"I give theft Booki,. fen thefiiuinttixg of a; College av this Colony"] 'Yi&LE«¥iMflVEIlSSirirY« • uiBiK^israr • Bought with the income of the Ann S. Farnam Fund 1KB ADVERTISEMENT This series of ten volumes, each complete in itself, is designed to constitute a connected treat ment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. I. Introduction. (1907.) II. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical. (1908.) HI. The Being and Attributes or God. (1909.) IV. The Trinity. (1910.) V. Creation and Man. (1912.) VI. The Incarnation. (1915.) VII. The Passion and Exaltation of Christ. (1918.) VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. IX. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology: Indexes. It is hoped that the remaining volumes will be published at intervals of about eighteen months. THE TRINITY 38p t&e Same Author Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: crown 8vo. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical: crown 8vo. The Being and Attributes of God: crown Svo. The Trinity : crown 8vo. Creation and Man : crown 8vo. The Incarnation : crown 8vo. The Kenotic Theory : Considered with particular refer ence to its Anglican forms and arguments; crown 8vo. Evolution and the Fall: Bishop Paddock Lectures, 1909-1910; crown 8vo. Theological Outlines — Three Volumes, i2mo. Vol. I. The Doctrine of God Vol. II. The Doctrine of Man and the God-Man Vol. in. The Doctrine of the Church and of Last Things The Historical Position of the Episcopal Church : i2mo, paper covers. The Bible and Modern Criticism: i2mo, paper covers. THE TRINITY BY THE Rev. FRANCIS J. HALL, D.D. PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK CITY NEW IMPRESSION > LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. FOURTH AVENUE &* 30™ STREET, NEW YORK 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 1918 Copyright, 1910 BY LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. First Edition, November, 1910 Reprinted, April, 1918 DeHicatett TO THE BLESSED MEMORY or SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO WHOSE "DE TEINITATE" CAN NEVER CEASE TO BE HELPFUL TO THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS PREFACE No one can seriously and intelligently investigate the contents and implications of the doctrine of the Trinity without becoming convinced that it consti tutes the most fundamental and significant of Chris tian doctrines. It is presupposed in, and determines the fundamental meaning of, all Christian doctrine and practice; and upon its truth the validity of the Christian system, both in its theoretical and in its practical aspects, absolutely depends. To suppose that one can understand Christianity without care fully reckoning with the doctrine in question is obviously to adopt an unintelligent position. This being so, the neglect into which systematic treatment of trinitarian doctrine has fallen during the past century appears most lamentable. The reasons for this neglect are not far to seek, and need not be here discussed. It is clear, however, that so long as this neglect continues, the tendency to regard Christian doctrines as so many independent and abstract propositions requiring separate vindication will hamper Christian apologists, belief in the super natural will be robbed of a primary basis, and both the warrant for and the significance of Christian ideals and practices will suffer obscuration. The one-sided emphasis upon purely humanitarian ideas and ideals ix X PREFACE which characterizes much contemporary thought and endeavour is an inevitable result of relegating trini- tarian conceptions to the limbo of non-significant speculation, having no determinative bearing on practical religion and duty. Happily, signs have appeared in recent years of more vital interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. R. L. Ottley's The Doctrine of the Incarnation, J. R. Illingworth's Personality Human and Divine, and the same writer's The Doctrine of the Trinity Apologeti cally Considered, afford evidences of this. Perhaps the chief cause of this revived interest is the impor tance which agnostic attacks and recent psychological investigations have given in contemporary thought to the problem of personality. It is coming to be realized more widely that not only does the validity and vital significance of Christianity and its dis tinctive ideals depend upon trinitarian doctrine, but the trinitarian hypothesis is needed to-day for vin dicating and vitalizing belief in a personal God. The fact remains that, in Anglican literature of recent generations, no comprehensive and systematic treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity exists. This fact imparts a pioneer quality to the writer's under taking, and has made his task peculiarly difficult. His purpose requires a comprehensive and systematic treatment of the subject, and faithful adherence to catholic doctrine and to the ecclesiastical terms in which it has been embodied. Yet it is also necessary that he should make the doctrine intelligible to a PREFACE 2d generation to which traditional terms, and the forms of thought which explain them, have become remote and to some extent misleading. To do all this in one brief volume requires severe condensation; and although the writer has endeavoured to write as clearly as possible, he is conscious of dependence upon the reader's charity and patience. The reader will, however, misconceive the writer's aim, and perhaps unjustly criticize his method, if he fails to note that this is a treatise of dogmatic rather than apologetical theology. The presence in it of apologetical material is due to the necessity above referred to of reaching the intelligence of an age which has become habituated to forms of thought and expression which make the traditional terms of trinitarian theology appear remote and difficult. But the purpose of this book is systematic and expository, although the conditions under which it is written have required and justify the incorporation of apologetical matter. CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Part I. Importance of the Subject PAGE § i. Determines all Christian doctrines and ideals of life i § 2. Fundamental in scientific theology 3 § 3. Objections: (a) Abstract and technical nature of the trinitarian dogma 5 § 4. (b) Religion not a matter of intellect .... 8 § 5. (c) God unknowable 9 § 6. (d) Ritschlianism and pragmatism 11 § 7. (e) Dogma too precise 13 Part II. Catholic Doctrine Defined § 8. Five particulars 15 § 9. Ecclesiastical statements 18 § 10. Errors 22 § 11. Literature 27 CHAPTER H REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE Part I. In Nature and Reason § 1. Not directly revealed by the visible order . . 30 § 2. Ethnic trinities • • • 31 xiii XIV CONTENTS PAGE § 3. Once revealed, the doctrine harmonizes with reason 35 Part H. Supernatural Revelation § 4. Rule of faith 36 § 5. Scripture records a progressive revelation ... 37 § 6. Primitive knowledge of God 38 § 7. Stages : (a) Divine unity first emphasized ... 39 § 8. (6) With hints of internal distinction of Persons . 40 § 9. Effect on Jewish speculation 44 § 10. (c) Revelation of the second Person .... 47 § 11. (d) Revelation of the third Person 47 § 12. (e) The Apostles guided to combine these par ticulars 48 CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS Part I. Ante-Nicene Period § 1. Transition from experience to speculation and definition 50 § 2. Second-century heresies 53 § 3. Logos speculation 58 § 4. The Monarchia. Psilanthropism .... 63 § 5. Patripassianism and Sabellianism 64 § 6. Tertullian. Substantia and Persona .... 65 § 7. Development of the terms otola and {nriaraau . 67 § 8. Origen and the schools of Alexandria and Antioch 70 § 9. Paul of Samosata and the bfimiaun 74 Part II. Nicene Period § 10. , Origen and logic of Arianism ^76 § n. Nicene decision and subsequent conflict . . . | 81 § 12. Circumcession and subordination / 86 CONTENTS xv PAGE §' 13. The Holy Spirit. Macedonian controversy . . 88 § 14. Thefilioque 02 § 15. Nestorian, monophysite, and monothelite contro versies, and the distinction between inrbo-rains and <"IK 97 § 16. Patristic terms crystallized 99 CHAPTER IV BIBLICAL INDUCTION Part I. Introduction § 1. Method and presupposition 102 § 2. Initial objection — that one God cannot exist in plurality of persons .... 103 § 3. The New Testament teaches plurality in God . 106 Part H. Old Testament Implications § 4. (a) The plural name, Elohim 107 § 5. (b) Plural pronouns 109 § 6. (c) Hints of threefoldness in God 113 § 7. {d) Messianic prophecies . .... . 115 § 8. (e) Old Testament references to the Spirit . . 120 Part HI. New Testament Teaching § 9. What is implicit in the Old is explicit in the New Testament 121 § 10. (a) Divine operations and attributes ascribed to Christ 122 § n. (b) And divine titles 124 § 12. (c) Christ's claims and the dilemma involved . 125 § 13. (d) Christ's teaching as to the Holy Spirit . . 130 § 14. (e) Confirmed by other New Testament teaching 132 § 15. (/) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are revealed as mutually coinherent 134 xvi CONTENTS PAGE § 16. (g) And as related in eternal procession from the Father 137 § 17. Conclusion 140 CHAPTER V DIFFICULTIES Part I. Biblical § 1. Difficulties partly biblical and partly rational . . 142 § 2. Christ's human Hmitations 143 § 3. Subordination texts 147 § 4. The Son and the Spirit sent by, and obedient to, the Father 148 § 5. Miscellaneous texts 150 § 6. Summing up 155 Part II. Rational § 7. Due to attempts to solve insoluble problems . . 156 § 8. (a) The doctrine said to be unintelligible, unrelated to experience 160 § 9. (b) And self-contradictory 163 § 10. Alleged requirement of plural being for plural personality t.66 § 11. (c) Arian syllogism i6g § 12. {d) A derived Person not self -existent .... 170 § 13. (e) How can a man be very God? 171 CHAPTER VI PERSONALITY AND RELATED TERMS Part I. In Traditional Theology § 1. The meaning of theological terms determined by their theological use z.» CONTENTS xvii PAGE § 2. Various uses of "person" 176 § 3. Its use by Tertullian and St. Augustine . . . 176 § 4. Eastern usage 178 § 5. Scholastic usage 181 § 6. Person in theology means self 182 § 7. The term "nature" 186 Part H. In Modern Thought § 8. Changes of terminology cause difficulty . . . 187 § 9. This calls for explanation of catholic terms, not their abandonment 191 § 10. Contributions of modern psychology .... 193 § 11. Divine personahty alone complete 197 Part III. Terms Defined § 12. Those related to personality 202 § 13. Other terms 208 CHAPTER VII THE DIVINE PERSONS Part I . Reason and Analogy § 1. Resume and introduction 211 § 2. Threefold personahty of God not demonstrable but rationally credible 212 Part II. Divine Processions and Relations § 3. Doctrine of processions 217 § 4. Notions, relations, and properties 221 § 5. Generation of the Son 223 § 6. Its uniqueness 228 § 7. Procession of the Spirit 230 xviii CONTENTS Part III. Divine Monarchy PAGE § 8. Doctrine of subordination 237 § 9. Its history and value 242 § 10. Doctrine of circumcession 243 § 11. Its implications and value 248 CHAPTER VTH THE ECONOMIC TRINITY Part I. In General § 1. Divine economies 250 § 2. The term "economy" 252 § 3. Appropriations 254 J 4. Divine missions 258 Part H. The Persons Described § 5. The Father 263 § 6. The Son 266 § 7. The Holy Spirit . . . ., 271 Part III. Analogies and Illustrations § 8. Revelation by analogy .... . 276 § 9. Extra-scriptural illustrations 279 § 10. Use and abuse of illustrations 284 CHAPTER IX PRACTICAL VALUE Part I. Practical Aim of Revelation § 1. Doctrine necessarily practical, if inteUigible . . 289 § 2. Divine revelation necessarily practical . . . 291 § 3. Similarly its dogmatic definition 293 CONTENTS xix PAGE § 4. The interests of vital religion involved . . . 296 § 5. The doctrine of the Trinity, being central, espe cially valuable 298 Part II. For Other Christian Beliefs § 6. Belief in God 299 § 7. Belief in Christ 303 § 8. Belief in the Atonement 305 Part IH. For Guidance of Life § 9. Determining duty and ideals 307 § 10. In relation to sin 310 § 11. The spiritual life 312 THE TRINITY CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. Importance of the Subject § i. The subject of which we treat in this volume is the doctrme of the Trinity — the doctrme that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the sub stance. 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. This doctrine is simple, in so far as its determinative affir mations — that each of three distinct Persons is truly God, and yet that there is but one God — can be severally understood and correctly received by humble understandings. But it is the profoundest of all doctrines, because it combines in one view propositions which concern the foundations of truth, and of which our knowledge is too incipient to afford adequate data for explaining their harmony. Yet we have sufficient reasons for believing that their appearance of mutual opposition is due to the limita- 2 INTRODUCTION tions of our understanding — not to any real contra diction between them.1 Those who do not sufficiently examine into the relation of this doctrine to other truths, and into its practical bearings and consequences, are apt to regard it as wholly abstract and barren of interest. But an adequate consideration of its theoretical and practical connections and implications justifies the conviction that the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretative principle of all Christian doctrine, the ultimate basis of Christian ideals and hopes, and the most vital and inspiring of all the truths which human minds can contemplate.2 It is either an agnostic attitude towards divine self-manifestation or a failure to go beneath the technical surface of theological propositions that accounts for the wide-spread lack of interest in this fundamental doctrine, and for the impoverished spiritual vision which this lack of interest explains.3 The doctrine of the Trinity must occupy the central place in any sound or adequate conception of spiritual realities. It constitutes the postulate of the doctrines of the Incarnation,4 of the Atonement,6 of the Church, 1 We discuss the intelligibility and self-consistency of the doctrine of the Trinity in ch. v. §§ 7-10, below. , * The practical bearing and value of the doctrine is considered in ch. ix, below. * Cf. ch. ix. § 11, below, for further discussion of the existing indifference to spiritual truths and interests. • Cf. ch. ix. § 7, below. • Ibid., §8. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 3 of justification and salvation, and of the coming kingdom of God. If it were shown to be false, these doctrines would have to be modified beyond recogni tion, and Christianity would become something quite other than it actually is. Its faith would become no one can imagine what; its institutions would be robbed of their divine sanction and meaning; its worship would suffer condemnation as hopelessly polytheistic; its ideals and hopes would be stultified; and the whole face of the spiritual world would be altered. All this being so, the contention that no one can claim to understand Christianity and its practical consequences who disparages, or neglects to reckon with, the doctrine of the Trinity is an obvious truism. § 2. That a doctrine which is so fundamental and so determinative of religious belief and life ought to be given a primary place in theological science is very evident. Its affirmations constitute the fundamental premises of true thinking concerning the subject matters of theology; and the possibility of success fully developing theological science depends upon an adequate study of the content and implications of the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who have undertaken such study learn that the scientific claim of theology, and even the claim to possess any true knowledge of God and of the meaning of the universe,1 depend upon the fact that this doctrine constitutes the first of all truths, the justification of all Christian beliefs, and the basis of any sound philosophy of being 1 Ibid., $ 6. 4 INTRODUCTION and life.1 To disparage its adequate study and scien tific exposition is in effect to surrender the task of science in general; which is to co-ordinate human knowledge, and to exhibit its contents in their mutual connections, as constituting a coherent Unity of reality and truth. The only possible justification for in difference concerning this subject among those who profess to believe in God, and who seek to become intelligent thinkers, is the agnostic doctrine that God is wholly unknowable; and that His self -mani festation, as recorded in the Scriptures, possesses no validity for human intelligence.2 That this is so cannot rationally be denied by those who take pains to consider what has been said. To suppose that a system of education can be called adequate or " liberal " which renounces, as unimportant, the task of assimi lating the knowledge which is needed for unifying all other knowledge is to suppose something contrary to sound reason.3 The self-manifestation of God is an unveiling of the deepest meaning of the universe; and it makes known to us an ever blessed Trinity, whose tri-personal relations to created things con stitute the fundamental data of a final philosophy of 1 God is the Creator and immanent Governor of the universe, so that His nature and purposes afford the clue to the meaning of its phenomena. If our doctrine is true; however, a knowledge of it is essential for such understanding of the nature and purposes of God as we are capable of obtaining. 2 On "Theological Agnosticism," see Being and Attributes of Cod ch. ii. * Cf. Introd. to Dogmatic TheoL, ch. i. §§ 3, 4, 26, 27-33. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 5 the evolving universe. One who does not believe in the truth of Christian doctrine will, of course, deny that such a view is correct; but for a Christian be liever to do so, and to disparage the vital importance for adequate knowledge of a careful study of the doctrine of the Trinity, is either to betray a thought less mind or to display unintelligence. § 3. In saying this certain well-known objections to the technicalities of the doctrine in question are not forgotten. (a) It is urged, for instance, that the dogmatic form of ecclesiastical teaching on the subject, and the abstract technicalities of theological exposition, give a different impression to the mind from that produced by the teaching of Christ and His apostles upon which they are claimed to be based.1 That teaching was not technical, and had religious rather than scientific ends in view. The importance of getting back to the simple and practical lines of New Testa ment teaching is insisted upon, often with a sincere piety that demands our respect, although its logic is somewhat fallacious. That the truths with which the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned are in their several particulars capable of simple expression, and when rightly received *Many have urged this: e.g. Edwin Hatch, in the commencement of his Hibbert Lectures, Influence of Greek Ideas. W. Sanday, in Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Jesus Christ," p. 649, shows that the process of defining began in New Testament days, and that subse quent theology was faithful to the original data. Cf. Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, ch. iv. § 3, where other references are given. 6 INTRODUCTION are in their simplest forms possessed of their full religious value, cannot be denied.1 But, as has already been noted, these truths have aspects, and raise prob lems, which are exceedingly profound and baffling to those who endeavour to assimilate them intelligently; and an intelligent faith is necessary for the vitality of religion among the intelligent. Such truths are certain to be reflected upon, and reflection causes troublesome questions to emerge. Difficulties arise, which in some quarters bring confusion of mind and the adoption of errors which, if they prevail, must subvert the faith of the Gospel and undermine true religion. Accurate definition becomes indispensable if truth is to be preserved for future generations, and upon such preservation the continuance of the religion of Christ and His apostles depends. The age in which religion can live without definitions, without a techni cal theology for the explication and preservation of its fundamental and justifying postulates, must for ever come to an end so soon as it becomes the subject- matter of intelligent scrutiny, of rationalistic attack, and of heretical perversion. The development of thought can no more be reversed in religion than in other departments of living interest; and the consequence of such develop ment is that the continued religious vitality and value of New Testament teaching depend upon its being 1 That they are readily apprehended in both matter and evidence, see Dan. Waterland, Importance of the Doc. of Trin. (,Works, ed. by Van Mildert), ch. i. pp. 405-416. __ _.. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 7 exhibited in the terms of later thought. A truth which does not gain definitive and more or less techni cal expression with the progress of human thinking is necessarily one that has ceased to engage intelligent interest in any form. As has been stated, the doctrine of the Trinity, if true, has important significance in general human knowledge. It affords fundamental data for philosophy, and inevitably becomes the subject-matter of philosophical treatment and apolo getical discussion. The consequence is that it has to be carefully defined, and in terms of higher thought. We may be tempted at times to regret our loss of the trustful simplicity of childhood; but if we are to grapple with our appointed vocations in life, childish simplicity must develop into mature reflection. The implicit beliefs of early ages must become the explicit concepts of advancing intelligence, and must be defined in its terms, or else cease to have even the practical and non-scientific value for life that they originally possessed. To object to technical defini tions of religious truths is equivalent to maintaining that religion is most vital when least intelligent. And this sufficiently answers every objection based upon grounds of sentimental reverence. Rehgious reverence depends for its continuance upon intelligent apprehension of the truths which call it forth; and such apprehension depends in each age upon an exercise of the inteUigence of that age upon the truths of religion.1 1 See H. P. Liddon, Univ. Sermons, 2d Series, II. pp. 105-109. 