Gibson on Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

This first Article has remained without any alteration since the publication of the Forty-Two Articles of Edward VI. in 1553, in which series it occupied the same position as it does in our own set. Its language may be traced ultimately to the Confession of Augsburg,^ the terms of which on this subject were adopted almost verbatim in the Thirteen Articles of 1538, agreed upon by a joint-committee of Anglican and Lutheran Divines. The same language re-appears also in the Reformatio Legum Ucclesiasticarum, De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, cap. 2.

^ Art. 1. **2)c Deo. — Ecclesiae magno consensu apud nos docent decretum Nicense Synodi, de unitate essenti.T, et de tribus personis, verum et sine ulla dubitatione credendum esse. Videlicet, quod sit una essentia divina, quae appellatur et est Deus setemus, incorporeus, impartibilis, immensa poteniia, sapientia, bonitate, Creator et Conservator omnium rerum visibi- Hum et invisibilium, et tamen tres sint personoe ejusdem essentice potentice, et cocetemce, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus : et nomine personae utuntur ea significatione qui usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut significet non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit.” The words in italics are repeated almost verbatim in our own article.

The need of such an Article as this is shown by the formidable spread of Anabaptism in this country as well as on the Continent. Contemporary documents show how very many of the Anabaptists had lost all faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Some were reviving the Sabellian heresy, and denying that there was more than one Person in the Godhead ; others were teaching a form of Arianism, denying the Divinity of the Second Person, while others again maintained that Christ was ” a mere man.”^

The article falls into two main divisions. The first part treats of the existence of God, and the ” necessary ”^ doctrine of the divine imity. The second speaks of the mode of God’s existence, and the distinctions within the divine nature.

The statement in the first part, that there is but

one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible,

expresses a belief which is not peculiar to Christianity, but is common to both natural and revealed religion, and is held by every serious Theist, as well as every believer in the Christian revelation. It is not therefore a doctrine

» The reality of the danger and the character of the heresies prevalent is shown by the closing words of the Article in the Confession of Augsburg : ” Damnant omnes haereses, contra hunc Articulum exortas, ut Manichseos, qui duo principia ponebant, bonum et malum. Item Valentinianos, Arianos, Eunomianos, Mahometistas, et omnes horum similes. Damnant et Samosateuos, veteres et neotericos, qui, cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de verbo et de Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur, quod non sit personai distinctae, sed quod Verbum significat verbum vocale, et Spiritus motum in rebus creatum.”

2 By saying that the unity of God is ** necessary” it is meant that the contrary is inconceivable. ” Two prime causes are unimaginable, and for all things to depend of one, and to be more independent beings than one is a clear contradiction.” — Pearson On the Creed, Article 1, ch. ii. § 13.

for which ” Scripture proof ” will be sought. The existence and unity of God is assumed and taken for granted throughout Scripture. Indeed, Scripture will have no force or weight to anyone who has not first on other grounds accepted this truth. Thus the consideration of the several ” proofs ” of God’s existence belongs to the study of “evidences,” and would be out of place in a commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles. It is therefore not considered necessary to enter into it here, but the reader will find in the foot-note reference to a few recent works in which the whole subject is discussed.^

The second part of the Article, And in unity of

this Godhead there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, states in the briefest possible terms the great truth taught us by Revelation concerning the nature of God, the acceptance of which distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, Mohammedanism, Unitarianism, and all other forms of religious belief.

The subject will be best considered under the following heads :—

1. The grounds on which the doctrine is accepted.

2. The history of the doctrine in the Church, and the growth of technical phraseology in connection with it.

3. The explanation of the doctrine.

I. The Grounds on tvhich the Doctrine is accepted.

Our belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests entirely on the revelation made by God in Holy Scripture.

Flint’s Theism and Anii-Theistic Theories. Bishop EUicott’s Being of God. See also Mozley’s Essays, Historical and Theological, vol. ii. ; Essays on The Argument of Design and The Principle of Causation ; and Illingworth’s Bampton Lectures^ Lect. iv.

Intimations that distinctions of some sort exist in the divine nature may be discerned in the Old Testament, but the proof of the doctrine can only be sought in the teaching of the Gospels. Without a direct revelation from God man could never by his reason have discovered that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, but when once this is disclosed man can see that it is not merely not contrary to reason, but rather that it satisfies the demands of his reason, and fits in with his deepest thoughts on the nature of God. Though ” not discoverable by reason,” it is yet ” agreeable to reason.”^

(a) The preparation for the revelation of the mystery under the Old Covenant — To guard the truth of the unity of God, and to bear a never-failing witness to it in the midst of idolatry and polytheism, was the special function of the Jewish Church. ” Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. vi. 4) forms the central declaration of the Old Covenant, standing to it in much the same relation that the command to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost stands in to the Christian Church. It is, therefore, not to be expected that the doctrine of Personal distinctions within the Godhead will be prominently brought forward in the Old Testament. The unity must first be established and firmly fixed in the minds of God’s chosen people before the further revelation can be safely made and the existence of distinct persons within the Godhead be disclosed without fear of leading men to polytheism. And yet throughout the Old Testament the thoughtful reader will from time to time discern the presence of hints, suggestions, and anticipations of the truth subsequently made known in its fulness through the incarnate Son. There are three verses in the early chapters of Genesis in which devout

