the invisible <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a>, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealing</a> the Father belongs by <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work. (3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> was <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> are found in <a href="../cathen/04045a.htm">Clement of Alexandria</a> (<a href="../fathers/02105.htm">Stromata V.14</a> and <a href="../fathers/02106.htm">VI.7</a>), <a href="../cathen/14464b.htm">Tatian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0202.htm">Address to the Greeks 5</a>), <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 6</a>; <a href="../fathers/0313.htm">Against Hermogenes 18-20</a>), <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> (<a href="../fathers/101501.htm">Commentary on John I.22</a>). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and <a href="../cathen/14464b.htm">Tatian</a> terms the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father." Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In <a href="../bible/col001.htm#vrs16">Colossians 1:16</a>, <a href="../cathen/11567b.htm">St. Paul</a> says that all things were <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> in the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. This was understood to signify that <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> took place according to exemplar <a href="../cathen/07630a.htm">ideas</a> predetermined by <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and existing in the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>. In view of this, it might be said that the Father <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar <a href="../cathen/07630a.htm">ideas</a> of <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> were communicated by the Father to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Or, again, the actual <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">Creation</a> of the world might be termed the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> of the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, since it takes place according to the <a href="../cathen/07630a.htm">ideas</a> which exist in the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses. The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse, <a href="../bible/pro008.htm#vrs22">Proverbs 8:22</a>, which is rendered in the <a href="../cathen/13722a.htm">Septuagint</a> and the old <a href="../cathen/15515b.htm">Latin</a> versions, "The <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Lord</a> <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> (<a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a>, <a href="../fathers/04121.htm">De Principiis I.2.3</a>). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arianism</a>, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequent <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous. (4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">Creation</a> of the world the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> was not a distinct <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">hypostasis</a> from the Father. These are found in <a href="../cathen/08580c.htm">Justin</a> (<a href="../fathers/01285.htm">Dialogue with Trypho 61</a>), <a href="../cathen/14464b.htm">Tatian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0202.htm">Address to the Greeks 5</a>), <a href="../cathen/02042b.htm">Athenagoras</a> (<a href="../fathers/0205.htm">A Plea for the Christians 10</a>), Theophilus (<a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.10</a>); <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">Hippolytus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0521.htm">Against Noetus 10</a>); <a href="../cathen/14520c.htm">Tertullian</a> (<a href="../fathers/0317.htm">Against Praxeas 5-7</a>; <a href="../fathers/0313.htm">Against Hermogenes 18</a>). Thus Theophilus writes (<a href="../fathers/02042.htm">To Autolycus II.22</a>): <blockquote>What else is this voice [heard in <a href="../cathen/14519a.htm">Paradise</a>] but the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word of God</a> Who is also His <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> and thought [i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> [logos prophorikos], the <a href="../cathen/06081a.htm">firstborn</a> of all <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a>, not, however, Himself being left without <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">Reason</a> (logos), but having begotten <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">Reason</a>, and ever holding converse with <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">Reason</a>.</blockquote> Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the <a href="../cathen/14299a.htm">Stoic</a> <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophy</a>: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these <a href="../cathen/01618a.htm">apologists</a> were seeking to explain the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian Faith</a> to their <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagan</a> readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> herself was never involved in the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> (see <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">LOGOS</a>). Yet it does not seem <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatible with <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a>. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded <a href="../bible/pro008.htm#vrs22">Proverbs 8:22</a>, and <a href="../bible/col001.htm#vrs15">Colossians 1:15</a>, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a>. This <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">temporal</a> generation they conceived to be none other than the act of <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a>. They viewed this as the complement of the <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative <a href="../cathen/07630a.htm">ideas</a> which from all <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> the Father has communicated to the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Eternal Word</a>. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense. It should further be <a href="../cathen/10174a.htm">remembered</a> that throughout this period <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>, when treating of the relation of the Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the <a href="../cathen/04405c.htm">cosmogony</a>. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a> and deal with the threefold <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personality</a> exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible. <h2 id="iv">The trinity as a mystery</h2> The <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> in <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theology</a>. It lays down that a <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> is a <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Divine Revelation</a>, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Divine message</a>. Through <a href="../cathen/01449a.htm">analogies</a> and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a>, but we cannot attain that fuller <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a>, the office of the natural <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a> is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">Reason</a>. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. The <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> further <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">defined</a> that the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian Faith</a> contains <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mysteries</a> strictly so called (can. 4). All <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> admit that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truths</a> this is the most impenetrable to <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a>. Hence, to declare this to be no <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord's</a> words, <a href="../bible/mat011.htm#vrs27">Matthew 11:27</a>, "No one knoweth the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> is a <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> entirely beyond the scope of any <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a>. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> is affirmed. <a href="../cathen/08341a.htm">St. Jerome</a> says, in a well-known phrase: "The <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> profession of the <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the <a href="../cathen/05605a.htm">Eunomians</a>, who declared that the Divine <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a> was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>, led many of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>, more especially in regard to the internal processions. <a href="../cathen/02330b.htm">St. Basil</a>, <a href="../fathers/290101.htm">Against Eunomius I.14</a>; <a href="../cathen/04595b.htm">St. Cyril of Jerusalem</a>, <a href="../fathers/310106.htm">Catechetical Lectures VI</a>; <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.2</a>, etc.). At a later <a href="../cathen/04636c.htm">date</a>, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64), <a href="../cathen/01036b.htm">Abelard</a> ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), <a href="../cathen/07521c.htm">Hugo of St. Victor</a> ("De sacram." III, xi), and <a href="../cathen/13045c.htm">Richard of St. Victor</a> ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophy</a> to <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> was but obscurely understood. Only after the <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotelean</a> system had obtained recognition from <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> was this question thoroughly treated. In the <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> ferment of the <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> <a href="../cathen/01036b.htm">Abelard</a> initiated a <a href="../cathen/12652a.htm">Rationalistic</a> tendency: not merely did he claim a <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> of the Trinity for the <a href="../cathen/11388a.htm">pagan</a> <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophers</a>, but his own Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> was practically Sabellian. Anselm's <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> was due not to <a href="../cathen/12652a.htm">Rationalism</a>, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". <a href="../cathen/07521c.htm">Hugh</a> and <a href="../cathen/13045c.htm">Richard of St. Victor</a> were, however, certainly influenced by <a href="../cathen/01036b.htm">Abelard's</a> teaching. <a href="../cathen/12670c.htm">Raymond Lully's</a> (1235-1315) <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">errors</a> in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by <a href="../cathen/06799a.htm">Gregory XI</a> in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing <a href="../cathen/12652a.htm">Rationalism</a> manifested itself in several <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> writers. Frohschammer and <a href="../cathen/07085a.htm">Günther</a> both asserted that the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> of the Trinity was capable of <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a>. <a href="../cathen/12134b.htm">Pius IX</a> reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (<a href="../cathen/04736b.htm">Denzinger</a>, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the <a href="../cathen/15303a.htm">Vatican Council</a> issued the <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decrees</a> to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> on the part of <a href="../cathen/13194b.htm">Rosmini</a> was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915). <h2 id="v">The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology</h2> <h3 id="A">Nature and personality</h3> The <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> approached the problem of Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a>, has become <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">traditional</a> in <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. In <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> thought fixed first on the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> and only subsequently on the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personality</a> is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>: the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> is regarded as <a href="../cathen/09324a.htm">logically</a> prior to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personality</a>. Hence, because <a href="../cathen/06612a.htm">God's Nature</a> is one, He is <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> to us as One <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> before He can be <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a> as Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. And when <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> speak of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> without special mention of a <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>, conceive Him under this aspect. This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (Theos) more especially belongs; the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, proceeding from the Father by an <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> generation, and therefore rightly termed <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> also; and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Divine Spirit</a>, proceeding from the Father through the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. The <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personality</a> is treated as <a href="../cathen/09324a.htm">logically</a> prior to the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>. Just as <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> is something which the <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a> men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a>, so the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> is something which belongs to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> and cannot be conceived independently of Them. The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a>. All <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> teach that <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">creation</a>, like all <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personalities</a> do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> exercises a separate office. <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">Irenaeus</a> replies to the <a href="../cathen/06592a.htm">Gnostics</a>, who held that the world was <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> by a <a href="../cathen/04707b.htm">demiurge</a> other than the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">supreme God</a>, by affirming that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> and His Wisdom, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> (<a href="../fathers/0103122.htm">Against Heresies I.22</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103204.htm">II.4.4-5</a>, <a href="../fathers/0103230.htm">II.30.9</a> and <a href="../fathers/0103420.htm">IV.20.1</a>). A formula often found among the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> in the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, <a href="../fathers/3203.htm">On the Holy Spirit 38</a>; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, <a href="../cathen/07360c.htm">Hippolytus</a> (<a href="../fathers/0521.htm">Against Noetus 10</a>) says that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> has fashioned all things by His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> and His Wisdom creating them by His <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The <a href="../cathen/11049a.htm">Nicene Creed</a> still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> "in one <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father Almighty</a>, Creator of <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a> and earth . . . and in one <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a> . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a>." <h3 id="B">The divine unity</h3> The <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> did not neglect to safeguard the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">West</a>. The <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantiality</a> of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> is asserted by <a href="../cathen/08130b.htm">St. Irenæus</a> when he tells us that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> the world by His <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and His <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, "His two hands" (<a href="../fathers/0103420.htm">Against Heresies IV.20.1</a>). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are not substantially distinct from the First. A more <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophical</a> description is the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between <a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">St. Denis of Alexandria</a> and <a href="../cathen/05009b.htm">St. Dionysius of Rome</a>. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the <a href="../cathen/10447b.htm">Monad</a> [the First <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the <a href="../cathen/10447b.htm">Monad</a> without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha P.G., XXV, 504). Here the <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantiality</a> is affirmed on the ground that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him. This <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> regarded the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> as the Wisdom and power of the Father (<a href="../bible/1co001.htm#vrs24">1 Corinthians 1:24</a>) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> as His Sanctity. Apart from the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> the Father would be without His Wisdom; apart from the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and <a href="../cathen/05749a.htm">faculties</a> are mere <a href="../cathen/01096c.htm">accidental</a> perfections, in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> they are subsistent hypostases. <a href="../cathen/05011a.htm">Denis of Alexandria</a> regarding the Second and Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of <a href="../cathen/04683a.htm">Deity</a> alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them. The <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian controversy</a> led to insistence on the <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">Homoüsia</a>. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective <a href="../cathen/01450a.htm">analysis</a>. The sonship of the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Second Person</a> implies that He has received the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a> is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> as communicated to the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. Unity of <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> was understood by the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> to possess (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, <a href="../fathers/3202189.htm">Epistle 189, no. 7</a>; <a href="../cathen/07016a.htm">Gregory of Nyssa</a>, "De orat. dom., " <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33043.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith III.14</a>). Here we see an important advance in the <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> as each exercising a distinct and separate function. Finally we have the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. The term perichoresis is first used by <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a>. Yet the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> is found much earlier. Thus <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">St. Cyril of Alexandria</a> says that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is called the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a> assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. In some passages he explains it by the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> already mentioned, that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essence</a>, will, and action in the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. Wherever these are peculiar to the <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a>, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a> (kechorismenos einai). In the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essence</a>, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a>, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (<a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.8</a>). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">Homoüsia</a>. It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arian</a> and <a href="../cathen/12174a.htm">Macedonian</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a> than was that subsequently developed by <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a>. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> notably nearer to the positions of <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> to be but one. <a href="../cathen/04784a.htm">Didymus</a> even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latins</a>, conceived the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> as <a href="../cathen/09324a.htm">logically</a> antecedent to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we <a href="../cathen/12345b.htm">pray</a>, whether we say <a href="../cathen/08714a.htm">'Kyrie eleison'</a>, or 'O <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>" (De Trin., II, xix). <h3 id="C">Mediate and immediate procession</h3> The <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> that the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> is the image of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, as the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a>. It is asserted by <a href="../cathen/07015a.htm">St. Gregory Thaumaturgus</a> in his <a href="../fathers/0601.htm">Creed</a>. It is assumed by <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">St. Athanasius</a> as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the <a href="../cathen/12174a.htm">Macedonians</a> (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">St. Gregory Nazianzen</a> (<a href="../fathers/310231.htm">Orations 31.31-32</a>), of the Three Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">St. Cyril of Alexandria</a> ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a> (<a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.13</a>), etc. This supposes that the procession of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> from the Father is immediate; that of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. <a href="../cathen/02527b.htm">Bessarion</a> rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine <a href="../cathen/12446c.htm">Procession</a> as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogmatic</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a>. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later <a href="../cathen/12043b.htm">Photian</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> that the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">HOLY GHOST</a>.) <h3 id="D">The Son</h3> The Greek <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a>. Most <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a> produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> by <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> has a <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a>, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> not (cf. <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310229.htm">Oration 29.8</a>, <a href="../cathen/04595b.htm">Cyril of Jerusalem</a>, <a href="../fathers/310111.htm">Catechetical Lectures XI.19</a>; <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.8</a>). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> the Absolutely Perfect (<a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.8</a>). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> understood logos not of the <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mental</a> thought; but of the uttered word (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, <a href="../fathers/2810.htm">Dionysius of Alexandria</a>, ibid.; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is begotten by way of <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> sonship (<a href="../cathen/07016a.htm">Gregory of Nyssa</a>, <a href="../fathers/290104.htm">Against Eunomius IV</a>; <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310230.htm">Oration 30</a>; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "Thesaurus assert.", vi). We have already adverted to the view that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> of <a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> to that of <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a> (<a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a> apud <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, <a href="../fathers/2821.htm">De decr. Nic.</a>; <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, <a href="../fathers/28081.htm">Against the Arians I</a>; <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "Thesaurus"; <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.12</a>). It is based on the <a href="../cathen/12159a.htm">Platonic</a> <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophy</a> accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristoteleanism</a> of the <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholastic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. In <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotelean</a> <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophy</a> perfection is always conceived statically. No action, transient or <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanent</a>, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, as the supreme perfection, is from all <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not <a href="../cathen/01096c.htm">accidents</a>, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanent</a> action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> frequently presuppose this <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophy</a> as their basis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arianism</a> that, if there were a <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> when the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> was not, it follows that <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power a conclusion from which even <a href="../cathen/01707c.htm">Arians</a> would shrink. <h3 id="E">The Holy Spirit</h3> A point which in <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Third Person of the Blessed Trinity</a> is termed the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a> suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (<a href="../fathers/130115.htm">On the Trinity XV.37</a>). To the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a>, who developed the <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> in the light of the <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophical</a> principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">reveals</a> to us His distinctive <a href="../cathen/03584b.htm">character</a> as the Third <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a>, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> (cf. <a href="../cathen/07015a.htm">Gregory Thaumaturgus</a>, <a href="../fathers/0601.htm">Declaration of Faith</a>; Basil, <a href="../fathers/3202214.htm">Epistle 214.4</a>; <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310225.htm">Oration 25.16</a>). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holiness</a> of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, the <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holiness</a> by which <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holy</a>. Just as the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is the Wisdom and Power by which <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is wise and powerful, so the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> is the Holiness by which He is <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holy</a>. Had there ever been a <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a>, as the <a href="../cathen/12174a.htm">Macedonians</a> dared to say, when the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> was not, then at that <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a> <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> would have not been <a href="../cathen/07386a.htm">holy</a> (<a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">St. Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310231.htm">Oration 31.4</a>). On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of <a href="../bible/joh010.htm#vrs22">John 10:22</a> where <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, appearing to the <a href="../cathen/01626c.htm">Apostles</a>, breathed on them and conferred on them the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. He is the breath of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> (<a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.8</a>), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> by which we enjoy the <a href="../cathen/14336b.htm">supernatural</a> <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> children (<a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">Cyril of Alexandria</a>, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> in thus elevating us to the <a href="../cathen/14336b.htm">supernatural order</a> is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. According to <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>, <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> bestows on <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">man</a> <a href="../cathen/06701a.htm">sanctifying grace</a>, and consequent on that <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> come to his <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>. In Greek <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> the order is reversed: the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> does not come to us because we have received <a href="../cathen/06701a.htm">sanctifying grace</a>; but it is through His presence we receive the <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a>. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a> of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (<a href="../cathen/11306b.htm">Origen</a>, <a href="../fathers/101502.htm">Commentary on John II.6</a>; <a href="../cathen/04784a.htm">Didymus</a>, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, He imprints the likeness of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> upon us; since <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> is the image of the Father, we too receive the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> <a href="../cathen/03584b.htm">character</a> of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> children (<a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, loc. cit.; <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310231.htm">Oration 31.4</a>). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is termed the Giver of <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> (zoopoios). In the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">West</a> we more naturally speak of grace as the <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> of the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>. But to the Greeks it was the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> through whose personal presence we live. Just as <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> gave natural <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> to <a href="../cathen/01129a.htm">Adam</a> by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a>, so did <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> give spiritual <a href="../cathen/09238c.htm">life</a> to us when He bestowed on us the <a href="../cathen/06553a.htm">gift</a> of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a>. <h2 id="vi">The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology</h2> The transition to the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> of the Trinity was the work of <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a>. <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholasticism</a> his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected. It received its final and classical form from <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas Aquinas</a>. But it is <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">St. Augustine</a>. This may be summed up in three points: <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>He views the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God the Father</a>, but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and the equality of the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, <a href="../cathen/04784a.htm">Didymus</a>, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a> from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> was the work of <a href="../cathen/02084a.htm">Augustine's</a> genius. </li><li>He insists that every external operation of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> alone, save by <a href="../cathen/01658a.htm">appropriation</a> (see <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">HOLY GHOST</a>). The <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a> had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> was one, and one alone. But the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of <a href="../cathen/01658a.htm">appropriation</a> was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">traditional</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theology</a> implying the distinct activities of Father, <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, and <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. </li><li>By indicating the <a href="../cathen/01449a.htm">analogy</a> between the two processions within the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> and the internal acts of thought and will in the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> (<a href="../fathers/130109.htm">On the Trinity IX.3.3</a> and <a href="../fathers/130110.htm">X.11.17</a>), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> writer.</li></ul></div> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> In the following exposition of the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> doctrines, we shall follow <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas Aquinas</a>, whose treatment of the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> is now universally accepted by <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. Thus <a href="../cathen/13045c.htm">Richard of St. Victor</a>, <a href="../cathen/01298a.htm">Alexander of Hales</a>, and <a href="../cathen/02648c.htm">St. Bonaventure</a>, while adhering in the main to <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western</a> <a href="../cathen/15006b.htm">tradition</a>, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a>. <h3 id="A">The Son</h3> Among the terms employed in <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a> to designate the Second <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> of the Blessed Trinity is the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a> (<a href="../bible/joh001.htm#vrs1">John 1:1</a>). This is understood by <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a> of the Verbum mentale, or <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> concept. As applied to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> in all acts of natural <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a>. It is, indeed, of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> as the term of the act by which <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> knows His own <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">known</a>. And further, being Divine action, it is not an <a href="../cathen/01096c.htm">accidental</a> act resulting in a term, itself a mere <a href="../cathen/01096c.htm">accident</a>, but the act is the very <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substance</a> of the Divinity, and the term is likewise <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substantial</a>. A process tending necessarily to the production of a <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substantial</a> term like in <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, a difficulty was felt by <a href="../cathen/01546a.htm">St. Anselm</a> (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> must needs generate a subsistent <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>. Since all the Powers possess the same <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a> succeeds in removing. According to his <a href="../cathen/12545b.htm">psychology</a> the formation of a concept is not <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">essential</a> to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a>. There is, therefore, no ground in <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a>, apart from <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>, for holding that the Divine <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a> produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scripture</a> alone which tells us that the Father has from all <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternity</a> begotten His <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantial</a> <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word</a>. But neither <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a> nor <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (<a href="../summa/1034.htm#article1">I:34:1, ad 3</a>). Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholastic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (<a href="../bible/pro008.htm">Proverbs 8</a>), applied to the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, for us to regard the <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> procession of the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Second Person</a> as at least theologically <a href="../cathen/03539b.htm">certain</a>, if not a <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> (cf. <a href="../cathen/14319a.htm">Francisco Suárez</a>, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; <a href="../cathen/11743a.htm">Petavius</a>, VI, i, 7; <a href="../cathen/06242a.htm">Franzelin</a>, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a>, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of <a href="../bible/pro008.htm">Proverbs 8</a>, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revealed</a> <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a>. <h3 id="B">The Holy Spirit</h3> Just as the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> proceeds as the term of the <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanent</a> act of the <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a>, so does the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a>, as <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a> teaches (<a href="../summa/1027.htm#article3">I:27:3</a>), even though the object be external to us, yet the <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanent</a> act of <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> arouses in the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">loved</a>. In virtue of this the object of <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a>. This experience is the term of the internal act. The <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> as the term of the <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> by which <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> loves Himself. He is not the <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> in the sense of being Himself formally the <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a> by which <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> loves; but in <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">loving</a> Himself <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">Love</a>. Here, however, it is <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> to safeguard a point of revealed <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. It is of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> that the procession of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is not generation. The <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is "the only begotten of the Father" (<a href="../bible/joh001.htm#vrs14">John 1:14</a>). And the <a href="../cathen/02033b.htm">Athanasian Creed</a> expressly lays it down that the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Ghost</a> is "from the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>, neither made, nor <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a>, nor begotten, but proceeding." If the <a href="../cathen/07682a.htm">immanent</a> act of the <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a> is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a>, <a href="../cathen/13045c.htm">Richard of St. Victor</a>, and <a href="../cathen/01298a.htm">Alexander of Hales</a> are very different. It will be sufficient here to note <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas's</a> solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a>. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellect</a>. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name. The <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the procession of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a> to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latins</a> before his <a href="../cathen/14726a.htm">time</a>. He mentions the opinion with favour in the <a href="../fathers/1304.htm">"De fide et symbolo"</a> (A.D. 393); and in the <a href="../fathers/1301.htm">"De Trinitate"</a> (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">West</a>. The <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholastics</a> seek for <a href="../cathen/13635b.htm">Scriptural</a> support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> proper to the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> as designating the relation uniting Him to the other <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>. But that by which any <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> is devoted to <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> is <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a>. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (<a href="../summa/1036.htm#article1">I:36:1</a>). The <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Latin</a> theory is a noble effort of the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/12673b.htm">reason</a> to penetrate the verities which <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a> has left veiled in <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a>. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truths</a> of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03712a.htm">Christian religion</a>. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">revelation</a>. <h3 id="C">The divine relations</h3> The existence of relations in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> may be immediately inferred from the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of processions, and as such is a <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> of <a href="../cathen/13001a.htm">Revelation</a>. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the procession of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> was familiar to the <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Greek</a> <a href="../cathen/06001a.htm">Fathers</a>. In answer to the <a href="../cathen/05605a.htm">Eunomian</a> objection, that <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantiality</a> rendered any distinction between the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> impossible, <a href="../cathen/07016a.htm">Gregory of Nyssa</a> replies: "Though we hold that the <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> [in the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Person</a> differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. <a href="../cathen/07010b.htm">Gregory Nazianzen</a>, <a href="../fathers/310209.htm">Fifth Theological Oration 9</a>; <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">John Damascene</a>, <a href="../fathers/33041.htm">Of the Orthodox Faith I.8</a>). Augustine insists that of the ten <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotelean</a> categories two, stance and relation, are found in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> (<a href="../fathers/130105.htm">On the Trinity V.5</a>). But it was at the hands the <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholastic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a>, were found to throw great light upon the <a href="../cathen/10662a.htm">mystery</a>, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it. From the fact that there are two processions in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> and this is common to the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely <a href="../cathen/03539b.htm">certain</a> by all <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. Equivalently contained in the words of <a href="../cathen/07016a.htm">St. Gregory of Nyssa</a>, it was clearly enunciated by <a href="../cathen/01546a.htm">St. Anselm</a> ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">ecclesiastical</a> <a href="../cathen/13428a.htm">sanction</a> in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a>. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a>, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, it follows that the Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> the Divine Filiation, the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere <a href="../cathen/01096c.htm">accidental</a> determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">Substance</a>, transcending the divisions of the <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotelean</a> <a href="../cathen/03433a.htm">categories</a>. Hence, at one and the same time He is both <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substance</a> and relation. (How it is that there should be in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> real relations, though it is altogether impossible that <a href="../cathen/12591a.htm">quantity</a> or <a href="../cathen/12589c.htm">quality</a> should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the <a href="../cathen/10226a.htm">metaphysics</a> of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.) It will be seen that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> of the Trinity involves the <a href="../cathen/05781a.htm">falsity</a> of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> are