8 INTRODUCTION § 4. (b) Another objection, which is also made in the supposed interests of religion, is based upon the assertion that the essence of religion is not intellectual but emotional. Religion, it said, consists in sense of dependence rather than in correctness of mental conceptions concerning God. The answer is that we cannot divorce the emotions and the intelligence in religion. Religion is not to be defined by any phrase which exalts one part of our nature at the expense of another. It is a bond connecting men with God, and as such enlists the full and harmonious activity of every human faculty. The emotions, it should be added, are never experienced or culti vated as non-intelligent experience and action, but under the conditions of an inseparable union of feeling, intellect, and will in all spiritual functioning. Man does not become a fragment of himself in religion; but, whether he realizes the fact or not, feels in religion according as he thinks and wills. To suppose otherwise is to be guided by bad psychology. The sense of dependence must have an object, and the more true and sound a man's conception of that object is, other conditions being rightly controlled, the more exalted and truly religious will be his sense of dependence. So it is with the will. True religion is as dependent upon a rightly ordered life as upon right feeling, and both are dependent upon correct knowledge of the object of rehgious emotion. A righteous hfe depends upon a true ideal of hfe, and this in turn depends IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 9 upon correct knowledge of the truths by which hfe ought to be determined.1 Supreme among these truths is the manifestation of the tri-une God and of our relations to the Three-in-One. Such considera tions bring us back to our principal contention, that knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity is a vital part of our rehgious equipment; and a knowledge which shuns determinate. conceptions, and refuses to be expressed in the terms of man's highest intelli gence, is self -condemned and is doomed to extinction as invalid. § 5. (c) We come to the agnostic class of objec tions, objections which are based upon forms of scepticism rather than upon the supposed interests of religion. Philosophical agnosticism denies the capacity of the human mind to know God or to describe His nature and attributes. If such a denial is justifiable, we must, of course, regard the doctrine of the Trinity — and any theistic doctrine whatever — as wholly unwarranted and useless, as a mere manipulation of subjective imaginings, having no value for religion or for any rational purpose. The argument of agnosticism cannot here be dis cussed,2 but a few brief remarks may be ventured. 1 See H. P. Liddon, Some Elements of Religion, Lee. i. Cf. the author's Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. iv. §§ 4, 5, where other references are given. * It has been discussed in The Being and Attributes of God, ch. ii, and in Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. v. Pt. II., where abundant refer ences are given. 10 INTRODUCTION In the first place, the issue raised by agnosticism is not whether we can acquire an exhaustive or adequate knowledge of God. No intelUgent Christian claims to have more than a very partial knowledge of Him. Agnostics deny that we can have any knowledge whatever of God.1 If they are wrong, and we reaUy can and do obtain some knowledge of the Supreme Being, however imperfect, such knowledge must, as we have seen, have a value for both reUgion and science that demands our earnest consideration and an accurate definition of it. In the next place, agnosticism cannot maintain itseh unless it is ready to maintain aU that is involved in its logic. The arguments by which our mental incapacity is estab- Ushed in things divine, if they are vaUd, prove our incapacity to know any objective reaUty. To iUus- trate this by one particular, if the relativity of all human knowledge nulUfies the vahdity of what is thought to be real knowledge of God, it also nulUfies the alleged knowledge which is exhibited in natural science. It does more, it nullifies the testimony of consciousness, and therefore robs itseff of the only possible data by which any position, including the agnostic, can be established. In short, to be consistent agnosticism must be thorough; and when it is thorough, it destroys its own foundations. 1 If valid, agnosticism is fatal to every form of theistic doctrine, but the trinitarian point of view facilitates belief for those who are disturbed by agnostic arguments. Cf . Illingworth, Doc. of the Trin ity, pp. 131-144; and below, ch. v. §§ 8-10. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT n It To proceed, the destructive effect of agnosticism, if it is to be accepted, cannot be confined in reUgion to the banishment of dogmas and theological defini tions. If we have no real knowledge of God there is no basis for reUgion, and reUgion must go. A sense of dependence which is entirely without knowledge of its object cannot survive; and a rehgious system and life that cannot be justified by the truth of its impUcates, that is, by some knowledge of the God in relation to whom its institutions and precepts are determined, is doomed. The agnostic objection, therefore, cannot be consistently urged by those who beUeve in reUgion. § 6. (d) The agnostic objection assumes plausible and somewhat disguised forms in RitschUanism and pragmatism. RitschUanism J describes the mind as possessed of two mutuaUy independent conscious nesses — the scientific and the rehgious. The propo sitions of the scientific consciousness, if true, have to do with objective reaUties and have scientific vahdity; but those of the rehgious consciousness may not be said to have such vaUdity, for they are value-judg ments, estimates of worth. Thus the proposition that Christ is God should be taken to mean simply that His personahty has a divine value for our rehgious consciousness. In short, we may not claim to know 1 RitschUanism is fully explained in the several monographs on that system by Orr, Edghill, J. K. Mozley, and Garvie. We are not here concerned with a precise and critical definition of Albert Ritschl's position, but with the working theory which is usually signified by the name RitschUanism. 12 INTRODUCTION that Christ is really God, but only that He has divine worth for ourselves. Such a position is reaUy agnos ticism in a new dress, and is open to aU the futihties of that system. It is also based on bad psychology. Our minds are not broken up into separate and mutuaUy unrelated compartments or departments of functioning. We have but one mind and reason, and it is that reason which we exercise in both science and religion.1 If its exercise seems to bring knowledge in the rehgious sphere, the only way in which we can disprove the reaUty of such knowledge is by showing either that the laws of reason have been violated or that the data employed are erroneously accepted and understood. Pragmatism,2 like RitschUanism, emphasizes values; but widens the sphere of this emphasis. It denies the existence of "objective" truth, and declares that the truth of any proposition is simply its working value. It is true when, and because, it works weU — is useful for the practical purposes of the mind. This means that what I will to beheve is for me the truth; and that my truth cannot be truth for others, except- so far as it serves their purposes. No pragmatist would press such logic to the end, but it is the logic of his theory. It is agnostic, in that it leaves no place 1 Cf. Illingworth, Trinity, pp. 167-177; who also quotes some suggestive remarks, pp. 256-259, from Ormund, Foundations of Knowledge, iii. 3. 2 Its most brilliant exponent and defender has been the late Prof. Wm. James. See his Pragmatism, 1907; and its sequel. The Meaning of Truth, 1909. IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 13 for the claim to know reahties as they are; and unless such knowledge is possible, we must abandon not only every Christian doctrine, except as a theory with which to please ourselves, but also religion itself as having any inteUectual vahdity or binding force upon the conscience. We are sufficiently in accord with the logic which determines human life the world over to regard the truth of a proposition as being its agreement with the reaUties with which it is concerned ; and it is because the doctrine of the Trinity is in this sense true, that the importance of its being made a subject-matter of systematic study and explication is here maintained. § 7. (e) There are many who are prepared to confess that we have some sort of knowledge of God, and yet are unready to admit that our knowledge is sufficient to warrant such precise definitions as are to be found in the cathoUc doctrine of the Trinity. Such persons appear to confuse precise with adequate knowledge, as if an inadequate knowledge meant a vague knowledge — one incapable of clear definition. If one's knowledge of the United States were confined entirely to what could be represented by a bare out line of its boundaries, mountains, lakes, and rivers, it would be very inadequate, for it would leave out every indication of its population, commerce, civiliza tion, government, and international relations, as weU as of many other national characteristics. Yet the outline might be very exact and accurate, and con vey a knowledge of the most precise, trustworthy, 14 INTRODUCTION and useful kind — not less so because given in a figure. The doctrine' of the Trinity contains a very few brief statements concerning God — statements which can in no sense be regarded as defining more than finite beginnings of knowledge of the divine nature. They define what the self-manifestation of God to His creatures has enabled the Church to apprehend — no more. They do not enable us to fathom the divine nature, nor do they satisfy, or pretend to satisfy, a craving for adequate knowledge. But they pre suppose that the seh-manifestation of God, partial though it be, is sufficiently determinate to be accu rately summarized in technical propositions — prop ositions which have been developed and tested by many controversies and conflicts with error.1 Deter minate ideals of hfe depend for justification and vitality upon determinate knowledge of the truths which such ideals presuppose. The truths contained in the doctrine of the Trinity are of this kind. They determine our relations to God, and therefore our practical ideals of hfe. To suppose that such know ledge of these truths as is afforded to mankind has been left by God in a chaotic, vague, and undefinable state, is to suppose that He is indifferent to the pos- 1 Illingworth gives some suggestive remarks, Trinity, p. 129, in which he says, "Athanasius and Augustine did not claim a greater knowledge than that of St. Paul and St. John, because they formu lated common knowledge in more technical terms. But each gen eration needed training to live by the same knowledge, and dogma was the condition of the sameness." CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 15 session by us of the conditions of advance towards our supernatural destiny. II. Catholic Doctrine Defined §8. Before proceeding further it is desirable to define the substantial contents of the doctrine of the Trinity — the doctrine, that is, which brings together the opposite truths of divine unity in being and of the true Godhead of three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is said to be a cryptogram, or algebraic formula, by which opposite truths are exhibited to gether in order that neither of them may be over looked or sacrificed in the interests of the other.1 Undoubtedly the doctrine of the Trinity does unite opposite truths, and in so doing does afford a safe guard against one-sided and narrow ideas of God. But the trinitarian formula is much more significant than a mere assertion of equivalence between one divine Being and three divine Persons. It also sets forth in important measure the revealed relations existing between the divine Persons, relations an apprehension of which not only makes our knowledge of God fuUer, more coherent, and more reasonable, but also throws a flood of light upon the practical 1 Such is the view of Geo. P. Fisher, Faith and Rationalism, pp. 53, 54. He says, "The term 'Trinity' is a hieroglyph. It stands for several disconnected propositions coUectively taken. It is an algebraic sign for an unknown, mysterious relation. By this term we bring several separate truths into juxtaposition, and thus parry the inference that in affirming one we are denying another." 16 INTRODUCTION relations between God and ourselves. The doctrine may be summarized as containing five particulars: (a) "The Lord our God is one Lord." He is one and indivisible, so that, whatever else may be said of Him, His sohty, uniqueness, and indivisibiUty must be maintained as the primary truth of God. Techni cally God is declared to be one in being, essence, and nature; and this means that He is one God, and only one, there being none Uke Him. (b) The manner of divine unity is such that in the indivisible essence of God three several Persons are rightly to be acknowledged as co-equal and co-eternal together. These three Persons are no mere dramatis personae, or passing manifestations of one and the same Person, but are fundamentally distinct, so that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Yet these Persons are not separate individuals, but are distinguished by the manner in which they exist in and possess one and the same indivisible essence. (c) The Father is distinguished by the fact that He proceeds from none, but is the unoriginate source of the Godhead. The Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through, Sta, the Son. Thus there is a divine monarchy, in which the Father occupies the first place, the Son the second, and the Holy Spirit the third. But the subordination of the second and third Persons does not signify or involve an essential inequaUty, for aU three Persons possess the self-same essence. Nor CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 17 do the divine processions involve a temporal succes sion, for they are timeless and eternal. "The whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal." (d) There is a circumcession or irepixupijo-is in the Trinity. That is, the Persons, by reason of their common and indivisible essence, exist in each other — not as parts of a larger whole, but — as equally possessing the fulness of the Godhead. Each Person by Himseff is God and Lord, and in each Person the other divine Persons exist in inseparable unity, although without confusion of personahty. (e) The outward manifestations of the Trinity, which are sometimes caUed the divine economies, are based upon and determined by the internal re lations of the divine Persons. Although these Persons coinhere in action as weU as in essence, working indivisibly in aU divine operations, the relation of each Person to these operations is distinct. Upon this fact depends the propriety of attributing diverse operations to distinct Persons. Thus the Scriptures and the Creeds attribute the creation of the world especiaUy to the Father, the redemption of mankind to the Son, and the sanctification of the people of God to the Holy Spirit, although they also plainly teach that the whole Trinity works indivisibly in all these things. It is this same principle of divine econ omies, and of their determination by the internal relations existing between the divine Persons, that accounts for the fact that the Scriptures speak of the Son as sent into the world by the Father, and 3 18 INTRODUCTION of the Holy Spirit as sent by the Father and the Son. Divine mission, as it is caUed, involves neither an inferiority in essence of Him who is said to be sent nor any spatial movement. The divine Persons can never cease to be co-equal and omnipresent. In brief, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence, subsisting in three Persons, who are mutuaUy related by eternal processions, who coinhere both in essence and in operation, but mani fest themselves in distinct economies and missions. § 9. These truths are either expressly or impUedly contained in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, which appear to be expansions of the baptismal formula, and which in early ages underwent verbal amendment calculated to exclude heretical misinterpretations. The most exphcit statement that has secured catholic authority is contained in the so called Athanasian Symbol;1 and its language should be carefully studied 1 It has not been formally received by the Eastern Churches, but is found in certain service books. It is contained in the Latin Office of Prime, and is required to be recited after Morning Prayer in the English Church on certain holy days. It was dropped out by the compilers of the American Prayer Book, but not because of any rejection of its doctrine. It is thought to have been written in the fifth century, but the author is unknown. Although written as a hymn or psalm rather than as a creed, time and usage have given it creedal value. See A. E. Burn, The Athanasian Creed and Its Early Commentaries; G. D. W. Ommaney, A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed; and Daniel Waterland, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed. This last has not lost its value, although written in the 18th century. We quote the symbol as translated in the English Prayer Book. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 19 and assimilated by theological students. We quote its pertinent clauses. The Catholic Faith is this : That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. ¦ Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate : and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible? the Son incomprehen sible: the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incompre hensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Al mighty. 1 Immensus, or transcending finite and spatial measures, because infinite Spirit. The word has no reference to divine inscrutability. See Being and Attributes of God, ch. xi. § 5. 20 INTRODUCTION So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods : but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords : but one Lord. 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. 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:1 neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 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. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved : must thus think of the Trinity. The first of our Articles of Religion declares that JThe Easterns omit "and of the Son," because of their rejection of the filioque. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 21 There is but one living and true God, . . . And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one sub- substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The second Article describes the Son to be the Word of the Father, begotten from ever lasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father. And the fifth Article says, The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son (a Patre et Filio procedens), is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. With these Articles should also be compared the Proper Preface for Trinity Sunday: — Who art one God, one Lord; not one only Person, but three Persons in one Substance. For that which we believe of the glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference 1 or inequality. The Roman and Oriental Churches have in various ways clearly formulated this doctrine; and, with the exception of the Western assertion of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father, no significant difference appears when we compare the definitions which have been issued by ecclesiastical authority in various portions of the Catholic Church. As wiU be shown when we consider the history of this doctrine, the filioque controversy does not necessarily signify a conflict *That is, of glory and essence. The difference of "properties" by which the divine Persons are distinguished is not here denied. See ch. vii. § 4, below. 22 INTRODUCTION in fundamental doctrine, but rather a question of provincial right to insert new phrases in the Nicene Creed, and of terminology.1 § 10. This introductory definition of cathoUc doc trine concerning the Trinity wiU be more complete if a summary account is given of the chief errors which the cathoUc doctrine requires us to reject.2 (a) The first and most obvious of these errors is tritheism, or the assertion of threefold divine per- sonaUty at the expense of unity of essence and being. In the earUest ages Christian beUevers were not apt to fall into this error, but were none the less freely accused of being tritheists by their pagan assaflants. Marcion,3 Photinus,4 the Peratae,5 and certain mo- nophysites of the sixth century 6 are said to have fallen into this heresy — the last named being thus misled by their refusal to distinguish clearly between "nature" and "person"7 in the doctrine of our Lord's Person. In the eleventh century RosceUin was led by his nominahsm — denial of universals — to deny that the three divine Persons possess one and the self-same essence.8 Dr. WiUiam Sherlock 1 See chh. iii. § 14; vii. § 7, below. 2 "Errors About God and the Holy Trinity" are concisely defined by Darwell Stone, Outlines of Christian Dogma, note 4. See also R. Owen, Dog. Theol., ch. v. §§ 10-13. 3 See St. Cyril, Jerus., Catech., 16. 