minds have often found an adumbration of the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, Gen. L 26, ” And God said. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”; iii. 22, ” And the Lord God said. Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil ” ; xi. 7, ” And the Lord said … go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.” So also in Isaiah vi. 8, we read, ” I heard the voice of the Lord, saying. Whom shall I send, and who will go for us.” Various interpretations of these passages have been proposed. Some have explained the plural as that used by monarchs in speaking of themselves in decrees, etc., but this explanation is now generally rejected, as not in accordance with Hebrew usage. The majority of modern commentators prefer the view which refers the plural to the angels, as if God announced to them His resolve to create man. It is, however, difficult to hold this view without supposing that a co-ordinate share in the act of creation is granted to the angels, which is quite inadmissible,^ and it is by no means clear that the patristic interpretation of these passages which sees in them an adumbration of the doctrine of the Trinity is incorrect. Again, the believer, who reads the Old Testament in the light of the New, may well see a foreshadowing of the doctrine in the threefold repetition of the divine name in Aaron’s blessing. Num. vi. 24-26, “The Lord bless thee and keep thee ; the Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee ; the Lord lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace ” ; as well as in the song of the seraphim in Isaiah vi. 3, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts ” — an utterance which has become the ” Tersanctus ” of the Christian Church (cf. Eev. iv. S).^

2 Cf. the thrice-repeated refrain in Ps. xcix. 3, 5, 9, which is really an echo of the song of the seraphim. “Holy is He … Holy is He … Holy is the Lord our God.” See the B.V. Nothing is said in the

All these passages, however, though they may appeal forcibly to those who have already accepted the doctrine can scarcely serve for proof of the doctrine to the unbeliever. For pm-poses of controversy no high value can be attached to them. The real line of preparation for the disclosure of the mystery must be sought elsewhere. It will be found in a study of those passages in which God is spoken of in His covenant relation to man, acting upon him, and revealing Himself to him, in a twofold manner.

There is first that which may be called the ” external ”

manifestation, by means of the messenger or ” angel of

the Lord,” who speaks now as God, and now as one sent

by God, so that the angel is in part identified with

Jehovah, and in part distinguished from Him. Thus we

read that ” the Lord appeared ” to Abraham, and ” lo,

three men stood over against him.” Then follows the

account of the manifestation, and then we read that

” the men turned from thence, and went towards Sodom ;

and Abraham stood yet before the Lord … And the

Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing

with Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place.

And the two angels came to Sodom ” (Gen. xviiL 1 ;

xix. 1). Plainly, then, one of the three was a more

exalted Being than “the two angels,” and represented

” the Lord.” Again in Joshua v. 14, a mysterious being

text of the name Elohim, a plural form in which some would see a reference to the doctrine, because it is now generally agreed that it is simply the plural of majesty or intensity. It has been truly pointed out that “those who adduce it as an anticipation of the doctrine of the Trinity appear to forget that this use of the plural does not stand cUone in Hebrew ; the words jnK and Vya meaning lord, master, are often used in the plural with reference to a single human superior {e.g. Ex. xxi. 4, 6, 8, 29) ; and Isaiah (xix. 4) describes the conqueror of Egypt as ntfp d’jhk, where the adjective is singular, but the substantive is plural.”— S. E. Driver, in the Expositor, Srd series, vol iil p. 42.

appears to Joshua, and announces himself as ” Captain of the Lord’s host,” and immediately afterwards we read of Him as ” the Lord ” ; for ” the Lord said to Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, etc.” (See also Gen. xvL 7 seg.\ xxu. 11, 14; xxiv. 7, 40; xxxi. 11-13; Ex. iii. 2 seq,\ xiii. 21 ; xiv. 19 ; xxxii., xxxiii.) There is no need to consider here the oft-discussed question which of the two views of the ” Angel of the Lord ” is correct — (1) That which has the support of most of the Greek Fathers, from Justin Martyr onwards, and of some of the Latins, namely, that the angel is actually the Logos, or Second Person of the Holy Trinity, thus manifesting Himself before the Incarnation; or (2) that which was advocated by St. Augustine, and is adopted by most moderns, namely, that he is a created angel, acting as the direct representative of Jehovah. In either case God’s presence is specially manifested through him, and thus there is a real preparation for the revelation of God in Christ, and the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.^ In this connection reference must also be made to those numerous passages from which the Jews of Palestine constructed their doctrine of the Logos, the Word, or ” Memra,” which represents the personal action of God, and which is found in the Targums in many places where the communion of God and man has to be expressed. For instance, in the oldest Targum, that of Onkelos, Adam is represented as hearing the voice of the word of the Lord in the garden (Gen. iii. 8) ; the Lord protects Noah by His word when he enters the ark (vii. 16), and at Sinai, Moses brings forth the people to meet the word of God (Ex. xix. 17). In all such passages we can see that ” the Palestinian instinct seized upon the concrete idea of “the word

of God,’ as representing His personal action, and unconsciously prepared the way for a gospel of the Incarnation.^ ”

But, further, there was, under the Old Covenant, yet another mode in which God disclosed Himself to man, through what may be termed an ” internal ” revelation! God is frequently spoken of as acting or working in man by means of His Spirit, a power proceeding from Him, not yet revealed as a distinct person, though in some passages there is an approximation to this, which must have led men’s minds in the direction of the revelation afterwards made. Thus, throughout the Old Testament, the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jehovah, is represented as the principle of the life of man’s soul, and every natural and intellectual gift in man is traced back to it. (See Job xxvii 3, xxxiii 4; Gen. xli. 38; Ex. xxxi. 3, XXXV. 31.) It is the Spirit which is the source of inspiration (Numb, xi 25 ; Isa. Ixi. 1), and the principle of sanctification (Ps. li. 10-12, cxliii. 10). Even the special title given to the Third Person of the blessed Trinity under the New Dispensation is prepared for under the Old Covenant, for in two passages the Spirit of God is spoken of under the name of God’s Holy Spirit.

” Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit (LXX. to irvevfia to S,yc6p aov) from me” (Ps. li. 11). “But they rebelled, and grieved Eis holy Spirit (to wvevfjua to aycov avTov) : therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and Himself fought against them. Then He remembered the days of old, Moses, and His people, saying, Where is He that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock ? where is He that put His holy Spirit (ri Trvevfia to dycop) in the midst of them” (Isa. IxiiL 10, 11).2

’ Outside the canonical books the title occurs again in AVisdom ix. 17.

Thus, although it would be an error to read the complete doctrine of the New Testament into the Old, yet it is undeniable that the way was prepared for it under the Old Covenant, and that the teaching of Holy Scripture on the Angel of the Lord and God’s Holy Spirit foreshadows distinctions within the Godhead, which were subsequently revealed as Personal,

(h) The revelation of the mystery in the New Testament. — When we pass from the Old Testament to the New we find that we no longer have to content ourselves with faint adumbrations of the doctrine, but that it is clearly indicated that the distinctions within the Godhead are personal. And yet, as it has been truly said, ” there is no moment when Jesus Christ expressly reveals this doctrine. It was overheard rather than heard. It was simply that in the gradual process of intercourse with Him, His disciples came to recognise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as included in their deepening and enlarging thought of God.” ^ Almost the earliest intimation was that made at our Lord’s baptism, when there came from heaven the voice of the Father, testifying to the beloved Son, upon whom the Spirit descended like a dove (S. Matt. iii. 13-17). And from this time onwards we can trace the gradual disclosure of the truth throughout our Lord’s teaching. All through His ministry He taught His disciples to regard His relation to His heavenly Father as unique, showing that His Sonship was something peculiar, different from the sonship which they themselves could claim. His language implied that, though personally distinct from the Father, He was yet one with Him, and so Himself divine. So with increasing clearness,

“And Thy counsel who hath known, except Thou give wisdom, and send Thy Holy Spirit from above.” See also Wisdom i. 5 and Ecclus. xlviii. 12, where Codex A reads, ‘EXt<rote iirXiiffd-n TveOfmros aylov. * Gore’s Bampton Lectures^ p. 131.

towards the close of His ministry. He spoke much of the Holy Spirit, and in terms which can only be satisfied if the Spirit be a divine Person. This is seen above all in the discourses spoken in the upper chamber on the eve of the Passion (S. John xiii.-xvi.), where the fullest revelation of the Person and work of the Spirit is given. And, finally, the doctrine is summed up and handed on to the Church in the great commission given after the resurrection, ” Go ye, and make disciples of aU nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son,’ and the Holy Ghost” (S. Matt, xxviii 19). The passage forms the central declaration,^ and contains our Lord’s complete revelation of the doctrine. The first two titles, the Father and the Son, are plainly personal titles ; they speak of a personal relation, and would be misleading did they not imply that those to whom they are applied are personally distinct. And if the first two titles are personal, it will be felt that the third must be personal too.2 Again it is inconceivable that any but divine titles could be so joined with the title of the everlasting Father, while the fact that baptism is into the name, not names, implies the unity of the Three. Thus in this text are involved these three great truths — (1) The unity of God, (2) the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and (3) their distinct personality; and these three truths go to make up the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.

It is impossible to give an adequate summary of the

• The removal of 1 John v. 7 from the Revised Version makes it unnecessary to refer further to this text, the spuriousness of which is now almost universally acknowledged.

^ The force of this will be easily estimated by substituting the name of an aUribnU of God for one or other of the words used by our Lord. It is mconceivable that we should be bidden to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the providence of God. A personal title is a necessity.

I ;

s n-

scriptural evidence for the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit without anticipating what properly belongs to the commentary on Articles 11. and V. It will, therefpjr/ not be attempted here. Nor does it seem necessar to prove that the apostles were not Tritheists. The iLty of God is assumed throughout the New, as throughout the Old Testament. All, therefore, that it will be ne\ed-ful to do in this place is to indicate various passa where the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are m tioned together as personal agents, performing distinct offices, leaving the reader to gather the full scriptura proof of the doctrine from what is said further on concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Holy

Trinity.

Reference has already been made to S. Matt. iii. 13- 17 ; xxviii. 19, and the discourses in S. John xiiL-xvi. Besides these, attention should be drawn to the closing benediction of 2 Cor. xiii. 14, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” Such language seems quite inconsistent with any belief save that which the Church has always held. Again, S. Paul writes to the Romans: “I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me ” (Rom. XV. 30). To the Ephesians he declares: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all ” (Eph. iv. 4). Passages such as these — and they might easily be multiplied to a great extent — are sufficient to show not merely that there are distinctions of some sort in the divine nature, but that

1 See S. Mark xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4 ; Gal. iii. 20 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; S. James ii. 19 ; S. Jude, 4, 25.

these distinctions are personal The Spirit whose ” love ” and ” communion ” and ” fellowship ” are spoken of can only be a person ; and of none but divine Persons could the language just cited be used. It finds its only adequate explanation in the belief that ” in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

To conclude this part of our subject. The witness of Scripture to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has never perhaps been better summed up in a short compass than in the opening words of the prayer with which St. Augustine concludes his great treatise ” On the Trinity.” ” 0 Lord our God, we believe in Thee, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. For the truth would not say, * Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ unless Thou wast a Trinity. Nor wouldest Thou, 0 Lord God, bid us be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, * Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord,’ unless Thou wert so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if Thou, 0 God, wert Thyself the Father, and wert Thyself the Son, Thy Word, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth, * God sent His Son ’ ; nor wouldest Thou, 0 only-begotten Son, say of the Holy Spirit, *Whom the Father will send in My name * ; and * whom I will send to you from the Father/”!

