he Divine Trinity
POHLE-PREUSS

Tokk. V. ·'

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
II

THE

DIVINE TRINITY
A DOGMATIC TREATISE
BY

THE REVEREND JOSEPH POHLE, PH.D., D.D.,
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, NOW PROFESSOR
OF DOGMA IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION WITH SOME ABRIDG­
MENT AND NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
BY

ARTHUR PREUSS

ST. LOUIS, MO., 1912
Published by B. Herder
17 South Broadway
FREIBURG (i./B.)
Germany

I
I

LONDON, W. C.
68, Great Russell Street

THE NEW ïvhK '
PUBLIC LIBRARY j
TILDEN FOL'NDA IONS

19

R

NIHIL OBSTAT.

Sii Ludovici, die 10. Not)., 1911

F. G. HOLWECK,
Censor Librorum.

IMPRIMATUR.
Sti. Ludovic?, die 13. Nov., 1911

] JoannesJ. Glennon,
Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici.

Copyright, 1911,
by

Joseph Gummersbach.

Printing

Becktold
and Book Mfg. Oo.

ST. DOUI8, MO., U. 8. A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS................................................. i

Part I. The Holy Trinity in Unity, or the Threefold
Personality of God................................... 9
Ch. I. God’s Threefold Personality Proved from Sacred
Scripture..................................................... 10
§ I. The Threefold Personality of God Foreshadowed
in the Old Testament.................................... 11
§ 2. The Threefold Personality of God as Taught in
the New Testament — Texts Treating of the
Three Divine Persons Together.............. 22
§ 3. New Testament Texts Treating of the Divine
Persons Severally......................................... 43
Art. I. Of God the Father......................................... 44
Art. 2. Of God the Son............................................... 49
A. Christ’s Divine Sonship.................................... 49
B. The Divinity of Christ.................................... 63
C. The Logos..........................................................88
Art. 3. Of God the Holy Ghost............................... 96
A. The Personality of the Holy Ghost ... 97
B. The Hypostatic Difference Between the Holy
Ghost and the Father and the Son . . .101
C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost . . . .104
Ch. II. The Blessed Trinity in Tradition........................ 113
§ I. The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Condem­
nation by the Church .
..................... 114
Art. i. Crass Monarchianism................................... 115
Art. 2. The Modalism of Sabellius........................ 120
Art. 3. The Subordinationism of Arius and Mace­
donius
....................................... 123
§ 2. The Positive Tradition of the First Four Cen­
turies ................
132

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

Art. i. The Holy Trinity in the Official Liturgy of
the Early Church and the Private Prayers
of the Faithful............................ 133
Art. 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers............................. 139
Art. 3. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers . . 153
Ch. III. The Principle of the Blessed Trinity, or the
Doctrine of the Immanent Processions in the
Godhead.......................................... 161
§ i. The Procession of the Son from the Father by
Generation.................................................. 162
§ 2. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Father and the Son..................................168
Art. I. The Heresy of the Greek Schism and its
Condemnation by the Church .... 168
Art. 2. The Positive Teaching of Revelation . . 173
Ch. IV. The Speculative Theological Development of the
Dogma of the Trinity.................... 192
§ i. The Dogma in its Relation to Reason .... 194
§ 2. Generation by Mode of Understanding and Spiration by Mode of Will............................ 202
§ 3. The Divine Relations — Divine Personality . . 220
§ 4. The Trinitarian Properties and Notions . . . 236
§ 5. The Divine Appropriations and Missions . . . 244
Part II. Unity in Trinity, or the Triunity of God . . 253
Ch. I. Oneness of Nature, or the Consubstantiality of
the Three Divine Persons................... 255
§ i. Tritheism and the Church....................................... 255
§ 2. The Teaching of Revelation.................................. 264
Ch. II. Oneness of External Operation of the Three
Divine Persons...............................275
Ch. HI. The Unity of Mutual Inexistence, or Perichore­
sis .................................................... 281

iv

THE DIVINE TRINITY
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

I. It belongs to the first treatise of Dogmatic
Theology (De Deo Uno) to show that God is
one and personal. The pantheistic fiction of an
impersonal God is sufficiently exploded by the
Almighty’s own solemn declaration (Gen. Ill,
14) : “I am Who am” 1
Whether the infinite personality of God must be con­
ceived as simple or multiplex, is a matter which human
reason cannot determine unaided. On the strength of
the inductive axiom, “ Quot sunt naturae, tot sunt per­
sonae,” we should rather be tempted to attribute but
one personality to the one Divine Nature. Positive
Revelation tells us, however, that there are in God three
really distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
This fundamental dogma, which essentially differentiates
the Christian from the Pagan, from the Jewish, and from
the Mohammedan conceptions of God, is designated
in the technical Latin of the Church as “ Trinitas,” a
term first used, so far as we know, by Theophilus of
Antioch2 and Tertullian,3 and which later became curAutolycum, see Bardenhewer-Shahan,
Patrology, pp. 66 sq., Freiburg and
St. Louis 1908. On the word τριάΐ,
cfr. Newman, Athanasius, II, 473
sq., 9th ed., London 1903.)
3 De Pudicitia, c. 21: “Trinitas

1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss: God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri­
butes, St. Louis 1911.
2 Ad Autolyc., II, 15: “ Τριάδος
τοΰ 0eoü καί λόγου καί της σοφίας
αυτού.” (On the three books Ad

I

2

THE DIVINE TRINITY

rent in ecclesiastical usage and was embodied in the
Creeds.4 In the private symbolum of St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus mention is made of a “ perfect Triad ”
(rptàç τελεία). Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria,
Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine have written separate
treatises “ On the Trinity.”

2. Unity, simplicity, and unicity are as essen­
tial to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity as the
concept of triunity itself. Hence it is not sur­
prising that all these momenta were equally em­
phasized by the early Fathers.
Thus we read in the Athanasian Creed :3 “ Ita ut
per omnia . . . et imitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in
imitate veneranda sit—So that in all things . . . the
Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be
worshipped.” The first canon of the Lateran Council
held under Pope Martin the First6 reads thus: ‘‘Si
quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie
et veraciter Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum,
Trinitatem in unitate et unitatem in Trinitate . . . con­
demnatus sit— If any one does not with the Holy
Fathers profess properly and truly the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, Trinity in Unity and Unity
in Trinity, let him be anathema.” 7 If we pay special
regard to the note of threeness, the Trinity presents
itself mainly as a threefold personality in one Divine
Nature. If, on the other hand, we accentuate the note
of unity, the Trinity presents itself as Triunity (triuniunius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus.”
4 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridi­
on Symbolorum, ed. io, nn. 213,
232, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1908.

5 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart,
l. c., n. 39.
β A. D. 649.
7 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart,
n. 254.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

3

tas),8 a term which expresses the numeric unity of the
Godhead common to all three Divine Hypostases. Both
points of view are not only legitimate in themselves, but
demanded by the nature of the mystery and the heret­
ical distortions to which it has been subjected. As
against those Antitrinitarians who (like the Monarchians,
the Sabellians, and the Subordinationists) exaggerate
the notion of unity so as to deny a true and immanent
Trinity in the Godhead, Dogmatic Theology has to prove
the existence of three really distinct Persons. In re­
futing the opposite heresy of Tritheism, which exag­
gerates the notion of threeness and postulates three sep­
arate divine natures, substances, or essences, it is neces­
sary to show that the Divine Trinity is a Triunity.

3. Antitrinitarianism in both of its antithetical
forms is by no means a thing of the past, but
under various guises still has numerous adher­
ents.
Whilst the few remaining partisans of Günther’s the­
ological system continue to teach a sort of veiled Trithe­
ism, present-day Socinians, Unitarians, and Rationalists
move entirely within the circle of the heretical notions
of Sabellius. Kantian Rationalism debases the mystery
of the Most Holy Trinity by treating it as a mere
symbol indicative of the power, wisdom, and love of
God. The school of Hegel pantheistically explains the
Father as “das Ansichsein des Absohiten,” the Son as
“das Anderssein des Absoluten in der Welt" and the
Holy Ghost as “ die Rückkchr des Absoluten zu sich
selber im menschlichen Selbstbewusstsein”—for the
meaning of which obscure phrases we must refer the
8 Cfr. Isidor. Hispal., Etytnol., VII, 4,

4

THE DIVINE TRINITY

reader to the learned author of The Secret of Hegel.
Schleiermacher does not deny the Trinity, but according
to him it is such an unessential “ mode of existence of
the Divine Being ” that he has acted wisely in relegating
it to the appendix of his Glaubenslehre. The position
of liberal Protestant theology at the present day is well
stated by Adolph Harnack when he says :9 “ Already
in the second century Christ’s [natural] birth into this
world assumed the rank of a supernatural, and later
on that of an eternal generation, and the fact of being
begotten, or passive generation itself, became the char­
acteristic note of the second Person [in the Blessed
Trinity]. Similarly, in the fourth century the promised
[temporal] ‘mission’ of the Holy Ghost assumed the
character of an ‘ eternal mission ’ and became the dis­
criminating badge of the third Person within the Holy
Triad. Nowhere have we a more characteristic example
of what the imagination is capable of doing when it
undertakes to evolve ideas.” With the exception of
the relatively few champions of Lutheran orthodoxy,
whose number is, moreover, constantly dwindling, mod­
ern Protestantism no longer holds the Christian idea
of the Blessed Trinity. Liberal theology is everywhere
triumphing over orthodoxy. The demand, which is con­
stantly growing louder and more widespread, even in
this country, that no specific creed be imposed upon the
members of any denomination, ultimately strikes at the
dogma of the Holy Trinity and that of the Divinity of
Christ. Among German divines Krüger confesses this
quite openly.10 Catholic theology, which alone upholds
the banner of true Christian belief, in asserting and de­
fending the dogma of the Trinity finds it necessary above
9 Dogniengeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol.
II, p. 281, Freiburg 1894.

10 In his book, Dreifaltigkeit und
Gottmenschheit, Leipzig 1905.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

5

all to demonstrate by the modern scientific method that
this dogma is truly and clearly revealed by God, that it
is solidly founded in Christian Tradition, and that it
does not, as unbelievers allege, involve a contradiction.

4. Since theistic philosophy is unable to estab­
lish this dogma on the basis of unaided human
reason, the Catholic theologian is compelled to
adhere closely to the teaching of the Church.
He must first believe; then he may inquire.
The most perfect and complete Trinitarian formula
that has come down to us from Patristic times is that
composed by the Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 675.11
We prefer to base our exposition on the briefer and
more perspicuous formula contained in the Athanasian
Creed, which has the additional advantage of being
vested with the primary authority due to an ancient Chris­
tian symbol. The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is
there set forth in the following terms :12 “ Fides ca­
tholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem
in unitate veneremur; neque confundentes personas,
neque substantiam separantes; alia est enim persona
Patris, alia Filii, alia (et) Spiritus Sancti; sed Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis
gloria, coaeterna maiestas. . . . Pater a milio est factus
nec creatus nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est, non
11 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, nn. 275 sqq. This symbol first
treats of the Three Divine Persons
in succession; then, in three further
sections, it develops and sets forth
the general doctrine, viz. : (i) the
true unity of substance; (2) the real
Trinity of the Persons; (3) the in­
separable union of the Three Divine
Persons, demanded by their very

distinction. In later times the
dogma received a more distinct for­
mulation only in two points, both
directed against most subtle forms
of separation and division in God.
Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of
Catholic Theology Based on Scheeben's “ Dogmatik,” Vol. I, p. 262,
London 1899.
12 Denzinger-Bannwart, n, 40.

6

THE DIVINE TRINITY

factus nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a
Patre et Filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed
procedens — The Catholic faith is this, that we wor­
ship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither
confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the
Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is
all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. . . .
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor be­
gotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor
created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father
and of the Son : neither made, nor created, nor begotten,
but proceeding.” 13
The chief points of our dogma may therefore be sum­
marized thus : In essence, substance, and nature there
is but one God. However, the Divine Nature does not
subsist in one single Person or Hypostasis, but in
three distinct Persons, i. e., Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, who do not coalesce after the manner of
mere logical momenta, but are really distinct from one
another, so much so that the one is not the other.
They are not distinct in virtue of their nature, which
is numerically the same in all three, but solely in virtue
of the relative opposition by which the Son is begotten
by the Father, while the Holy Ghost proceeds alike
from the Father and the Son. The mystery peculiar
to this sublime dogma arises from the mutual relations
of the two principal concepts—“ Nature ” and “Per­
son.” Within the domain of human experience every
13 The full English text of the
Athanasian Creed, together with a
critical account of its provenance
and probable authorship, may be
found in Vol. II of the Catholic

Encyclopedia, s. v.— Cfr. Pohle·
Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es­
sence, and Attributes, p. 318, note
6; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 18
sqq., New York 1910.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

7

complete nature is at the same time a separate hypos­
tasis; in other words, every rational nature is eo ipso
a distinct person. Hence the axiom, “Tot sunt hy­
postases, quot sunt naturae.” But this axiom has no
metaphysical value, and cannot be applied to God,
since Revelation expressly teaches that “ Nature ” and
“ Person ” do not coincide either in reality or in con­
ception. As we acknowledge three Persons in the one
Divine Nature, so conversely we believe that there are
in Christ two complete natures, the one divine, the other
human, both subsisting in one and the same person, i. e.,
the Divine Person of the Logos-Son. This revealed
truth compels Catholic philosophy to draw a sharp dis­
tinction between “ Nature ” and “ Person,” as we shall
show more fully further down.

Since the essence of the mystery consists in
this that “we worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity/' we may consider the Blessed
Trinity first as Trinity in Unity (Trinitas in
Unitate), or threefold personality; and, secondly,
as Unity in Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate) or
Triunity. We shall accordingly divide the sub­
ject-matter of this treatise into two parts.
General Readings: — Above all St. Aug., De Trinit. 11. XV
(translated into English by A. W. Haddan in Dods’s Works of
Aurelius Augustine, Vol. VII, Edinburgh 1873) ; and, by way
of commentary, Th. Gangauf, Des hl. Augustinus spekulative
Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1883.—
The Monologium S. Anselmi and Petr. Lomb., Sent., 1, dist.
i sqq.— Rich, a S. Victore, De Trinitate Π. VI, takes a rather
independent attitude.— Besides St. Bonaventure (Comment, in
Libros Sent., I) cfr. *St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia, qu. 27-43 (Bon-

8

THE DIVINE TRINITY

joannes-Lescher, Compendium, pp. 71 sqq.) and Contr. Gent., IV,
1-26, together with the various commentaries on these great
works. — A very good treatise is *Ruiz, De Trinit., Lugd. 1625.
— The student will also find it profitable to consult Greg, de
Valentia, De Trinit. 11. V; and Ysambert, De Mysterio Trinitatis;
Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology Based on
Scheeben’s “ Dogmatik,” Vol. I, pp. 257-354, 2nd ed., London
1899; S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol.
II, pp. 145-215, 2nd ed., London and New York s.a.; F. J.
Hall (Anglican), The Trinity, New York 1910.
The teaching of the Fathers can be studied in the copious
quotations extracted from their works by Petavius, Dogm., t.
II, and Thomassin, Dogm., t. III.
In addition to the various manuals of special dogmatic the­
ology, consult particularly *Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der
gbttlichen Dreieinigkeit, Tüb. 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino,
ed. 3, Romae 1883; Régnon, Études sur la S te Trinité, 4 vols.,
Paris 1872-1898; L. Janssens, De Deo Trino, Friburgi 1900;
Stentrup, De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, Oeniponte 1898; Lépicier,
De SS. Trinitate, Parisiis 1902; Souben, Théologie Dogmatique,
H: “Les Personnes Divines,” Paris 1903; Newman, Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 315 sqq.— Further
references in the text.— For the history of the dogma, see
Newman, “ Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism ”
{Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, new ed., London 1895,
PP· 139-299) ; Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church,
pp. no, 135 sqq., London 1907; Idem, The Greek Fathers, passim,
London 1908.— Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 66, 65, 185,
210, 259, 281, 291, 300, 308.— *J. Lebreton, S. J., Les Origines
du Dogme de la Trinité, Vol. I, Paris 1910; J. Tixeront, His­
tory of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I, pp? 33, 68, 83, 92, 107,
115 sqq., 122, 134, 175, 215, 221, 233, 247, 263, 303, 310 sqq., 327
sqq·, 381 sq., 383, 389, 416 sq., 421, St. Louis 1910.
* The asterisk before an author’s
name indicates that his exposition
of the subject is especially clear
and thorough. As St. Thomas is
invariably the best guide, the omis­
sion of the asterisk before his name

never means that we consider his
work in any way inferior to that
of others. There are vast stretches
of dogmatic theology which he
scarcely touched.

PART I

THE HOLY TRINITY IN UNITY,
OR THE THREEFOLD PER­
SONALITY OF GOD1
Both the fact that (otl έστιν), and the intrinsic reason
•why (διότι έ'στιρ) there are Three Persons in God, is
positively revealed to us in the doctrine of the innerdivine processions (Filiation and Spiration). They form
part of the immediate deposit of the faith, and consti­
tute the dogma of the Divine Trinity. We have first to
prove the fact of the threefold personality of God from
Sacred Scripture (Chapter I) and Tradition (Chapter
II) ; then (Chapter III) we shall enter into a dogmatic
consideration of the cause of this fact, viz.: the mys­
terious vital processes 'immanent in the Godhead which
are called “ Filiation ” and “ Spiration.” In a conclud­
ing Chapter (IV) we shall discuss the speculative the­
ological development of the dogma.
Holy Trinity in Unity,” pp. 315325, 9th ed., London 1903.

1 Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises
of St. Athanasius, Vol. II (Being
an Appendix of Illustrations), “The

9

CHAPTER I
god’s threefold

personality

proved

from

SACRED SCRIPTURE

There are traces of the dogma in the Old
Testament, but they are rather indefinite and
obscure unless viewed in the light of the New
Testament. It is upon the latter, therefore,
that the Scriptural argument is almost exclusively
based. After briefly rehearsing the Old Testa­
ment intimations (§i), we will marshal the
Trinitarian texts contained in the New Testa­
ment in a double series, first citing those which
treat of all three Divine Persons together (§2),
and secondly those which refer to only one of
the three Divine Persons without mentioning
the other two (§3). The dogma of the Holy
Trinity is immutably grounded in the Unity of
the Divine Essence. Accordingly, throughout
the triple argument upon which we are about
to enter for the purpose of tracing out the hy­
postatic differences of the Three Divine Persons,
it will be important not to lose sight of the mono­
theistic foundation on which alone this dogma
can be built up.
10

SECTION i
THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD FORESHAD­

OWED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

i. Primitive Intimations of the Dogma.—
Some theologians take the plural form of several
of the names attributed to Jehovah 2 in the Old
Testament as an obscure intimation of the dogma
of the Trinity.
We are not inclined to press this argument. Neither
do we attach much importance to the theory of Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, who point to the
expression
in Gen. I, I as a proof for the
Logos, explaining “in principio” to mean “in Verbo, i.
e., Filio.” Upon close scrutiny this more than doubtful
interpretation turns out to be of later origin and exegetically unsupported.3 In Gen. I, 26 sq., however,
we come upon what appears to be a definite allusion
to the mystery of the Divine Trinity: “Faciamus
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. . . .
Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam — Let us
make man to our image and likeness. . . . And God
created man to his own image.” The hortatory subjunc­
tive plural which heads verse 26, and is followed by an
indicative verb in the singular in verse 27, cannot be
2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 134 sqq.

3 Cfr. Patrizi, De Interpret. Script.
Sacrae, 1. II, qu. 2.

II

12

OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS

taken as a pluralis maiestaticus, nor yet as addressed to
the angels ; for man was not created to the image of the
angels, but to that of God Himself.
There is a similar passage in Gen. XI, 7 sq. : “ Come
ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their
tongue. . . . And so the Lord scattered them.” 4 Many
theologians in this connection recall the liturgical bless­
ing of the priests, Num. VI, 24 sqq., which they regard
as a parallel to the Christian formula, “ In the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
This Old Testament benediction, dictated by Yahweh
Himself to Aloses, is as follows: “ The Lord bless thee
and keep thee. The Lord show his face to thee, and
have mercy on thee. The Lord turn his countenance to
thee and give thee peace.”
The clearest allusion to the mystery of the Blessed
Trinity in the Old Testament is probably the so-called
Trisagion of Isaias (VI, 3): “Holy, holy, holy, the
Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,”
which is rightly made much of by many Fathers and
not a few theologians. This triple “ Holy ” refers to
an ecstatic vision of the Godhead, by which Isaias
was solemnly called and consecrated as the Prophet
of the Incarnate Word, an office which won for him
the title of the “ Evangelist ” among the four major
prophets.5

2. The Angel of Jehovah in the The­
ophanies.—The various apparitions commonly
known as theophanies, in which Yahweh figures
both as sender and messenger, mark the grad4 For the Patristic interpretation of this passage consult Petavius, De
Trinitate, II, 7.
5 Cfr. John XII, 4I.

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH

13

ual breaking of the dawn in the history of our
dogma.
The God who is sent is called mrr ηϊύ», i. e., mes­
senger, Angelus Domini, the word angelus being here
employed in its literal sense of άγγελος, from άγγε'λλειν,
to send. Since the “Angel of Jehovah” is described
as HJiiT, i. e., true God, we have in these theophanies
two distinct persons, both of them Yahweh, the one
“sending” and .the other “sent.” An apparition of
this character was the angel who spoke words of com­
fort to Hagar shortly before the birth of her son Ismaele
in the desert. According to Gen. XVIII, 1 sqq., “ the
Lord [Π)ιΤ] appeared to [Abraham] in the vale of
Mambre,” in order to announce to him the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrha.7
Probably the most familiar of the Old Testament
theophanies is the apparition of the Angel of Jehovah
in the Burning Bush. Exod. Ill, 2: “Apparuit ei
in flamma ignis de medio rubi — And the Lord ap­
peared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the
midst of a bush.” It is to be noted that the Lord who
appears to Aloses is Jehovah Himself. Exod., HI, 14:
“God said to Moses: I am who am.” \7iewing this
apparition in the light of the New Testament Revela­
tion, the appearing God can be none other than the
Logos, or Son of God, because the Father cannot be
“ sent.” True, the Holy Ghost may also be “ sent; ” but
He cannot have appeared in the bush to Moses because
the prophets expressly identify the “ Angel of Jehovah ”
with the future Messias (i. e., Christ). Cfr. Is. IX, 6
β Gen. XVI, 7 sqq.
7 On this passage, cfr. Newman,
Select Treatises of St. Athanasius,
II, 267 sq.; on the theophanies in

general, H. P. Liddon, The Divin­
ity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, pp. 78 sqq., London 1867.

14

OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS

(in the version of the Septuagint) : “ Μεγάλη βονλης
άγγελος, Magni consilii angelus;" Mal. Ill, i : “Angelus
testamenti." The interpretation here adopted is com­
mon to all the Fathers. Thus St. Hilary teaches :
“Deus igitur est, qui et angelus est, quia qui et angelus
Dei est, Deus est ex Deo natus. Dei autem angelus ob
id dictus, quia magni consilii est angelus. Deus autem
idem postea demonstratus est, ne qui Deus est esse
angelus [creatus] crederetur" 8
It is quite another question whether in these theoph­
anies the Logos directly appeared as God in visible form,
or through the intermediate agency of an angel. In the
latter case the apparitions might with equal propriety
be styled “ angelophanies.” St. Augustine took this
view, without, however, denying the theophanic character
of such angelophanies. He held that a created angel
visibly appeared as the representative of God in such a
manner that the words he spoke must be understood as
coming not from the actual speaker but from Jehovah
himself. This opinion was shared by Athanasius, Basil,
Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome,
Gregory the Great, and others.9 The great majority of
the Schoolmen espoused it mainly for the reason that
the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity had never
appeared visibly upon earth prior to His Incarnation.10
The first immediate theophany of the Logos, they argued,
coincided with the Incarnation ; therefore in the Old
Testament theophanies He must have employed angels
as His representatives.
8 De Trinit., IV, n. 24.— Cfr.
Newman, “ Causes of the Rise and
Successes of Arianism,” in Tracts
Theol. and Ecclesiastical, pp. 212
sq., new ed., London 1895.
9 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog­

mat., t. II, third ed., p. 262, Friburgi 1906; — Newman, I. c.; Liddon, op. cit., 85 sq.
10 Cfr. Hebr. I, 1 sqq. ; II, 1 sqq.,
et passim.

THE MESSIANIC PSALMS

15

3. The Future Messias as True God.—The
Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were
primarily designed to emphasize the Divinity of
the future Messias. Hence Christ Himself and
His Apostles justly appealed to them to prove
not only the divine mission but likewise the Di­
vinity of the Saviour and the fact that He was
truly the Son of God.
Among the prophets Isaias speaks most clearly and
emphatically. Not only does he refer to the Messias as
“ the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Prince of Peace,”
but also as “ God the Mighty, the Father of the world to
come.” 11 He styles Him “ Emmanuel,” i. e., God with
us.12 It is expressly said of Him that “ God himself will
come and will save you.” 13 And again : “ Prepare ye
the way of the Lord. . . . Behold, the Lord God shall
come with strength.”14 “ His name shall be called
God.” 15 In Zach. XII, 10, God prophesies His own cru­
cifixion: “Et adspicient ad me, quern confixenint et
plangent eum — And they shall look upon me, whom
they have pierced ; and they shall grieve over him.” 16
The Messianic Psalms complete the picture outlined
by the prophets ; nay, they go far beyond the lat­
ter both in emphasizing the difference of persons by
a contra-position of the pronouns “ I ” and “ thou,”
and also by indicating that the relation existing between
the First and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity
is a relation of Father to Son, based upon Filiation.
At the same time they do not omit to accentuate the
11 Is. IX, 6; cfr. Luke I, 32.
12 Is. VII, 14; cfr. Matth. I, 23.
13 Is. XXXV, 4; cfr. Matth. XI, 5.

14 Is. XL, 3, 10; cfr. Mark I, 3.
15 Is. IX, 6.
ιβ Cfr. John XIX, 37.

i6

OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS

undivided nature of both Divine Persons, which they
express by the word πίίΤ. Thus especially Ps. II, 7 :
“Dominus [nj»T] dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego
hodie genui te — The Lord hath said to me: Thou art
my son, this day I have begotten thee.” 17 Similarly Ps.
CIX, 1-3: “Dixit Dominus Domino meo prifcô
·
sede a dexteris meis; ... ex utero ante luciferum
genui te — The Lord said to my Lord : Sit thou at
my right hand . . . from the womb before the day star
I begot thee.”18 If the future Messias is the “ Son
of God,” and at the same time Jehovah, it is obvious
that there must also be a “Father” who is Jehovah.
Consequently, there must be two Divine Persons in one
Divine Nature. This notion was so familiar to the Jews
that Jesus, in order to prove His Divinity, had merely to
advert to the fact that He was the Son of God to pro­
voke them to anger and blasphemy.19 They well knew
that to admit His Divine Sonship was tantamount to
recognizing His Divinity.20

4. The Teaching of the Sapiential Books.
—A great step towards the complete unfolding
of the mystery is made by the Sapiential Books.21
There we find the notion of Hypostatic Wisdom
closely blended with that of Filiation, and are
given to understand that the Filiation which
takes place within the Godhead is a purely spirit­
ual process, and that He Who is “begotten by
17 Cfr. Hebr. I, 5.
18 Cfr. Math. XXII, 42 sqq.
19 Cfr. John V, 18; X, 33.
20 Cfr. John I, 32 sqq.; I, 49; IX,
35 sqq.; Luke I, 35 sqq., et passim.

For further information on this
point, see infra, § 3.
21 Prov. VIII; Wisd. VII sqq.;
Ecclus. XXIV.

THE SAPIENTAL BOOKS

17

God” must be essentially conceived as “Begotten
Wisdom” (Logos).
The Sapiential Books speak of Uncreated, Divine Wis­
dom in a manner which leaves no doubt that they mean
more than a personified attribute. The following texts
read like parallel passages to certain verses of St.
John’s Gospel. Prov. VIII, 24 sqq. “Nondum erant
abyssi et ego [i. e., sapientia] iam concepta eram:
. . . ante colles [f. e., ab aeterno] ego parturiebar. . . .
Cum eo \scil. Deo] eram, cuncta componens et delec­
tabar per singulos dies, ludens coram eo omni tempore,
ludens in orbe terrarum, et deliciae meae esse cum filiis
hominum — The depths were not as yet, and I [Wis­
dom] was already conceived . . . before the hills I was
brought forth. ... I was with him [God] forming all:
and was delighted every day, playing before him at all
times: and my delights [were] to be with the children
of men.” The subject of this passage is obviously not
a divine attribute, but a Divine Person, who is called
“ Conceived Wisdom.” The expression, “ I was with
him,” 22 has a parallel in John I, 1 : “ The Word was
with God” (Verbum erat apud Deum; προς τον ©eov).
The Book of Wisdom,23 in designating Divine Wisdom
as “ a vapor of the power of God ” ('vapor virtutis Dei),
“a certain pure emanation of glory” (emanatio clari­
tatis), “ the brightness of eternal light” (candor lucis),
“ the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty ” {speculum
maiestatis), “ the image of his goodness” (imago boni­
tatis), reminds one of the manner in which St. Paul char­
acterizes Christ’s relationship to God the Father,24 i. e., as
22 " Cum eo eram
gint has: ήμηρ παρ’
Hebrew:
.

the Septua·
αύτω', the

23 Wisd. VII, 25 sqq.
24 Hebr. I, 3.

ι8

OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS

“ the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his sub­
stance ” (splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius). The
following sentence,25 “ And thy wisdom with thee, which
knoweth thy works, which then also was present when
thou madest the world — Et tecum (μετά σου) sapientia
tua, quae novit opera tua, quae et affuit tunc, quum orbem
terrarum faceres (πάρονσα ore άτοίεις τον κόσμον)is again
distinctly Johannine in style and sentiment. The same
impression is conveyed by Ecclus. XXIV, 5: “I came
out of the mouth of the most High [as the Word], the
firstborn before all creatures.” 26
In view of this striking concordance between the
Sapiential Books of the Old Testament and the Gospel
of St. John, it is not astonishing that certain learned
Jewish rabbis at a later period elaborated an independ­
ent theory of the “ Word of God,” called Memrah,27
by which they endeavored to explain the Old Testa­
ment teaching regarding Wisdom without any reference
to Christ.28 It is easy to see, too, why the Fathers of
the Nicene epoch appealed to the Sapiential Books of the
Old Testament to prove the Consubstantiality and con­
sequent Divinity of Christ. The Arians, on their part,
quoted the Sapiential Books in support of their heretical
tenet that the Logos was a creature.29

5. The Holy Ghost.—The Old Testament
references to the Third Person of the Blessed
Trinity are neither as plain nor as definite as
25 Wîsd. IX, 9.
26 “ Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi
[ut Ferbum], primogenita ante om­
nem creaturam.”
27 A Chaldaic word for Wisdom.
Cfr. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du
Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 145 sqq.
28 This theory is incorporated

chiefly in the writings of the Targumim and Onkelos. Cfr. The Jew­
ish Encyclopedia.
29 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of
the Fourth Century, pp. 202 sqq.;
Idem, Select Treatises of St. Athana­
sius, II, 337 sqq. .Cfr. also Chapter
II, § 2, Art. 3, infra.

THE HOLY GHOST

19

the texts relating to the Son. “It is natural to
expect more references to the Son than to the
Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, because it
prepares and announces the coming and mani­
festation of the Son in the Incarnation.”30
The Old Testament references to the Holy
Ghost can nearly all of them be explained as per­
sonifications. “Spiritus Dei” may merely mean
a breath of the Divine Omnipotence,31 or the
supernatural effects of the spirit of God, which,
according to Ps. CIII, 30, “renews the face
of the earth.” The Fathers in their exegetical works quote a number of Old Testament
texts in which they profess to find references to
the Holy Spirit as a Person.32 But their inter­
pretation of these and similar passages is in­
spired by, and owes its impressiveness to the
light derived from, the New Testament. It is in
this light, too, that we must regard Wisd. IX, 1
sqq., the only Old Testament passage in which the
Three Divine Persons are mentioned together:
“Deus patrum meorum, . . . qui fecisti omnia
Verbo tuo, ... da mihi sedium tuarum assistri­
cem sapientiam. . . . Sensum aiitem tuum quis
sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris Spi­
ritum Sanctum tuum de altissimis? — God of my
fathers, . . . who hast made all things with thy
30 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, Vol.
I, p. 283.
31 Cfr. Gen. I, 2.

32 Joel II, 28; Job XXXIII, 4;
Wisd. I, 7; Is. LXI, 1, etc.

20

OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS

word, . . . give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy
throne . . . Who shall know thy thought, except
thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from
above?”
It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that
the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly
revealed in the Old Testament. Aside from cer­
tain specially enlightened individuals, such as
Abraham, Moses, Isaias, and David, the Jews
could not, from the more or less enigmatic hints
scattered through their sacred books, have ob­
tained a sufficiently distinct knowledge of the
Blessed Trinity to make it appear as an article
of faith.
Nevertheless it remains true that the Trinity
was not announced in the New Testament sud­
denly and without preparation. On the contrary,
the great mystery of the Godhead was fore­
shadowed from the very beginning of the Jewish
Covenant and assumed more definite and lumi­
nous proportions during and after the time of
David, until at last it stood fully revealed in the
mystery of the Incarnation,33 and the mission of
the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day.
Readings : — Drach, De VHarmonie entre TÉglise et la Syn­
agogue, Paris 1844.— P. Scholz, Théologie des A. B., Vol. I,
§§ 29 sqq., Ratisbon 1861.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § no,
Freiburg 1875 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, I, pp. 283 sqq.).
33 Matth. I, 18 sqq.; Luke I, 35,etc.

THE HOLY GHOST

21

— *Heinrich, Dogmat. Théologie, 2nd ed., Vol. Ill, §§ 214-218,
Mainz 1883.— Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 6 and 7, Romae 1881.
On the “Angel of Jehovah,” cfr. A. Rohling in the Tubinger
Quartalschrift, 1866, pp. 415 sqq., 527 sqq.— *L. Reinke, Beitrâge
sur Erklarung des A. T., Vol. IV, pp. 355 sqq.; J. Lebreton,
Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 89 sqq., Paris 1910.
On the Messias, cfr. *Kônig, Théologie der Psalmen, Freiburg
1857; L. Reinke, Messianische Psalmen, 2 vols., Giessen 18571858; H. Zschokke, Théologie der Propheten, Freiburg 1877;
H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, London 1867; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and
Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5.
On the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament cfr. *
Fr. Klasen,
Die alttestamentliche Weisheit und der Logos der jüdischalexandrinischen Philosophie, 1878; also J. Réville, Le Logos
d’après Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris 1877; Zschokke, Der dogmatisch-ethische Lehrgehalt der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsbücher, Wien 1889; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten
Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme
de la Trinité, 89 sqq., 441 sqq., Paris 1910.

SECTION 2
THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD AS TAUGHT
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT---- TEXTS TREATING
OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS
TOGETHER

Though the exact terms in which the Church
has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed
Trinity (jp™> == trinit as, ουσία = substantia, υπόστασ^ζ= persona,1 ομ.οονσω? = consubstantialis') are
not in the Bible, and may, therefore, in a sense
be called unscriptural ; yet materially, that is in
substance, they correctly express the teaching of
the New Testament, which, like the Church, ex­
plicitly acknowledges three real Persons in one
Divine Nature, in which precisely the dogma of
the “Trinity in Unity” consists.
As we are here dealing with a fundamental dogma
of Christianity, the material correspondence of the New
Testament doctrine with the formally defined teaching
of the Church must be carefully and stringently demon­
strated. We therefore proceed to a minute critical in­
vestigation of the various texts that are apt to throw
light on the subject. Let us begin with those in which
i Cfr. Hebr. I, 3, where υπόστασή is used as synonymous with sub­
stantia.
22

THE GOSPELS

23

the threefold personality of God is distinctly and form­
ally enunciated.

I. The Gospels.—Four such texts occur in
the Gospels. Though their combined effect is
sufficiently compelling, they are not all of equal
weight. The most convincing is the passage em­
bodying the form of Baptism.
a) The first brief intimation of the functioning of
Three Divine Persons is given in the Annunciation:
“Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi
obumbrabit tibi; ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum,
vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow
thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 2 Here all three
Divine Persons are distinctly mentioned: first, the Son
who is to be born, second, the Holy Ghost, and third, the
“ Most High,” who stands in the relation of a Father to
Him of whom it is said a few verses farther up :3 “ Hie
erit magnus et Filius Altissimi vocabitur—He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the most High.”
AVhere there is a Son of God, there must also be a Di­
vine Father. The relative opposition between the terms
Father and Son forbids the welding of both persons into
one. This is sufficient evidence that we have here not
merely three different names for one Divine Person,
but three really distinct Hypostases, of which one is not
the other. Nor can it have been the intention of the
sacred writer merely to personify certain absolute at­
tributes of the Deity. The Son of God, who is to be
made flesh (Christ), manifestly represents a real Person.
2 Luke I, 35.

3 Luke I, 32.

24

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Moreover, the strict monotheism of the Bible necessitates
the assumption that the three Divine Persons mentioned
in the text must be consubstantial, i. e., absolutely iden­
tical in essence.
b) The most glorious external manifestation of the
Blessed Trinity occurred in connection with the Bap­
tism of Christ.4 Christ, the Son of God, is standing
in the Jordan; the Holy Ghost descends upon Him in
the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father calls
from Heaven : “ This is my beloved Son in whom I am
well pleased.” Here, too, the hypostatic difference be­
tween the three Persons, and the impossibility of blending
them into one, is quite apparent. The “ beloved Son ”
and the Father expressing His pleasure are clearly differ­
entiated, while the Person of the Holy Ghost is em­
blemed by the dove, a symbolic figure which would
be unsuited to any absolute attribute of the Godhead.5
Though the identity of Nature of the three Divine Per­
sons is not expressly enunciated in the above-quoted pas­
sages, it may, as a matter of course, be presumed.
c) In His famous farewell discourse delivered after
the last Supper,6 Christ announced that He was “ going
to the Father ” and would ask Him to send the Para­
clete. The distinction here made between the three Di­
vine Persons is as obvious as it is real. No one can be
father and son under the same aspect, nor can any one
send himself. AVhen Christ says, for instance : “ Ego
rogabo Patrem, et alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, ut
maneat vobiscum in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis — I will
ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete,
that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth,” 7
4 Matth. Ill, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9
5 Cfr. T. J. Gerrard, The Way·
sqq.; Luke III, 21 sqq.; cfr. Job I,
farer’s Vision, pp. 200 sqq.
32.
β John XIV-XVI.
7 John XIV, 16 sq.

THE GOSPELS

25

He distinguishes between His own Person, that of the
Father, and that of the “ other Paraclete ” and clearly
identifies the latter with the “ Spirit of truth.” 8
The threefold personality of the Godhead appears still
more distinctly from John XV, 26: “ Quum autem
venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spi­
ritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium per­
hibebit de me — But when the Paraclete cometh, whom
I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who
proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of
me.” The absolute consubstantiality of Father and
Son is taught in John XVI, 15: “Omnia, quaecumque
habet Pater, mea sunt — All things whatsoever the Father
hath, are mine,” and it is no less true of the Holy Ghost.

d) The baptismal form, “In the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,”
enunciates all the essential elements of the Holy
Trinity.9 “Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes,
baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus Sancti (βαπτίζοντες αυτούς €iç το δνομα του
πατρος και τού υιού καί τού αγίου πνεύματος)The hypostatic difference between Father and Son is
brought out by the relative opposition, in virtue
of which they exclude each other as begetting
and begotten. For no one can be his own
father or his own son. To admit such an ab­
surdity would be to deny the principle of con­
tradiction and thereby to subvert right reason.
Hence there is a real difference between the
8 Paraclitus — Spiritus Sanctus.

0 Cfr. Matth. XXVIII. 19.

26

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Father and the Son. As to the Holy Ghost, the
co-ordination involved in the use of et—et
—·χαί) forbids us to confound Him with either of
the other two Persons. Consequently He must
be an independent third Person, coequal and consubstantial with the other two. It should be
noted that the Johannine text does not say: “In
the name of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
Ghost,’" but “In the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (™ύ ιατρός καί τον
νίον και τον άγιον πνεύματος) /’ The particle K°d With
the definite article marks off the three Divine
Persons very sharply from one another, despite
the unity implied between them. For this rea­
son “Holy Ghost” can not be taken as an at­
tribute determining the concept “Son.”
In attempting to answer the question, “AVhat
kind of unity is it by which the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost are one?” we must pay
special attention to the words “In the name.”
It makes no difference whether we folloAv the
text of the Latin Vulgate, “In nomine,” or the
Greek text with its & wo/χα. Both
ονομα and
èv όνόματι, as well as
τω ονόματι10 occur in the
original Greek text, and for our present purpose
they are equally conclusive. For man to be
baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity
can have no other meaning than that through
10 Acts II, 38.

THE GOSPELS

27

baptism he obtains forgiveness of his sins in vir­
tue and by the authority of the three Divine Per­
sons; while to baptize ονομα of the Blessed Trin­
ity signifies the devotion with which the person
baptized is expected to consecrate himself to and
to seek his last end and aim in the “Deity.” 11
In either case Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are
certainly identical with the Deity itself, because
no one can expect forgiveness of his sins from, or
seek his final end in, a mere creature, without
making himself guilty of idolatry. If the three
Persons mentioned are identical with the God­
head, they cannot be three Gods, but must be
the One God taught by both Testaments.12·
The essential identity of the three Divine
Persons follows further from the singular form
nomine/' because throughout the Bible
“nomen Domini” signifies God’s power, majesty,
and essence.13 As the Three have but one name,
so They have but one essence, one nature, one
substance. St. Augustine beautifully observes:
“Iste unns Deus, quia non in nominibus Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, sed in nomine Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Ubi unum nomen
audis, unus est Deus — This is one God, for it is
not in the names of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the
11 Cfr. Rom. VI, 3 sqq.; 1 Cor.
I, 12 sqq.; Ill, 4 sqq.; Gal. Ill, 27.
12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His

3

Knowability, Essence, and
butes, pp. 212 sqq.
13" Nomen est numen.”

Attri-

28

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Where thou hearest one name, there is one
God.” 14
2. The Epistles.—The Apostolic Epistles con­
tain four texts in which the three Divine Persons
are mentioned together. Most prominent among
them is the much-discussed Comma loanneum (i
John V, y).
a) The prologue to the first Epistle of St. Peter reads:
“Petrus . . . clectis . . . secundum praescientiam Dei
Patris, in sanctificationem Spiritus, in obedientiam et as­
persionem sanguinis lesu Christi: gratia vobis ct pax mul­
tiplicetur— Peter ... to the . . . elect, according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sancti­
fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of
the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be
multiplied.” Here we have a Trinitarian form of bene­
diction in which the omniscient Father, the sanctifying
Spirit, and Jesus Christ, our Redeemer by the “ sprink­
ling of blood,” appear on a par. Consequently the Three
are one true God. Though this isolated text is not suffi­
cient to establish a real distinction between the three
Divine Persons (for the sanctifying Spirit might possibly
be conceived as a mere attribute of the Father or of
Jesus Christ), the teaching of the New Testament in
many other places makes it quite certain that Jesus Christ
is the “ Son of God ” who differs hypostatically from
the Father, as the Holy Ghost differs hypostatically from
both the Father and the Son.
14 August., Tract, in Ιοα., VI, n.
9. Browne’s translation in the Library of the Fathers, Vol. I of the

Homilies on the Gospel according to
St. John, p. 87, Oxford 1848.

THE EPISTLES

29

b) The epilogue of St. Paul’s second Epistle to the
Corinthians contains a similar form of blessing: “ Gratia
Domitii nostri Icsu Christi et charitas Dei [scil. Patris}
et communicatio Sancti Spiritus sit cum omnibus vobis
— The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity
of God [the Father], and the communication of the
Holy Ghost be with, you all.” 15 As grace and charity
are supernatural gifts which only the Godhead can dis­
pense, there can be no question that here again the
Three Dispensers are One God. But does the text
oblige us to postulate three really distinct Persons? We
think it does ; for the Greek original16 puts the “ grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ ” on a par with the “ charity of
God ” and the “ communication ” (κοινωνία) of the Holy
Ghost.” It is improbable that the “ God of charity”
should be personally identical either with our Lord Jesus
Christ or the Holy Ghost.
c) St. Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gifts and the
charismata 17 is rightly held to have a special bearing on
the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Exegetes de­
duce from the threefold nature of the effect (χαρίσματα,
διακονίαι, ενεργήματα) the existence of a threefold hyposta­
tic principle (πνεύμα, κύριος, 0εός). But, since a little
further down in St. Paul’s text18 all these gifts are ap­
propriated to “ the same Spirit,” that which was at first
divided returns to its original unity, and consequently
Spirit, Lord, and God are not three gods, but one God.
The somewhat involved passage is as follows: “ Divi­
siones vero gratiarum (χαρισμάτων) sunt, idem autem
15 2 Cor. XIII, 13.
10 The Greek text has: ή χάρις
τοϋ κυρίου Ίησοϋ Χρίστου, καί ή
αγάπη τοϋ θεού καί ή κοινωνία
τοϋ άγιου πνεύματος, which Brand­

scheid (Novum Testamentum, p.
361, Friburgi 1901) correctly trans­
lates: “ Gratia ... et charitas.”
17 i Cor. XII, 4 sqq.
18 i Cor. XII, ii.

30

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Spiritus (πνεύμα); [cfr. verse 3: εν πνενματι. άγιω] ; Ct
divisiones ministrationum sunt (διακονιών = ministries,
ecclesiastical offices), idem autem Dominus (ό κύριος —
Christ) ; et divisiones operationum sunt Ενεργημάτων
= miracles), idem vero Deus (ό αύτος Θεός), qui
operatur omnia in omnibus — Now there are diversities
of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities
of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversi­
ties of operations, but the same God, who worketh in
all.” 19 It is plain from the context that, on the basis
of three supernatural operations, St. Paul here means
to distinguish three separate Divine Persons: Spiritus,
Dominus, and Deus. That he does not mean to assert the
existence of three Gods appears from verse 11 : “ Haec
autem omnia operatur unus atque idem Spiritus (το εν
καί το αυτό πνεύμα), dividens singulis, prout vult— But
all these things one and the same spirit worketh, dividing
to every one according as he will.”
A similar change of subject, by which the same ex­
ternal operation is ascribed now to this Divine Per­
son and now to that, occurs in many other places in
Holy Scripture, e. g., in the vision of Isaias.20 The au­
thorship of this vision is in the original Hebrew referred
to the Divinity in general (^ΊΚ), in John XII, 40, to
Christ, and in Acts XXVIII, 25 sqq., to the Holy Ghost.
Except on the assumption of a numerical oneness of
nature and essence these expressions are absolutely un­
intelligible.21

d) The Comma Ioanneum.—If its textual
authenticity could be established, the famous
19 j Cor. XII, 4 sqq.
20 Is. VI, 9 sq.
21 Cfr. Al. Schafer, Erkldrung der

beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp.
244 sqq., Münster 1903.

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

31

Comma loanneum (1 John V, 7), or text of the
three heavenly Witnesses, would be of equal dog­
matic value with the form of Baptism. As it
stands, it is a pregnant and clear textus per se
dogmaticus, outweighing, e, g., St. Paul’s entire
Epistle to Philemon, and enforcing the dogma
of the Divine Trinity more perfectly than any
other passage in the Bible.
It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that,
should it ever become necessary to sacrifice the Comma
loanneum, the Biblical argument for the dogma of the
Blessed Trinity would suffer essential impairment. The
whole of our present chapter goes to show the con­
trary. Yet no one will blame the Catholic theologian
for utilizing, in spite of certain critical misgivings, a
text which has been received into the liturgy of the
Church, and for many centuries22 formed part and parcel
of the Latin Vulgate. Aside from questions of textual
criticism, it is plain that the dogmatic authenticity of 1
John V, 7, cannot be questioned without endorsing the
heretical view that a proposition received into the Sacred
Text under the vigilant eye of the Church may contain
dogmatic errors. In this purely dogmatic sense, there­
fore, the Comma loanneum is undoubtedly authentic and
may be used as an argument, even though, so long as its
textual authenticity has not been securely established, the
demonstration based upon it cannot claim to be a strictly
Biblical proof.
In perfect conformity with the well-known views of
St. John the Evangelist, the Comma loanneum enu­
merates the three Witnesses “ who give testimony in
22 Presumably since about the year 800.

32

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

heaven,” as “ the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost,” and expressly declares that “ these three are
one.” 23 Since the three Witnesses of whom the Apos­
tle speaks are “ in heaven,” they seem to be the three Di­
vine Persons, and they must be really distinct from one
another, because they are expressly referred to as ol τράς.
Inasmuch as they are “one” (?v, unum), there must
exist between them a communication of nature, that is
to say, their unity is not merely “ unitas in testificando,”
but clearly also “ identitas in essendo.” It is true St.
John in the following verse also says of the three other
witnesses who “ give testimony on earth,” viz.: “ the spirit,
and the water, and the blood,” that “ et hi tres unum
Sunt.” But he does not Say : εν είσιν, but eîç το εν εισιν =
in unum sunt, that is, they are one only in so far as they
testify, not identical in substance.24

3. The Authenticity of the Comma Ioanneum.—On January 13, 1897, the Sacred Con­
gregation of the Holy Office, Avith the approba­
tion of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, published
the subjoined doctrinal decision:25 “Ad propo­
sitionem, utrum tuto negari an in dubium vocari
possit, esse authenticum textum 1 Ιοα. V, 7. .. .
Eminentissimi Cardinales respondendum man­
darunt: Negative—The doubt was proposed:
‘Can it be safely denied, or at least doubted, that
the text of 1 John V, 7 ... is authentic?’ . . .
23 i John V, 7: “ ‘Ότι τρεις
εισιν ol μαρτυρονντες εν τω ούρανω,
à πατήρ, ό Xôyos και το ayiov
πνεύμα · και ούτοι ol τρεις εν είσιν
— And there are three who give
testimony in heaven, the Father, the

Word, and the Holy Ghost. And
these three are one.”
24 Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino,
thes. 5.
25 Analect. Eccles., 1897, pp. 99
sq.

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

33

and the Most Eminent Cardinals answered,
No.”
a) As soon as this decree became known, the opinion
was expressed, even by Catholic scholars, that it meant
a definitive decision in favor of the authenticity of the
Comma loanneum, which could not henceforth be doubted
or denied without calling in question the Church’s defined
right and duty to watch over and authoritatively deter­
mine all questions connected with Sacred Scripture.
Those who took this view forgot that a decree of the
Holy Office, even when approved by the Pope “ in
forma communi,” does not partake of the nature of an
infallible decision. That this is so, is manifest from the
action of the same Congregation against Galilei, A. D.
1633.26 The religious assent with which Catholics are
bound to receive the decisions of the Holy Office,27
is a duty growing out of Catholic respect for authority,
and imposed by obedience. But it would be wrong to
interpret it as forbidding deeper research into the
soundness or unsoundness of a decision which does not
per se claim to be infallible. The respect and obedience
we owe to the Church will prompt us not to refuse our
assent until it is positively certain, or at least highly
probable, that the Sacred Congregation has made a mis­
take. The Pope in his capacity of supreme teacher can26 On the decision against Galilei,
see Adolf Müller, S. J., Der Gali·
lei-Prosess (1632-1633') nach Ursprung, Verlauf und Folgen, Frei­
burg 1909, pp. 191 sqq. This excel­
lent work, together with the same
author’s Galileo Galilei und das ko·
pernikanische Weltsystem, Freiburg
1909, is far and away the best ac­
count of this much-mooted historical

incident. We hope both will soon
find an English translator.
27 See the letter addressed by
Pius IX to the Archbishop of Mu­
nich, under date of Dec. 21, 1863
(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion,
n. 1684). Cfr. P. A. Baart, The
Roman Court, pp. in sq., New
York 1895.

34

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

not delegate his infallibility to any man or body of men ;
hence his approval of a congregational decree does not
invest that decree with infallibility, unless indeed the
Sovereign Pontiff sees fit, by an approbation “ in forma
solemni,” to raise it to the rank of an ex cathedra deci­
sion solemnly binding all the faithful. This was not
done in the present instance.
For the rest, it is well to remember that the decrees
and decisions of the different Roman Congregations are
as a rule disciplinary rather than doctrinal. They are
for the most part designed to warn Catholic scholars
against adopting doubtful theories until the reasons
for and against have been thoroughly sifted. Thus it
was in the early days of the Church in respect of
the moot question regarding the existence of antipodes.
Like value should be attached to the ecclesiastical de­
cisions against the system of Copernicus, which has
emerged victoriously from the violent conflict waged
about it. Perhaps the decision of the Holy Office on
the Comma loanneum belongs to the same category.
In these parlous days, when Protestant and Rational­
ist critics are sapping the very foundations of sound
Biblical science, and in their eagerness to frame new
hypotheses are trotting out a horde of critical monsters
which forthwith proceed to devour one another, there is
danger that Catholic savants may venture too far along
slippery paths, losing sight completely of the firm ground
of ecclesiastical Tradition.28 An immediate authorita­
tive intervention in the controversy raging round the
Comma loanneum seemed all the more advisable be­
cause a definitive solution of the problem on purely
scientific grounds could hardly be expected for a long
time to come. Though it seems at present a highly im28 Take, for example, the case of the unfortunate Abbé Loisy.

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

35

probable event, yet some ancient Greek or Latin palimp­
sest may yet be unearthed, containing the Comma in an
undoubtedly genuine and original form. The absence of
the passage from so many New Testament codices could
then be satisfactorily explained by an oversight of the
copyists. G. Schepss has lately found the mooted text
cited in a work of Priscillian’s newly discovered in 1889.
At the present stage of the controversy, however, there is
no blinking the fact that the critical arguments against
the authenticity of the Comma loanneum considerably
outweigh those adduced in its favor.
b) The most weighty objection raised against the
authenticity of 1 John V, 7 is based on the circumstance
that the text is missing in all the older Greek codices
without exception. Not until the fifteenth century does
it begin to make its appearance in the manuscript copies
of St. John’s First Epistle. Moreover, not one of the
Greek Fathers who combated Arianism ever cited this
strong passage, which would have dealt a death blow
to the heresy of Subordinationism. In fact, when we
observe how eagerly the Greek Fathers of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene period conned their Bible for texts with
which to refute the Arians, without ever lighting upon
I John V, 7, the only rational explanation is that the
Comma loanneum was not there. Nor were the Latin
Fathers (if we disregard a few faint and doubtful
traces) acquainted with the text of the three heavenly
Witnesses. St. Augustine, e. g.} fails to cite it in his
great work De Trinitate, in which with his customary
ingenuity he turns to account practically all the Trin­
itarian texts found in the whole Bible.20 He repeatedly
quotes I John V, 8, but never once 1 John V, 7. What
20 The Speculum Augustini “ Audi Israhel” is spurious.
hewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 505.

Cfr. Barden-

36

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

is still more remarkable is that Leo the Great, in his
dogmatic Epistula ad Flavianum (A. D. 451), quotes as
Scriptural the verses that immediately precede, and sev­
eral that follow the passage called Comma loanneum,
but never alludes to the Comma itself. Nor was the
Comma known to St. Jerome, who restored the Vulgate
text by order of Pope Damasus. If the editors of the
official edition, prepared under Pope Sixtus V and
his predecessors, had recognized the spuriousness of
the pseudo-Hieronymian prologue to the Catholic Epis­
tles, now so apparent to all, the Comma would probably
never have been incorporated in the Vulgate. The most
ancient manuscript codices of the Vulgate — among them
the Codex Fuldensis, the Codex Amiatinus, and the
Codex Harleianus — and the oldest extant copies of the
Greek Testament, do not contain the much discussed
passage, which made its way very gradually since the
eighth century. In England it was unknown to Saint
Bede, who died in the year 735.
But how did the text of the three heavenly Witnesses
find its way into the Vulgate? All explanations that
have been advanced so far are pure guesswork. The cir­
cumstance that in certain manuscript codices the Comma
occurs sometimes before and sometimes after verse 8,
has suggested the hypothesis that it was originally a
marginal note, which somehow crept into the text.
Some think that a misunderstood remark by St. Cyprian
first led to its reception. This would explain the early
occurrence of the Comma in the African Church. St.
Cyprian (+258) writes in his treatise De Unitate
Ecclesiae, c. 6: “Dicit Dominus: ego et Pater unum
sumus, et iterum de Pâtre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto
scriptum est: et tres unum sunt — The Lord sayeth : I
and the Father are one ; and again it is written of the

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

37

Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost : And the Three
are one.” Of this passage, as Al. Schafer points out,
only the words “ et tres unum sunt” can be looked upon
as a quotation from Sacred Scripture, and they may
have been borrowed from the genuine eighth verse of
the fifth chapter of St. John’s First Epistle.30 Facundus
of Hermiane (+ about 570), who had no inkling of the
existence of the famous Comma, .actually formulated this
surmise: “Très sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus,
aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt . . . quod Io annis
testimonium B. Cyprianus de Patre, Filio et Spiritu
Sancto intelligit.” 3132 Tertullian (born about 160) has a
passage in his Contra Praxeam which sounds somewhat
like the Comma,52 but we may fairly doubt whether it is
intended for a citation or merely expresses the author’s
personal opinion.
c) Against such arguments as these it is difficult to
defend the authenticity of the Comma loanneum,33
which undeniably did not find its way into the Vulgate
until the ninth century, while the Greek codices contain
no trace of it prior to the fifteenth century.34 All that
can be said for the other side is that since the apographs
30 Schafer, Einleitung in das N.
T., p. 340, Paderborn 1898.
31 Defcns. Trium Capitul., I, 3.
32 Contr. Prax., 25. The passage
reads: “ Ita connexus Patris in
Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres effi­
cit cohaerentes, alterum ab altero,
qui tres unum sunt, non mmiij."
33 But few attempts at such a de­
fense have been made in English
since Dr. Wiseman published his
well-known Letters on 1 John V, 7;
e. g., by Lamy, in the American
Ecclesiastical Review, 1897, pp. 449
sqq. Cfr. also Ch. Forster, A New
Plea for the Authenticity of the
Text of the Three Heavenly Wit­

nesses, Cambridge 1867. J. Lebreton gives a brief and impartial sum­
mary of the present status of the
controversy in an appendix (pp.
524-531) of his work Les Origines
du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1910.
34 Of the Greek uncials every one
that contains the First Epistle of
St. John is without the Comma
loanneum. Of the cursive MSS. of
the Greek New Testament about one
hundred and ninety do not include
the passage, while only four contain
it, and these four as text-witnesses
are worthless. Cfr. W. L. Sullivan
in the New York Review, Vol. II,
(1906), No. 2, p. 180.