4 See St. Hilary Poit., de Synod., xxii. 56. 6 See Theodoret, Haer., fab. i. 8 Blunt, Die. of Sects, s. v. "Tritheists." 7 0i5im and inrbarairis, 8 He was answered by St. Anselm (Ep. ii. 35, 41; de Fide Trin., CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 23 appeared to teach tritheism in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity, 1691 a.d., and a violent controversy foUowed.1 That the popular imagination may easfly treat the divine Persons as separate individuals is undoubtedly true,2 but the general Christian behef in divine unity is too deeply seated for such misconceptions often to develop into formal heresy. (5) The opposite and modaUstic heresy of Sabelli- anism,3 also caUed monarchianism, owed its origin to a desire to insist upon the true Godhead of Jesus Christ without sacrificing the truth of divine unity. It obUterates the real distinction of Persons in the Godhead, treating Them as dramatis personae, as passing modes of the divine, and as economic mani festations of one and the self-same Person. Its first form was the patripassianism of Praxeas, who main tained, early in the third century, that it was no other than the Father who suffered upon the cross. At a later period in that century SabelUus developed this error into a kind of modaUsm. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are but several names and mani- 2, 3), and his view was condemned at the Council of Soissons in 1092. See R. Seeberg, Hist, of Doctrines (transl. by C. E. Hay), § 46; K. R. Hafeenbach, Hist, of Christ. Doctrines, § 170 (3). 'Hagenbach, op. cit., § 262 (6); and English Church histories of that period — close of the 17th century. 2 R. C. Moberly describes and criticizes a tendency in that direc tion in Atonement and Personality, pp. 82-86. The passage gives valuable cautions against one-sidedness in reckoning with anti thetic truths. 8 See ch. iii. § 5, below. 24 INTRODUCTION testations of one Person. The defenders of the Nicene o/m>otW>s were accused of SabelUanism, and while the charge was quite untrue so far as the orthodox party in general was concerned, MarceUus of Ancyra was led into that heresy by impulsive reaction from Arianism.1 SabelUanism has been revived in modern times by Swedenborg and Schleier- macher.2 (c) The Godhead of the second Person of the Trinity has been sacrificed in various ways. The ancient Ebionites beUeved our Lord to be a mere man,3 and this error was revived by Theodotus and Artemon about the beginning of the third century — psilanthropism.i This was mixed with a sort of adoptionism, or behef that Christ was peculiarly endowed with spiritual gifts and adopted to be Son of God in a special sense. This error was apparently included in the heretical position of Paul of Samosata, condemned by a large council at Antioch, 269, a.d.6 Origen had asserted the subordination of the Son to the Father in the order of origin, insisting, however, upon His possession of the Father's essence and upon 1 He was followed on bold lines by Photinus. See W. Bright, Age of the Fathers, Vol. I. pp. 156-158, 193, 194; Bethune-Baker, Early Hist, of Doctrine, pp. 190-192; Blunt, Die. of Sects, s. w. "Marcellians"; "Photinians." 2 See Hagenbach, op. cit., § 295 (4), (6), (8). 8 See ch. iii. § 2, below. 'Ibid., §4. 8 See ch. iii. § 9, below. The adoptionist error reappears in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Spain in the 8th century, and in modern Socinianism. — .-> CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 25 the eternal nature of His generation. Lucian of Antioch in the third century,1 and his pupil Arius in the fourth century, took over Origen's subordina- tionist terminology without its accompanying safe guards; and what came to be known as Arianism caused the fiercest and most serious doctrinal conflict of Christian history. Arius acknowledged the pre- existence of Christ, the Logos, but maintained His being later in time than the Father by virtue of His sonship, and described Him as a super-angeUc but mutable creature, the first of creatures, through whom aU other creatures are made. The Council of Nicea excluded this error by declaring Christ to be oiwowtuk (of one essence) with the Father; but fifty years of conflict ensued before the battle for orthodoxy was won.2 And Arianism was in the meantime imbibed by the Goths, and reappeared in Visigothic Spain, where it was finaUy shut out by the creedal assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, filioque, as weU as from the Father.3 (d) The denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was a logical consequence of Arianism, and this error was defended by the Macedonians, who were con demned by the second Ecumenical Council in 381 a.d. They were also caUed pneumatomachi.* Some 1 See pp. 75, 77, below. ! See ch. iii. §§ 10, 11, below. * Ibid., § 14; and ch. vii. § 7. Arian views were set forth in the 18th century by Dr. Samuel Clarke, and have been enunciated by certain unitarian writers of later date. • See ch. iii. § 13, below. 26 INTRODUCTION l of them denied the personahty of the Spirit, regarding His name as a rhetorical personification of divine power and sanctifying operation. (e) In their eagerness of controversy with the West, some Oriental writers, mediaeval and modern, appear to deny any kind of eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Such denial is inconsistent with the ancient consensus of both Eastern and Western doctors.1 (J) It is equaUy erroneous to say, as some of the Easterns beheve the filioque is intended to say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a second and independent source. But the filioque is not thus interpreted by the West, which agrees with the East in distinguishing the Son's part in the spiration of the third Person as participative and secondary. A fuller definition of Western doctrine is that of the Councils of Lyons, 1274 a.d., and Florence, 1439 A-D> which declares the spiration of the Holy Spirit to be one, and to have one Prin ciple and ultimate Source. This is expressed by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.2 xThe Orientals attending the Conferences of Bonn, 1874, 1875, were unwilling clearly to acknowledge any eternal procession from the Son. See the two Reports edited by H. P. Liddon; and Dr. Pusey's elaborate criticisms, On the Clause 'And the Son.' Pusey gives the propositions adopted at Bonn, and his own suggested amendments, on pp. 182-184. s See p. 94, note 3, for the language of Lyons; and p. 234, note 1, for that of Florence. - ¦- CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 27 § n. The Uterature of our subject is very extensive, and only a selection of titles can be given.1 (a) The history of the doctrine can be studied in the various histories of doctrine, especiaUy those of Hagenbach, Seeberg, Neander, and Fisher, and Bethune-Baker's Early History of Christian Doctrine. Harnack's History of Dogma gives much valuable material, but lacks coherence and theological insight, exhibiting a tendency to exaggerate the primitive standing of humanitarian views of Christ's Person. Dorner's History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ is also very useful, but is to be read with caution. Fleury, Church History (parts of which are trans lated by Newman and by others); CeilUer, Histoire Generate des Auteurs Sacres et Ecclesiastiques; Du Pin, History of Ecclesiastical Writers (translated into Eng- Ush) ; and J. H. Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century are more sound. Henri Klee, Manuel de L'Histoire des Dogmes Chretiens (translated into French from the German by Mabire) gives a clear summary. (&) Among patristic and mediaeval works should be mentioned TertuUian, Adv. Praxean; St. Atha nasius, Contra Arianos; Ad Serapionem Epp. Quatuor 1 The lists here given may be supplemented in Latin literature by consulting Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual ofCath. Theol., Vol. I. pp. 257-258; and Tanquerey, de Deo Trino, p. 171. Dorner's Christian Doctrine, Vol. I. pp. 344-345, mentions the chief German works. The articles which treat of subjects connected with the Trinity in Smith and Wace, Die. of Christian Biography; Hastings, Die. of the Bible; Die. of Christ; and Eneyc. of Religion; The Catholic Encyc; and the Schaff- Herzog Encyc. of Religious Knowledge contain much useful matter. 28 INTRODUCTION (the Divinity of the Holy Spirit); St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium; de Spiritu Sancto; St. Gregory Nyss., Contra Eunomium; St. Gregory Naz., Orationes Theologicae; Didymus, de Trinitate; de Spiritu Sancto (extant only in St. Jerome's translation); St. Epi- phanius, Ancoratus; St. HUary of Poitiers, de Trini tate; St. Ambrose, de Fide Trinitatis; de Spiritu; St. Cyril Alex., Thesaurus de SS. Trinitate; St. Augustine, de Trinitate; St. John Damasc, de Fide Orthodoxa; Boethius (?), de Persona et Duabus Naturis; St. Anselm, Monologium; Peter Lombard, Sententiae; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pars I. (c) Modern Latin works include Petavius, de Trinitate (containing much historical and patristic material); Ruiz, de Trinitate; Suarez, de Deo Uno et Trino; Perrone, Praelectiones Theologicae; Franzehn, de Deo Trino; and Tanquerey, de Deo Trino. To these should be added the excellent Enghsh Roman Cathohc work, Wilhelm and ScanneU, Manual of Catholic Theology, Bk. II. Pt. II. (d) Of AngUcan treatises, among the best are Bishop Pearson, Apostles' Creed, Arts, i, ii, viii; Bishop Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (translated into Eng hsh) ; Judgment of the Catholic Church on the Necessity of Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ is very God; Daniel Waterland, Vindication of Christ's Divinity; Lady Moyer Lectures; The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; Wm. Jones, Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; Geo. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinitarianism; Edw. Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers CATHOLIC DOCTRINE DEFINED 29 to the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Holy Ghost; Testimonies . . . to the Divinity of Christ; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed (passim); Bishop Browne, Thirty Nine Articles, Arts, i, U, v; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord; J. H. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius; F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations; Report of the Proceedings at the Reunion Conference Held at Bonn, 1874; The same, 1875; E. B. Pusey, On the Clause, 'And the Son'; H. B. Swete, Early Hist, of the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost; History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit in the New Testament; W. H. Hutchings, Person and Work of the Holy Ghost; J. R. IlUngworth, Personality, Human and Divine; and Doctrine of the Trinity, Apologetically Considered. No systematic treatise on the Trinity has appeared in EngUsh for some time. The subject is very concisely covered in the writer's Doctrine of God, with numerous references. CHAPTER II REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE I. In Nature and Reason § i. From the nature of things, there can be no direct revelation of the Trinity through the visible order, nor can this truth be discovered and estabUshed by the natural reason.1 Yet, as has been shown in the third volume of this series,2 we gain a sufficient knowledge of God through nature to perceive that certain problems which the idea of divine personality raises are best solved by the doctrine of the Trinity, inasmuch as its truth enables us to beUeve that the requirements of personal functioning are satisfied within the indivisible essence of God. The eternal relations between the divine Persons afford adequate objects of divine contemplation and love, and a sufficient sphere of personal hfe, without either an infringement upon divine simplicity or a dependence upon external objects being involved. In brief, natural reason teaches us this much, that the idea of God which is attained by a consideration of natural phenomena, while it falls short of trinitarian doctrine, can be seen, when the Trinity has once been revealed, 1 See St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I. xxxii. i. 2 Being and Attributes of God, ch. i. § 5; and ch. x. §§ 6-8. Also below, ch. v. § 10; and ch. vi. § n. 30 IN NATURE AND REASON 31 to find in such doctrme its completion and fuU rational justification. § 2. The correctness of this hne of thought appears to be confirmed by the fact that even among the adherents of pagan rehgious systems, and among pagan philosophers, the tendency to conceive of God in trinitarian terms is wide-spread.1 It is not meant that pagan beUevers and thinkers have ever arrived at a clear and coherent trinitarian doctrine of God, such as is taught by the Christian Church, but that a spontaneous and persistent tendency shows itseff among them to regard the Deity as in some sense threefold. Some writers have maintained the ex istence of a trinitarian idea of God in the works of Plato,2 but have certainly exaggerated its definiteness and significance for the history of Christian doctrine. Professor Paine of the Bangor Theological Seminary, writing from an antitrinitarian standpoint,3 en deavours to show traces of ethnic trinities in many pagan systems, especially in ancient East Indian, Persian, and Greek thought.4 Without committing 1 See Macculloch, Compar. Religion, ch. iv; T. Maurice, Disserta tion on the Oriental Trinities; Levi Paine, Ethnic Trinities and Their Relations to the Christian Trinity; Christlieb, Modern Doubt, pp. 266, 267. 2 Cf. St. Augustine, de Civil. Dei, x. 22. The subject is fully dis cussed by C. Morgan, Trinity of Plato and Philo Judaeus. 3 Ethnic Trinities. * J. F. Clarke ascribes the origin of the Christian doctrine to trin itarian conceptions in the Egyptian religion: Ten Great Religions, ch. vi. § 7. Cf. J, W- Lake, Plato, Philo, and Paul, who traces it to Greek thought, 32 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE ourselves to an agreement with aU his assertions in this regard, and reahzing the incoherent and evanes cent nature of ethnic trinities, the fact remains that an inchoate trinitarianism is sufficiently wide-spread to challenge enquiry as to its cause. Professor Paine x quotes Aristotle 2 as saying, "Since body has magnitude in three directions, it has magnitude in all directions: hence three equals aU, or is the complete or perfect number." Noting that Aristotle proceeds to cite the Pythagorean argument that "The end, the middle, and the begin ning have the number of the whole and are a triad," he quotes him as adding, "Therefore, having received from nature as it were laws of it {i.e. the triad), we also employ this number (three) for the holy rites of the gods. Moreover, we apply predicates of com mon terms in the same manner. For we caU the term 'two,' or 'the two,' 'both,' but we do not style them 'ah.' But concerning the 'three,' we first use this expression (all), and these forms of language, as has been said, we foUow because nature herself leads the way." Commenting on this passage Paine says, "It is interesting to note how Aristotle connected the laws of nature with those of reUgion and the gods . . . Aristotle does not pursue this thought farther, but plainly he started a Une of speculative thought which would logicaUy have led him to a trinitarian con ception of God Himself." xOp. cit., pp. 16, 17. 2 De Coelo, i. j.. IN NATURE AND REASON 33 Apart from supernatural revelation, it could, of course, have led only to a vague and precarious trinitarianism at best; but the fact that the greatest scientist and logician of the ancient world detected a law in nature that teaches men to regard divine worship as properly trinitarian is certainly significant, nor is this significance destroyed by Aristotle's failure to advance to a trinitarian theism. He was formu lating in his own way what many thoughtful people of subsequent times have perceived — that three- foldness is stamped upon creation in all its depart ments. This is found in aU its measures, both spatial and temporal,1 in the constitution of man's nature,2 in his psychical faculties as they are commonly caUed,3 in human logic,4 and in human society where personahty realizes and perpetuates itself by means of father, mother, and child.5 As has just been acknowledged in Aristotle's case, the law of threefoldness could never have afforded an adequate basis of a definite trinitarian doctrine of God; and ethnic trinities derive what coherence they are thought by some to have from their being contem- 1 Length, breadth, and height, and past, present, and future. 2 Body, soul, and spirit, or physical, mental, and moral. 3 Intellectual, emotional and volitional. Cf. ch. viii. §9 (6), below, for more subtle examples discussed by St. Augustine. It hardly needs to be said that these "faculties" are not separate organs, but distinctions in the functioning of an indivisible mind. 4 Which in deduction proceeds syllogistically with the use of three terms and three judgments. 6 Cf. ch. viii. § 9 (a), P- 280, below. 4 34 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE plated from a Christian standpoint, or else, as with the trinity of Plotinus, from a desire to show that the Christian doctrine is not original with Christianity.1 Modern historical investigation has confirmed and estabUshed the fact that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was not derived from Greek philosophy, but from the teaching of Christ and of His apostles. The so-caUed ethnic trinities never possessed a definite and Uving significance for pagan beUevers; and the teaching of the New Testament constitutes a revela tion, the contents of which could never, apart from supernatural revelation, have determined the theistic beliefs of mankind.2 lE.g. Levi Paine, op. cit.; and J. F. Clarke, Ten Great Religions, as cited above. On Plotinus' trinitarian conception, see Die. of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Neoplatonism"; Chas. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 248-253; J. H. Newman, Arians, pp. 89-95. His trinity consisted of tA iv, 6 vovs, y if/vx^i. 2 See Illingworth, Trinity, chh. ii-vi, esp. pp. 74-83; Dorner, Christ. Doctrine, Vol. I. pp. 362-365. Macculloch, Compar. Relig ion, p. 103, says, "These various hints of a triad in the Divine exist ence show that man cannot rest satisfied with a sterile monotheism. He will either fall back upon polytheism, or else formulate some kind of Trinitarian doctrine. But the latter, when not stamped with the authority of revelation, will never become a tenet held with the force of passionate conviction by the multitude of believers." "It is absolutely true to say that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been for eighteen centuries [quoting Lux Mundi, p. 90] 'the safe guard of a pure monotheism against everything which menaces the life of religion.'" Cf. A. H. Strong, Syst. Theol., pp. 351, 352. The view of W. W. Olsson, Personality Human and Divine, pp. 09-117; and of Watts, New Apologetic, p. 195, that ethnic trinities are "residuary fragments" of primitive knowledge of God, gained by revelation, receives no support among modern scholars. IN NATURE AND REASON 35 § 3. Yet when men have once been clearly taught the threefold personal subsistence of God, the three- foldness of the handiwork of God acquires a meaning which is too obvious whoUy to be disregarded. While it is perfectly true that we may not assume a likeness to exist between the Creator and the creature, it does not appear unreasonable to look for some traces of the nature of God in the nature of His creatures. Therefore when we find that the divine threefoldness which Christian doctrine teaches has a finite reflection in nature — a reflection which is especiaUy noticeable in man, whom we beheve in some sense to be created in the image of God, — the inference does not seem to be far-fetched or fanciful, that the threefoldness of the creature is causaUy connected with the trini tarian nature of God, and constitutes a kind of in cipient revelation of it.1 Ethnic trinities may be regarded as exhibiting at once the reaUty of this natural revelation and its insufficiency, when taken by itself, to bring even the wisest thinkers to a deter minate knowledge of the ever Blessed Trinity. Our conclusion, briefly stated, is that the self-manifesta- 1Macculloch, op. cit., p. 88, asks if ethnic trinities "were the in complete products of the universal religious consciousness to which God never fails to speak, and to reveal the truth, if only in part?" He also quotes with approval from Schlegel, Hist, of Liter., p. 146, to the effect that threefoldness "is the universal form of being given by the First Cause to all His works — the seal of Deity, if we may so speak, stamped on all the thoughts of the mind and all the forms of nature." Cf. some remarks by R. Vaughan in a thoughtful article on the Trinity in Church Quarterly Rev., April, 1910, pp. 127, 128. 