(c) The doctrine agreeable to reason. — The doctrine of the Holy Trinity must always be based on the teaching of Holy Scripture. The only questions we are at liberty to ask relate to the evidence for the

*St. Aug. Dc TrimCatc, bk. xv. uli. xxviii.

revelation. If it is clear that the doctrine is contained in Holy Scripture, and that the Holy Scripture is a revelation from God, then the doctrine must be received, not as ” reasonable ” nor as ” unreasonable,” but simply as scriptural. It is only from what God has disclosed to us of Himself and His eternal Being that we are entitled to affirm the existence of personal distinctions within the divine nature. But, still, when once the doctrine has been revealed it can be shown to be “agreeable to reason,” and to harmonise with and throw fresh light upon man’s deepest thoughts of God. Our whole conception of God is an unworthy and impoverished one unless we regard Him as in His essence love. But if He be indeed essentially and eternally love, it would seem to follow of necessity that there must be a plurality within the Godhead. Love requires an object on which to spend itself. It is only conceivable as “a personal relationship of a lover and a loved ” ; and unless God only became love when His creative work was begun. He must have found within His divine Being one toward whom His love could eternally flow forth. And that which reason is thus seen to demand is supplied in the Christian doctrine of ” the Word ” which ” was in the beginning with God,” and which ” was God.” In the only-begotten Son, who is revealed to us as from all eternity ” in the bosom of the Father,” is found the eternal object of the divine love.

Whether we can go further than this, and say that reason suggests that there are more than two Persons within the Godhead may be doubtful. It has appeared indeed to many thoughtful minds that certain considerations almost necessitate a Trinity. It has been pointed out that our own personality is necessarily triune, and that if we are to think of God as personal, we must regard Him as possessing in transcendent perfection

the same attributes which are imperfectly possessed by man, and as therefore triune. ^ Again, where there is a subject and an object there must be that which unites them. So some have felt that reason points not only to the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son, but to the Eternal Spirit, the bond of love that unites them. But there is no need to press such considerations as these. They will probably never appeal forcibly to any but the few who are philosophically trained. Without laying stress on them we may well be content to find that reason is so far in harmony with revelation as to suggest that at least there are personal distinctions of some sort within the Godhead, and that our God is no ” monotonous unity,” no ” lonely ” God, but one who is eternal love. ^

II. The History of the Doctrine in the Church and the growth of Technical Phraseology in connection with it

When we pass from Holy Scripture to the writers of the early Christian Church we find ample proof that from the very first the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was held and believed, although the belief was what may be called an implicit and informal one. The Church was content to believe without defining. Nor did she at first feel the need of technical phraseology, or terms to express with accuriicy the relation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the exact character of the unity. In the earliest days, therefore, we hear nothing of such terms as […] or “One Substance.” But still we can clearly see not only that the faith of the Church was monotheistic, but also that the Son and Holy Spirit were believed in as God, and yet were

• Sec on the whole subject lUingAvorth’s Bampton Lectures^ p. 67 seq, and Gore’s Bampton Lectures^ p. 134 seq*

not confused with or merged in the Person of the Father. Thus Clement of Eome, the earliest of the Fathers, writing before the close of the first century, says: “As God liveth and the Ix)rd Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Ghost, who are the faith and hope of the elect. ” ^ The language of Ignatius more especially on the Divinity of the Christ is most emphatic,^ while in some passages of his epistles the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are mentioned together in such a way as to show that Ignatius recognised real distinctions within the Godhead.2

During the latter half of the second century the language of the Fathers begins to be somewhat more precise and formal,^ and recognised terms now make their appearance. The word Trinity is the earliest. The

^Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. i. ch. Iviii.; cf. ch. xlvi., “Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that is shed forth upon us?” ^

’^•9-} “Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father most high, and of Jesus Christ His only Son ; to the Church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God. ” Ad Horn. ch. i. ; cf. ch. vi., *’ Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.”

Ignatius, Ad Ephes. ch. ix., “Ye are stones of a temple, which were prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit.” Ad Magnes. ch. xiii., “Do your diligence therefore that ye be confirmed in the ordinances of the Lord and of the Apostles, that ye may prosper in all things whatsoever ye do in flesh and spirit, by faith and by love, in the Son and Father and in the Spirit.”

Greek Tpid<; is found for the first time in the works of Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 180), who speaks of the first three days of creation as ” Types of the Trinity, of God, and of His word, and of His wisdom.” ^ The Latin word Trinitas occurs a few years later in the writings of Tertullian, himself the first Latin writer of the Church, ^ and from his days onwards it is used as a well-known term. ^

Athenagoras, one of the Greek apologists who wrote about 176, uses language which shows that the relation of the three Persons of the Godhead was beginning to attract attention. ” Who would not marvel to hear men call us atheists, although we speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and set forth at once their power in unity rrjv iv t ivaxret hvvafiiv), and their distinction in order ” rrjv iv tj rdev BLalpeaiv). But it was not till the rise of false teaching forced the orthodox to say what they meant by their belief that the terms Person and Substance came into use. During the last quarter of the second century two formidable heresies arose, in meeting which the Church was compelled to enlarge her vocabulary, and make use of more precise and definite language with regard to the Godhead than she had hitherto done. When Theodotus and Artemon taught that Christ was ” a mere man ” (yfrcXov av6payrrov)f it became necessary to bring into even greater

[…]

• So S. Cyprian speaks of the Jews as having observed three hours of prayer, ” Sacramento Triuitatis. ” — De Don. Oral, ch. 34.