38

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

of the earliest period are nearly all lost, there remains
a bare possibility that the Comma loanneum may have
occurred in one or the other of the most ancient, es­
pecially African, codices. Some importance attaches to
the fact that as early as 380 the Spanish heresiarch Priscillian cites as Scriptural the verse: “Et tria sunt, quae
testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus,
et haec tria unum sunt.”35 The main argument for
the authenticity of the Comma is based upon a passage
in the “Libellus Fidei” which the Catholic Bishops36
who were cited by Hunneric, King of the Vandals, to
meet the Arians in conference on Feb. 1, 484,37 sub­
mitted in defense of their faith. The passage is as fol­
lows: “Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse
cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Io annis
Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque:
Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater,
Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.” 38
St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop of Ruspe, in the Afri­
can province of Byzazena, undoubtedly knew of the
verse and, rightly or wrongly, ascribed a knowledge of
it to St. Cyprian: “Beatus loannes Apostolus testatur
dicens: Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in coelo,
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt;
quod etiam B. martyr Cyprianus in epistola de unitate
ecclesiae confitetur.” 39 The defense can also claim the
35 Lib. Apologet., IV, ed. Schepss,
p. 6. Schepss, as we have already
intimated, discovered this lost work
of Priscillian’s in the Wurzburg
University Library in 1889.
3β They included Victor of Vita
(cfr. his Hist. Persecui., II, 56)
and \7igilius of Tapsus.
37 Cfr. Alzog, Manual of Univer­
sal Church History, Vol. II, p. 28

sq. Cincinnati 1899; Sullivan in
the New York Review, II, 2, 185 sq.
38 Quoted by Hardouin, Cone., t.
ii, p. 863.
39 Resp. ad Obiect. Arianorum,
10. The passage of St. Cyprian’s, to
which Fulgentius here refers, occurs
in the sixth chapter De Unitate Ec­
clesiae and reads as follows: " Dicit
Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus;

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

39

authority of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the
sixth century, with many ancient manuscripts at his
elbow, revised the entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, espe­
cially the Apostolic Epistles, and deliberately inserted i
John V, 7, which St. Jerome had left out. If we con­
sider all these facts, in connection with the passage quoted
above from Tertullian, which bears the earmarks of a
direct citation from Holy Scripture, we are justified in
assuming that the Comma loanneum was perhaps found
in copies of the Latin Bible current in Africa as early as
the third century.
d) The dogmatic authenticity of i John V, 7, is quite
another matter. It can be satisfactorily established by
a purely theological process of reasoning. The Comma
loanneum played a prominent part at the Fourth Lateran
Council, A. D. 1215, where Abbot Joachim of Flora
adduced it in favor of his tritheistic vagaries. In the
Caput “ Damnamus,” which solemnly condemns his
errors, we read: “Non enim (ait loachim) fideles
Christi sunt unum, i. e., quaedam una res, quae com­
munis sit omnibus, sed hoc modo sunt unum, i. e., una
ecclesia, propter catholicae fidei unitatem , . . quemad­
modum in canonica loannis Apostoli epistula legitur:
( quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater
et Filius [szc/] et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.’
Statimque subiungitur: Et tres sunt, qui testimonium
dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum
sunt: sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur.” 40 Though
we have here the express testimony of a council of the
et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu
Sancto scriptum est: et tres unum
sunt.” It is, as Tischendorf has
rightly observed, by far the weight­
iest proof for the Comma loanneum.
But it does not prove decisively that
St. Cyprian used a New Testament

text which contained the " Comma ” ;
and if it did, it would by no means
follow that the verse was written by
St. John. Cfr. Sullivan in the New
York Review, II, 2, pp. 182 sq.
•10 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiridion, n. 431.

40

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Church that the Comma occurs only in certain codices,
it is to be noted that this council does not reject the
text of the three heavenly witnesses as apocryphal or
spurious, or as having been smuggled into the Bible.
The strongest dogmatical argument, according to
Franzelin41 and Kleutgen,42 is that drawn from the
Tridentine decree De Canonicis Scripturis: “Si quis
libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in
ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata
latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non
susceperit, . . . anathema sit." 43 Franzelin and Kleut­
gen argue that since the Comma loanneum, being an
important “ dogmatic text/’ must be regarded as an in­
tegral part of Sacred Scripture, and as it undoubtedly
formed part of the ancient Latin Vulgate, its canonical
authenticity is fully covered by the Tridentine decree.
If this claim were well founded, the whole discus­
sion would have been irrevocably closed in the six­
teenth century. But Franzelin and Kleutgen overshoot
the mark. The Tridentine decree settles nothing either
for or against the authenticity of the Comma loanneum.
For, as Schafer points out,44 the decree is distinctly
limited by the phrases fC prout in ecclesia catholica legi
consueverunt," and “ et in veteri vulgata latina editione
habentur." Of these limitations the former does not
fully apply to the Comma loanneum, and the latter
can not affect the official edition of the Vulgate is­
sued in 1592. Of the earlier editions many were no­
toriously without the Comma. Consequently, the clause
“ omnibus suis partibus " is not strictly applicable to 1 John
V, 7. This argument is strengthened by the testimony
41 De Deo Trino, thes. 4.
42 De Ipso Deo, pp. 519 sqq.
43 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridi­
on, n. 784.

44 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 341 sqq., Paderborn 1898.

THE COMMA IOANNEUM

41

of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we have already ·
quoted, to the effect that in the 13th century the Comma
loanneum was found only in a few codices {“in quibus­
dam codicibus invenitur . The fact that there still ex­
ist over fifty ancient manuscript codices of the Vulgate
which lack the Comma loanneum is too remarkable to be
brushed aside as irrelevant. The scientific aspect of the
problem, therefore, is not touched by the Tridentine
decree at all, and the Comma itself remains a doubtful
text. Franzelin in another treatise admits this conten­
tion in principle.45
For the rest, it is plain that Rome does not wish to
bolt the door to further critical research. Very soon
after the Inquisition had promulgated its decree of Jan.
13, 1897, Cardinal Vaughan replied to a query from
Mr. Wilfrid Ward: “ I have ascertained from an ex­
cellent source that the decree of the Holy Office on
the passage of the ‘ Three Witnesses,’ which you refer
to, is not intended to close the discussion on the
authenticity of that text; the field of Biblical criticism
is not touched by this decree.” Availing himself of the
liberty thus granted, Professor Karl Kiinstle, of the
University of Freiburg in Baden, has lately attempted
to throw new light on the origin of the Comma, and
has succeeded in making it appear extremely probable
that it was formulated by Priscillian, about A. D. 380,
in the heretical wording: “Et haec tria unum sunt in
Christo lesu,” in support of his Sabellian Pan-Christism,
and that it was recast in an orthodox mould by some
45 De Script, et Trad., ed. 4, p.
489, Romae 1896: "Si de aliquo tali
textu posset demonstrari, non esse
ex veteri vulgata editione," he says,
" eius conformitas cum Scriptura
primitiva non posset dici per decre­
tum Concilii declarata. Qui ergo

textum ita admittit vel non admittit,
prout exstat vel non exstat in veteri
vulgata editione, quae longo saecu­
lorum usu in ecclesia probata est,
is nihil agit contra decretum Con­
cilii."

42

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Catholic theologian 40 (possibly pseudo-Vigilius of Tapsus) and inserted into the text of St. John’s First Epis­
tle by one “ Peregrinus,” who was probably a monk
named Bachiarius. It is probably of Spanish origin.46
47
Readings : — *Scheeben, Doginatik, Vol. I, §107 ( WilhelmScannell, Manual, I, pp. 265 sqq.).— Oswald, Dogmatische Thé­
ologie, Vol. II: Trinitâtslehre, §3, Paderborn 1888.— J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 207 sqq., 524 sqq.,
Paris 1910. Other bibliographical references in the text.
46 “ Whether the celebrated pas­
sage ... be genuine or not,” says
Newman, “ it is felicitously descrip­
tive of the Ante-Nicene tradition.
. . .” Tracts Theol. and Eccles., p.
159.
4T K. Künstle, Das " Comma Ioanneum ” auf seine Herkunft untersucht, Freiburg 1905; summarized
by W. L. Sullivan, C. S. P., in the
New York Review, Vol. II (1906),
No. 2, pp. 175-188. Cfr. also Chr.

Pesch, S. J., Praelect. Dogmat., 3rd
ed., t. II, pp. 255 sqq., Friburgi
1906. Künstle’s supposition that the
Comma was invented by Priscillian
himself is combatted by E. C. Babut,
Priscillien et le Priscillianisme, pp.
267 sqq., Paris 1909. Other refer­
ences may be found in Cornely’s
Introd, in Utriusque Testamenti Li­
bros Sacros, Vol. Ill, pp. 668 sqq.,
Paris 1886.

SECTION 3
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS TREATING OF THE DIVINE
PERSONS SEVERALLY

In demonstrating the dogma of the Most Holy
Trinity from those texts of Sacred Scripture
which treat of the Divine Persons severally, we
shall have to establish three distinct truths :
(i) The reality of each Divine Person in contra­
distinction to mere personification; (2) the non­
coincidence of each Person with the others, in
contradistinction to the Sabellian heresy which
confuses them; and (3) the Divinity of each
Person, in opposition to the Arian and Mace­
donian doctrine that the Son or the Holy Ghost
is a creature.
As “ Logos ” is manifestly synonymous with Son of
God, and “ Paraclete ” with Holy Ghost, there cannot
be five Divine Persons, but only three. To establish the
hypostatic difference of these three is the purpose of the
first two members of this argument, while the third
shows forth the absolute unity of the Divine Nature
possessed by the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity
in common.
The most important part of our task in this Section
is to establish the true Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ,
43
4

44

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

a conception which fully harmonizes with the dogma of
the Blessed Trinity and sets forth with great clearness
its two fundamental marks, viz.: Trinity and Unity.
For, as Gossler pertinently observes, “ Belief in, and
knowledge of, the Triune God is conditioned upon be­
lief in, and knowledge of, the Son of God.”1 The
combined results of exegetical research ultimately lead
to the dogma of a real Trinity of Persons in one divine
and indivisible Monad.

ARTICLE I
OF GOD THE FATHER

I. God’s Fatherhood in the Figurative
Sense of the Term.—The Biblical use of the
name “Father” indicates that He to whom it
is applied is a real person. It also proves His
Divinity. But it does not necessarily argue that
He is a father in the strict sense of the term,
or that He is the “first” in a group of three
Divine Persons.
There is a human fatherhood which is merely analog­
ical and figurative.2 Similarly Holy Scripture often re­
fers to the Godhead, i. e., the whole Blessed Trinity, as
“ Father ” in a purely moral or metaphorical sense.
Thus God is in a certain sense the Father of His
creatures by the act of creation and the fact of His
Divine Providence. Cfr. Job XXXVIII, 28 : “ God
. . . the father of rain” (“pater pluviae,” i. e., auctor
1 Lehrb. d. kath. Dogmatik, I, 2,
p. 133, Ratisbon 1874.
2 Take for example the relation

denoted by such terms as stepfather,
father confessor, father of the
Church.

GOD THE FATHER

45

pluviae). Hebr. XII, 9: “The father of spirits {pater
spirituum}y He is called in a special manner “Father
of men,” or Father of the human race, because He
created humankind out of pure benevolence and with
paternal solicitude provides for their needs.3 In the Old
Testament Jehovah’s relation to Flis Chosen People
formed the basis of a particularly cordial and intimate
kinship, which might well be styled fatherhood. Cfr.
Deut. XXXII, 6: “Numquid non ipse est Pater tuus,
qui possedit te et fecit et creavit te — Is not he thy father,
that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created
thee ? ” Jer. XXXI, 9 : “ Quia factus sum Israeli Pater
et Ephraim primogenitus meus est — For I am a father
to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.” It is a proof
of the depth of feeling and the keen insight which
distinguishes the Aryan nations that, though deprived
of the benefits of supernatural Revelation, they fixed
upon fatherhood as the characteristic note of God.
Such appellations as the Sanskrit Dyaus Pitar, the
Greek Zevs πατήρ, and the Latin lupiter, indicate that
God impressed them above all else as the Father of
men.
God’s supernatural fatherhood with regard to man is
related to the natural fatherhood of which we have just
spoken, as light is related to shadow, or as being to
nothingness. From the purely natural point of view
God is our master rather than our father, and we are
His slaves rather than His children.4 But sanctifying
grace elevates us to the supernatural rank of “ children
of God,” inasmuch as it gives us “ power to be made
the sons of God,” if we “ believe in his name ” and are
S Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp.
260 sqq.
4 Cfr. Gal. IV, 7.

46

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

“born of God.” 8 Rom. VIII, 15: “Non enim acce­
pistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis
spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus: Abba,
Pater — For you have not received the spirit of bondage
again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adop­
tion of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).” 1
Cor. VIII, 6: “Yet to us there is but one God, the
Father (cis ©cos, b πατήρ).” It is in this sense that we
daily pray: “Our Father, who art in Heaven.” 6

2. God’s Fatherhood in the Strict Sense
of the Term.—Besides and above the figurative

paternity of God, there is peculiar to Him an­
other and higher fatherhood. This is based not
on His (natural or supernatural) relations to
His creatures, but on a mysterious vital process
immanent in the Deity. Revelation tells us
that God has from all eternity begotten a Son of
the same substance with Himself, the “unigenitus
Filius, qui est in sinu Patris.”7 This phys­
ical, or, more correctly speaking, metaphysical,
divine Sonship must have for its necessary cor­
relative in the Godhead a true Fatherhood in the
proper sense of the term. Hence the name
“Father” is applied to God as a nomen pro­
prium, or proper name, and it follows with
logical necessity that there is a First Person in
the Godhead. For, being a pure spirit, God
the Father can have a natural, coessential son
5 John I, 12 sq.
β Matth. VI, 9. In this as well as
in many other Scriptural passages,

“ Father ” is used merely as a
nomen appellativum s. commune.
7 John I, 18.

GOD’S FATHERHOOD

47

(filius naturalis} only in so far as, by virtue of
eternal generation, He communicates the fulness
of His Divine Nature to a Second Person, who
must in consequence be the true Son of God, and
therefore Himself God. Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 17: ((Ac­
cipiens enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam,
voce delapsa ad eum huiuscemodi a magnifica
gloria: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi
complacui, ipsum audite — For he received from
God the Father honor and glory: this voice
coming down to him from the excellent glory:
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased; hear ye him.” No one felt the force
of this argument more keenly than the unbe­
lieving Jews. Cfr. John V, 18: “Propterea
ergo magis quaerebant eum ludaei interficere,
quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et Patrem
suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo
(πατέρα ίδιον ελεγε τον Θεόν, ίσον εαυτόν ποιων τω Θεω)_
Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to
kill him, because he did not only break the sab­
bath, but also said God was his Father, making
himself equal to God.”
The sacred writers frequently emphasize God’s
peculiar and singular Paternity, and quite consist­
ently depict it as the pattern and exemplar of all
creatural fatherhood. Cfr. 2 Cor. I, 3 : "Bene­
dictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi
— Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord

48

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jesus Christ?" Eph. Ill, 14 sq. : “Flecto genua
mea ad Patrem Domini nostri lesu Christi, ex
quo [scii. Patre] omnis paternitas in coelis et in
terra nominatur — I bow my knees to the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity
in heaven and earth is named?"
This inner-divine Paternity cannot be predi­
cated of the Divine Nature or Essence as such—
for the Divine Essence neither begets nor is be­
gotten. Hence it must consist in a relative op­
position between the Father and the Son. Conse­
quently, the Father is a Person distinct from the
Son; and inasmuch as paternity is notionally
prior to sonship, He is the First Person of the
Blessed Trinity.
It is to be noted that the Antitrinitarians never
denied that the Father is a real person, or that
He is true God. What they disputed was that
the Father is the First Person of the Godhead.
And in this they were quite consistent; for had
they admitted that proposition, they would have
been forced to admit also that there is a Second
Person, namely, the Divine Son. It is this
truth we now proceed to demonstrate from Holy
Scripture.
Readings: — On the theology of the Father, cfr. Heinrich,
Dogmat. Théologie, 2nd ed., Vol. IV, pp. 139 sqq., Mainz 1885 ;
Oswald, Trinitàtslehre, § 4; Simar, Dogmatik, 4th ed., Vol. I,
pp. 228 sqq., Freiburg 1899; Fr. H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer
in the Early Church, Cambridge 1891. Also S. Thom., S’. Theol.,
ia, qu. 33 (Bonjoannes-Lescher, Compendium, pp. 84 sq.).

GOD THE SON

49

ARTICLE 2
OF GOD THE SON

In the sublime text John I, 14: “Και 6 Λόγος
σάρξ έγέκτο — And the Word was made flesh,” the
dogma of the Blessed Trinity and the dogmatic
teaching of the Church in regard to Jesus Christ
run together into one. For this reason nearly
all Scriptural passages that can be cited in proof
of Christ’s being the Only-begotten Son of God
likewise offer solid arguments for the dogma
that He is both the true Son of God and the
Divine Logos, and consequently the Second
Person of the Godhead. It will be sufficient to
show, therefore, in this division of our treatise,
(1) that Christ is the true Son of God, (2)
that He is very God, and (3) that He is the
Divine Logos. There is no need of a special
demonstration to prove that Christ is a real per­
son and not a mere personification.

A.

Christ's Divine Sonship

I. The Term “Son of God” as Used in a
Metaphorical Sense.—If, as we have shown,
God can assume tOAvards His rational creatures
the relation of a father, these creatures must be
capable of becoming, in a certain sense, sons or
children of God.

50

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

a) Taking the term in a higher sense, man can be­
come a son of God only in the supernatural order, as
we shall show in the treatise on Grace, where we speak
of Justification. Cfr. Matth. V, 9 : “ Blessed are the
peacemakers : for they shall be called the children of
God.” But, as Holy Scripture clearly intimates, this
supernatural sonship of the creature is not a sonship
in the strict sense of the term; it is based on adop­
tion.8 Though this filiatio adoptiva is sharply con­
trasted with natural sonship,9 inasmuch as the Bible
traces it to the fact of the creature’s “ regeneration of
God,” 10 nay, even calls it a participation in the Divine
Nature,11 it is to be remarked that the last-mentioned
two notions never lose their accidental and analogous
character, because they are conditioned by sanctifying
grace, of which the filiatio adoptiva is the chief formal
effect.
b) The important question we have here to solve is
whether “ Son of God ” is applied to Christ merely as an
analogous term. In that case, though He would still out­
rank God’s other adopted children, Jesus would be no
more than a primus inter pares. That He outranks all
other men appears clearly enough from the fact that He
alone is called in Holy Scripture, ό υίος τον ®eov,— the
Son of God. There are texts in which mere creatures
are referred to as “ sons of God,” but in all these
texts the subject is either in the plural,12 or it is a col­
s Adoptio filiorum, νΐοθεσία- On
supernatural adoption, see Sollier in
the Catholic Encyclopedia, I, 148
sqq.
9 Filiatio naturalis.
10 Regeneratio, Gr. TraXcyyeveaia.
Cfr. J. Pohle, s. v. “ Wiederge­
burt,” in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon,
XII, 1468 sqq., Freiburg 1901.

11 Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 4: “ Qelas κοινωνοί φύσεωτ.”
12 Cfr. Job I, 6: " Filii Dei,”
Hebr.
» Rom. VIII, 15 s
" Accepistis spiritum adoptionis filio­
rum Dei — You have received the
spirit of adoption of sons.”

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

51

lective term,18 or an indefinite singular really amount­
ing to a plural.13
14 The only passage which seems to
offer an exception is 2 Kings VII, 15: “Ego ero ei
[soil. Salomoni] in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium —
I will be to him [Solomon] a father, and he shall be to
me a son,” but St. Paul expressly interprets this passage
as referring typically to Christ : “ Cui dixit aliquando
angelorum: ... Ego ero Uli in patrem, et ipse erit mihi
in filium f— For to which of the angels hath he said at
any time : ... I will be to him a father, and he shall
be to me a son?”15 In the light of these texts no one
can deny that Christ is the Son of God in a higher
sense than any angel or man. But there still remains a
doubt as to whether Filius Dei is applied to Him as a
proper name, or merely as an appellative ; that is to say,
whether He is the Son of God in the strict or merely
in a figurative sense, i. e., by adoption.

2. Christ

the Son of God in the Strict
Sense of the Term.—The Socinians and the

Rationalists, Hugo Grotius among others, allege
that Films Dei is merely an official title of the
Messias, bearing no intrinsic relation to any di­
vine filiation; in other words, that Christ, in vir­
tue of His supernatural birth from the Blessed
Virgin Mary,16 is called “Son of God” in a higher,
though not in an essentially different sense than
other rational creatures. The French Abbé Al13 Exod. IV, 22 : *' Filius meus
primogenitus Israel — Israel is my
son, my firstborn.”
14 Ecclus. IV, 11 : ” Et eris tu
[scïZ. misericors] velut filius altissimi obediens — And thou shalt be

as the obedient son of the most
High.”
15 Heb. I, 5.
16 Modern Rationalists notoriously
also deny the Virgin Birth.

52

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

fred Loisy adopts this Rationalist error when he
writes: “The title ‘Son of God’ was accepted
by the Jews, by the Disciples, and by the Saviour
Himself as a synonym for ‘Messias.’ ” 17 True,
“Son of God” was the official title of the Mes­
sias ; but it was a title based upon a reality, i. e.,
Christ’s Divine Sonship in the strict sense of the
term. It is a mistake on the part of some Cath­
olic theologians to concede the assertion of Ra­
tionalist exegetes that, while the true Divine
Sonship of Jesus appears clearly enough from
the Apostolic Letters and the Fourth Gospel,
it cannot be proved from the Synoptics. The
conduct of the Jews and our Saviour’s own re­
iterated declarations, as recorded in the Gospels
of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, clearly
prove the contrary.
a) Though the Jews knew, and could not help
knowing from their own sacred writings, that
the future Messias would be God Himself, they
were not accustomed to refer to Him of their
own accord as “God,” or “Son of God.” They
called Him either “son of David,” 18 or “King of
Israel,” 19 or “the Prophet,” 20 or “the Messias,”
that is Christ ( πψο = χριστός). Nevertheless
17 L’Évangile et L’Église, p. 62,
Paris 1902. Against Loisy see M.
Lepin’s scholarly work Christ and
the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah
and Son of God, Authorized Eng­
lish edition, Philadelphia 1910. See

especially pp. 320 sqq. as bearing on
the point here under consideration.
is Cfr. Matth. IX, 27; XII, 23;
XX, 30; XXI, 9; Mark XI, 10.
19 Matth. XXVII, 42.
20 John I, 21: VI, 14; VII, 40.

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

53

they logically concluded from Christ’s repeated
references to Himself as Son of God, that He
claimed consubstantiality with the Godhead,
in other words, true Divinity.21 Similarly the
Synoptics, by weaving into their story sayings
that can apply to none other than the Son of God
in the strictest sense of the term, or by accom­
panying their profession of faith in the “true Son
of God” with a latreutic act of adoration, plainly
demonstrate that they mean to apply the name
to Jesus in its proper, not in a figurative, sense.
When He was baptized in the Jordan,22 “there
came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The
Greek text has : Ούτός
δ υίό? μου δ ά-γαττητός, re­
peating the definite article to emphasize the
unique rôle of the Son. Before the institution,
or, more correctly, before the promise of the
primacy, Peter had first to profess his faith in
the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Matth. XVI, 15
sqq.: “Whom do you say that I am? Simon
Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God
Χριστός, δ υί,δς του Θεοΰ
τοΰ ζώντο^” Like the other Apostles, Peter had
long before believed in the Messianic mission
and dignity of his Master; hence his profession
of faith as recorded in Matth. XVI, 16, can only
21 John V, 18; X, 33.
22 Matth. ΙΠ, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9 sqq.; Luke III, 21 sqq.

54

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

mean: “Thou art not only the Christ, i. e., the
Messias, but likewise the true Son of God.”
This view is confirmed by our Saviour’s reply:
“Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et san­
guis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui
in coelis est — Blessed art thou, Simon BarJona, because flesh and blood [i. e., human rea­
son] hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father
who is in heaven.” That is to say, Peter’s
knowledge and his profession of faith in Christ’s
Divine Sonship was owing to a direct revelation
and the grace of faith.23 When the Disciples “in
the midst of the sea” saw Jesus stretching out
His hand and saving Peter, who at His Mas­
ter’s bidding had ventured upon the angry waves,
they were overpowered by the glorious miracle
and “adored Him, saying: Indeed thou art the
son of God.” 24
b) This argument is supported by Christ’s own
testimony. The Synoptics tell us as distinctly as
do SS. John and Paul, that not only did He
always and everywhere assert His Divine Sonship, but He finally sealed it with His blood.
When Caiphas adjured Him by the living God,
saying: “Tell us if thou be the Christ the son
of God,” 25 Jesus solemnly replied : “Thou hast
23 Cfr. Schanz, Kommentar Uber
das Evangelium des hl. Matthaus,
Ρ· 375, Mainz 1879.
24 Matth. XIV, 33· " Qui autem
in navicula erant, venerunt et ado-

raverunt eum dicentes: Vere Filius
Dei es (αληθώς Θεού υΙός el),”
25 EZ συ el ό Χριστός, ô υΙός του
θεού.

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

55

said it.” 28 And when, in confirmation of His
oath, the Saviour significantly assured His ques­
tioner that he would yet see Him sitting on the
right hand of the power of God, and coming
in the clouds of heaven to judge mankind, “the
high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath
blasphemed.” 27 In asserting His Divine Sonship, therefore, Christ asserted His Divinity,
and the Sanhedrin, regarding this assertion as
blasphemous, acted with perfect consistency when
they condemned Him to an ignominious death.
According to the Gospel of St. Luke, they
“brought him into their council, saying: If thou
be the Christ, tell us — Si tu es Christus, dic
nobis” 28 and when Jesus had assured them that
He would sit “on the right hand of the power of
God,” they asked Him: “Art thou then the Son
of God? (συ ovv d δ υίός τον Θεού) ?” and He firmly
and definitely answered: “You say that I am
(υμείς λεγετε, οτι εγώ ειμι).” Whereupon He Was led
to Pilate, and they accused Him of claiming that
He was “Christ the king,” 29 and that “He made
Himself the Son of God.” 30 It is not too much
to say, therefore, that Christ laid down His life
for the truth of His solemn affirmation that He
was really and truly “the Son of God.” The
26
27
28

Σύ είπα? = Yes.
Matth. XXVI, 63 sqq.
Luke XXII, 66 sq.

29 Luke XXIII, 2: "Dixit se
Christum regem esse.”
so John XIX, 7: "Filium Dei se
fecit.”

56

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul verify,
continue, and complete the story of the Synop­
tics.31
3. The Teaching of St. John and St. Paul
on Christ’s Divine Sonship.—The Saviour’s
favorite disciple, the meek and gentle John, both
in character and temperament differed radically
from the fiery Paul ; yet their teaching in regard
to Christ agrees in every essential detail, and it
may be truly said that the Johannine Christology
is characterized by a Pauline depth of thought,
while the teaching of St. Paul has a distinctly
Johannean tinge. Both Apostles are at one in
affirming that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a
true sonship in the strict sense of the term, and
therefore essentially different from the sonship
predicated of angels and men.
a) The epithets applied to Jesus by both SS.
John and Paul are with quite evident intent so
chosen as to exclude absolutely the "sensus im­
proprius.”
Both call Christ His Heavenly Father’s “ own Son ”
{Filius proprius, i8to? υίο'ς). Rom. VIII, 32: “ Qui
proprio Filio suo (του ΐδίου υίοϋ) non pepercit — He
spared not even his own Son.” John V, 18: “ Patrem
suum (πατέρα l3lov) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo
— Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself
81 Cfr. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein Konig nach den
Synoptikern, pp. 107 sqq., Paderborn

1904; M. Lepin, Christ and the
Gospel, pp. 394 sqq.

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

57

equal to God.” He is the Father’s “ beloved Son,” into
whose kingdom we are translated.32 He is “ the only
begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father —
Unigenitus Filius (ό μονογενής υίός), qui est in sinu Pa­
tris/' 33 the Son begotten by the eternal Father.34 This
note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St.
John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son
but Christ.35 Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God
in precisely the same sense in which God is “ true God.”
Cfr. i John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (ό
vioç τον Θεοΰ) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cogno­
scamus verum Deum (τον αληθινόν Θεόν) et simus in vero
Filio eius — And we know that the Son of God is come :
and he hath given us understanding that we may know
the true God, and may be in his true Son.”

b) These texts appear still more significant
if collated with certain other Scriptural passages,
which expressly declare that the Divine Sonship
of Christ is a sonship in the strict and proper
sense of the term.
If there existed any higher beings who, as “ sons of
God,” might claim precedence of Christ, they would
certainly be the angels of Heaven. Now we have the
distinct teaching of St. Paul that the angels are bound
to adore Christ as “ the Son of God ” and “ the first­
born of the Father.” Hebr. I, 5 sq. : “ Cui enim dixit
aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui
te? ... Et cum iterum introducit primogenihim (πρωτό32 Cfr. Col. I, 13: “ Qui nos
transtulit in regnum Filii dilectionis
suae” (a Hebraism for: “ Ftlii di­
lecti sui”; cfr. 2 Pet. I, 17).

33 John I, 18; cfr. Lepin, op. cit„
PP. 330 sqq.
34 Hebr. V, 5. Cfr. Ps. II, 7.
35 Cfr. John I, 14; III, 16, 18; 1
John IV, 9.

58

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum [jc.
Christum] omnes angeli Dei — For to which of the an­
gels hath he said at any time : Thou art my Son, to­
day I have begotten thee. . . . And again, when he
bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith:
And let all the angels of God adore him.” Among the
many favored children of grace, especially the prophets
and the Lord’s anointed, whom Sacred Scripture some­
times calls “ sons of God,” or even “ gods,” because of
their exalted dignity, in the opinion of the Jews and of
St. Paul none was greater than Jehovah’s favorite
servant, Moses.36 And yet St. Paul, comparing him with
Christ, says that Moses is merely a “ faithful servant in
the house of God,” while Jesus is “ as the Son in his
own house.”37 It is only in the light of these facts
that we are able fully to appreciate the further teach­
ing of SS. John and Paul, that, as the heavenly Father­
hood of God is the prototype of all created paternity, so
the Divine Sonship of Christ is the exemplar of all de­
rived or adoptive sonship. Cfr. John I, 12: “ Dedit eis
potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius
[λ://, unigeniti a Patre] — He gave them power to be
made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name ”
(i. e., in the name of the Only-begotten of the Father.
John I, 14). Gal. IV, 4 sq. : “ Misit Deus Filium suum
(τον vlov αΰτοϋ) ... ut adoptionem filiorum (την υΐοθεσίαν) reciperemus—God sent his son . . . that we might
receive the adoption of sons.”
tokov)

c) The teaching of St. John culminates in the
notion of the Divine Logos; that of St. Paul in
3β Cfr. Deut. XXXIV, io; Heb.
Ill, I sqq.
37 Heb. Ill, 5 sq. : " Et Moyses
quidem fidelis erat in tota domo eius

[sc. Dei] tamquam famulus (d>s
θεράπων), · · · Christus vero tam­
quam Filius in domo sua (ώ$ vlàs
επί τάν οίκον αυτού)·”

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

59

the cognate conception of Christ as the image of
God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor.
IV, 4: “Imago Dei (άκων ©€ού)
Col. I, 15:
“Imago Dei invisibilis.” With an unmistakable
allusion to St. John’s teaching on the Divine
Logos, the Apostle of the Gentiles defines this
“image of the invisible God” as splendor gloriae
(απαύγασμα τής δόξης') and as figura substantiae eius
(χαρακτήρ τής ύποστάσεως αύτοΰ)-- “the brightness of
the glory of God” and “the figure of his sub­
stance.” 38
Of these two terms the former expresses the consubstantiality (homoousia), the latter the personal self­
existence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both
these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel :39
“ The Word was God ” and “ the Word was with God.”
That St. Paul40 employs the phrases “ brightness of his
glory ” and “ figure of his substance ” not in any creatural sense, but absolutely, is made manifest by the
second part of the sentence in which they occur.41
There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes:
“ Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem
peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in ex­
celsis— Upholding all things by the word of his power,
making purgation of sins, [Christ] sitteth on the right
hand of the majesty on high.”42 Therefore Christ is
the “ image of the Divine Substance ” in so far as He
is strictly and truly the “ Son of God,” which further
38
30
40
41

Heb. I,
John I,
Heb. I,
On the

3.
I.
3.
terms άπαύγασμα and

5

χαρακτήρ cfr. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, p.
348.
42 Heb. I, 3.

6o

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

appears from Heb. I, 2: “Diebus istis [Deus] locutus
est nobis in Filio, . . . per quern fecit et saecula—In
these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, . . .
by whom he also made the world.” 4344
45 While the term
απαύγασμα
δο£ϊ?ς represents the Father as “ light,” and
the Son as the reflection of this light (for this reason He
is called lumen de lumine as well as Deus de Deo),
**
the locution χαρακτηρ της υποστάσεως αντοϋ complements
the former by emphasizing the independent subsistence of
the Son of God (l e., Christ) in His relative opposition
to God the Father,— a point which the Fathers of the
Church did not fail to insist upon in their early conflicts
with Photinus and Sabellius.

d) The Scriptural teaching so far developed
furnishes us with a key for interpreting those
numerous texts which speak of the primogeniture
of Christ.
The “ only begotten Son ” (unigenitus, μονογενής) alone
is and always remains the “ firstborn ” (primogenitus,
πρωτότοκος) .4δ No creature can claim to be His equal in
birth or dignity. St. Paul’s teaching on this head is
most clearly developed in his Epistle to the Colossians.
There he distinguishes in Christ a twofold “ right of the
firstborn ” : the one divine, the other human ; the former
based upon the title of creation, redemption, and final
Cfr. John I, io, 3.
Cfr. W. Humphrey, S. J.,
” His Divine Majesty,” pp. 433 sq.,
London 1897.
45 “ Πρωτότοκοί is not an exact
translation of Primogenitus, though
Homer, as Petavius says, may use
τίκτω for gigno. It is never used
in Scripture for Only-begotten. We
43
44

never read there of the First-born
of God, or of the Father; but First­
born of the creation, whether the
original creation or the new.”—
Newman, “ Causes of the Rise and
Successes of Arianism ” in Tracts
Theol. and Eccles., p. 204 n., Lon­
don 1895.

CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP

61

end; the latter on Christ’s prerogative as the mystic
head and reconciler of His Church, which consists of
sinful men. From the first-mentioned viewpoint He
is “primogenitus omnis creaturae (πρωτότοκος πόσης
κτίσεως)”; from the point of view mentioned in the
second place, He is “ primogenitus ex mortuis (πρωτότοκος
εκ τών νεκρών).”40 In both respects Christ is no mere
creature, but very God. For like unto the Hypostatic
Wisdom of the Old Testament,46
47 He possesses, as “ the
firstborn of every creature,” an eternal, divine existence,
and is equipped with creative power, whereby He has
created and upholds the universe together with the realm
of angels.48 As the “ firstborn from the dead,” on the
other hand, He is “ the head of the body [of] the church,”
absolute “ beginning,” the one “ who holds in all things
the primacy,” the possessor of “ the fullness of all per­
fection,” and lastly “ the reconciling mediator through
the blood of His cross, of the things that are on the
earth and the things that are in heaven,”—all of which
can be true only on the supposition that Christ as the
Firstborn is at the same time the true and genuine Son
of God, and therefore Himself God.49 According to St.
Paul, therefore, Christ’s human primogeniture is based
upon His divine primogeniture, which in turn coincides
with His unigeniture (primogenitus = unigenitus) .50

4. The Consubstantiality of the Son of
God with God.—In the Scriptural texts we
46 Col. I, 13 sqq. On the term
πρωτότοκοί see Lebreton, op. cit.,
pp. 302 sqq.
47 Cfr. Ecclus. XXIV, 5: " Pri­
mogenita ante omnem creaturam —
Wisdom, the firstborn before all
creatures.”

Col. I, 15-17·
Col. I, 18-20.
Cfr. Heb. I, 5 sqq.; Apoc. I, 5.
Cfr. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du
Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 302 sqq.,
397 sqq.
48
49
50

62

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

have cited, the Divinity which is communicated
to the Son by His divine
from the Father
is not founded upon Ditheism, or the existence
of two coequal gods, but on the numerical iden­
tity of the Divine Nature.
This conclusion, which flows so manifestly from the
monotheistic character of both the Old and the New
Testament, is expressly confirmed in the Epistle to the
Philippians,51 where St. Paul draws a neat distinction
between the “ form of a servant ” (forma servi, μορφή
δουλου) and the “ form of God ” (forma Dei, μορφή
Θεού). By the former he means the truly human, and
by the latter the truly divine nature of Jesus Christ,
in the possession of which the Son of God is consubstantial or coequal with God (aequalis Deo, ισα
Θεώ). “Qui [scil. Christas] cum in forma Dei esset,
non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo, sed
semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens ... et
habitu inventus ut homo — Christ Jesus, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant
. . . and in habit found as a man.”—“Forma servi” in
this context can mean nothing else than the human na­
ture which the Son of God “ assumed,” 52 and in virtue
of which He was “ found as a man.” “ Forma Dei,”
on the other hand, plainly signifies the Divine Nature,
which Christ possessed before he “ took the form of a
servant ” and before He “ emptied Himself,” and which
to claim He did not need to think robbery, i. e., unjust
usurpation. It is immaterial whether we take “rapina”
bi Phil. II, 5 sqq.
52 John I, 14: “And the Word

was made flesh, and dwelt among
us.”

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

63

in its active sense as “actus rapiendi,” or objectively as
“ res rapta” 63

B.

The Divinity of Christ

If Christ is truly the Son of God, no special
argument is required to show that He is Divine.
Yet as Holy Scripture, aside from those pas­
sages which prove Christ’s Divine Sonship, also
contains a number of texts which expressly as­
sert His Divinity, it will be well to study these
separately and to show how they confirm our
thesis. We shall divide them into three distinct
groups.
I. The Divine Attributes of Christ.—A
being that possesses divine attributes and per­
forms divine acts, is truly divine. Christ, ac­
cording to the New Testament Revelation, pos­
sesses divine attributes and performs divine acts.
Consequently He is true God. The major
premise of this syllogism, being merely a descrip­
tive definition of God, needs no proof. From
out of the profusion of Scriptural texts which
can be cited in support of the minor, we select the
following.
53 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in
Philip., 7, n. 2: “Hoc, inquam,
esse aequalem Deo, non ex rapina
habuit, sed a natura, quamobrem
seipsum exinanivit.” For a full
elucidation of Phil. II, 5 sqq., see
K. J. Müller, Brief des hl. Paulus

an die Philipper, Freiburg 1899.—
The dogma of Christ’s Divine Sonship is ably defended against the
attacks of the Modernists by M.
Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Eng­
lish tr.), pp. 263 sqq., Philadelphia
1910.

64

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

a) The New Testament predicates self-existence, which
is the fundamental attribute of the Godhead, in the same
terms of Christ in which the Old Testament predicates
it of Jehovah. Jesus said to St. John:54 “Noli timere,
ego SUm primus et novissimzis (ό πρώτος καί 6 έσχατος)
et vivus et fui mortïius—Fear not, I am the first and
the last, and alive, and was dead.” 55 As causa prima
the αυτούσιος is per se and by intestine necessity the
finis ultimus of all creation. Now Christ says of Him­
self :56 “Ego sum a et ω, primus et novissimus, prin­
cipium et finis—I am Alpha and Omega, the first and
the last, the beginning and the end.” Similarly St.
Paul :57 “ Tà πάντα δι’ αυτόν και εις αυτόν έ'κτισται — All
things were created by him and in him.”
Because of His aseity God is incomprehensible to the
created intellect. Christ shares in this incomprehensi­
bility. On the other hand He possesses a truly compre­
hensive knowledge of the Father. Cfr. Matth. XI, 27:
“Nemo novit (επιγι,νωσκει) Filium nisi Pater, . . . neque
Patrem quis novit (ίπνγινωσκα) nisi Filius, et cui voluerit
Filius revelare — No one knoweth the Son but the
Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the
Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal
him.” Note that the verb επιγινώσκειν is stronger than
simple γινώσκειν; it denotes that comprehensae knowl­
edge which is proper to the infinite God.58
b) Chief among God’s transcendental attributes of
being is His absolute truth. Now Christ is the abso­
lute, living Truth, as He Himself testifies: “Ego sum
via et veritas et vita (ή άλ']0ει.α καί η ζωη) — I am the
Apoc. I, 17 sqq.
Cfr. Apoc. II, 8. For compari­
son also read Is. XLI, 4: “Ego
ΠΊΓΓ primus et novissimus ego sum
54
55

— I the Lord, I am the first and the
last.”
56 Apoc. XXII, 13.
57 Col. I, 16.
58 Cfr. i Cor. XIII, 12

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

65

way, and the truth, and the life.”59 This (truth-)
life is communicated to Him in virtue of His eternal
generation by the Father; hence it is a divine life,
and as such self-existent in character. John V, 26:
“ Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso (ε’ν εαυτώ),
sic dedit [f. e., generando communicavit] et Filio habere
vitam in semetipso (έν έαυτω) —For as the Father hath
life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have
life in himself.” This process of communication, there­
fore, results in a differentiation, not of nature or es­
sence, but of persons only. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: “An­
nuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam (την ζωήν την αιώνιον),
quae erat apud Patrem (προς τον πατέρα) et apparuit
nobis — We declare unto you the life eternal, which was
with the Father, and hath appeared to us.” As the
living truth, the Saviour must also be the author of
life,60 especially in the supernatural order of grace. Cfr.
John XI, 25: “ Ego sum resurrectio et vita (ή ζωη) ;
qïii credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet — I am
the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me,
although he be dead, shall live.” Again, “ Qui habet
Filium, habet vitam (την ζωήν) — He that hath the Son,
hath life.” 61
God’s attributes of veracity and fidelity are rooted in
His absolute truth. In this absolute sense Christ, too, is
veracity itself; for He “testifieth” only “what he hath
seen and heard ” of His father in Heaven. Cfr. John
III, 31 sq. : “ Qui de coelo venit, super omnes est. Et
quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur — He that cometh
from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and
heard, that he testifieth.” John VIII, 26: “Qui me
B9 John XIV, 6.
60 Acts III, 15: “But the author
of life (ô αρχηγό? τηζ ζωής) you

killed, whom God hath raised from
the dead.”
61 i John V, 12.

66

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

misit, verax (άληθηΤ) est; et ego, quae audivi ab eo,
haec loquor in mundo — He that sent me is true: and
the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in
the world.”
For this reason, too, He is absolute fidelity. Cfr.
Matth. XXIV, 35 : “ Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away.” Apoc. XIX, ir :
“ Fidelis et verax — Faithful and true.” Apoc. Ill, 14:
“ Haec dicit Amen, testis fidelis et verax, qui est princi­
pium creaturae Dei — These things saith the Amen, the
faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the
creation of God.”
Christ’s substantial sanctity coincides with His eth­
ical goodness and is based on His Divine Sonship.
Cfr. Luke I, 35: “ Quod nascetur ex te Sanctum,
vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God.” 62 In virtue of
the Hypostatic Union His divine sanctity overflows into
the human race. Cfr. Heb. VII, 26: “ Talis enim dece­
bat, ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus,
segregatus a peccatoribus et excelsior coelis factus — For
it was fitting that we should have such a high priest,
holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens.” 63
c) Among God’s categorical attributes of being is
omnipotence, which in the natural order manifests itself
in the creation and preservation of the universe, while
in the supernatural sphere it works miracles by its own
power. In both respects Christ has given irrefragable
proofs of His Divinity. He is, in the first place, the
creator and preserver of the universe. Col. I, 16 sq. :
62 Cfr. Apoc. Ill, 7: " Sanctus
et verus — The Holy one and the
True one.”

63 This subject will betreated at
length in Christology.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

67

“In ipso (ev αύτω) condita sunt universa in coelis et
in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni sive domina­
tiones sive principatus sive potestates: omnia per ipsum
(δι’ αύτοϋ) et in ipso (eis αύτον) creata sunt, et ipse est
ante omnes (προ πάντων) et omnia in ipso constant —
For in him were all things created in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or domina­
tions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created
by him and in him, and he is before all, and by him
all things consist.” This text contains three separate
and distinct propositions : ( 1 ) All things were created
in the Son ; that is to say, according to the counsels of
Christ and in virtue of His omnipotence. (2) All
things were made through the Son (per ipsum), i. e.,
the Son was not merely the instrument of creation, but
its true creative cause.64 (3) All things were made in
reference to the Son (eis αυτόν), that is to say, He is the
final end of the whole created universe. Consequently
He is true God, and as such “ before all ” (ante omnes)
i. e., eternal, and at the same time the preserver of the
universe. Heb. I, 3: “ Portans omnia verbo virtutis
suae — Upholding all things by the word of his power.”
Holy Scripture throughout both Testaments regards the
working of signs and miracles in one’s own name and by
one’s own power as a sure proof of omnipotence. The
miracles of Christ proceed from His own omnipotence,
not from any derived or communicated power ; — except
in this sense that God the Father has communicated this
power to Him as His Son by a truly divine yivvyns from
everlasting. Cfr. John V, 19 : “ Non potest Filius a se
facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem;
quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similiter facit
64 Cfr. Heb. I, t’ “Per quem
fecit et saecula — By whom also he

made the world.”
I, io.

Cfr. also Heb.

68

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

— The Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he
seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth,
these the Son also doth in like manner.” In this sense
Christ possesses the power of raising the dead. John V,
2i : “Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et
Filius, quos vult, vivificat — For as the Father raiseth up
the dead and giveth life : so the Son also giveth life to
whom he will.” Therefore He is able to say: “Et
ego resuscitabo eum (άναστησω αυτόν έγώ) in novissimo
die — And I will raise him up in the last day.” 65 When
the leper adored him, Christ did not object. IXIatth.
VIII, 2 sqq. : “Et ecce leprosus veniens adorabat eum
(προσεκύνει. αύτω), dicens: Domine, si vis, potes me mun­
dare. Et extendens lesus manum, tetigit eum dicens:
Polo, mundare — And behold a leper came and adored
him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me
clean. And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched
him, saying: I will, be thou made clean.” Christ’s om­
nipotence is the source of the universal sovereignty to
which He lays claim. As God alone is Lord of life
and death, heaven and hell, so Christ holds “the
keys of death and of hell.” Apoc. I, 18: “Et habeo
claves mortis et inferni.” 66 He is the παντοκράτωρ 67 to
whom all creatures, including the angels, are subject,68
and as such is “ the Lord of lords, and King of kings.”
Apoc. XVII, 14: “Agnus vincet illos, quoniam dominus
dominorum est et rex regum.” 69 As we have but one
God the Father, so we have but one Lord Jesus Christ,
i Cor. VIII, 6: “Nobis tamen unus est Deus Pater,
ex quo omnia et nos in illum, et unus Dominus (eL κύριοί)
lesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum (δι
* ού τά
65 John VI, 40·
66 Cfr. also Apoc. IU,
67 Apoc. I, 8.

68 i Pet. Ill, 22.
69 Cfr. also Apoc. XIX, 16.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

69

πάντα καί ημάς δι’ αυτού) —Yet to US there IS but one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by him.”
Two other divine attributes not shared by any crea­
ture are absolute immutability, and eternity which
flows therefrom. Both of these are ascribed by Holy
Scripture to Christ. What the Psalmist says of the im­
mutability of Jehovah/0 “ Ipsi peribunt, tu autem per­
manes — They shall perish, but thou remainest,” St. Paul
applies without limitation to Jesus.71 That Christ is
eternal can be deduced from the Scriptural teaching that
He existed before time. John the Baptist confessed:72
“ He λν33 before me (πρώτο? μου ην)and Christ Himself
confirmed this assertion by His solemn declaration :73
“Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum (πριν ’Αβραάμ
yevea^ai, eyoS eîp-t) — Before Abraham was made, I am.”
St. Augustine commentates this text as follows: “ Non
dixit: antequam Abraham esset, ego eram, sed: antequam
Abraham fieret, qui nisi per me non fieret, ego sum.
Neque hoc dixit: antequam Abraham fieret, ego factus
sum. In principio enim fecit Deus coelum et terram;
nam in principio erat Verbum. Antequam Abraham
fieret, ego sum. Agnoscite creatorem, discernite crea­
turam — He said not, Before Abraham was, I was ; but,
Before Abraham was made (and he could not be made but
by Me), I am. Neither said he this: Before Abraham
was made, I was made. For, In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth : namely, in the begin­
ning was the Word. Before Abraham λvas made, I am.
Ackno\vledge the Creator, discern the creature.” 74 Cfr.
70
71
72

Ps. CI, 27 sqq.
Heb. I, 10 sqq.
John I, 15.

John VIII, 58.
Tractatus in loa., 43, η- 17.
Browne’s translation, I, 586.
73
74

70

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

also the famous passage in Christ’s prayer for His dis­
ciples :75 “Et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum claritate, quam habui prius, quam mundus es­
set, apud te (tt/ δο£?/, ή είχον προ τον τον κόσμον «ΐναι, παρά
σοί)—And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thy­
self, with the glory which I had, before the world was,
with thee.” As Cardinal Toletus pertinently observes,
this passage has reference to the divine glory which
Christ enjoyed as God together with His Father from
all eternity. Therefore His Ascension was merely a
return to “ where he was before,” 76 or, more correctly,
where “He always is.” Cfr. John III, 13: “Nemo
ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius
hominis, qui est in coelo — And no man hath ascended
into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the
Son of man who is in heaven.” 77 Hence for Christ to
be “ in Heaven ” means to be ·“ in the bosom of the
Father,” i. e., to be the true Son of God from all eter­
nity. Eternity for Him is merely the past, present, and
future combined in an unchanging life. Heb. XIII, 8:
“ Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula — Jesus
Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever.”
In His relation to space, and to the world of pure
spirits, Christ is endowed with omnipresence, and partic­
ularly with that power of indwelling in the souls of the
just which is peculiar to God. St. Paul probably means
to emphasize His omnipresence when he says:78 “Qui
descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos, ut
impleret omnia (ινα πλήρωσή τά πάντα} — He that de­
scendeth is the same also that ascended above all
heavens, that he might fill all things ; ”— unless indeed
75 John XVII, 5.
7fljohn VI, 63:
prius.”

" Ubi

erat

77 Cfr. also John XVI, 28; I, 18.
78 Eph. IV, 10.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

71

the phrase to “ fill all things ” is meant to indicate the
fulfilment of the prophecies relating to Christ’s Ascen­
sion. Cfr. John XIV, 23: a Pater meus diliget eum, et
ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum (μονήν παρ’
αύτω) faciemus — My Father will love him, and we will
come to him, and will make our abode with him.” No
mere creature could, without committing blasphemy, thus
put himself on a level with God, and promise to in­
dwell with God in the souls of the just; and none but
God Himself could solemnly promise: “Et ecce ego
vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem
saeculi — And behold I am with you all days, even to
the consummation of the world.79 Only a believer in
the Divinity of Jesus can exclaim with St. Paul : “ Vivit
vero in me Christus — But Christ liveth in me.” 80
d) Among the operative attributes of God the most im­
portant is probably omniscience. As God alone can ade­
quately comprehend His own Essence, so likewise only
a truly divine Son can adequately comprehend the divine
Father. Cfr. John X, 15: “ Sicut novit (γινώσκα)
me Pater, et ego agnosco (γινώσκω) Patrem — As the
Father knoweth me, I know the Father.” And again:
“Ego scio eum (εγω ol3a αυτόν), quia ab ipso sum (παρ
*
αυτοϋ είμί), et ipse me misit—I know him, because I
am from him, and he hath sent me.”81 This argues
an intimate knowledge such as no creature can, pos­
sess. John VI, 46 : “ Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam,
nisi is qui est a Deo (ci μη ό ων παρά τού Θεού), hic vidit
Patrem (ούτος εώρακε τόν πατέρα) — Not that any man
hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath
seen the Father.” This intuitive vision has its source in
79 Matth. XXVIII, 20. Cfr. also
John XIV, 16; XV, 5 sqq.; XVI, 13
sqq.

so Gal. II, 20.
81 John VII, 29.

72

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christ’s divine γεη^σι?. Cfr. John I, 18: “ Deum nemo
vidit unquam; unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris,
ipse enarravit — No man hath seen God at any time :
the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.” Christ’s divine self­
comprehension necessarily implies an adequate knowl­
edge of all things external to the Godhead. For if, as St.
Paul assures us, “ in him dwelleth all the fulness of the"
Godhead corporeally,” 82 it is evident that “ in him are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” 83 It
is by this standard, therefore, that His knowledge of all
things, even the most hidden, must be gauged. Thus
He was able to assure Nathanael : “ Before that Philip
called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw
thee.” 84 Whereupon the new Apostle, struck by Christ’s
wonderful knowledge, exclaimed : “ Thou art the Son
of God, thou art the King of Israel.” 85
If cardiognosis is an exclusive prerogative of the
Godhead,86 Christ is true God. For He applied to
Himself the words of Jeremiah: “ I am the Lord who
search the heart,” 87 when He said : “ All the churches
shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and
hearts.” 88 More than once in fact did He demonstrate
that He possessed this attribute of Divinity. Cfr. Luke
IX, 47: “At Icsus videns cogitationes cordis illorum
82 Col. II, 9: “In ipso inhabitat
omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporali­
ter (èv αύτω κατοικεί παν τό
πλήρωμα τή$ θεότητος σωματικώΐ).”
83 Col. II, 3: " In quo (Cftmfo]
sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et
scientiae absconditi/’
84 John I, 48: “Priusquam te
Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub
ficu, vidi te."
85 John I, 49: “ Tu es Filius Dei,
tu es rex Israel."

se As we have shown in the first
volume of this series, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri­
butes, pp. 359 sqq.
87 Jer. XVII, io: "Ego Domi­
nus *ΠΙΠ 1 scrutans cor et probans
renes."
88 Apoc. Π, 23: “Et scient om­
nes ecclesiae, quia ego sum scrutans
renes et corda."

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

73

(ίδών τον διαλογισμόν τής καρδίας αυτών )—But Jesus seeing
the thoughts of their heart.” With vision wondrous
clear He foresees free future events, as, e. g., His be­
trayal at the hands of Judas, Peter’s denial, the flight
of His disciples, His Passion, Resurrection, and As­
cension, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. His “ Woe
to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida ” 89 shows that
He also possesses the scientia futuribilium.90

2. Christ’s Title to Divine Honors.—No
mere creature can claim divine honors without
incurring the awful crime of idolatry. But
Christ claims and receives divine honors. There­
fore, He is true God. This syllogism rests on
the supposition—which it is the business of
apologetics to prove—that Christ was neither an.
impostor nor a megalomaniac, but, on the con­
trary, a morally altogether superior and phys­
ically normal being. We also assume it as a
datum furnished by fundamental theology,91 that
His Apostles and Disciples were neither fools
nor knaves, but men who knew the facts of
Christ’s career and who were sincere in wor­
shipping Him as God.
a) Christ laid claim to divine honors.
John V, 22 sq. : “ Pater . . . onine indicium dedit
Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant
Patrem (ινα πάντες τιμώσι τον νίόν, καθώς τιμώσι τον πατέρα)
89 Matth. XI, 2ΐ sqq.
90 On the “ scientia futuribilium,”
as a divine attribute, see PohlePreuss, God: His Knowability, Es-

sence, and Attributes, pp. 361 sqq.
91 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp.
7 sq.