36 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE tion of God through nature is the beginning of a revelation of the Blessed Trinity — a primary alpha bet, so to speak, which prepares the way for more sig nificant intimations, but which does not obviate the necessity of supernatural revelation for our acquisition of knowledge of the three divine Persons who subsist in the indivisible essence of God. II. Supernatural Revelation § 4. The rule of faith requires that we shaU reckon that to be a genuine content of supernatural revela tion which is both taught by the CathoUc Church of aU the ages arid contained in the Scriptures. In other words, having had our doctrine defined for us by the Church, our assurance that genuinely cathohc dogma is guarded from substantial error by the Holy Spirit does not remove the necessity of verify ing its truth, and of deepening our hold upon its fulness, by resort to the Scriptures which the same Holy Spirit has inspired. For if we would enter with sufficient success upon the mind of the Spirit, we must consider all the ways in which He affords His guidance to us. One who depends exclusively upon -dogmatic definitions does not possess that fulness and manifoldness of mental apprehension that is needed to produce an intelUgent and secure faith. To insist upon this in no wise miUtates against the further fact that one who makes the Scriptures the sole source and rule of faith is unequal to the task of defining the teaching of the Scriptures with freedom SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 37 from individuaUstic preconceptions and from danger of error.1 § 5. The Scriptures constitute a divinely provided record and memorial of the progress and phenomena of supernatural revelation. These phenomena are very numerous and complex, and we have to dis tinguish between the contexts in which God has willed to enshrine His teaching and that teaching itself. We also have to aUow for the progressive- ness of revelation, and to interpret the relatively defective teaching of its earher stages as parts of a revelation which cannot be sufficiently understood in its divine meaning without taking into account the whole process and its finished product — the faith once for aU dehvered. To neglect this principle is as contrary to sound reason as it is to refuse to employ our knowledge of mature manhood in inter preting the significance of chudhood. But it would be equaUy unreasonable to regard a child as actuaUy possessed of the characteristics of fuU-grown manhood, and a paraUel error is involved in supposing that either the first readers, or even the writers, of Old Testa ment documents understood the fuller teaching to which these Scriptures were an inspired introduction. The fact remains that the Scriptures are concerned with a process of revelation which is continuous and at unity with itself. The mind which imparted divine meaning to the earhest Scriptures is no other than 1 The rule of faith has been considered more at large in Authority Eccles. and Biblical, ch. viii. 38 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE that which emerges into clearer view in New Testa ment teaching. The inference which should be drawn, so far as the task before us is concerned, is this: If the doctrine of the Trinity emerges in New Testament teaching, ground must have been broken for such teaching in the earher stages of revelation which are recorded in the Old Testament. The further inference should be made that isolated parts of revelation — especiaUy in its early stages — do not afford an ade quate basis for ascertaining and proving the truths thus graduaUy made known. That is, the proof-text method is unrehable. The proper method of proving Christian doctrines by means of bibUcal evidence is inductive. This means that in order to prove the doctrine of the Trinity we must ascertain whether a general consideration of the whole course of revelation, and of the manifold phenomena by which it was attended, warrants the hypothesis with which cathoUc doctrine teaches us to undertake our induction, and whether such consideration justifies the conclusion that the faith which was revealed in many fragmentary parts and in many manners in the prophets, and which was more articulately proclaimed by God in His Son, that this faith includes the doctrine of the Trinity.1 § 6. The task immediately before us is to exhibit the stages of supernatural revelation of the Trinity, as they are recorded in Holy Scripture.2 In the *On biblical interpretation and evidence, see Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, ch. vii. Pt. II. 2 It is sufficient at this point to refer to A. B. Davidson, in Hast- SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 39 next chapter we shaU treat of the work of defining our doctrine which had to be undertaken by the Church; and then we shaU proceed to an inductive consideration of bibhcal evidence. The narrative of man's creation and primitive state, whether it be taken as properly historical or as largely symbolical,1 plainly impUes that our first parents enjoyed authentic relations with the one true God, and no assured results of modern investigation are inconsistent with this conclusion.2 The subsequent narratives of Genesis, however, show that sinful man kind soon feU away from this knowledge of God, and that polytheism was generaUy prevalent among ancient peoples, infecting the ideas even of those to whom God especiaUy revealed Himself. It is this condition of things that is found in the most ancient period of which modern investigation is able to take cog nizance.3 § 7. (a) Polytheism and trinitarianism are mutuaUy ings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "God (in O T)"; the same writer's Theol. of the Old Test.; Hugh M. Scott, in Hastings, op. cit., extra vol., s. v. "Trinity"; Jas. Orr, Side Lights on Christ. Doctrine, pp. 39-44; and W. H. Griffith Thomas, in Hastings, one vol. Die. of Bib., s.v. "Trin ity." Specific references will mostly be postponed to our treatment of biblical proof in ch. iv. 1 On the non-necessity for the Christian doctrine of inspiration, and for theological interpretation, of belief that the narrative con stitutes literal history, see the author's Evolution and The Fall, pp. 119-123, 130-132, 141; and Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, ch. vii- §§ 5, 6, where other references are given. 2 See the author's Evol. and the Fall, Lee. v. passim. 3 The original state of mankind has left no traces which can be the subject of such investigation. See the reference just given. 40 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE opposed; and so long as the former held the field, no real step could be taken in acquiring knowledge of the Divine Trinity. Consequently the first stage of the self-revelation of God consisted in a manifesta tion of Himself as essentiaUy one, and in an insistent proclamation of the coroUary that the gods of the heathen "are but idols." This great and initial lesson of divine unity and sohty was not easily assimilated by Israel; and long after it had become imbedded in the Law,1 its practical realization was confined to divinely inspired prophets, and to a smaU remnant of the chosen people. Consequently insist ence upon divine unity continued to be a chief burden of prophecy throughout the Old Testament period. So long as the Israehtes were inclined to beheve in gods many and lords many, a clear revela tion of three divine Persons would have ibeen in terpreted as a revelation of three gods, and would inevitably have had tritheistic meaning.2 § 8. (b) Yet, in a process of revelation which had for its aim the manifestation of the Divine Trinity, a manner of proclaiming divine unity must have been employed which would prepare spiritual men for the reception of trinitarian teaching. And we find in 1 Our view of the antiquity of the Law does not, of course, depend upon the dating of the documents of the existing Pentateuch. 2 St. Gregory Naz., Theol. Oral., v. 26, 27, says that "it was not safe, while the divinity of the Father was not yet acknowledged, that the Son should be clearly proclaimed; nor, while that of the Son was not received, that the Holy Spirit (to use a bold expression) should be imposed on us." SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 41 fact that, while no clear revelations of the truth of threefold divine personaUty were vouchsafed to the IsraeUtes before the coming of Christ, the door to knowledge of the Three-in-One was kept open; and the manner of teaching of divine unity was not that which would be adopted under paraUel conditions by a unitarian teacher. The pluraUties found in the name Elohim, and in the use of pronouns having divine reference, may have represented survivals of poly theistic conceptions and modes of speech. But the significant fact remains that they continued to be employed by divinely inspired teachers of monothe ism. A unitarian standpoint would have required their elimination from prophetic teaching. It is quite unnecessary for our argument, and is inconsistent with critical conclusions, to maintain that the Old Testament writers were conscious of a trinitarian significance in their language. Our contention is simply this, that the inspiration which moved the ancient prophets to insist upon divine unity did not move them to adopt the method of proclaiming this truth which a scrupulous unitarian would employ, but one which left the possibiUty of plural person aUty in the Godhead an open question — one which, when regarded from the standpoint of completed revelation, is not unreasonably regarded as intended by the Holy Spirit to prepare the way for the trini tarian teaching of the New Testament.1 1 See Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, Lee. ii. init. Kurtz, Sacred History, § 2, parag. 2, observation, says that "the revelation of this 42 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE The same standpoint of completed revelation, and our beUef in the presence of one divine mind in every stage of the process, lead us to interpret other peculiar passages of the Old Testament as due to the influence of the trinitarian goal of revelation upon its earher stages. The threefold theophany to Abra ham1 affords an example; as does also the threefold benediction which the priests were commanded to use, with the added comment, "So shaU they put My Name upon the children of Israel," 2 as if its three fold iteration was especiaUy in accord with the reahty which it signified. Another instance is the threefold ascription of praise rendered by the Seraphim of Isaiah's vision, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts";3 and stiU another is the seemingly trini tarian description of the creation of the heavens, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and aU the host of them by the breath of His mouth.4 Triune Essence belongs to history and is its subject; hence, the consciousness of it did not originally belong to human knowl edge, but was made attainable through gradual process of revela tion. Now as we should study and judge the history of former generations not merely according to their own imperfect light, but also according to the perfect light of our own times, even so the triune being of God, which influenced history from the beginning and is presupposed by it, must be described according to the measure of our present knowledge, previous to the consideration of history itself." 1 Gen. xviii. 2 Numb. vi. 24-27. 3 Isa. vi. 3. * Psa. xxxiii. 6. SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 43 To these phenomena should be added certain peculiarities of messianic prophecy — pecuUarities which could not have been clearly understood before the coming of the promised Messiah,1 but which from the standpoint of the New Testament can be seen to be backward shadows of later and fuller manifestations. The Messiah was to be David's Son, and yet He is also described in prophecy as David's Lord, and He is not the only Person to whom the prophecy in question gives the divine name.2 Isaiah wrote that the Virgin's Son should be called "Immanuel" — God with us;3 and that the promised child, who should sit upon David's throne, should be caUed "Mighty God." 4 These are examples of various prophecies which, when taken together, clearly imply that the Messiah was to be very God as weU as man, and yet should not be personaUy identified with God the Father. The Old Testament also refers in various ways to the Holy Spirit, and in terms that indicate some kind of distinction between the Father and the Spirit5 — a distinction which emerges too often to be regarded as purely rhetorical. But His personahty is not clearly or convincingly taught in the Old Testament, 1 Cf. 1 Pet. i. 10-12. 2Psa. ex. 1. Cf. St. Matt. xxii. 41-45; St. Mark xii. 35-37; St. Luke xx. 41-44. 3 Isa. vii. 14. * Ch. ix. 6. *E. g. Gen. i. 2; Numb, xxvii. 18; Neh. ix. 20; Job xxxiii. 4; Psa. li. n; Hag. ii. 5; Isa. xlii. 1; lxi. 1 (cf. St. Luke iv. 18). 44 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE although what is said plainly leaves room for the later Christian teaching on this point.1 § 9. The elements of trinitarian teaching which our Christian standpoint enables us to detect in the earUer stages of revelation could not be understood in ante-Christian ages; but it would be rash to con clude that Jewish students of Old Testament prophecy were unable to advance in their ideas of God beyond a bald unitarianism. We must not make our igno rance a basis of inference; and we are very ignorant of the ideas of God which were cherished in the latter days by spirituaUy minded Jews, who meditated upon prophecy and, like the aged Simeon, were "looking for the consolation of Israel." 2 However vague their anticipations may have been, their imagi nations must have been controlled to a degree by those elements of messianic prophecy which, as we have seen, imply some kind of social and plural mystery in Jehovah, without justifying behef in more than one God. The Father, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit must have been distinguished by many readers of the Old Testament, for they are there distinguished; and the divine rank assigned to the Messiah could hardly escape notice, although it must have raised questions which could not be an swered.3 1 One of the most suggestive passages is Isa. xlviii. 16, "The Lord God hath sent me, and His Spirit." 2 St. Luke ii. 25. 3 Cf. the enigma which Christ placed before His adversaries: St. Matt. xxii. 41-45 and paraUel passages. SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 45 Whatever may have been the case with ordinary devout Jews, we have evidence that, in higher circles, "Jewish theology in the period between the Old Testament and Christ made some progress towards a trinitarian view of God." 1 A tendency to a uni tarian conception of God as transcendent and remote induced a further tendency to dweU upon the neces sity of mediation, and to hypothecate the existence of one or more personal mediators. This led, on the one hand, to a development of angelology, and, on the other hand, to a mediatorial conception of the Messiah. The Word of the prophets, Klti'to was personified in Palestinian schools, and described in mediatorial language. In Alexandria, Philo, whose hfetime partly coincided with the earthly hfe of our Lord, developed an elaborate speculation concerning the Logos, in which he sought to combine Greek philosophy with Old Testament teaching. His thought is bold, and superficiaUy considered seems at times to anticipate Christian theology; but his footing is insecure, and his language is often self- 1 Hugh M. Scott, in Hastings, Die. of Bib., extra vol., s. v. "Trin ity" P- 3°8- This article deals usefully with the subject-matter of this section, and gives references to sources. Cf. also, in the same vol., the arts, on "Development of Doctrine in the Apocryphal Period," by W. Fairweather; and on "Philo," by Jas. Drummond. In the main part of this Die, see s. w. "Holy Spirit," B, by H. B. Swete; and "God (in N T)," p. 207, by W. Sanday. See also Jas. Drummond, Philo Judaeus or the Jewish-Alex. Philos. in its Development and Completion, 2 vols., Lond., 1888; C. Bigg, Christ. Platonists of Alex., pp. 7-26; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 62-73; Die- of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Philo," VII, by A. Edersheim. 46 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE contradictory and fanciful.1 He identifies the Logos with the Angel of Old Testament manifestations, and describes Him as divine. At times he seems to regard Him as a person, but not consistently, and caUs Him a "second God," who embraces both God and man. On the whole, Philo gives us an objective illustration of the contention that the Old Testa ment suggested lines of speculation which involved elements of trinitarian thought, without enabling its readers, apart from knowledge of the Gospel, to attain to secure conclusions or to determinate trinitarian conceptions. Palestinian hterature connects the Word with the Messiah and caUs Him. "the Heavenly Man," "the Eternal One" and the "Son of God," without after all rising above an Arian conception. The Spirit was also treated of by Jewish writers of this age, both Palestinian and Alexandrian, and was dimly perceived to be distinct from the Father and from the Logos. The view gained expression that he was to come with the Christ. But the ancient Jew could not combine these half apprehended ele ments of trinitarian teaching; and his speculations, useful as they have become to confirm our impression that trinitarian imphcations can be discovered in the 'A. Edersheim says, in Die. of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Philo" (Vol. IV. p. 379), "But the Apostle [St. John] deals with it" [the Logos] "not, like Philo, in illustrations, but — if not in definitions, which were impossible — in definite propositions, which clearly mark not only the Personality of the Logos, but His relations to God, to the World, and to man. On the other hand, the Logos of Philo is full of difficulties, contradictions, and perplexities." SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 47 i Old Testament, then needed to be supplemented by further revelation before they could be developed into a true theology. § 10. (c) The appearance of the long-expected Messiah brought within the apprehension of those who were spiritually capable of recognizing Him a Person whom they came to know as truly divine, and yet as distinct from the Father — the only- begotten Son of the Father. The foUowers of Christ, indeed, learned the new lesson slowly; but the coincidence in His case of a unique moral perfection with assumptions and claims that no perfect one could make unless He was divine, the character of His works and of His teaching, and the evidence that in Him aU the messianic prophecies were ful filled, prepared their minds to apprehend the signifi cance of His victory over death. They perceived that He was divinely "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.1 " § 11. (d) Further than this, the teaching of Christ made known to His disciples a third divine Person — that Holy Spirit of whom the prophets had spoken, but whose distinct personahty was now for the first time made clearly manifest, and whose divine rank in being was signified in the threefold Name of God into which aU believers in Christ were to be baptized.2 'Rom. i. 4. On Christ's teaching concerning Himself, see ch. iv. § 10, below. 2 St. Matt, xxviii. 19. The genuineness of this passage has been recently assailed, but on inadequate and a priori grounds. 48 REVELATION OF THE DOCTRINE This Spirit Christ promised to send from the Father, and declared Him to be the Spirit of truth, capable of guiding men into all truth, another Comforter.1 Accordingly, when, on the day of Pentecost which foUowed our Lord's ascension, the disciples received the Spirit, they recognized Him to be what the Lord had declared Him to be, and placed aU their ministry under His sovereign guidance and control. In thus doing they distinguished His personahty and con ceived of Him as divine. § 12. (e) The last stage of revelation of the Trinity was the guidance of the apostohc mind into the truth that although the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are personaUy distinct, and each is divine in the full sense of that word, yet this threefold mystery illuminates and fortifies rather than obscures the truth declared of old, that there is but one indivisible God over aU the earth. Their understandings being enlightened by reflection upon the completed drama of the Gospel, and by interior illumination from the Spirit, the apostles were enabled to render due honour to the several divine Persons without doing so in terms that would have obscured the unity of God. Throughout the New Testament we find the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Spirit referred to in terms that forbid us to separate either of them from the Father's essence. In employing this method of speech, the apostles adhered faithfully to the method of Christ, who revealed His divine claim by 1 We return to this in ch. iv. § n, below. SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 49 exhibiting His unity with the Father and His divine sonship.1 The truth which was subsequently guarded in the Church by the term homoousios, 6/«>oiW>s, thus became the final word of revelation; and it teaches that the manner in which each of three Persons is God is determined by the manner in which these Persons severaUy possess the one indivisible essence of God. The Three are what they are by reason of mutual relationships within the Godhead, and each Person is declared to be divine in terms that imply these internal relationships. The Father is not other wise God than as Father of the eternal Word; the Son is not otherwise God than as begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit is God as proceeding from the Father through the Son. If the Godhead of the Father is at times more directly declared than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, this is due to His being the Father, in whom the other two Persons are involved, and to the inspired habit of asserting the divinity of the second and third Persons in the terms of their relations to the Father. God being indivisible, an acknowledgment that Christ is the only-begotten of God, and that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from Him, is in effect an emphatic assertion that these Persons have no other essence and rank in being than He from whom they eternaUy proceed. 