• Legat X.

’ On the heresy of the Artemonites, see Eusehius, V. ch. xxviii. Artemon taught at Rome at the end of the second and beginning of the third century. He was excommunicated by Pope Zcphyrinus (a.i>. 198-217).

prominence than before the truth which had been held all along that He is essentially divine. When, on the other hand, Praxeas ^ taught that Christ was personally one with the Father, so that it was actually the Father who suffered on the cross in the character of the Son, the Church in denying this was compelled to say %vhat she held the distinctions within the Godhead to be. The particular form of heresy of which Praxeas appears to have been the originator is sometimes called Patripassianism, from the fact that its advocates asserted that the person of the Father suffered in Christ; and sometimes Sabellianism, from a teacher who refined somewhat on the teaching of Praxeas. Its essential feature consists in the denial that the distinctions in the Godhead are personal, and the assertion that they are merely distinctions of character, phenomenal rather than real.

It is only after the rise of these two heresies that the terms Person and Substance begin to come into prominence. The teaching of Artemon was characterised as a “God-denying apostasy.” It was met by a threefold appeal, to Holy Scripture, to the traditional teaching, and to the worship of the Church ; and it was shown that the essential divinity of Christ had been believed in by the Church from the beginning.2 But then, as the orthodox thus met the teaching of Artemon, they were confronted with the assertions of the Sabellians, who, accepting the truth of Christ’s Divinity, erred in denying His personal distinction from the Father, and charged those who maintained it with Tritheism, or belief in three Gods. To meet this charge it became necessary not only to dwell on the unity, but also to explain of what kind the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was

^ Our knowledge of Praxeas is chiefly due to TertuUian’s work against him. For the character of his teaching see esiKicially ch. i. - Sec EuseUus, V. xxviii.

held to be. So, in order to defend himself from anything like Tritheism, Tertullian lays down that the Son is of one substance (univ substantias) with the Father. By early Greek Fathers the nature or essence of the Godhead which is communicated to the Son and Holy Spirit from all eternity was expressed by two words — ousia ovala) and hypostasis (uiroaraa-c;). Some among the Alexandrians especially have employed the former word to denote the ” essence ” or ” substance ” of the Godhead, while elsewhere among the Greeks hypostasis was sometimes used with the same meaning. But while the unity was thus established, it was also necessary to define more closely in what the distinctions within the Godhead consist. The Sabellians taught that they were merely distinctions of character. In opposition to this erroneous teaching the Church was driven to enlarge her terminology. She was compelled to explain what she meant by her Creed, and forced to say what was to be understood by her assertion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were ” three.” Three what ? This question was persistently asked, though it is clear that the Church at first shrank from answering, feeling that no one human term was adequate to express exactly what she under-

^ Adv Praxcam, ch. ii.: “Nihilominus custodiatur oiKovofilas sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, Patreni et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, tres autem non statu sed gradu, nee substantia sed forma, nee potestate sed specie, unius autem substanticc et imius status et unius jwtcstatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur.”

• Clement of Alexandria has ovala, Strovi, ii. 2, 5 ; iv. 25, 163 ; v. 10, 66. Still earlier, Justin lilartyr had spoken of the Son as not being separated from the ovtrla. of the Father, Dial. ch. 128. Origen also has oUia. In Joann. x. 21, Dc Oral. 23, and so have the Alexandrian Dionysius, and Alexander, uxia-rao-ts is used by Dionysius of Rome (Routh, RdiquuB Sacroc, iii. p. 373), as well as by Gregory Thaumaturgus (cf. Basil, Ep. 210, 5). It is also the term generally employed by Athanasius himself for “substance,” though in one of his earlier works he si)eaks of […] See Robertson’s Athanasius, p. 90.

stood the language of Scripture to teach. She would have preferred to remain content with expressing the unity by the neuter of the pronoun, saying that the Father and the Son were 7inwn, not units, and the distinction by the masculine; yet Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, is at last compelled to use the word Persons, Personcc} Hippoly tus, a little later, uses irpoatiiTa, its true Greek equivalent.2 Origen, however, employing hypostasis in a different sense from that in which it had been generally used by the Church, speaks of there being more hypostases than one in the Godhead,^ thus making it the equivalent of Person, and using it to express the distinction. It will be seen from what has now been said that a door was opened to confusion of thought, the word hypostasis being taken in two different senses, in one of which it expressed an entirely different conception from the Liitin siibstantia, its true etymological equivalent. Hence, in the fourth century, two questions arose with regard to vTroarafTL^.

(a) Ls there one, or are there three in the Godhead ?

{h) What is its Liitiu equivalent ?

{a) The use of the word Ouda for ” Substance ” was naturally brought more into prominence by the language formally adopted at Nicsea (325) against the Arian

\Adv Praxeam, ch. vii. ; cf. ch. xii. : “Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas jam professus sum, jfcrsona^, non substantice, nomine, ad distmctionem non ad divisionem. Ceterum ubique teneam tcnam sub- starUiam in tribus cohrerentibus, etc.”