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

74

— The Father . . . hath given all judgment to the Son,
that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the
Father?’ Here Jesus plainly exacts for Himself, as Son,
the same worship which He demands for His Father.
The context proves that the adverb καθώς is meant to ex­
press not merely similitude but equality; for in the same
chapter of St. John’s Gospel from which the passage is
taken, Christ distinctly asserts and defends His coequality
with the Father, and “ the Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he . . . said God was his Father, making
himself equal to God.” 92 He never was known to refuse
divine worship when offered to Him, but accepted it with­
out protest.93 His Apostles, too, particularly St. Paul
and St. John, insist that Christ is entitled to divine
honors. Rom. XIV, io sq. : “ Omnes enim stabimus
ante tribunal Christi; scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit
Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu et omnis
lingua confitebitur Deo — We shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live,
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every
tongue shall confess to God.”94 This can only mean
that all men will one day appear before the judgment
seat of Jesus Christ and be compelled to worship Him
as God. The same thought is expressed yet more effec ■
tively in another Pauline text :95 “ Donavit Uli nomen,
quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine lesu omne
genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum ; et
omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus lesus Christus
in gloria est Dei Patris — God hath given him a name
which is above all names : that in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on
John V, i8.
Cfr. Matth. XIV, 33; VIII, 2
ei al.
02
93

94
95

Cfr. Is. XLV, 23 sq.
Phil. II, 9 sqq.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

75

earth, and under the earth ; and that every tongue should
confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of
God the Father.” 96
If Christ is true God, then the prayers directed to
Him must be equally efficacious as those addressed
to the Father. Holy Scripture plainly teaches that
they are. John XIV, 13: “ Quodcunque petieritis
Patrem in nomine meo, hoc faciain [not: faciet}, ut
glorificetur Pater in Filio — Whatsoever you shall ask
the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father
may be glorified in the Son.” John XIV, 14: “Si
quid petieritis me in nomine meo, hoc faciain — If you
shall ask me any thing in my name, that will I do.”
In the hour of death no man may, without grievous
sin, commend his soul to any creature. Christ com­
mends His into the hands of His Heavenly Father.
Luke XXIII, 46: “Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit.” And the dying protomartyr Stephen un­
hesitatingly cries out: “Domine Iesu, suscipe spiritum
meum — Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 97

b) The Godhead is the sole formal object of
the three theological virtues. But Holy Scrip­
ture represents Christ as a Supreme Being, to
whom all men owe faith, hope, and charity.
Consequently, He is true God.
Jesus Himself requires men to believe in Him with the
same faith which they have in God. In this connection it
is well to remember that there is an important distinction
between credere alicui and credere in aliquem. We may
96 On the adoration of the “ slain Lamb,” i. e., Christ in Heaven, cfr.
Apoc. V, 11-13.
97 Acts VII, 58.

6

76

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

believe a creature, but we believe in God alone. Cfr.
John XIV, i : “ Creditis in Deum, et in me credite
(mar€V€T€ ds τον Θεόν, και eîç εμε πιστεύετε)—You believe
in God, believe also in me.” Faith in Christ is pro­
ductive of eternal life. John VI, 47: “Amen, amen,
dico vobis: qui credit in me (ds έμέ) habet vitam aeter­
nam— Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth
in me, hath everlasting life.” For belief in Jesus
Christ is nought else than faith in the true Son of God.
I John IV, 15: “ Quisquis confessus fuerit, quoniam
lesus est Filius Dei (ό υίός τού Θεού), Deus in eo manet
et ipse in Deo — Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is
the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.”
Christ is also the object of theological hope, as the
story of the Atonement clearly shows. If St. Paul
calls himself “ an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . our
hope,” 98 this is neither an empty phrase nor a hyper­
bole. For, as St. Peter tersely says: “Non est in
ahquo alio (εν αλλω ούδενι) salus ; nec enim aliud nomen
est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos sal­
vos heri — Neither is there salvation in any other; for
there is no other name under heaven given to men,
whereby we must be saved.” 99
Christ is likewise the object of that theological charity
(“amor super omnia”) to which God alone can lay
claim. Matth. X, 37 : “ He that loveth father or mother
more than me, is not worthy of me.” AVhatever inter­
feres with the love of Christ is to be treated as an obsta­
cle in the way of salvation. Luke XIV, 26: “Si quis
venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem et uxo­
rem et filios et fratres et sorores, adhuc autem et ani98 i Tim. I, 1: “Paulus, apo­
stolus lesu Christi, . . . spei no­
strae."
99 Acts IV, 12. For further in­

formation on this point we must
refer the student to the dogmatic
treatise on Grace.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

77

mam suam, non potest esse meus discipulus—If any
man come to me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” The
Father rewards us with His love if we love Christ.
Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Si quis diligit me, ... et Pater
metis diliget eum, et ad etim veniemus et mansionem
apud eum faciemus—If any one love me, . . . my
father will love him, and we will come to him and
make our abode with him.”100 St. Paul’s anathema
against all those who “ love not our Lord Jesus
Christ,” 101 would be wantonly criminal if Christ were
not true God. And it is only on this same assumption
that the love of Christ can be called “ a life in Christ.”
Phil. I, 21: “ Mihi enim vivere Christus est, et mori
lucrum — For to me, to live is Christ : and to die is
gain.” 2 Cor. V, 14 sq. : “ Caritas cnim Christi urget
nos, . . . ut et qui vivunt, iam non sibi vivant, sed
ei, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit — For the
charity of Christ presseth us, . . . that they also who
live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him
who died for them and rose again.” St. Paul boldly
identifies “caritas Christi” with “caritas Dei,” and
says, nothing should separate us from it. Rom. VIII,
35 SQQ·: “ Qais ergo nos separabit a caritate Christi?
Tribulatio, an angustia, an fames, an nuditas, an pericidum, an persecutio, an gladius? . . . Certus sum
enim, quia neque mors neque vita neque angeli . . .
neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei,
quae est in Christo lesu Domino nostro — Who then
shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall
Cfr. also John XIV, 21.
lOli Cor. XVI, 22: "Si quis
non amat Dominum nostrum lesum
100

Christum, sit anathema — If any
man love not our Lord Jesus Christ,
let him be anathema.”

/8

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or
danger? or persecution? or the sword? . . . For I am
sure that neither death nor life nor angels . . . nor any
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Con­
sequently Christ and God are one.

c) Christ’s adorableness, and consequently
His Divinity, can be demonstrated also from the
fact that Baptism is conferred in His name con­
jointly with that of the Father and the Holy
Ghost.
We shall not enter into the Scholastic controversy
whether by a special privilege the Apostles baptized
in the name of Christ only, instead of employing the
Trinitarian formula which Jesus Himself gave to them,
as recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Mat­
thew’s Gospel.102 This and other similar questions do
not concern us here. They belong to the dogmatic
treatise on Baptism. The very fact that Baptism used
to be called “ Baptism in Christ’s name ” is proof
that the early Christians believed in the Divinity of
our Lord. Nor does it make the slightest difference
whether the Sacrament was originally administered “ ίπϊ
τω ονόματα Ίτ/σού Χριστού eîç άφεσήν αμαρτιών,’ 103 ΟΓ “ εν τω
όνόματί του *Ιησοϋ Χρίστου,” 104 for both formulas clearly
emphasize the authority and power of Christ to forgive
sins ; — or “ eîs το ονομα τοΰ κυρίου ’Ιησού,” 105 which par­
ticularly accentuates the consecration and devotion of the
102 A brief account of this con­
troversy will be found in Fr. Fan­
ning’s article on “ Baptism ” in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p.
263.

103 Acts II, 38.
104 Acts X, 48.
105 Acts VIII, 16.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

79

baptized convert to Jesus as man’s final end. In matter
of fact no man could without committing idolatry allow
himself to be baptized “ in the name ” of any creature ;
for no one but God can forgive sins and exact abso­
lute subjection and divine worship. Cfr. i Cor. I, 13:
“Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis ? Aut in
nomine Pauli baptizati estis ? — Was Paul crucified for
you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

3. Holy Scripture Expressly Calls Christ
“God.”—Having demonstrated the Divinity of
Christ, it will serve to confirm our argument to
note that Holy Scripture in several places ex­
pressly refers to Him as God.
a) If the Tetragrammaton
is God’s in­
communicable proper name, which expresses
His Divine Essence,106 then a Being that is
identical with the Old Testament Yahweh must
be true God. Now Jesus Christ is identical
with the Old Testament Yahweh. Therefore
He is true God.
In his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul says :
“Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum [jc. Christum}
in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angeli
— And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten
into the world, he saith : And let all the angels of
God adore him.”107 This text not only proves that
Christ is true God; it also proves that He is Yahweh.
For, in the passage which St. Paul here quotes,108 the
iOS See Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 135 sqq.

107 Heb. I, 6.
108 Ps. XCVI, 7.

8o

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Psalmist describes how Jehovah appeared on earth
for the purpose of founding a kingdom; how He re­
appears as the terrible Judge; how the heavens declare
His justice and all the people behold His glory, and
how those are confounded who adore graven things
and glory in their idols. Then there follows the ex­
hortation (verse 7) : “ Adore him (£ e., Him ), all you
angels.” Consequently Christ is the Jehovah of whom
David speaks in this Psalm.
We read in the Messianic Psalm XLIV, which is
ascribed to the sons of Core : “ Sedes tua, Deus ( O'hSk)
in saeculum saeculi — Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever.”109 The Rationalist exegetes, who take the
word Deus in this text for a nominative instead of a
vocative, disregard both the dignity of God and Scrip­
tural usage. If their interpretation were correct, the
meaning of the text would be: Thy seat, or throne
(i. e., according to the Rationalist conception, the throne
of an earthly king), is God Himself for ever and ever.
Though Holy Scripture sometimes refers to creatures
(e. g., heaven and hell, angels and men) as the seat or
throne of God, it nowhere designates God as the seat
or throne of man, e. g., of an earthly prince. This
interpretation is positively untenable in the light of
Heb. I, 8: “Ad Filium [scil. Christum] autem dicit:
Thronus tuus, Deus, in saeculum saeculi (ό θρόνος σου, ô
Θεός, €tç τον αιώνα τοΰ αΐώι-ος ),” where the text Ps. XLIV,
7 is used to show Christ’s superiority over the angels.
That St. Paul intends 6 Θεός for a vocative is plain
from New Testament Greek usage, as the student may
see from a comparison of such texts as Matth. XI, 26;
109 Ps. XLIV, 7. On this pas­
sage, and the whole Psalm of which
it forms a part, cfr. A. J. Maas,

S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy,
Vol. II, pp. 36 sqq., New York
1895.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

81

Mark V, 41 ; Luke VIII, 54 ; John XIX, 3 ; Eph. VI,
I ; Col. Ill, 18; Heb. X, 7; Apoc. VI, 10. Consequently
Ps. XLIV, 7, can only mean : “ Thy throne, O God
stands for ever.” Since the sons of Core never
employ the term “ Elohim ” except when they wish to
designate the true God, it follows that Christ bears the
Divine Name Ονύ#, i. e., 0eos = God.
The hardness of heart which the Jews manifested in
spite of the many wonderful miracles wrought by our
Saviour, St. John attributes to the prophecy of Isaias 110
and adds: “ Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam
eius et locutus est de eo — These things said Isaias,
when he saw his glory and spoke of him [Christ].” 111
Turning to the sixth chapter of Isaias, we read : “ Vidi
Dominum (γίκ) sedentem super soliïtm excelsum. . . .
Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum et dicebant: Sanc­
tus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus exercituum
Hirv),
plena est omnis terra gloria eius — I saw the Lord sit­
ting upon a throne high and elevated. . . . The seraphims
. . . cried to one another: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord
God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory.”112
Hence, according to St. John, Christ is “ God ” (Domi­
nus,
and “ Lord of hosts ” (Dominus exercituum,

nisriï πί·τ).
It should also be noted that St. Mark, in the beginning
of his Gospel,113 refers the well-known exhortation of
Isaias:114 “Parate viam Domini — Prepare ye the way
of the Lord,” to John the Baptist, as the precursor of
the “ Lord,” thereby acknowledging the latter to be
“ Jehovah.” In Mark I, 2, we have a citation from
Malachias (attributed to Isaias), in which Jehovah
110 Is. VI, 9 sqq.
111 John XII, 41.
112 Is. VI, i sqq.

113
114

Mark I, 3.
Is. XL, 3.

82

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Himself is quoted as prophesying: “ Ecce ego mitto an­
gelum meum et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam —
Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way
before my face.” 115 Now this angel is none other than
John the Baptist, who, as a precursor, is to “ prepare
the way before the face of Jehovah,” i. e., Christ. As
Christ116 also applies this text to the Baptist, resp. to
Himself, we have a double warrant for the assertion
that the Jehovah of Malachias is identical with Jesus.

b) Christ is expressly called “God” in at least
four Netv Testament texts. A fifth occurs in
the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, but we defer
the discussion of it to the next Section, where
we shall treat explicitly of the Logos.
«) The first of the four passages just alluded
to is John XX, 28. The Evangelist describes
how Christ reproached the incredulous Thomas
for his unbelief, Avhereupon “Thomas answered
and said to Him: My Lord and my God—(θ
Kvptoç μου καί ο @eô<s μου) DomÜlUS UieUS et DCUS
meus.” Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius
represented this reply as a mere exclamation of
surprise; but the text plainly says: “dixit ei
(ci7T€v αύτω)—[Thomas] said to him.” These
words also exclude the Rationalist theory which
asserts that the Apostle, in exclaiming “My
Lord and my God!” did not address Jesus, who
115 Mai. Ill, i. On this prophecy cfr. Maas, op. cit., Vol. I, pp.
435 sqq.

ne Luke VII, 27 and Matth. XI,
10.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

83

stood before him, but Almighty God in Heaven.
It is obvious from the context that Thomas desired
to make a profession of faith not simply in the Resur­
rection of Christ, but also in His Divinity, for which
the Resurrection furnishes such a triumphant argument.
It is in this sense that Christ replies to him : “ Quia
Misti me, Thoma, credidisti; beati, qui non viderunt
et crediderunt — Because thou hast seen me, Thomas,
thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen,
and have believed.” 117

β) Christ is again expressly called God in
Tit. II, 13: “Exspectantes beatam spem et ad­
ventum gloriae magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri
lesu Christi (τ°ν μεγάλου Θεού και σωτήρος ημών Τησοΰ
Χριστού) — Looking for the blessed hope and com­
ing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ.”
St. Paul does not mean to distinguish two sepa­
rate persons — the “ great God,” or Father, and “ Our
Saviour Jesus Christ.” He is speaking solely of Christ,
who is both “ the great God ” and “ our Saviour ; ”
else he would repeat the definite article and express
himself like this : Τού μεγάλου Θεού και τού σωτηρος ημών
*Ιησοϋ Χρίστου. Whenever St. Paul wishes to distin­
guish between the different Persons of the Most Holy
Trinity, he always repeats the article. On the other hand,
he never repeats the article when heaping several predi­
cates on one and the same Person. Cfr. 2 Cor. I, 3 :
“ Ευλογητός ό Θεός και -πατήρ του Κυρίου — Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”118 The
117 John XX, 29.

118 Cfr. also Eph. I, 3.

84

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Ethiopian translation has dropped the και without in the
least changing the signification of the text. But there is
also a strong objective reason for applying the phrase
“ the great God ” to Jesus Christ For in speaking of
the “ coming of the glory of the great God,” the Apos­
tle can only mean Christ, because Holy Scripture tells us
nothing of an epiphany of the Father, and we know that
the second coming (parousia) of Christ will coincide
with the Last Judgment.

γ) An equally cogent argument can be con­
strued from I John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam
Filius Dei venit et dedit nobis sensum, ut co­
gnoscamus verum Deum et simus in vero Filio
eius: hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna — And
we know that the Son of God is come: and he
hath given us understanding that we may know
the true God, and may be in his true Son. This
is the true God and life eternal.” Here the
Divinity of Christ, which is logically deducible
from the fact that He is a true Son of the true
God, is expressly reaffirmed in the concluding
phrase: This is the true God—άληθα™ 0eoç.
It is contrary to the rules of logic and grammar alike
to refer the phrase “ This is the true God and life
eternal,” not to the immediately preceding word “ Filio,”
but to the more remote “verum Deum” {i. e., Patrem).
In that case ille — Iküvos should be the pronoun used,
not hie — ovros. To refer the demonstrative pronoun
hie — ουτοζ to the determinative pronoun eius would
offend against the idiom of the Latin language. If

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

85

Erasmus were right in his assumption that the phrase,
“ The true God and life eternal ” designates the Father,
not the Son, St. John would have made himself
guilty of an insufferable tautology, viz.: “ Verus Deus
est verus Deus.” Moreover, the aim of St. John’s
First Epistle, which was written as a prologue to his
Gospel, is not to demonstrate the Godhead of the
Father, which no one denied, but the Divinity of the
Son, who had appeared corporeally in Christ. It is
furthermore to be noted that the “ true God ” whom
St. John has in mind, is also called “ eternal life ”
(ούτός εστιν b αληθινός Θεός και ζωη αιώνιος). Now St.
John never means the Father but invariably the Son
when he uses the phrase “ eternal life.” Consequently
Christ is as certainly “verus Deus” as is His Father.
Cfr. I John I, 2: “Annuntiamus vobis vitam aeter­
nam, quae erat apud Patrem et apparuit nobis —
We declare unto you the life eternal, which was with
the Father, and hath appeared to us.”119 1 John V,
ii : “ Vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita
in Filio eius est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui
non habet Filium, vitam non habet — God hath given
to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that
hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath
not life.” The last vestige of possible doubt is removed
by the Greek text, which reads thus : “ Και εσ/χεν ίν
τω άληθινω èv τω νιω αυτοϋ Ίησον Χριστώ * ούτος ίστιν b
αληθινός Θεός και ζωη αιώνιος.” The demonstrative pronoun
clearly points to Jesus Christ.

δ) The “crux Rationalist arum” is the famous
doxology, Rom. IX, 5 : “Ex quibus [soil. Isra119 Cfr. also John I, 4; XI, 25, XIV, 6.

86

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

elitis] est Christus secundum carnem, qui est
super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula (καί
ων b Χρίστος το κατά σάρκα ο ων Ιπι πάντων ©eos ευλογητός
εις τούς αίωρας).” Whoever reads this sentence
without prepossession will unhesitatingly refer
the predicate Deus super omnia («τί πάντων ©eos)
to Christ.
The Greek manuscript codices present the New Tes­
tament text without punctuation marks, and it would seem
to be the business of exegesis rather than of textual
criticism to determine whether there should be a comma
or a period after the word σάρκα. If a comma, then
the whole doxology plainly refers to Christ; if a period,
it would be most natural to refer it to the Father or to
the Deity in general. Similarly, in the Latin text of the
Vulgate, the Rationalists place a period after “ carnem”
and reconstruct the passage thus: “. . . ex quibus est
Christus secundum carnem. Qui est super omnia Deus
[= Pater], benedictus [^7] in saecula.”120 But this
punctuation is arbitrary. There is no intrinsic reason
whatever for inserting such an abrupt hymn of praise
in honor of the Father into a context which treats solely
of the Son. Conversely, the Apostle had excellent rea­
sons for connecting the doxology with the name of
Christ, whose descent according to the flesh from the
Jews he had accentuated immediately before. This in­
terpretation of the passage is so natural and plausi­
ble that the early writers were unanimous in referring
the doxology to the Son and not to the Father. To the
fifteen witnesses whom Petavius121 was able to mar120 Thus Erasmus, Westen, Griesbach, and others.
121 De Trinitate, II, 7.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

87

shal in confirmation of this statement, Cardinal Franzelin 122 added thirty others, while Hurter123 enriched
the list with fourteen more. This practically unanimous
consent of the Fathers loses none of its force by
the circumstance that some of them (in a very cor­
rect sense) assert that the epithet b ίπι πάντων Θεός be­
longs solely to the Father, because the Father alone,
as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, is un­
originate (άναρχος) and at the same time the principle
of the Son (άρχή τής άρχής). Thus Athanasius,124
Basil,125 and Gregory of Nyssa.126 However, since these
Fathers did not have in mind the Epistle to the Romans,
but that to the Ephesians, in which St. Paul writes 3
“ Unus Deus et Pater omnium qui est super omnes
(ό επί πάντων)—One God and Father of all, who is
above all,” 127 we can reasonably assume that they do
not mean to contradict the other Fathers. This assump­
tion is rendered still more probable by the fact that
these same apparently dissentient Fathers elsewhere ex­
pressly interpret the doxology as referring to Christ.128
For the rest, such unsuspected witnesses as Rosen­
müller and the editor of the new edition of H. A. W.
Meyer’s voluminous commentary on the various books
of Sacred Scripture, B. Weiss, admit that the Ra­
tionalist interpretation involves a violation of the rules
of Greek grammar. In fact it would be just as unnatural
and ungrammatical to write 6 ων hi πάντων Θεός, instead of
b Θεός ό ων ε’πι πάντων, as it would be natural and gram122 De Verbo Incarnato, thés. 9.
123 Opuscula Patrum, XVI, p.
240, 2nd ed., Oeniponte 1895.
124 Ad Serap., Ep. 1, n. 28.
125 Ep., 38, n. 4.
12e Contr. Apoll., n. 77.

127 Eph. IV, 6. Cfr. Newman,
Athanasius, II, 348 sq., 9th ed.,
London 1903.
12s Athanas., Ep. ad Epict., n. 10;
Basii, Contr. Eunom., IV, n. 2;
Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., 1. X.

88

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

matical to resume by ό ων the immediately preceding
subject, namely, ό X/χστός.

Be it noted in conclusion that Christ’s standing
epithet in the pages of the New Testament is not
“God” {Deus,
but rather “Lord” {Dominus, KvpLO's'), as can easily be gathered from a
perusal of the Apostolic Epistles. But inasmuch
as “Dominus” corresponds exactly to the Hebrew
Π1Π- and
the texts in which Jesus is called
“Lord” prove His Divinity quite as cogently as
those in which He is called “God.”

C.

The Logos

Whereas the Synoptics portray Christ mainly on His
human side, St. Paul emphasizes the Godman, and St.
John, who was the Saviour’s favorite disciple, raising
his eagle eye to the very Heavens, shows us Christ
subsisting before all time in His Divine Nature as the
"Word of God” {Verbum, b Λόγο?). This term129
is of the utmost importance for the proper understand­
ing of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity.. The use of
the term “ Logos ” is peculiar to St. John.130 The at­
tempt to trace the Johannine Logos to the teaching of the
Jewish philosopher Philo has proved abortive. Aside
129 " Logos, verbuni, being a term
already used in the schools of
heathen philosophy, was open to
various misunderstandings on its ap­
pearance in the theology of revealed
teaching. In the Church it was both
synonymous with and corrective of
the term ‘ Son
but heretics had
almost as many senses of the term

as they had sects.”—Newman,
Athanasius, II, 337, 445 sqq., 9th
ed., London 1903. Cfr. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la
Trinité, Book 1, Paris 1910; E.
Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland ini
erst en Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910.
130 Cfr. John I, 1 sqq.; 1 John I,
1; V, 7; Apoc. XIX, 13.

THE LOGOS

89

from the name there is absolutely no similarity between
the two conceptions; rather an irreconcilable opposition.
It is far more reasonable to regard the teaching of St.
John on the Logos as an inspired development of the
doctrine of “ Uncreated Wisdom ” which is set forth in
the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament. May we
not also assume that St. John was directly enlightened by
Him on whose bosom he was privileged to lean ?131
The most important portion of the Johannean Gospel,
as bearing on the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, is the
prologue, which distinctly asserts the personality, the hy­
postatic difference, and the Divinity of the Logos, who
is Christ, the Son of God made flesh.

I. The Logos a Real Person.—The Fourth
Gospel begins thus : “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God (& «to fy
ό Λογος και o Aoyoç ήν προς τον
Inasmuch aS
St. John distinguishes very clearly between the
“Word” and “God,” the “Word with God”
(apud Deum} cannot be an absolute divine at­
tribute, e. g.} personified wisdom or omnipotence;
for wisdom and omnipotence are not “with God”
but “in God.” This is clearly apparent from
the whole context of the prologue, especially I,
14: “And the Word was made flesh.” It
would be impossible for the Divine Nature, or
for any one of its attributes, to “become flesh,”
because the Divine Nature, as such, is incapable
of entering into union with a finite substance, and
131 John XIII, 23.

90

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

hence cannot form an undivided synthesis with
human nature. Consequently the Logos is truly
a person and not a mere personification.
2. The Logos as Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity, Distinct From the Father.
—That the Logos must be conceived as the
Second Person of the Divine Trinity, appears
from the opposition between
and προ? τον Θεόν.
The one is “God,” the other is “with God” as
His Logos, and as such is likewise God.132 But
the Evangelist continues: “He came unto his
own *(k τά ίδια), and his own (οί t&oi,
the
children of Israel) received him not.” Whence
it again appears, first, that the Logos is a real
Person, and, secondly, that He cannot be the
Father, because the Father never “came into this
world.” 133 Consequently, the Logos must be a
different Person from the Father. This conclu­
sion is made certain by verses 14 and 18, in
which the Logos is identified with the Son of
God. John I, 14: “Et Verbum (θ Λόγο?) caro
factum est et habitavit in nobis; et vidimus
gloriam eius [scii. Verbi], gloriam quasi unigeniti
a Patre (ώ« povoyevov? παρά πατρό?^ — And the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we
saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only
begotten of the Father.” John I, 18: “Uni­
genitus FiUuS (ο μονογενή? υιός)f qui esf in sinu
132 John I, i.

133 John I, 9.

THE LOGOS

91

Patris, ipse enarravit — The only begotten Son
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de­
clared him.” If the Logos is identically the same
Person as the “Son in the bosom of the Father,”
there is between the Logos and the Father
the same relative opposition which exists between the Son and the Father, and consequently
the Logos cannot be identical with the Father.
He must be an independent Hypostasis.
3. The Logos as a Divine Person, or God.
—The fifth of the Scriptural texts 134 in which
the Logos is expressly called “God,” is John
I, 1: “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum
erat apud Deiim, et Deus erat Verbum — In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.” In the last
clause of this sentence “Verbum” is the subject
and “Deus” the predicate, as a glance at the
Greek text: καί
ψ' θ Λόγος, tells. Therefore
the meaning of the clause is : “The Logos was
God.” But why did St. John thus transpose
subject and predicate? His reason for doing so
appears from the context: Ό Λόγο? fy προς τον
Θεόν, και Θεό? τ]ν ο Λόγο?. By bringing
θ£θν and
Θεός into juxtaposition, the Evangelist desired to
emphasize the consubstantiality of the Logos
with God the Father, “with” whom He was
“from the beginning.” Positively to exclude the
134 Cfr. supra, p. 82.

92

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

thought that the two might be identical in Per­
son, St. John insists: 135 θ^τος
δ Λόγος) ην
ίν αρχή 7τρδ<; τδν ©εόν; that is to say, the Logos is
indeed “God”; but He is likewise “with God.”
Even if the Logos were not expressly called
“God,” His Divinity could be inferred from the di­
vine attributes ascribed to Him by the Evangelist.
a) The Logos is the Creator of all things without
exception. John I, 3: “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt,
ct sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est — All
things were made by him: and without him was made
nothing that was made.” John I, 10: “In mundo erat,
et mundus (ό κόσμος) per ipsum factus est—He was
in the world, and the world was made by him.” He
who created the world must be God. “ Peccatum
quidem non per ipsum factum est,” beautifully observes
St. Augustine, “. . . ct idolum non per Verbum factum
est, sed . . . omnis omnino creatura ab angelo usque
ad vermiculum. Quid praeclarius angelo in creaturis?
Quid extremius vermiculo in creaturis? Per quem fac­
tus est angelus, per ipsum factus est vermiculus — Sin
indeed was not made by the Word ... an idol too was
not made by the Word, but . . . every created thing
whatever, from an angel to a worm. What created
being more excellent than an angel? What lower than
a worm? Yet He who made the angel, the very same
made the worm also.” 136 As Creator of the world the
Logos is an uncreated Substance, ens a se. As if to
refute the later Arian notion that the Logos who created
the world was Himself a mere creature, St. John stresses
135

136

John I, 2.
Tract, in loannem, I, n. 13.

THE LOGOS

93

the fact that “ all things were made by him ” by add­
ing: “And without him was made nothing that was
made.” 137 If absolutely nothing was created without the
Logos, the Logos Himself must either be increate, or His
own creator, which would involve a contradiction. “ Quo­
modo potest fieri,” says St. Augustine, " ut Verbum Dei
factum sit, quando Deus per Verbum fecit omnia? Si et
Verbum Dei ipsum factum est, per quod aliud Verbum
factum est? . . . Non enim per se ipsum fieri potuit,
per quod facta sunt omnia. Crede ergo Evangelistae.
Poterat enim dicere: In principio fecit Deus Verbum,
quomodo dixit Aloyses: In principio fecit Deus coelum
et terram — How could the Word of God be made,
when by the Word God made all things? If the Word
of God was itself also made, by what other Word was
it made? . . . For that by which all things are made,
could not be made by itself. Believe then the Evan­
gelist. For he might have said : In the beginning God
made the Word ; just as Moses said : In the beginning
God made the heavens and the earth.” 138
b) The Logos is eternal. Cfr. John I, I sq. : “ In
the beginning (eV άρχ^) was the Word. . . . The same
was in the beginning (eV άρχ^) with God.” A pre­
existence which antedates time and creation is equal to
absolute eternity. To say that the Logos began to be
“ with God ” at some certain time, would be tantamount
to asserting that the Father began out of His own
substance to beget “ the only begotten Son in His
bosom.”139 Consequently the Son must be coeternal
with the Father. This is further confirmed by a con137 John I, 3: Πάντα δι' αύτοϋ
éyevero. και χωρι$ αυτού èyéveTo
ουδέ tv (nihil = nothing whatever),
δ yéyovev, On this passage, cfr.

Card. Newman, Athanasius, II, 275
sqq.
138 Tract, in loannem, I, n. 11.
130 John I, 18.

94

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

sideration of that attribute of the Divine Logos which
may be designated as His divine immanence. By
"Word of God” (Verbum, Λόγο?) we may under­
stand either the external word of God (verbum oris s.
externum), i. e., Divine Revelation; or His internal,
immanent word (verbum mentis s. internum). The
former, which is something impersonal, accidental,
created, temporal, extra-divine, is not mentioned by St.
John in the prologue of his Gospel. The Word of
which he speaks is manifestly the internal Word,
which, being an intrinsic product of generation, im­
manent in the intellect of the begetting Father, forms
part of the Divine Essence. Consequently the Logos
is coeternal with the Essence of the Godhead.
c) Lastly, the Logos is the author of the Super­
natural, and as such must be God. In Himself “ the
true light ”140 and “ the life,” 141 He is in His external
manifestation “ the light [that] shineth in the dark­
ness,” 142 and the principle of our adopted sonship.143
John I, 12: “Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis
potestatem filios Dei fieri (έδωκεν αυτοί? εξουσίαν τίκνα Θεού
yevéaâai), his qui credunt in nomine eius (et? το όνο/ta
αύτοϋ)— But as many as received him, he gave them
power to be made the sons of God, to them that be­
lieve in his name.” Belief in the Logos is a necessary
condition of salvation and eternal beatitude. Con­
sequently the Logos is God. From the fulness of His
grace we must all draw; it is from Him we receive
grace and truth. Cfr. John I, i6 sq. : “Et de pleni­
tudine cius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia;
quia lex per Moyscn data est, gratia et veritas (ή χάρις
140
141
142

John I, 4, 7, 9.
John I, 4.
John I, 5, 9.

143 Cfr. the article “ Adoption,
Supernatural,” in the Catholic En­
cyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 148 sqq.

THE LOGOS

95

καί η άληθαα) per Iesum Christum facta est — And of
his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given by Moses ; grace and truth came
by Jesus Christ.” The Logos is the author both of
nature and of the Supernatural, and therefore very God.
The Logos appeared corporeally on earth in Jesus
Christ, for it is to Him and to Him alone that we
can apply such Scriptural passages as : ‘ “ He came unto
his own,”144 “ He was in the world,” 145 “ John . . .
gave testimony of [Him],” 146 and, lastly,147 “ The Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” 148 This “ Word
made flesh,” which is for the first time called “ Jesus
Christ” in John I, 17, is “the only begotten Son of
God.” 149 Hence Christ is both the Logos and the Son of
God. With John I, 15, therefore, begins the story of the
life of Jesus Christ.150
Readings : —- On the theology of the Son : J. E. Stadler,
Uber die Identitat der Idee der Weisheit mit der des IVortes,
Münster 1832; E. Bougaud, The Divinity of Christ (translated by
Currie) New York 1906; *L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h.
Athanasius, München 1880; M. Beyr, Trinitatis in Unitate Dei
Salus Mundi per I esum Christum Redempti, Graz 1875; K. Müller,
Gottliches IVissen und gottliche Macht des johanneischen Christus,
Freiburg 1882; *
P. Keppler, Die Komposition des Johannesevangeliums, Freiburg 1884; G. A. Müller, Christus bei Josephus
Flavius, 2nd ed., Innsbruck 1896; Simar, Théologie des h. Paulus,
2nd ed., Freiburg 1883; *
Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thés. 2-9,
ed. 4, Romae 1893; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theolog., Vol. II, pp. 234
sqq., Parisiis 1895; J. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein
Konig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904; H. Schell, Jahwe
144
145
146
147
148
148
150

John I,
John I,
John I,
John I,
John I,
John I,
Cfr. K.

h.

10.
6 sq.
6 sqq.
14.
14, 18.
Weiss, Der Prolog des

hl. Johannes, Freiburg 1899; Belser,
“ Der Prolog des JohannesevangeHums ” in the Theologische Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1903, pp.
483 sqq.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines
du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 382
sqq., Paris 1910.

96

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

und Christus, Paderborn 1905. An older work of special value
on this subject is Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini Nostri
lesu Christi Manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Parisiis 1764.
Cfr. also St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 7 (Rickaby, Of God and
His Creatures, pp. 344 sqq., London 1905) ; Bellarmine, Controv.
de Christo, 1. I ; J. Perrone, De D. N. I. Chr. Divinitate adv.
huius Aetatis Incredulos, Rationalistas et Mysticos, 3 Vols.,
Taurini 1870; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, London 1867; H. J. Coleridge, S. J., The
Preparation of the Incarnation, 2nd ed., London 1894 ; M. Lepin,
Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God,
Philadelphia 1910; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Proph­
ecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5.

ARTICLE 3
OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST

The term “ Holy Ghost,” or “ Spirit of God,” does
not imply opposition so clearly as “ Father ” and “ Son.”
In demonstrating this dogma, therefore, we shall have
to emphasize the personality of the Holy Ghost and
the fact that He is an independent Hypostasis, distinct
from both the Father and the Son. His Divinity can be
proved with comparative ease. Accordingly, this article
will fall into three divisions. In the first division we
shall demonstrate that the Holy Ghost is a real Person ;
in the second, that He is a Person distinct from the
Father and the Son ; and in the third, that He is a truly
Divine Person, or God Himself. Once these three points
are established from Holy Scripture, no further proof
will be needed to show the existence of a Third Person in
the Godhead.

THE HOLY GHOST

A.

97

The Personality of the Holy Ghost

I. The Word Ghost (Spirit) in its Imper­
sonal Sense.—The Bible not infrequently uses
the terms “God the Father” and “sons of God”
in a figurative sense. Similarly it also employs
the word “spirit of God” in a way that does not
always suggest the idea of a real personality.
When we read, for instance, that “ the spirit of God
moved over the waters,”151 we understand that the
sacred writer personifies the breath of divine omnipo­
tence. At least there is no cogent reason for thinking
that Moses here meant the Person of the Holy Ghost.
In those texts, too, which tell of supernatural effects
wrought by grace, or of the workings of the spirit, it
is not always obvious that Holy Scripture means to
describe something more than an external divine effect
which might be figuratively termed “ holy spirit.” In
the Fiftieth Psalm the words “ Spiritïim rectum innova
in visceribus meis,” 152 and “ Spiritu principali confirma
me,”153 evidently denote a supernatural spirit of rec­
titude and self-control, i. e., a good disposition. “Et
spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me,” 154 must like­
wise be interpreted impersonally. The “ holy spirit ”
here referred to is the spirit of sanctity. There are still
other texts in which “ spirit ” does not designate a Per­
son, but the absolute Divine Nature, which is essentially
spiritual. Cfr. John IV, 24: “ God is a spirit (spiritus,
πνεύμα), and they that adore him, must adore him in
Gen. I, 2.
Renew a right spirit within
my bowels.” Ps. L, 12.
151

152 “

153 “ Strengthen me with a perfect
spirit.” Ps. L, 14.
154 “ Take not thy holy spirit
from me.” Ps. L, 13.

98

THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

spirit and in truth.” In the eighth verse of the third
chapter of St. John’s Gospel, Christ Himself employs
the word “ spirit ” in its original impersonal and material
sense of “ wind.” For spiritus is derived from spirare,
which means to blow, to breathe, as the Greek πνεύμα is
derived from πνεϊν, which has the same meaning.155

2. The AVord Spirit in its Hypostatic
Sense.—Aside from the texts already quoted,
there is a considerable number of other Scriptural
passages in which the Holy Ghost is clearly de­
scribed as a real and individual person.
a) There are in the first place certain epithets de­
signed to restrict the concept of spirit and to show that
it is not a mere impersonal abstraction. Holy Scrip­
ture very frequently speaks not merely of the “ spirit
of God,” but of the “ Holy Spirit ” ( το άγιον πνεύμα),
and this personal appellation in some texts is indi­
vidualized even more strongly by the reduplication of
the definite article to, as e. g. in John XIA’, 26: to
πνεύμα το άγιον. In some instances the Divine Spirit is
spoken of as “ the Spirit of the Father,” or “ the Spirit
of the Son,” or “ the Spirit of Christ,” which clearly
intimates opposition to the Father and the Son.156 1
Cor. II, 12: “Spiritus qui ex Deo est ( το πνεύμα το εκ
τού Θεού)—The Spirit that is of God,” distinctly recalls
John I, 1: “Et Verbum erat apud Deum — And the
Word was with God.”
155 On the rôle of the Holy Ghost
in the Old Testament, see supra, p.
18 sq. On the whole subject of
this subdivision, Newman, Athana­
sius, II, pp. 304 sqq.; Lebreton,

Les Origines du Dogme de la
Trinité, pp. 74 sqq.
156 Acts XVI, 7; Cfr. Rom.
VIII, 9; Gal. IV, 6; Phil. I, 19.
1 Pet. I, it.

THE HOLY GHOST

b) The Holy Ghost
{Paraditus, παράκλητο?),
to St. John as the term
Son of God, Paraclete
one identical Person.

99

is also called Paraclete
This term is as peculiar
Logos. Like Logos and
and Holy Ghost denote

Paraclete is not, however, predicated of the Holy
Spirit so exclusively as Logos is applied to the Son.
Thus, in the First Epistle of St. John, Christ is called
Paraclete.157 The Saviour Himself in the Fourth Gos­
pel repeatedly refers to the Holy Ghost as the Para­
clete. What, then, is the meaning of Paraclete? The
word is used in three different senses, all derived from
the root-verb παρακαλάν. The first and original sense
is “advocate” {advocatus, from παρακαλΰν = in au­
xilium advocare). But the operations which Jesus as­
cribes to the Paraclete manifestly cannot be brought
within the limits of this definition. Some exegetes de­
rive Paraclete from παρακαλάσθαι. (i. e., consolari) and
take it to mean “comforter” (consolator). But if that
derivation were correct, the noun should spell παρακλητωρ,
not παράκλητος. Moreover, it is plain from our Lord’s
discourse after the Last Supper,158 that the office of
the Paraclete is far superior to that of a mere comforter.
He is formally to take the place of the departing Son of
God, and to represent Him in His Church in the same
manner in which Christ had represented the Father. The
Paraclete is to complete the work begun by the Saviour
and to assist the newly founded Church unto the con­
summation of the world, filling it with His sanctifying
157 i John II, i : “ Si quis pec­
caverit, advocatum (παράκλητον)
habemus apud Patrem, lesum Chri­
stum iustum ■—· If any man sin, we

have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the just.”
158 John XIV-XVI.

100 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
power and with the spirit of truth. Paraclete may also
mean “ representative,” from παρακαλάν = aliquem in
locum alterius accire.159
From these verbal definitions it is clear that the “ Para­
clete ” or “ Holy Spirit ” is not a mere personification but
a real person.

c) The correctness of this interpretation is
borne out by the characteristic description
which Christ Himself has given of the Paraclete,
His operations, and His relation to the Father
and the Son. He is an “other” {alius, άλλος)
than the Father who “sends” Him,160 and He
is also distinct from the Son, who sends Him
“from the Father.” 161
Between Him who sends (mittens) and Him who is
sent (missus) there is logically the same relative oppo­
sition as between Father and Son. This distinction
furnishes a safeguard against the modalistic error
which conceives the Holy Spirit as a mere mode of
manifestation of the Godhead. It is also useful in re­
futing the Rationalist contention that the name Spiritus
Sanctus merely shelters a poetical prosopopoeia or per­
sonification. An impersonal being could not “ teach all
truth,” “ give testimony,” “ bring all things to [the
Apostles’] mind,” remind them of what Christ had told
them, and so forth. There are many other texts of
Sacred Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is described
as possessing all the marks of a real personality. Thus
He has a free will, for St. Paul speaks of Him as
159 Cfr. Oswald, Trinitâtslehre,
pp. 73 sqq., Paderborn 1888.

leojohn XIV, 16.
161 John XV, 26,

THE HOLY GHOST

ιοί

“Dividens singulis, prout vult—(the Spirit worketh),
dividing to every one according as he will.” 162 He ap­
points the bishops: “Attendite vobis et universo gregi,
in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere
ecclesiam Dei, qrtam acquisivit sanguine suo — Take
heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the
Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 163
He prays for us “ with unspeakable groanings,” 164 like
as Christ “ always lives to make intercession for us.” 165
Nay, He formally ascribes to Himself subsistent per­
sonality by commanding : “ Segregate mihi (pod) Saulum
et Barnabam in optts, ad quod assumpsi (προςκίκλημαι)
eos — (The Holy Ghost said to them): Separate me
Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken
them.” 166

B. The Hypostatic Difference Between the Holy
Ghost and the Father and the Son
I. St. Paul and the Disciples of John the Bap­
Ephesus.— On one occasion, when St. Paul
came to Ephesus, he found there about twelve disci­
ples of John the Baptist, and thinking that they had
already received Baptism, he asked them : “ Have you
received the Holy Ghost (πνεύμα άγων) since ye be­
lieved?” They answered: “We have not so much as
heard that there be a Holy Ghost (άλλ
*
ούδε, d πνεύμα
άγιον εστιν ήκονσαμεν)And when the Apostle queried
further: “ In what then were you baptized?” they re­
plied : “ In John’s baptism.” . . . “ Having heard these
tist at

ιβ2ι Cor. XII, ii.
163 Acts XX, 28.
164 Rom. VIII, 26.

165 ” Semper vivit ad interpellari·
dum pro nobis.” Heb. VII, 25.
166 Acts XIII, 2.

102 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.” And when St. Paul “ had imposed his hands
on them, the Holy Ghost (το πνεύμα το άγιον) came upon
them.” 167 This account makes it certain beyond a per­
adventure that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are two dis­
tinct Persons. For the initial ignorance of the disci­
ples of John the Baptist did not refer to the Godhead
as such (concerning which they must have been suffi­
ciently instructed), but to that particular Divine Per­
son who, in contradistinction to Jesus, the Son of God,
is called Holy Ghost. In accordance with this marked
difference between the two Divine Persons, John’s dis­
ciples at Ephesus received two distinct sacraments, viz.,
Baptism (i. e.} the Baptism of Jesus) and Confirmation.

2. Christ’s Last Discourse.—In His dis­
course to His Disciples after the Last Supper,168
Christ clearly distinguishes between the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “Ego rogabo
Patrem et alium Paraclitum (άλλον παράκλητον')
dabit vobis, iit maneat vobiscum in aeternum ·— I
will ask the Father, and he shall give you another
Paraclete, that he may abide with you for
ever.” 169 The “alius” so distinctly differentiates
the Paraclete from both Christ Himself and
the Father, that a blending of the Three Persons
into one, or into two, is entirely out of question.
The Father “gives”; the Paraclete “is given”;
and Christ “asks the Father to give” the Para­
clete. It is futile to object that God may give
107
168

Acts XIX, 1-6.
John XIV-XVI.

109 John XIV, 16.

THE HOLY GHOST

103

Himself to His creatures; for the Father is asked
by the Son to give to the Apostles, not Himself,
nor His Son, but the Paraclete, or Floly Ghost.
The hypostatic difference between the Three Per­
sons of the Divine Trinity is still more clearly
marked in John XIV, 26: “Paraclitus autem
Spirittis sanctus, quem mittet Pater in nomine
meo, ille vos docebit omnia (‘°
παράκλητος το
πνεύμα το άγιον, δ πεμψει ο πατήρ εν τω όνόματί μου, εκείνος
[not: cKciro] υμάς διδάξει πάντα') —But the Paraclete,
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things/’ In this pas­
sage, too, it is impossible to confound the Para­
clete with the Father, because it is the Father
who sends Him; or with Christ, because it is in
Christ’s name that He is sent. Consequently the
Paraclete is a different Person than either the
Father or the Son.
3. The Immanent Origin of the Holy
Ghost.—The Holy Ghost is “of God,” and, like
the Logos, Himself a Divine Person, who owes
His Personality to His eternal procession from
the Father. Sacred Scripture calls the Holy
Ghost “the Spirit that is of God,” 170 and dis­
tinctly declares that He “proceedeth from the
Father.” 171 Consequently the Holy Ghost is a
different Person from the Father. But is He
ck

170 i Cor. II, 12: τό πνεύμα τό
τοϋ Oeoü.

171 John XV, 26: παρά τον πατρό}
ίκπορεύεται.

104 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

like\vise personally distinct from the Son? The
context plainly shows that that is what St. John
means to inculcate. “Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum
veritatis qui a Patre procedit (™ wew της
δ παρά τοϋ πατρος εκπορεύεται), {He festimOUÙim pCrJlibebit de me—But when the Paraclete cometh,
whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit
of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he
shall give testimony of me.” 172 Here the Para­
clete, or “Spirit of truth,” who “proceedeth from
the Father,” and who cannot therefore be iden­
tical with the Father, is sharply distinguished
from the Son, who sends Him; for no one can
send Himself. Besides, St. John distinctly af­
firms that the Paraclete is sent to give testi­
mony of Christ. From all of which it is as
plain as the light of day that the Bible makes a
sharp distinction between the Holy Ghost and the
Father and the Son, and that each must therefore
be a separate and distinct Hypostasis.
C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost
Although the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is
logically deducible from the texts already quoted,
the Pneumatomachian and Socinian heresies de­
mand a special refutation. In formulating the
Scriptural argument for the Divinity of the
172 John XV, 26.

THE HOLY GHOST

iOS

Holy Ghost, we shall follow the same method
which we employed in elaborating that for the
Divinity of Christ.
I. The Divine Attributes of the Holy
Ghost.—Sacred Scripture ascribes to the Holy
Ghost divine attributes both of being and of life.
Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.
a) Of the transcendental attributes of being, truth is
frequently ascribed to the Holy Ghost. He is called the
substantial “ Spirit of truth,” who “ teaches all truth.”
John XVI, 13: “ Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veri­
tatis (το ττεύ/Λα ττ?ς άλι?0α'ας), docebit vos omnem verita­
tem (πάσαν την αλήθειαν)— But when he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” This sub­
stantial Spirit of truth by virtue of His “ procession
from the Father” must be increate and divine; else He
could not be called the Inspirer of God’s infallible
word.173
A second characteristic prerogative of the Holy Ghost,
which is indicated by His very name, is His substantial
holiness or sanctity. The epithet sanctus (άγιος) de­
scribes the very essence of the Third Person of the
Divine Trinity. Not as if the Father and the Son were
not also substantially holy,174 but the Holy Ghost pro­
ceeds from Sanctity or Love as His principle, and
is therefore Hypostatic Holiness or Personal Love.175
It is for this reason that He is represented, per ap­
propriationem, as “ the Sanctifier,” i, e., the principle
of all created holiness. Cfr. Rom. V, 5 : “ Caritas Dei
173 2 Pet. I, 21.
174 God as such must be holy by
His very nature.— Cfr. Pohle-

Preuss, God: His Knoivability, Es·
sence, and Attributes, pp. 251 sqq.
175 Infra, Chapters III and IV.

ιοό THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum,
qui datus est nobis — The charity of God is poured forth
in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.”
The omnipotence of the Holy Ghost is more clearly
defined in the supernatural sphere than in the domain
of nature. St. Paul sublimely demonstrates it in his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Hol}- Ghost
is eulogized as the author of the supernatural gifts of
grace, such as wisdom, knowledge, the working of
miracles, prophecy, “ interpretation of speeches,” etc.178
The Holy Ghost wrought His own theophany (or visible
manifestation) in the form of “ parted tongues of fire ”
on Pentecost Day, when, as Sacred Scripture tells us,
the Apostles “ were filled with the Holy Ghost, and
. . . began to speak with divers tongues, according as
the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” 177 But the great­
est miracle of His omnipotence was the Incarnation, when
the Blessed Virgin Mary “ conceived [her Divine Son]
of the Holy Ghost.” 178
Omnipresence and indwelling are likewise distinctly
divine attributes. Now, the Holy Ghost is everywhere
in Sacred Scripture represented as the penetrating, trans­
forming, purifying, sanctifying, and vivifying principle
of supernatural life; so much so that the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed expressly designates Him as the
Vivifier.179 Cfr. John VI, 64: “Spiritus est, qui vivi­
ficat — It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” 2 Cor. Ill, 6 :
“ To δε πνεΰμα ζωοποιεί — But the Spirit quickeneth.”
This vivifying and sanctifying omnipresence implies the
divine prerogative of indwelling in the souls of the just.
176 i Cor. XII, 4-11.
177 Acts II, 4.
178 Cfr. Matth. I, 20: " Quod in
ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est

—That which is conceived in her,
is of the Holy Ghost.”
17£> Vivificator (ζωοποιός), i· c.,
He who gives life.

THE HOLY GHOST

107

The Saints are temples of the Holy Ghost. John XIV,
17’ “You shall know him; because he shall abide with
you, and shall be in you/’ 1 Cor. Ill, 16: “Know
you not that you are the temples of the Holy Ghost,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? ” 1 Cor.
VI, 19 : “ Know you not that your members are the
temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you
have from God?”
b) Of the attributes of divine life, omniscience be­
longs to the Holy Ghost in the same measure as it
belongs to the Logos. He is the “ searcher of the deep
things of God,” which “ no man knoweth, but the Spirit
of God.” i Cor. II, 10-11 : “Spiritus omnia scrutatur,
etiam profunda Dei. Quis enim hominum scit, quae
sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Ita
et ea quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei —
For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things
of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man,
but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things
also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit
of God.” In virtue of this Divine Knowledge He is
the revealer of the mysteries of God. “Spiritu loqui­
tur mysteria." 180 Out of His perfect knowledge of the
future free acts of rational creatures, the Holy Ghost
inspires the prophets and predicts the future. John
XVI, 13: “ Quae ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis—■
The things that are to come, he shall shew you.” 181
Besides these attributes, there are His external di­
vine operations. Continuing the work of the Redemp­
tion, the Holy Ghost is perpetually remitting sins in
the Church. John XX, 22 sq. : “ Accipite Spiritum
Sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis
180 i Cor. XIV, 2; cfr. 2 Pet. I,
21.

8

181 Cfr. also 1 Pet. I, 10 sqq.; 2
Pet. I, 21.

io8 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
— Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall
forgive, they are forgiven them.”—“ The charity of
God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost,” 182 and it is the Holy Ghost through whom the
just are adopted as children of God. Rom. VIII, 14:
“ Quicumque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur, ii sunt filii Dei
— For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God.” He is, lastly, the seal of super­
natural life stamped on our souls. Eph. I, 13: “ Cre­
dentes signati estis Spiritu promissionis sancto [i. e.,
Spiritu a Deo promisso]—Believing, you were signed
with the Holy Spirit of promise” (that is to say, with
the Spirit promised by God).

2. The Holy Ghost Entitled to Divine
Worship.—The Trinitarian form of benediction
puts the Holy Ghost on a par \vith the Father
and the Son. This general argument for His
adorability can be fortified by a special proof,
drawn from the peculiar malice involved in blas­
pheming the Person of the Holy Ghost.
Cfr. Matth. XII, 31-32: “ Omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus; Spiritus autem blasphemia
non remittetur. Et quicunque dixerit verbum contra
Filium hominis [i e., Christum] remittetur ei; qui
autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum, non remittetur
ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro — Every sin
and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blas­
phemy of183 the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And
182 Rom. V, 5.
183 Better, against, as Fr. Spencer

renders it in The Four Gospels, A
New Translation, New York 1898.

THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST

109

whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him : but he that shall speak against
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither
in this world, nor in the world to come.” Therefore
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a more grievous
offence than ordinary blasphemy; which could not be
were not the Holy Ghost at least coequal in majesty
and adorableness with the Father and the Son. As
for Christ’s dictum in the text just quoted, we need
hardly say that it is only as man that He subordinates
Himself to the Holy Ghost, in the same sense in which
He elsewhere says :184 “ The Father is greater than I.”
This argument is confirmed by all those Scriptural texts
which contain the phrase “ temple of the Holy Ghost,”
for a temple is reared for the worship of the Divinity.

3. The Name “God” Applied to the. Holy
Ghost.—Although the Bible nowhere expressly
calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity
“God,” the appellation occurs frequently in con­
texts where “God” can be legitimately substituted
for “Holy Ghost.”
a) To begin with, the Old Testament contains a num­
ber of passages which are directly referred to the Holy
Ghost in the New. Is. VI, 8-9, we read: “Et audivi
vocem Domini (Vitf) dicentis: . . . Vade et dices po­
pulo huic: aridité audientes et nolite intelligere — And I
heard the voice of the Lord, saying: ... Go and thou
shalt say to this people : Hearing, hear and understand
not.” Now St. Paul teaches :185 “ Bene Spiritus Sanc­
tus locutus est per Isaiam prophetam: Vade et dices,
184

John XIV, 28.

185

Acts XXVIII, 25.

no THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

etc. — Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by
Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say
to them, etc.” According to St. Paul, therefore, the
Holy Ghost is identical with the Old Testament
that is to say, with the one true God, to whom alone this
name is attributable as a quasi nomen proprium.™ A
similar substitution of names takes place whenever a
prophecy is alternately ascribed to the Father, to the
Son, and to the Holy Ghost.187 If the Father is God,
and the Son is God, the Holy Ghost, too, must be God.
b) In many passages of the New Testament the word
“ God ” can be directly substituted for “ Holy Ghost.”
Thus St. Peter addresses Ananias in these words :
“ Cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum, mentiri te Spiritui
Sancto. . . . Non es mentitus hominibus, sed Deo —
Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst
lie to the Holy Ghost. . . . Thou hast not lied to men,
but to God.” 188 By substitution we get the proposition :
“ The Holy Ghost is God.” St. Paul, when he asks :189
“ Nescitis quia templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat
in vobis? — Know you not that you are the temple of
God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”—
plainly intimates that the Holy Ghost dwelling in
“ the temple of God ” is identical with God Him­
self.180 A comparison of John I, 13: “Ex Deo nati
sunt — They are born of God,” with John III, 5 : “ Nisi
quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto — Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,”
shows that “ Holy Ghost ” = “ God.” Finally St. Paul
says in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “ Multifariam
186 Compare Ps. XCIV, 8-11 with
Heb. Ill, 7-11·
187 Vide supra, pp. 29 sq.
188 Acts V, 3-4·

Cor. Ill, 16.
Cfr. i Cor. VI, 19; 2 Cor. VI,

189 i
190

16.

THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST

m

multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis
— God ... at sundry times and in divers manners
spoke in times past to the fathers by the proph­
ets,” 191 and St. Peter assures us : “ Non enim volun­
tate humana allata est aliquando prophetia, sed Spiritu
Sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines — For
prophecy came not by the will of man at any time:
but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy
Ghost.” 192

The synthesis of the Three Divine Persons
in the complete concept of the Trinity is most
perfectly consummated in the so-called ordo
subsistendi™3 by virtue of which the Three ob­
serve a constant order and follow one another
in an immutable sequence. The members of this
formula can not be transposed. The Father
must be conceived strictly as the First, the Son as
the Second, and the Holy Ghost as the Third Per­
son of the Godhead. Yet this is not to be under­
stood as implying a sequence of time or dignity,
a before or after, a more or less; for in virtue
of their absolute consubstantiality or homoousia
all Three Divine Persons are coequal in rank,
eternity, and power.194 The numerical sequence
191 Heb. I, I.

2 Pet. I, 2i. For a fuller
elucidation of the topic of this para­
graph, cfr. Heinrich, Dogmat. Thé­
ologie, IV, § 228; Kleutgen, De Ipso
Deo, pp. 489-509.
103 ’Ακολουθία κατά την τάζιν,
194 Cfr. the Athanasian Creed:
192

" Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut
posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed
totae tres personae coaeternae et
coaequales — And in this Trinity
none is afore or after other, none
is greater or less than another, but
the whole Three Persons are co­
eternal together, and co-equal.”

112 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

of the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity,
therefore, simply implies a succession with re­
gard to origin, the Father being the principle
of the Son, and the Father and the Son together
the principle of the Holy Ghost. In our Lord’s
baptismal mandate, in the form of baptism which
He Himself dictated, in the Comma loanneum,
in the Christian doxologies, and wherever else
the Bible formally enumerates the Three Divine
Persons, this order is unvaried. When Holy
Scripture seems to make an exception (as, e. g.,
i Cor. XII, i sqq.), it is easy to see that no
formal enumeration is intended.
Readings : — On the theology of the Holy Ghost cfr. St. Atha­
nasius, De Trinit. et Spiritu Sancto Libri III ; Didymus Alex., De
Spiritu Sancto (in Migne, Pair. Gr., 39, 1031 sqq.) ; St. Am­
brose, De Spiritu Sancto ad Gratianum August.; S. Thom.,
Contr. Gent., IV, 16 sqq. (Rickaby, l. c., pp. 349 sqq.) and the
commentators; Petavius, De Trinit., II, 6, 13 sqq., VII, 5; Th.
Schermann, Die Gottheit des hl. Geistes nach den griechischen
Vdtern des vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901 ; Cardinal Man­
ning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Am. reprint,
New York 1905; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la
Trinité, pp. 251 sqq., 283 sqq., 325 sqq., 371 sqq., 418 sqq., Paris
1910; E. W. Winstanley, Spirit in the New Testament: An
Enquiry into the Use of the zvord πνεύμα, in all Passages, and
a Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Holy Spirit, Cam­
bridge 1908; Η. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testa­
ment, London 1909; J. Forget, art. “Holy Ghost” in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 409 sqq.