1 See ch. iv. § 12, below, for fuller exposition and references. CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS I. Ante-Nicene Period § i. The Christian Church of pentecostal days inherited from the older dispensation a firm beUef that there is but one God — a God who wiU not share His glory with any other being. But she had also learned to regard Christ as God, and to yield divine honour to the Holy Spirit. Yet the first Christians did not confuse the Persons whom they worshipped, but named the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit side by side as severaUy distinct. Serious reflection upon these elements of behef and practice was certain to raise the important problem of rec onciling the behef in divine unity with an acknowl edgment of three Persons as divine. But this problem did not trouble the minds of the first Christians, although a sound instinct led them to refer to the second and third Persons of the Trinity in terms which enable us to perceive that they did not regard them as separate Beings. In brief, their monotheism was not weakened by their trinitarianism. There are at least two reasons why the problem which we have mentioned did not trouble Christian behevers of the pentecostal age. In the first place, S° ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 51 they were too much absorbed in practically applying what they had seen and heard, and in proclaiming the Gospel of salvation, to concern themselves with the speculative problems which their message was to suggest to the minds of detached and philosophical thinkers. The revelation of Christ and of the Spirit came to them as a blessed experience to celebrate rather than as a problem to solve.1 The second reason was the non-speculative and purely practical nature of the minds of the first Christians. The Gospel came in the first age almost exclusively to men in the lower and middle ranks of Ufe. Its original recipients knew nothing of, and cared nothing for, metaphysical questions. They were too much engaged in trying to Uve to have time for mental speculation, or to acquire the mental training which imparts interest and value to speculative problems. They were splendid witnesses to the contents of their unique experience; but their very qualifications as witnesses unfitted them for the work of formulating their message in the philosophical terms of reflective thought. But the truths which they proclaimed, and handed on to their spiritual successors for permanent preserva tion and world-wide propagation, were to be pubUshed among the learned as weU as among the ignorant, 1 The doctrine of the Trinity was revealed in terms of experience. The purpose of dogma is to preserve the true conception of that experience for those whose changed conditions of experience and thought make its assimilation difficult. 52 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS among philosophers as weU as among ordinary folk. Consequently the problems which were ignored by the first generation of beUevers, but which were not on that account less serious in their nature and bear ings, were certain to emerge into prominence when the Gospel was proclaimed in philosophical circles and began to be scrutinized by criticaUy minded pagans. Difficult questions were to be asked; and the most difficult of them all was this : How can there be three divine Persons if there is but one Divine Being? • It was the effort of thinkers to face this prob lem that gave birth to trinitarian theology, and to the dogmatic definitions of the Councils which guard the Church's faith in the one and indivisible God head of three divine Persons. The question was indeed beyond human solving, but its emergence necessitated careful and technical definition of the revealed truths by which it was suggested, lest its difficulty should lead men to misconceive and sacrifice one truth in the supposed interests of another. The Church's purpose in defining was to preserve in violate the mysteries which she had received from God, but which she did not pretend to explain. Her mission was not to solve problems, but to proclaim in the interests of salvation the glorious experiences of her early hfe. To this end the exigencies of mis leading theories compelled her to define these experi ences, and there she stopped; for she aimed only to make clear what she had seen and heard, in terms that could not be mistaken by those who desired to ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 53 receive her testimony. It was her experience that was defined, not 'her speculations concerning this experience; and this fact determines the meaning of the terms which she came to employ, — not the sources from which she appropriated them.1 This chapter is devoted to a general survey of the development of ecclesiastical definitions of the doctrine of the Trinity.2 No attempt will be made, however, to give more critical attention to details or to historical problems connected with the develop ment of doctrine than is necessary in order to fulfil the purpose of this work, which is to exhibit the doc trine of the Trinity in that form and meaning in which the Church has received and defined it. § 2. We do not learn of serious attempts to define the doctrme of the Trinity before the beginning of 1 Cf. ch. i. §§ 3, 4, 7, above. 2 For general bibliography of this subject, see ch. i. § 11 (a), above. ' The works there mentioned of Hagenbach, Seeberg, Beth- une-Baker, Harnack, Dorner, and Newman are especially useful. To these may be added, Hefele, Hist, of the Councils; Wilhelm and Scannell, Cath. Theol., §§ 96-98; Dorner, Christ. Doc, Vol. I. pp. 361-412 (a summary). On the ante-Nicene period, see also Bishop Bull, Defence of the Nicene Faith; Judgment of the Cath. Church; G. S. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinitarianism; Ewd. Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doc. of the Trinity; Testimonies . . . to the Divinity of Christ; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 419-425. Of dictionary articles covering the whole patristic period may be mentioned, Die. of Christ. Biog., s. mi. "Trinity, the Holy," by S. Cheetham; and "Christology," by Ph. Schaff; Hastings, Die. of Christ, App. s. v. "Christ in the Early Church," by A. R. Whitham; Schaff-Herzog, Encyc. of Relig. Knowl., s. v. " Christology," by D. S. Schaff; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. rpids (confined to Greek theology). 54 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS the third century and the rise of the monarchian heresies of that age. But during the second century ecclesiastical writers were obUged to combat Judaistic and gnostic ideas which were inconsistent with trini tarian doctrine, and the term Logos, employed by St. John, received some emphasis and suggested some speculation. Two opposite errors concerning the Person of Christ emerged at early dates, — a denial of our Lord's divinity and the docetic heresy. The first of these was supported by the Ebionites and by Cerinthus. The Ebionites were Hebrew Christians who magnified the Law and acknowledged the messiahship of our Lord, but regarded Him as purely human and denied His virgin-birth. They rejected St. Paul's Epistles. Their sect appears to have origi nated in the early years of the second century. The Nazarenes probably should not be identified with them, although their orthodoxy as to our Lord's Person was somewhat shrunken.1 The only Ebionite whose individuaUty emerges in history is Cerinthus, whose career began before the death of St. John.2 He was as much gnostic as Ebionite in his theories. 1 On the Ebionites, see Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, on "St. Paul and the Three," pp. 73 et seq. (also found in his Epis. to the Gal.}; L. Pullan, Hist, of Early Christianity, pp. 207-213; Bethune-Baker, Early Hist, of Christ. Doc., pp. 63-65; Cath. Encyc., s. v. "Ebionites." 2 Cf . the story of St. John's meeting him in public baths, and flee ing. St. Iren., Adv. Haer., iii. 3, 4. See Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 65, 66. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 55 He regarded Christ's divine Sonship as won by His early hfe, and as conferred by the descent of the Spirit of God upon Him in the form of a dove. Thus the divine in Him was considered to be merely an endow ment. There was no hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in one Person; and our Lord was not acknowledged to be a second Person in the Godhead. The fourth Gospel was said to have been written because of this heresy.1 Docetism constituted a denial of the reahty of our Lord's human flesh and human experiences.2 It found its chief supporters among the Gnostics; and although not directly related to the doctrine of the Trinity, was based upon an antitrinitarian philoso phy. The Gnostics were in fact anti-Christian, and attempted to combine certain elements of revela tion with Oriental and Greek conceptions in order to develop a coherent philosophy of God and the universe.3 They were divided into a number of sects, 1 So St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III. ii. 7. 2 Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 79-81; Die. of Christ. Biog., s. vv. "Docetae"; and "Docetism," by Geo. Salmon; Hagenbach, Hist. of Doc, § 22 (6); W. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarn., notes 28, 31; W. Sanday, Christologies Anc. and Mod., pp. 7-10. St. John appears to combat this error in his first Epistle, chh. i. 1-3; ii. 22; iv. 2 et seq. Cf. 2 St. John 7. 3 On Gnosticism, see Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Gnosticism" (in N. T.); Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 79-92; Dorner, Person, of Christ, Div. I. Vol. I. pp. 221-252; C. Bigg, Christ. Platonists, pp. 27-35; L. Pullan, Hist, of Early Christianity, ch. x; J. P. Arendsen, in Cath. Encyc, s.v. "Gnosticism"; G. Krager, in Schaff-Herzog; Ency., s. v. "Gnosticism"; Die. of Christ. Biog., s. vv. "Gnosticism"; 56 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS having different systems; but two doctrines were widely held among them: — that matter is inherently evil, and that a series of emanations from God fills the gap between the Supreme Deity and the visible universe. If matter is evil, there can, of course, be no real union of the Godhead and human flesh in one Person. The drama of the Gospels was therefore regarded as docetic — an outward seeming, which only the unspiritual would take to be evidence that in Christ dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."1 The Gnostic substituted his elaborate series of aeons or emanations for the mediation of one person — that is, for the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. And this system was no mere modification of trinitarian doctrine, but was essentially pagan, and quite excluded it. From the modern point of view many of the gnostic ideas appear grotesque, and it is difficult for us to understand why they should have endangered Christian beUef. They were, however, congenial to the age, and were put forward by some of the most pretentious and brilUant thinkers of the day. The orthodox Christian behef was regarded by many as unintelUgent, and there was real danger that cathoUc doctrine would be overshadowed, even among profess ing Christians, and subverted by a pagan philosophy "^on"; "Basilides"; "Cainites"; "Carpocrates"; "Cerdo"; "Cerinthus"; "Encratites"; "Marcion"; "Menander"; "Ogdoad"; "Ophites"; "Pistis Sophia"; "Prunikos"; "Simon Magus"; "Sophia"; "Valentinus"; R. Seeberg, Hist, of Doc, §§ 10, n. 1 Col. ii. 9. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 57 that pretended to make Christianity more inteUectual and spiritual. Ecclesiastical writers naturaUy pointed out the novelty of Gnosticism, and the apostolic traditions of local Churches were appealed to.1 The baptismal creeds took on the character of formal tests of ortho doxy among Christian behevers, and were perhaps amplified in order more exphcitly to exclude gnostic ideas.2 But the necessity that Christian teachers should overcome gnostic arguments with their own weapons — with philosophical arguments — became increasingly apparent, and the terms of Greek phi losophy, which then constituted common coin among the intelligent,3 began to be employed freely for definition and defence of the traditional faith. Among the second-century apologists who did battle for the faith, and who began the difficult work of formulating cathohc doctrine in terms of speculative thought, the most eminent were Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Ath- enagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and, in relation to Gnosticism, St. Irenaeus. 1 St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion; de Prae- scriptione Haerelicorum; adv. Valentinianos; de Resurrectione Car- nis; de Anima; Hippolytus, Philosophumena (Refutation of all Heresies); were the chief writers against Gnosticism. Cf. Seeberg, Hist, of Doc, §§ 10, 11. 2 A. McGi&ert, Apostles' Creed (1902), pp. 9-21, thinks the Apostles' Creed was first framed at Rome in order to exclude Marcion's errors. This is wrong. See Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, ch. iv. § 2 (esp. notes on pp. 104, 105). 3 In other words, they were not, as is alleged, borrowed from the Gnostics. 58 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS Their work was difficult, because the Christian faith introduces us to the most baffiing subjects and problems with which our minds attempt to grapple. Naturally, therefore, the language of these pioneers of theology was often crude, and some of the phrases which they employed could not stand the test of time and of more mature orthodox thought.1 We are not here concerned, however, with their crudities, but with their work of breaking ground for their theological successors. § 3. St. John had appropriated the term Logos in the prologue of his Gospel as a suitable name of the Son of God — suitable to connote the eternal and mediatorial aspects of His Person. This Logos was declared to be eternal, distinct from God the Father, and Himself God, the Agent of creation, the Life and the Light of men, who became flesh and dwelt among us, revealing Himself to be the only- begotten Son of God. It was the task of the second- century apologists to develop the Christian implica tions of this term, as affording an antidote of gnostic and other pagan speculations. We say its "Chris tian impUcations" for the term was used by non- Christian thinkers and required careful definition and expUcation, if it was to be retained in cathoUc the- 1 Petavius, in his great de Trinitate unduly disparaged the ortho doxy of ante-Nicene writers. Bishop Bull in reply, Defence of the Nicene Faith, erred in the opposite direction, and there has been a tendency among many to treat them as practically infallible. J. H. Newman gives a sounder estimate: Arians, pp. 179-200. Cf. R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 285-294. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 59 ology.1 Several reasons forbade its being abandoned. In the first place its use in the New Testament gave it an authoritative value which could not be disregarded. Again, the term was congenial to the thought of the age, and for that reason had apologetical value, pro vided it 'could be saved from pagan implications. FinaUy, it served as a suitable complement to the term Son of God, by emphasizing those eternal aspects of Christ's Person which that term did not clearly express.2 The exigencies of controversy with the Gnostics led the apologists to dwell upon the relations of the Logos,3 and they employed language which at times seemed to imply a denial* of His eternal existence.4 This was especiaUy the case with Justin Martyr and Theophilus. Two Greek words, differing only by 1 Fairbairn, Philos. of Christ. Religion, pp. 454, 455, derives the theological use of the term from Heraclitus through the Stoics and Philo. See above, pp. 45, 46; and Illingworth, Trinity, pp. 87-93, 121-125; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 45~47; Hagenbach, Hist. of Doc, §§ 40, 41; Hastings, Die. of Bib., s. v. "Logos," II, by G. T. Purves. 2 Whereas the term Son connotes derivation of essence and sub ordination, the term Word connotes co-eternity and mediatorial office. See J. H. Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § 3. 3 On the early Logos theology, see Bethune-Baker, op. cit., ch. ix.; C. Bigg, Christ. Platonists, passim; Dorner, Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. I. pp. 22-30, 260-326; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 186 et seq.; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doc, §§42, 43; Seeberg, Hist. of Doc, Bk. I. Pt. I. ch. iii. passim; Hefele, Councils, Vol. I. pp. 231-239. 4 On variations of ante-Nicene statements, see J. H. Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § 4. 6o THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS a letter, were used interchangeably in some cases, without adequate care to distinguish their implica tions. These terms were dye^i-os, which means unoriginate and eternal,' and dyeWiji-os, which signi fies not generate. It was said that the Logos is dyew^-os, as if He were not begotten of the Father, the meaning reaUy being that He is dye^i-os, or eter nal and uncreate. It was also said that the Father alone is dyewp-oSj implying that the Son is not eternal; but the meaning was that He alone is dyen^ros, unbe- gotten. Not until the Arian controversy was this confusion of terms brought to an end. The Son was then said to be yevvqros, begotten; and not yev^Tos, created.1 Theophilus borrowed the distinction of the Stoics and of Philo between the Adyos ivSidderos and the Ao'yos irpoijiopiKos to set forth the eternal existence of the Word in the Father before creation, on the one hand, and His going forth to create the world, on the other hand.2 The distinction was a true one, but was pressed in a manner which seemed to imply that 1 St. Athan., c Arian., I. 30; St. John Dam., Orth. Fid., I. 8; J.H. Newman, op. cit., ch. ii. § 4. 1; Select Treatises of St. Athan., Vol. II. s. vv. "'A.y4vvtiTov"; "Ternirbv, TevvriTdv"; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp.- 121, 122; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. vv. " aytvvirros Kal ayivqTor," ' yevyrbs Kal yevrrirbs; " Nicene and Post-Nieene Fathers, 2d Series, Vol. V. p. 100, note. 2 Ad. Autol., ii. 10, 22. Cf. St. Athan., c. Arian., I. 7, 33; Expos. Fid., c. 1; J. H. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athan., Vol. II. pp. 340-342; Arians, ch. ii. §4. 5; C. A. Swainson, in Die. of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Logos, the Word," pp. 735, 736; Suicer, a. 71. "A6yos"; Dorner, op. cit., Div. I. Vol. II. p. 436. Cf. pp. 218, 219, below. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 61 the Logos had no distinct personal subsistence before His going forth. The term yeW^o-is, generation, was used to describe this going forth, and the title Son was by some writers appUed to the Logos only after this yewqo-K. Such methods of description were hable to be understood as involving a denial of the Son's eternal existence. The Gnostics had regarded the Logos and the Only-begotten as separate beings. Justin Martyr described the Son as begotten by the wiU of God. This phraseology might mean, in view of the use of yem^o-ts just defined, that He came into the world by the wiU of the Father. The real, meaning was probably a denial that God can be under external necessity. Even the heathen Plotinus declared that God's wiU is identical with His nature. Yet such language lent itself to Arian application. Arius put this dilemma: If the generation was not voluntary, the Father was under external limitation in begetting His Son; if voluntary, the Son is a creature. The answer is that the generation of the Son springs neither from external necessity nor from vohtion, but from the divine essence itself. It is the Father's nature to beget His Son. The generation is spontaneous, but essential rather than voluntary.1 1 Cf. pp. 218, 219, 224, below. The dilemma offered by Arius was answered more or less directly by St. Athanasius, c Arian., III. 3 et. seq; de Deeret. Nic. Syn.; St. Gregory Nyss., c Eunom., viii. 2; ix. 2; St. Gregory Naz., Theol. Or at., III. 3 et seq.; St. Ambrose, de Fide, iv. 9; St. Cyril Alex., de Trin., ii. p. 56. See also J. H. Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § 4. 4; and App., note 2, pp. 416-422. On the ante-Nicene passages which seem to teach a temporal 62 THE ^DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS While it is impossible to justify all the phrases which these early writers employed, the general soundness of their position and intention is apparent in their writings, considered at large. Athenagoras, St. Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria1 clearly set forth the co-eternal existence of the Logos with the Father, and refused to make any separation between the Logos, the Son, and Jesus Christ.2 St. Irenaeus repudiated the notion that the Logos is merely the eternal world-idea; and clearly distinguished the two senses of the word "generation," as apphed respectively to the eternal fact upon which the dis tinction between the Father and the Son is based and to His going forth into the world. Origen did a great deal to complete the orthodox theology of the Logos, but his work belongs to the third century. generation of the Word, on the eve of creation, see a valuable note in Nicene and Post-Nic Fathers, 2d Series, Vol. IV. pp. 343-347. 1 Clement avowedly employed figurative language in order to protect Christian mysteries from desecration, and inadequate allow ance for this has caused mistakes in interpreting his language. His method was a branch of the disciplina arcani or guarded method of teaching catechumens. See J. H. Newman, Arians, ch. i. § 3; Cath. Encyc, s.v. "Discipline of the Secret"; A. W. Haddan, in Die. of Christ. Biog.," s.v. "Disciplina Arcani." 2 The scriptural evidence that they are one and the same Person is at a later date summarized by St. Athanasius, c Arian, iv. 15 et seq. He refutes three errors: (a) that only the Man is Son; (b) that the Word and the Man together constitute the Son; (c) that the Word became Son by the Incarnation. Among other clear statements on the Person of Christ in these writers, see St. Iren., Adv. Haer., III. ix; x. 2; xvi. 7; xix. 2; Clem. Alex., Exhort., 10 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 202, 2d col.). ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 63 § 4. The first half of this century saw the monar- chian controversy, and a very considerable develop ment of trinitarian terminology. This controversy arose from a desire to vindicate the Christian doctrine of divine unity and sovereignty as against the gnostic scheme of intermediate beings between God and His world. St. Irenaeus wrote a treatise to show that the divine monarchy, or sole rule of one God, does not in volve a divine responsibiUty for evil.1 This monarchia became at once an article of orthodoxy and a cause of speculative difficulty. The question obtruded itself, How can the doctrine of Christ's divinity be maintained without contradicting the primary truth of divine unity? At this stage of theological specu lation, the impossibility of reconciling these two behef s was regarded by many as self-evident; and the monarchia of God was rightly reckoned to be absolutely fundamental to the Christian position. Attempts to grapple with this difficulty soon led to two opposite forms of heresy — psilanthropism and Sabelhanism. The former error was maintained by two parties of the name Theodotus at the close of the second, and in the early years of the third, century. It was also supported by Artemon; and at a later date by Paul of Samosata, who became Bishop of Antioch.2 These men agreed in asserting that only 1 On the Monorchia, or on the truth that God is not the Author of evil, addressed to Florinus. The work is not extant, but is men tioned by Eusebius, Eceles. Hist., v. 20. 2 On Paul of Samosata, see § 9, below. Certain earher heretics are mentioned — the alogi — who re- 64 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS one person can be God, and that Christ was not divine, but a man to whom was imparted super human endowments.1 Such a position, as was proved by The Little Labyrinth, an anonymous treatise per haps written by Hippolytus, was directly opposed to the traditional faith of the Church, and constituted a revolutionary innovation. It could not maintain itself in the Church at large, although the sophistic skill of Paul of Samosata well-nigh baffled his ortho dox opponents. § 5. But, it often happens in the history of doctrine that the first efforts to overthrow heterodox teaching result in equally dangerous errors of a reactionary type. It was so at this crisis. Praxeas, a highly estimated opponent of Montanist vagaries, hastily accepting the assumption of the pshanthropists that there can be but one person in God, but insisting in opposition to them that Christ is divine, seemed to imply that He who suffered on the cross was no other Person than God the Father — patripassianism. jected St. John's Gospel. Their connection with the monarchian controversy is disputable. See Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 98; Cath. Encyc, s.v. "Alogi"; Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, Vol. III. pp. 14-19; Geo. Fisher, Hist, of Christ. Doc, p. 100. 1 On the monarchian controversy and psilanthropism (\j/ikbs AvSpunros, mere man), see Bethune-Baker, op. cit., ch. vii, esp. pp. 98-102; Harnack, op. cit., Vol. III. pp. 1-118; and in Schaff- Herzog, Encyc, s.v. "Monarchianism"; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 225 et seq.; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. /tompxla; Die. of Christ. Biog., s. v. "Trinity, the Holy," pp. 1047, 1048; Dorner, Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. pp. 6-15, 47-49; Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers, Vol. IV. pp. xxiii et seq. ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 65 Whether he was reaUy responsible for patripassianism or not, Noetus plainly avowed the heresy,1 which was developed by Sabelhus into a fuU-fledged modal- istic view of the Trinity. According to him God is but one Person, who however manifests Himself in three economic relations or aspects, respectively as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit. He was willing to speak of three wpotrom-a (the Greek equivalent of personae) in God, but in the emasculated sense of dramatis personae, or passing roles of manifestation.2 This use of ir/oo'o-awrov served to discredit the term in orthodox Eastern theology.3 § 6. Modahsm was brought to birth in Rome, and is thought to have determined the views of more than one Pope. But this could not continue long, and the African TertulUan, writing against Praxeas, developed a Latin terminology which went far to determine the lines of subsequent thought in the West concerning the Trinity.4 His point of view 1 On the positions of Praxeas and Noetus, see Harnack, op. cit., Vol. HI. pp. 20-30; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 102-107; Die. of Christ. Biog., s. vv. "Noetus"; "Praxeas"; "Hippolytus Romanus" (by Geo. Salmon); Dorner, Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. pp. 15-46, 49-104. It was Tertullian, Adv. Prax., 29, who punctuated the patripassian significance of Praxeas' error. 2 On Sabellianism, see J. H. Newman, Arians, ch. i. § 5; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 233-237; Die. of Christ. Biog., s.w. "Sa bellianism"; "Sabellius"; Harnack, op. cit., Vol. III. pp. 81-118; Dorner, op. cit., Div. I. Vol. n. pp. 150-170; Hagenbach, op. cit., §88. 3 See § 7, below. 4 Of chief importance ad rem is his adversus Praxean. On his theological position, see Hagenbach, op. cit., §§ 26(8), 42(9); Bethune- 6 66 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS was juristic. Substance*1 substantia, meant property capable of being jointly possessed by several persons, personae, or parties having rights. Now when the term substance is apphed to God it signifies divinity and aU that belongs to divine existence. Whatever problems may be raised by the supposition, no necessary contradiction is involved in beUeving that this divine substance can be the common property of three Persons, who possess it on equal terms, although in diverse manners. He also appUed this mode of conceiving substance and person to the Incarnation. Two substances, in his use of the term, can be regarded as possessed by one person without any contradiction of ideas being involved. TertulUan could not, of course, explain how three persons can possess one substance in God, but he accomphshed an exceedingly important task for Latin theology. That is, he successfully appropriated the terms of his age for a definition of the antithetic truths of divine unity and threefold divine personaUty which was not justly hable to the charge of either sacrificing one truth in the interests of the other, or of being self-contradictory. The influence of modal- istic monarchianism rapidly dechned in Rome, and the chief terms which Tertulhan employed have retained their place in Western theology to this day. Tertulhan did not forget, in insisting upon the co- Baker, op. cit., ch. x; Seeberg, op. cit., Vol. I. pp. 125-127; B. B. Warfield, Princeton Review, April, 1906, 3d Art.; Ottley, Incarn., Vol. I. pp. 254-263 (unduly critical). — - -™ < ANTE-NICENE PERIOD 67 equaUty of the divine Persons, to find place in his definitions for the principle of subordination in the Trinity. The Father is first in order, gradus, because the other Persons are from Him; the Son second, because Son; the Holy Spirit third, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. This subordi nation is purely one of eternal origin and economy, and is saved from any impUcation of inequaUty be tween the Persons by the assertion of Their unity of substance.1 Novatian's treatise on the Trinity,2 produced in the next generation, adopted and crys tallized Tertulhan's terminology. § 7. The Greek theologians were unable to fix trinitarian terms so quickly and summarily. Their speculations were more elaborate, and the terms which were in use were more subtle and more open to diverse interpretations. Ultimately, however, the terms owria. and vn-dorao-is became the technical equiv alents in Greek theology of substantia and persona in the West. But neither term was at first free from ambiguity. Ovo-Ca was sometimes used to connote an individual person, and in that sense there were said to be three ovo-uu in God. Yn-dorao-is came into use as a substitute for irpoo-wrov. This last term had become discredited because of the faciUty 1 We do not deny that, as might be expected at such a stage in theological development, he uses expressions which, if they occurred in a less orthodox context, would rightly be regarded as showing unsoundness. 1 A critical edition has been issued by W. Yorke Fausset, 1909. ,, 68 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS with which it was utilized in setting forth SabelUan ideas. It had become equivalent to dramatis persona and failed to exhibit the eternal and substantial reaUty of the distinctions in the Godhead.1 But the new term was also hable to misconstruction. It was translated into Latin by substantia, and the assertion that there are three divine hypostases seemed equiva lent to dividing the substance of God, that is, to tri- theism.2 It was Origen who first tried to distinguish between in-dorao-is and ova-la, but the terms con tinued to be used interchangeably, and such usage is discoverable in the Nicene anathema.3 At the Synod of Alexandria, in 362 a.d., the two uses of the term wdorao-is were formaUy distinguished and mutual misapprehensions were removed.4 The 1 It meant originally face, guise, mask. Theophilus, ad Autol., ii. 22, says that the Word, assuming the person (irpoa-mrov) of the Father, went in the person of God and conversed with Adam. See Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. Trpbounrov; Waterland, Second Vindication, pp. 540-2; Bethune-Baker. op. cit., pp. 233-235; Dorner, Christ. Doc, Vol. I. p. 379, note. 2 Incautious Westerns were misled accordingly into speaking of three substanliae, meaning three hypostases, in the Godhead. Their meaning was sound, but their terminology could not be accepted. 3 Those were anathematized who said that the Son was not from the Father's hypostasis or essence, il- b-ipas 6irooowr«>s were suggested. The most openly Arian were !repovo-ios and dvd/ioiov. 'Ert/ioixrtos, of another essence, was used by Aetius and Eudoxius; and dvd/*otov, un like, by Eunomius, a follower of Aetius. Eusebius of Caesarea and the semi-Arian party preferred either o/Muownos, of Uke essence, or ko.t ovo-tav Sfioiov, like in essence, or 5/iotov, like.3 All these last were suscep tible of orthodox interpretations; but were accepted by Arian leaders in unsound senses, based sophis ticaUy upon the scriptural statement that man is made in the image of God and after His likeness. 'The explanations made at the Council of Alexandria, in 362 a.d., clarified the air. Cf. p. 68, above, where refs. are given. See also Newman, Arians, App. note iv. 2 On this subject, see Newman, Tracts Theol. and Eccles., pp. 149-163; Bishop BuU, op. cit., conclus (Vol. II. pp. 661-668). St. Cyril Jerus., Catechetical Lectures, exhibit the orthodoxy of one who systematicaUy avoided the term, bpaoiauK. Cf . esp. passages in iv. 8; vi. 6; vii. 4; x. 6; xi. 4, 5, 16, 20; xvi. 4. 8 Bright describes the various forms of Arianism, op. cit., pp. 346-252. NICENE PERIOD 85 The likeness between God and man, however, is not generic but relative and metaphorical. It was a generally accepted postulate that God is absolutely unique in essence, so that every creature is erepoixruw t<3 Har/H. Those who honestly and inteUigently faced the issue came to see that the unity of reaUy divine Persons must be utterly different from that in which creatures can share; and also that no assertion of likeness is adequate to symboUze it, for it is not generic. The divine essence cannot be either divided or multipUed; and, if the Father and the Son are both reaUy divine, their essence is numeri- caUy one and the same. The 6/xoouVtos clearly set forth this truth; whereas the rival terms, in particu lar 6/M>ioiJo-£os, could be taken to signify a merely generic unity, such as might be ascribed to a group of pagan gods. St. Athanasius realized this.1 But at the same time he perceived that many Bishops of the semi-Arian party did not realize it; and that their rejection of ofioovcruK was based upon misapprehension, and had no heterodox motive. Accordingly, while not ceasing to defend the decision of Nicea, in the earUer stages of the controversy he habituaUy resorted to other terms and paraphrases in denning the doctrine which it protects — e.g. o/toios Kara, irdvra, ojuoios /car' ova-lav 'The contention that St. Athanasius did not mean to identify the essence of the Father and of the Son has been discredited. See Harnack, op. cit., Vol. D7. pp. 33-36. Cf. Forbes, Nicene Creed, P- 153; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, Vol. I. pp. 290-292. 86 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS 6/uwx^ijs, etc.1 In his use of them, these terms were not justly Uable to a minimizing construction. The explanations made at the Council of Alexandria in 362 a.d. helped to clear the air, and to secure gen eral currency of the formula, pta ovaia iv rpurlv woo-to- o-eo-o'.2 If there is but one ovala in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are obviously bjxoovmoi. § 12. If the term bpoovauK was not justly hable to the objection that it connoted a Sabelhan con fusion of Persons, its adoption did serve to recover and guard the doctrine of which SabelUanism was a one-sided caricature — the doctrine which is signified by the terms vepix^pvaK, circumcessio , and coinher- ence.3 St. Athanasius clearly formulated this truth.4 He was not, however, a reactionary. If Arianism had caricatured Origen's doctrine of subordination as against SabelUanism, he did not for that reason, in the interests of the 6/*oownos, surrender the doc trine thus caricatured.5 What he did was to avoid caricatures in both directions, and to combine in just proportions the antithetic mysteries which are guarded 1 Newman, Select Treatises, Vol. II. pp. 141, 142, says that he used bpxmiauts but once in his Orations Against the Arians — i. 9. 2 Ottley, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 42, 43. The Cappadocian writers did the most to crystallize the distinction between oitrla and imbaTaais and to complete the vindication of b/wotia-ios. See pp. 179-180, below. 3 On Circumcession, see ch. vii. § 10, below. 4 E.g. in c. Arian., II. xviii. 33, 41; III. xxiii. He did not, of course, discover it, for it is clearly implied in earher writers. In stances are given by Bishop Bull, o/>, cit., Bk. IV. ch. iv. § 9. B Cf. c. Arian., III. 35, 36. NICENE PERIOD 87' by the terminology of subordination and coinherence. It is a non-realization of this which has caused more than one failure of modern writers to do justice to his position.1 The doctrine of coinherence is that the divine Persons, by reason of their being the Subjects of one indivisible essence, exist in each other. The Persons are eternaUy distinct; but they are inseparable, and the undivided Trinity is in each, for each possesses the fulness of the one Godhead. As St. Augustine says, "In corporeal things, one thing alone is not as much as three together, and two are something more than one; but in that highest Trinity one is as much as the Three together, nor are Two anything more than One. And they are infinite in themselves. So both each are in each, and aU in each, and each in aU, and aU in aU, and aU are one." 2 Unhappily the balance of St. Athanasius has not always been preserved; and although both St. Hilary of Poitiers 3 and St. Augustine 4 expressly acknowl- 1 Harnack regards his position as self-contradictory, and A. Robertson, op. cit., p. xxxiii, barely escapes asserting the same thing. Symbolical terms of antithetic truths are not to be regarded as mutually contradictory unless pressed in more than their symbol ical — that is, their theological — meaning. Their inadequacy does not prove their falsity. 2De Trin., vi. 12. Cf. vii. 11; viii. 2. 3 "The Father is greater because He is Father: but the Son, because He is Son, is not less. By the birth of the Son the Father is constituted greater: the nature that is His by birth does not suffer the Son to be less." De Trin., ix. 56. 1 Cf. de Trin., ii. 2, 3; v. 15; c Maxim., ii. 3. 88 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS i edge the principatus of the Father, or the doctrine of subordination, the fear of Arianism drove this truth into the background in Augustinian theology; and Western writers of . subsequent ages have shown a tendency to neglect it.1 Yet the position taken by St. Athanasius has never been reaUy abandoned by cathohc theology; and the two truths of subordina tion and coinherence, by their combination, complete and guard the doctrines of tri-personality and divine unity. The truths of divine mission — or the eco nomic relationships of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, in tem poral manifestations and dispensations, — have been reckoned with and elaborated by later writers from this comprehensive standpoint. § 13. The centre of theological interest previous to this age had been the doctrme of Christ's Person. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit had received compara tively httle separate attention.2 Inasmuch as the 1 It is however acknowledged by St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I. xxxiii. 1; and by Petavius, de Trin., II. 2, 15. The latter says, "The Father is said to be greater than the Son in so far as He is Son, or in so far as He is begotten; so that He is not called greater than Him in His being God, or according to nature and essence." This doctrine is considered in ch. vii. §§ 8, 9, below. Our own Bishop BuU and Dr. Waterland did fuU justice to the doctrine. Cf. Newman on "The Principatus of the Father," in Tracts Theol. and Eccles., pp. 167 et seq.; W. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarn., note 128. 2 On the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in history, see H. B. Swete, Early Hist, of the Doc. of the Holy Ghost; and his art. in Die of Christ. Biog., s.v. "Holy Ghost"; Harnack, op. cit., Vol. IV. pp. 108-137; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., ch. xiii; Petavius, de Trin., Lib. I. cap. 14; Lib. II. cap. 6; C. Bigg, Christ. Platonists, pp. 70, 71, 171-174; Suicer, NICENE PERIOD; 89 l whole doctrine of the Trinity is involved in a true Christology, it is not surprising that the controversy concerning Christ's Person, once begun, should for several generations have engaged the almost ex clusive attention of theologians and apologists. But we are not to infer from this circumstance that the Church at any time failed to cherish a living faith in the Holy Spirit. There is abundant evidence to be found in ante-Nicene hterature that His distinct per- sonaUty and true Divinity were accepted doctrines, and determined the practical ideals of orthodox Christians.1 Moreover we discover in early writings acknowledgments of the eternal procession of the Spirit, and of His relation to the Father and the Son in the divine Monarchy.2 But these acknowl edgments are usuaUy incidental, and connected with expositions of Christological doctrine. The Arian denial of Christ's true Godhead, and the arguments employed in support of this denial, logi- caUy involved a like rejection of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. According to St. Athanasius, Arius maintained that "the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and aUen, and without Thesaurus, s. v. "TveS/m"; Ewd. Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers . . . Trinity and . . . the Holy Ghost; Hagenbach, op. cit., §§ 44, 93! and the references on the filioque controversy given in the next section. 1 See Ewd. Burton, op. cit., for significant passages. 2 See H. B. Swete, Hist, of the Doctrine of the Process, of the Holy Spirit, for instances. 90 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS i participation in each other . . . 'utterly unhke from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.'"1 Even among the orthodox there appeared to be some unreadiness to assert in definite terms the personahty and divinity of the Spirit. This was partly due to a fear of confusing and weakening their argument against the erroneous Christology of the Arians; but also to the lack of an accepted terminology in relation to the Holy Spirit.2 But the issue had soon to be met. The bald state ments of Eunomius brought the Arian denial of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit into clear rehef . The Spirit was declared to be inferior to the Son, and to have been created by Him. Among those Semi-Arians who were beginning to perceive the real meaning and value of the term opoovauK as apphed to the Son there were some who had not sufficiently 1 c. Arian, I. 6. Elsewhere, Epis. lxi. 5, ad Maxim., he says that the Nicene decision is "enough to overthrow every heresy however impious, and especiaUy that of the Arians which speaks against the Word of God, and as a logical consequence profanes His Holy Spirit." 2 St. Basil, in his treatise, de Spiritu Sancto, refrains from calling the Spirit God, although the purport of his argument is to prove His true Godhead. The explanation is given by B. Jackson, in his Pro legomena to Vol. VIII of Nicene and Post-Nic Fathers, p. xxiii, note. St. Gregory Naz. exhibits the confused state of mind prevailing when he says, Theol. Oral., v. 5, "Some of the wise men among us regard the Holy Spirit as an energy (ivipyaa) , others think that He is a creature, some again that He is God Himself" [not distinct in Per son from the Father], "and, lastly, there are some who do not know what opinion to adopt, from reverence, as they say, for the Sacred Scriptures, because they do not teach anything definite on this point." NICENE PERIOD 91 thought out the imphcations of trinitarian doctrine to be able to perceive the necessity of a definite acknowledgment of the distinct personahty and true divinity of the Holy Spirit, and of His consubstan- tiality with the Father and the Son. Under such circumstances arose what came to be caUed the Macedonian party, named after Macedonius of Con stantinople. Its distinctive tenet was a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.1 As early as 361 a.d. St. Athanasius dealt with this error in his Letters to Serapion; and the two Alexandrian Synods of 362 2 and 363 a.d. took a definite stand for the traditional faith. Several Councils held at Rome under Damasus took simflar ground; and an orthodox Tome on the Holy Spirit, issued by this Pope, was subscribed to in 378 a.d. by 146 Bishops at Antioch.3 Other Councils likewise affirmed the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the great Council of Constantinople, 381 a.d., held under the auspices of the Emperor Theodosius, gave a final condemnation of Macedonianism.4 This Council received subsequent recognition as the second ¦Hagenbach, op. cit., §93; Blunt, Die of Sects, s.v. "Pneumato- machi"; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 209-231; Hefele, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 280-281. 