’ Contra Eceresini Noeti, ch. vii. xiv. ; Philosoph. ix. 12. In Joann, ii. 6, rj/xeU /jl^vtoi ye TpeTs vfroardffets Trciddfifvot Tvyxdpew. Contra Cdsum, viii. 12. Cf. Bigg’s Christian Plaionists of Alexandria, p. 163. “The word for Person in Origen is commonly Hypostasis, that for the divine nature is less determinate, but is frequently oiLsia” Yet Origen also uses ouV/a to express the distinctions : Dc Orat. 15, trcpos Kar oifflav koL imoKdfievbv ivriv 6 ‘Ti6$ tov xarpoi, as also did Pierius of Alexandria (see Photius, Codex 119).

heresy, which denied the eternal Divinity of the Son. In the Creed which was there promulgated, it was stated that the Son was ” Only-Begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father” (fxovor/evrj Tovriariv ck t^9 ov(ria<; tov waTpos:), and again that He is ” of one substance with the Father ” (ofioova-iov tc3 irarpi). But in the anathemas appended to the Creed, the use of vTroa-Taai^ as an equivalent for ovala was recognised, for those were condemned who said that the Son was of “a different substance or essence ” from the Father (i^ €T€pa<; vno- <rTa<76a)<? rj ovaCas:). Consequently, this older use of the word hypostasis for Substance lingered on side by side with the more recent use, in which it was taken as meaning Person. It is obvious that such a double use of a single term might lead to misconception and misunderstanding. Those who took hypostasis as identical in meaning with ousia, would charge anyone who spoke of ” three Hypostases ” with Arianism or Tritheism, and might fairly appeal to the Nicene anathema in support of their views ; while, on the other hand, those who were familiar with the use of the word in the sense of Person would regard the assertion that there was but ” one Hypostasis ” in the Godhead as pure Sabellianism. And this is, in fact, what actually happened. The trouble arose at Antioch in connection with the Meletian schism. And, together with other questions raised by that schism, it was brought before the Council of Alexandria in 362. There the question of termmology was inquired into, and, by the wise moderation of Athanasius, the trouble was set at rest. Both parties stated their views before the Council, and were cross-examined as to the meaning of the terms they employed. The result was, that it was speedily made manifest that both were perfectly orthodox. ” One Hypostasis ” was not intended to be Sabellian, nor was ” three Hypostases ” meant to express Arian views. Ac-

cordingly, it was agreed that each party might retain its own usage, since questions of words must not be sufifered to divide those who think alike.^ By this wise decision any danger of a schism on account of the varying terminology was avoided. But still some inconvenience could not but be felt at this double use of the term hypostasis now as “Person,” and now as “Substance.” This was gradually removed by the general adoption of the phraseology first employed by Origen. IIpoacoTra gradually dropped out of use, otisia was universally employed to denote the substance, and hypostasis was restricted to mean the distinctions,^ and thus in the end all the Greeks imited in the formula, fiia ovaia rpeh viro(Trd(T€L<;?

{h) Meanwhile, in the west, some difficulty had arisen with regard to the word to be used to express the distinctions within the Godhead. Substantia was, of course, the true etymological equivalent of hypostasis ; and, indeed, hypostasis, in the sense of substance or essence, seems to have been originally adopted by the Greeks as its translation. When, then, the Greek hypostasis had had a new meaning stamped upon it, and was used as equivalent to Person, what were the Latins to do ? Were they to alter their terminology as the Greeks had done, or to continue to use the expression which had come down to them with the authority of the earlier Fathers, such as Tertullian ? Some few Latin writers, such as Hilary of Poictiers, attempted to assimilate their

[…]

terminology to that of the Eastern Church, and spoke of ” tres svhstantice” ^ but such language never found favour in the west. It could not safely be used without a great deal of explanation, and to most minds would be immediately suggestive of Arianism. Consequently it soon dropped out of use. It is vehemently rejected by Jerome ^ and Augustine, the latter of whom speaks as if the phraseology was firmly fixed as una essentia or substantia, and tres personWy by the time when he wrote his great work on the Trinity (a.d. 416).^ And in the use of these terms the Western Church since then has never varied.

There is no need to pursue the history of the doctrine further. There have, it is true, from time to time been serious controversies within the Church as to its exact meaning, and incautious language has sometimes been used, that was perilously near to Tri theism on the one hand and Sabellianism on the other.* But there has been no change or wavering on the part of the Church

[…]

’ S. Aug. De Trinitate, V. ix.

as to the terms to be used in the expression of her faith. We pass therefore to the last subject to be considered in connection with this article.

III. The Explanation of the Doctrine,

In considering what is to be said in explanation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity it must ever be borne in mind that the terms used by the Church, ^iCa ovaia rpel^ viroaTaaetf;, una substantia tres persona;, ” one substance, three persons,” are simply chosen by her in order to express as accurately as possible what she believes to be the real meaning of the statements of the Holy Scripture, in which our Lord revealed all that can be known by man of the divine nature. As we study the language in which our Lord speaks of Himself, and His relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it becomes clear that there are two principal dangers to be guarded against — (1) that of exaggerating the distinctions and so separating the ” Persons,” and (2) that of explaining away the distinctions, so as ultimately to deny their reality. In other words, we are exposed on the one hand to the danger of * confounding the Persons,” as the Sabellians did; on the other to that of ” dividing the substance,” as did the Arians and Socinians of a later day. The sketch given above of the growth of technical phraseology will have shown that the term Persons was only fixed upon to express the doctrine after much hesitation ; because it became absolutely necessary, in the face of heresy, to use some term to describe what the Church meant by her teaching on ” the Three in the Godhead ” ; and this term, though not altogether satisfactory, came nearer than any other to express what she understood Holy Scripture to teach. The matter is well put by Augustine in the following passage in his work on the Trinity : —