CHAPTER II
THE BLESSED TRINITY IN TRADITION

The dogma of the Blessed Trinity was de­
fined by the Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325.
The ensuing Antitrinitarian controversies, which
marked the period ending with the year 381,
came to a head at the Second Ecumenical Coun­
cil, which safeguarded the doctrine against va­
rious heretical incursions. In the precise for­
mulation which it received at Nicaea and Con­
stantinople, the dogma has come down to our
time, and we can consequently, in demonstrating
it from Tradition, confine our attention to the
first four centuries of the Christian era. Since
the condemnation of various heretical perver­
sions affords the best insight into the genuine
ecclesiastical Tradition, we shall preface our
positive exposition by a brief account of the
Antitrinitarian heresies up to the beginning of
the fifth century.

113

SECTION i
THE ANTITRINITARIAN HERESIES AND THEIR

CONDEMNATION BY THE CHURCH

There are two logical processes whereby the
dogma of the Blessed Trinity can be essentially
perverted; per defectum, i. e., by exaggerating
the notion of unity and eliminating that of Trin­
ity (Monarchianism) ; or per excessum, i. e., by
exaggerating the concept of the Trinity, making
it a Trinity of Divine Natures and thereby
denying the unity of Persons (Tritheism).
Tritheism will receive due consideration in the
second part of this volume, in which we shall
expound the doctrine of Unity in the Trinity
{Unitas in Trinitate').
Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the Monarchia, as
it is called by an assumption of exclusive orthodoxy
like that which has led to the adoption of the term “ Unitarianism ” at the present day,1 denies the distinction of
Persons in the Divine Nature. It is threefold: (i)
crass Monarchianism, in its present-day form called Unitarianism, which denies all distinction of persons in
God. (2) Modalism, so-called, which admits a Trinity
of Persons, but holds that the difference between them
1 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 117.

IU

MONARCHIANISM

115

is not real, but merely nominal or modal; this heresy is
called Sabellianism from its chief champion, Sabellius.
(3) Subordinationism, which, while it readily grants
that the three Divine Persons are really distinct, insists
that they are not coequal, but subordinate one to the
other (Arianism, Macedonianism). This logical division
of Monarchianism substantially coincides with the suc­
cessive phases of its historic development.
Readings : — The various text-books of Church History, espe­
cially Alzog (Pabisch-Byrne’s translation), Vol. I, pp. 348 sqq.,
5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church
History, Vol. I, London 1910; *
Hefele, A History of the Coun­
cils of the Church, Vols. I sqq.; *Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §§ 8-9,
Paderborn 1888 ; H. Couget, La SS. Trinité et les Dogmes Antitrinitaires, Paris 1905; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 63 sqq.,
New York 1910.

ARTICLE i
CRASS MONARCHIANISM

i. The Heresy of Monarchianism.—This
is an ancient heresy, the beginnings of which
can be traced to the second century of the Chris­
tian era. It is either Dynamistic or Patripassian.
Dynamistic Monarchianism asserts that the
Father alone is true God, and that the divine ele­
ment in Christ was merely a power (δυΤα/us) in­
dwelling in Him as an impersonal divine spirit.
Patripassian Monarchianism completely identifies
the Son with the Father, asserting that the Per­
son of the Father was made flesh and suffered on
the Cross. The Patripassian is superior to the

116

THE TRINITY IN TRADITION

Dynamistic form of Monarchianism in so far as
it acknowledges Christ to be a manifestation of
the Divine Essence.
a) Dynamistic Monarchianism was championed by the
Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians, who
all held that Christ was a mere man, though endowed
with divine powers or energies, after the manner of the
Old Testament prophets or the pagan soothsayers. The
chief representatives of this heresy were Theodotus of
Byzantium (about A. D. 192), a tanner by trade, and
his pupil Theodotus the Younger. The latter, surnamed the Money-Changer, asserted that a divine power
had indeed descended upon the man Jesus at his bap­
tism, but that the same Divine Power (λόγος, υίός)
had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been media­
tor and intercessor for the angels in the same sense
in which Christ was for men, and whose followers
were therefore called Melchisedechians.2 A somewhat
later protagonist of this heresy was the notorious Paul
of Samosata, an extremely clever man, who died as
Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 260. He taught that
Christ, though supernaturally begotten and born of a
virgin, was nevertheless a mere man, and that the Di­
vine Logos (i e., the impersonal wisdom of God) was
not united to Him substantially, but simply as a quality
or power ; whence His deification was foreordained.
Thus “ the Logos was greater than Christ ; the Logos
was from above, Christ from below ; Christ suffered in
His nature and wrought miracles by grace.” It was
2 Alzog, Universal Church His­
tory, English tr., Vol. I, 350;
Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, Here­
sies, etc., new impression, London
1903» PP· 304 SQ· θη Theodotus

the tanner, and his pupil the
money-changer, cfr. Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles., V, 28; Theodoretus, Haeret.
Fab., II, 5.

MONARCHIANISM
only by means of divine grace and His own co-operation
therewith, that Christ ultimately became God.3
A kindred heresy was that of Photinus, Bishop of
Sirmium (d. 366), who “increased the scandal, by ad­
vocating, and with greater boldness, an almost Unitarian
doctrine.”4* He taught that the Logos is the imper­
sonal intellect, while the Holy Ghost is the impersonal
power of God, in whom there is but one Person, viz.,
the Father. Hence Θεός = λογοπάτωρ. Christ, according
to Photinus, was a simple man, in whom the Logos
dwelt as efficient power (eWpyaa δραστική), and who
earned for himself the name of “ God ” by his obedience.
The main argument of all these heretics was this.
If the Father were other than the Son, and each were
nevertheless true God, it would be necessary to assume
the existence of two Gods (Ditheism). Consequently
Christ, though endowed with divine power (δΑαρ,ις), is a
mere man. Paul of Samosata quoted in support of his
heresy John XVII, 3; XIV, 28; Matth. XI, 27; Luke
Π, 52.
b) The Patripassian form of Monarchianism, accord­
ing to the Philosophomnena
*
seems to have had for
its author Noëtus of Smyrna, a philosopher of the
school of Heraclitus. He denied the distinction of Per­
sons in the Godhead and taught that the Father was
born, suffered, and died in Christ.6 Another leader of the
3 Cfr. Alzog, I, 350 sq.; Hergen­
rother, Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed.,
Vol. I, p. 222. There is some diffi­
culty in determining what were the
opinions of the Samosatene. Cfr.
Newman, Select Treatises of St.
Athanasius, II, 237 sqq.; Idem, The
Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 3
sqq.
4 Newman, The Arians of the
Fourth Century, p. 313.

5 IX, 7 sqq., ed. Miller, p. 284,
Oxon.
1851. Cfr.
BardenhewerShahan, Patrology, pp. 209 sqq.
6 “ Pater passus est.” In a frag­
ment of the writings of Hippolytus
Noëtus’s teaching is stated in these
terms: “ Τόρ Χριστόρ elvai τον
πατέρα και αυτόν τον πατέρα
yeyevvijadai και πνπονθέναι και
άποτεθνηκέναι.” (Fragm.
contr.
Noct., c. i.) On Noëtus and the

n8

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

Patripassian heretics was Praxeas (about A. D. 192), a
contemporary of Tertullian, by whom he was denounced
as one of the “vanissimi Monarchiani ” who boasted,
“ Monarchiam habeimis.” 7 Regardless of the distinc­
tion between Nature and Person, Praxeas taught that
the Divine Substance has but one Hypostasis. As
Father, God is a spirit, but He is called Son in so
far as He has assumed human flesh (without a soul)—
“ Ipse se filium sibi fecit.” Consequently Christ is in­
deed true God, but He is not the Son of God; and inas­
much as Christ was the Father incarnate, it was the
Father who suffered and died on the Cross. In con­
firmation of his error Praxeas quoted John X, 30:
“Ego et Pater unum sumus — I and the Father are
one; ” and John XIV, 9: “Philippe, qui videt me, videt
et Patrem — Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father
also.” Praxeas and his adherents were therefore also
called υίοττάτορες.8

2. Attitude of the Church Towards Monarchianism.—The Church strenuously op­
posed all these heresies even before she began
to hold ecumenical councils.
The iniquitous Theodotus of Byzantium was excom­
municated by Pope Victor I (189-198). Paul of
Samosata was called to account by several synods,9 but,
clever sophist that he was, escaped conviction until Malchion, a learned presbyter of Antioch, was able to ex­
pose the drift of his errors and tore the mask from his
Noêtians, cfr. Blunt, Dictionary of
Sects, Heresies, etc., pp. 373 sqq.,
new impression, London 1903.
7 Contr. Praxeam, c. 3.

8 On this term, see Newman, Se·
lect Treatises of St. Athanasius, II,
475 sq.
9 A. D. 264 sqq.

MONARCHIANISM

119

face at a council held in Antioch A. D. 269.10 Paul
was deposed and excommunicated, but tenaciously held
on to his see until the Emperor Aurelian put an end
to the reign of Queen Zenobia, into whose favor he
had insinuated himself.11
Noëtus, when cited before a council in Asia Minor,
sought to conceal his Patripassian leanings by empha­
sizing his monotheism, and pathetically exclaimed :
“ What wrong have I done ? I adore the One God, I
know but One God, and none beside Him, who was
born, suffered, and died ! ”12 The assembled bishops
(called presbyteri} did not reply that they were Ditheists.
They simply declared: " We, too, adore the One God,
but in a manner in which we know that He is adored
rightly. And we likewise possess the One Christ, . . .
the Son of God, who suffered and died.”13 Noëtus
was excommunicated A. D. 170. Praxeas had to recant
his errors in writing. He went to Africa, where he
found a staunch opponent in Tertullian, who employed
the Apostles’ Creed as the most effective weapon against
the Patripassian heresy.14
Against the later “ Unitarianism ” of the Socinians,
who also denied the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity
of Jesus Christ, and taught a sort of abstract mono­
theism, Pope Paul IV (A. D. 1555) issued his dogmatic
Constitution “ Cum quoriindam.” 15
10 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, p. 165.
11 A. D. 272. Cfr. Newman, The
Arians of the Fourth Century, pp.
3 sqq.; Edm. Venables in the Dic­
tionary of Christian Biography, s. v.
“Paulus of Samosata”; Hefele,
History of the Councils (Engl, ed.),
Vol. I, pp. 118 sqq. The authen­
ticity of the “ Epistola Synodica

Anni 269” is doubtful. Cfr. Bar­
denhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 165.
12 Quoted by Epiphanius, Haeres.,
57» i·
13 Epiph., I. c.
llTertull., Contr. Prax., c. 2.
15 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 993. On modern Antitrinitarianism, see Chapter IV, § 1, in­
fra.

120

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

Readings: — *
Hagemann, Die romische Kirch e und ihr Einfluss auf Disziplin und Dogma in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten,
Freiburg 1864 ; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Kirchengeschicht e, 4th ed.,
Vol. I, pp. 245 sqq., Freiburg 1902; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte,
2nd ed., Vol. I, Freiburg 1892 ; A. Harnack, art. “ Monarchianism ” in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 453-461, New York 1910; J. Fixeront,
History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, 290 sqq., St. Louis 1910;
J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. “ Monarchians ” in the Catholic En­
cyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 448 sqq.

ARTICLE 2
THE MODALISM OF SABELLIUS

I. The Heresy of Sabellius.—Sabellius
(about A. D. 250) was not an extreme Monarchianist; he recognized the existence of a Trinity,
though an imperfect one, in the Godhead.16
The Sabellian Triad is no true, real, immanent Trin­
ity. It is merely a modal, external, and transitive dis­
tinction, based upon the relation of God (in Whom the
Sabellians admit but one Person) to the created universe.
In other words, the Trinity of the Sabellians is a merely
external Trinity of manifestation, not an internal one
of life. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they argue, are
three distinct modes (πρόσωπα) by which the one Person
of the Godhead manifests Himself, and which are inter­
related as body, soul, and spirit in man, or light,
warmth, and sphericity in the sun. The undifferen­
tiated Divine Monad has in course of time developed
and “ dilated ” into a Triad. In its rôle of Creator it is
16 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of
the Fourth Century, Ch. I, § 5:
“ Sabellianism,” pp. 116-132; see

also Chapman’s article “ Monar·
chians” in the Catholic Encyclo·
pedia, Vol. X, 448 sqq.

SABELLIAN MODALISM

121

called Father; as the Redeemer it is called Son; and as
the Sanctifier, enlightening and regenerating the faithful,
it is called Holy Ghost. Hence the Modalist formula:
“ Tpeïç όνομασίαι εν μια νποστάσει,” ΟΓ, still more sharply :
“ Μία υπόστασις και τρεις ενεργειαι. ’
Although the Trinity of Sabellius was not a real
Trinity of Persons, but merely a triple differentiation of
office and external manifestation, he nevertheless adopted,
for the sake of perverting it, the orthodox formula of
τρία πρόσωπα. He dishonestly played upon the am­
biguity of the word πρόσωπον, which etymologically may
signify a person, outward appearance, a countenance, or
a character in a play.17 It was on this account that
the later Oriental theologians avoided the term πρόσωπον
(persona = mask) for person; or, when they did employ
it, defined it most carefully as πρόσωπον ένυπόστατον, in
order to exclude the Sabellian interpretation of πρόσω­
πον άνυπόστατον.

2. Its Condemnation.—Sabellius, after hav­
ing been treated with considerate kindness by
Pope Zephyrin, was finally excommunicated by
Callistus (217-222). We know this from the
Philos ophoumena of St. Hippolytus (first com­
plete edition by Miller, Oxford 1851).
After his excommunication Sabellius retired to the
Lybian Pentapolis (about A. D. 257), and there con­
tinued to propagate his errors. He was opposed by
Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, who wrote
several dogmatic epistles in refutation of Sabellianism,
but in his zeal for the truth went to the other extreme,
IT Alzog, Universal Church History (English tr.), Vol. I, p. 355.

122

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

so that he was accused of teaching Ditheism.18 The
most objectionable passage 19 in the latter’s writings was
probably this : “ The Son of God is a work or creature
(ποίημα) and something that has come into being; He
is not distinct according to His nature, but foreign to
the Father in substance ” [ουσία undoubtedly is here the
same as νπόστασις, both terms being used promiscuously
for a time to signify nature or person]. At this junc­
ture (A. D. 262) Pope Dionysius issued a truly epochmaking decision, of which St. Athanasius has preserved
some fragments. In his epistle the sovereign teacher of
Christendom distinctly condemns the Sabellian heresy, but
at the same time censures the ditheistic expressions used
by the Bishop of Alexandria. It is not too much to
say that this Apostolic letter condemned not only
Monarchianism and Sabellianism, but likewise, in ad­
vance, Subordinationism and Tritheism, which were the
products of a later age.20 The energetic and loyal
Bishop of Alexandria, who in his zeal had overshot the
truth, readily submitted and satisfied the Pope of his
good faith by means of an explicit statement which he
forwarded to Rome. This important document em­
bodies two points of particular interest. In the first
place Denis explains that he had employed the unfor­
tunate term ποίημα not in the meaning of “ creature,” but
in the hypostatic sense of productus, i. e., genitus, in
order to emphasize the reality and self-existence of the
Person of the Logos against Sabellius. Secondly, he
cordially accepts the new locution όμοουσιος τω Θεω, used
18 Newman, The Arians of the
Fourth Century, pp. 126 sq.
19 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De
Sententia Dionysii Alex., Migne, P.
G., XXV, 465. Cfr. Newman, Se­

lect Treatises of St. Athanasius, I,
PP- 45 sq.
20 The Latin text of such parts of
Pope Dionysius’s epistle as have
come down to us, can be found in
Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746.

SUBORDINATIONS!

123

by Pope Dionysius in his dogmatic epistle, though, as
he takes pains to remark, he had “ not found this term
anywhere in Holy Scripture.” 21 This goes to show that
the term was coined and circulated long before the
Council of Nicaea; in other words, the heresy of Arius
was condemned before it was ever hatched. The
phrase όμοοΰσως τώ Θεω embodies all the essential ele­
ments of the dogma : — Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Di­
vinity, and His Consubstantiality with the Father.22
Readings: — Worm, Historia Sabclliana 1796; ^Dollinger,
Hippolyt und Callistus, Ratisbon 1853 (English translation,
Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburg 1876) ; Newman, The Arians
of the Fourth Century, pp. 116 sqq., New Ed., London 1901;
L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church (English
tr ), Vol. I, pp. 225 sqq.

ARTICLE 3
THE SUBORDINATIONISM OF ARIUS AND MACEDONIUS

i. The Heresy of Subordinationism.—This
heresy involved the Church in many terrific con­
flicts. It started with an attack on the co­
equality of the Son with the Father (Arianism),
and ultimately impugned the dogma of the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father
and the Son (Macedonianism, Pneumatomachians).
21 Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises
of St. Athanasius, I, p. 44.
22 Cfr. St. August., Con.tr. Maxim.,
II, 14, 3: " Hoc est illud όμοονσιον,

9

quod fides antiqua pepercrat— This
is that famous term όμοούσιοί to
which the ancient faith had given
birth.”

124

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

a) The salient tenets of Arianism 23 are these : The
Logos began His existence in time. Consequently there
was a time when the Son of God was not (ην ποτέ,
ore ovk ην). He is not begotten out of the substance
of the Father, but made by the free will of the Father
“ out of nothing” (ε£ ουκ οντων γε'γονεν b λόγος). Though
He existed before all creatures, i. e., before the beginning
of time, the Logos does not exist from everlasting,
and consequently He is not God, but a creature of the
Father (τι-οόμια, κτίσμα τοϋ πατρός), exalted indeed above
all other creatures, because God’s instrument in creating
the world. Therefore He is “God” by grace (Αε'σει,
μετοχή, καταχρηστικάς), an intermediary being between
God and the world (με'σος γενόμενος). Although it was
possible for the Logos to sin, and His will was therefore
alterable (τρεπτός, άλλοιωτός), still by a perfect use of
free will and grace He actually became sinless.
To deceive the unsuspecting faithful, and to veil his
errors, Arius played fast and loose with the words
γενητός (i. e.} creatus, factus) and γεννητός (i. e., genitus)
and their contradictories άγενητος (i. e., increatus) and
άγε'η^τος (i. e., ingenitus), just as the Semi-Arians later
did with όμοοΰσιος (i. C., COnsubstantial) and όμοωυσως
(f. e., of like substance).
b) The heresy of Macedonius and Marathon was
an offshoot of. Semi-Arianism. Macedonius, who was
Bishop of Constantinople about A. D. 360, taught that
the Holy Ghost is a creature of the Logos, by whom,
according to the Arian theory, all things were created.
This completed the essential subordination of the Three
Persons of the Divine Trinity, whom these heretics
ranked as follows : A Great One = the Holy Ghost ; a
23 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 201 sqq.

SUBORDINATIONISM

125

Greater One = the Logos ; Greatest of all — God the
Father.
Some Semi-Arians were willing to admit the Divinity
of Christ; but they refused to forswear the heretical
conceit that the Holy Ghost is a mere creature. It was
for this reason that St. Athanasius called them “ enemies
of the Spirit” (πρευματομαχοι).

2. Its Condemnation.—For the first time
since the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem,
the infallible Church exercised her teaching au­
thority against Subordinationism at two ecu­
menical synods, of which the first condemned
Arianism, while the second dealt a death blow to
the heresy of the Macedonianists.
a) The First Ecumenical Council, held at
Nicaea A. D. 325, in the reign of Constantine,24
solemnly rejected the heresy of Arius. It did
this in a twofold manner: positively, by enlarg­
ing and expounding the Apostles’ Creed; nega­
tively, by anathematizing Arius and his fol­
lowers.
The famous Nicene Creed revolves about the term
όμοοΰσιος, which was rejected by the Arians as “ unscriptural.” The symbol itself is equivalent to a dogmatic
definition, and its history is highly instructive for any
one who would trace the development of the Catholic
conception of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity.
24 For a brief account of its his­
tory, its transactions, and its conse­
quences, see Newman, The Arians
of the Fourth Century, pp. 237-

270. More detailed information in
Hefele’s History of the Councils,
Vols. I and II of the English trans­
lation.

120

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

At first the Fathers of the Council thought it sufficient
to adopt the formula “ Filins ex Deo” against the
Arian ε£ ουκ οντων. But when the friends of Arius,
particularly Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea, in order to
conceal the real question at issue, Avillingly accepted this
formula on the ground that all things are “ from God,”
the εκ τον πατρός was amplified into εκ της ουσίας του
πατρός. Finally, in order to baffle the Eusebians, the
phrase όμοουσως τω πατρί (consubstantial with the
Father) was added. This proved the utter condemnation
of the Arian heresy. The decisive passages of the Nicene
Creed finally took this shape: “Et in unum Dominum,
Iesum Christum, Filium Dei, qui ex Patre unigenitus
generatur (τον υίον του Θεοΰ γεννηβεντα εκ του πατρός
μονογενή), lïOC CSt CX substantia Patris (εκ της ουσίας του
πατρός), Deum ex Deo (Θεόν εκ Θεοΰ), lumen de lumine,
Deum verum ex Deo vero, genitum, non factum,
(γεννηθεντα, ου πονηθεντα), consubstantialem Patri (όμοουσων τω ττατρί)—And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that
is, from the substance of the Father; God from God,
Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten
not made, consubstantial with the Father.”25 This
clear-cut definition irrevocably established the dogma of
Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His Consubstantiality with the Father.26
The heretical antitheses of Arius were condemned
in a special anathematism appended to the Creed,
which reads as follows : “ Eos autem qui dicunt: erat
[tempus] quando non erat (ην ποτέ, ότε ουκ ην) et
25 Newman’s translation. Cfr. Se­
lect Treatises of St. Athanasius in
Controversy with the Arians, Vol. I,
P. 57·

26 Cfr. St. Athanasiuâ, De Decret.
Nicaen. Syn., reproduced in Migne,
P. G., XXV, 4i5 sqq.

SUBORDINATIONISM

127

priusquam gigneretur, non erat, et aiunt Filvum Dei ex
non exstantibus factum (ότι ίζ ουκ. οντων εγενετο) vel ex
alia Substantia vel essentia esse (ε£ έτερα? ύποστΌσεως rj
ουσίας cimi) vel mutabilem vel vertibilem (άλλοιωτον η
τρεπτόν) esse, hos anathematizat Ecclesia catholica —
But those who say, ‘ Once he was not,’ and ( Before
His generation He was not,’ and ‘ He came into being
from nothing,’ or those who pretend that the Son of
God is ‘ of other subsistence or substance,’ or ‘ created,’
or ‘ alterable,’ or ‘ mutable,’ the Catholic Church anath­
ematizes.” 27 In this passage the Holy Synod reaffirms
the Consubstantiality of the Son of God (f. e., Christ),
by rejecting the doctrine of the Heterousia, and asserts
His Divinity by emphasizing that He possesses the attri­
butes of eternity, uncreatedness, and immutability.28

b) Pope Damasus, at a synod held in Rome,
A. D. 380,29 so thoroughly repudiated the heresy
of Macedonius that the twenty-fourth in his
series of anathemas has been justly styled “a
summary of the contents of all the others, and
the keystone of all previous dogmatic for­
mulas.” 30 The Second Ecumenical Council, con­
voked by the Emperor Theodosius I at Con­
stantinople, A. D. 381, formally defined the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost in these words: “Et
27 Newman’s translation.
(Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol.
I. P- 57·)
28 The Fathers of Nicaea use
υπόστασή as synonymous with
ουσία. The two terms, as Cardinal
Newman points out, at that time
“ had not their respective meanings

so definitely settled and so familiarly
received as afterwards.” (Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II,
p. 455·)
29 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En·
chiridion, Nos. 58 sqq.
30 Scheeben, Dogmatik, I, p. 748.

128

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem
(d<s το πνεύμα το άγων, το κυρών, το ζωοποων)} qui CX
Patre procedit (το & rov πατρος έκπορευόμενον) f qui
cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorifi­
catur, qui locutus est per prophetas — And in the
Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who pro­
ceeded from the Father, who is adored and
glorified together with the Father and the Son,
who has spoken through the prophets.’"
Apart from the significant appellation “Lord” (to
κύρων) the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is defined in
this passage indirectly rather than directly. He is not
formally called God, but certain divine attributes are as­
cribed to Him ; viz., vivification or the giving of life, ado­
ration and glory such as is due to the Father and the Son,
and the illumination of the prophets. In ascribing these
attributes to the Third Person, the Council manifestly
meant to assert the Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost
with the Father and the Son. The hypostatic difference
is sufficiently indicated by the clause, “ Qui ex Patre pro­
cedit— Who proceeded from the Father,” which com­
bines the two Scripture texts John XV, 26, and 1 Cor.
II, 12. The reason why the Council of Constantinople
did not define the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Son (Filioque), is that the Macedonians had not denied,
but, on the contrary, maintained it, though they erred in
holding that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as
a mere creature (ποίημα, factura).51 The schismatic
Greeks, therefore, have no right to quote this Council
31 It was not even fitting or ad· Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual
visable for the Council to mention
Catholic Theology, I, 296 sq.)
the Procession from the Son. (Cfr.

of

SUBORDINATIONISM

129

in favor of their heretical teaching that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father alone. The Second Council
of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a gen­
eral council, and the fact that it later came to rank
as such, is due to its subsequent reception by the Uni­
versal Church rather than to the formal approbation of
its decrees by Pope Damasus. This Council completed
the preliminary formulation of the dogma of the Blessed
Trinity. The so-called Athanasian Creed, which belongs
to the sixth century, merely restates the ancient teaching
of the Church in clearer terms and expounds it more at
length. The most perfect Trinitarian formula, from a
technical point of view, and also the most comprehensive,
as we have already intimated, is that drawn up by the
Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 6/5.32 The later
synodical decisions do not concern us here.
The dogmatic importance of the Constantinopolitan
Creed, which has been adopted into the liturgy of the
Mass, cannot be too strongly emphasized, though in the
light of recent researches this symbol may no longer be
regarded as a mere amplification of the Nicene Creed. It
seems that the Fathers assembled at Constantinople did
not have before them the Creed of Nicaea, but a different
symbol which had been adopted by a provincial synod
of Jerusalem held about the same time.33 The schis­
matic Greeks cherish the so-called Creed of Nicaea-Con­
stantinople with an almost superstitious reverence as
their inviolable and sole norm of faith. They call it
το Ιερωτατον σνμβολον, because it embodies all “ twelve
articles of belief ” in a formula which is as immutable
as it is definitive. “ The Nicene Creed [in the ampli32 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, nn. 275 sqq.
33 Cfr. E. F. K. Müller, Symbolik,

pp. 46 sqq., Erlangen and Leipzig
1896.

130

ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES

fied form believed to have been given to it by the Coun­
cil of Constantinople],” says W. Gass,34 “is the jewel
of their faith, a brief but exhaustive précis of their dog­
matic teaching. Its letters are woven into the vest­
ments of their highest ecclesiastical dignitaries at Mos­
cow. Their liturgy culminates in its recitation, and the
great bell of the Kremlin is rungduring its recital, which
also formspart of theceremony when the
Czar is
crowned in the presence of his people. It is for this
reason that the faithful are so familiar with its text,
which is furthermore constantly recalled to their mind
by numerous symbolic pictures circulated among them.”
Readings: — On Arianism, Walch, Ketzergeschichte, Vol. II,
PP· 385 sqq., Leipzig 1764; *Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und
die Kirche seiner Zeit im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus, Mainz
1844; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person
Christi, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 806 sqq., Stuttgart 1845 (English
translation, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the
Person of Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh 1861-63) ; *Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, §§ 25 sqq., Tübingen
1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 8, Romae 1881; J. Mar­
quardt, Cyrilli Hierosolym. De Contentionibus et Placitis Arianorum Sententia, Braunsberg 1881 ; Lauchert, Die Lehre des hl.
Athanasius, München 1895; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd
ed., London 1900; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Cen­
tury, New Impression, London 1901; Idem, Select Treatises of
St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, 9th ed. (Vol.
II, Being an Appendix of Illustrations), London 1903; Idem,
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, New Ed., pp. 137 sqq.,
London 1895.
On modern Antitrinitarianism, or Unitarianism, cfr. Trechsel,
Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin, Heidel­
berg 1839-44; F. S. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxime
Socinianismi et Socinianorum, 2 vols., Regiomont. 1774-5; Th.
Parker, A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, London
34 Symbolik der gricchischen Kirche, p. 119, Berlin 1872.

SUBORDINATIONISM

ι3Ι

1846; *
Burnat, Lelio Socin, Vevey 1894; *
Ph. Huppert, Der
deutsche Protestantismus zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, 3rd
ed., Koln 1902; J. H. Allen, Historical Sketch of the Unitarian
Movement Since the Reformation, New York 1894; R. Wallace,
Antitrinitarian Biography, 3 vols., London 1850; T. R. Slicer,
art. “ Unitarianism in the United States,” in the Encyclopedia
Americana, Vol. XV, New York 1904.

SECTION 2
THE POSITIVE TRADITION

OF THE FIRST FOUR

CENTURIES

The Trinitarian belief of the Christian Church
during the first four centuries is manifested
partly by her official liturgy and the private
prayers of the faithful; partly by the doctrinal
discussions of the Fathers, whom, for conven­
ience sake, we may group in two categories,
viz., Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene. The Coun­
cil of Nicaea forms a sort of dividing line be­
tween the two, in so far as before its formal
definition of the dogma, the Fathers were labori­
ously groping for accurate terms and not infre­
quently failed to formulate the teaching of the
Church with sufficient theological precision.1 AVe
cannot reasonably assume that they deviated
from this teaching, except in the few cases in
which the fact is clearly apparent from their
writings. One of these exceptional cases is that
of Hippolytus, who is charged with entertain­
ing Ditheistic views; another, that of Origen,
whose language on the subject of the Blessed
1 Cfr. J. Chapman, O. S. B., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X,
p. 450.

I32

THE OFFICIAL LITURGY

133

Trinity lays him open to the suspicion of hetero­
doxy.
General Readings : — *Ruiz, De Trinitate, Lugduni 1625 ; Wer­
ner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur
der christlichen Théologie, Vol. I, Schaffhausen 1861; Réville,
Histoire du Dogme de la Divinité de Jésus-Christ, 2nd ed.,
Paris 1876; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der
Person Christi, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Stuttgart 1845 (translated into
English under the title History of the Development of the Doc­
trine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh 1861-3; 5 vols.; to be
used with caution) ; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vols.
I and II, Freiburg 1892, 1895; Th. de Régnon, Études de Thé­
ologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité, 4 vols., Paris 1892 sqq.;
J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (Engl, tr.), Vol. I, St. Louis
1910; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 50 sqq., New York 1910.

ARTICLE i
THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE OFFICIAL LITURGY OF THE
EARLY CHURCH AND THE PRIVATE PRAYERS
OF THE FAITHFUL

I. The Apostles’ Creed.—The belief of the
early Christians found its natural utterance
in the so-called Apostles’ Creed, which is un­
doubtedly as old as the Church herself. In all
of its various recensions this symbol voices sim­
ple faith in the Divine Trinity.2, St. Irenæus,3
Origen,4 and Tertullian 5 testify to its antiquity.
The salient passages concerning the Blessed
2 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En·
chiridion, nn. 1-14.
3 Adv. Haer., I, 10, Migne, P. G.,
VII, 550 sq.

4 De Princip., Preface, Migne, P.
G., XI, 117 sq.
5 De Praescr., 13, Migne, P. L.,
II, 26.

134

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Trinity are as follows: “Credo in Deum [not:
deos}, Patrem omnipotentem ... et in Iesum
Christum, Filium eius unicum ... et in Spi­
ritum Sanctum — I believe in God [not: gods],
the Father, Almighty, . . . and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son . . . and in the Holy Ghost/'
It is safe to regard the Apostles’ Creed as an
expansion of the form of Baptism; in fact it is
the baptismal symbolum. The constant practice
of the Church in the administration of Baptism
is of itself convincing proof that the dogma of
the Divine Trinity always formed part and
parcel of the original deposit of faith. In the
Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles/
which, according to the late Dr. F. X. Funk, was
written towards the end of the first century,
when Nerva ruled the Roman Empire, we read:
“Baptizate in nomine («
* ™ wo/χα) Patris et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti — Baptize in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 7
An interesting counterpart of the baptismal symbolum
of the early Church is the private profession of faith
β Rediscovered by Philotheus Bryennios and edited by him in 1883.
Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrolo­
gy, pp. 19 sqq.; Tixeront, History
of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 135 sqq.;
C. Taylor, An Essay on the Doc­
trine of the Didache, Cambridge
1889.
7 Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum,
7, 1; ed. Funk, pp. 21 sq., Tubingae
1884. For an English translation

of the Didache, see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, American Reprint,
Vol. VII, pp. 377 sqq., New York
1907· On the Apostles’ Creed cfr.
Baumer, Das Apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis, seine Geschichte und
sein Inhalt, Mainz 1893, and Her­
bert Thurston, S. J., in the Cath­
olic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 629632, who also gives copious biblio­
graphical references.

THE PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL

ιτς

ascribed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270). This
document tersely, clearly, and completely expounds the
Catholic teaching on the Blessed Trinity. Defending
the faith against Paul of Samosata, the Wonder­
worker professes: “Units Deus Pater Verbi viventis.
. . . Unus Dominus solus ex solo, Deus ex Deo. . . .
Unus Spiritus Sanctus ex Deo subsistentiam (ynapÇtv)
habens. . . . Trinitas perfecta (τριλς τελεία), quae gloria
et aeternitate et regno non dividitur nec alienatur —
There is one God, Father of the Living Word. . . .
One Lord, sole from sole, God from God. . . . One
Holy Ghost having His being from God. ... A
perfect Triad not separated nor dissociated in glory,
eternity, and reign.”8 Gregory of Nyssa tells us that
his grandmother Macrina had received this formula
from Thaumaturgus himself and handed it down to her
grandchildren in Cappadocia.9 We are able to obtain
a glimpse into the popular belief of the early Christians
from an ancient evening hymn, which concludes with a
doxology to “ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” 10

2. The Ancient Christian Doxologies.—
The public and private doxologies, which may
be looked upon as the common property of the
faithful in the early Church,11 distinctly voice
belief in the Blessed Trinity. In fact these an8 Migne, P. G., X, 984 sqq. New­
man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and
Eccles., pp. 155 sq.
0 Migne, P. G., XLVI, 913.
Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of St.
Gregory Thaumaturgus is, how­
ever, “ of little historical value be­
cause of its highly legendary char­
acter.” Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan,
Patrology, p. 170.

10 ’"EXeôvTes έπι τον ήλιον δύσιν>
Ιδόντες φως έσπερινόν, νμνονμεν
πατέρα καί νίον καί âyiov πνεύμα
θεοϋ. Quoted by Routh, Reliqu.
Sacr., 2nd ed.» Vol. Ill, p. 515,
Oxon. 1846.
11 For a brief historical account
of them, see . Fortescue’s article
“ Doxology ” in the Catholic Ency­
clopedia, Vol. V, pp. 150 sq.

136

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

cient hymns, or psalms of praise, seem to be a
development of the Trinitarian forms of bene­
diction contained in the New Testament Epistles,
and they doubtless reflect the publicly professed
faith of the early Christians, unaffected by ex­
traneous elements of abortive speculation. The
coordinative form “Gloria Patri et Filio et
Spiritui Sancto (or cum Spiritu Sancto) — Glory
be to God the Father, and to the Son, and to
the Holy Ghost (or, together with the Holy
Ghost),” and the subor dinative form, “Gloria
Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto — Glory be to
the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost”
are probably of equal antiquity, and the asser­
tion of the Arian historian Philostorgius,12 that
the first-mentioned formula had been introduced
into the liturgy by Bishop Flavian of Antioch,
must be received with suspicion. It is certain
that already Justin Martyr was acquainted with
it.13 Because the Arians showed a decided pre­
dilection for the formula “Gloria Patri per Filium
in Spiritu Sancto,” (Διά τού υίον εν τω άγίω ττνενματι) f
St. Basil substituted therefor, as equally correct,
the formula μετά τού νίοϋ συν τω πνενματι τω άγίω, which
threw into stronger relief the consubstantiality
and coequal adorableness of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost with the Father.14
12 Hist. Eccles., Ill, 13, Migne,
P. G., LXV, 502.
13 Apol., I, c. 65, Migne, P. G.,
VI, 427.

14 Cfr. Von der Goltz, Das Gebet
in der altesten Christenheit, pp. 135
sqq., Leipzig 1902.

THE CONFESSIONS OF THE MARTYRS

137

3. The Confessions of the Martyrs.—The
confessions of faith that have come down to us
from the lips of the early martyrs, furnish an­
other important contribution to the positive Tra­
dition of the primitive Church concerning the
Blessed Trinity. Being the formal pronounce­
ments of holy men and women, made before
pagan magistrates in the face of cruel death,
they are rightly held in high esteem. The old­
est document of this kind which we possess is
the confession of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
who laid down his life for his faith A. D. 166.
Its salient passages are as follows: “Verax
Deus, . . . te glorifico per sempiternum et coe­
lestem pontificem Iesum Christum, dilectum Fi­
lium, per quem tibi cum ipso et in Spiritu Sancto
gloria et nunc et in futura saecula — O truthful
God, ... I glorify Thee, through the Eternal
and Heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, [Thy]
beloved Son, through whom be glory to Thee,
with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and
for the ages to come.” 15 Some martyrs in
their profession of faith laid special stress on
the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus St. Epipodius of Lyons (+178): “Christum cum
15 Acta Martyr. Polyc., XIV, 3.
“ Here,” says Newman, “ the Three
are mentioned, as in the baptismal
form; as many as Three, and no
more than Three, with the expres­
sion of a still closer association of

the Three, one with another, than
is signified in that form, vis., as
contained in the words, ‘ through/
* with/ and ‘in.’” Tracts Theol.
and Eccles., p. 150.

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

138

Patre et Spiritu Sancto Deum esse confiteor,
dignumque est, ut illi [scii. Christo] animam
meam refzindam, qui mihi et creator est et re­
demptor— I confess Christ to be God, with
the Father and the Holy Ghost, and it is meet
that I should give back my soul to Him [i. e.,
Christ], Who is my Creator and Redeemer?’16
The holy deacon Vincent, who died a martyr’s
death, A. D. 304, is reported to have professed
his faith in these words: “Dominum Christum
confiteor, Filium altissimi Patris, unici unicum,
ipsum cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unum solum
Deum esse profiteor — I confess the Lord Jesus
Christ, Son of the most high Father, the Only
One of the Only One, I confess Him with the
Father and the Holy Ghost to be the one sole
God.” 17 To St. Euplus of Catania (+ 304) we
owe one of the most beautiful confessions of faith
in the Trinity that has come down to us from the
early days. It is as follows : “Patrem et Filium
et Spiritum Sanctum adoro; sanctam Trinitatem
adoro, praeter quam non est Deus. . . . Sacri­
fico modo Christo Deo meipsum. . . . Ego sa­
crifico et immolo meipsum Patri et Filio et Spiritui
Sancto — I adore the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost; I adore the holy Trinity, besides
which there is no God. ... I now sacrifice my16 Ruinart, Acta Martyr., p. 65, Veronae 1731.
Ruinart, I. c., p. 325.

17

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

139

self to Christ, [who is] God; ... I sacrifice
and immolate myself to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” 18
Readings: — On the worship of the Blessed Trinity by the
early Christians, see Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritual., t. I, diss. 2,
c. 5·
On the acts of the martyrs, see *Ad. Harnack, Geschichte dec
altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 816
sqq., Leipzig 1893; Semeria, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto nella
Chiesa Primitiva, Roma 1902; cfr. also James Bridge in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, pp. 742 sqq. ; H. Delehaye, S. J.,
The Legends of the Saints, London 1897.

ARTICLE

2

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

I. Their Clear and Definite Profession
Faith in the Blessed Trinity.—The AnteNicene Fathers acknowledged in the One God­
head three real Persons of coequal power, that
is to say, not essentially subordinated one to the
other. Hence it requires no special argument to
prove that these Fathers professed the Catholic
dogma of the Trinity. Of course any explicit
and emphatic assertion, in their writings, of the
Divinity of Jesus Christ must be of special
weight. We shall have to confine ourselves to a
few salient quotations.

of

a) Eminent among the
18 For further testimonies, see
Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. io;
cfr. also Von Gebhardt, Ausgewahlte

10

Apostolic Fathers ” is St.
Martyrerakten und andere Urkunden aus der Verfolgungszeit der
christ lichen Kirche, Berlin 1902.

140

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Ignatius of Antioch, who was exposed to wild beasts
at Rome under Trajan, some time between A. D. 98
and 117.19 In his much-discussed Epistles,20 Ignatius
frequently avers his faith in the Divinity of Jesus
Christ, whom he calls “ our God.” In combating the
absurd heresy of the Docetae,21 he insists particularly
on Christ’s twofold nature, the divine and the human.
“ There is one physician,” writes St. Ignatius, “ fleshly
and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God and come
in flesh, eternal life in death, from Mary and from
God, first passible and then impassible.” 22
The truth that there are three Persons in the God­
head is clearly professed also by Athenagoras (about
170), who is called “ the Christian Philosopher of
Athens.” 23 He says : “ Who would not be astonished
to hear those called atheists, who speak of the Father
as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost;
showing both their power in unity (την εν ενώσει δύναμιν)
and their distinction in order (την εν τάξει διαίρεσιν) ? ”24
St. Irenæus of Lyons25 deserves special mention,
because he not infrequently refers to the Holy Ghost
1» Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, pp. 30 sqq.; J. Tixeront,
History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 121
sqq.; E. Bruston, Ignace d’An­
tioche, ses Epîtres, sa Vie, sa Thé­
ologie, Paris 1897.
20 Cfr. Newman, Tracts Theol.
and Eccles., pp. 95-135.
21 For an account of Docetism,
see the dogmatic treatise on Christology. Properly speaking it is not
a Christian heresy at all, but
“ rather came from without.” Cfr.
Arendzen in the Catholic Encyclo­
pedia, Vol. V, j. v. “ Docetae.”
22 Epist. ad Eph., VII, 2. New­
man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and

Eccles., p. 108. On St. Ignatius’s
refutation of Docetism see particu­
larly Tixeront, op. cit., p. 124.
23 The manuscript tradition of his
Apology can be traced to the year
914. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, pp. 64 sqq., and Peterson in
the Catholic Encyclopedia, II, 42 sq.
An English translation of his works
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer­
ican Reprint, Vol. II, pp. 129 sqq.,
New York 1903.
24 Legat. 10, Migne, P. G., VI,
909. Newman’s translation, 7'racts
Theol. and Eccles., p. 151.
25 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, pp. 118 sqq.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

141

as “Wisdom.” Take, for instance, this passage:2®
“Adest ei [scil. Deo Patri] semper Verbum et Sapientia,
Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia Ubere et
sponte fecit — There is present to Him [i. e., God the
Father] always the Word and the Wisdom, the Son and
the Spirit, through whom and in whom He has made all
things freely and of His own accord.”
Of the many dicta of Clement of Alexandria,27 which
could be quoted in support of our thesis, we select but
one. “ The Lord,” he says, “ apparently despised, but
in reality adored, the Reconciler, the Saviour, the Meek,
the Divine Logos, unquestionably true God, measuring
Himself with the Lord of the Universe [i. e., God the
Father], because He was His Son, and the Logos was
in God.” 28
b) Of occidental witnesses, let us adduce at least a
few besides Irenæus. Tertullian (born about 160) in his
usual rugged style writes : “ Custodiatur oeconomiae
sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres
dirigens: Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres
autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma;
non potestate, sed specie. Unius autem substantiae et
unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo
et gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et
Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur — Let the mystery of
the dispensation be guarded, which distributes the unity
into a Trinity, placing in their order the Three, viz., the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; Three not in con­
dition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not
in power, but in aspect; but of one substance, and of
one condition, and of one power, because God is one,
26 Adv. Haer., IV, 20, 1.
27 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Fa-

trology, pp. 127 sqq.; The Catholic
Encyclopedia, IV, 45 sqq.
28 Cohort, ad Cent., c. 10.

142

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

from whom these degrees, and forms, and aspects de­
rive.” 20
The dogmatic encyclical of Pope Dionysius, which we
have already mentioned above,29
30 rejects both extremes,
Sabellianism as well as Tritheism. “ Sabellii impie­
tas,” says this holy Pope, “ in eo consistit, quod
dicat Filium esse Patrem et vicissim; hi vero [tritheitae]
tres deos aliquomodo praedicant, cum in très hypostases
invicem alienas, omnino separatas, dividunt sanctam
unitatem (μονάδα). Necesse est enim divinum Verbum
Deo universorum esse unitum et Spiritum Sanctum in
Deo manere ac vivere. . . . Credendum est in Deum
Patrem omnipotentem et in lesum Christum Filium eius
et in Spiritum Sanctum — The impiety of Sabellius con­
sists in this, that he says that the Son is the Father and
the Father the Son, but they [the Tritheists] in some
sort preach three Gods, as dividing the Holy Monad into
three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly sepa­
rate. For it must needs be that with the God of the
universe the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost
must repose and live in God. . . . AVe must believe in
God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son,
and in the Holy Ghost.” 31

2. Vague Expressions.—The very confidence
with which the Fathers of the fourth century de­
fended the faith against Arius, is sufficient war­
rant for the orthodoxy of the Ante-Nicene
period.
29 Contr. Prax., C. 2.
30 Supra, p. 122. Cfr. also Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 224.
31 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De
Deer. Nicaen. Syn., n. 26. Cfr.
Sprinzl, Die Théologie der apo·

stolischen Vater, Wien 1880; Nirschl,
Die Théologie des hl. Ignatius,
Mainz
1880;
Peterson,
article
“ Apostolic Fathers ” in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 637-640.

VAGUE EXPRESSIONS

143

It has been asserted that Subordinationist, i. e., Arianizing views with regard to the relations of the Three
Divine Persons were current “ among the apologists and
most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.”32 Petavius even
ventured to affirm that the majority of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers were not in full accord with the Nicene
Creed.33 But before the first edition of his work on
the Trinity (1644-1650) was completed, the great dog­
matist found himself constrained to moderate this harsh
judgment. In his “Praefatio ad Libros de Trinitate”
he explains the apparent dissent of many of the AnteNicene Fathers as a mere “modus loquendi” A num­
ber of learned theologians 34 subsequently undertook the
defense of these Fathers against so grievous an accusa­
tion, and they may be said to have acquitted themselves
on the whole victoriously. It must be admitted, how­
ever, that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
composed at a time when dogmatic terminology still lacked
that precision which was imparted to it by the Nicene
Creed, expressed themselves “ with an unsuspicious yet
reverent explicitness.” 35 which is apt to arouse the sus­
picion of heresy. But whenever such ambiguous terms
and phrases admit of a Catholic interpretation, the rules
of Patristic hermeneutics compel us to prefer the ortho­
dox to the heretical sense, so long as the latter is not
positively established. It is almost impossible to imagine
that such a brilliant phalanx of theologians as Justin,
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., should
have lapsed into material heresy in regard to a fun­
damental dogma of the Christian faith. “ In such a
32 Cfr. Kuhn, Christi. Lehre von
der hl. Dreieinigkeit, pp. 107 sqq.,
Tübingen 1857.
33 Cfr. De Trinitate, I, 3-5. (Pe­
tavius died in 1652.)

34 E. g., Thomassin, Bossuet, Ma·
ranus, Lumper, Mohler, Franzelin,
Schwane, Régnon, etc.
35 Newman, The Arians of the
Fourth Century, p. x66.

144

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

fundamental dogma, such an error in such quarters
would be incompatible with the infallibility of the
Church.” 36 As a matter of fact, upon closer scrutiny
most of the “ incorrect and unadvisable terms and
statements in some of the early Fathers,”37 can be
offset by parallel texts from the same Fathers which
are clearly and unmistakably orthodox. It must be ad­
mitted, however, that prior to the Nicene Council the
dogmatic formulation of the mystery of the Blessed Trin­
ity was still in process of development, and theological
speculation on the subject of the Logos, influenced by
Platonism and Stoicism, frequently went astray and un­
consciously scattered the seeds of future heresies.

Cardinal Franzelin reduces the incorrect and
unadvisable terms and statements found in the
early Fathers on the subject of the Blessed Trin­
ity to four categories, which we will briefly re­
view.
a) By insisting too strongly on the character of the
Father as the source and principle of the two other
Persons, some Ante-Nicene writers created the impres­
sion that they held the Son to be God in a less strict
sense than the Father,— as it were “God in the second
place ” ; and the Holy Ghost, “ God in the third place.”
Thus St. Justin writes that the Son is “ in the second
26 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of
Dogmatic Theology, I, 288.
37 Newman, “ Causes of the Rise
and Success of Arianism,” in
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasti­
cal, p. 208.— In The Arians of the
Fourth Century (p. 164) Newman
says of “ the Ante-Nicene language ”
that it “ was spoken from the
heart ” and must not be “ measured

... by the necessities of contro­
versies of a later date. . . . Those
early teachers have been made to
appear technical, when in fact they
have only been reduced to a system;
just as in literature what is com­
posed freely, is afterwards subjected
to the rules of grammarians and
critics.” (See also op. cit., pp. 179
sqq.)

VAGUE EXPRESSIONS

US

place (ίν Sevrépa χωρά)” and the Holy Ghost “in the
third order (eV τρίτη τα£α).” 38 Tertullian, on the other
hand, upon whom fell the task of coining a Latin ter­
minology, which he accomplished with rare ability, calls
the Father “the totality of substance (tota substantia),”
while he refers to the Son as “ derived from the whole
substance {derivatio totius et portio).” 39
In connection herewith a few of the Fathers reserve
the name “Deus super omnia” (God above all things),
or “ Very God ”40 to the Father, while they speak of
the Son as Θεός Ικ Θεοΰ, or simply ©eoç without the
article.41 Novatian (A. D. 250), who in his otherwise
excellent work on the Trinity endeavored to harmonize
the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son with that of the
unity of the Godhead, misconceives the Consubstantiality
of Father and Son.42
It is plain that all these utterances, and a number of
others which could be cited from Ante-Nicene writings,
can be interpreted in an Arian sense ; but it is equally
certain that they must not be thus interpreted. So long
as the general teaching of any writer is such that the
true Catholic doctrine may be reasonably presumed to
underly an occasional incorrect expression, we have no
right to accuse him of favoring heretical tenets. Now,
it is an article of faith that the Father, as the First
Person of the Blessed Trinity, has His Divine Nature
from Himself,43 whereas the Logos-Son and the Holy
Ghost have the same numerical Divine Nature by imma­
nent procession from the Father. It is this idea the
Apol., I, c. 13.
Contr. Prax., g.
40 'O Oeôs — αύτόθεος·
41 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of
the Fourth Century, pp. 163 sqq.
42 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Geschichte
38
39

der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 565,
Freiburg 1903; L. Duchesne, Early
History of the Christian Church,
(Engl, tr.), Vol. I, pp. 235 sq.
43 ’Άταρχοί, αύτόθεος, αρχή τής
άρχης.

i46

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Fathers in their crude language wished to express.44
b) There are certain other Patristic texts which seem
to represent active generation on the part of the Father
as “ voluntary,” as if the Father could be conceived
without the Son. This might easily suggest the heret­
ical conclusion that the Son is a mere creature of the
Father, or at most a God of inferior rank. But all
such utterances must be read in the light of the thesis
which their respective authors were then and there de­
fending against their heterodox opponents. When the
exigencies of the conflict made it necessary to refute
the error that the process of divine Generation implied
external compulsion, or blind necessity, or corporeal
division, the Fathers rightly insisted that “Pater voluntate seu voluntarie genuit Filium — The Father begot
the Son voluntarily.” But they did not employ “ volun­
tarie ” in the sense of “ libere.” What they meant was
that the Father begot His Divine Son as “ willingly ”
as He is the infinite God. Later on, when the Arians
and Eunomians began to propagate the heretical error
that the Son is a creature, the product of a free act
of creation on the part of the Father,45 the Patristic
44 On the orthodoxy of Tertullian, see Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol.
I, § in, n. 835 sqq., and Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen
Literatur, II, 387 sq. Bardenhewer’s
opinion on this head is thus sum­
marized in his Patrology (English
edition by Shahan, p. 185) : “ In
his defence of the personal distinc­
tion between the Father and the
Son he [Tertullian] does not, ap­
parently, avoid a certain Subordi­
nationism. Nevertheless in many
very clear expressions and turns of
thought he almost forestalls the Nicene Creed.” Cfr. also A. d’Alès,
La Théologie de Tertullien, Paris

1905 and J. Tixeront, History^ of
Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 310 sqq. On
the Trinitarian teaching of St. Jus­
tin Martyr, see A. L. Feder, S.
J., Justins des Martyrers Lehre von
Jesus Christus dem Messias, Frei­
burg 1906.
45 " It was one of the first and
principal interrogations put to the
Catholics by their Arian opponents,
whether the Generation of the Son
was voluntary or not on the part
of the Father; their dilemma being,
that Almighty God was subject to
laws external to Himself, if it were
not voluntary, and that, if on the
other hand it was voluntary, the

VAGUE EXPRESSIONS

147

writers met the new difficulty by the declaration that
the Procession of the Son from the Father is as nec­
essary as the vital process in the bosom of the God­
head.
c) A further source of misunderstanding is the
Patristic teaching that the Logos was begotten for a
very definite purpose, namely, to serve as the instrument
of creation. This seems to place the Son on a plane
of undue subordination to the Father. Those who held
this view accentuated it by making a distinction be­
tween the λογος ενδιάθετος and the λόγος προφορικός. “ The
view of the Logos as Endiathetic and as Prophoric,—
as the Word conceived and the Word uttered, the Word
mental and the Word active and effectual . . . came
from the Stoics, and is found in Philo.” 46 With cer­
tain restrictions it admits of an orthodox interpretation,
provided that those who employ the words do not dis­
pute that the ministerial relation of the Logos, though
subordinate with regard to origin, is truly divine, and
that the Prophoric Word does not lose His Divine Na­
ture and Sonship in consequence of the Creation and
the Incarnation, but retains both in unaltered identity
Son was in the number of things
created.” Newman, The Arians of
the Fourth Century, p. 196.
4β Newman, Select Treatises of St.
Athanasius, II, 340. “ Philo,” he
says in another place, “ associating
it [the doctrine of the Trinity] with
Platonic notions as well as words,
developed its lineaments with so
rude and hasty a hand, as to sep­
arate the idea of the Divine Word
from that of the Eternal God; and
so perhaps to prepare the way for
Arianism.” And in a foot-note he
illustrates this observation “ by the
theological language of the ‘ Para­

dise Lost,’ which, as far as the
very words go, is conformable both
to Scripture and the writings of the
early Fathers, but becomes offensive
as being dwelt upon as if it were
literal, not figurative. It is scrip­
tural to say that the Son went forth
from the Father to create the
worlds; but when this is made the
basis of a scene or pageant, it bor­
ders on Arianism. Milton has made
Allegory, or the Economy, real."
(The Arians of the Fourth Century,
p. 93. Cfr. also pp. 199 sq. of the
same work.)

i48

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

with the Endiathetic Word. St. Irenæus, in demon­
strating against the Gnostics that God did not need to
employ angels in creating the universe, extols the “ min­
istry of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” as a divine
ministry to which “ all angels are subject,” and signifi­
cantly adds : “ Hie Pater , . . fecit ea per semetipsum,
hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam — The Father
made these things by Himself, that is, by His Word
and Wisdom.”47 St. Theophilus of Antioch (about
180), was, so far as we know, the first Christian theo­
logian who did not hesitate to use the terms λόγος
€νδια^ετος and προφορικός.48 But his use of them, though
incautious, is quite orthodox, as appears from the sub­
joined passage in the second of his three books Ad
Autolycum: “ Cum voluit Deus ea facere, quae statuerat,
hoc Verbum genuit prolatitium (προφοράν), primogeni­
tum omnis creaturae, non ita tamen, ut Verbo vacuus
fieret, sed ut Verbum gigneret et cum suo Verbo semper
versaretur — When God purposed to make all that He
had deliberated on, He begat this Word as external to
Him, being the First-born antecedent to the whole cre­
ation; not, however, Himself losing the Word [that is,
the Internal], but begetting it, and yet everlastingly
communing with it.”49 Two other representatives of
the Ante-Nicene period, Hippolytus and Tertullian,
boldly venture a step farther - and describe the intra­
divine γενη/σις as a mere conception, and the temporal
γει^σις, which manifests itself ad extra, as the birth of
the Logos, claiming that the full Sonship of the Logos
did not begin until after His temporal birth. This is
Adv. Haeres., II, 30.
The use of the word “ Wis­
dom ” for “ Holy Ghost ” is also
peculiar to Theophilus and to St.
47
48

Irenæus
(cfr. John XV, 26:
" Spiritus veritatis
49 Ad Autol. II, 22. Newman’s
translation; cfr. The Arians of the
Fourth Century, p. 200.

INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS

149

no doubt speculation gone astray, but it does not trench
on dogma, though Hippolytus, as we have already re­
marked, did incur a degree of blame for his ditheistic
vagaries.
d) The fourth group of incautious Ante-Nicene ex­
pressions culminates in the teaching that the Father
alone, by His very Nature,— i. e., because of His immen­
sity,— is invisible, while the Son (and this is true of the
Holy Ghost also) can manifest Himself visibly, and
has in matter of fact so manifested Himself in the Old
Testament theophanies and in the Incarnation. Petavius held that this theory necessarily entails the he­
retical inference that the Son is inferior to the Father.
But we cannot share this view. It may be that the
Fathers and ecclesiastical writers in question 50 did not
distinguish sharply enough between “ apparition ” (a/>paritio) and “mission” (missio). But there can be no
doubt that in speaking as they did they had in view
only “mission.” For while the First Person of the
Divine Trinity, who proceeds from none, can be con­
ceived only as “ sending,” and never as “ sent,” the dis­
tinctive personal character of the Logos-Son supplies a
congruous reason why He should be “ sent ” into the
world by the Father, from whom He proceeds by eter­
nal generation. The writers with whom we are here
concerned do not ascribe the attribute of immensity or
immeasurableness exclusively to the First Person of the
Trinity ; they merely observe that the Logos in His visible
manifestation (i. e., according to His humanity), is not
immense nor immeasurable.

3. Some Ante-Nicene Waiters Whose Or­
thodoxy Remains Doubtful.—Though, as we
50 Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, et al.

150

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

have seen, the evidence at hand does not warrant
a summary indictment of the Ante-Nicene Fath­
ers and ecclesiastical writers, all of them cannot
be successfully cleared of the charge of heresy.
Some modern writers hold that even the Didache, or
“ Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary
monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New
Testament canon, must be the work of an Ebionitic or
Monarchianistic writer, because it contains no formal
profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and
the Atonement.51 But Funk has conclusively shown in
the “ Prolegomena” to his edition of this much-dis­
cussed work,52 that the Didache ranks Christ higher than
a mere man.
It is somewhat more difficult to disprove the recent
charge that Hermas, the author of The Shepherd,
“ the longest and for form and contents the most
remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic
Fathers,”53 constantly identifies the Person of the
Son with that of the Holy Ghost.54 Though various
attempts have been made to save the orthodoxy of
the “ Shepherd,” 55 we can hardly escape the conclusion
that he “ bases the difference between the Son and the
Holy Ghost on the fact of the Incarnation, the Son of
God in His pre-existence being none other than the
51 See Krawutzky in the Theolo·
gische Quartalschrift of Tübingen,
1884, pp. 581 sqq.
52 P. XXXIX, Tubingae 1887.
53 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology,
p. 38. The Shepherd was composed
about A. D. 150. On its dogmatic
teaching cfr. Tixeront, History of
Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 114 sqq.
54 E. g. : “ I [i. e., the Shepherd]

will show thee all things which the
Holy Ghost (τό πνεύμα το ayiov)
has shown thee, who spoke to thee
in the figure of the Church; for that
Spirit is the Son of God (εκείνο yàp
το πνεύμα ό υΐόΐ τοϋ θεοΰ εστιν)·”
(Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX, I, 1.)
55 Among others by Brüll and R.
Seeberg.

INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS

151

Holy Ghost/’56 There is some doubt as to whether
Hermas is guilty of identifying the Holy Ghost, or the
Son of God respectively, with the Archangel Michael, as
charged by Funk. True, the u Shepherd ” attributes
identical functions to the Holy Ghost and the Arch­
angel Michael, but he draws a distinction between them
in regard to rank.57
St. Hippolytus of Rome, the rival of Pope St. Callis­
tus (A. D. 217-222), and one of the first antipopes
known to history, in his controversies with Noëtus and
Sabellius championed Ditheistic views and even went so
far as to refer to the Logos as 0εος γερτός,58 which
caused Callistus to accuse him and his followers of be­
ing Ditheists : “ Δίθζοί εστε.”59 Hippolytus retorted
with the counter-charge of Modalism, saying that Callis­
tus “ falls sometimes into the error of Sabellius, and
sometimes into that of Theodotus,”—which, says Bardenhewer, “ can only mean that on the one hand Callis­
tus maintained the equality and unity of nature in the
Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius,
the distinction of Persons ; and on the other maintained
the perfect humanity of the Redeemer, without denying
his divinity, as did Theodotus.” 60
Origen’s Trinitarian teaching is rather enigmatic. In
the mind of this learned writer the Hellene seems to
wrestle with the Christian, the pagan philosopher with the
56 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der
altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 577, Frei­
burg 1902.
57 Cfr. Bardenhewer, op. cit.
58 Contr. Noct., c. 10; Philos., X,
33. On the difference between ye„
ρητόν and γεννητόρ, cfr. Newman,
Select Treatises of St. Athanasius,

II» 398 sq. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God:
His Knowability, Essence, and At­
tributes, pp. 114 sq.
59 Philos., IX, 12. Cfr. Duchesne,
Early History of the Christian
Church, Vol. I, pp. 212 sqq.
eo Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology,
p. 210.

152

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Catholic believer. St. Jerome 61 accuses him of Arianism,
and the brilliant defense of Origen’s orthodoxy by Pam­
philus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius, and among
modern writers by A^incenzi, has not fully dispelled this
indictment. In his writings, Origen appears in a twofold
rôle. Whenever he speaks as a simple witness to ecclesi­
astical Tradition, he voices the Catholic truth ;62 but when
he speaks as a philosopher endeavoring to clear up the
mysteries of the faith, he does not scruple to represent
the Son of God as a κτίσμα Θεού and as a “ second
God” (δεύτερος Θεός)—a name which Plato had applied
to the world as fashioned by the Demiurge. To do full
justice to Origen’s position, it will be well to distinguish,
as Athanasius does,63 between what he states 0εηκώς,
as a witness to Tradition, and what he writes γυμναστικών,
as a philosopher “ inquiring and exercising himself,” as
Newman renders the term.64 The Tractatus Origeiiis
de Libris SS. Scripturarum, consisting of twenty homi­
lies which have reached us in an Orleans manuscript
of the tenth, and in another of St. Omer belonging to
the twelfth century, discovered and edited by Batiffol
in 1900, are not the work of Origen nor of Nova­
tian. The well-developed Trinitarian terminology of
these homilies clearly indicates a Post-Nicene composi­
tion. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is orig­
inal, but the true author has not yet been ascertained.65
Ep. Ç4 ad Avit.
Cfr. In loa., tr. 2, apud Migne,
P. G., XIV, 128: "Didicimus cre­
dere (in Deo) esse très hypostases:
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanc­
tum." In Ep. ad Rom., VII, 5,
(apud Migne, I. c., 1115) he says:
“ Quomodo enim inferior dici potest,
61
62

qui Filius est et omnia est, quae
Pater? ”
63 De Decret. Nicaen. Syn., 27.
Q4 Select Treatises of St. Athana­
sius, I, 48.
65 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, p. 222', J. Tixeront, History
of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I,
pp. 261 sqq., St. Louis 1910.

NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS

153

Readings: — On the Trinitarian teaching of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, see especially *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thés. 10-11,
Romae 1881 ; Heinrich, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol. IV, §§
231-232, Mainz 1885; Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der hl.
Dreieinigkeit, §§ 12-18, Tübingen 1857; *Duchesne, Les Témoins
Anténicéens du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1882; Petavius, De
Trinitate, lib. I, c. 3-5, and the “ Praefatio ” ; Thomassin, De
Trinitate, c. 37-47; *
Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini
Nostri Jesu Christi, 11. 2-4 ; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectae
in Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Vol. I, pp. 358 sqq., Ratisbonae
1880; B. Heurtier, Le Dogme de la Trinité dans l’Épître de St.
Clément de Rome et le Pasteur d’Hermas, Lyon 1900; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, St. Louis 1910;
E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert. Ein
religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Erlosungslehre,
Freiburg 1910; F. Diekamp, Uber den Ursprung des Trinitdtsbekenntnisses, Münster 1910.

ARTICLE 3
THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS

i. The Dogmatic Teaching of the Fathers
Against Arius and Macedonius. — a) The
sensation caused throughout Christendom by the
first appearance of the Arian heresy can be ex­
plained only on the assumption that the truth
had been in quiet possession for three full cen­
turies. The Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander,
at a synod held in his episcopal city about the
year 320, excommunicated Arius. He explained
the motives for this step in a lengthy letter
to Bishop Alexander of Constantinople. “Quis
unquam talia audivit ?” he said among other
things, “aut quis mine audiens non obstupescat

154

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

et aures obstruat, ut ne talium verborum sordes
auditum contaminent? — Who ever yet heard
such language? and who that hears it now,
but is shocked and stops his ears, that its foul­
ness should not enter into them ?” 66 This ut­
terance clearly proves that the heresy of Arius,
which attacked the very foundations of the dogma
of the Divine Trinity, by asserting that the Log­
os-Son (Christ) is a mere creature, was at the
beginning of the fourth century regarded as an
intolerable innovation. St. Athanasius himself
took a leading part in the Arian controversies
which for many years shook the entire Orient
and even made their evil effects felt among the
Germanic nations of the Western world, espe­
cially among the Vandals in Africa. Athanasius
was Bishop of Alexandria and is deservedly
called “the Great.” He was ready to give up
his life in defense of the Catholic truth that the
Son is eternally begotten from the substance of
the Father, and is consubstantial with Him, as
defined by the Council of Nicaea.
b) When (about 360) Macedonius began to
undermine that other pillar of the dogma of the
Blessed Trinity, viz.: the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost, Athanasius again
appeared in the arena and denounced his teach­
es Opera Athanas., tom. I, p. 398,
Paris 1689; Newman, Select Trea-

tises of St. Athanasius, Vol. I, p.
5, 9th ed., London 1903.

NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS

155

ing as “impious" and “unscriptural.” 07 “It is
impious/’ he said, “to call the Holy Ghost created
or made (κτιστόν ποιητόν'), seeing that both the
Old and the New Testament connumerate and
glorify Him with the Father and the Son, be­
cause He is of the same Divinity (συναρι^ί καί
δόξαζα, Slotl τϊ/ς αυτής θεότητας ίστιν')St. AthanaSlUS
found powerful allies in the “three Cappado­
cians,” Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of
Nyssa, and particularly St. Basil, who in his
work On the Holy Spirit67
68 quotes a number of
older writers in confirmation of the ecclesiastical
Tradition.69
Honorable mention must also be accorded to
St. Amphilochius, who was consecrated Bishop
of Iconium, A. D. 374, and later became metro­
politan of Lycaonia, (+ after 394). In the
name of a synod of his Lycaonian suffragans he
published a magnificent letter on the Divinity of
the Holy Ghost.70
To Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria, “one
67 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Incar­
natione Dei Verbi, reprinted in
Migne, P. G., XXVI, 998.
68 “ It has always been the stand­
ard work on the subject ” (Fortes­
cue, The Greek Fathers, p. 81, Lon­
don 1908), despite the reproach of
“ Economy ” which attaches to it,
because St. Basil avoided (as he
himself admits) calling the Holy
Ghost God.
69 Λ picturesque account of the
lives of St. Gregory of Nazianzus

11

and St. Basil will be found in A.
Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, Lon­
don 1908. For their works and an
account of their teaching, as also of
that of St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr.
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp.
286 sqq., pp. 295 sqq., and pp. 274
sqq. Note especially the passage
from St. Gregory Nazianzen on the
Trinity, ibid., p. 291.
to Epistola Synod, contr. Pneumatomachos.

156

THE POSITWE TRADITION

of the most notable men of an age that abounded
in great personalities,” (+about 395) we owe,
besides an important work On the Trinity
τριαδος), a lucid treatise entitled De Spiritu Sancto,
which has reached us only in the sixty-three brief
chapters of St. Jerome’s Latin translation,71 and
which is indeed, as Bardenhewer says, “one of
the best of its kind in Christian antiquity.” 72
The most eminent defenders of the dogma in
the West were St. Ambrose73 and St. Augus- tine,74 who was the first to attempt a systematic
exposition of the mystery of the Divine Trinity.
His famous work On the Trinity became the
starting-point of the Trinitarian speculations of
medieval Scholasticism. St. Anselm adopted
Augustine’s profound considerations in his
Monologium, whence they found their way into
the Liber Sententiarum of Peter Lombard, and
through this channel into the numerous the­
ological Summae, among which that of St.
Thomas Aquinas has ever held the place of
honor.75
2. Patristic Polemics.—The method which
the Fathers chose to refute the Scriptural objec­
tions raised by the Arians and Semi-Arians fur­
nishes a valuable argument for the purity and
71 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa·
trology, pp. 307 sqq.
72 Ibid., p. 308. On Didymus the
Blind cfr. Bardy, Didyme I'Aveugle,
Paris 1910.

73 De Spiritu Sancto ad Gratia·
num Augustum, in three books.
74 De Trinitate.
75 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia,
qu. 27 sqq.

NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS

157

imperishable freshness of the ecclesiastical Tra­
dition touching the dogma of the Blessed Trinity.
a) Prov. VIII, 22 reads : “ Dominus possedit me in
initio viarum suarum — The Lord possessed me in the
beginning of his ways.” The Septuagint has: εκτισε' με
άρχην οδών αυτού. This text was considered by the Arians
as the weak spot in the Catholic armor. Catholics did
not deny that the passage referred to the Logos, and the
Arian contention that the Septuagint offered sufficient
warrant for taking Christ to be χτίσμα Θεού — a creature
of God — seemed well founded. It was a Gordian knot,
which the Fathers, each in his own way, tried hard
to unravel. Some suggested that the Septuagint text
had been practiced upon by the Arians. Others referred
the difficult passage to our Lord’s sacred Humanity,
while others again thought it applied to His Divinity.
On one point, however, all were unanimously agreed, viz.,
in holding that Christ was God and the Second Person
of the Divine Trinity. Those among the Fathers who
(wrongly) believed that εχησε was an Arian forgery for
Ζκτησζ == Ικτησατο (from κτάομαι = acquiro, possideo)
were guided by the thought that, since Eve said after
the birth of Cain: “Possedi ('Π'ρζ from
= possedit}
hominem per Deiim — I have gotten a man through
God,” 70 the Hebrew text of Proverbs must have read,
as our Latin Vulgate reads: “Dominus possedit me
*· e>> generatione habet me; εχτ^σε or ίκτησατό
με). This interpretation was favored by Epiphanius,
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Jerome. Most of the
other Fathers, however, notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, in view of a parallel passage in Ecclesiasticus,77
Gen. IV, i.
77 Ecclus. XXIV, 14:

70

"Ab ini'

tio et ante saecula creata (furiae)
sum.”

158

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

referred Prov. VIII, 22 to the Humanity of Christ and
interpreted it thus : “ The Lord created me in my
human nature as the beginning [αρχή = principle] of
his ways.” 78 There was a third group of Fathers who
did not hesitate to apply Prov. VIII, 22 to Christ’s Di­
vine Nature. They interpreted the verb κτίζει gener­
ically as producere = gignere,79 or looked upon it as a
drastic term calculated to throw into relief the hypo­
static self-existence of the Logos in contradistinction to
the Father.80 The dogma of the Divinity of Christ,
and consequently that of the Blessed Trinity, was safe­
guarded in any event.81
The New Testament piece de resistance of the Arian
heretics was Christ’s own declaration, recorded in John
XIV, 28: “Pater maior me est — The Father is
greater than I.” Here, they alleged, Christ Himself
attests His subordination to the Father. This objection,
too, was met differently by different Fathers. While
the Latins were inclined to limit John XIV, 28 to
Christ’s Humanity (in which hypothesis the Arian argu­
ment simply collapsed), most of the Greek Fathers,
notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, preferred the some­
what strained assumption that Christ is subject to the
Father even in His Divine Nature, i. e., that the Father,
by virtue of His being the First Person (αύτο0εο<? =
άναρχοι), is at the same time the principle of the Son,
who must therefore be conceived essentially as “ Deus
de Deo.” According to this theory the expression
“ maior me ” signifies Christ’s immanent succession with
78 For further details, see Petavius, De Trinitate, II, i, 3.
79 Thus St. Ephrem.
80 This was the opinion of St.
Hilary.

81 On these various interpreta­
tions, cfr. especially Ruiz, De Trini­
tate, disp. 96; also St. Thomas, S’.
Theol., ia, qu. 41, art. 3.

NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS

159

regard to origin in the Godhead, not a difference in
rank or power.
The difficulty based on Christ’s primogeniture was
tersely and effectively refuted by St. Ambrose : “ Legi­
mus primogenitum, legimus unigenitum: primogenitus,
quia nemo ante ipsum; unigenitus, quia nemo post ipsum
— We read ‘ the First-born,’ and we read ‘ the Onlybegotten ’ : He is the First-born, because there was no
one before Him; He is the Only-begotten, because there
is no one after Him.” 82
b) Besides a large number of philosophical fallacies,
the Macedonians marshalled against the dogma of the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost a series of Scriptural texts,
which were loyally and learnedly restored to their true
meaning by the Fathers. From Rom. VIII, 26: “ Ipse
Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus —
The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable
groanings,” these heretics concluded : One who prays
to God with unspeakable groanings cannot be Himself
God; therefore the Holy Ghost is a mere creature.
Without pointing to the evident anthropomorphism in
this text, St. Augustine refutes the false interpretation
of the Macedonians by the simple remark : “ Dictum
est ‘interpellat," quia interpellare nos facit nobisque
interpellandi et gemendi inspirat affectum — The Bible
says, the Spirit intercedes for us, because He makes
us intercede and puts it into our hearts to intercede
and groan.” 83 1 Cor. VIII, 6, where, strangely enough,
the name of the Holy Ghost does not occur at all,
was cited by the Pneumatomachians in favor of their
82 Ambros., De Fide, I, 7. Cfr.
Newman, Tracts Theological and Ec­
clesiastical, pp. 199 sqq., new ed.,
London 1895. Other Arian difficul­
ties of less importance are canvassed

by Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 458
sqq., Ratisbonae 1881; cfr. also
Schwane, Dogtnengeschichte, 2nd
ed., Vol. II, § 12, Freiburg 1895.
83 Aug., Ep., 194 (al. 105), n. 6.

ι6ο

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

heretical tenet that the Third Person is a creature and
therefore cannot be God. But, as St. Athanasius effec­
tively retorted: “ The Holy and Blessed Trinity is so
indivisibly united with itself, that Avhen the Father is
named, His Logos is included, and in the Logos also the
Spirit. And when the Son is named, the Father is in
the Son, nor is the Spirit outside the Logos, inasmuch
as there is but one grace, which is perfected out of the
Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.” 84
Readings: — Petavius, De Trinitate, I, 7 sqq.; George Bull,
Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (against Petavius, I, 3 sqq.), Oxon.
1685 (On Bull’s work and its unmerited reputation, cfr. Hunter.
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 206 sq.) ; *Mohler,
Athanasius der Grosse, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 1-116, Mainz 1844;
Hergenrother, Die Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit nach
Gregor von Nazianz, Ratisbon 1850; Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des hl. Athanasius, Freiburg 1880; A. Beck, Die Trinitatslehre des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers, Mainz 1903 ; J. Bilz, Die
Trinitdtslehre des hl. Johannes von Damaskus, Paderborn 1909.
On the apologetical aspects of the subject, see Hettinger,
Apologie des Christentums, 9th ed., Vol. Ill, Freiburg 1907.
84 Ep. i ad Scrap. 14. For fur­
ther information on this aspect of
the matter, see Kleutgen, De Ipso
Deo, pp. 490 sqq., and Th. Scher-

mann, Die Gottheit des Hl. Geistes
nach den griechischen Vatern des
vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901.

CHAPTER III
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, OR THE

DOCTRINE OF THE IMMANENT PROCES­
SIONS IN THE GODHEAD

Divine Revelation tells us that there are Three
Persons in the Godhead. It also points out the
cause of this difference, viz.: the fact of the Di­
vine Processions.
It is these Processions that properly constitute
the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and furnish
the basis for the distinction of three real Hy­
postases,—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
By “Procession’'’ we understand “the origina­
tion of one Divine Person from another.”
There are two such Processions, viz., Gener­
ation {generatio, γέννησή and Spiration {spiratio,
Twevats ) t
We shall treat them separately.

161

SECTION i
THE PROCESSION OF THE SON FROM THE FATHER

BY GENERATION

i. The Scriptural Argument.—The Nicene Council having incorporated the notion of
■γίννησ^ into the dogmatic definition of the Blessed
Trinity, there can be no doubt that Christ’s gen­
eration by the Father is as much an article of
faith as His Divine Sonship. This can be dem­
onstrated from Holy Scripture in a twofold man­
ner.
a) Indirectly, by arguing from the fact of the Di­
vine Paternity and Sonship, which we have already
proved from Holy Scripture. The relation of Father
and Son is conceivable only on the assumption of a
real and true γάνησιχ in the proper sense of the term.1
Consequently there is in the bosom of the Godhead a
first Procession, which is true Generation. If, as St.
Paul tells us,2 all paternity in heaven and on earth is
a weak imitation of the paternity of “ the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ,” and if the supernatural adop­
tion of the just is but an analogue of Christ’s true
Sonship,3 it follows, not indeed that the divine geii1 On the term yévvqais, cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasins, II, 352 sq.

162

2
3

Eph. Ill, 14 sq.
Cfr. John, I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 sq.

THE PROCESSION OF THE SON

163

nesis must be conceived figuratively after the manner
of creatural generation, but, contrariwise, that the latter
is merely an imperfect representation of the former.
The only true generation, in the highest sense, there­
fore, is the divine γέννησή, as the Godhead alone is
Being in its truest and highest sense. Holy Scripture
frequently intimates the genuineness of the divine γεννησιχ by applying to Christ such epithets as “ the Only-be­
gotten of the Father,”4 and “ the Only-begotten Son
of the Father.” 5

b) Holy Scripture, moreover, distinctly teaches
that the Son proceeds from the Father by eter­
nal generation. Heb. I, 5 : “Cui enim dixit
aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego
hodie genui te (γνγέννηκά σε) ?— For to which of
the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art
my Son, to-day have I begotten thee?”
Most clearly perhaps this divine Procession is
taught in Psalm CIX, verse 3. “Tecum prin­
cipium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanc­
torum: ex utero ante luciferum [= ab aeterno'}
genui te — With thee is the principality in the
day of thy strength: in the brightness of the
saints: from the womb before the day star I
begot thee.” It is true, the Masoretic text, as
we have it, renders this passage differently. In­
asmuch, however, as (aside from the Itala and
the Vulgate) the Septuagint6 and the Syriac
4 John III, 16, et passim.
5 John I, 14, et passim.

6 The Septuagint translates: Έκ
yaarpos προ εωςφόρου tyevvyad σβ.

104

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Peshitta, which were both made directly from
the original Hebrew, give the passage as above
quoted, the Masoretic variation can safely be at­
tributed to a mistake made by the Jewish writers
who some time previous to the tenth century
drew up that collection of criticisms and mar­
ginal notes which forms the basis of our present
Hebrew Old Testament. This theory is all the
more plausible in view of the fact that the elimi­
nation of two small words,
and 1^, and a
change in the punctuation of the remainder of
the text, would make the seemingly corrupt
passage conform with the Vulgate. Another im­
portant consideration in clearing up this diffi­
culty is that for several centuries the Fathers
employed this particular text to prove the Consubstantiality of the Logos with the Father by
virtue of His eternal Generation.7 Thus St.
Basil, or rather the author of the fifth Book
against Eunomius found among St. Basil’s works,
writes : “Propterea habere se in generando
uterum dixit Deus ad confusionem impiorum, ut
vel sua ipsorum natura considerata discant,
Filium fructum esse Patris genuinum, îitpote ex
eius utero emergentem — God speaks of His
womb for the purpose of confounding the im­
pious, that they may learn by a consideration
of their own nature that the Son is the genuine
7 Cfr. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 4, sect. 1.

THE PROCESSION OF THE SON

165

product of the Father, as if He had emerged from
His womb.” 8
A parallel passage to Ps. CIX, 3, is John I,
18: “Unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris
ζό μονογενές υίος ό ων ds τον κόλπον τον πατρός') ---The
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father.” Taken in connexion with certain preg­
nant terms found in the Sapiential Books, such
as “parturiebar” and “concepta eram” 9 and pas­
sages like Ecclus. XXIV, 5,10 these texts seem
to remove all doubt as to the scripturality of the
doctrine of the divine
2. The Argument from Tradition.—The
dogma of the Son’s generation was brought
prominently forward by all the Fathers and
ecclesiastical synods of the fourth century, be­
cause it is the foundation and logical ante­
cedent of the dogma of the Consubstantiality of
Son and Father.
a) St. Hilary tersely declares: “ Ignorat Deum
Christum, qui ignorat Deum natum; Deum autem nasci
non est aliud quam in ea natura esse, qua Deus est —
He knows not the God-Christ, who knows not that
God is begotten ; but to say that God is begotten, is
tantamount to saying that He is of the same nature
8 Contr. Eunom., 1. 5; Migne, P.
G., XXIX, 715.
oProv. VIII, 24.
10 “ Ego er ore Altissimi prodivi,
primogenita ante omnem creaturam
— I came out of the mouth of the

most High, the firstborn before all
creatures.” (On “ The Doctrine of
the Primogenitus,” see Newman,
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasti·
cal, pp. 199 sqq.)

ι66

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

as God.” 11 And St. Augustine: “ Ideo quippe Filius,
quia genitus, et quia Filius, utique genitus—For He
is therefore a son, because begotten, and because a
son, therefore certainly begotten.”12 This unanimous
teaching of the Fathers faithfully echoes all the ancient
creeds, from the Apostles' to the Athanasian,— which
latter sharply emphasizes the fact that “Pater a nullo
est factus nec creatus nec genitus; Filius a patre solo
est, non factus nec creatus, sed genitus — The Father
is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The
Son is of the Father alone ; not made, nor created, but
begotten.” 13 We must also mention in this connection
the eleventh of the “ Anathematismi” of Pope St.
Damasus I (A. D. 380). It reads as follows: “Si
quis non dixerit Filium natum de Patre, id est de divina
substantia ipsius, anathema sit — If any one will not
profess that the Son is begotten by the Father, that is
to say, from the Divine Substance of the Father, let
him be anathema.” 14
b) The Fathers and Catholic theologians generally are
one in teaching that the process of divine Generation
is a relation involving only the Father and the Son.
Various attempts at positing in the Godhead other such
relations, as, e. g., maternity, were indignantly re11 De Trinitate, I. n. Petavius
(De Trinit., II, 5, n. 7), quotes the
following passage from Theodorus
Abucara: “ Since the Son’s gen­
eration does but signify His having
His existence from the Father,
which He has ever, therefore He is
ever begotten. For it became Him
who is properly (κυρίω$) the Son,
ever to be deriving His existence
from the Father, and not as we
who derive its commencement only.
In us generation is a way to exist­
ence; in the Son of God it denotes

the existence itself; in Him it has
not existence for its end, but it is
itself an end (re'Xos)» and is perfect
(τελείου)·” Cfr. Newman, Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 353.
(On Theodorus Abucara, cfr. Her­
der’s Kirchenlexikon, XI, 1508 sq.)
12 De Trinitate, V, 6, 7 (Had·
dan’s translation, p. 151).
13 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 39.
14 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 69.

THE PROCESSION OF THE SON

167

jected by the Fathers as blasphemous.15 Since the di­
vine γέννησή must be conceived as a purely intellectual
process, there is no need of postulating in the Godhead
a special principle of conception and parturition. The
Father generates His Divine Son by way of under­
standing,16 as the adequate likeness of His Essence.
When the Patristic writers speak of the “ conception ”
and “ birth ” of the Son of God, or advert to the
“ bosom ” of the Father, they merely mean to emphasize
the truth of the divine Generation as such.
The Sapiential Books of the Old Testament some­
times refer to Hypostatic Wisdom as the “ First-born ”
or as “ Mother of fair love.” But these phrases offer
no serious difficulty. The epithet “ Mother of fair
love ” is merely meant to intimate the maternal ten­
derness of God’s love for us, and the feminine form
“ primogenita” (instead of “primogenitus”) is due to
the grammatical accident that in Hebrew »ΊΒ3Π (/. e.t
sapientia), like σοφία in the Greek Septuagint, is of
feminine gender.17
Readings: — St. Anselm, Monologium, c. 39-43; Ruiz, De Tri­
nitate, disp. 4 sqq.; Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat., tom.
I, thes. 107 (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, II, pp.
176 sqq., 2nd ed.) ; *
Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 4, c.
i sqq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 30; Heinrich, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol. IV, § 241; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol.,
Vol. II, pp. 293-325, Paris 1895; Newman, The Arians of the
Fourth Century, pp. 158 sqq., New Impression, London 1901 ;
Idem, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 287 sqq.,
337 sqq.; 9th ed., London 1903; A Stiidle, De Processionibus
Divinis, Frib. Helv. 1895.
15 Cfr. Epiphanius, Haer., 62.
1β “Per modum intellectus.” The
English rendering of this technical
term we adopt from Rickaby (cfr.

Of God and His Creatures, p. 357,
et passim).
IT Cfr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat.,
3rd ed., tom. II, pp. 283 sqq., Friburgi 1906.

SECTION 2
THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST FROM THE
FATHER AND THE SON

The second Procession in the Godhead is
qualitatively distinct from Generation. Though
often designated by the generic term processio
(έκπόρενσκ) f it is by most theologians and several
councils called Spiration {spiratio, ^ύσι?). Reve­
lation leaves no room for doubt as to the Proces­
sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father. But
the Greeks, since the schism of Photius, heretically assert that He proceeds from the Father
alone, and not from the Son. To this heretical
assertion, which has been expressly rejected by
the Church, we oppose the Catholic doctrine that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and
the Son.
ARTICLE i
THE HERESY OF THE GREEK SCHISM AND ITS CONDEMNA­
TION BY THE CHURCH

i. The Heresy of the Schism.—It is im­
possible to ascertain just when the heresy as­
serting the Procession of the Holy Ghost from
168

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST

169

the Father alone originated. When the Mace­
donians declared the Holy Ghost to be a creature
of the Logos-Son, the Second Ecumenical Coun­
cil (A. D. 381), to safeguard the dogma of His
Divinity, thought it sufficient to affirm His Consubstantiality with the Father in the phrase:
“Qui ex Patre procedit — Who proceeds from
the Father.”
Petavius and Bellarmine assume, but without sufficient
warrant, that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret
were the original authors of the heresy with which we
are dealing.1 The more probable theory is that certain
Nestorians, whose identity can no longer be ascertained,
in course of time somehow came to believe that the
Council of Constantinople by “ ex Patre” meant “ ex
solo Patre.” This view was publicly defended for the
first time in Jerusalem, A. D. 808, by some fanatic
monks, who protested against the insertion of the word
“ Filioque” into the Nicene Creed, because, as they
alleged, the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
It was, however, reserved for Photius, the ambitious
and crafty Patriarch of Constantinople, the most learned
scholar of his age,2 (+891), to accuse the Latins of
heresy for adopting the “ Filio que” and to raise the
denial of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Son to the rank of a palmary dogma of the Greek
Church. At a great council held in Constantinople,
A. D. 879, which was attended by 380 bishops, the
1 On Theodore of Mopsuestia, see
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp.
318-322; on Theodoret, the same
work, pp. 370-376.
2 For a fine character sketch of

Photius, see A. Fortescue, The Or­
thodox Eastern Church, pp. 138 sqq.
Cfr. also the same brilliant writer’s
C. T. S. brochure, Rome and Con­
stantinople, pp. 12 sqq.

I/O

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Greeks formally pronounced sentence of anathema
against all who should add to, or take from, the Symbol
of Nicaea. After Photius’s death “ peace was restored
temporarily between the churches, although by this time
there is already a strong anti-papal party at Constanti­
nople. But the great mass of Christians on either side
are reconciled, and have no idea of schism for one
hundred and fifty more years.” 3 In the eleventh cen­
tury came the final rupture under Michael Cerularius.
The Great Schism settled into permanency, and, after
a brief reunion in the fifteenth century, still continues.4

2. The Teaching of the Church on the
Procession of the Holy Ghost.—The Church
jealously guarded the Apostolic teaching that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father
and the Son. This appears clearly from the
insertion of the word “Filioque” into the Constantinopolitan Creed.
Though the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) had for­
bidden the reception into the Creed of any other faith 5
than that of Nicaea, there soon came a time when it
was found necessary to enforce explicit profession
of faith in the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Son as well as from the Father. The “ Filioqxie” first
came into use in Spain. On the occasion of the con­
version of the Arian Goths under King Reccared, the
Third Council of Toledo (A. D. 589) decreed the inser­
tion of the term into the Creed and ordered that the
3 Fortescue, The Orthodox East·
ern Church, p. 171.
4 Fortescue, The Orthodox East·
ern Church, pp. 201 sqq.

5 Έτ^ρα πίστπ (whereby it can
have meant nothing else than heterodox additions).

THE FILIOQUE

171

words “ ex Patre Filio que ” should be sung “ with raised
voices ” during the celebration of the Divine Mysteries.
In course of time the “ Filio que” spread to France and
Germany, thence to England and Upper Italy, and finally
to Rome, where, however, for disciplinary reasons, the
Popes did not encourage its adoption, though from a
purely dogmatic point of view the matter had long been
ripe for a decision. As early as A. D. 410, a large
number of bishops, assembled in synod at Seleucia, had
solemnly professed their faith “in Spiritum vivum et
sanctum, Paraclitum vivum et sanctum, qui procedit ex
Patre et Filio — In the living and holy Ghost, the living
and holy Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and
the Son.”6 The “ Athanasian Creed ” contains the
clause : “ Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio — The Holy
Ghost [is] of the Father and the Son ; ” and long be­
fore its composition (5th or 6th century) a synod be­
lieved to have been held at Toledo (A. D. 447), had
defined that “ the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father and the Son.”7 Pope Hormisdas (+523),
in a letter to the Emperor Justin I, employed the
phrase : “ de Patre et Filio.” Many provincial synods
inculcated the same doctrine (Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D.
789; Friaul, A. D. 791; Worms, A. D. 868; etc.).
The Emperor Charlemagne was particularly attached to
the “ Filioque ” and it consequently became very popular
among the Franks. But when a few Frankish zealots
β Cfr. Lamy, Concilium Seleuciae
et Ctesiphonti Habitum a. 410, Lovanii 1868; Idem, “ Le Concile tenu
à Seleucie-Ctésiphon,” printed in
the Compte rendu du 3e Congrès
Scientifique International des Ca­
tholiques, Bruxelles 1895, Sect. II,
pp. 267 sqq.
T According to the recent re-

12

searches of Morin and Künstle this
synod was never held, and what
were hitherto thought to be its
decrees are the production of an
individual
Spanish
bishop. Cfr.
Bilz, Die Trinitatslehre des hl.
Johannes von Damaskus, p. 157,
Paderborn 1909.

172

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

undertook to censure as insufficient the Greek formula
“ a Patre per Filium” Pope Hadrian I defended it and
quoted the Greek Fathers in its support.
Long after the outbreak of the Great Schism the Fourth
Lateran Council (A. D., 1215) again took up the matter
and defined it as an article of faith that “ Pater a
nullo, Filius a Patre solo, ac Spiritus Sanctus pariter
ab utroque — The Father [is] from no one; the Son [is]
from the Father alone; and the Holy Ghost [is] equally
from both the Father and the Son.” Lastly there is
the important definition of the Ecumenical Council of
Lyons, A. D. 1274, that the Holy Ghost proceeds eter­
nally from the Father and the Son as from one prin­
ciple and in one Spiration : “ Spiritus Sanctus aeternali­
ter ex Patre et Filio, non tamquam ex duobus principiis,
sed tamquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationi­
bus, sed unica spiratione procedit.” 8 This teaching was
solemnly confirmed in the decree by which the Council
of Florence ( 1439) sealed the restored union :9 “ Diffini­
mus, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternali­
ter est et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet
ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tam­
quam ab iino principio et unica spiratione procedit —
We define that the Holy Ghost is eternally from the
Father and the Son, and has His essence and sub­
sistence at once from the Father and the Son; and that
He eternally proceeds from both as from one Principle
and by one Spiration.” 10

In consequence of the machinations of the
schismatical Bishop Mark of Ephesus, the re8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Εη·
chiridion, n. 460.
e Published on July 6, 1439. Denzinger-Bannwart, η. 691.

10 Upon this definition is based
the well-known theological axiom:
“Duo quidem spirantes, sed unus
spirator.”

THE FILIOQUE

173

union brought about at Florence came to as bad
an end as that effected at Lyons two centuries
earlier. It must have seemed to many like a
manifestation of divine anger when, on Pentecost
Sunday, A. D. 1453, the Turks broke down the
walls of Constantinople, and its last Emperor,
Constantine Dragases, fell in battle at the gate
of St. Romanus.
Readings: — On the history of the Greek Schism, see Werner,
Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der
christlichen Théologie, Vol. Ill, Schaffhausen 1864; *
Hergenrôther, Photius, Freiburg 1867-69, I, 684 sqq. Ill, 399 sqq. ; Idem,
Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Freiburg 1904;
Langen, Die trinitarische Lehrdifferens zwischen der abendlandischen und morgenlandischen Kirche, Bonn 1876; Hefele, C011ciliengeschichte, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1879; Fortescue, The
Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 134 sqq., London 1907; DuchesneMathew, The Churches Separated From Rome, pp. 109 sqq.,
London 1907; Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Manual of Universal Church
History, Vol. II, pp. 449 sqq., 5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; S.
Vailhé, $. v. “ Greek Church,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. VI, pp. 763 sqq.

ARTICLE 2
THE POSITIVE TEACHING OF REVELATION

i. Scriptural Argument.—Sacred Scripture
expressly mentions only the Procession of the
Holy Ghost from the Father.11 But this does
not argue that there is no Scriptural warrant
for the dogma of His Procession from the Son.
11 John
Father.”

XV,

26:

“The

Paraclete . . . who

proceedeth

from

the

174

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

On the contrary, the Procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Son can be proved by a three­
fold argument based on Biblical texts.
a) In the New Testament the Holy Ghost is
represented not only as “the Spirit of the
Father,” but likewise as “the Spirit of the
Son.” 12 These phrases can have but one mean­
ing, viz., that He proceeds from the Son as well
as from the Father. For “Spiritus Filii,” ex­
pressing as it does a relation {spiritus alicuius),
can only mean “spiramen Filii” or “spiratus a
Filio;” that is to say, the Holy Ghost is the spiration or breath of the Son. This conclusion can­
not consistently be denied by those who, like the
Greek schismatics, find themselves constrained
to admit that the only reason why the Holy
Ghost can be called “Spiritus Patris,” 13 is that
He proceeds from the Father. If this be true,
it must a pari be concluded that He can be
called “Spiritus Filii” only for the reason that
He proceeds also from the Son,—a conclusion
which is fortified by the Scriptural phrase
Filius Patris (or Filius Dei), which evidently ex­
presses a procession of the one from the other.
It was but natural, therefore, for the Greek 14
as well as for the Latin 15 Fathers to employ
12 " Spiritus Filii ” (Gal. IV, 6) ;
“ Spiritus Christi" (Rom. VIII, 9 J
Phil. I, 19; I Pet. I, II).
13 Matth. X, 20.

14 Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa,
Maximus, Cyril of Alexandria, and
others.
15 E. g., Augustine.

THE FILIOQUE

175

this text as an argument for the Procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Son.
The schismatics object that the Scriptural term
“ Spiritus Filii” has its justification in the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, from whom
alone, they claim, the Holy Ghost proceeds. But this
is a mere evasion. Is not the Holy Ghost, too, consubstantial with the Father, from whom alone proceeds
the Son? Yet we could not without heresy call Christ
“ Filius Spiritus Sancti,” because the Son does not pro­
ceed from the Holy Ghost. Hence the inevitable con­
clusion that the Holy Ghost is “ Spiritus Filii” only
because He proceeds from the Son as well as from the
Father.

b) A still stronger argument can be drawn
from what is known as the “Mission” of the
Holy Ghost. Missio, in its abstract sense, sig­
nifies “the procession of one from another by
virtue of some principle and for the purpose of
accomplishing some task.”
The three essential notes of any mission, be it divine
or human, are: (1) A real distinction between the
sender and the person sent, for it is obvious that no
being can send itself. (2) A certain dependency of the
“sent” in regard to the “sender.” (3) A relation on
the part of the “ sent ” to some terminus (place or effect).
It follows that every “ missus ” enters into a twofold re­
lation: a relation to the sender (mittens) as his terminus
a quo, and a relation to the goal of his mission, which
constitutes his terminus ad quern. In applying the con­
cept of “ mission ” to the Divine Persons we must first

176

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

purge it of all human imperfections. In the Divinity
any influence of the “ Sender ” on the “ Sent,” other
than the relation of origin, would be repugnant to the
Essence of the Triune God. The eternal Procession
of one Divine Person from another may be called In­
ternal Mission (missio ad intra). The Temporal Mis­
sion is external and merely reflects the internal.

We know as the result of a complete induction
that Holy Scripture invariably represents the
Father as “sending,” never as “sent”; the Son
both as “sending” and as “sent”; and the Holy
Ghost always as “sent,” but never as “sending.”
Inasmuch as the Father sends the Son as well
as the Holy Ghost, it is a patent conclusion, ad­
mitted also by the schismatic Greeks, that the
Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the
Father. But the Bible distinctly teaches that
the Holy Ghost is sent not only by the Father,
but also by the Son.16 Consequently, the Holy
Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but
also from the Son. This Scriptural argument
is so simple and convincing that it was often
employed by the Fathers and ecclesiastical
writers, both Greek and Latin.17 Thus St. Ful­
gentius teaches: “Filius est a Patre missus,
16 John XIV, 16: “And I will
ask the Father, and He shall give
you another Paraclete, that he may
abide with you for ever.” John
XV, 26: “ But when the Paraclete
cometh, whom I will send you from
the Father. . . .” John XVI, 7:

“It is expedient to you that I go:
for if I go not, the Paraclete will
not come to you; but if I go, I will
send him to you.”
it Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino,
thes. 33.

THE FILIOQUE

177

quia Filius est a Patre nattis, non Pater a Filio;
similiter etiam Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio
legitur missus, quia a Patre Filioque procedit —
The Son is sent by the Father, because the Son
is begotten by the Father, not the Father by the
Son; similarly we read that the Holy Ghost is
sent by the Father and the Son, because He pro­
ceeds from the Father and the Son/’18
c) The principal Scriptural argument for our
present thesis is based on John XVI, 13 sqq.:
“Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit
vos omnem veritatem. Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed, quaecumque audiet, loquetur et, qtiae
ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis. Ille me clarifi­
cabit, quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis.
Omnia quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt.
Propterea dixi: quia de meo accipiet [Aberat,
other codices have λαμβάνα] et annuntiabit vobis
— But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he
will teach you all truth, for he shall not speak
of himself ; but what things soever he shall hear,
he shall speak; and the things that are to come,
he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; be­
cause he shall receive of mine, and shall shew
it to you. All things whatsoever the Father
hath, are mine. Therefore, I said that he
18 Contra Fabianum, fragm. 29.
We possess only thirty-nine fragments of this precious work. For
an account of the life and writings

of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, cfr.
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp.
616-618.

i78

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

shall receive [receives] of mine, and shew it
to you.” The bearing of this precious dog­
matic text will appear from the following con­
siderations. In the first place it is said of the
Holy Ghost that he “hears” and “receives” His
knoAvledge of “the things that are to come,”
(/. e., of the future), from Christ. Being in
the future tense, “audiet” and “accipiet” cannot
refer to the intrinsic, eternal essence of the Holy
Ghost, but solely to His future temporal mani­
festation ad extra. Now, one Divine Person
can “hear” and “receive” from another only in
so far as He does not, like the Father, pos­
sess His knowledge, and consequently His es­
sence, from Himself (a semetipso, W έαυτοϋ'), but
receives it by way of essential communication.
“Ab illo audiet” says St. Augustine, elucidating
the passage, “a quo proc edit. Audire Uli scire
est, scire vero esse. ... A quo Uli essentia, ab
illo scientia — He shall hear of Him from whom
He proceedeth. To Him, to hear is to know; but
to know is to be . . . from whom His Being
is, from the same is His knowing.” 19 Christ,
too, derives His divine knowledge from the
Father and “hears” and “learns” from the
Father, by whom He is sent. “He that sent
me, is true: and the things I have heard of him,
these same I speak in the world. And they
19 Trad, in loa., 99, 4·

Browne’s translation, II, 919.

THE FILIOQUE

179

understood not that he called God his Father.” 20
And again: “I do nothing of myself, but as
the Father hath taught me, these things I
speak.”21 Hence, just as Christ “hears” and
“learns” from His Father only in so far as His
divine nature with all the attributes of omnipo­
tence, omniscience, etc., are communicated to
Him by His eternal Generation from the Father;
so, too, the Holy Ghost “hears” and “receives”
from the Son only in this sense that all His
knowledge and His whole essence are derived
through origination from Christ.22 Conse­
quently the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son
as well as from the Father.
In their anxiety to escape the force of this argu­
ment the adherents of Photius have not scrupled to ex­
plain the text by interpolation. For ίκ τον ίμοϋ ληψεται.
they read ίκ τον Ιμον [πατρός] ληψεται, i. e., the Holy
Ghost receives His knowledge, as He receives His es­
sence, from the Father, and hence proceeds from Him.
But, as Cardinal Bessarion has observed, this con­
struction conflicts with the rules of Greek grammar. It
is untenable also for this additional reason that the con­
text does not mention the Father at all, but speaks
20 John VIII, 26 sq. : “ Qui me
misit, verax est; et ego, quae audivi
ab eo, haec loquor in mundo. Et
non cognoverunt, quia Patrem eius
dicebat Deum.”
21 John VIII, 28: " A meipso
(απ' εμαυτοΰ) facio nihil, sed sicut
docuit me Pater, haec loquor.”
22 De meo accipiet t— ex me pro­
cedit. See J. E. Belser, Das Evan-

gelium des hl. Johannes iibersetst
und erklart, pp. 440 sqq., Freiburg
1905. Cfr. Epiphanius, Ancor., c. 8:
" ' Qui a Patre procedit et de meo
accipiet,’ ut ne alienus a Patre et
Filio crederetur, sed eiusdem sub­
stantiae ac divinitatis, . . . ex Pa­
tre et Filio tertius appellatione.”
(Aligne, P.G., XLIII, 30.)

ι8ο

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

solely of Christ and His relation to the “Spiritus veri­
tatis.” 23 Hence έκ τοΰ ίμοϋ is the genitive of the neuter
noun to é/jLÔv, i. e., that which is mine. This interpreta­
tion is absolutely irrefutable in the light of John XVI,
15: “ Omnia, quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt;24
propterea25 dixi: quia de meo 26 accipiet.” The context
is so clear that not a single Greek Father can be ad­
duced who took Ik. τον Ιμού to be other than a neuter
phrase, meaning: “He shall receive of [what is]
mine.” 27

For the rest, Christ Himself tells us the pre­
cise reason why and in how far the Holy Ghost
“receives” from Him. “All things whatsoever28
the Father hath,” he says, “are mine; therefore29
I said that he shall receive of mine, and shew
it to you.” 30 Accordingly, the Son has what­
soever the Father has, with the sole exception of
Paternity, which is incommunicable. If, there­
fore, as the schismatics admit, the Father has
the power of Spiration, this power, being com­
municable, also belongs to the Son. Therefore
the Son breathes the Holy Ghost together with
the Father. Consequently the latter proceeds
from the Son as well as from the Father.
Anselm of Havelsburg has thrown this argument
into the form of a pretty sorites: “Unde Uli
23 John XVI, 13 sq.
24 εμ,ά εστι.
25 διά τούτο.
26 εκ τοΰ έμοϋ.
27 On the Patristic exegesis of
this passage, consult Petavius, De

Trinit., VII, 5; Ruiz, De Tnnit.,
disp. 67, sect. 2.
28 πάντα δσα.
29 διά τούτο.
30 John XVI, 15.

THE FILIOQUE

i8i

[scii. Spiritui Sancto] essentia, inde illi au­
dientia; et unde illi audientia, inde illi scientia;
et unde illi scientia, inde illi processio — Whence
He [the Holy Ghost] has His essence, thence
He has His hearing; and whence He has His
hearing, thence He has His knowledge; and
whence He has His knowledge, thence He has
His Procession.”31 This interpretation coin­
cides with that of the Greek Fathers, and the
schismatics cannot disavow it without stultifying
themselves.32
2. Patristic Argument.—The Greek schis­
matics freely admit that the Latin Fathers
unanimously teach the Procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father and the Son. Note that,
in making this admission, they inadvertently con­
demn their own attitude ; for it is absurd to imag­
ine that the Latin Church, which for eight cen­
turies together with the Greek formed the one
true Church of Christ, should have harbored a
disgraceful heresy during all that time. But
even if we put this consideration aside, we can
convict the Greeks out of the mouths of their own
Fathers. We shall confine ourselves to estab­
lish this point here. The argument from Tra­
dition, so far as it rests on conciliar decisions
and the usage of the primitive Church, has al31 Dial., II, 8. On Anselm of
Havelsburg, Ord. Praem., and his
Dialogi, consult Hurter, Nomencla­
tor Literarius Theologiae Catholicae,

ed. alt., Vol. II, 107 sqq., Oenip.
1906.
32 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinitate,
VII, 6.

182

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

ready been developed in a previous Section of this
treatise.33
a) One of the most authoritative of the Greek Fathers
is St. Athanasius (+373). He expressly teaches that
“the Holy Ghost holds the same relation to the Son
as to the Father,” and that consequently the total sub­
stance of the Father is communicated to the Holy Ghost
“ through the mediation of the Son.” 34 Christ’s breath­
ing upon the Apostles he explains as a symbol of the
“ Procession ” of the Holy Ghost from the Son. “ The
Son breathed the Holy Ghost into the Apostles’ counte­
nance and said : ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ in order
that we might learn that the Spirit given to the Disciples
is from the fulness of the Godhead ; for in Christ, says
the Apostle, the whole plenitude of the Godhead indwells
corporeally.” 35 For this reason he designates the Son
as “ the fountainhead (or source) of the Holy Ghost.” 36
These and many similar phrases are merely equivalent
terms signifying the “ Procession ” of the Holy Ghost
from the Son.
b) St. Basil’s attitude on the question of the “ Filia­
que” may be gathered from his constant teaching that
the Holy Ghost proceeds “ from the Father through the
Son.” 37 He furthermore affirms that “ the divine dig­
nity comes to the Holy Ghost from the Father through
S3 Supra, pp. 168 sqq.
34 S. Athanas., Ad Scrap., ep. i,
n. 19: " Qualem scimus proprietatem
(Ιδιότητα) esse Filii ad Patrem,
eandem ad Filium habere Spiritum
S. comperiemus. Et quemadmodum
Filius dicit:
Omnia, quaecunque
habet Pater, mea sunt/ ita haec
omnia per Filium in Spiritu Sancto
osse deprehendemus.”

35 Ad Serap., ep. 3.
36 T^qv πηγην του άγιου πνεύ­
ματος, De Incarnatione contra
Arianos, 9.
37 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto,
XVIII, 45: *
Έν δέ καί τδ άγιον
πνεύμα, · . δι’ ενός υ'ιοϋ τώ ενί
πατρί συναπτόμενον.

THE FILIOQUE

183

[His] Only-begotten Son.”38 In a famous passage,
which gave rise to acrid disputes at Florence, in 1439,
St. Basil says that the Spirit holds His place after the
Son, “ because He holds from Him His being, and re­
ceives from Him and communicates to us, and depends
entirely on that principle (or cause).”39 “Dignitate
[i. e., secundum originem] namque Spiritum secundum
esse a Filio [cum habeat esse ab ipso atque ab ipso ac­
cipiat et annuntiet nobis, et omnino ab illa causa de­
pendeat] tradit pietatis sermo.” 40 The bracketed clause,
which definitely asserts the Procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Son,41 was vigorously impugned by the
Greeks, who claimed that it was spurious. But, as Dr.
Bardenhewer points out, “ that these are the genuine
original words of Basil is proved by good arguments,
extrinsic and intrinsic. But even were they the words
of a forger, their meaning is true: and the entire argu­
ment of Basil presupposes it as something logical and
indispensable.” 42
c) Of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389) Barden­
hewer observes : “ The Filioque is not found in the
writings of St. Gregory as clearly and openly as in those
of Basil. He takes it, however, for recognized and
granted, that the Son also is principle or origin of the
Holy Spirit. When he says 43 in his discourse delivered
at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), that the Father
88 L. c., n. 47: è/c πατρόΐ διά τον
μοι/ογβΓοΰΐ επί τό πνεύμα.
39 The Latin Fathers prefer the
word principle for the Father and
Son; the Greeks more frequently
use cause (.αιτία).
40 Contra Eunom. Ill, i (apud
Migne, P. G., XXIX, 653 sqq.).
41 It runs as follows in the orig­
inal Greek: Hap’ αύτοϋ τό είναι

ϊχον και τταρ' αύτοϋ λαμβάνον καί
àvayyéXKov ημϊν και ολω$ της
αιτίας εκείνης έξημμένον,
42 Bardenhewer-Shahan,
Patrol­
ogy, p. 282. For further informa­
tion on this point, cfr. A Kranich,
Der hl. Basilius in seiner Stellung
sum Filioque, Augsburg 1882.
<3 Or., 42, n. 15.

184

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

is άναρχος,44 the Son άρχη, and the Holy Spirit το ρ,ετα
τη? άρχη?, he implicitly affirms that the mutual relation
between the Holy Spirit and the Son is that of one who
proceeds to Him from whom He proceeds. Moreover,
he expressly says that the Holy Spirit is to εξ άμφοϊν
σννημμίνον,45 i. e., He proceeds equally from the Father
and the Son. The poem entitled Praecepta ad Virgines
ends with these words : ‘ One God from the Begetter
through the Son, to the great Spirit (εϊς θεο? εκ γενέταο
* νΐεο? es μ,ε'γα πνεύμα [this is the SO-called κίνησι? τη?
δι
μονάδο? el? τριαδα]), since the perfect Divinity subsists in
perfect Persons.’ ” 46
Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil the Great
(-j-after 394), also teaches that “the Holy Ghost is
considered a distinct Hypostasis, because He is from
God (εκ του Θεού), and is of Christ (τού Χρίστου), SO
that He does not share either the property of not pro­
ceeding (το άγεννητον) with the Father, or the property
of being the Only-begotten with the Son.” 47 There is
another passage in the writings of Gregory, which, if
its genuineness could be established, would be even more
conclusive. Cardinal Bessarion cited it against those of
his Greek countrymen who were opposed to the reunion,
and at the same time protested against the perversion to
which the passage had been subjected in an ancient manu­
script codex of the works of St. Gregory at Florence,
wherein some Greek forger had clumsily expunged the
preposition εκ. The passage occurs in the third of
Gregory’s Sermones in Orationem Dominicam, and reads
44 On this term, in connection
with αρχή, cfr. Newman, Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 348
sq.
45 Or., 31, n. 2.
46 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­

trology, p. 292. See also Hergen­
rother, Die Lehre von der gottlichen
Dreieinigkeit nach dem hl. Gregor
von Nazianz, Ratisbon 1850.
47 Sermo contr. Macedonianos, n.
2.

THE FILIOQUE

185

thus : “ Spiritus Sanctus et ex Patre (εκ τοΰ πατρός)
dicitur et ex Filio esse (καί [εκ] τού υιού) perhibetiir—
The Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father and is
shown to be also from the Son.” 4849
d) The “ Filioque” was very clearly taught by St.
Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia (+403). In his Ancoratus™ he employs the formula το πνεύμα ίκ τού πατρο?
καί τοΰ υιού at least three times.50 And in his work “ The
Medicine-Chest/’51 usually cited as Haereses, because
written against eighty heresies,52 he says: “Audi, quis­
quis es, quod Pater vere est Filii Pater, totus lux, et
Filius vere Patris lumen de lumine, ... et Spiritus
Sanctus veritatis liimen tertium a Patre et Filio (φώς
τρίτον παρά πατρος καί υιού).” 53
To these authorities we may add Didymus the Blind
(4-about 395), who, despite his Origenistic tenden­
cies, according to the testimony of St. Jerome was
certainly orthodox in his treatise on the Trinity.54
Didymus paraphrases John XVI, 13 as follows: “Non
enim loquetur a semetipso, hoc est non sine me et Patris
arbitrio, quia inseparabilis a mea et Patris voluntate;
quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et me est: hoc enim ipsum,
quod subsistit, a Patre et me illi est—[St. John XVI,
13, says: But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of
himself ; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall
speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew
you.] He will not speak of himself, that is to say, not
48 On the Trinitarian doctrine of
St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300302.
49 Ay κνρωτάς, i. e., the firmlyanchored man.
50 Ancor., nn. 8, 9, 11.

ει Ήανάριον or Τϊανάρια,
52 Migne, P. G., XLI sq. Cfr.
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp.
310 sqq.
53 Haereses, 74, 8.
54 Hieron., Contra Rufin., II, 16:
“Certe in Trinitate catholicus est.”