2 Hefele, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 276-278; Newman, Arians, ch. v. § 1; Introd. to St. Athanasius' Tomus ad Antioch., in Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers, Vol. IV. pp. 481, 482. 3 On these Synods and the Tome of Damasus, see Bethune-Baker, op. cit, pp. 214-217; Hefele, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 287-289. * On the Second Ecumenical Council, see Hefele, op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 340 et seq.; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 225-231. 92 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS Ecumenical Council of the Church. Among the writers who helped to complete the work of St. Athanasius in refuting Macedonianism, and in formu lating the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, were Didymus of Alexandria,1 St. Basil the Great,2 Sts. Gregory of Nyssa 3 and of Nazianzus 4 and Epiphanius of Cyprus,5 among the Easterns; and St. Ambrose of Milan 6 in the West. As a result of the controversy an expansion of the article in the Nicene Creed on the Holy Spirit came into use, and was subsequently adopted by the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 a.d. The original Nicene phrase Was very brief: K arvvTrpoaKwov- //.evov Kal awSo^aQofievov to XaXrjaav Sio tu>v vpov. This enlarged phraseology appears to have come from the Creed of Jerusalem, and may have been recited by St. Cyril of that See at the Council of Constantinople with the approval of his Usteners. But that it was formaUy adopted by the Council has not been proved.7 § 14. The Spirit is declared in the clause which 1 De Spiritu Sancto. 2 De Spiritu Sancto. 3 Adversus Macedonium. 1 Fifth Theol. Orat. B Ancoratus. 6 De Spiritu. 7F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations; Hamack, in Schaff-Herzog Encyc, s.v. " ConstantinopoUtan Creed"; Bethune-Baker, op. cit., pp. 188, 189, 214-217. NICENE PERIOD 93 we are considering to proceed from the Father, but no mention is made of His procession from the Son.1 This omission cannot be shown to signify a denial of the procession from the Son, and is explainable on other grounds. The Scriptures describe the Spirit as proceeding from the Father,2 and do not use the same expression in describing His relation to the Son; but describe Him as receiving from the Son,3 as the Spirit of the Son,4 and as sent into the world by the Son.5 We find several orthodox Eastern writers of the fourth century deducing from this teaching the conclusion which may be summed up in the phrase, "who proceedeth from the Father through the Son." Passages may be found which are approximately equivalent to the Western phrase, "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." 6 But the very general desire to adhere as closely as practicable to scriptural phrases, combined with an existing tendency in the East to lay stress on the principatus of the 1 On the whole filioque controversy, see H. B. Swete, Hist, of the Doc. of the Process, of the Holy Spirit; E. B. Pusey, On the Clause 'And the Son'; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, § 98; Petavius, de Trin., Lib. VII; Church Quarterly Review, Jan., 1877, PP- 421-465- Cf. first note in the previous section. 2 St. John XV. 26 : S irapa tov varpbs iK-iropeierat. 3 St. John xvi. 14, 15: ck tov ipav Xa/x£<£c«. •Acts v. 9; Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19; Pet. i. 11. 6 St. John xv. 26. Cf. pp. 230-232, below. 6 Patristic statements are given in their Greek and Latin originals by H. B. Swete, op. cit.; and by Dr. Pusey, op. cit, in English. Cf. DarweU Stone, Outlines of Christ Dogma, note 3, pp. 276-278, for a brief selection. A few of the more significant passages are quoted in ch. vii. § 7, below. 94 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS Father, sufficiently accounts for the omission from the Jerusalem Creed of any reference to the partici pation of the Son in the spiration of the Holy Ghost. In the West there was less tendency to dweU upon the principatus of the Father, although the truth that there can be but one principium and procession of the Spirit was acknowledged by St. Ambrose1 and St. Augustine.2 The consequence was that the Spirit's procession from the Son was asserted along with that from the Father, no effort being made as a rule to distinguish the senses in which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed, on the one hand, from the Father, and, on the other hand, from the Son. This undiscriminating phraseology crept into the version of the Nicene Creed which was current in the West, and the interpolated phrase filioque appears in this Creed as received by the Council of Toledo in 589 a.d.3 1 See passages given by H. B. Swete, op. cit, pp. 119-122. 2 As quoted in p. 234, note 1, below. 3 The foUowing events are 'to be noted in the subsequent history of the filioque. (a) In 680 a.d. the English Council of Hatfield, presided over by Abp. Theodore (an Oriental by birth), affirmed the procession of the Spirit ex Patre et Filio. See H. B. Swete, op. cit., pp. 187-192. (6) The filioque was maintained in Gaul at the Council of Gen- tilly, a.d. 767; at Frankfort, 794 a.d.; at Friuli, 796 a.d.; and at Aix-la-Chapelle, 809 a.d. The then Pope, Leo III, while not object ing to the doctrine, denied its necessity, condemned its insertion into the Creed as uncanonical, and placed two silver shields in St. Peter's with the Nicene Creed in its uninterpolated form inscribed thereon. The GaUic Church continued to use the filioque, which also came into use in Rome about 200 years later. H. B. Swete, op. cit, pp. 198, 199, 211-226. NICENE PERIOD 95 The filioque controversy does not come within the scope of this treatise except in its theological bearings, (c) As an incident of wider controversy with the See of Rome, Photius of Constantinople took issue in the middle of the 9th cen tury on the filioque, and expressly denied any kind of eternal pro cession of the Spirit from the Son. Thus the controversy was given a theological as weU as a canonical significance. Fuhy de- described in Neander, Church Hist, Vol. IV. (d) At the Council of Lyons, 1274 a.d., the Greeks accepted the language of Canon 1, "that the Holy Spirit etemaUy proceeds from the Father and the Son, ex Patre et Filio; not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one, unica, spiration." This was dictated by political motives, and popular sentiment in the East quickly nuUified their concession. Pusey, op. cit, pp. 105, 106; Hagenbach, op. cit, Vol. II. p. 209. (e) At the CouncU of Florence, 1439 a.d., the Greeks accepted language equivalent to that received at Lyons, and with a similar result in the East. For citation, see pp. 235, 236, below. Cf. Pusey, op. cit, pp. 102-105. (/) At the Synod of Bethlehem (Jerusalem), 1672 a.d., the Ori entals sanctioned language contained in an Orthodox Confession, which had been issued by Eastern patriarchs in 1643 a.d. — that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father only, as the fountain and principle of the Godhead . . . caused and spirated from the Father alone, and sent into the world through the Son." H. B. Swete, op. cit, p. 1, note. This language is not free from ambiguity, but has helped to crystallize the Eastern tendency to deny any kind of eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son. (g) At the second of two Conferences held at Bonn, 1874 and 1875 a.d., in the interests of reimion, a series of propositions, based upon an inadequate interpretation of St. John of Damascus, was adopted — more favourable to the Oriental point of view than to our own. Given, with suggested amendments, by Pusey, op. cit, note 1, pp. 182-184. But see the Reports of these Conferences edited by H. P. Liddon, 1875 and 1876. A correspondence in the London Guardian, running through sev eral issues of Dec, 1909, and Jan., 1910, throws much light on mod ern opinion in the East. 96 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFINITIONS and these wiU be considered in another chapter.1 It seems sufficient at this point to say that two im portant points of agreement are discoverable in the somewhat diverse terminologies of the theological writers of the fourth and fifth centuries: (a) that the Father is the fountain of Deity, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds principaliter from Him; (b) that the Son cannot be excluded from the mystery of the eternal spiration, so that in some sense the Holy Ghost also proceeds from or through Him. The sum of the matter is contained in the expression that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son — there being but one procession, and but one principium thereof.2 1 Ch. vii. § 7. The contention of G. B. Howard, Schism Between the Oriental and Western Churches, and others, that the third Ecum. Council forbade all additions to the Creed, cannot be maintained. A larger Creed than that Council adopted was sanctioned by the fourth Council, and is now everywhere in use. On the canonical issue, see Pusey, op. cit, pp. 33-96; Thomas Richey, Nicene Creed and the Filioque, N. Y., 1884. 2 Dr. Pusey, cited above, gives as an amended form of the Bonn doctrinal propositions, the following: (1) "The Holy Ghost goeth forth out of the Father (& toO irarpbs) as the Beginning (apxh), the Cause (atria), the Source (-irrjy-fi), of the Godhead." (2) "The Holy Ghost goes not forth out of the Son (4k tov vlov) as a distinct Source of Being, because there is in the Godhead but one Beginning (apxfl), one Cause (atria)." (3) "The Holy Ghost goes forth out of the Father through the Son eternally." (4) (Substitute for Nos. 4 to 6 of the Conference) "The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son together, since they are essentiaUy One, but principaUy from the Father." NICENE PERIOD 97 § 15. The term Woo-rao-is was more sharply crys- talUzed in its theological meaning, and the term v'o-is, previously employed somewhat loosely, was given the usage which it has since retained in cathoUc theology, by being apphed to the settlement of the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies. As against Nestorianism, it was determined once for all that the two natures of our Lord are the natures of one Person; J and, as against Eutychianism, the duahty 1 Owing partly to a desire to emphasize — somewhat one-sidedly — the Manhood of Christ, and partly to the arbitrary elements in St. Cyril's conduct at Ephesus, his position has been misunder stood by many modern writers. He unquestionably employed terms that, in the hands of inferior partisans, became the basis of monophysite error. But this was due to the as yet unsettled state of terminology touching the hypostatic union — a confusion which his own explanations, defective as they sometimes were, helped to remove. In his second letter to Nestorius, subsequently adopted by the 3d and 4th Ecum. Councils, he used clear language: "Diverse are the natures which are combined into this true union, but from them both is one Christ and Son; not as if the diversity of natures were annihilated because of the union, but rather that Godhead and Manhood . . . constitute for us the one Lord Jesus Christ." In his letter to John of Antioch, which embodied the final settlement of controversy between them, and which was subsequently adopted by the 4th Ecumenical Council, he says, in agreement with John, "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ ... to be perfect God and per fect Man, ... of one essence with the Father as touching the Godhead, of one essence with us as touching the Manhood." Unfor tunately he subsequently employed the confusing phrase, pda tpiais toO \6yov aeo-apKWfUrn, a source of future difficulty; but careful study shows that he was not forsaking his acknowledgment of two dis tinct natures in Christ, but was momentarily reverting to the older use of ipiaa, as equivalent to forivai$. The meaning of <£ww had wavered between that of oio-ta and that of wdorao-is. It now came to be almost equivalent to ovata, but denoted active prop erties and functions. Thus to assert our Lord's possession of the divine and human natures meant that He possesses the essential properties and func tions of God and of man.2 The sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constanti nople in 680 a.d., accentuated the difference be tween person and nature, and settled it once for aU, so far as the cathohc terminology of the doctrines of Vol. H, esp. pp. 380-381. For documents, see Percival, Seven Ecum. Councils, pp. 191 et seq. It should be noted that in the letter to John of Antioch the term 6/jioovaios was used to express the relation of Christ's Manhood to ours, and this use has become permanent. The term has therefore two theological meanings: (a) In the doctrine of the Trinity it signifies numerical identity of essence; (b) In the doctrine of the Incarnation it means generic unity of essence. It is important to remember this difference of meaning. 'The decree of Chalcedon repeats in substance the language of St. Cyril to John of Antioch, and concludes with an acknowledgment of " One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, change, division, or separation; the difference of the natures being in no wise impaired by the union, but, on the contrary, the property of either nature being preserved, and concurring into one Person and one Hypostasis," etc. The Tome of Leo I, adopted by that Council, elaborates the doctrine thus defined. For documents see Percival, op. cit, pp. 243 et seq. Cf. Hefele, op cit, Vol. III. pp. 265 el seq. 2 Cf. ch. vi. § 7, below. NICENE PERIOD 99 the Trinity and the Incarnation are concerned, that the term person signifies the indivisible self of a rational nature, as distinguished from the natural attributes and functions which this self possesses, and by means of which it is manifested. Even the wiU is to be referred to nature rather than to person; for like aU the natural properties, it is possessed by the personal self rather than constitutes that self. The sixth Council decided that the one Person Christ possesses "two natural wiUs and two natural operations."1 It is obvious that, if wiU is personaUty, there can be but one wiU in one person; but if wiU is a possession of person, and distinguish able from it, no contradiction is involved in declaring that the one Person of the Word-incarnate possesses two wflls. The line of demarcation in cathohc termi nology between person and nature was thus made to include wiU in nature, and to Umit the meaning of person to the self or ego of the nature thus defined.2 § 16. The Nicene terminology, the development of which we have been describing, was faithfully translated into Latin. Ovo-la became substantia or essentia; is beyond controversy in historical Christian theology, and wiU also be estabUshed in our sixth volume. It is, however, lost sight of by modern kenoticists l 1 The kenotic theory was developed under the conditions of the semi-monophysite forms of German-Lutheran thought. The original kenoticists mistakenly conceived of the Incarnation as an infusion of the Godhead into the Manhood. They were led, therefore, to infer that it involved a loss by the eternal Son of such divine attributes as are incapable of being imparted to our nature without destroying its human quality. See the author's Kenotic Theory, pp. 12-14 and ch. viii. 144 DIFFICULTIES and is denied by pantheists.1 Expressed in dogmatic terms of the Councils, bibhcal induction estabhshes the conclusion that in Jesus Christ there are two natures, one truly divine and the other perfectly human, these natures being united inseparably, although without confusion or mutual interference, in one Person.2 This means that the divine and human natures are the natures of one personal Subject or Ego — the eternal Son of God. Therefore, whether we designate Christ by divine or by human titles, we are speaking of one and the same Person; and we can rightly attribute to Him the proper attributes of either nature, although we may not ascribe the distinctive attributes of one to the other nature.3 A careful recollection of these truths of the Incar nation wiU serve to meet the objections to the bibUcal argument for the Trinity which are based upon the 'Unitarians to-day show a distinctly pantheistic tendency. They are sometimes willing to acknowledge that Christ is con- substantial with the Father, but with the assumption that such a description is applicable to aU men. For an example, see J. M. Whiton, Gloria Patri, pp. 19-29. 2 This is the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, asserted by the third and fourth Ecumenical Councils. See St. Thomas, Sum. Theol, III. ii-v; Hooker, Eccles. Polity, V. Uv. 10; Darwell Stone, Outlines of Christ. Dogma, pp. 61-86. 3 This is the doctrine of the communication of idioms. See St. Thomas, op. cit, III. xvi; Hooker, op. cit., V. Iii. 3; Iiii. 3, 4; W. Bright, St Leo on the Incarn., pp. 117-119 (Tome of St. Leo, § 5); notes 5, 63; and the writer's Kenotic Theory, pp. 40-46. Lutheran theology subverts this doctrine into the theory that the attributes of one nature are communicated to the other nature. Some of our own writers have faUen into this reaUy monophysite error. BIBLICAL 145 numerous evidences in the Gospels that Jesus Christ was very Man, and subject in His human nature to aU the proper limitations of a sinless manhood. These evidences are exceedingly precious to cathoUc be- Uevers, since they prove that the Only-begotten of God has reaUy taken our nature, and has thus con stituted Himself an effective Daysman and meeting- point between God and man. If, however, they are understood to prove that Christ was not really and fuUy God — whether because He had never been divine, or because He was deprived of some at least of His eternal attributes by His taking our nature,1 — such an inference is inconsistent with the claims of Christ, and nulUfies the New Testament teaching that in Him we have a true Mediator, who can lay His hands on both God and man.2 It is futile, therefore, to object that Christ is said to have advanced in wisdom as weU as in stature, and in favour with God and men;3 that He learned 1 The kenotic theory above described. * 1 Tim. u. 5. Cf. Job ix. 33. Replying to the objection that a Mediator between God and man cannot be one of the parties to be reconciled, Waterland says that the distinction of Persons in the Trinity shows that, although God, Christ is not the Person — i.e. the Father — to whom He mediates. See Second Vindication, pp. 567, 568. It might be added that, if vaUd, the objection would prove too much, for it would also mil itate against His being Man. Mediation is between persons; and the persons on both sides who are mediated between by Christ are distinct from Himself. 3 St. Luke ii. 52. Cf. St. Athanasius, c. Arian., III. 52; and the writer's Kenotic Theory, pp. 180-183. *- 11 - 146 DIFFICULTIES from experience after the human manner; that He professed ignorance concerning the day and hour of the judgment;1 that He exhibited a finite presence, coming where He had not been, and leaving; that He wrought miracles with prayer, as dependent upon divine assistance; that He was governed by the human law of obedience to the Father's wiU; that He felt forsaken of God on the Cross; that He acknowledged the Father to be His God;2 and numerous other Gos pel indications that His human hmitations were not docetic but genuine. The clue to, them ^11 is to be found in the truth of the Incarnation. The Son of God reaUy took our nature, and all the hmitations above referred to were involved in that fact. But we attribute them to Christ as touching the nature which He assumed.3 His claim to be divine — a claim made during His humiU- ation — requires this method of interpretation, if we 1 St. Mark xiii. 32. Cf. St. Athanasius, op. cit, in. 42-50; the writer's Kenotic Theory, pp. 183-185. 2 St. John xx. 17. St. Gregory Naz., Theol. Oral, iv. 8, init, explains those words as spoken by Christ in relation to His Man hood. See also St. Matt, xxvii. 46; Ephes. i. 17; Revel, iii. 2, 12; which are to be explained in the same way. 3 The Arians made use of these predications of human hmitations to Christ, and were answered by St. Athanasius, c Arian., III. 26 et seq. In III. 32, he says, "These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him accord ing to the Godhead." BD3LICAL 147 are not to conclude that Christ's claims are false.1 If they are false, He was not even the perfect man that He is generaUy acknowledged to be. He was God or else He was not good. § 3. Another form of objection to the bibhcal argument for the Trinity is based upon the subordi nate manner in which Christ is reckoned in the New Testament to be divine. This difficulty has been partly met by anticipation in our previous chapter.2 As Dr. Waterland has pointed out,3 although the Son — and this is true of the Holy Spirit — is God in a subordinate manner, He is not God in an inferior sense of the word God.4 That is, although the God head which the Son eternaUy possesses is the very Godhead of the Father, the manner of His having it is derivative and by eternal generation from the Father. This generation of the Son, and the pro cession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, constitute an eternal order of Persons, in which the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third. But since the generation and the pro cession are eternal, this order is not one of temporal sequence; and since the Godhead which is possessed 1 On the a priori objection that Christ cannot be God if He is Man, see § 13, below. 