alike identical with the Divine <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a>, we are affirming that the Supreme <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">Infinite</a> <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">Substance</a> is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> none can be <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a>, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like <a href="../cathen/12591a.htm">quantity</a> or <a href="../cathen/12589c.htm">quality</a>, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> is contained in the one <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> Divine <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a>. The Father is that <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a> as it <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternally</a> regards the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>; the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> is that <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a> as it <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternally</a> regards the Father and the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Spirit</a>; the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a> is that <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">Essence</a> as it <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternally</a> regards the Father and the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>. But the <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a> regard by which each of the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> is constituted is not an addition to the <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> perfection of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>. The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> and of <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophers</a> as altogether misleading. Neither <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> nor <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> is self-consciousness; though a <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> must needs possess self-consciousness, and <a href="../cathen/04274a.htm">consciousness</a> attests the <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a> of <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> (see <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">PERSONALITY</a>). Granted that in the <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a> will have a three-fold <a href="../cathen/04274a.htm">consciousness</a>, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of <a href="../cathen/05543b.htm">existence</a>. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> <a href="../cathen/10321a.htm">mind</a>, such a supposition involves a contradiction. The question was raised by the <a href="../cathen/13548a.htm">Scholastics</a>: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a>; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> breathe forth the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a> replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (<a href="../summa/1041.htm#article3">I:41:3, ad 2</a>). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a> origination is <a href="../cathen/05551b.htm">eternal</a>: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">know</a>, indeed, that in the Divine <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Personality</a>, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (<a href="../summa/1032.htm#article2">I:32:2</a>). <h3 id="D">Divine mission</h3> It has been seen that every action of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> in regard of the <a href="../cathen/04470a.htm">created</a> world proceeds from the Three <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">Persons</a> indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "<a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> sent . . . his <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> into the world" (<a href="../bible/joh003.htm#vrs17">John 3:17</a>), and "the <a href="../cathen/11469a.htm">Paraclete</a> cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (<a href="../bible/joh015.htm#vrs26">John 15:26</a>)? What is meant by the mission of the <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">Son</a> and of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>? To this it is answered that mission supposes two <a href="../cathen/04211a.htm">conditions</a>: <div class="bulletlist"><ul><li>That the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> sent should in some way proceed from the sender and</li><li>that the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> sent should come to be at the place indicated.</li></ul></div> The procession, however, may take place in various ways by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second <a href="../cathen/04211a.htm">condition</a>, too, is satisfied either if the <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though <a href="../cathen/14142b.htm">God the Son</a> was already present in the world by reason of His <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, His <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a> made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">Holy Spirit</a>. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> and as the object of experimental <a href="../cathen/09397a.htm">love</a>. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the <a href="../cathen/09017a.htm">Second</a> and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">Nature</a> by means of a <a href="../cathen/12446c.htm">procession</a>, may be said to be sent into the <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>. (See also <a href="../cathen/07409a.htm">HOLY GHOST</a>; <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">LOGOS</a>; <a href="../cathen/10499a.htm">MONOTHEISTS</a>; <a href="../cathen/15154b.htm">UNITARIANS</a>.) <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-bottom' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <div class="cenotes"><h2>Sources</h2>Among the numerous patristic works on this subject, the following call for special mention: ST. ATHANASIUS, Orationes quatuor contra Arianos; IDEM, Liber de Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto; ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orationes V de theologia; DIDYMUS ALEX., Libri III de Trinitate; IDEM, Liber de Spir. Sancto; ST. HILARY OF POITIERS, Libri XII de Trinitate; ST. AUGUSTINE, Libri XV de Trinitate; ST. JOHN DAMASCENE, Liber de Trinitate; IDEM, De fide orthodoxa, I. Among the medieval theologians: ST. ANSELM, Lib. I. de fide Trinitatis; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, Libri VI de Trinitate; ST.THOMAS, Summa, I, xxvii-xliii; BESSARION, Liber de Spiritu Saneto contra Marcum Ephesinum. Among more recent writers: PETAVIUS, De Trinitate; NEWMAN. Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism in Theol. Tracts. (London, 1864).</div> <div class="pub"><h2>About this page</h2>APA citation. Joyce, G. (1912). The Blessed Trinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htmMLA citation. Joyce, George. "The Blessed Trinity." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm>. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.</div> </div> <div id="ogdenville"><table summary="Bottom bar" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"><center>Copyright © 2023 by <a href="../utility/contactus.htm">New Advent LLC</a>. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.</center></td></tr></table><a href="../utility/contactus.htm">CONTACT US</a> | <a href="https://cleanmedia.net/p/?psid=491-308-20180429T2217479770">ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT</a></div> <ins class="CANBMDDisplayAD" data-bmd-ad-unit="30849120210203T1734389107AB67D35C03D4A318731A4F337F60B3E" style="display:block"></ins> <script src="https://secureaddisplay.com/au/bmd/"></script>  <ins class="CMAdExcludeArticles"></ins> </body> </html>