ι86

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

without Me and the judgment of the Father, because
He is inseparable from Mine and the Father’s will; be­
cause He is not from Himself, but from the Father and
Me; for He has His very subsistence from the Father
and Me.” 65
Lastly we will mention St. Cyril of Alexandria
(+444), whose writings fairly swarm with texts in
support of the “ Filio que.” Not only does he employ the
formula “ Έκ πατρος δι’ νιοϋ προχεόμενον πνεύμα — The Holy
Ghost flows forth from the Father through the Son,” 56
but he distinctly asserts : “ Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex
Patre et Filio (πρόασι. δε και εκ πατρος και υίοϋ)— The Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.” 57

e) Cardinal Bessarion, in his famous dog­
matic discourse at the Council of Florence, A. D.
1439, summarized the teaching of the entire
Patristic period on the dogma of the Blessed
Trinity in these words: “Latini Patres claris­
sime et dissertissime docent, Spiritum Sanctum
procedere ex Filio et Filium, sicut Patrem, esse
eius principium. Deinde Orientales quoque, non
sectis ac Occidentales, hoc ipsum dicere demon­
stravimus, cum alii Spiritum ex Patre per Filium
procedere, alii ex Patre et Filio atque ex am­
bobus esse aiunt, sicque aperte docent, esse etiam
ex Filio — The Latin Fathers teach most clearly
and eloquently that the Holy Ghost proceeds
55 Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, 2.
Another, larger extract from the
writings of Didymus on the Trinity
is quoted by Petavius, De Trinitate,
VII, 3. 6.

5β De Adorat, in Spiritu et Veri­
tate, apud Migne, P. G. LXVI1I, 147.
57 Thesaurus Assert., 34. Migne,
P. G. LXXV, 586.

THE FILIOQUE

187

from the Son, and that the Son, like the Father,
is His principle. We have also demonstrated
that the Greek Fathers, too, agree in this teach­
ing of the Latins; some of them saying that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father through the
Son, while others declare that He proceeds from
the Father and the Son, or from both, which
manifestly means that He proceeds also from
the Son.”58 In matter of fact it is only by
harmoniously blending the Latin “ex Patre Filio­
que” with the Greek “ex Patre per Filium” that
we arrive at the whole truth. Nor was the Latin
formula limited to the Latins, or the Greek for­
mula to the Greeks. The Greek formula, which
Scheeben calls “the organic conception,” occurs
e. g. in the writings of Tertullian,59 Novatian,
and Hilary;60 while, conversely, the Latin con­
ception, which has been styled the “personal,”
is familiarly employed by several of the Greek
Fathers, as we have seen in a previous paragraph.
In the “organic” formula the preposition διά has a
causal meaning, indicating that the Son is not
merely the passage or “channel,” as it were, of
the paternal Spiration of the Holy Ghost, but
Himself positively cooperates in the act of Spira­
tion; for the Father and the Son together con­
stitute one undivided principle of Spiration, and
58 Cfr. Hardouin, Concil., t. IX,
p. 367·

13

co Contr. Prax., c. 4.
60 De Trinit., XII, n. 57.

i88

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

Spiration itself is one single (notional) act con­
summated by both Divine Persons in consort.
The coordinating conception of the Latins brings
this out very clearly, but it rather neglects
another equally important truth, viz., that, de­
spite the identity of the act of Spiration, the
Father is its original principle (άναρχος), whereas
the Son is the “principiatum” (®eos & Θεού), who
receives the “virtus spirandi” from the Father.
This truth is more sharply emphasized in the
Greek formula.6162
It is in the light of considerations such as these that we
must interpret certain utterances of St. John of Damas­
cus, of which the schismatics make much, and which St.
Thomas thought it his duty to censure. In matter of fact
the Damascene does not deny the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Son. He merely says : “ Kai υίον Sè
π revμα, ονχ
* ώς ε£ αντοϋ, άλλ
*
ώς δ? αυτόν εκ τον πατρος εκπορευομενον ’ μονος yap atTLOS [== αρχή αναρχος) ο πατήρ.
This view is fully shared by the Latin Fathers. St.
Augustine, e. g., says: “Spiritus Sanctus principaliter
procedit de Patre . . . qui, quidquid unigenito Verbo
dedit, gignendo dedit — The Holy Ghost proceeds prin­
cipally from the Father. . . . who, whatever He gave
to the Only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting
Him.” 63 Similarly St. John Chrysostom: “ The phrase
through Him (ZC αντοϋ), is employed for no other rea61 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol., ia,
qu. 36, art. 3.
62 De Fide Orthodoxa, I, 12,
Migne, P. G., XCIV, 849. On the
analogous teaching of St. Maximus
the Confessor (4- 662), whom the

Greek schismatics cite as an au­
thority second only to St. John
Damascene, cfr. Franzelin, De Deo
Trino, thes. 36, n. 2.
63 St. August., De Trinitate, XV,
17.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

189

son than to exclude the suspicion that the Son is in­
generate.” 64 The Council of Florence (A. D. 1439),
following that of Lyons (A. D. 1274), confirmed this
view in its famous decree of reunion,65 and formally de­
fined both the “ ex Patre et Filio ” and the “ unica spiratio
amborum” as articles of faith.

3. Theological Argument.—In their debates
with the anti-unionist Greeks at the Council of
Florence, the Latin theologians rightly insisted
that, if the Son were excluded from cooperation
in the act of Spiration, there would be no ground
for distinguishing Flim hypostatically from the
Holy Ghost; because the Son is hypostatically
distinct from the Holy Ghost only by virtue of
the relative opposition involved in breathing
{spirare) and being breathed {spirari).
a) St. Thomas 66 and his school adopted and developed
this theological argument, whereas Duns Scotus,67 with
a few of his followers, denied its cogency,68—an atti­
tude for which they have been more or less severely
blamed by the “ sententia communis.” 69 In matter of
fact the argument stands unshaken to the present day.
It is a theological axiom that “ All is indistinctly one in
the Godhead, except where a relative opposition of Per­
son to Person furnishes the basis for a real distinction.”
If this be true, as we shall demonstrate later on in treat64 Hom. in loa., 17, n. 2.
65 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 691.
66 S'. Theol., ia, qu. 36, art. 2.
67 Comment, in Quatuor Libros
Sent., I, Dist. 11, qu. 2.

68 Cfr. De Rada, Controv. Theol.
inter S. Thomatn et Scotum, lib.
I, controv. 15, Coloniae 1620.
69 Cfr. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 68,
sect. 5.

îço

THE POSITIVE TRADITION

ing of the divine Relations, no personal distinction can
be posited between the Son and the Holy Ghost out­
side of that of a relative opposition between two Divine
Persons. Now, no such relative opposition is conceivable
between them unless One proceeds from the Other.
Consequently the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the
Son, else both would coincide in an indistinguishable
unity and lose their independence as distinct Hypostases.
b) Scotus’s objections against this theological argu­
ment will not bear scrutiny. If, he says, the Son alone
without the Father breathed the Spirit, the personal dis­
tinction between the Father and the Holy Ghost would
still remain; consequently, Procession as such cannot be
a conditio sine qua non of the relative opposition and
the hypostatic differences existing in the Godhead.
We answer that in the hypothesis of Scotus the Holy
Ghost would still proceed from the Father. True, His
Procession would be a mediate one through the Son;
but even such a mediate Procession would suffice to estab­
lish relative opposition, and therefore a hypostatic differ­
ence. If, conversely, we assumed with the schismatics
that the Father alone breathes, without the Son, the Son
would differ hypostatically from the Father by virtue of
His Filiation, but He would not differ hypostatically from
the Holy Ghost, nor could any personal difference arise
unless the Son were placed in relative opposition to the
Holy Ghost, which is conceivable only on the basis of
a processio. All of which proves that it is a postulate
of theological consistency that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Son.
Readings:—Van der Moeren, De Processione Spiritus Sancti
ex Patre Filioque, Lovanii 1864 ; *Kleutgen, Théologie der Vorzeit, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Munster 1867 ; A. Vincenzi, De Processione
Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1878; *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 32-

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

i9i

41, Romae 1881 (a very exhaustive treatise) ; Idem, Examen Doc­
trinae Macarii Bulgakow ... de Processione Spiritus Sancti,
Romae 1876; A. Kranich, Der hl. Basilius und seine Stellung
zum Filioque, Braunsberg 1882.
Of the Scholastics, cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 24 sqq.
(Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 356 sqq., London
1905) ; *St. Anselm, De Processione Spiritus Sancti contra
Graecos; Suarez, De Trinit., 1. X; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 67;
Petavius, De Trinit., 1. VII. Cfr. also Petr. Arcudius, Opuscula
Aurea Theologica, Romae 1670 and Hugo Laemmer, Scriptor.
Graeciae Orthodox. Bibliotheca Selecta, Friburgi 1864 sq.

CHAPTER IV
THE

SPECULATIVE

THEOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENT

OF THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY

That there are Three Persons in one God is
and must ever remain a sacrosanct mystery
which human reason cannot fathom. It is only
through Divine Revelation that we know of the
existence of that immanent process of Generation
and Spiration which underlies the real distinction
of three Persons in the Godhead.
Enlightened and guided by faith, however, reason is
able, by means of syllogistic deductions, analogies, etc.,
and by skilfully synthesizing the various scattered data
furnished by Revelation, to attain to a progressive the­
ological understanding of the dogma, nay even to a de­
gree of certainty concerning some of its more abstruse
features. Speculative discussion, Avhich for safety’s sake
must always keep itself solidly planted on the teaching
of Revelation, as defined by the infallible Church, is con­
cerned chiefly with two classes of problems, viz.: (i)
the precise character of the two Processions per intel­
lectum et voluntatem ; and (2) the corollaries which Aoav
therefrom with regard to the divine Relations, Proper­
ties, and Notions. To these two categories must be
added the theory of the divine Appropriations and Mis­
sions. As for the degree of certitude enjoyed by these
192

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

193

doctrines, Glossner justly observes that they “ represent
merely the immediate consequences of the dogma ” and
“ are, as it were, a hedge surrounding the law, which
no theologian may with impunity ignore.” 1
1 Lehrbuch der kath. Dogmatik,
I» 2, pp. 128 sq., Ratisbon 1874·
Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., ia, qu.
32, art. 4 (summarized in Bonjohan-

nes’s Compendium, Eng. ed. by W.
Lescher, Ο. P., pp. 8!-83, London
1906).

SECTION i
THE DOGMA IN ITS RELATION TO REASON

i. The Blessed Trinity a Mystery.—That
there are three Persons in one God is a mystery
which human reason, left to its own resources,
can neither discover nor demonstrate. Even
after its actual revelation, theistic philosophy is
unable stringently to prove the possibility, much
less the existence and intrinsic necessity, of the
Divine Trinity, which must therefore be counted
among the mysteries called absolute or tran­
scendental. St. Thomas Aquinas observes with
perfect justice that whosoever ventures to dem­
onstrate the Trinity by unaided reason, derogates
from the faith.2 This indemonstrability of the
mystery of the Divine Trinity is due to the fact
that, while here on earth, the human intellect,
in spite of its being illumined by the light of
Revelation, has no intuitive vision of the Divine
Essence, but arrives at its knowledge of it by
a contemplation of the physical universe,3 which
2 S. Theol., ia, qu. 32, art. 1:
“ Qui probare nititur trinitatem personarum naturali ratione, fidei dero·
pct.”

3 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Kiiowability, Essence, and Attri·
butes, pp. 17 sqq.

I94

THE DOGMA AND REASON

195

is the work, not of the Blessed Trinity as such,
but of the One God who summoned the world
out of nothingness. From the consideration of
created things the human mind ascends to a
knowledge of the Divine Nature as the creative
principle of the cosmos. But it cannot arrive at
a knowledge of the Divine Persons, except in
so far as it is able to infer that the infinite
Creator of spiritual beings must needs possess
the simple perfection of personality. How this
personality is constituted we have no means of
determining. “De mysterio Trinitatis ” says St.
Jerome^ “recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae.” 4
This absolute inscrutability is plainly intimated in
Matth. XI, 27: ‘-Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater; neque
Patrem quis novit nisi Filius et cui voluerit Filius
revelare — No one knoweth the Son, but the Father :
neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son,
and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.”
Cfr. i Cor. II, 11: “Quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit
nisi Spiritus Dei — The things that are of God no man
knoweth, but the Spirit of God.” Though there exists no
formal definition on the subject, the absolute incompre­
hensibility of this mystery is a certain theological con­
clusion, flowing from the declaration of the Vatican
Council that there are absolute mysteries of the faith.5
4 In Is., Prooem. ad I. 18.
5 Sess. Ill, De Fide et Ratione,
can.
I. Denzinger-Bannwart, n.
1816: “ Si quis dixerit, in reve­
latione divina nulla vera et propria
dicta mysteria contineri, sed uni­
versa fidei dogmata posse per ra­

tionem rite excultam e naturalibus
principiis intelligi et demonstrari:
anathema sit — If any one shall say
that in divine Revelation there are
no mysteries, truly and properly so
called, but that all the doctrines of
faith can be understood and demon-

i96

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

Believing Christians have always looked upon the dogma
of the Trinity as the most important and fundamental,
as well as the highest and most profound of all revealed
mysteries.

2. The Indemonstrability of the Blessed
Trinity.—The foregoing truths afford us a safe
criterion for properly estimating the manifold
philosophical considerations which Scholastic
theology employs to clear up the mystery, and
especially for judging at their true worth the
extremely audacious attempts at demonstration
which have from time to time been made by non­
Scholastic theologians.
a) The Schoolmen employed various analogues from
both nature and reason to show forth the vestiges (ves­
tigia) and the likeness (imago) of the Holy Trinity in the
created universe. In doing this they did not mean to
construct a cogent argument, but merely to supply
supernaturally enlightened reason with some auxiliary
conceptions, whereby it might attain to a deeper under­
standing of the revealed mystery.6 It is in this sense
that the Provincial Council of Cologne (A. D. i860)
teaches: “Argumentis etiam quibusdam, non quidem
necessariis et evidentibus demonstrare, sed congruis
tantum et quasi similitudinibus illustrare et aliquatenus
manifestare mysteria ratio potest, quemadmodum Patres
et S. Augustinum prae ceteris circa SS. Trinitatis mystestrated from natural principles, by
properly cultivated reason; let him
be anathema.” Cfr. St. Hilary, De
Trinit., II, 5: “ Posuit naturae
nomina Patrem, Filium, Spiritum

Sanctum; . . . quidquid ultra quae­
ritur, non enuntiatur, non attingi­
tur, non tenetur.”
6 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol., ia
qu. 45, art. 7; qu. 93, art. 8,

ITS INDEMONSTRABILITY

197

rium versatos esse videmus — Reason cannot indeed
demonstrate the mysteries [of faith] by necessary and
evident arguments ; but it can illustrate, and in a
measure manifest them by congruous arguments and,
as it were, by similitudes, after the manner in which
the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine, treated of the
mystery of the Blessed Trinity.” 7 Following the lead
of St. Augustine, Scholastic theology enlisted philosophy
in the service of the dogma, not indeed with a view
to demonstrating what is in itself incomprehensible,
but in order to enable the human mind to perceive
the precise nature of the mystery which it is asked to
believe. St. Augustine’s comparison of the two divine
Processions with human self-knowledge and self-love
stands as a perpetual monument to the speculative genius
of the great Bishop of Hippo. “Et est quaedam imago
Trinitatis, ipsa mens et notitia eius, quod est proles cius
ac de se ipsa verbum eius et amor tertius; et haec tria
unum atque tina substantia. Nec minor proles, dum
tantam se novit mens, quanta est; nec minor amor, dum
tantum se diligit, quantum novit et quantus est — And
so there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind
itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring
and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and
these three are one and one substance. Neither is the
offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to
the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since
it loves itself according to the measure both of its own
knowledge and of its own being.”8 Like Augustine,
the orthodox Scholastics always subordinated their
Trinitarian speculations to the revealed teaching as
defined by the Church, never once trenching on the
7 Tit. i, cap. 6.
sis, t. V, p. 280.

Collect. Lacen·

18.

8 S. August., De Trinit., IX, 12,
(Haddan’s translation, p. 240.)

198

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

mystery embodied in the dogma. From this state­
ment we need not even except Richard of St. Victor,
who plumed himself upon having found “rationes ne­
cessarias” for the Blessed Trinity. His “necessary rea­
sons ” are mere congruities, which can claim no value
except on the assumption that the mystery is already
revealed.9
b) There is, however, a class of divines who left the
safe path blazed out by the Fathers and the School­
men, and presumed to demonstrate the mystery of the
Trinity by arguments, more or less bold, drawn from
unaided human reason. Beginning with Raymond
Lully, down to Anton Günther, these audacious innova­
tors invariably ended by counterfeiting the concept of
the Blessed Trinity instead of clearing it up. Of Lully,
Ruiz says that his demonstrations are the dreams of
a feeble and delirious brain.10 Marcus Mastrofini elabo­
rated a “ mathematical demonstration,” which, based as
it was upon a wrong conception of the infinite,11 proved
as derogatory to the dogma as the Tritheistic teaching
of Günther, which Joseph Kleutgen, S. J., so effectively
refuted in his immortal work Die Théologie der Vorzeit.12 Lost in the mazes of Hegelian Pantheism Gün­
ther evolved the Trinity as “ thesis, antithesis, and syn­
thesis,” or as “ subject, object, and identity,” from the
“ elements of self-consciousness,”— a theory which is
plainly tritheistic, because it supposes “ a triplicated exist­
ence of one and the same Divine Substance.” Rosmini
pantheistically identified the Three Divine Persons with
9 Cfr. S. Thom., De Potent., qu.
9, art. 5; Rich, a S. Viet., De
Trinit., I, 4; III, 5; IX, 1.
10 De Trinit., disp. 41, sect. 1:
“ Demonstrationes [cîmj] ridiculae
sunt, deliria somniantis et male sani

capitis.” See also Vasquez, In S.
Theol., ia, disp. 133.
11 Refuted by Franzelin, De Deo
Trino, thes. 18.
12 See especially Vol. I, 2nd ed.,
PP· 399 sqq., Münster 1867.

THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE

199

“the highest modes of being, viz.: subjectivity, objec­
tivity, and sanctity,” or “ reality, ideality, and morality.”
Both systems have been condemned as un-Catholic,
Giinther’s by Pius IX, Rosmini’s by Leo XIII.13
c) Certain Rationalists have attempted to explain the
Christian dogma of the Trinity as the product of purely
natural reflection on the part of pre-Christian philoso­
phers and religionists. Having emptied it of its super­
natural content, they profess to find its germs and
prototypes in the philosophy of Plato and the Neo-Platonists, in Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, in the writings
of the legendary Mercury Trismegistus, and, lastly, in
the day-dreams of Kabbalistic theosophy. But all this
is rank sophistry. As a matter of fact the Christian
Trinity is diametrically opposed alike to the Platonic
triad (God, ideas, and world), to the Hindoo triad
(Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva), and to the Chinese Tao
trinity of heaven, earth, and man. Indeed, none of the
so-called ethnic trinities can be shown to possess more
than a purely external resemblance to the revealed Trin­
ity of the Christian dispensation.14

3. How Human Reason Can Defend the
Dogma of the Blessed Trinity Against In­
fidel Objections.—Though it cannot explain
the mystery, human reason is able to refute the
objections of those who aver that it is impossible
or absurd. To do this effectively it is not nec13 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En­
chiridion, nn. 1655, 1915· θη Rosminian Ontologism see Pohle-Preuss,
God: His Knowability, Essence,
and Attributes, pp. 119 sqq.
14 Cfr. G. van Noort, De Deo
Uno et Trino, pp. 193 sqq., Am·

stelodami 1907; F. J. Hall, The
Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., New York 1910;
and also E. Krebs, Der Logos als
Heiland ini ersten Jahrhundert,
Freiburg 1910, and J. Lebreton, Les
Origines du Dogme de la Trinité,
pp. 1-207, Faris 19x0.

200

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

essary to demonstrate that the Trinity is posi­
tively concevable and therefore real. It will
suffice to show the hollowness of the various
objections that are urged against the dogma.
All the objections which heresy and infidelity have
excogitated against the mystery of the Blessed Trin­
ity, from the days of Celsus down to those of David
Friedrich Strauss, Christian philosophy has triumphantly
refuted as fallacious. We will mention only a few.
Schopenhauer says that “ Strictly speaking, a mystery
is a dogma that is manifestly absurd.” 15 This “ dictum
ex cathedra” is meaningless. Faith is not related to
reason as absurdity is related to sound sense, bût
as truth is related to truth, and we know that all
truths are derived from the same original source, vic:.:
God Himself. Strauss declares that “ He who has
sworn to uphold the ‘ Quicunque,f has renounced the
laws of human thought.” 16 But where is the law of
right thinking that contradicts the possibility of the
Trinity? It would not, we fancy, be a difficult under­
taking to show how those who deny the Trinity twist
the rules of logic and rely on syllogisms that are one
and all affected by the deadly malady of “ quaternio
terminorum” It is equally wrong and absurd to allege
that the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is based on an
impossible mathematical formula, namely 3=1. This
would indeed be the case if the dogma spelled, “ Three
Gods are one God.” But the concept of “ Three Divine
Persons in one Divine Nature ” involves no such intrinsic
contradiction. It leaves the fundamental metaphysical
principles of identity, contradiction, and excluded mid15 Parerga und Paralipomena, II,
p. 385, Leipzig 1874.

16 Glaubenslehre, Vol. I, p. 460,
Tübingen 1840.

THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE

201

die in full possession of the field, nay, it postulates them
as a necessary logical condition of “ Trinitas in unitate/
because without these fundamental laws the dogma
could not stand. These considerations show how utterly
groundless is the charge brought by Adolph Harnack
when he says : “ Arianism, too, seems to us moderns
to bristle with contradictions ; but it was reserved to
Athanasius to achieve a complete contradictio in ad­
jecto/ 17
Readings: — *Banez, Comment, in S. Theol., ia, qu. 32, art.
1; Suarez, De Trinit., I, c. n-12; *Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 4143; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 18-20, Romae 1881 ; Chr.
Pesch, S. J., Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 262 sqq., Friburgi 1906; Heinrich, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol. IV, §§ 211-212,
Mainz 1885 ; Riittimann, Das Geheimnis der hl. Dreieinigkeit,
Lindau 1887 ; Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 2nd
ed. (by Küpper), pp. 17 sqq., Freiburg 1898; Bayle, Diction­
naire, s. v. “ Pyrrhonisme ” ; Faust. Socinus, Christ. Religionis
Brevissima Institutio, in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum,
tom. I, pp. 652 sqq., Irenopoli 1656; Anton Günther, Jamiskopfe, Euristheus und Herakles, Lydia, Vorschule; against him
Kleutgen, Théologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 399 sqq.,
Münster 1867; J. Dôderlein, Philosophia Divina: Gottes Drei­
einigkeit bewiesen an Kraft, Raum und Zeit, Erlangen 1889;
J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1910;
F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., 156 sqq., New York 1910.
17 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 3rd
ed., p. 219, Freiburg 1894. Cfr. H.
Schell, Das Problem des Geistes mit
besonderer Beriicksichtigung des
dreieinigen Gottes und der biblischen

Schopfungsidee, 2nd ed., Wurzburg
1898: J. Uhlmann, Die Personlichkeit Gottes und Hire modernen Gegtier, Freiburg 1906.

SECTION 2
GENERATION BY MODE OF UNDERSTANDING AND
SPIRATION BY MODE OF WILL

I. The Generation of the Son by Mode of
Understanding.—According to the unanimous
teaching of Fathers and theologians the prop­
osition that the Father generates His Divine Son
by mode of understanding, while not an article
of faith, is a sure theological conclusion which is
firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture, and cannot be
denied without temerity.1
a) The Bible reveals the Second Person of the Divine
Trinity not only as “Filius unigenitus,” (i. e., the Onlybegotten Son), but likewise as “Verbum” or “Logos”
(i. e., the Word of God). The only meaning we can
attach to the term “Verbum Dei” is: Immanent ter­
minus of the knowledge of the Father. Consequently
divine Generation must signify the knowledge of the
Father bringing forth His Son by an act of the un­
derstanding. The purely intellectual character of the act
of divine Generation may also be inferred from those
Scriptural texts which represent the Son of God as the
“ image2 of the Father,” or as “ begotten Wisdom.”
Like “ Logos,” these terms define the mode of generation
1 Prominent among those who denied it were Durandus and Hirscher.
2 Imago, εϊκών.

202

THE GENERATION OF THE SON

203

as purely spiritual, or, more specifically, as intellectual.
It is in this sense that the Fathers, so far as they touch
upon the subject at all, interpret the Scriptural teaching
concerning the “ Logos.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus tersely declares : “ The Son is called Logos, because
His relation to the Father is the same as that of the
[immanent] word to the intellect.”3 And St. Basil :
“Why Word? In order that it may become manifest
that it proceedeth from the intellect. Why Word? Be­
cause it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself
reflects the whole Begetter, even as our word [concept]
reflects the likeness of our whole thought.” 4 St. Augus­
tine goes into the matter even more deeply. He says :
“Tamquam seipsum dicens Pater genuit Verbum sibi
aequale per omnia; non enim seipsum integre perfecteque dixisset, si aliquid minus aut amplius esset in eius
Verbo, quam in ipso — Accordingly, as though uttering
Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself
in all things ; for He would not have uttered Himself
wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word any­
thing more or less than in Himself.” 5
b) A theological reason may be found in the cir­
cumstance that the Processions in the Godhead are
only conceivable as purely spiritual and immanent vital
processes.6 God is a pure Spirit, and there are but
two known modes of purely spiritual operation, i. e.,
understanding and willing. Our own mind, which
is in itself infecund and derives its knowledge of
generation altogether from the realm of organic life,
can scarcely form an idea of the eminent fecundity of
3 Or. 30, apud Migne, P. G.,
XXXVI, 129.
iHom., 16, 3.
6 St. August., De Trinitate, XV,
14, 23. Haddan’s translation, p.

14

407. Many
additional
Patristic
texts in Petavius, De Trinitate, II,
11; VI, 5 sqq.
0 Cfr. S. Thom., S'. Theol., ia,
qu. 27, art. i.

204

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

the Infinite Intellect, and is consequently inclined to
conceive the operation of the divine understanding and
will as something exclusively essential and absolute.
But once assured by Revelation of the existence of two
Processions within the Godhead {generatio and spiratio),
we cannot but connect the one with the intellect and
the other with the will. Now we know that divine
Generation depends on the intellect rather than the will,
because the Son of God has been revealed to us as
“ Logos.”
This immanent process in the Godhead naturally
points to the most perfect analogue which the Blessed
Trinity has in the intellectual life of man. According to
the teaching of St. Augustine,7 man’s self-knowledge cor­
responds to the process of divine Generation, his selflove to the process of divine Spiration. The human Ego
unfolds itself, as it were, in three directions. First it
duplicates itself in its self-consciousness and, without
destroying the identity of the Ego-substance, opposes
the thinking Ego to the Ego thought. The thinking
Ego, as the terminus a quo, represents the begetting
Father, while the thought Ego, as the terminus ad quem,
illustrates the Son. Out of the reciprocal comprehension
and interpenetration of both — despite the opposition
existing between them, they are not really distinct —
there spontaneously burgeons forth self-love, which, as
the fundamental law of the human will, completes the
immanent spiritual process and furnishes a faint image
of the Holy Ghost. In thus trying to bring the mystery
nearer to our understanding, we must not, however, lose
sight of the fact that no real trinity is possible in the
spiritual life of the creature, for the obvious reason that
7 Supra, p. 197.

THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST

205

the two intrinsic termini of self-knowledge and self-love
are no hypostases but mere accidents.8

2. The Spiration of the Holy Ghost by
Mode of Will.—In arguing that the Spiration
of the Holy Ghost takes place by way of volition,
some theologians content themselves with the
argumentum exclusionis. The Generation of
the Son having been assigned to the intellect,
they say, there remains only the will to account
for the origination of the Holy Ghost. These
writers seem to overlook the fact that Revelation
furnishes positive as well as negative proofs in
support of this doctrine.
a) Under the so-called Law of Appropriations, no
external operations can be predicated of any Divine Per­
son except such as are intrinsically related to that par­
ticular Person’s hypostatic character. This constitutes
the Appropriations a sure criterion for determining the
personal character of each of the Divine Persons.
The attributes of omnipotence and creation are appro­
priated to the Father, for the reason that, in regard to
productions ad intra, He is at the same time άρχή άναρχος
and άρχη τής άρχής. In the same way the works of wis­
dom are appropriated to the Son, because He is Hypo­
static Wisdom. If, then, the works of love are at­
tributed to the Holy Ghost, it must be because He is love,
because He proceeds from love as His principle or
source ; — not, it is true, from that essential Love which
is common to all three Divine Persons,0 but from the
β Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent., IV,
n.

9 Cfr. i John IV, 8: “He that
loveth not, knoweth not God: for
God is charity.”

2O6

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

reciprocal notional love of Father and Son, of which the
immanent product is Hypostatic Charity, i. e., the Per­
son of the Holy Ghost. Love being the fundamental
affection of the will,10 the Holy Ghost must proceed
from the Father and the Son by mode of will {per
modum voluntatis).
b) The fact that Holy Scripture attributes the proper
name “Spiritus” and the epithet “Sanctus” to the
Holy Ghost, will serve to confirm this conclusion. As
a personal appellation the term “ Holy Spirit,” like
“ Father ” and “ Son,” must be taken in a relative sense,
as “spiratus” or “spiratione productus.” In its abso­
lute sense “ Spirit ” is predicable of the Godhead as
such. Cfr. John IV, 24: “ God is a spirit.” But in a
nature which, like God’s, is purely spiritual, Spiration,
as opposed to intellectual Generation, can signify noth­
ing else than an act of the will. This becomes still
clearer when we consider that Spiration is an analogous
term derived from the realm of nature, in which breath or
wind is indued with motive power, which in the spiritual
realm has its counterpart in the operation of the will.
If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called “ breath of
God” {halitus Dei), the reason is that Father and
Son breathe the Holy Ghost per modum voluntatis.
Since “ the emission of the breath from the heart,
notably in the act of kissing, gives a most real expres­
sion to the tendency of love towards intimate and real
communion of life and an outpouring of soul into
soul,” 11 we can well understand why St. Ambrose, St.
Jerome, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux ventured to refer
to the Holy Ghost as “ osculum Patris et Filii.” 12
10 Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent.,
IV, 19·
11 Scheeben. Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell’» Manual, I, 331-332.

12 Cfr. also St. Bonaventure:
’’ Spirare in spiritualibus solius est
amoris; et quoniam amor potest
spirari recte et ordinate, et sic est

THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST

207

Analyzing the epithet “Sanctus” we find that it does
not designate the absolute sanctity of the Blessed Trinity
as such, but, relatively, the personal character of the
Third Person; in other words it is synonymous with
“procedens ex principio sancto” Now, sanctity is an
attribute of the will, as wisdom is an attribute of the
intellect. Divine sanctity formally consists in “ God’s
love for Himself.” 13 Hence “ Holy Ghost ” is synony­
mous with “ Hypostatic Love.” The Eleventh Synod
of Toledo (A. D. 675) formally identifies sanctity with
love when it says : “ Spiritus Sanctus . . . simul ab
utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sancti­
tas amborum esse agnoscitur — The Holy Ghost is shown
to proceed from both, as He is acknowledged to be the
love or sanctity of both.” 14 The Fathers express them­
selves in a similar manner. Thus St. Augustine says:
“ Cum Pater sit spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater
sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen ipse vocatur
Spiritus Sanctus, tamquam sanctitas substantialis et
consubstantialis amborum — Though the Father is a
spirit and the Son is a spirit, and though the Father is
holy and the Son is holy, yet He [the Third Person]
is properly called Holy Spirit, because He is the sub­
stantial and consubstantial holiness of both [the Father
and the Son].”15
The Greek Fathers compare the act of divine Spiration
to “ a special form of substantial emanation, analogous to
purus, ideo persona ilia, quae est
amor, non tantum dicitur Spiritus,
sed Spiritus Sanctus — To breathe
in matters spiritual belongs solely
to love; and because love can be
rightly and properly breathed, and
thus is pure; therefore the Person
who is Love, is not only called
Spirit, but Holy Spirit.” Com­

ment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., I,
dist. 10, qu. 3.
13 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri­
butes, pp. 256 sqq.
14 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 277.
15 De Civitate Dei, XI, 24.

2O8

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

the emanation which takes place in plants side by side
with generation, and is effected by the plants themselves
and their products, vis., the emission of the vital sap or
spirit of life in the form of fluid oily substances in a liquid
or ethereal state, such as balsam and incense, wine and
oil, and especially the odor or perfume of the plant, which
is at the same time an ethereal oil and the breath of
the plant.” 10
c) The epithet “ gift of God ” (donum Dei, δωρεά
©cou), which, following the lead of Sacred Scripture,
many Fathers ascribe as a personal attribute to the
Holy Ghost, also plainly indicates the mode of His pro­
cession. A gift supposes as its principle love of pure
benevolence on the part of the giver, and consequently
the Holy Ghost, considered in His personal attribute of
“donum Dei,” cannot originate in the Intellect, but
must spring from Love, that is, from the Divine Will.
St. Thomas explains this luminously as follows: “Do­
num proprie est datio irreddibilis, id est, quod non
datur intentione retributionis et sic importat gratuitam
donationem. Ratio autem gratuitae donationis est amor;
ideo enim damus gratis alicui aliquid, quia volumus ei
bonum. . . . Unde cum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ut
amor, . . . procedit in ratione doni primi — A gift,
properly speaking, is something given without expecta­
tion of a quid pro quo; but the reason why one gives
freely is love; for if we give something to some one
without expecting an equivalent, it is because we wish
him well. . . . Therefore, since the Holy Ghost pro­
ceeds by mode of love. . . . He proceeds after the man­
ie Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p.
870 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual,
Vol. I, p. 329). Cfr. Athanas., Ad

Serap., 3, n. 3: “This salve is the
breath of the Son, the perfume and
the figure of the Son.”

THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST

209

ner of the first gift.”17 St. Augustine says: “Non
dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec donum Dei nisi
Spiritus Sanctus — The Son and none other is called
the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other
the gift of God.”18 He founds upon this distinction
the thesis that the Holy Ghost cannot be identical
with the Son : “ Exiit non quomodo natus, sed quomodo
datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius — For the Spirit came
forth not as born, but as given; and so He is not called
Son.” 19

3. The Essential Difference Between
Generation and Spiration.— There is be­
tween Generation and Spiration a marked dis­
tinction, similar to the one between intellect and
will.
a) To enable the human mind to penetrate as deeply
as possible into the sublime mystery of the Blessed
Trinity, the Schoolmen raised the question : In how far
can the notional cognition of the Father be conceived
as generation in the strict sense of the term? Can it be
said that “ knowing ” is synonymous with “ begetting ” ?
Modern authorities on the philosophy of language have
made the interesting discovery that, in the parent lan­
guage from which the Indo-Germanic family derives its
descent (vis.: Sanskrit), GEN is the root of two dis­
tinct word-groups, which denote “ knowing ” and “ be­
getting.” Compare, e. g., in Greek, γιγνομαι and γεννάω
with γιγνώσκω ; in Latin, gigno with cognosco. “ Con­
ceptus” may signify either “concept” (idea) or “con­
ception ” in the physiological sense. Our English word
17 S. Theol., ia, qu. 38, art. 2.
18 De Trinit., XV, 17, 29.

19 De Trinit., V, 14, 15.

210

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

“ conception/’ too, is used to describe both the act or
process of forming an idea or notion of a thing, and the
impregnation of an ovum. In the Semitic family of
languages these two notions are also closely related and
expressed by the same verb; cfr., e. g., “Adam vcro
cognovit PT uxorem suam Hevam— And Adam knew
Eve his wife.” 20 A still surer way of arriving at the
point we are trying to make, is to analyze the concepts
underlying these various terms. Generation is defined as
“ origo viventis a principio vivente coniuncto in simili­
tudinem naturae ex vi ipsius productionis,” 21 which may
be rendered into English as follows: Generation is the
production of one living being by another living being,
by communication of substance, resulting in a similarity
of nature in progenitor and progeny vi productionis,
i. e., from the very mode of production.22 The concept of
generation, therefore, contains four essential marks : ( I )
The origin of one living being from another living be­
ing. Consequently the inanimate exudation of plants
and animals, the growth of hair and nails in corpses, etc.,
cannot be called “generation.” (2) The vital process
of nature by which that which is generated proceeds
from the substance of the generative principle. Hence
such processes as the creation of the universe and the
origin of Eve cannot be called “ generation.” (3)
Similarity of nature in the being which is begotten and
the being which begets. This eliminates spontaneous
generation, so-called, or heterogeny. (4) An immanent
tendency in the progeny to resemble its progenitor.
Hence, e. g., the likeness which a child bears to his
20 Gen. IV, i.
21 Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., ia,
qu. 27, art. 2.

22 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual
of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp.
102 sq.

GENERATION AND SPIRATION

211

father is not accidental, but results from the act of
generation itself.
b) The notional understanding of God the Father pos­
sesses all of these distinctive momenta. In the first
place, the begetting Father and the begotten Son are
both living persons, identical in nature with the absolute
divine life. The communication of life takes place in the
vital mode of nature, as the Divine Nature itself consti­
tutes the “principium quo" and the Father the “princi­
pium quod" of generation. Thirdly, as both Sacred
Scripture and Tradition attest, the Son is the most perfect
likeness of the Father and His most adequate utterance.
And since this absolute essential likeness is rooted in
the very mode of origination itself, viz.: an assimilative
tendency in the notional understanding of the Father,
the fourth condition, too, is verified. This last-men­
tioned note is by far the most important, for it
alone ultimately differentiates divine Generation from
Spiration. It is peculiar to the act of understand­
ing, and to that act alone, that it tends to assimilate
the object of knowledge with the knower, and thereby
elevates even the lowest and basest object of cognition,
(e. g. matter), to the spiritual plane of the cognizing
principle. Thus the concept “ tree,” for example, is as
spiritual as the conceiving intellect itself. Hence the
well-known Scholastic axiom: “Cognitum est in cognoscënte non per modum cogniti, sed per modum co­
gnoscentis— Whatever is received by the intellect, is re­
ceived in the manner, not of the thing known, but of
the knowing intellect.” Volition or love, on the other
hand, is ecstatic in its effect, that is, it transports the
lover as it were beyond himself and transforms him
into the object of his affection. It is for this rea­
son that the intrinsic value of love increases or di­

212

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

minishes in proportion to the value or dignity of its
object; which explains the ennobling influence of the
love of God as the supreme good, and the degrading
effects of sinful love. St. Thomas describes the differ­
ence between understanding and willing with his usual
clearness as follows : “ There is this difference between
the intellect and the will, that the intellect is actuated
because the object known is in the intellect according to
its likeness. The will, on the other hand, becomes actu­
ated, not because it contains within itself any likeness
of the object willed, but because it has a certain in­
clination towards that object.”23
c) In respect of the second mode of procession, i. e.,
Spiration, it must first of all be observed that the Holy
Ghost, too, is a living Person, who derives His origin
from a living Spirator ; that He has His essence by
a vital process from the Divine Substance itself; and,
lastly, that by virtue of His consubstantiality (όμοουσία)
He is a perfectly adequate likeness of the two Divine
Persons by whom He is breathed. The fourth and dis­
criminative mark of generation — namely an immanent
essential tendency or inclination to produce a being of
like nature — does not, however, apply to Spiration. For
since Spiration is not understanding but love, it lacks that
assimilative tendency which is the essential note of gen­
eration. Consequently Spiration is not Generation.24
23 ” Haec est differentia inter in­
tellectum et voluntatem, quod intel­
lectus sit in actu per hoc, quod res
intellecta est in intellectu secundum
suam similitudinem. Voluntas au­
tem fit in actu, non per hoc quod
aliqua similitudo voliti sit in volun­
tate, sed ex hoc quod voluntas habet
quondam inclinationem in rem volitam.” S. Theol., ia, qu. 27, art. 4.
24 Cfr. S. Thom., De Pot., qu. 2,

art. 4, ad 7: “ Cum Filius procedat
per modum verbi, ex ipsa ratione
suae processionis habet, ut procedat
in similem speciem generantis, et sic
quod sit Filius et eius processio ge­
neratio dicatur. Non autem Spiritus
Sanctus hoc habet ratione suae pro­
cessionis, sed magis ex proprietate
divinae naturae: quia in Deo non
potest esse aliquid, quod non sit
Deus; et sic ipse amor divinus Deus

SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS

213

d) From all of which it is plain that there can be
in the Godhead but one Son and one Holy Ghost. The
Logos-Son, as the adequately exhaustive Word of the
Father, utters the Father’s infinite substance so per­
fectly that the generative power of the Paternal In­
tellect completely exhausts itself, and there is no room
left for a second, third, etc., Son or Logos. Similarly,
Father and Son mutually love each other in a man­
ner so absolutely perfect that the Holy Ghost repre­
sents the infinite, and therefore exhaustive, utterance of
their mutual love. This cuts the ground from under
the feet of the Macedonians, who sophistically charged
the Catholic dogma of the Trinity with absurdity by
alleging that it implies the existence of a divine grand­
father, a divine grandchild, and so forth.25

4. Two Speculative Problems.—There is a
subtle and purely speculative question as to
what are the objects of notional, in contradis­
tinction to essential, understanding and love.
Is the Logos merely the utterance of the divine
self-knowledge? or is He also the expression of
God’s knowledge of His creatures? And fur­
ther : Is the Holy Ghost the personal expression
of God’s love for Himself only? or is He also the
expression of God’s love for the created universe ?
a) The problem involved in the first question must
be solved along these lines : If it is true that all essen­
tial knowledge, and hence the very nature of God, would
cease to be if God had no divine self-comprehension
est, inquantum quidem divinus, non
inquantum amor."

25 Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., ia,
qu. 30, art. 2.

214

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

{cognitio comprehensiva sui) embracing His Essence
and attributes, or no knowledge of all the possibles
{scientia simplicis intelligentiae) ,2β among which must
be reckoned all created things before their realization ;
then the notional cognition of the Father must have its
essential and necessary object chiefly in these two kinds
of divine knowledge. For whatever is essential and ab­
solutely necessary to the very being of the Godhead, can­
not play a purely subordinate and unessential part in
the generation of the Logos. Theologians all admit this
principle in the abstract; but in explaining and inter­
preting it there is no real agreement among the different
schools beyond the proposition that the Logos proceeds
from the notional cognition of the primary and formal
object of the Divine Intellect, viz.: the Essence and at­
tributes of God.27
Extreme views on the subject Avere held by Scotus and
Gregory of Valentia. Scotus limits the notional under­
standing by Avhich the Father begets the Logos, strictly
to the absolute essence of God. According to Gregory
of Valentia it includes as a necessarily co-operating
factor the contingent universe with all its creatures.
Both are wrong. Scotus forgets that one of the es­
sential factors in the production of the Logos is a
knowledge of all possibles as well as of the three
Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Gregory of Valentia
does not distinguish with sufficient clearness between
God’s necessary and His free knowledge. The con­
tingent and accidental world of creatures, which un­
doubtedly forms one of the objects of divine omniscience,
must assuredly be reflected in the Hypostatic Concep2β Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri·
butes, pp. 329 sqq.

27 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp.
338 sq.

SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS

215

tion or Logos, as object of the “scientia libera”; but
in such manner that the adequacy and perfection of the
Logos would suffer no impairment even if the created
universe did not exist. Indeed it is through the eternally
pre-existing Logos that all existing things were made.28
Scotus, on principle, excludes from the paternal act
of Generation all creatural being, including the purely
possible. Puteanus holds that Paternity, Vasquez that
Paternity and Filiation, and Turrianus that, besides
these, passive Spiration is comprised as a supplementary
object in that notional act by which the Father utters
Himself adequately in His “ Word.” The Thomists
extend the scope of God’s notional understanding to
the whole realm of His essential knowledge. St.
Augustine taught that the essence of the Logos com­
prises precisely the same wisdom that is comprehended
within the essential knowledge of the Triune God,29 and
St. Thomas expressly declares : “ The Father, by un­
derstanding Himself, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
and all other things contained within His knowledge,
conceives the Word, and thus the entire Trinity and
every created being are uttered in the Word.” 30 The
Angelic Doctor, as Billuart31 points out, in this passage
does not refer to the actually existing creatures, but
only to the purely possibles (as objects of the scientia
simplicis intelligentiae'), in as much as they are re­
flected in the world of divine ideas as necessary, not
as free objects of divine knowledge. As free objects
of divine knowledge they are, de facto, also contained
28 Cfr. John I, 3, 10.
29 Supra, p. 203.
30 " Pater enim intelligendo

se et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum et om­
nia alia, quae eius scientia continen­
tur, concipit Verbum, ut sic tota

Trinitas Verbo 'dicatur/ et etiam
omnis creatura.” S. Theol., ia, qu.
34. art. i, ad 3.
81 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio,
diss. 5, art. 3.

2i6

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

in the “Word of God,” but only concomitanter el per
accidens. “ Quia Pater principaliter dicit se,” observes
St. Thomas, “generando Verbum suum, et ex conse­
quenti dicit creaturas [existantes], ideo principaliter et
quasi per se Verbum refertur ad Patrem, sed ex conse­
quenti et quasi per accidens refertur ad creaturam ; ac­
cidit enim Verbo, ut per ipsum creatura dicatur—Since
the Father, in begetting His Word, utters Himself prin­
cipally, and the [existing] creatures incidentally, the
Word is principally, and as it were per se, referred to
the Father, and only consequently, and as it were by
accident, to the creature; for it is only by accident that
the creature is uttered through the Word.” 32
St. Augustine says : “ The Father spake nothing that
He spake not in the Son. For by speaking in the Son
what He was about to do through the Son, He begat
the Son Himself by whom He should make all things.” 33
This passage does not contradict what we have asserted,
because the archetype and exemplar of the universe about
to be created was eternally present in the Logos as the
living concept of creation.34
Another difficulty has been formulated thus: The
Logos owes His existence to the generative knowledge
of the Father; consequently He cannot be conceived as
existing prior to the act of paternal Generation. Simi­
larly, the Person of the Holy Ghost does not exist log­
ically without the Father and the Son, and consequently
32 S. Thom., De Veritate, qu. 4,
art. 4.
33 " Nihil dixit Deus, quod non
dixit in Filio. Dicendo enim in
Filio, quod facturus erat per Filium,
ipsum Filium genuit, per quem
faceret omnia." Tract, in loa., 21,
n. 4. Browne’s translation, Homi­

lies on the Gospel according to St.
John, Vol. I, p. 327.
34 For a more detailed develop­
ment of this thought we must refer
the reader to the dogmatic treatise
on God the Author of Nature and
the Supernatural, which will form
the third volume of the present se­
ries of dogmatic text-books.

SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS

217

the Holy Ghost cannot contribute to the production of
the Logos.
This difficulty, which is considered unsolvable by some
divines, arises from confusing temporal succession with
succession as to origin. The Three Divine Persons are
absolutely coeternal. Hence the Logos and the Holy
Ghost, despite their “ posterioritas originis,” can form
essential ingredients of the Father’s intellectual act of
Generation from everlasting. For the rest, as Suarez
justly remarks, “ Potest esse prior existentia visionis,
quam rei visae; nam si Deus potest intueri futuras
creaturas prius duratione, immo aeternitate, quam ipsae
existant, cur non poterit Deus ut sic videre personas
prius ratione vel origine, qtiam producantur? — A vision
may exist prior to the object seen; for if God is able
to envisage future creatures temporally and even eter­
nally before they exist, why should He not also be able
to see the Persons in [their] relation or origin before
they are produced?”35
b) Following out the analogy, it may be asked : Which
are the objects embraced by the love of Father and Son
that produces the Holy Ghost? According to Billuart,36
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the notional love of all
that is necessario et formaliter lovable in the Godhead;
that is, first of all, from the love which the Spirator
bears for His own essence, i. e., the Supreme Good;
secondly, from the love He has for His attributes, which
are really identical with the Divine Essence, and, lastly,
from His love for the individual Divine Persons them­
selves. Although the real principle of the production
of the Holy Ghost is the mutual love of the Father and
the Son, we are not free to reject the love of the
85 De Trinitate, IX, 5, 3.
36 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 5, art. 8, qu, 3,

Si8

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

Spirator for the Person Spirated (the Holy Ghost), as an
essentially co-operative factor on the ground that the
Holy Ghost cannot possibly furnish the subject-matter of
an act of which He is the result or product. Some the­
ologians exaggerate this difficulty, but it is as easily
solved as the one we have considered a little farther up.
The Spirator’s love for creatures (irrespective of whether
they are already created, or, as mere possibles, remain to
be created in the future), can add its quota in the pro­
duction of the Holy Ghost only concomitanter et per ac­
cidens, because the notional love which produces the Holy
Ghost is an essential and necessary love, whereas God’s
love for His creatures is entirely free, quite as free as
His determination to give them being.37 As regards
God’s love for merely possible creatures (i. e., such as
will never come into being), many divines hold that their
essential goodness co-incides with the Divine Essence,
which is their exemplary cause; and that, consequently,
since they seem to lack a proper, independent goodness
and amiability of their own, these possible creatures do
not contribute towards the production of the Holy
Ghost.38 We can not share this view. Having pre­
viously espoused the opinion that the goodness proper
to creatures is not identical with God’s own goodness,38
consistency compels us to adhere to the view that love
for the purely possible also enters into that notional act
by which the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Ghost.
Readings: — St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia, qu. 27 sqq., and the
commentators; Idem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 (Rickaby in his Eng37 Cfr. S. Thom., 5. Theol., ia,
qu. 37, art. 2, ad 3.
38 Cfr. Oswald, Gottes Dasein,
Wesen und Eigenschaften, p. 213.
Paderborn 1887.

39 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri·
butes, pp. 440 sq.

SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS

219

lish version of the Summa contr. Gent, omits this chapter) ;
*Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 26-31; Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo,
1. II, qu. 4, art. 2-3, Ratisbonae 1881; Oswald, Trinitatslehre,
§ 12, Paderborn 1888; *Scheeben, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik,
Vol. I, §§ 116-127, Freiburg 1873 (contains a wealth of spec­
ulative thoughts).

15

SECTION 3
THE DIVINE RELATIONS—DIVINE PERSONALITY

i. Definition of the Terms “Hypostasis”
and "Person.”—As the Divine Persons consist
in, and are constituted by, "subsistent relations,”
we shall have to introduce this division of our
treatise with a scientific exposition of the terms
hypostasis and person, as distinguished from,
and opposed to, nature.
a) Though they differ formally, and, when
predicated of creatures, even really, the terms
"essence,” “substance,” and “nature” are ap­
plied synonymously to God. “Tres quidem per­
sonae/' says the Fourth Lateran Council, “sed
una essentia, substantia seu natura simplex om­
nino — Three Persons, it is true, but only one
absolutely simple Essence, or Substance, or Na­
ture.” 1 The physical essence of a thing—its
metaphysical essence does not concern us here—
is the sum total of all those notes by which the
thing is what it is. By substance we understand
“ens in se,” or, in the words of St. Thomas, “Be­
ing, inasmuch as this Being is by itself,” in con1 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 428.

220

DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS

221

tradistinction to accident, which is “that whose
being is to be in something else?’2 “Nature ” is
the principle of activity of a substance, or its phys­
ical essence. We know from Divine Revelation
that there is in the Blessed Trinity only one
Nature in three Hypostases, or Persons, while in
Christ, on the contrary, there are two complete
natures in but one Hypostasis, or Person. It
follows that, commonly speaking, there is both a
logical and a real distinction between Nature and
Person. Since Person is generally defined as
hypostasis rationalis, we have first to examine the
notion of Hypostasis.
b) In order to arrive at a correct idea of
Hypostasis, it will be advisable to institute a
process of logical differentiation, by proceeding
from the universal to the particular, and con­
stantly adding new marks, until we attain to a
complete definition.
An Hypostasis, to begin with, must be an
“ens” or being. Every “ens” is either an “ens
in se” (substance) or an “ens in alio” (accident).
An Hypostasis is manifestly not an accident;
therefore it must be a substance. Now, with
Aristotle, we distinguish between substantia
prima (ουσία πρώτη') and siibstantia secunda (ουσία
δεύτερα')' Substantia prima is individual, substan2 De Potentia, art. 7; on the notion of “ substance ” as opposed to
** accident” cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God:

His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 276 sq.

222

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

tia secunda abstract substance. Common sense
tells us that an Hypostasis must be an individual
substance. But the term substantia prima is
applied not only to complete but also to incom­
plete substances, such as body and soul, or the
human hand or foot, which are individual sub­
stances, but clearly not Hypostases. Conse­
quently, the concept of Hypostasis, besides in­
scitas, must have another essential note, viz.:
integrity or completeness of substance. “Hypo­
stasis est sïibstantia prima et integra.” Since,
however, Christ’s humanity is a substantia prima
et integra, that is, a complete human nature,
yet no Hypostasis, it is plain that inseitas and
integritas do not suffice to constitute the no­
tion of Hypostasis. There is required a further
determinant, namely, that it is not a part, and can­
not be regarded as a part of any other thing.
Hence the famous definition evolved by Tiphanus : “Hypostasis est substantia prima, integra,
tota in se” In plain English: An Hypostasis
is an individual substance, separate and distinct
from all other substances of the same kind, pos­
sessing itself and all the parts, attributes, and
energies which are in it.3
3 Tiphanus, De Hypostasi et Per­
sona, c. io. Claudius Tiphanus
was an illustrious Jesuit theologian
of the seventeenth century. Cfr.

Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius The­
ologiae Catholicae, Vol. Ill, ed. 3a,
col. 951, Oeniponte 1907.

DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS

223

Of these three momenta the first two form the proxi­
mate genus, while the third and last constitutes the
specific difference. As the proper essence of Hypostasis
lies in its specific difference, Christian philosophers have
been at great pains to discuss and circumscribe the notion
of totietas in se. They emphasize that it excludes every
species of composition or union with other beings, and
that it consequently signifies incommunicability and in­
dependent being (esse per se sen perseitas) * It is, there­
fore, merely a different way of expressing the definition
we have given above, when we say that inseitas, inte­
gritas, and perseitas are the essential notes of an Hypos­
tasis. Any substance that has ceased to be tota in se can
no longer perform the functions of an Hypostasis. Con­
versely, as soon as a substance acquires independence or
perseitas, it becomes an Hypostasis. As a substance
which forms part of another substance becomes an Hy­
postasis immediately upon being detached from that sub­
stance (for example, an amputated limb of the body
separated from its soul), so a substance which is tota
in se loses its character as an Hypostasis as soon as
it becomes a part or quasi-part of something else (as,
for instance, the human body in the resurrection of the
dead, or the humanity of Christ in the Hypostatic
Union).

c) If we compare Hypostasis with nature and
consider their mutual relations, we find that
the Hypostasis possesses the nature, while the
nature is possessed by the Hypostasis ; in
4 Cfr. Alexander Halensis., In ratum esse, ita quod 'per se ’ sonat
Arist. Metaph., V, 18: “Per se
privationem associationis.”
esse idem est, quod solum et sepa·

224

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

other words, “the Hypostasis has the nature.” 5
Hence the axiom: “Hypostasis habet, natura
habetur.” An Hypostasis operates through the
nature of which it is the bearer and controller,
and all attributes and operations of that nature
are referred back to the Hypostasis as its sub­
ject. Hypostasis, therefore, as subiectum at­
tributionis, in the language of the Schoolmen,
is the principium quod, while nature is the prin­
cipium quo.
Thus we say of man, who is an Hypostasis, that
he eats and drinks, sees and hears, thinks and feels,
digests and sleeps ; that is, he operates by and in
his nature and natural faculties, though the principium
quo proximum of all these operations are the five
senses, the organs of digestion, reason and will. If
we take suppositum as synonymous with Hypostasis,
we shall also understand that other Scholastic axiom :
“Actiones et passiones sunt suppositorum — Actions be­
long to their respective supposita.” 0

d) A Person {persona, πρόσωπον, also υπόστασή)
is an Hypostasis plus the note “intellectual” or
“rational.” “Persona est hypostasis rationalis.”
Person and Hypostasis, therefore, differ mate­
rially, but not formally. A crystal is just as
truly an Hypostasis as a human being, because
it is “substantia tota in se.” But the possession
of reason exalts an Hypostasis in ipsa ratione
δ Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual,
I, 309.

c Cfr. John Rickaby,
Metaphysics, pp. 280 sq.

General

DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS

225

hypostaseos, in so far as independence is in­
creased by self-consciousness and the Ego not
only is an individualized and incommunicable sub­
stance, but is also consciotis of this fact. A per­
son, moreover, is sui iuris, and hence both the
responsible possessor of his natural faculties and
the subject of personal rights that are entitled to
respect and protection. It is for this reason that
the Schoolmen define an angel as “hypostasis
cum dignitate”
Boëthius’s famous definition : “ Persona est rationalis
naturae individua [i e., prima et completa} substantia —
A person is the individual subject, self, or ego of a
rational nature,” 7 can easily be reduced to the shorter
one which we gave above, vis.: “Persona est hypostasis
rationalis — A person is an Hypostasis endowed with
reason.” For by individua substantia the ancients un­
derstood precisely the same thing that we mean when
we speak of substantia prima, integra et tota in se. The
Greek Fathers were adverse to the use of the word
πρόσωπον for persona, because Sabellius had put it to
heretical uses. They preferred the generic term ύπόστασις.
Thus St. John Damascene teaches: ‘‘Neither the soul
alone nor the body is an Hypostasis, but they are called
Ανυπόστατα; that which is perfected and made of both,
is the Hypostasis of both. For ύπόστασις properly is
and means that which exists by itself, having its own
independent being (κα^ Ααυτο ΐδιοσυστατως).” (Dialect.,
C. 44·)
7 De Duab. Nat., i. The English translation we give is rather
a paraphrase in modern terms. On

the theological history of the term,
see Newman, Arians, ch. V, § i, 3.