“Many writers in Latin who treat of these things, and are of authority, have said that they could not find any other more suitable way by which to enunciate in words that which they understood without words. For, in truth, as the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that Holy Spirit, who is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son, certainly they are three. And so it is said in the plural, ’ I and the Father are one.’ For He did not say, ’ is one,’ as the Sabellians say, but ’ are one.’ Yet, when the question is asked, ivhat are the three ? human language labours altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, ’ three Persons; not that that might be spoken, but lest nothing should be said.” ^

It is clear, then, from this confession that the term ’* cannot be employed without considerable intellectual caution.” 2 We must guard against taking it in the sense of character^ and also against thinking of three separate existences, such as we think of when the ex-

’ ” Non audcnms dieeie unam esseutiam, tres substantias; sed unam (jssentiam vel substantiam ; tres autem personas, quemadmodum multi Latini ista tractantes et digni auctoritate dixerunt, cum alium modum aptiorem noii invenirent quo enunciarent verbis quod sine verbis intelligebant. Re vera enini cum Pater nou sit Filius, et Filius nonsit Pater, et Spiritus Sanctus ille qui etiam donum Dei vocatur, nee Pater sit nee Filius, tres utique sunt. Ideoque pluraliter dictum est, Ego U Pater unum minus, Nou enim dixit, unum est, quod Sabelliani dicunt ; sed, unum sumus. Tamen cum quaeritur quid tres, magna prorsus inopia humanum laborat eloquium. Dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur.”-.Z)« TrirUtate, V. ix. ; of. VII. vi. And S. Tliomas Aquinas, Summa, la, Q. 29 a, 3, ” Conveniens est ut hoc nomen {persona) de Deo dicatur ; non tamen eodem niodo quo dicitur de creaturis, sed excellentiori modo.”

• Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, p. 32.

’ It was probably for this reason that the Greek Church discouraged and finally altogether discarded the use of the term irpbauirov as the equivalent oi persona.

pression is applied to three men. “The word Person, used in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, would on first hearing suggest Tritheism to one who made the word synonymous with individual ; and Unitarianism to another, who accepted it in the classical sense of a mask or character” ^ The Church, it is needless to say, means neither of these. All that she intends to express by the use of the term ” three Persons ” is that which she understands Holy Scripture to teach, namely, that there are three eternal distinctions in the divine naiure, anterior tOf and independent of any relation to created life}

1. That the distinctions are eternal is clearly taught in such a passage as S. John i. 1. “The Word,” which was in the beginning with God ” (7rpo9 rov Seov) must have been distinct from God (6 Oeo?), and yet ” the Word was God” {Qeo^). And were there no other passages bearing on the subject the saying of our Lord recorded in S. John xvii. 5 (” the glory which I had with Thee before the world was”) would of itself be sufficient to show that the Trinity is not merely ” economic ” — i.e. God did not become a Trinity when He manifested Himself to mankind as Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier — but that it is ” immanent,” i.e. an eternal fact in the divine nature, altogether independent of relation to creation. The Sou must have been a distinct Person ” before the world was,” if He then possessed a ” glory ” of His own ” with the Father.”

2. But while it is thus taught in Scripture that the Persons are eternally distinct, it is implied with equal clearness that though distinct they are not ” separate.” Our Lord’s own deliberate utterance maintained His unity with the Father. ” I and the Father are one.” ‘£70) Kal 6 iraTTjp ev ea^ev (S. John x. 30). “Every

’ Newman’s ArianSy p. 442.

[…]

word,” says Bishop Westcott, ” in this pregnant clause is full of meaning. It is /, not the Son ; the Father, not my Father \ one essence (ei/, Vulgate unum), not one person (el?, unus)\ are, not am … It seems clear that the unity here spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power {My hand, the Father’s Jiand [see vers. 28, 29]); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God ; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power.” ^ Here then, in the compass of this brief utterance, we find a full and satisfactory refutation of both Arianism and Sabellianism. “Per unum Arius, per sumus Sabellius refutatur.”^ The plural verb emphasises the distinction of Persons, while the neuter, €v (unum), brings out the truth which the Church has expressed in saying that the Son is ” of one substance with the Father,” that is, partaker of His eternal and essential nature.

3. But, further, while Holy Scripture in this way reveals to us the unity of the divine nature, there is another truth also taught in it which requires to be carefully kept before the mind, if the full teaching of the Church is to be realised. This is the truth that the Father is alone unoriginate, the fount of Deity in the eternal life of the Trinity. There is perhaps a danger lest we should represent to ourselves a sort of abstract ” Godhead,” behind the three Persons, and think that of it all three equally partake, so that in it is to be found their source and origin. Against any such erroneous notion the Church has guarded by the doctrine of the Monarchia, which teaches that the Father is the only source or ap’)(ri, the sole Fount of Deity (irrjyrj OeoTrjTo^;) from which the Son and Holy Ghost from all eternity derive their divine

• Commentary on S. John’s Gospel, in loe. ’ Bengel.

being.i « As the Father hath Kfe iu Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself ” (S. John, V. 26). “The living Father hath sent Me, and I live because of the Father” (Bca rov iraripa, eh. vl 57). In virtue of this the Father is rightly said to be the First Person of the Holy Trinity, by a priority, not of time, but of order. To quote Bishop Pearson on this subject :