226

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

e) If this definition of Person is correct, that
invented by Locke and introduced into Catholic
theology by Günther, must be false. Locke
holds that personality is constituted by con­
tinued consciousness. But if consciousness were
the only essential and formal note of person­
ality, it would follow that where there is but
one consciousness, there is but one person, where­
as a double consciousness would constitute
two persons, and so forth. Inasmuch as the
Triune God has but one (absolute) conscious­
ness, Avhile Christ the Godman has two, Locke’s
theory would destroy both the Trinity and the
uni-personality of Christ, which latter is based
upon the Hypostatic Union. In other words, this
theory entails grave Trinitarian and Christological heresies, and must therefore be false. It is
also opposed to experience and the common sense
of mankind, which treats a child as yet uncon­
scious of self, or an idiot devoid of consciousness,
as persons in the true sense of the word.8
8 For a more detailed refutation
of Locke’s error, see Rickaby, Gen­
eral Metaphysics, pp. 284 sqq. Fr.
Rickaby says, after trying to “ fol­
low some of the meanderings of his
[Locke’s]
famous twenty-seventh
chapter ” [of the Essay on the Hu­
man Understanding} : “ The most
we can grant to Locke is that con­
tinued consciousness is one test of
personality; we cannot grant that it
is personality. If because of the
intimate connexion of thought with

personality we permitted Locke to
turn thought into personality, how
should we resist Cousin, who be­
cause personality is asserted spe­
cially in the will, says: La volonté
c'est la personne; and again,
Qu’est ce que le moi? L'activité
volontaire et libre. A long way the
best plan is to keep to the theory
that the person of man is the com­
posite nature, body and soul, left
in its completeness and sui iuris;
the soul being substantially un-

DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS

227

The terminology which we have explained
above is definitively fixed by ecclesiastical and
theological usage. It is the product of a histor­
ical development which involved harsh and weary
struggles extending over the first four or five
centuries of the Christian era,9 and it must not
be changed. It took a long time to determine
which were the best terms to be employed for
designating Nature, Hypostasis, and Person.
The Greeks said that there were in the Divine
Trinity Μί?α ουσία καί τρζίς ύττοστάσας · tpæ Latins,
“una natura (substantia, essentia) et tres per­
sonae” Both formulas mean precisely the same
thing. St. Athanasius did much towards intro­
ducing a uniform terminology when, at the
irenic council of Alexandria, A. D. 362, he rec­
onciled the contending factions by showing that
while one party took ύποστασ» to mean “Sub­
stance,” and the other used it in the sense of
changeable, though variable in its
accidental states, the body being
constantly changed as to its con­
stituent particles, yet preserving a
certain identity, describable only by
reciting what are the facts of waste
and repair in an organism.” (Cfr.
also Uhlmann, Die Personlichkeit
Gottes, pp. 8 sqq., Freiburg 1906.)
0 “ The difficulties of forming a
theological phraseology for the
whole of Christendom were ob­
viously so great that we need not
wonder at the reluctance which the
first age of Catholic divines showed
in attempting it, even apart from
the obstacles caused by the dis­

traction and isolation
of the
churches in times of persecution.
Not only had the words to be ad­
justed and explained which were
peculiar to different schools or tra­
ditional in different places, but there
was the formidable necessity of
creating a common measure between
two, or rather three languages —
Latin, Greek, and Syriac. The in­
tellect had to be satisfied, error
had to be successfully excluded,
parties the most contrary to each
other, and the most obstinate, had
to be convinced.”—Newman, Tracts
Theological and Ecclesiastical, p.
336, new ed., London 1895.

228

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

“Person,” both were really agreed as to the un­
derlying doctrine.10
2. The Four Relations in God.—The origin
of the Divine Persons from one another forms
the basis of a double set of Relations : one
between active and passive Generation, and an­
other between active and passive Spiration. Both
classes of Relations are real and mutual. This
gives us four real Relations {relationes, σχ€σ««)
in the Godhead: active and passive Generation
{generare, generari), and active and passive
Spiration {spirare, spirari). By passive Gen­
eration and Spiration we do not, however, un­
derstand passio in the sense of the Aristotelian
category of πάσχαν. Properly speaking, there can
be no πάσχαν in God, because He is purest actu­
ality {actus purissimus) in being and life, Es­
sence and Persons. Passive Generation means
that the Son, by virtue of active Generation on
the part of the Father, (not so much comes
into being as) exists from all eternity. Pas­
sive Spiration signifies that the Holy Ghost
possesses His subsistence and personality solely
in virtue of a joint act of Spiration performed by
the Father and the Son, of which act He is the
10 For the meaning of υπόστασή
and ούσία in the writings of the
early Fathers, see Newman’s Tracts,
Theological and Ecclesiastical, “ On
St. Cyril’s Formula μία φύσις
σεσαρκωμένη," pp. 331 sqq., new

ed., London 1895. On the conflicts
and misunderstandings regarding
these terms, cfr. Kuhn, Christliche
Lehre von der hl. Dreieinigkeit,
§29, Tübingen 1857; Petavius, De
Trinit., IV, 4.

THE DIVINE RELATIONS

229

immanent terminus. It is an article of faith
that these Relations,—i. e., of the Father to the
Son {generare), of the Son to the Father {ge­
nerari), of the Father and the Son to the Holy
Ghost {spirare), and of the Holy Ghost to the
Father and the Son {spirari), are not purely
logical or imaginary. Thus we read in the De­
cretum pro lacobitis, promulgated by the Council
of Florence, A. D. 1439: “Hinc damnat ecclesia
Sabellium personas conftindentem et ipsarum dis­
tinctionem rcalem penitus auferentem — Hence
the Church condemns Sabellius, who confounds
the [Three Divine] Persons and denies that there
is any real distinction between them.” 11 The
Church has not, however, formally defined that
these relations are four in number.
It is easy to see that the dogma of the Trinity stands
and falls with the reality of the Four Relations just de­
scribed.12 Since the Father is a different Person from
the Son, and the Son a different Person from the Holy
Ghost, the relation of the Father to the Son (and vice
versa), and the relation of both to the Holy Ghost (and
vice versa), must evidently be quite as real as are the
three Divine Persons themselves. If these Relations
were merely logical (either rationis ratiocinantis or
rationis ratiocinatae), the distinction of Persons in the
Godhead would evaporate into a purely logical, or at
most a modal trinity, as taught by the Monarchians and
11 Denzinger-Bannwart,
dion, n. 705.

Enchiri-

12 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol., ia,
qu. 28, art. 1.

230

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

the Sabellians.13 To say that the divine Relations are
real, therefore, is but a different way of formulating the
Trinitarian dogma itself.

3. The Fundamental Law of the Trinity.
—The most important corollary that flows from
the doctrine of the divine Relations is the socalled fundamental law of the Trinity. This
law was formulated by St. Anselm 14 and sol­
emnly approved by the Council of Florence, A. D.
1439. It is as follows: “In Deo omnia sunt
untim, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio — In
God all things are one except where there is
opposition of relation.” 15 The Father differs
from the Son only because there is a perfect
opposition of Relation between active and pas­
sive Generation. Where no such perfect rela­
tive opposition intervenes, everything in God is
one and indistinct. Consequently, all the divine
attributes in general are really identical with
the divine Essence and with one another, and this
is true in a special manner of those attributes
which, like justice and mercy, are in logical
opposition to one another. This opposition is
purely logical. How sharply the oppositio re­
lationis in the Holy Trinity must be defined, ap­
pears from the fact that since generare and
spirare do not imply a relative but only a dis13 Supra, Ch. II, Sect. i.
14 De Process. Spiritus S., c. 2
(Migne, P. L., CLVIII, 288).

15 Decretum pro lacobitis, in Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.
705.

FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE TRINITY

231

parate opposition, both functions are simulta­
neously performed by the same Person (f. e., the
Father), without His thereby becoming two Hy­
postases. Though at the same time generator
and spirator, He is but one Hypostasis. For
the same reason the Son must not be excluded
from the act of Spiration, because generari and
spirare do not involve a complete relative oppo­
sition, such as exists between generare and gen­
erari, spirare and spirari. Guided by this im­
portant rule, the Latin theologians, with the ex­
ception of the Scotists, have always contended
against the Greek schismatics, that if the Son
were excluded from the function of active Spira­
tion, there would remain no basis for a Hy­
postatic distinction between the Second Person
and the Holy Ghost. For it is only in virtue of
the relationis oppositio, or relative opposition be­
tween spirare and spirari, that the Son is a
different Person from the Holy Ghost.16 It fol­
lows that the Logos differs from the Holy Ghost
not because He is begotten by the Father, but
because He breathes the Holy Ghost, and the
Holy Ghost is breathed by Him.
The councils of Lyons and Florence defined it as an
article of faith that active Spiration must be attributed
ie Cfr. Symbol. Tolet. XI, a. 675:
*' Quando Pater est, non ad se, sed
ad Filium est; et quod Filius est,
non ad se, sed ad Patrem est:

similiter et Spiritus non ad se, sed
ad Patrem et Filium relative refer­
tur.” Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchi­
ridion, η. 278.

232

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

to the Father and the Son per modum unius, that is,
as one really identical act. This definition is ulti­
mately based upon the axiom of the relationis oppositio.
Whatever does not include relative opposition in the
Godhead, appertains to the indistinct identity of the Di­
vine Being and Essence. Hence active Spiration must
be identical with Paternity and Filiation, or, in other
words, Father and Son are necessarily one Spirator, even
as the product of their Spiration, the Holy Ghost, is one.
This unica spiratio was interpreted by the rule of St.
Anselm, which we have called the fundamental law of
the Trinity, in the Decretum pro lacobitis, which em­
phatically declares that the Father and the Son are
one principle of the Holy Ghost in the same sense in
which the Blessed Trinity, as the Creator of the physical
universe, is the one sole principle of the creature.17

4. The Three “Relationes Personificae.”
—If, as we have said, the Divine Nature sub­
sists in three Hypostases or Persons, only
three of the four real Relations existing in
the Godhead can be “relationes personificae”
that is to say, only three constitute Persons.
These three are: Paternity {paternitas, πατρ6της\
Filiation {filiatio, νωτης) , and Passive Spiration
{processio, εκπόρευσνί,
17 Decretum pro lacobitis: “ Hae
tres personae sunt unus Deus, et
non tres dii, quia trium est una sub­
stantia, una essentia, una divinitas
. , . omniaque sunt unum, ubi non
obviat
relationis
oppositio. . . .
Spiritus Sanctus, quidquid est aut
habet, habet a Patre simul et Filio.

Sed Pater et Filius non duo prin­
cipia Spiritus Sancti, sed unum
principium, sicut Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus non tria principia
creaturae, sed unum principium.”
(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion,
n. 703 sq.)

THE RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE

233

a) It is easy to perceive that, concretely, these
three Relations are the three Divine Persons
themselves: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It
follows,—and this is a most important truth,—
that the three Divine Persons, as such, are Sub­
sistent Relations; and since there are no acci­
dents in God, they must be conceived as Sub­
stantial Relations. Hence the Scholastic axiom:
“Personae divinae sunt relationes siibsistentes et
substantiales.” The concept of Hypostasis or
Person is most perfectly realized in Paternity,
Filiation, and Passive Spiration, because it is to
these “relationes personificae” in virtue of their
exclusive opposition, that the distinctive note of
“totietas in se” appertains. The mystery of the
Divine Trinity consists in this, that the one con­
crete Nature of the Godhead culminates in three
distinct Hypostases, who, as three perfect Per­
sons, possess one and the same Nature in com­
mon.
Some theologians teach that the Divine Persons are
constituted by their origins rather than by their Rela­
tions. This opinion does not differ substantially from the
one set forth above. For as the origin of the Son by
Generation and of the Holy Ghost by Spiration forms
the fundamental basis of the divine Relations, there is
no objective difference between origins and Relations.
They differ only to our imperfect mode of thinking,
which conceives the Processions as expressing primarily
the “fieri” (via ad personas'), and the Relations as de­

234

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

noting the complete state {in facto esse, forma perma­
nens}. Since, however, in our human conception of the
Divine Persons, the point of prime importance is not
their genesis, but their permanence, theologians are wont
to say that the Divine Persons are constituted by their
Relations rather than by their origins.18

b) We have still to answer the important ques­
tion, Avhy, despite the fact of its being a real
Relation, the spiratio activa does not produce a
separate Divine Hypostasis. If Paternity, Filia­
tion, and passive Spiration are the only “rela­
tiones personificae” active Spiration must mani­
festly be cancelled from the list of “subsistent”
relations; because else we should have a quaternity instead of a trinity. Consequently, the
Spirator, as such, must be impersonal.
The objective theological reason for the impersonal
character of the Spirator is the fact that active Spiration
is a function common to both Father and Son. In
other words, the “ unus Spirator ” presupposes two com­
plete Hypostases, constituted by the relations of Pater­
nity and Filiation. Consequently there is no room left
for a fourth person.
It follows from what we have said that Spiration in
its active sense {spiratio activa} constitutes an essential
note of the definition of Paternity and Filiation. In
other words, the Father cannot be conceived adequately,
18 On the question whether and
how far we may speak of an “ ab­
solute subsistence,” but not of an
” absolute personality,” in God, see
Kleutgen, Theologis der Vorseit,

Vol. I, pp. 363 sqq. Cfr. also
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. II (3rd
ed.), pp. 323 sqq., Friburgi 1906;
Billuart, De SS. Trinit. My st., diss.
4, art. 3.

THE RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE

235

unless He is conceived as Spirator; and the same holds
true of the Son. The complete concept of both Father
and Son contains spirare as a logical ingredient. There
is this difference, however. With the Father spirare
takes the form of giving, while with the Son it takes the
form of being received : because the Father has the power
of Spiration from Himself, whereas the Son possesses it
only in virtue of His Generation by the Father.19 In
defining as an article of faith the unica spiratio by
which the Father and the Son produce the Holy Ghost,
the Church has therefore erected a strong rampart around
the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, effectively preventing
its transformation into a quaternity.
It is easy to see how the Greek schism, “ the great­
est and most enduring of all the schisms that have rent
the Church,” affects the dogma of the Blessed Trinity,
(a) It denies the immediate and direct union of the
Holy Ghost with the Son, which can consist only in
a relation of origin. At the same time it deprives
the Holy Ghost of His attribute of “ own Spirit of the
Son.”20 (b) It denies the perfect unity of Father
and Son, in virtue of which the Son possesses every­
thing except Paternity (and therefore also the virtus et
actus spirandi) in common with the Father, (r) It de­
nies the indivisible unity of the Father, since the char­
acter of Spirator no longer appears as contained in and
founded on Paternity, but standing independently along­
side of it, must, like Paternity, constitute a Person, and
so give the Father a double personality.21
10 For a more detailed statement
of this subtle argument the reader
is referred to Ruiz, De Trinit., disp.
17, sect. 6.

16

ίδιον πνεύμα.
21 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p.
825; cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell’s Man­
ual, Vol. I, p. 306.
20

SECTION 4
THE TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES AND NOTIONS

I. The Trinitarian Properties.—By a
“Property” theologians here understand any dis­
tinctive peculiarity by which one Divine Person
differs from another.
a) Properties are divided into two classes:
personal properties {proprietates personales,
Ιδιώματα υποστατικά), and properties of persons
{proprietates personarum, Ιδιώματα τών υποστάσεων).
The first class comprises the three subsistent Re­
lations, each of which appertains to but one Di­
vine Person, and thus forms a truly distinctive
peculiarity of that Person. They are: Pater­
nity, Filiation, and passive Spiration. The
second class, besides these properties of the first
class—for every proprietas personalis is eo ipso
also a proprietas personae—comprises two or
three others respectively. For besides Paternity
there is also peculiar to the Father, as a distinc­
tive personal note, innascibility {innascibilitas,
άγεννησία) ; and He furthermore shares with the
Son the property of active Spiration {spiratio
activa, πνείν), The different Personal Properties
236

TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES

237

may consequently be grouped together as fol­
lows : Three—paternitas, spiratio activa, and
innascibilitas—as peculiar to the Father; two—
filiatio and spiratio activa—to the Son; and one
—spiratio passiva—to the Holy Ghost. Hence
there are six properties in all. If, as would seem
preferable, spiratio activa is dropped,1 there re­
main only four.
The only one of these Properties to require an ex­
planation is the innascibility (άγερη/σία) of the Father.
Is not the Holy Ghost, too, unbegotten?2 And if
He is, how can innascibility be said to be a Property
peculiar to the Father? Yet the Fathers and theologians
insist that the First Person of the Divine Trinity alone
is innascibilis, taking innascibilitas strictly in the sense
of a personal Property. By calling Him αγέννητος, they
mean to say not only that He is unbegotten, but that
He is the First Person, the original source (άρχη avev
αρχής, άναρχος), because He alone is persona a se, who
springs from none other, and in whom the other Divine
Persons have their principle, source, and root (άρχ^η της
αρχής, πηγη καί ρίζα των άλλων). Hence αγεννησία, aS
predicated of the Father, is more than a mere nega­
tion of generari. It is synonymous with Unoriginate1 S. Thom., S'. Theol., ia, qu. 32,
art. 3. ” Communis spiratio non
est proprietas, quia convenit duabus
personis."
2" Pater a nullo est factus nec
creatus nec genitus (.άγέννητοζ) ”
says the Athanasian Creed; "Filius
a Patre solo est, non factus nec
creatus (àycvrjTos), sed genitus
(γεννητός), Spiritus Sanctus a
Patre et Filio, non factus nec

creatus nec genitus (.àyèvvqTOs'),
sed procedens — The Father is
made of none, neither created, nor
begotten; the Son is of the Father
alone; not made, nor created, but
begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the
Father and of the Son: neither
made, nor created, nor begotten,
but proceeding.” (Denzinger-Bann­
wart, Enchiridion, n. 39.)

238

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

ness. The Father had no beginning, He is the First
Principle. This is the patristic teaching. St. Basil, e. g.,
says : “ But that which is derived from none other, has
no principle; and what has no principle, is ingenerate
(ά-γίννητον')3 This teaching is confirmed by several
councils. Thus we read in the creed drawn up by the
Eleventh Synod of Toledo, A. D. 675: “Et Patrem
quidem non genitum, non creatum, sed ingenitum profite­
mur; ipse enim a nullo originem ducit, ex quo et Filius
nativitatem et Spiritus Sanctus processionem accepit:
fons ergo ipse et origo est totius divinitatis — We profess
that the Father is not begotten, nor created, but ingen­
erate; for He derives His origin from no one, while
from Him the Son receives His nativity, and the Holy
Ghost His procession ; therefore He [the Father] is the
fountain-head and source of the whole Godhead.”4
Though the Holy Ghost, as the last Person, terminates
the evolution of the Blessed Trinity, He has no claim
to a distinctive personal note, since “ inspirability ” is not
a perfection.5

b) There is another difficulty. If the Trini­
tarian Properties are distinctive prerogatives of
the Divine Persons separately, how can the Three
be called co-equal? “In hac Trinitate nihil prius
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae
tres personae coaeternae et coaequales,” says the
3 Contra Eunom., I, 15 (Migne,
P. G., XXIX, 547). On the term
àyévyijTOv cfr. Newman, Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II,
pp. 347 sqq.
4 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 275.
5 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol., ia,

qu. 32, art. 3, ad 4: “ Cum per­
sona importet dignitatem, non potest
accipi notio [= proprietas] Spiritus
Sancti ex hoc, quod nulla persona
est ab ipso; hoc enim non pertinet
ad dignitatem ipsius, sicut pertinet
ad auctoritatem Patris, quod sit a

TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES

239

Athanasian Creed; that is, "Tn this Trinity none
is afore or after other, none is greater or less
than another, but the whole Three Persons are
coeternal together, and coequal.”6 How can
this be, if any one Person enjoys a prerogative
which the other two lack?
To escape this difficulty, many theologians — among
them Scotus, Cajetan, Billuart, Molina — blandly deny
that the divine Properties are “ perfections ” in the
strict sense of the term. Most others, however, agree
with St. Thomas, that these Properties, though not abso­
lute, are at least relative perfections, and as such must
not be confused. The perfection of Paternity, for in­
stance, is not identical with the perfection of Filiation.7
But how can the possession of relative perfections by
any one Divine Person, exclusive of the other two, be
harmonized with the Church’s teaching that the Three
Persons are absolutely coequal? Let us remember, in
the first place, that in essence each of the Three Divine
Persons is absolutely and really identical with the Divine
Nature. This absolute identity cannot but extend to the
relative perfections possessed by each. Hence, what­
ever of true perfection there is in the Divine Essence,
is participated in by all Three Divine Persons severally
and in consort. While it is true that no one Person
can, without sacrificing His identity, surrender His pe­
culiar prerogative to the others, it is also certain that
each Person, besides His own, also possesses, equiva6 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 39.
7 This is the teaching of the
Jesuit theologians Suarez, De Lugo,
Ruiz, Vasquez, Tanner, Franzelin,
and of the Thomists Gotti, Sylvius,

Contenson, etc. Cfr. St. Thomas’s
Opus, contr. Errores Graecorum, c.
7: "Patet quod non posset esse
Pater perfectus, nisi Filium haberet,
quia nec Pater sine Filio esset.”

240

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

lently, though not formally, the relative perfections of
the other two. Paternity as a perfection is surely not in­
ferior in value or dignity to Filiation, and Spiration is
of equal importance with either. Hence the Son loses
nothing by not being the Father, and so forth. The
Father, per contra, could not be Father if the Son were
not the Son, and the Son could not be the Son if the
Father were not the Father. To this must be added an­
other important consideration. By virtue of their mu­
tual immanence or inexistence (περιχώρψπς),8 the Three
Divine Persons communicate to one another quasiformaliter even their relative prerogatives or Properties.
The Father bears within Himself the Son and the Holy
Ghost as the intrinsic terminus of His notional under­
standing and love; while, conversely, the Son and the
Holy Ghost share in the relative perfection of Paternity
by virtue of their immanence in the Father,— that is,
so far as the Hypostatic differences between the Divine
Persons allow.9

2. The Divine Notions.—As the term itself
indicates, a Notion 10 is that by which one Per­
son is distinguishable from another. St. Thomas
defines it as “id quod est propria ratio cogno­
scendi divinam personam” 11 Inasmuch as we
distinguish each Divine Person by His Properties,
there must be as many Notions as there are
Properties. Those theologians, however, who,
by eliminating active Spiration, have reduced the
8 Infra, pp. 281 sqq.
0 For a more detailed discussion
of this question, see Tepe, Instit.
Theol., Vol. II, p. 383-392, Paris
1895.

10 From nosco. The Greek technical term is 'γνώρισμα..
11 S. Theol., ia, qu. 32, art. 3.

THE DIVINE NOTIONS

241

number of Properties to four, posit five divine
Notions, as we shall proceed to explain.
a) St. Thomas, in treating of this matter,12
starts from the axiom: “A quo alius et qui
ab alio,” Applying this principle to the Three
Persons of the Godhead, he distinguishes the
Father (1) by the fact that He is a nullo alio,
that is to say, innascibilis, unoriginate; (2) by
the further fact that He is the principium a quo
alius per generationem (= paternitas} ; and (3)
that He is the principium a quo alius per
spirationem (= spiratio activa}. Similarly the
Notions of the Son are Filiation (filiatio} and
active Spiration (spiratio activa}, whereas the
one distinctive Notion of the Holy Ghost is pas­
sive Spiration (spiratio passiva}. The subjoined
scheme will make our meaning clearer:
PATER

FILIUS

a) innascibilitas
a) generatio passiva
b) generatio activa b) spiratio activa
c) spiratio activa

SPIRITUS S.

a) spiratio passiva

Hence there can be no more than six Notions.
Since, however, spiratio activa is common to both
Father and Son, theologians usually reduce the
number to five.
In drawing up a list of divine Notions we must ob­
serve the same rule which guided us in distinguishing the
12

Ibid.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

242

divine Properties, viz.: Negative marks of distinction
cannot be counted as Notions ; else the list of divine No­
tions would contain twelve, to-wit :

non
sed
non
sed

generatur
generat
spiratur
spirat

a)
b)
c)
d)

non generat
sed generatur
non spiratur
sed spirat

s.
generatur
generat
spirat
spiratur

spiritus

FILIUS

PATER

a)
b)
c)
d)

a)
b)
c)
d)

non
non
non
sed

b) Only such negative marks are really and properly
Notions as signify a positive prerogative (dignitas,
αξίωμα), e. g., άγεννησία, or non generatur, on the part
of the Father. The “ infecundity ” of the Holy Ghost
in particular (non generat and non spirat) cannot
be reckoned among the Notions that distinguish Him
from the two other Divine Persons, because He “ ter­
minates and crowns the fecundity of the Divine Na­
ture and seals the unity of the other two Persons,”
and His infecundity is “ therefore no complement of the
notio spirationis passivae.” 13 From the same point of
view it is easy to perceive the falsity of the Scotist
contention that άπνευστία, inspirabilitas (from non spira­
tur), is a distinctive Notion of the Son. The dignity
of the Second Person is sufficiently determined by gene­
ratio passiva, while His inspirabilitas is virtually in­
cluded in the prerogative, which He shares with the
Father, of breathing the Holy Ghost. In the case of
the Father άπνευστία or inspirabilitas is excluded for this
further and special reason, that the First Person of the
Divine Trinity is the First Principle, or principium sine
principio. A doubt remains as to whether non generatur
should be attributed as a special Notion to the Holy
13 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 837.

THE DIVINE NOTIONS

243

Ghost, seeing that He is called ingenitus (αγέννητο?) in
the Creeds. But the Third Person derives His origin not
from Generation but from Spiration, and hence the non
generatur is virtually contained in the spirattir, that is,
passive Spiration. The case is different with regard to
the negative Notion non generatur on the part of the
Father, for agennesia, as predicated of the Father, and
of the Father alone, means precisely that He stands
unoriginate at the head of the other two Persons, and
that these derive their origin from Him, not He from
them.
Thus, according to the common teaching of theologians,
there are in God,
1. One Nature (or Substance) ;
2. Two Processions;
3. Three Hypostases;
4. Four Relations; and
5. Five Properties and Notions.
Readings: — On the subjects treated in §§ 3 and 4, cfr. Nottebaum, De Personae vel Hypostasis apud Patres Theologosque
Notione et Usu, Susati 1852; *C. Braun, Der Begrifî Person
in seiner Anwendung auf die Lehre von der Trinitat und In~
karnation, Mainz 1876; Heinrich, Dogmatische Théologie, Vol.
IV, §§ 245-249; J. Uhlmann, Die Personlichkeit Gottes und ihre
modernen Gegner, Freiburg 1906; *
Billuart, Summa S. Thomae:
De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 2-6; St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia,
qu. 28 sqq.; Idem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 sqq.; Wilhelm-Scannell,
A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 312 sqq.; F. J.
Hall, The Trinity, pp. 221 sqq.

SECTION 5
THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS AND MISSIONS

i. The Divine Appropriations.—The Di­
vine Appropriations differ essentially from the
Divine Properties. The latter appertain ex­
clusively to this or that Divine Person, while
the former attribute to one Person something
which is common to all Three. Both are closely
related, in so far as the appropriata are apt to
lead to a knowledge of the propria. Appropria­
tion {appropriatio) may therefore be defined as
a process, based on Scripture and Tradition, by
which certain absolute divine attributes and
operations, which are essentially common to the
entire Trinity, are ascribed to one of the Divine
Persons in particular, with the purpose of re­
vealing the Hypostatic character of that Person.1
From this definition it is manifest: (i) That it
would be heretical to make the appropriatum a
proprium (i. e., the exclusive property or pre­
rogative of one Person),2 for, in the words of the
Angelic Doctor, “ap propriare nihil est aliud,
1 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia,
qu. 39, art. 7.

2 Abélard and Gunther were guilty
of this error.

244

THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS

245

quam commune trahere ad proprium”3 (2)
That the appropriations are not to be made
arbitrarily, but according to a strict law. This
law may be formulated thus : Between the Hy­
postatic character of the Divine Person to whom
an attribute is appropriated, and that attribute
itself, there must exist some special intrinsic re­
lationship. This law, though strict in itself,
admits of a wide latitude in application, because
the Personal character of the Divine Hypostases
is manifold, and various attributes and operations
may be intrinsically appropriated to each.
The Appropriations most commonly employed may
be divided into four categories.4
a) The first category comprises the substantive names
of God. They are distributed among the Three Divine
Persons, according to the rule laid down above, in this
wise: To the Father, as the principle of the Godhead,
is appropriated the name “God” (Deus, b Θεός). The
Son, because of the dominion He has received from the
Father over all creation, is commonly called “ Lord ”
(Dominus, b κύρως).5 The law of appropriations is,
however, sometimes set aside in Holy Scripture, as when
St. Paul applies to Christ the proper name Him and
expressly calls Him “God.”6 In 2 Cor. Ill, 17, the
Apostle appropriates the name “ Lord ” to the Holy
Ghost, to whom the Creed also refers as “ Dominum et
vivificantem.”
3 De Verit., qu. 7, art. 3.
4 We follow Scheeben, Doamatik,
Vol. I, pp. 887 sqq. (Cfr. Wilhelm-

Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, pp. 341
sqq.)
5 Cfr. τ Cor. XII, 4 sqq.
6 Supra, pp. 79 sq.

246

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

b) Of the absolute attributes which form the second
class, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, all­
wisdom to the Son, and all-goodness and sanctity to the
Holy Ghost. This is in perfect keeping with the Per­
sonal character of the Three Divine Persons, since the
Father is αρχή της αρχής, the Son, sapientia genita, and the
Holy Ghost, Personal Love and Hypostatic Sanctity?
Similarly St. Augustine, starting from the fundamental
notion of unity, appropriates unitas to the Father, aequali­
tas to the Son, and connexio to the Holy Ghost.78* The
Father, as the “ First ” Person of the Blessed Trinity,
suggests unity pure and simple; the Son, as the Logos
and intellectual image of the Father, equality; the Holy
Ghost, as the connecting link between the Father and the
Son, the harmony of unity and equality. A kindred though
not identical appropriation is found in the writings of St.
Hilary8 and quoted by St. Augustine,10 vis.: “Aeter­
nitas in Patre, species in imagine, usus in munere —
Eternity is in the Father, form [i. e., beauty] in the
Image [i. e., the Logos], use [i. e., fruition] in the Gift
[t. e., the Holy Ghost].”11 For the Father is αρχή
άναρχος, the Son, cIkwv Θεοΰ, and the Holy Ghost δωρεά
Θεού. Many divines also find an Appropriation indicated
in Rom. XI, 36 : “ Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt
omnia — Of him [f. e., the Father], and by him [i. c.,
the Son], and in him [i. e., the Holy Ghost] are all
things.” The preposition ex, they hold, signifies the
primal power and the source of all things, the preposition
per, the exemplary cause, and the preposition in, the
conservative force which sustains the universe.12
7 Cfr. Richard of St. Victor, De
10 De Trinit., VI, 10, 11.
Tribus Appropriates, 2 (Migne, P.
L., CXCVI, 993 sqq.).
8 De Doctr. Christ., I, 5.
0 De Trinit., II, 1.

11 St. Augustine explains this
mode of appropriation, I. c.
12 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol., ia,
qu. 39, art. 8.

THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS

247

c) With regard to the outward manifestations of the
Blessed Trinity, which form the third class of Appro­
priations, Catholic theologians, following St. Paul’s hint
in Rom. XI, 36, have laid down the general formula,
that “ all things have been created by the Father through
the Son in the Holy Ghost.” To the Father they at­
tribute the decree or resolution to operate (imperium,
βούλημα), to the Son, the execution (executio, δημιουργία),
and to the Holy Ghost, the perfecting of the work (per­
fectio, τελείωσή). This is in line with the popular belief
appropriating the Creation to the Father, the Redemption
to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit.13
d) The Appropriations of the fourth and last class
are based upon the general relations of the creature to
its Creator. The worship and sacrificial cult offered to
the Blessed Trinity is divided among the Three Divine
Persons in such manner that the Father is the object
of it, while the Son and the Holy Ghost, besides being
its object, are “ at the same time mediators of the wor­
ship offered to the Father, from whom they originate
and whose glory they reveal, and with whom they
receive the same worship, because they are one with
Him.”14 As the Church in her liturgical prayers is
wont to appeal to “ God the Father through Jesus Christ
in the unity of the Holy Ghost,” but never to “Jesus
Christ through the Father,” so Christ Himself, as man,
prayed to His Heavenly Father,15 even as He still
“ maketh intercession for us at the right hand of God,” 18
and generally acts as the “ natural Mediator ” between
God and man, though, of course, the proper object of our
13 Cfr. St. Basil, De Spiritu
Sancto, 16 (Migne, P. G., XXXII,
134).
14 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual,
Vol. I, 343-

15 Cfr. John XVII, i sqq.
le Rom. VIII, 34. Cfr.
VII, 25.

Hcb.

248

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

worship is not the Father alone, but the whole Divine
Trinity.17

2. The Divine Missions.—The Divine Mis­
sions, so called, throw into relief the hypostatic
differences of the Divine Persons, and also their
Properties,18 and hence are of no inconsiderable
assistance in elucidating the dogma of the Blessed
Trinity. They are related to the Divine Appro­
priations in so far as an operation common to
the whole Trinity is not infrequently appro­
priated to that particular Person who is said
to be “sent” for a definite purpose by an­
other. Cfr. Gal. IV, 6: “Misit Deus [i. e.,
Pater~\ Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra claman­
tem: Abba, Pater — God [the Father] hath
sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, cry­
ing: Abba, Father.” 19
a) A divine Mission (missio divina) is defined as
“ the eternal procession of a Person sent from a Per­
son sending, in its relation to a creatural terminus in
time.”20 It is important to emphasize this twofold
aspect of divine Mission, viz.: the fundamental relation
of one Person to another as its terminus a quo and its
effect in the creature as terminus ad quem. The missio
17 It remains for Soteriology to
develop this point. On the special
Appropriations of the Holy Ghost,
cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV,
20-22 (Rickaby, Of God and His
Creatures, pp. 351 sqq., London
1905).
18 Supra, pp. 236 sq.

10 On the concept of “ Mission,”
vide supra, p. 175.
20 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. Theol.,
ia, qu. 43, art. 3, ad 3: "Missio
includit processionem aeternam ei
aliquid addit, scii, temporalem effec­
tum.’’

THE DIVINE MISSIONS

249

ad intra (i. e., processio) is eternal, but the missio ad
extra takes place in time. It follows: (1) that an
Eternal Mission must be intrinsically as necessary and
unchangeable as Generation and Spiration ; while a
Temporal Mission, on the other hand (i. e., a proceed­
ing to exterior effects) is subject to the free will of the
Triune God. (2) There can be no Eternal Mission
except from Person to Person, strictly according to the
ακολουθία κατά την τάξιν ;21 while Temporal Mission, being
an outward manifestation, is a function common to the
whole Trinity.22 From this we may deduce a law,
which is confirmed by Holy Scripture, viz.: that the Tem­
poral Missions are strictly regulated by the divine se­
quence of origin. Consequently, the Father alone can
send, and He can send both the Son and the Holy Ghost.
The Son can be sent, but only by the Father ; He can also
send, but He can send only the Holy Ghost. The Holy
Ghost, in His turn, cannot send, but can be sent by either
the Father or the Son. The Person who proceeds
(missus) stands as it were midway between the eternal
terminus a quo and the temporal terminus ad quern, be­
cause, on the one hand, owing to the sequence of origin,
He depends on the Person from whom He proceeds,
while, on the other, He produces in the (rational)
creature a new effect, which is again, in its turn, appro­
priated to Him.23
21 Cfr. supra, p. m.
22 Cfr. St. August., De Trinit.,
IV, 20, 28: " Mittit, qui genuit;
mittitur, quod genitum est. . . . Sed
Pater non dicitur missus; . . . non
enim habet, de quo sit aut ex quo
procedat. . . . De Spiritu Sancto
dicitur: ‘a Patre procedit,’ Pater
vero a nullo — He sends who be­
got, That is sent which is begotten.
. . . But the Father is not said to

be sent . . . for He has no one of
whom to be, or from whom to
proceed. . . It is said of the Holy
Ghost: ‘He proceedeth from the
Father,’ but the Father is from no
one.”
23 No one has explained this more
clearly than St. Thomas, when he
says: “ In ratione missionis duo
importantur: quorum unum est
habitudo missi ad eum, a quo mit-

250

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

b) A Mission is visible or invisible (missio visibilis —
invisibilis), according as its temporal effect in the crea­
ture is sensible or insensible. A visible Mission can­
not be conceived without an invisible one, but an in­
visible does not necessarily suppose a visible Mission.
We have an example of a visible Mission in the de­
scent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. He de­
scends invisibly, secundum gratiam, whenever confirma­
tion is administered or Holy Orders are conferred.
There are two classes of visible Missions, according
as the Divine Person who is sent (missus') becomes
visible to men by entering into Hypostatic Union with
a human nature (the Word made flesh), or merely mani­
fests Himself to men by means of a visible symbol (as
the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove).
The Incarnation is unique as a pre-eminent Mission, of
which the Old Testament theophanies,24 so far as they
can be considered “ Missions” at all, were merely a
preparation and preamble. For this reason Suarez calls
the Incarnation a missio visibilis substantialis in opposi­
tion to all other missions, which are merely representativae.2*
Aside from the Mission of the Incarnate Logos, an
invisible Mission as such invariably ranks higher than
titur; aliud est habitudo missi ad
terminum, ad quem mittitur. Per
hoc autem, quod aliquis mittitur,
ostenditur processio quaedam missi
a mittente vel secundum imperium,
sicut dominus mittit servum, vel
secundum consilium, ut si consili­
arius mittere dicatur regem ad bel­
landum, vel secundum originem, ut
si dicatur quod flos emittitur ab
arbore. Ostenditur etiam habitudo
ad terminum, ad quem mittitur, ut
aliquo modo ibi esse incipiat, vel

quia prius ibi omnino non erat quo
mittitur, vel quia incipit aliquo modo
esse, quo prius non erat. Missio
igitur divinae personae convenire po­
test, secundum quod importat ex
una parte processionem originis a
mittente, et secundum quod impor­
tat ex alia parte novum modum
existendi in alio." S. Theol., ia,
qu. 43, art. i.
24 Supra, pp. 12 sqq.
25 De Trinit., XII, 4, 17.

THE DIVINE MISSIONS

251

a visible Mission, because it aims at the supernatural
sanctification of the creature. “ Nec enim Spiritus
Sanctus de Patre procedit in Filium,” says the Eleventh
Council of Toledo (A. D. 675), “ vel de Filio procedit
ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul ab utrisque
processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas am­
borum agnoscitur. Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus
ab utrisque creditur.” 26 The creation and conservation
of the cosmos, and God’s co-operation with His crea­
tures can no more be attributed to a divine Mission than
His omnipresence per essentiam, potentiam et praesen­
tiam,27 and hence all divine missions, properly so called,
are confined to the production of supernatural effects, cul­
minating in the infusion and augmentation of sanctifying
grace, and in the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
“ Est unus [ mot/i/j] specialis, qui convenit naturae ra­
tionali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in co­
gnoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia cognoscendo et
amando creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad ip­
sum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non
solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare
in ea sicut in templo,” etc.28 Consequently, sanctifica­
tion is a divine Mission κατ’ έξοχην. This also gives us
the reason why a person can be sent only to rational
creatures. The supernatural communication of the socalled gratiae gratis datae, and of the theological virtues
faith and hope, is not to be conceived as a divine Mission
in the strict sense of the term, because it does not essen­
tially— ex vi notionis — include sanctifying grace nor
2fl Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 277.
27 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., ia,
qu. 43, art. 3.
2* 5. Theol., ia, qu. 43, art. 3.

17

Cfr. John XIV, 17, 23; 1 Cor.
Ill, 16, VI, 19: Gal. IV, 6, and
so forth. For a more thorough ex­
planation, see the dogmatic treatise
on Grace.

252

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA

theological charity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
which are invariably connected with this grace.29
c) Let us remark, in conclusion, that the concept of
divine Mission must be carefully distinguished from the
cognate notions of Indwelling (inhabitatio) and Appari­
tion (apparitio). Though every invisible Mission has
for its ultimate object the “ indwelling ” of God in the
soul, and the beginning of that indwelling is signalized
after the manner of a “ coming ” or “ descent,” 30 yet
Mission and Indwelling are not identical,— for this rea­
son, among others, that Mission takes place only in
conformity with immanent Procession from Person to
Person, while Indwelling, though appropriated in a spe­
cial manner to the Holy Ghost, is common to the entire
Trinity.31 The concept of “ Apparition ” also is more
extensive than that of Mission. For though the Father
and the Blessed Trinity as such cannot be sent, because
they do not proceed, there is no reason why they should
not appear visibly. We have a classical example of such
a Trinitarian theophany in the account of our Lord’s
Baptism in the Jordan.32
Readings : — Besides St. Thomas, .S’. Theol., la, qu. 43, and his
commentators, cfr. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, 1. II-IV ; Petavius, De Trinit., 1. VIII; *Suarez, De Trinit., 1. XII; Ruiz, De
Trinit., disp. 82, 108 sq. ; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 42-48 ;
K. v. Schâzler, Natur und Übernatur, pp. 42 sqq., Mainz 1865;
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II (3rd ed.), pp. 340 sqq.; De
Régnon, Études de Théologie Positive sur la S. Trinité, Études
XVII and XXV, Paris 1898.
29 Cfr. Card. Manning, The Inter­
nai Mission of the Holy Ghost, 5th
ed., New York (s. a.) ; De Bellevue,
L’Œuvre du Saint-Esprit ou la
Sanctification des Ames, Paris 1901.

30 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri­
butes, pp. 325 sq.
31 Cfr. John XIV, 23.
32 Supra, pp. 24 sq.

PART Π

UNITY IN TRINITY, OR THE
TRIUNITY OF GOD
Monotheism is the foundation of all true religion,
and therefore we must not dismiss the subject of this
volume without demonstrating that the dogma of the
Divine Trinity neither destroys nor endangers the unity
and simplicity of God. The Blessed Trinity must be
essentially conceived not only as Trinity in Unity, but
likewise as Unity in Trinity. It is impossible to separate
the one from the other.1
We shall begin this second part of our treatise with
a consideration of Tritheism, which is the heretical an­
tithesis of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. Tritheism
is no less destructive of the dogma of the Trinity than
Monarchianism (Unitarianism) in its diverse forms.2
It is against Tritheism that the Athanasian Creed
teaches: “Sicut singillatim unamquamque personam
Dezim ac Dominum confiteri Christiana religione com­
pellimur, ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica
religione prohibemur—For like as we are compelled
by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person
by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden
by the Catholic religion to say, there be Three Gods
or Three Lords.” 3
1 Cfr. Symbol. Athanas.: " Ut
per omnia et unitas in Trinitate et
Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit —
So that in all things the Unity in
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity

is to be worshipped.” (DenzingerBannwart, Enchiridion, n. 39.)
2 Supra, pp. 115 sqq.
3 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En­
chiridion, n. 39.

253

2 54

UNITY IN TRINITY

The mitas in Trinitate or triunit as (= tri­
nitas) may be regarded from a threefold point
of view: (i) As unity of nature;4 (2) as
unity of external operation;5 and (3) as unity
of circumincession or mutual inexistence.6 Tri­
theism is the heretical contradictory of all three of
these, but it is most directly opposed to unity of
nature, and for this reason we proceed to con­
sider it in the first Section of the following Chap­
ter, which is devoted to the Consubstantiality of
the Three Divine Persons.
4 Unitas naturae s. substantiae s.
essentiae.
β Unitas operationis ad extra.

β Unitas circumincessionis, reptχώρησις.

CHAPTER I
ONENESS OF NATURE, OR THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY
OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS

SECTION i
TRITHEISM AND THE CHURCH

I. The Heresy of Tritheism.—This heresy
did not assume definite proportions until after
the dogma of the Trinity had been formally de­
fined. The Arians and Semi-Arians escaped the
formal charge of Tritheism, because they repre­
sented the Logos as a creature of the Father,
and the Holy Ghost as a creature of the Logos.
But as they held these two Persons to be divine
at least by grace and merit, they were frequently
accused by the Fathers of fostering the Tritheis­
tic heresy.
a) John Philoponus, a famous expounder of Aristotle
and a votary of Monophysitism,1 is reputed to be the
real founder of Tritheism, which he pressed into the
service of his Christological heresy. When it was
1 Philoponus flourished about A.
D. 550. His chief theological work
is entitled Διαιτητή? ή περί ένώtrecuS' Cfr. Hurter, Nomenclator

Litorarius Theologiae Catholicae,
Vol. I, 3rd ed., coll. 466-7, Oeni·
ponte 1903.

255

256

THE DIVINE PERSONS

urged against his Monophysitic position, that to confuse
Nature and Person in Christ would surely lead to a
similar confusion in the Divine Trinity, and therefore
ultimately to Tritheism, Philoponus answered: Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals of
the species “ God,” in precisely the same way that Peter,
Paul, and John are three different individuals of the
species “ man,” and they must therefore be looked upon
as “ three part-substances in one common, abstract sub­
stance.” 2
b) In the Middle Ages, according to the authentic
testimony of the Fourth Lateran Council (A. D. 1215),
Abbot Joachim of Flora in Calabria3 conceived the
oneness of the Three Divine Persons as a mere collective
and generic unity.4 It is difficult to see under the cir­
cumstances how this rather hotblooded and ill-advised
monk could dare to accuse Peter Lombard of having
heretically represented the Blessed Trinity as a quaternity. We must add, however, that Joachim de Floris
died penitently, professing absolute submission to the
authority of the infallible Church.5
c) About the middle of the nineteenth century a Ger­
man theologian, Anton Giinther (+ 1863), gave grievous
scandal by teaching that the Three Divine Persons con­
stitute a purely formal unity, which is neither specific
nor numerical. The Absolute — such in brief was his
2 Tpeis μερικαϊ ούσίαι èv ουσία.
KOivÿ,
3 4- 1202. Cfr. Gardner in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII,
pp. 406 sq.
< ” Quamvis concedat quod Pater
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt
una essentia, una substantia unaque
natura: verum unitatem huiusmodi
non veram et propriam, sed quasi
collectivam et similitudinariam esse

fatetur,
quemadmodum
dicuntur
multi homines ’ unus populus1 et
multi
fideles
' una
ecclesia.111
Cone. Lateran. IV, cap. “ Damna­
mus “ (Denzinger-Bannwart, En­
chiridion, n. 431).
5 " Se illam fidem tenere, quam
Romana tenet Ecclesia, quia di­
sponente Domino cunctorum fidelium
mater est et magistra.” {Cone.
Later. IV, cap. " Damnamus,” ibid.)

THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM

257

theory — in virtue of “ a théogonie process of self­
realization,” posits itself three times in succession, first
as thesis, secondly as antithesis, and thirdly as synthesis,
whereby the Divine Substance becomes triplicated, that
is, develops into three relative substances or Persons,
who formally coalesce into an “ Absolute Substance ”
or Absolute Personality.6

2. The Condemnation of Tritheism.—The
Church has at all times strenuously rejected
Tritheism in every guise.
a) As early as A. D. 262, Pope Dionysius, in a dog­
matic epistle which Scheeben rightly calls epochmaking,7 sharply censured certain Tritheistic expressions
of Bishop Denis of Alexandria.8 “ Neque igitur ad­
mirabilis et divina unitas,” he declared, “ in tres divini­
tates est separanda neque factionis [= facturae] vocabulo
dignitas ac summa magnitudo Domini [= Christi] est
diminuenda — Neither then may we divide into three
Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad ; nor dis­
parage with the name of ‘ creature ’ the dignity and ex­
ceeding majesty of the Lord.”0 St. Sophronius of
Jerusalem (-}- 638) wrote a refutation of Monotheletism,
in which the “ novi Tritheitae” are castigated unmerci­
fully. This treatise was declared to be orthodox and
was bodily incorporated into the canons of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council, A. D. 680. “ Numeratur igitur SS.
Trinitas” we read there, “non essentiis aut natîiris et
6 Cfr. Kleutgen, Théologie der
Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 379
sqq., Münster 1867. For a good
account of Gunther and his philosophico-theological system see Lauchert in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. VII, pp. 85 sqq.

7 Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746.
8 Supra, p. 121 sq.
9 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiri­
dion, n. 51. Newman’s translation
(Select Treatises of St. Athanasius,
Vol. I, p. 47).

258

THE DIVINE PERSONS

diversis deitatibus vel tribus dominationibus, sicut in­
saniunt Arioni et sictit novi Tritheitae 10 furiunt, vanis­
sime dicentes, essentias tres et naturas tres et tres domi­
nationes et tres deitates. . . . Eum, qui ista recipit aut
sapit aut novit, anathematibus percellimus” 11

b) More important and more definite than
these and in fact all other medieval decisions, is
the “Caput Damnamus” hurled by the Fourth
Council of the Lateran against Abbot Joachim de
Floris (A. D. 1215). Oswald calls it “the last
solemn, and also the most effective and most defi­
nite decision ever uttered by the ecclesiastical
magisterium in regard to this mystery.” 12
a) The salient point of this decision is that
the “one summa res” 13 is at the same time
“truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” in such
wise that, excluding all semblance of “quaternity,” the “Three Persons together and each Per­
son separately” actually coincide and are numer­
ically identical with that “summa res” 14 Inas­
much as no distinction attaches to the Divine Na­
ture, which is absolute, but only to the Divine
10 The reference is probably to
Philoponus and his adherents.
11 Cfr. Hardouin, Concil., t. Ill,
1263.
12 Trinitatslehre, p. 112, Pader­
born 1888.
13 Cfr. John X, 29: " maius om­
nibus."
11" Nos autem, sacro appro­
bante. Concilio, credimus et confite­
mur cum Petro Lombardo, quod

una quaedam summa res est, . . .
quae veraciter est Pater et Filius
et Spiritus Sanctus; tres simul per­
sonae, ac singillatim quaelibet eorun­
dem: et ideo in Deo solummodo
Trinitas est, non quaternitas; quia
quaelibet trium personarum est illa
res, videlicet substantia, essentia
seu natura divina." (DenzingerBannwart, Enchiridion, n. 432.)

THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM

259

Persons, who are relative, the same Council says :
“Et ilia [summa] res non est generans neque
genita nec procedens, sed est Pater qui generat, et
Filius qui gignitur, et Spiritus Sanctus qui pro­
cedit, ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in
natura.” 15 That is to say, it is not the Divine
Nature which generates, or is begotten, or pro­
ceeds, but it is the Father who begets, the Son
who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost who pro­
ceeds.
The Council elucidates this point by continuing, in more
popular language : “ Licet igitur alius sit Pater, alius
Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, non tamen aliud; sed id
quod est Pater, est Filius et Spiritus Sancttis idem om­
nino, ut secundum orthodoxam et catholicam Udem con’ substantiales credantur.” 18 From these premises flows
a conclusion which is of prime importance for the
consideration of the Divine ό/χοουσ/α = ταύτουσία, or
Consubstantiality, vis.: that one and the same “summa
res” simultaneously exercises two separate and distinct
functions,— the functions of one Absolute and three
Relatives. Under the first-mentioned aspect of the
Blessed Trinity it would be heretical to say : “ The
Divine Nature {summa res) generates, or is begot­
ten, or proceeds ” ; while under the aspect mentioned
in the second place, this same “summa res” is the
Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and
the Holy Ghost who is breathed. It is this twofold
functioning of the one “summa res” that enables
16 Cone. Lat. IV, cap. "Damnamus,"
dion, n. 432.)
16 Ibid.

(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri­

200

THE DIVINE PERSONS

us to give opposite replies to the queries “What?”
and “Who?” To the query: “What is the Father?”
the answer is: “Id quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus,
idem omnino,” while if it be asked: “Who is the
Father ? ” the reply will be : “ Alius Pater, alius Filius,
alius Spiritus Sanctus.”

β) In order still more accurately to define this
identity of nature, which underlies the distinction
of Persons, the Council enters upon a somewhat
detailed exposition, from which we shall quote a
salient passage : “Pater enim ab aeterno Filium
generando suam substantiam ei dedit, iuxta quod
ipse testatur: ‘Pater quod dedit mihi maius
omnibus est! Ac dici non potest, quod partem
siibstantiae suae illi dederit et partem ipse sibi
retinuerit, cum substantia Patris indivisibilis sit,
utpote simplex omnino. Sed nec dici potest, quod
Pater in Filium transtulerit suam substantiam
generando, quasi sic dederit eam Filio, quod non
retinuerit ipsam sibi: alio quin desiisset esse sub­
stantia. Patet ergo, quod sine ulla diminutione
Filius nascendo substantiam Patris accepit: et ita
Pater et Filius habent eandem substantiam, et
sic eadem res et Pater et Filius nec non Spiritus
Sanctus ab utroque procedens.” It would be
impossible to give a clearer explanation than this
of the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine
Persons in the sense of absolute ταύτουσία.

THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM

261

γ) On the basis of this pregnant conciliar definition
theologians have attempted to answer the difficult ques­
tion : Of what kind is the distinction between Na­
ture and Person, or between summa res absolute and
sumina res relative? It is evident from the explanation
of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we have just
quoted, that the distinction in question cannot be a
real distinction. For if the Three Divine Persons were
really distinct from their common Nature, the God­
head would contain four separate entities, viz.: Nature,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the other hand, it is
not sufficient to posit a purely logical distinction (dis­
tinctio rationis ratiocinantis) ; else the Three Persons
would coalesce with the Divine Substance — they would
cease to be realities and sink to the level of mere modes
of manifestation, as was alleged by the Sabellians. The
truth must lie somewhere between these heretical ex­
tremes. Precisely where, is not so easy to determine.
There are three Scholastic distinctions which can
be applied here without trenching on revealed dogma.
They are : the modal distinction of Durandus, the formal
distinction of Duns Scotus, and the virtual distinction
of St. Thomas Aquinas. In applying these distinctions,
however, we find that the modal and the formal, if
pressed to their ultimate logical conclusions, entail a
species of composition altogether inadmissible in the
Godhead, and also a real composition in each separate
Divine Person. According to Durandus, this composi­
tion is one of essence and “ mode ” ; according to Scotus,
its elements are essence and “ formality.” These incon­
gruities have led the great majority of Catholic theolo­
gians to adopt the virtual distinction of the Thomists.17
17 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God;
PP. 151 sqq.

His Knozvability, Essence, and Attributes,

202

THE DIVINE PERSONS

According to this theory, the one “summa res” is
both absolute and relative in such wise that, in the
simultaneous discharge of an absolute and a relative
function, it is formaliter unum et virtualiter multiplex.
Hence the Divine Nature differs from each Divine
Person by the so-called distinctio rationis ratiocinatae
sive virtualis sive cum fundamento in re, of which Car­
dinal Cajetan says: “Absolutum et relativum ita ibi
sunt, ac si essent distincta, et rursus ita [una summa
res] exercet munus utriusque, ac si essent distincta.” 18
This distinction is based on the same principle as the
current one between the “ essential ” knowledge which
belongs to the whole Trinity, qua absolute Spirit, and
the “ notional ” understanding which is proper to the
Father alone, qua Begettor of His consubstantial Word.
(Cfr. also the distinction between “essential” and “no­
tional” volition or love).
c) Among the more recent pronouncements of the ec­
clesiastical teaching office regarding the dogma of the
Blessed Trinity, special mention must be made of the
dogmatic Bull “Auctorem fidei,” issued by Pope Pius
VI against the Council of Pistoia, A. D. 1786. This
Bull rejects the formula “Deus in tribus personis dis­
tinctus” (instead of distinctis) as suspicious. Günther’s Tritheistic teaching was censured by the S. Con­
gregation of the Index on January 8, 1857, and formally
condemned by Pope Pius IX in a lengthy letter, ad­
dressed June 15, 1857, to Cardinal Geissel, Archbishop
of Cologne. A provincial council held with the approval
of Pius IX at Cologne, in i860, cited all the Trinitarian
definitions which we have adduced in this volume as an
18 In S. Theol., ïam, qu. 39, art.
I. This subtle problem is treated
exhaustively by Franzelin, De Deo

Trino, thes. 21; more briefly by
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II,
3rd ed., pp. 327 sqq., Friburgi 1906.

THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM

263

inexpugnable bulwark of the orthodox faith against the
vagaries of Günther. And the schema which the Com­
mission on Dogma had prepared for the Vatican Coun­
cil shows that the Holy See intended to brand Günther’s
errors as formally heretical 19
19 Cfr. Conrad Martin, Collect.
Documentorum Vatic., pp. 21 sqq.,
Paderb. 1873; Katschthaler, Zwei
Thesen filr das allgemeine Concil,

I: " Die numerische Wesenseinheit
der drei gottlichen Personen,” Ratisbon 1868.

SECTION 2
THE TEACHING OF REVELATION

I. Sacred Scripture.—Though we have re­
peatedly spoken of the Consubstantiality of the
Three Divine Persons, it remains for us to prove
from Scripture that this Consubstantiality is not
to be conceived after the manner of the harmony
of thought and sentiment that sometimes unites
intimate friends, nor yet in a merely generic
way, as if there were “one Godhead in three
Gods/’ but strictly as identity of nature or ταυτουσία.
Taken in this sense the unity of the Divine Nature
forms a special chapter of the revealed teaching
on the Trinity.
a) Monotheism is the fundamental dogma of the Old
Testament, and it has not been abrogated, but re-affirmed
and re-inculcated in the New.1 In such passages as
i Cor. VIII, 6,2 and Deut. XXXII, 3p,3 Holy Scripture
denies the possibility of Tritheism or any other species
of polytheism. There is but one alternative: Either
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost subsist in
three separate and distinct natures, or in one nature
1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knowability, Essence, and Attri­
butes, pp. 212 sqq.
2 ” Videte quod ego sim solus et
non sit alius Deus praeter me —

See ye that
is no other
8 " Nullus
There is but

264

I alone am, and there
God besides me.”
est Deus nisi unus —·
one God.”

THE TEACHING OF REVELATION

265

only. If they subsisted in three separate and distinct
natures, there would be three Gods,— a belief which
the Bible unmistakably condemns. If they subsist in
one Divine Nature, we have the Christian Trinity as
unequivocally taught throughout the New Testament.
Consequently Tritheism is unscriptural. Let no one
object that the term “ unus Deris ” admits of being in­
terpreted in a specific or a generic sense. For wherever
several individuals of the same species or genus coexist,
none of them can truthfully assert: I alone am and
there is none other besides me.

b) A special argument for our thesis can be
derived from Christ’s sermon ''in Solomon’s
porch,” which culminates in the words: “Ego
et Pater unum sumus — I and the Father are
one.” 4 This was a favorite quotation with the
Fathers. Thus St. Augustine says in the thirty­
sixth of his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John:
“Quod dixit ‘unum’ liberat te ab Ario; quod
dixit ‘sumus,3 liberat te a Sabellio — The word
'one’ in this passage excludes Arianism ; the
word 'are’ excludes Sabellianism.”5 In order
to understand what kind of unity Christ means
when He says, “I and the Father are one,” we
must examine the context.
a) The outstanding thought of the preceding verses
is that Christ gives life everlasting to His sheep by
virtue of His own personal dominion and power, and
4 John X, 30.
6 Tract, in loa., 36, n. 9.

(Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1668.)

266

THE DIVINE PERSONS

that “no one shall pluck them out of [His] hand?
To justify this claim He affirms: “That which my
Father hath given me, is greater than all,” and He pro­
ceeds to explain by first stating a truth which the Jews
were quite ready to admit — viz.: that “no one can
snatch” His sheep “out of the hand of [His] Father.”
Then, after the manner of a minor premiss in a syllogism,
follows the verse : “ I and the Father are one,” by
which Christ evidently means to say : I and the Father
have the same nature, and consequently possess the
same power. The conclusion, which figures as a sort
of thesis at the head of the argument, is evident, viz.:
Therefore, “I give [my sheep] life everlasting; . . .
and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.”
It is worth while to con this important text somewhat
more minutely. The preceding portion of the context
reads: “Et ego vitam aeternam do eis [scii, ovibus
meis], et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas
quisquam de manu mea. Pater meus quod dedit mihi,
maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu
Patris mei. Ego et Pater unum sumus — And I give
them [i. e., my sheep] life everlasting; and they shall
not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out
of my hand. That which my Father hath given me
is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of
the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.” 6
“ That which my Father hath given me is greater than
all,” is here alleged as the reason why Christ can give
life everlasting to His sheep and prevent any one from
plucking them out of His hand. Now, we know from
numerous parallel passages,7 that the predicate expressed
in the phrase “maius omnibus” can mean nothing else
e John X, 28-30.
7 Cfr., e. g., John XVI, 5; XVII, 10, etc.

THE TEACHING OF REVELATION

267

than the Divine Nature (summa res infinite perfecta),
in so far as it is communicated, immediately and undi­
minished, by the begetting Father to His begotten Son.
“Dedit mihi” is therefore synonymous with “gignendo
mihi communicavit" Consequently, the Son, by this
communication to Him of the Divine Essence on the
part of the Father, has precisely the same power as the
Father, with this sole difference, that the Father has the
Divine Nature and power of Himself, while the Son
derives it from the Father. Taking this truth for the
antecedent of an enthymeme, the conclusion : “ I and
the Father are one,” can only mean that the Father
and the Son, as possessing the same Nature and the
same power, are absolutely consubstantial, i. e., iden­
tical in essence. St. Athanasius called particular at­
tention to this when he said:
. . ut scilicet eandem
amborum divinitatem (ταυτότητα της θεότητος) unamque
naturam (ενότητα της ουσίας) esse doceret — In order to
show the identity of Godhead in both, and the unity of
Nature.” 8
This argument is not weakened by the circumstance
that the textus receptUS has : Ό πατήρ μου, oç δεδωκέ pot,
πάντων μάζων εστί. For, as the explanation given by St.
Chrysostom 9 shows, this variant affects merely the form,
and not the substance of the argument based upon John
X, 29.
β) The verses which follow (John X, 34 sqq.) posi­
tively confirm the argument. The Jews obviously un­
derstood Christ’s dictum, “ I and the Father are one,”
to mean perfect consubstantiality ; for they “ took up
stones to stone him for blasphemy.” “ For a good work
we stone thee not,” they explained, “ but for blasphemy ;
8 Or. Contr. Arian., 3, 3 (Migne,
P. G., XXVI, 327)·

18

9 Hom. in loa., 61, 2
P- G., LIX, 338 sqq.).

(Migne,

268

THE DIVINE PERSONS

and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God.” 10 How did Jesus meet this accusation? Did He
retract what He had said? Did He tell the Jews that
they misunderstood Him? No ; He repeated His previous
statement and confirmed it by an argumentum a minori
ad maius. “ Is it not written in your law,” He asks,
“ I said ‘ you are gods ’ ? If he called them gods, to
whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture
cannot be broken; do you say of him whom the Father
hath sanctified and sent into the world : ‘ Thou blasphemest,’ because I said, ‘ I am the Son of God ’ ? ”11
In corroboration of His claim, Christ points to His mira­
cles: “ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me
not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe
the works : that you may know and believe that the Father
is in me, and I in the Father.” 12 By thus accentuating
His immanence in the Father (Perichoresis'), He merely
repeats in other words what He had said before : “ I
and the Father are one.” It is because He clearly as­
serted His consubstantiality with God the Father, that
the Jews became convinced that He blasphemed; and
to emphasize His consubstantiality with the Father
He repeated His assertion in the words : “ I am the
Son of God.” This also explains why His adversaries
“ sought to take him,” so that He found it advisable to
10 John X, 33: “De bono opere
non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia:
et quia tu, homo cum sis, facis
teipsum Deum (ποιείς σεαυτον
Qeov)”
11 John X, 34 sqq.: "Respondit
eis lesus: Nonne scriptum est in
lege vestra: Quia ego dixi, dii
estis? [Ps. LXXXI, 6]. Si illos
dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei
factus est, et non potest solvi scrip­

tura, quem Pater sanctificavit et
misit in mundum, vos dicitis: quia
blasphemas, quia dixi: Filius Dei
sum? "
12 John X, 37 sqq.: " Si non
facio opera Patris mei, nolite cre­
dere mihi; si autem facio, et si
mihi non vultis credere, operibus
credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis,
quia Pater in me est, et ego in
Patre."

TRADITION

269

“ escape out of their hands.”13 This interpretation
has ample support in the writings of the Fathers.
“ Had they [the Father and the Son] been two,” says
St. Athanasius, “He [Christ] would not have said: ‘I
and the Father are one,’ but ‘ I am the Father/ or ‘ I
and the Father am ’ ; . . . the word ‘ I ’ declares the
Person of the Son, and the word ‘ Father ’ as evidently
expresses him who begat the Son, and the word ‘ One ’
the one Godhead and His consubstantiality.” 14

2. Tradition.—Faydit, Cudworth, Placidus
Stürmer, O.S.B., and others, have accused the
Nicene Fathers of Tritheism, because, as they
claimed, these Fathers in their naïve ignorance
had understood the term όμοοΰσων as denoting
a merely generic unity. Following the example
of Sabinus of Heraclea, who was a Macedonian
heretic,15 Adolph Harnack boldly charged the
Bishops assembled at Nicaea with intellectual in­
capacity. He says there were no really able
theologians among them, and adds : “The unan­
imous adoption of the synodal decree can be ex­
plained only on the assumption that the question
at issue exceeded the mental capacity of most
of the Bishops present.” 16 This utterance is
not surprising in the mouth of a writer who is
13 John
X,
39: “ Quaerebant
ergo (ούρ πάλιν) eum apprehendere,
et exivit de inanibus eorum.”
14 Orat., Contr. Arian., 4, n. g.
(.The Orations of S. Athanasius
Against the Arians in the Ancient
and Modern Library of Ίheological

Literature, p. 271, London [j. a.].
Cfr. on this topic especially Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thés. 7,
ed. 4, Romae 1893.
15 Cfr. Socrat., Hist. Eccl., I, 8.
16 Dogmcngeschichte, Vol. II, p.
222.

270

THE DIVINE PERSONS

satisfied that “the Logos-V40^0* formula simply
leads to absurdity,” and that “Athanasius toler­
ated this absurdity, and the Council of Nicaea
formally sanctioned it.” 17 According to the
theory of this school it was St. Augustine who
invented the strictly monotheistic conception of
the unity of the Godhead, and introduced it into
what is properly called ecclesiastical Tradition.
How unwarranted this theory is will appear from
the following considerations.
a) The very method which the Nicene Fathers
chose to defend the όμ,οονσιον against the attacks of
Arianism, proves that they conceived the Consubstantiality of Son and Father as absolute identity of es­
sence (ταύτουσια). The Arian and Eunomian objections
may be summarized thus: “Either God is one, or
Father and Son are separate and distinct Persons. If
God is one, then Sabellius is right in denying a distinction
of Persons. If the Father and the Son are separate
and distinct Persons, then the Godhead is—divided by
the act of Divine Generation, and we have Ditheism.
Consequently the Son is not όμοουσιος with the Father.”
Eunomius in particular insisted that
γεγουεν ecs
δυάδα. Had the Nicene Fathers been Tritheists, they
would manifestly have accepted the Arian conclusion,
instead of combating it so energetically. For no one
who took ό/χοουσία to mean mere unity of species or
genus, could consistently refuse to accept the logical
inference that Generation and Spiration effect in the Di­
vine Nature an intrinsic scission by which the Father
IT Ad. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, p. 221.

TRADITION

271

is “ God ” other than the Son. The Nicene Fathers en­
deavor to show, on the contrary, that the act of Gener­
ation in no wise involves a multiplication of the Divine
Nature, and therefore does not impair the absolute sim­
plicity of essence proper to the Godhead. As a repre­
sentative utterance, we may cite the subjoined passage
from the writings of St. Athanasius: “The Fathers
of the Council . . . were compelled ... to resay and
rewrite more distinctly still, what they had said before,
that the Son is consubstantial (ύ/ζοοΰσων) with the
Father ; by way of signifying that the Son is from the
Father, and not merely like (ojuotop), but is the same
by likeness (ταυτον τί? ομοιώσει). . . . For since the Gen­
eration of the Son from the Father is not according
to the nature of men, but in a manner worthy of God,
when we hear the word όμοου'σιο?, we must not follow
the human senses, nor invent divisions and scissions,
but, as when we conceive what is incorporeal, we will
not rend asunder the unity of Nature and the identity
of the light (την ενότητα τής φύσεως καί την ταυτότητα του
φωτός).” 18

b) The orthodoxy of the post-Nicene Bishops mani­
fested itself in a manner that might almost be called
dramatic at a council held in Alexandria (A. D. 362)
for the express purpose of restoring peace. At this
council, when the assembled Fathers had got into a wran­
gle over the use of the terms ουσία and υπόστασή,
because some of them thought that the formula τρεις
υποστάσεις savored of the heretical teaching embodied in
the Latin phrase “ très substantiae,”10 St. Athanasius
18 De Deer. Nic. Syn., n. 20 sqq.
On the more conciliatory position
taken by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, sea
Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol.

II, 2nd ed., pp. 124 sqq., §
Freiburg 1895.
19 Supra, p. 227.

14,

272

THE DIVINE PERSONS

by a clever cross-examination brought out the fact that
all really held the same faith. This led St. Gregory
Nazianzen to observe : “ It was indeed a ludicrous, or
rather a regrettable incident ; there appeared to be diver­
gency of faith where there was merely a dispute about
words.” 20 The Council finally permitted the use of both
locutions {viz.: One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases),
on condition that in employing the former phrase there
be no imputation of Sabellianism, and in enunciating the
latter, the Arian heresy of three separate and distinct
Gods be expressly disavowed. But it soon became nec­
essary to define the dogma still more clearly. St. Basil
was the first who endeavored formally to justify the
phrase “Three Hypostases,” and .to give it universal
currency.21
c) It is easy, in addition, to quote express Patristic
texts showing that the Fathers understood όμοουσία to
mean ταντονσία. St. Basil, for example, in rejecting
Ditheism and Tritheism, writes: “Only one God the
Father, only one God the Son, not two Gods, because
the Son is identical with the Father (επαδτ/ ταυτότητα
Ζχα ό νιος πρός τόν πατέρα). For I do not behold one
Deity in the Father, and another in the Son, nor one
Nature here, and another there.”22 St. Gregory of
Nazianzus anticipates the scientific terminology of a later
age when he says: “ Neque enim Filius est Pater,
nam units Pater: tamen Filius est id, quod Pater. Nec
Spiritus est Filius, quia ex Deo est, nam unus unigenitus ;
tamen Spiritus est id, quod Filius. Tres sunt unum
deitate {ev τά τρία τη θίότητί), unum est tres proprietati20 Or. 2i, 35 (Migne, P. G.,
XXXV, 1126).
21 Cfr. Jos. Schwane, Dogmengefchichte. Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 151.

22 Hom., 24, 3
XXXI, 604 sq.).

(Migne, P. G.,

TRADITION

273

bus (το €V τρία ταΐς ι^ότησι = νποστάσεσιν) —The Son IS
not the Father, for there is but one Father: yet the
Son is that which the Father is. Nor is the Holy
Ghost the Son, for the reason that He is from God, be­
cause there is but one Only-begotten ; yet the Holy Ghost
is that which the Son is. The Three are one Godhead,
and the One Godhead is threefold with regard to its
Properties [i e., the Hypostases].”23 The unknown
author of the Libri XII de Trinitate (believed by some
to be Vigilius of Tapsus, by others St. Athanasius),
cries out in holy anger: “ Malediciïis, qui propter tria
nomina personarum tres deos confitetur—Cursed be he
who, because there are Three Personal Names, professes
three Gods.”24 A conclusive and definitive testimony,
which expressly echoes the faith of the preceding ages,
is this of St. Augustine: “Omnes, quos legere potui,
qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate, quae Deus est . . .
hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater
et Filùis et Spiritus Sanctus unius eiusdemque substan­
tiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem,
ideoque non sint tres dii, sed unus Deus — All those
whom I have been able to read, who have written be­
fore me concerning the Trinity, who is God, have
purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this
doctrine, that the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same sub­
stance in an indivisible equality ; and therefore that they
are not three Gods, but one God.” 25 This declaration
of the great Bishop of Hippo embodies one of the most
telling arguments against Tritheism.
d) There seems to be one weak link in the Patristic
chain of evidence, and that is the teaching of St. Gregory
23 Or., 31, 9.
24 In Migne, P, L., LXII, 278.

23 De Trinit., I, 4> 7.
translation, p. 7.

Haddan’s

2/4

THE DIVINE PERSONS

of Nyssa, who puts the essential unity of the Three Di­
vine Persons on a level with the essential unity proper to
three human beings. But if we consider that, as a phi­
losopher, Gregory advocated Platonic ultra-realism and
conceived the specific unity of human individuals as a
genuine ταυτουσία, we shall be inclined to consider the
remarkable parallel this Saint has drawn between divine
and human unity as a confirmation rather than an in­
dictment of his orthodoxy. If it were true, as he held,
that human nature is numerically the same in all men,2®
and that “many men is said by an abuse of the
’ term, not in its strict sense,” 26
27 that, therefore, “ Peter
and Paul and Barnabas are but one man,”28 it would
be perfectly orthodox to say that “Igitur unus nobis
confitendus est Deus iuxta Scripturae testimonium:
Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Dominus unus est,29
etiamsi vox deitatis permeat sanctam Trinitatem.” 30
Readings: — Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vols. Ill and V, 2nd
ed., Freiburg 1877 and 1886.— Oswald, Trinitdtslehre, §10,
Paderborn 1888.— Albert a Bulsano, Instit, Theologiae Dogmat.
Specialis, ed. Gfr. a Graun, tom. I, pp. 174-200, Oeniponte 1893.
— Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 2, cap. 1-5, Ratisbonae 1881.
— Hurter, Compendium, t. II, ed. 9a, thes. 114-116, Oeniponte
1896.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §112, Freiburg 1873.— H. P.
Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
pp. 528 sqq., London 1867.
26 cis δε èv πάσι ό Άνθρωπος.
27 Xéyovrai ôè πολλοί άνθρωποι
καταχρηστικάς και ού κυρίως,
28 These quotations will be found
in Migne, P. G., XLV, 180.
29 Deut. VI, 4.

30 Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabiuni
(Migne, P. G., XLV, 119.) Cfr.
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp.
300 sqq., Freiburg and St. Louis
1908.

CHAPTER II
ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION OF THE
THREE DIVINE PERSONS

Oneness of external operation in the Blessed
Trinity follows as a corollary from the unity of
the Divine Nature, and therefore scarcely needs
separate proof. For the sake of completeness,
however, we shall elaborate (i) a Scriptural,
(2) a traditional, and (3) a theological argu­
ment in support of this particular dogma.
At a Lateran Council held by Pope Martin
I, in the year 649, 105 Bishops unanimously
condemned Monotheletism. True, this synod
lacks the authority of a general council; but
by being incorporated into the proceedings of
the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 680, its
canons acquired whatever universal authority
they may have originally lacked. This Lateran
Council of 649 affirms that in the Blessed Trinity
“will, power, operation, and dominion are one.” 1
This unity is explained by the Fourth General
Council of the Lateran (A. D. 1215) to be one by
1 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 254.
Ill, pp. 922, 1078 sq.

275

Hardouin, Concil., t.

2^

ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION

which the Three Divine Persons are “unum uni­
versorum principium, creator omnium visibilium
et invisibilium — The one principle of all things,
the Creator of all things visible and invisible.” 2
To remove every vestige of doubt in the matter,
the Decretum pro lacobitis (A. D. 1439) places
the creative power of the Trinity on a par with the
unity of the principle of Spiration that reposes
in the Father and the Son, and from which the
Holy Ghost proceeds tinica spiratione.3
i. The Argument from Sacred Scripture.
—Christ on various occasions formally identified
His divine operation with that of His Father.
Compare, e. g., John V, 17: “Pater meus usque
modo operatur et ego operor — My father worketh until now, and I work,” with John V, 19:
“Non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi
quod viderit Patrem facientem — The Son cannot
do any thing of Himself, but what he seeth the
Father doing.” These texts, while they clearly
show a distinction of Persons and origin, also
intimate unity of action.
Other texts identify the operation of Father
and Son even more positively. Thus John XIV,
10: “A me ipso non loquor, Pater autem in
me manens ipse fa&it omnia — I speak not of my­
self, but the Father who abideth in me, he doth
2 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 428.
3 Supra, pp. 230 sq.

PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

277

the works?’ It is in the light of passages such
as these that we must interpret the word ^simi­
liter" (ομοίω^ in John V, 19: “Quaecunque
enim ille [Pater] fecerit, haec et Filius similiter
facit — For what things soever he [the Father]
doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.”
“Non ait," comments St. Augustine, “quaecunque
facit Pater, facit et Filins alia similia, sed: Quœcunque Pater facit, haec eadem et Filius facit si­
militer. Quae ille, haec et ipse: mundum Pater,
mundum Filius, mundum Spiritus Sanctus—[The
Catholic faith] does not say that the Father made
something, and the Son made some other similar
thing; but what the Father made, that also the
Son made in like manner. What the One made,
that the Other also. The Father [made] the
world, the Son [made] the world, the Holy
Ghost [made] the world.” 4
This argument is corroborated by the manner in which
Sacred Scripture appropriates one and the same oper­
ation now to the Father, now to the Son, now to the
Holy Ghost, and then again to the Godhead as such.
This procedure is intelligible only on the supposition
that the Three Divine Persons are absolutely identical
in essence and operation.5 St. Augustine convincingly
argues: “Si enim alia per Patrem, alia per Filium, iam
non omnia per Patrem nee omnia fer Filium. Si autem
omnia per Patrem et omnia per Filium, [ergo] eadem
per Patrem, quae per Filium. Aequalis est ergo Patri
4 Tract, in loan., 20, 3 sqq,

5 Supra, pp. 29 sq.

278

ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION

Filius et inseparabilis est operatio Patris et Filii — For
if some things were made by the Father, and some by
the Son, then all things were not made by the Father,
nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made
by the Father, and all things by the Son, then the same
things were made by the Father and by the Son. The
Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the work­
ing of the Father and the Son is indivisible.” e

2. The Argument from Tradition.—The
procedure of deducing the unity of the Divine
Nature from the unity of the divine operations,
and vice versa, was well known to the Fathers.
Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria tersely observes, that
“ to attribute individual operations to each separate Di­
vine Person, is tantamount to saying that there are three
separate and distinct Gods.” 6
7 A considerable number of
the Fathers condense the dogma into a single brief phrase,
which, after the manner of a mathematical formula, ex­
presses the whole teaching of the Church in the tersest
possible manner, viz.: “Pater per Filium in Spiritu
Sancto omnia operatur.”8 This formula duly stresses
every essential point of the dogma : the Trinity of the Di­
vine Persons, their succession as to origin, their identity
of Nature, and the unity of their operation. The Patristic
argument is drawn out in detail by Petavius.0 It is so
overwhelming that we can brush aside as irrelevant and
trivial the objection which some writers base on the
custom of certain Fathers of representing the Three
6 St. Augustine, De Trinitate, I,
6, 12. Haddan’s translation, p. 13.
7 Contr. Nestor , IV, 2.
8 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Ep. ad Sc­

rap., i, 28. (Migne, P. G., XXVI,
595)·
9 De Trinit., IV, 15.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

279

Divine Persons as taking counsel with one another, as
agreeing upon some common resolve or decree, or as
co-operating in some common cause. St. Cyril of Jeru­
salem “ makes a distinction between the divine oper­
ations ad extra, appropriating them to the Three Divine
Persons separately, and thus seems to posit a certain
scission in the immanent life of the Godhead. But
his utterances must be interpreted in accord with the
law of Appropriations, especially since he does not con­
sistently carry out the distinction.” 10

3. The Theological Argument.—The unity
of operation in the Blessed Trinity is really but a
simple inference from the dogma that the Three
Divine Persons are absolutely identical in essence.
Philosophy teaches that “ Operari sequitur esse, i. e.,
naturam” If the nature of a thing is its “ principle of
operation,” it follows that the number of principles of
operation, and their specific manifestations (e. g., in­
tellect and freewill in spiritual natures), depend on
the number of active essences or natures. “Tot
operationes, quot naturae” As we must distinguish
in Christ, the Godman, a twofold operation, the one
divine, the other human, corresponding to His double
nature, so, conversely, if the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost are not three natures, but one, they
can have but one common operatio ad extra. To assert
that the divine operation is not one, is to teach Trithe­
ism. Had they not harbored Tritheistic conceptions of
the Godhead, Raymund Lully and Günther could never
have taught that each Divine Person operates separately
ad extra. Though from unity of Nature to unity of
10 Jos. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 126.

2δο

ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION

operation in the Blessed Trinity is just as easy a step
as from a duality of nature to Dyotheletism in Christ,
(because a multiplication of natures always entails a mul­
tiplication of operations), the Church did not content
herself with laying down the general principle, but by
an express definition condemned in advance Giinther’s
error that “ When God reveals Himself to His crea­
tures, He must reveal Himself hypostatically, i. e., each
separate divine operation must be attributed as opus
operatum to a separate Divine Person, to the exclusion
of the other two.”11 Giinther’s lapse into Tritheism
convincingly shows how false was the view he took of the
relation of the divine operations to the different Persons
of the Blessed Trinity. Any attempt to go beyond mere
Appropriation is sure to result in a scission of the Di­
vine Essence.
Readings: — *
Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 12.— Kleutgen,
De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 5, cap. 2, art. 3.— Hurter, Compendium
Theol. Dogmat., t. II, thes. 117.— Kleutgen, Théologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 379 sqq., Münster 1867.— H. Schell,
Das Wirken des dreieinigen Gottes, Mainz 1885.— Petavius, De
Trinit., IV, 15.
11 Günther, Vorschule zur spekulativen Theotogie, 2nd ed., Vol. II, p.
369, Wien 1848.

CHAPTER III
THE UNITY OF MUTUAL INEXISTENCE, OR
PERICHORESIS

I. Definition of Perichoresis.—By the
Perichoresis of the Three Divine Persons we
mean their mutual Interpenetration and Inexist­
ence by virtue of their Consubstantiality, their
immanent Processions, and the divine Relations.
In Greek the technical term for this mutual Inexist­
ence is περιχώρησή, OF, Still more emphatically, σνμπεριχώρησις. The Latins call it circttmincessio, or, as the
later Scholastics wrote it, circuminsessio. Both the Greek
and the Latin terms designate exactly the same thing,
but they reflect somewhat different conceptions thereof.
“ While the Greeks conceived the [Divine] Processions
more after the manner of a temporal succession along
a straight line,” says Oswald,1 “ the [later] Latins pic­
tured it to themselves after the manner of juxtaposition
in space, as extension in a plain. . . . This is why the
Latins derived their technical term from circuminsidere,
i. e., to sit or dwell in one another, while the Greeks
got theirs from περιχωράν, which means to go or move
within one another.” We have already called attention
to a similar divergency in the formulas expressing the
Procession of the Holy Ghost, with regard to which the
1 Trinitatslehrc, p. 191, Paderborn 1888.

281

282

UNITY OF INEXISTENCE

Latins commonly say, ex Patre Filioque, while the Greeks
prefer ex Patre per Filium. Petavius was probably mis­
taken when he preferred the Greek and the early Scholas­
tic modes of expression to that of the later Schoolmen.
The Greek Fathers, besides περιχωράν ας άλληλους, also
employed the locution cv άλληλαις at ύποστάσ«ς ασίν.23
Suarez 8 and Ruiz 4 preferred to base Perichoresis on
the attribute of immensity rather than upon the unity
of the Divine Nature. Each of the Three Divine Per­
sons, argued these eminent theologians, must be where
the other Two are. It is true that the Three Divine
Persons together indwell in creatures not only by virtue
of Perichoresis, but likewise by omnipresence. But
omnipresence is so far from constituting the formal
essence of Perichoresis, that even a Tritheist could
without inconsistency teach the simultaneous pres­
ence . and indwelling of three Gods in a creature.
Christ clearly affirms the divine Perichoresis when He
says : “ I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.” 5
On the other hand, St. Paul’s famous dictum : “ In
him we live, and move, and are,” 6 merely asserts the
immensity of God, not the Trinitarian Perichoresis. For,
as Petavius rightly observes,7 “ though the mind abstract
entirely from the notion of place and location in space,
and regard solely the Divine Hypostases considered in
themselves and absolutely, Perichoresis and the mutual
inexistence of Person in Person will still be there ; be2 Cfr. loannes Damasc., De Fide
Orth., I, 8.
3 De Trinit., IV, 16, sub finem.
4 De Trinit., disp. 107, sect. 7.
5 John XIV, ii.
6 Acts XVII, 28.
7 De Trinit., IV, n. 5: ”Nam
etsi loci et ' ubi ' notio omnis ex­
cludatur animo, ac solae per se ab-

soluteque spectentur hypostases di­
vinae, nihilominus tamen ττ€ριχώ~
ρησις et mutua in seipsis existentia
personarum illic erit; quippe et una
posita poni necesse erit alteram, nec
a se invicem separari poterunt, et
altera intime coniuncta erit alteri
in eaque inerit et exist et,”

PROOF OF PERICHORESIS

283

cause if one be posited it will be necessary ,to posit the
other; they cannot be separated from one another, but
each will remain intimately united with each and all
three will mutually inexist.” Hence the Perichoresis
of the Blessed Trinity cannot be adequately explained
by the divine attribute of immensity.
If we compare Perichoresis with Consubstantiality
(ομοουσία, or better ταύτουσία), we find that the two no­
tions are related to each other as effect is related to
cause. The ontological reason for the mutual Inexist­
ence or Indwelling of the Three Divine Persons is
primarily their possession of one and the same Divine
Nature or Essence. “ Perichoresis in the Godhead orig­
inates in the unity of the Divine Essence/’ says Petavius,
. . and it consists in this, that one Person cannot be
divided or separated from another, but they mutually
exist in one another without confusion and without
detriment to the distinction between them.” 8 This does
not, of course, preclude the existence of other secondary
sources of Perichoresis, such as the Divine Processions
and Relations.

2. The Proof of Perichoresis.—The De­
cretum pro lacobitis (A. D. 1439) expressly
bases the Perichoresis of the Three Divine Per­
sons on identity of Essence. “Omnia [in Deo]
sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio.
Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Filio,
totus m Spintïi Sancto; Filius totus est in Patre,
8 “ Πφϊχώρησυ »» divinis ex
unitate essentiae oritur . . . ct in
eo consistit, quod dividi et separari
persona una non potest ab altera,

19

sed citra confusionem et servato
discrimine insunt in se invicem"
De Trinit., I. c.

284

UNITY OF INEXISTENCE

totus in Spiritu Sancto; Spiritus Sanctus totus
est in Patre, totus in Filio — All things in God
are one, except where there is opposition of Re­
lation. Because of this unity, the Father is
wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Ghost ;
the Son is wholly in the Father, and wholly in
the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is wholly
in the Father, and wholly in the Son.” 9 This
doctrine undoubtedly forms part of the deposit
of faith. St. Thomas demonstrates it by three
arguments, of Avhich one is based on the divine
ταΰτουσια, another on the origins, and a third on
the mutual Relations of the Divine Persons.
a) The first and main source of the Trinitarian
Perichoresis is the Consubstantiality of the Three
Persons, or their identity of Essence. Sufficient
Scriptural proof for this proposition, at least in
so far as it regards the First and Second Per­
sons of the Blessed Trinity, was adduced by St.
Athanasius, who from a well-known sermon of
Jesus 10 argues as follows: “For whereas the
countenance and Godhead of the Father is the
Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in
the Father and the Father in the Son. On this
account and reasonably, having said before, T
and the Father are one/ He added, T in the
Father and the Father in me/ by way of show9 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 703 sq.
10 Supra, pp. 265 sq.

PROOF OF PERICHORESIS

285

ing the identity of Godhead and the unity of
substance.” 11 That the Holy Ghost is included
in this Divine Company we know from 1 Cor.
II, 11 : “Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt
hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est?
Ita et quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit, nisi
Spiritus Dei (supply: qui in ipso est)— For what
man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit
of a man that is in him? So the things also
that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit
of God [that is in Him].” St. Athanasius prob­
ably found the bracketed clause, “qui in ipso est,”
in his Bible, for he treats it like a verbal quo­
tation.12
The intrinsic connexion between Trinitarian
Perichoresis and the Consubstantiality of the
Three Divine Persons is perhaps most effectively
brought out by those of the Fathers who em­
ployed Perichoresis as a popular and intelligible
middle term to demonstrate the essential identity
of Father and Son against the Arians.13
b) A secondary source of this mutual Immanence,
according to many Fathers, is the origin of the Three Di­
vine Persons from one another, i. e., the divine Proces­
sions by mode of Generation and Spiration. For inasmuch
as the Logos is begotten as the “ Divine Word ” of the
11 Contr. Arian., Or. 3, 3 (Migne,
P. G., XXVI, 327). Newman’s translation, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. I, p. 361.

12 E/>. ad Scrap., 3 (Migne, P. G.,
XXVI, 626).
13 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinit., IV,
16; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 107,
sect. 5.

286

UNITY OF INEXISTENCE

Father by the Father’s notional understanding, He is
necessarily immanent in the Father, as the internal
word or concept is immanent in the human intellect.
“Ex mente enim et in mentem,”14 says St. Cyril of
Alexandria,15 “verbum est semper, ideoque mens in
verbo.16 . . . Verbïim manet in mente generante et men­
tem generantem habet totaliter in se ... et oportet simul
existere cum Patre Filium et vicissim Patrem cum Filio
— For the word is always of the mind and in the mind,
and therefore the mind is in the word. . . . The word
remains in the mind in which it is conceived, and con­
tains that mind entirely within itself. ... So it behooves
the Son to exist simultaneously with the Father, and
the Father to exist simultaneously with the Son.” St.
Hilary expresses this truth more concisely thus : “ Deus
in Deo, quia ex Deo Deus est — God is in God, because
God is from God.” 17 The Holy Ghost, too, in conse­
quence of His Procession by way of mutual love, re­
poses deep down in the Principle which produces Him,
as love reposes in the heart of a lover. St. Ambrose aptly
observes: “Sicut Pater in Filio et Filius in Patre, ita
Dei Spiritus et Spiritus Christi et in Patre et in Filio,
quia oris [—halitus] est spiritus — As the Father is in
the Son, and the Son is in the Father, so the Spirit of God
and the Spirit of Christ is both in the Father and the Son,
because He is the spirit [a breath] of the mouth.” 18
There is Scriptural warrant for this mode of conceiving
the divine Perichoresis. Cfr. John I, i8: “Unigenitus,
qui est in sinu Patris — The only begotten Son who is
in the bosom of the Father.” The Greek original of
èic νοΰ καί els vovr,
15 De Trinit., Dial. 2
P. G., LXXV, 769).
ie Kai ό yoûs év λόγ«.

(Migne,

17 De Trinit., IV, io (Migne, P.
L., X, 126).
\3De Spiritu Sancto, III, 1.

PROOF OF PERICHORESIS

287

this passage implies a movement ad intra, which is not
fully brought out by either the Vulgate or the vernacular
version : —Ό μονογενές υιός ό ων (= περίχωρών) eis τον
κόλπον τον πατρός.
c) The third and last source of Perichoresis are the
Divine Relations, that is, the relative opposition of the
Three Divine Persons to one another. The Father can­
not be conceived without His Son, nor can the Son be
conceived without the Father, and the Holy Ghost is
altogether unthinkable without His common Spirators,
the Father and the Son. St. Basil, and especially the
Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675), particularly
emphasized this logical aspect of the divine Perichoresis.
“ Nec enim Pater absque Filio cognoscitur,” we read in
its decrees, “ nec sine Patre Filius invenitur; relatio
quippe ipsa vocabuli personalis personas separari vetat,
quas etiam, dum non simul nominat, simul insinuat.
Nemo autem audire potest zinumquodque istorum nomimim, in quo non intelligere cogatur et alterum — For
neither can the Father be known without the Son, nor
the Son be found without the Father; for the relation
indicated by the name of a person forbids us to separate
the persons who are intimated, though not expressly
named. And nobody can hear any one of these names
without perceiving therein one of the others.” 18 Per­
haps our Lord’s saying : “ He that seeth me seeth the
Father also. ... Do you not believe that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me?”20 — which Sabellius so
egregiously misunderstood — must be interpreted in the
light of these considerations, though both the context
and the construction put upon it by the Fathers make
19 Denzinger-Bannwart,
Enchiridion, η. 281.
20 John XIV, 9 sq. : "Philippe,

qui videt me, videt et Patrem. . . .
Non creditis, quia ego in Patre et
Pater in me est?”

288

UNITY OF INEXISTENCE

it more advisable to base the Perichoresis here expressed
by Jesus, upon the notion of Tautousia rather than upon
the divine Relations.21

3. Dogmatic Importance of the Doctrine
of the Perichoresis.—The doctrine of the
Trinitarian Perichoresis is of considerable dog­
matic importance, because it tersely and lumi­
nously expresses the two salient aspects of the
dogma of the Blessed Trinity, viz.: Trinitas in
Unitate and Unitas in Trinitate, thus equally dis­
countenancing the heresy of Monarchianism on
the one hand, and that of Tritheism on the other.
In matter of fact Perichoresis involves two im­
portant truths: (1) that there is a real distinc­
tion between the Three Divine Persons, and (2)
that the Divine Nature, or Essence, in spite of
the Hypostatic distinctions, is absolutely one.
Sabellius, by welding the Three Persons into
One, practically denied the dogma of mutual In­
existence, while the Tritheists, who imagined the
Divine Essence to consist of three Gods, found
themselves unable to admit a real indwelling of
the One in the Other.22
We shall meet with a similar phenomenon in
Christology, though the order is there reversed.
21 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Contr.
Arian., Or. 3, 3.
22 Cfr. St. Hilary, De Trinit., Ill,
4: ” Quod in Patre est, hoc et in
Filio est; quod in ingenito, hoc et

in unigenito; alter ab altero et
uterque unum; non duo unus, sed
alius in alio, quia non aliud in utroque.”

BEARING OF PERICHORESIS

289

The Perichoresis of the two Natures in Christ
can be conceived only in virtue of the Hypostatic
Union from which it springs. It postulates a
perfect and unalloyed duality together with ab­
solute oneness of Person and an indivisible unity
in spite of the Saviour’s twofold Nature. For
this very reason the doctrine of Perichoresis fur­
nishes a powerful weapon for the defence of the
faith against such extreme Christological heresies
as Nestorianism and Adoptianism on the one
hand, and Monophysitism and Monotheletism on
the other.
The doctrine of the Perichoresis fittingly con­
cludes the treatise on the Trinity, because it
represents the final upshot of the whole dis­
cussion and clearly and luminously brings out
both aspects of the dogma, viz.: the Trinitas in
Unitate and the Unitas in Trinitate. At the
same time it forms an invincible bulwark against
all Antitrinitarian heresies, guarding as it does
the Trinity of the Divine Persons against the
Monarchians and Unitarians, and the unity of
the Divine Nature against the various Tritheistic
sects.
Readings : — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §123, Freiburg
1873.— Oswald, Trinitàtslehre, §14, Paderborn 1888.— *
Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 14, Romae 1881.— Kleutgen, De Ipso
Deo, pp. 694 sqq., Ratisbonae 1881.— *Chr. Pesch, Praelect.
Dogmat., Vol. II, ed. 3a, pp. 339-343, Friburgi 1906.— St. Thomas,
3*. Theol., la, qu. 42, art. 5.— Petavius, De Trinit., IV, 16.

290

UNITY OF INEXISTENCE

On the practical and devotional value of the dogma of the
Divine Trinity cfr. F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 289 sqq.; Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 351
sqq.; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord, pp. 659 sqq.

INDEX
Ά
Abélard, 244.
Abraham, 20, 69.
Accident, 221.
Adoptive Sonship, 50 sq.
άγεννησία, 237.
άκολουθία κατά την τά&ν, m,
249.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexan­
dria, 153.
Alexander of Hales, 223.
Alexandria, Council of (A. D.
362), 227, 271.
Ambrose, St., 2, 156, 159, 206,
283..
Amphilochius, St., 155.
Analogues to show the like­
ness of the Trinity in the
created universe, 196 sqq.,
204.
Anathematisms of Pope St.
Damasus I, 166.
Angel of Jehovah, 12 sqq.
Angels, The, 57.
Angelus Domini, 13.
Annunciation, The, 23.
Anselm of Havelsburg, 180.
Anselm, St., 156, 230, 232.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Their
faith in the Trinity, 139
sqq. ; Vague expressions, 142
sqq. ; Some of doubtful or­
thodoxy, 149 sqq.
Antitrinitarianism, 3, 114 sqq.
Antitrinitarians, 48, 114 sqq.
άπνευστία, 242.
Apostles’ Creed, 119, 134.
Apparitio, 252.

Appropriatio, 244.
Appropriations, The Divine,
205, 244 sqq.
A quo alius et qui ab alio, 241.
Arius and Arianism, 18, 92, 123
sqq., 126, 153 sq., 201, 265,
270.
άρχη &vapxos, 184, l88, 205, 237,
246.
άρχη τη$ άρχης, 205, 237, 246.
Athanasian Creed, 2, 5, 129,
166, 171, 238 sq.
Athanasius, St., 14, 122, 152,
154, 158, 160, 182, 201, 227,
267, 270, 271, 273, 284, 285.
Athenagoras, 140.
" Auctorem fidei ” Bull, 262.
Augustine, St., 2, 11, 14, 27, 35,
69, 156, 159, 166, 178, 188,
196, 197, 203, 204, 207, 209,
215, 216, 246, 265, 270, 273,
277.

B
Bachiarius, 42.
Baptism of Christ, 24; In the
name of the Trinity, 26; In
Christ’s name alone, 78 sq.
Baptismal Form, Ί25 sq., 134.
Bardenhewer, O., 151, 156, 183.
Basil, St., 14, 155, 164, 182, 183,
203, 238, 272, 287.
Batiffol, 152.
Bede, St., 36.
Bellarmine, Card., 169.
Bernard, St., 206.
Bessarion, Card., 179, 184, 186.
Billuart, 215, 217, 239.

291

292

INDEX

Blasphemy, 108 sq.
Boëthius, 225.
Bryennios, Philoteus, 134.
C
Caiphas, 54.
Callistus, Pope, St., 151.
Caput Damnamus, 258.
Cassiodorus, 39.
Celsus, 200.
Chalcedon, Council of, 170.
Charlemagne, 171.
Christ, See Jesus Christ.
Christology, 288, 289.
Chrysostom, St. John, 14, 188,
267.
Circumincessio, 281.
Clement of Alexandria, 141,
M3Cologne, Provincial Council of
(A. D. i860), 196, 262.
Comma loanneum, The, 30 sqq.
Consciousness as a note of
Personality, 226.
Constantine Dragases, 173.
Constantinople, Councils of,
169, 183, 257; Conquest of,
173.
Consubstantiality of the Three
Divine Persons, 255 sqq.
Cousin, 226.
Credere alicui — credere in ali­
quem, 75 sq.
Cudworth, 269.
“ Cum quorundam,” Apostolic
Constitution, 119.
Cyprian, St., 36 sq., 38.
Cyril of Alexandria, St., 2, 11,
14, 186, 278, 286.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 279.

D
Damascene, See John Damas­
cene.
Damasus, Pope, 36, 127, 129,
166.
David, 20.
Decretum pro lacobitis, 229.
232, 276, 283.

Demiurge, 152, 247.
Deus de Deo, 158.
Didache, 134, 150.
Didymus the Blind, 2, 155 sq.,
185.
Dionysius, Pope, 122, 142, 257.
Dionysius the Great, of Alex­
andria, 121, 122, 257.
Ditheism, 117, 122, 151, 272.
Divinity of Christ, 63 sqq.
Docetism, 140.
Donum Dei, 208, 246.
Doxologies, The Trinity in the
ancient Christian, 135 sq. ;
Rom. ix, 5, 85.
Duns Scotus, 189, 190, 214 sq.,
239, 261.
Durandus, 261.
Dyotheletism, 280.
E
EZs το 'όνομα, 26, 78, 134.
όκπόρευσις, 168.
έκτισε, 157.
έκ τοϋ πατρός, J2Ô.
èv όνόματι, 20, 78.
Epiphanius, St., 185.
Epipodius, St., 137.
Epistles, The Trinity in the, 28
sqqEpistzda ad Flavianum, 36.
Έττί τω όνόματι, 26, 7&
Eunomians, 146, 270.
Euplus, St., 138.
Eusebius, 14.

F
Facundus of Hermiane, 37.
Father, God the, 44 sqq.
Fatherhood, God’s, 44, 180, 232.
Faydit, 269.
Fecundity of the Divine In­
tellect, 204.
Filiatio adoptiva, 50.
Filioque, 128, 169, 170 sqq.
Filius Dei, 51.
Florence, Council of, 172, 183,
184, 186, 189, 229, 230, 231.
Forma servi — forma Dei, 62.

INDEX
Franks, The, 171.
Franzelin, Card., r 40, 87, 144.
Fulgentius, St. (of Ruspe), 38,
176.
Fundamental Law of the Trin­
ity, 230 sqq.
Funk, F. X., 134, 150.

G
Galilei, Galileo, 33.
Geissel, Card., 262.
γβ'ρητοί VS. yévvT]Tos, 124, 237.
Generation, Of the Son by the
Father, 162 sqq.; By mode
of understanding, 202; Dif­
ference between G. and Spi­
ration, 209 sqq. ; Definition of
term, 210; Active and pas­
sive, 228.
'ycppijats, The Divine, 72; Was
it “ voluntary ” ? 146 ; yevvyais
and 7€ρησυ, 148; Only true
generation in the strict sense,
162 sq. ; A purely intellectual
process, 167, 202 sqq.
Ghost, Holy, See Holy Ghost.
Gloria Patri, The, 136.
Gospels, The Trinity in the,
23 sqq.
Goths, The, 170.
Greek Schism, Heresy of the,
168 sqq., 235.
Gregory of Nazianzus, 155, 158,
183, 203, 272.
Gregory of Nyssa, 155, 184,
273 sq.
Gregory of Valentia, 214.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pri­
vate symbolum of, 2, 135,
152.
Gregory the Great, 14.
Grotius, Hugo, 51.
Giinther, Anton, 3, 198, 226,
244, 256, 262, 279, 280.

H
Hadrian I, 172.
Halitus Dei, 206.

293

Harnack, Adolph, 4, 201, 269.
Hegel, 3, 198.
Hermas, 150 sq.
Hilary, St., 2, 14, 165, 187, 286.
Hippolytus, St., 117, 121, 148,
151·
Holy Ghost, The, In the Ο. T.,
18 sqq. ; In the N. T., 96 sqq. ;
The Paraclete, 99 sqq.; Hy­
postatic Difference between
Him and the Father and the
Son, 101 sqq. ; Immanent ori­
gin of the, 103 ; Divinity of
the, 104 sq. ; Divine Attri­
butes ascribed to Him in S.
Scripture, 105 sqq.; Entitled
to Divine worship, 108 sq. ;
The Name “God’ applied to
Him, 109 sqq. ; Procession of
the, from the Father and
the Son, 168 sqq. ; “ Oscu­
lum Patris et Filii,” 206; Do­
num Dei, 208; Infecundity
of, 242.
Holy Office, Congr. of the, On
the Comma loanneum, 32
sq. ; Binding force of its de­
cisions, 33.
Hormisdas, Pope, 171.
Hunneric, King, 38.
Hurter, H. (S. J.), 87.
Hypostasis, 122, 220 sqq., 227.
Hypostatic Love, 207.

I
’Ιδιώματα, 236.
Ignatius of Antioch, St., 140.
Imago SS. Trinitatis, 196.
Incarnation, The, 20, 250.
Indemonstrability of the mys­
tery of the Trinity, 194 sqq.
Indwelling, 252.
Infecundity of the Holy Ghost,
242.
Innascibility, 237.
In nomine, 26 sq.
Inspirabilitas, 242.
Irenaeus, St., 140, 143, 148.
Isaias, 15, 20.

INDEX

294

J
Jehovah, ii.
Jerome, St., 14, 36, 39, 152, 185,
195, 206.
Jesus Christ, Baptism of, 24;
Discourse at the last Supper,
24, 102 sq. ; The Son of God,
49 sqq·, His Divine Sonship, 49 sqq. ; His Primo­
geniture, 60 sq. ; His Consubstantiality with God, 61
sq.; His Divinity, 63 sqq.;
Divine attributes of, 63 sqq.;
His title to divine honors, 73
sqq.; Baptism in His name,
78 sq. ; Expressly called
“ God ” in S. Scripture, 79
sqq.
Joachim of Flora, 39, 256, 258.
John Damascene, St., 188, 225.
John, St. (the Evangelist), 18,
31, 56 sq. ; 88 sqq.
John the Baptist, 101 sq.
Justin I, Emperor, 171.
Justin Martyr, St., 143, 144.

K
Kabbalism, 199.
Kleutgen, Jos. (S. J.), 40, 198.
Kruger, 4.
κτίξειυ, 158.
κτίσμα τοϋ θεού, 152, Ι57·
Künstle, Karl, 41.

L
Lateran Council (of 649), 2;
(of 1215), 41, 172, 256, 258,
275Leo the Great, 36.
Leo XIII, 199.
Libri XII de Trinitate, 273.
Locke, John, 226.
Logos, The, In the Ο. T. the­
ophanies, 14; St. John’s
teaching on 59, 88 sqq.; The
Monarchians on the, 116 sq. ;
Arian teaching on the, 124;
Endiathetic and Prophoric,

147; Definition of the term,
202.
Λόγοί
Ενδιάθετος — προφορικός,
147.
Loisy, Alfred, 34, 52.
Lully, Raymond, 198, 279..
Lyons, Ecumenical Council of
(A. D. 1274), 172, 231.
M

Macedonians, 123, 159, 169,
213.
Macedonius, 124 sq., 154 sq.
Malchion of Antioch, 118 sq.
Manifestations of the Trinity,
Outward, 247.
Mark of Ephesus, 172.
Martin I, 2, 275.
Martyrs, Their profession of
the Trinity, 137 sqq.
Mastrofini, Marcus, 198.
Maternity, Why there is none
in the Godhead, 166 sq.
Melchisedechians, 116.
Memrah, 18.
Mercury Trismegistus, 199.
Messianic Psalms, 15 sq.
Messias, The future, as true
God, 15 sq., 52. _
μια ουσία και τρεις υποστάσεις,
227, 271 sq.
Michael, Archangel, 151.
Michael Caerularius, 170.
Milton, 147.
Missio, 175.
.
Missions, The Divine, 175, 176,
248 sqq.
Modalism, Sabellian, 120 sqq.,
151.
Molina, 239.
Monarchianism, 115 sqq· î Dynamistic, 116 sq. ; Patripassian,
117 sq., 229.
μονογενής, 6θ.
Monophysitism, 255, 256.
Monotheism, 264 sq.
Monotheletism, 275.
μορφή δούλου, 62.
Moses, 20, 58.

INDEX
Mystery, The Blessed Trinity
a, 194 sqq.
N
Names, Substantive, of God,
245.
Nature, 221.
Nestorians, 169.
Nicæa, Council of, 132, 269,
270.
Nicene Creed, 125 sq., 129, 169,
170.
Noëtus, 117 sq., 119, 151.
Notions, The Divine, 240 sqq.
Novatian, 145, 152, 187.

0
'Ομοουσ/α, 59, in, 212, 270, 272,
283.
όμοοΰσιος τω πατρί, 22, 122 sq.,
126, 269, 271.
Oppositio relationis, 230 sq.
Ordo subsistendi, ni.
Organic Conception of the
Trinity, 187.
Origen, 11, 132, 151 sq.
Osculum Patris et Filii, 206.
Oswald, J. H., 258, 281,
ουσία, 22, 122, 221 sq.

P
Pan-Christism, Priscillian’s,
42.
παντοκράτωρ, Christ the, 68.
Paraclete, The, 99 sqq.
παράκλητος, 99 sq.
πάσχειν, 228.
Paternity, See Fatherhood.
Patripassian Monarchianism,
117 sqq.
Paul, St., Epilogue to the Sec­
ond Epistle to the Corin­
thians, 29; His teaching on
the spiritual gifts and charis­
mata, 29 sq. ; On Christ’s Di­
vine Sonship, 56 sq. ; On the
Primogeniture of Christ, 60
sq. ; His distinction between
forma servi and forma Dei,
62; Meets the disciples of

295

John the Baptist at Ephesus,
101 sq. ; On the outward
manifestations of the Trin­
ity, 247; On the Trinitarian
Perichoresis, 282.
Paul of Samosata, 116, 118 sq.,
135.
Paul V, 119.
Perichoresis, 240, 268, 281 sqq.
Person, Definition of, 224, 226.
Personal Conception of the
Trinity, 187.
Personality, God’s threefold,
Proved from S. Scripture, 10
sqq. ; Foreshadowed in the
O. T., ii sqq.; Taught in the
N. T., 22 sqq. ; In the Gos­
pels, 23 sqq.; In the Epistles,
28 sqq.
Peshitta, The Syriac, 164.
Petavius, 86, 143, 149, 169, 278,
282.
Peter, St., Prologue to the
First Epistle of, 28; His pro­
fession of faith in Christ’s
divine Sonship, 53.
Peter Lombard, 156, 256.
Philo, 147, 199.
Philoponus, John, 255, 256.
Philosophoumena, 117, 121.
Philosophy and the dogma of
the Trinity, 199 sqq.
Photinus of Sirmium, 117.
Photius, 168, 169, 179.
Pistoia, Council of, 262.
Pius VI, 262.
Pius IX, 199, 262.
πνεύμα, το ayiov, 98.
Pneumatomachians, 123, 125.
πνεύσε, i68.
ποίημα, 122, 128.
Polycarp, St., 137.
Possibles, God’s love for the,
218.
Praxeas, 118, 119.
Primogeniture of Christ, 60 sq.
Priscillian, 38, 41.
Procession, Defined, 161 ; Of
the Son from the Father, 162
sqq.; St. Augustine’s com­
parison of the Divine Pro­

INDEX

296

cessions with human selfknowledge and self-love, 197,
204; They are purely spir­
itual and immanent vital
processes, 203 sq.
Properties, The Trinitarian,
236 sqq.
πρόσωπον, J20 sq., 225.
Protestantism no longer holds
the Christian idea of the
Trinity, 2.
πρωτότοκος, 6o.
Psalms, Messianic, 15 sq.
Puteanus, 215.
R
Rationalistic Distortions of
the dogma of the Trinity, 3,
199.
Reason, The dogma of the
Trinity in its relation to, 194
sqq.
Reccared, King, 170.
Relationes Personificce, 232 sqq.
Relations, The Divine, 220 sqq.,
228 sqq., 287.
Rosmini, A., 198 sq.
Ruiz, 198, 282.

Shepherd of Hermas, 150 sq.
Sixtus V, 36.
Socinians, 3.
Son of God, Uses of the term,
49 sqq. ; Consubstantial with
God, 61 sqq.
Son, God the, 49 sqq.
Sonship, Christ’s Divine, 46, 49
sqq.
Sophronius, St., 257.
Speculative Problems, 213 sqq.
Spiration, 187, 205 sqq., 209
sqq., 228, 234.
Spirator, Objective character
of the, 234.
Spiritus, 97, 174, 206.
Spiritus Dei, 19, 97, 174.
Spiritus Filii, 174, 175.
Strauss, David F., 200.
Stürmer, Pl. (O. S. B.), 269.
Suarez, 217, 250, 282.
Subordinationism, 123 sqq.
Substance, 220.
Succession, Temporal, vs. suc­
cession as to origin, 217.
Summa res, 258.
Suppositum, 224 sq.

T

S
SaBELLIUS, 120, I2I, I5I, 225,
229, 265, 270, 272.
Sabinus of Heraclea, 269.
St. Victor, Richard of, 198.
Sanctification, 251.
Sanctity, Divine, 207.
Sapiential Books of the Ο. T.,
Traces of the Trinity in, 16
sqq.
Schafer, Al., 37, 40.
σχέσεΐΐ, 228.
Scheeben, Jos., 187.
Schepps, G., 35.
Schleiermacher on the Trinity,
4·
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 2co.
Seleucia, Council of (A. D.
410). 171.
Semi-Arianism, 124.

ταύτονσία, 259, 200, 270, 272,
274, 283, 284, 288.
Terminology, Difficulties of
forming a theological, 227.
Tertullian, 1, 37, 39, 119, 141,
143, 146, 148, 187.
Tetragrammaton, The, 79.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 169.
Theodoret, 169.
Theodotus of Byzantium, 116,
118, 151.
Theodotus the Younger (the
Money-changer), 116.
‘‘Théologie der J/orzeit,” 198.
Theophanies, The Ο. T., 12
sqq., 250.
Theophilus, St., 1, 148.
Thomas (the Apostle), 82.
Thomas Aquinas, St., 156, 188,
189, 194, 208, 212, 215, 216,

INDEX
220, 239, 24O, 24I, 244, 25I,
261, 284.
Thomists, 215.
Toledo, 3rd Council of, 170;
nth Council of, 5, 207, 238,
251, 287; Synod of (A. D.
447), 171.
Totietas in se, 223.
rpias, 22.
τριά.3 τελεία, 2.
Tridentine Decree “De Cano­
nicis Scripturis” and the
Comma loanneum, 40.
Trinitas, Term, first used by
Theophilus and Tertullian,
I ; Adopted by the Church,
22.
Trinity, Chief points of the
dogma of the Divine, 6; The
dogma foreshadowed in the
O. T., ii sqq.; but not clearly
revealed, 20; Clearly taught
in the N. T., 22 sqq.; In the
Gospels, 23 sqq. ; In the Epis­
tles, 28 sqq.; New Testament
texts treating of the Divine
Persons severally, 43 sqq.;
The Trinity in Tradition, 113
sqq. ; Formulation of the
dogma, 129; Positive Tradi­
tion of the first four centu­
ries, 132 sqq.; The Trinity
in the liturgy of the Church,
133 sq. ; In the Doxologies,
135 sq. ; In the Confessions
of the Martyrs, 137 sqq.; In
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 139
sqq. ; In the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, 153 sqq.;
The Principle of the, 161
sqq. ; Procession of the Son,
162 sqq. ; Procession of the
Holy Ghost, 168 sqq. ; Spec­
ulative theological develop­
ment of the dogma of the

297

Trinity, 192 sqq.; The dogma
in its relation to reason, 194
sqq. ; Christian concept of the
Trinity as opposed to the socalled ethnic trinities, 199 ;
Consubstantiality of
the
Three Divine Persons, 255
sqq. ; Oneness of their ex­
ternal operation, 275 sqq.
Trisagion of Isaias, 12.
Tritheism, 255 sqq., 272.
Triunity, 2.
Turrianus, 215.

U
Una natura et tres personae,
227.
Unigenitus, 60.
Unitarianism, 3, 119.

V
Vasquez, 215.
Vaughan, Card., 41.
Verbum Dei, See Acryos.
Vestigia SS. Trinitatis, 196.
Vigilius of Tapsus, 42, 273.
Vincent, Deacon, 138.
Vincenzi, 152.
Vulgate, The Latin, 31, 36, 40,
41.

W
Ward, Wilfrid, 41.
Weyman, 152.
Wisdom, Begotten, 16 sq.
Witnesses, The three heavenly,
31 sqq.
Worship of the Trinity, 247
sq.
Z
Zephyrin, Pope, 121.

-------

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT

This book is under no circumstances to be
taken from the Building

.’1