” As there is a number in the Trinity by which tlie Persons are neither more nor less than Three, so there is also an order by which of these Persons the Father is the Fii-st, the Son the Second, and the Holy Ghost the Third. Nor is this order arbitrary or external, but internal and necessary, by virtue of a subordination of the Second unto the First, and of the Third unto the First and Second. The Godhead was communicated from the Father to the Son, not from the Son unto the Father ; though, therefore, this were done from all eternity, and so there can be no priority of time, yet there must be acknowledged a priority of order, by which the Father is First, and the Son Second. Again the same Godhead was communicated by the Father and the Son unto the Holy Ghost, not by the Holy Ghost to the Father or the Son ; though, therefore, this was also done from all eternity, and therefore can admit of no priority in reference to time, yet that of order must be here observed ; so that the Spirit receiving the Godhead from the Father, who is the First Person, cannot be the First ; receiving the same from the Son, who is the Second,’ cannot be the Second, but, being from the First and Second, must be of the Three the Third.” ^

[…]

• Pearson, Expo-nlim of the Creed, Article VIII. § 22 : cf. Article I ch, iii. § 11.

To this divine ” subordination ” it is probable that our Lord referred when He said to His disciples, ” The Father is greater than I” (S. John, xiv. 28). In one sense it is, of course, true that if the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, ” none is greater or less than another,” for the Godhead does not admit of degrees, and of ” more ” or ” less.” And accordingly many divines have understood the words of our Lord just cited to refer to Him as incarnate, as they are apparently taken in the Athanasian Creed : ” Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” But it is also true that there is a sense in which the Father, as the Source of all the Divinity of both Son and Spirit, is ” greater ” than either. ” The Son is the Father s equal, as partaker of His nature. He is His * Subordinate ’ in that this equality is eternally derived.” ^

4. There is one other truth taught in Holy Scripture, which the Church has summarised in a definite theological term, in order to guard fully the unity of the Holy Trinity. It is the doctrine of the nepLywpV’y or Ooinherence, the mutual indwelling of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The doctrine is based on the words of our Lord in S. John xiv. 10, 11, “The Father abiding in Me (o irarrjp iv ifiol fiivwv) … I am in the Father and the Father in Me ” ; with which should be compared S. Paul’s words of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. ii 11, ” Who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him ? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.” The meaning of the doctrine is well stated by Bishop Bull, from whose words it will be clearly seen that it

effectually guards the faith of the Church from any approach to Tritheism, and secures her belief in the unity of the Godhead : —

” The Father is the principle of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and both are propagated from Him * by an internal, not by an external, production,’ from which it results that they are not only of the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in them ; and that in the Holy Trinity one Person cannot be separated from the other, as three human persons are divided from one another ; for they who hold that the three Hypostases of the Godhead are in this way separate are rightly called Tritheists … The Father and the Son are in such sense One, as that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son ; and that the one cannot be separated from the other. This mode of union the Greek theologians call ‘TrepLx<)p’n<Ti, and the Latins, i,e. the school-men, circuminsession … ‘n’€pcx(op7j<rc and circuminsession may be said to be that union by which one thing exists in another, not only by participation of its nature, but also by a full and intimate presence. This kind of inexistence, so to speak, our divines call circuminsession ; because by it certain things, however much they may be mutually distinguished from each other without being separated, do yet exist in each other without confusion, and as it were flow into each other.”

Notes

• Gore’s Bampton Lectures, p. 134.
• See, however, SpmreU’s Notes on the Hebrew Text ofCknesis, p. 14.
• On the “Angel of the Lord,” see Oehler’s Tluology of tJi£ Old Testa- merU, vol. i. p. 188 aeq., and Medd’s Bampton Lectures, Note vii. p. 426.
• Westcott on S. John, p. xvii.
• Illingworth’a Bampton Lectures^ p. 74.
• Nothing is said in the text of the well-kno\vn passage in Justin Martyr’s first Apology (ch. vi. ) in which he appears to include the angels as objects of the Christian’s worship, placing them htfore the Holy Ghost, because there is evidently some error connected with it ; cf. Otto’s note, in loc. As Professor Swete observes: “Certainly no writer, catholic or heretical, would have intentionally represented the Holy Spirit as inferior to angels ; so that the passage, if pressed against S. Justin’s orthodoxy, proves too mwch r—Ea.rhj History qfthe Doctrine of the IIolij G/u>6t, p. 17.
• See Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos, sec. 5 seq., in Eobertson’s Athanasius, p. 484.
• Ep. ad Damasum, xv., where he gives an account of the trouble in which he was involved in Syria, because of his refusal to speak of *’ three Hypostases,” a refusal which he bases on the ground that, ” in the whole range of secular learning, hypostasis never means anything but essence.”
• For the later history of the doctrine reference may be made to Hagen-bach’s History of Doctrines, vol. ii. p. 209, and vol. iii. p. 327. In the eleventh century the nominalism of Roscellinus exposed him to the charge of Tritheism, while Abelard’s teaching drew upon him the charge of Sabellianism. For the controversy in the seventeenth century between Dr. South and Dean Sherlock, in which charges of Sabellianism were again raised, see Perry’s English Church History, pt. ii. p. 564 ; and on Waterland’s masterly vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition to the Arianism of Dr. Clarke and others, see Abbey and Overton’s English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ch. viii.
• Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, p. 234. See Westcott, Commentary on S. John’s Gospel, detached note on ch. xiv. 28, for a full summary of Patristic references to this text.
• Bull’s AnU’Nicene FaUh, bk. iv. ch. iv. § 9 ; cf. Newman’s Avians, p. 178 seq. ; and Athanasius, Ariaii Orations, iii. ch. xxiii., with Newman’s Notes.