2 Ch. iv. § 16. On the doctrine of subordination in history, see ch. iii. §§ 8, 12, above. The doctrine is explained in ch. vii. § 8, below. 3 Second Vindication of Christ's Divinity {Works, Vol. n), p. 525. 4 On our Lord's words, "The Father is greater than I" (St. John »v. 28), see pp. 154, 155, below. 148 DIFFICULTIES by all three of the divine Persons is one and undivided, these Persons are co-equal in essence as weU as co- eternal. Regard for the divine unity, and for the mystery of generation and procession, explains the habit of New Testament writers of ascribing divine attributes and titles to the Son and to the Holy Spirit in a manner that witnesses to the principatus of the Father. But in describing Them as divine they exclude the inter pretation which relegates Them to an inferior rank in being. The notion of inferior gods is utterly for eign to New Testament doctrine; so that, although the manner in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are taught to be God is subordinate, the teaching that they are God can have but one meaning — that they possess the one and indivisible Godhead, and are co- eternal and co-equal with the Father.1 § 4. A somewhat related objection is based upon the numerous passages in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are described as sent, and as performing Their ministrations in obedience to the Father's wiU.2 But so far from being reaUy inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, these passages Ulustrate and 1 Instances are given in p. 139, note 4, above. 2 On the Son's mission, see^St. Matt. x. 40; St. Mark ix. 37; St. Luke iv. 18, 43; ix. 48; x. 16; St. John iii. 17; v. 30; vi. 57; viii. 42; x. 36; xii. 49; xvii. 3. On that of the Spirit, St. John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7. The obedience of Christ may be explained not only by the con siderations about to be given, but also, in many passages, by His Incarnation and acceptance in the Manhood of human hmitations. See § 2, above. BIBLICAL 149 confirm a mystery which in cathoUc theology con stitutes an important adjunct of trinitarian doctrine — the mystery of divine economies and divine mission.1 The operative manifestations of the divine Persons are necessarily to be apprehended and described in the terms of finite experience, and the terms employed are also chosen in view of the mutual relations in eternal procession of the divine Persons. These Persons are aU said to come into the world; but God does not, in His Godhead, move through space. He does, however, manifest Himseff through the spatial and temporal conditions of our experience, and these manifestations, from our point of view, are con veniently and not misleadingly described in terms of coining. To describe the Son and the Holy Spirit as sent into the world, however, impUes that Their coming is in obedience to the wiU of another Person; and this practical subordination has been thought by some to be inconsistent with Their being reckoned as divine and co-equal with the Father. But it is surely not impossible for co-equal persons to work together in a relation of subordination; and such subordination, while it favours unity in work, does not in the shghtest degree militate against the co-equahty of those who thus choose to act. If the divine Persons are one in essence, They of course operate indivisibly in aU things; but, as wiU be expounded more fuUy in a subsequent chapter,2 1 See ch. viu. §§ 1-4, below. * Ch. viii. § 1. 150 DIFFICULTIES Their being distinct Persons involves a difference in the relations of each of Them to Their common opera tions. There is but one will of God, but the relations of distinct divine Persons to that will must themselves be distinct, and wiU properly corresporid to the mutual relations of these Persons — that is, to the eternal order of Persons in the Godhead. And the passages of Scripture which we are considering simply bear witness to these relations in the terms of their manifestation in human history. Since the Son pro ceeds from the Father eternaUy, His being sent by the Father fittingly expresses His relation to the mystery of redemption which the Father and the Son equally achieve. And since the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son, His relation to the mystery of sanctification, wrought by the undivided Trinity, is suitably described by His being said to be sent by the Father and the Son. § 5. There remain to be noticed a few other texts which, when interpreted without regard for the rest of Scripture, and apart from their context, lend them selves to antitrinitarian argument. A certain passage in the Book of Proverbs was discussed at length between the Arians and the orthodox. Wisdom is there personified; and, in the Septuagint version which the ancient fathers used, is represented as saying, "The Lord made, eKTto-e, Me, in the beginning of His way, before, «s, His works of old."1 The passage was generally regarded 1 Prov. vui. 22, BIBLICAL 151 as messianic; and when thus translated, it seems to bear out the Arian contention that Christ there de clares Himself to have been created. Some cathohc writers distinguished between the Greek words kt%uv and ttouIv, and interpreted the text as referring to the eternal generation. Others interpreted Jktio-c as equivalent to iiriaTrjae tois 2pyo«. St. Athanasius referred it to our Lord's human nature.1 All agreed that the passage ought to be interpreted by its context, which plainly declares the personified Wisdom to be from everlasting.2 That is, there was no time when He was not. The original Hebrew for Iktio-e would have settled the controversy. HJp means possessed, and the translation should be, "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way."3 In the Psalms it is said, "The Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee."4 This passage is messianic in its reference. Our Lord's being born of a woman, in fact the whole mystery of 1 C. Arian., II. xvi-xxu. The same interpretation is to be found in St. Gregory Naz., Theol. Oral, iv. 2. He says, "What ever we find joined with a cause" — he refers to temporal causa tion — "we are to refer to the Manhood; but aU that is absolute and unoriginate we are to reckon to the account of His Godhead." The same point is made by St. Athanasius, c. Arian., n. xix. 47. 2 Verse 23. 8 On this text, see D. Waterland, Second Vindication, pp. 633- 643; Liddon, op. cit, pp. 60-62; Newman, Select Treatises, Vol. II. pp. 270, 271; R. L. Ottley, Incarnation, Vol. I. p. 305, esp. note 3. 4 Psa. ii. 7. Cited by St. Paul, Acts xiii. 33, who elsewhere says, Rom. i. 4, "declared to be the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord." Cited also in Heb. i. 5; y. 5. See Waterland, Works, Vol. IV. p. 26. 152 DIFFICULTIES His manifestation culminating in the resurrection, is treated as a begetting of the Son as touching the Manhood.1 The passage has no reference to the origin of His Person. With it should be compared the annunciation of the angel to the Blessed Virgin, "That which is to be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God."2 The thought is that men shaU caU Him so, in view of the supernatural causation of His human birth, — not that His divine sonship then begins to be. Elsewhere in the Psalms it is said, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness: Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above thy feUows."3 With this should be compared St. Peter's language on the day of Pente cost, "Let aU the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified";4 also St. Paul's words to the PhiUppians, "Wherefore also God 1 Four uses of the word generation and its cognates in relation to the Son, are to be found in bibUcal and theological literature: (a) referring to His eternal derivation from the Father: e.g. St. John i. 14, 18; (b) to His going forth to create: in connection with Xiyos irpoovs, as applied to the divine Per sons, mean identity of essence, but generic equaUty. He is misled by their use of the analogy of a human father and son, and by fail ure to aUow for their realistic point of view. These writers, after the manner of Plato, regarded the common nature of man as having IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY 181 The terminology which St. BasU thus defined was preserved by St. John of Damascus and employed in his de Fide Orthodoxa,1 which possesses in Eastern theology an authority parallel to that of St. Augus tine's de Trinitate in Western theology. § 5. To summarize what has been said, patristic thought concerning the Trinity comes to a head in the distinction between two antithetic terms and their a reaUty of its own, independently of individual men, and as being numericaUy one. Moreover, they refused to regard the human anal ogy as an adequate one. In any case their assertion of the indivisible unity and identity of the essence of the three Persons is unmistakable. St. Basil, Epis. hi. 3, says that the Son's begetting is neither a separating and be stowal of substance nor a fluxion or shooting forth. St. Gregory Nyss., c. Eunom., I. 35, says, "We do not let our idea of Them be melted down into one Person, but we keep distinct the properties of the Persons, whUe, on the other hand, not dividing in the Persons the oneness of their substance." Cf. VII. 5. St. Gregory Naz., - Theol. Orat, v. 14, says, "To us there is one God, for the Godhead is one, and aU that proceedeth from Him is referred to the one . . . the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in distinct Persons." ' Also, in v. 16, "But each of these Persons possesses unity, not less with that which is united to it than with itself, by reason of the iden tity of essence and power." Cf. V. 9. See Prolegomena to the Works of St. Gregory Nyss. (in Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d Series, Vol. V.), ch. iv. pp. 23-29. The position attained is summed up by St. Gregory Naz., Orat. xxi. 35 : "We use in an orthodox sense the terms one essence and three hypostases, the one to denote the nature of the Godhead, the other the properties of the three. The ItaUans mean the same, but, owing to the scantiness of their vocabulary, and its poverty of terms, they are unable to distinguish between essence and hypostasis, and there fore introduce the term persons to avoid being understood to assert three essences." 1 Cf. Lib. in. cap. iv. init, for a brief summary. 182 PERSONALITY AND RELATED TERMS equivalents. Persona or fordo-rao-is denotes that in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which warrants Their being regarded as mutually distinct; while sub stantia or oiala signifies what is possessed by these Three in common. The word oiala became Latinized as essentia. This terminology was perpetuated in scholastic theology, but along with a sUghtly confusing definition of persona, attributed to Boethius. It reads, "Per sona est naturae rationalis individua substantia."1 LiteraUy translated this means, "Person is the in divisible substance of a rational nature." As the word substantia is employed in theology to denote that which constitutes the divine Being, to define person as a substance, and then to declare that there are three divine Persons, is to run the risk of tritheistic interpretation. Scholastic writers, however, were not misled, but interpreted substantia in the definition referred to as equivalent to viroaTaais in its theologi cally acquired meaning.2 Subsistentia often displaced substantia. In practical effect the definition means that person is the indivisible subject of a rational nature. § 6. Descartes was the first to pay attention to the 1 In de Duabus Naturis. 2 St. Thomas, Sum. Theol, I. xxix. 2, thus explains substantia in this definition. In art. 4, he says that a divine person signifies a relation of origin after the mode of substance or hypostasis in the divine nature. Persona divina relationem originis significat per modum substantiae; seu hypostasis in divina natura. Cf. H. C. Powell, op. cit, pp. 147, 148, 154, 155. IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY 183 fact that the ego or self constitutes the fundamental reahty in personaUty. But, although the ancient fathers did not directly notice this fact, and refrained from trying to define person in itseff, the notion of self is clearly implied in their use of persona and its equivalents, and constitutes the only positive element which can be shown to be comprehended in their idea of person in relation to the Trinity. The phrase ology is modern, but we do not misrepresent the positive meaning with which they spoke of three divine Persons or Hypostases when we understand them to be asserting that three SeUs or Egos exist in and possess the indivisible essence of God. They attributed to each and aU of these SeUs what ever pertains to God as divine, but this does not define person in se. It simply expresses the truth that these SeUs are divine Persons. They also de scribed Them severaUy, and mutually distinguished Them, by the proper names and mutual relations which are given Them or ascribed to Them in the New Testament. But this likewise adds nothing to the definition of person in itseU. Their notion of person, as we have said, cannot be shown to have any fuller positive content than SeU — the Subject of a rational nature. As employed in trinitarian doctrine, the fathers did, however, delimit the meaning of the term person in two directions. They refused to sanction either the SabeUian definition of divine Persons as mere aspects, dramatis personae, or the opposite and tri- 184 PERSONALITY AND RELATED TERMS theistic definition of Them as separate beings or individuals. The divine Persons, in brief, are real, eternal, and distinct Selfs, but do not constitute separate Divine Beings.1 That self constitutes the positive patristic meaning of person is confirmed by their use of the term nature, (fiuo-ts, natura, in defining the doctrine of Christ's Person. The definitions of Chalcedon and of the sixth Ecumenical Council, especiaUy of the latter, make a very sharp and mutuaUy exclusive deUmitation of the meanings of person and nature.2 In these decisions the natures of Christ are made to compre hend everything in line with essence, attributes, and proper operations respectively of God as divine and of man as human. Even the will is included. His Person, on the other hand, is regarded as constituting the Subject and Possessor of these several attributes and operations, and is antithetically distinguished from them. No other view of the matter is consistent with the decision of the sixth Council that in the one Person of Christ "are two natural wiUs and two natural 1 The ancients were concerned with describing the boundaries of personaUty — denning what it is not; — whereas moderns analyze the functions of personaUty by psychological investigation. See H. C. Powell, op. cit, pp. 145, 146. Waterland, Second Vindication, pp. 650-653, sums up the positive elements in the patristic concep tion when he defines person as "an intelligent agent, having the distinctive characters of I, thou, and he; and not divided or distin guished into more inteUigent agents capable of the same characters." 2 This development has been described in ch. iii. § 15. IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY 185 operations."1 The context and the whole direction of patristic thought forbid us to think that this lan guage either presupposes or impUes the notion that Christ's Person is a totahty made up of the two natures and their attributes and operations. His Person cannot have been regarded as to any extent constituted by His human nature, for aU the orthodox fathers maintained that Christ's Person existed before the Incarnation. And they did not regard the In carnation as changing or adding to His Person, qua person, but as an assumption of our nature by an unchangeable divine Person. By reason of the In carnation the second Person of the Trinity suppUed personaUty — seffhood — to the nature which2 He assumed, and made its attributes and operations His own. He thenceforth possesses two natures, with all their respective operations,3 and these natures possess in Him one and the same Person or Self. In brief, the Person, on the one hand, and the two natures, on the other hand, are inseparable and possess each 1 See W. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarn., notes 56, 156; St. Thomas, Sum. Theol, HI. xviu; Rich. Hooker, Eccles. Polity, V. xlviii. 9; Uu. 3; Uv. 2, 5-9. 2 The Manhood which Christ assumed is said to be impersonal — that is, apart from His assumption of it. It could not, of course, exist without a personal subject of its attributes and operations. The point is that it acquired such a subject by being assumed by a divine Person. There is no personal subject in Christ other than the eternal Son. St. Thomas, Summa Theol, III. iv. 2-6; W. Bright, op. cit., note 26. 3 As St. Leo I says, in his Tome, "Each form [nature] does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other." 186 PERSONALITY AND RELATED TERMS other; but they do not constitute each other, for they are mutuaUy distinguished.' The Person is the Self of two natures and the two natures have but one Self. A rational nature is necessarily possessed of a person, and a person is necessarily the Self of a rational nature; but orthodox theological terminology does not per mit us to make the terms person and nature overlap each other in their appUcation. § 7. The term nature, <£vuVeis, remain distinct, never being commingled, but being united hypostati- cally, Kaff viroaTaaw,2 in that they possess in common 1 Cf. § 12. iv, below, where references are given. 2 The phrase ko8' vrbaTaaiv tvtatriv was used by St. Cyril, in his IN MODERN THOUGHT 187 one Person or Self, viz., the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The terms oiala and iais appears in St. Cyril's famous phrase, "one nature of the Word which was incarnate.'' See p. 97, note 1, above; and R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. II. p. 170. 3 On substance, see Bethune-Baker, Early Hist, of Christ. Doc trine, pp. 231-233; T. B. Strong, "The History of the Theol. Term Substance," in Journal of Theol. Studies, 1902; Rickaby, op. cit, Pt. II. ch. i; Schouppe, op. cit, Tr. vi. §§ 20-24; E. Grandclaude, op. cit, Vol. I. pp. 196-198; Baldwin, op. cit, s.vv. "Substance"; "Substance (in Theology) "; and this volume, ch. iii. § 6; ch. vi. § 3. 204 PERSONALITY AND RELATED TERMS divine Persons. It should be evident that, as apphed to God, the word substance in cathohc theology has no materiahstic connotation. God is pure spirit.1 iu. Homoousios (6/xooto-ios, consubstantial) signifies of the same essence.2 The meaning of this same ness depends upon the rank in being in connection with which the term is employed. When creatures are described as of the same essence, nothing more is meant than that they belong to the same genus and possess the same kind of essence or substance. The divine essence, however, belongs to no genus, but is absolutely unique; and being also indivisible, it cannot be distributed so as to produce a genus of similar but separate beings. Accordingly, to be of the same essence with God means, in theological terminology, to possess the self-same essence which God possesses, the unity of essence being not generic but of identity. When the Son is declared to be homoousios with the Father, it is meant that He is a distinct self of the self-same essence with the Father. iv. Nature {natura, <£wr«), etymologically consid ered, has reference to nativity and to what is derived from another by birth.3 In theology it is 1 Cf. pp. 188, 189, above. 2 On homoousios, see above, ch. iii. §§9, 11; and pp. 180, 181. Further references are given in p. 82, note 1. 3 The word iaa; E. Grandclaude, op. cit., Vol. I. pp. 201-203; and this volume, ch. iii. § 15; ch. vi. § 7. TERMS DEFINED 205 practicaUy equivalent to essence, the difference lying in the aspect which is considered. The same thing is called essence as constituting the principle of being, and nature as the principle of operation.1 The dis tinctive connotation of "nature" appears in the teaching that our Lord possesses the divine and the human natures; that is, He possesses the proper operations of God and of man. It also appears in the practice of regarding the divine attributes, in cluding the active ones as weU as the quiescent, as describing the divine nature. v. Subsistence2 {subsistentia) in the abstract signifies the manner in which an essence, substance, or nature actuaUy exists per se, as an individual being. Thus God is said to have a personal and threefold subsist ence. In the concrete it denotes a real subject or centre of a complete being, to which the properties and predicates of such a being are referred. CathoUc doc trine teaches that there are three such subsistences in the one being of God. vi. Suppositum,3 that which is placed under, is nearly equivalent to subsistentia in the concrete. It 1 Tanquerey, de Deo Trino, § 14. See p. 203, note 2, above, on the tendency of oiala and &j the Father, thus the Spirit to the Son"; and, as H. B. Swete says, op. cit, p. 101, he teaches "very distinctly and repeatedly that the Spirit is 4k 6eov Si vlov." St. Gregory Nyss., adv. Maced., 6, Ukens the Trinity to three torches, of which the second is Ughted from the first and the third from the second (given by Swete, p. 102) . In Epis. ad A blabium, he says, " For the One exists immedi ately from the First, the Other" [the Spirit] "through Him who exists immediately from the First . . . and not excluding the Spirit from the natural relation to the Father " (more fuUy cited by Pusey, pp. no, in). Epiphanius explicitly asserts an eternal derivation of the Spirit from, e«, the Son. He says, Haer., bdi. 4, that the Holy Spirit is "not begotten, not created, not brother of the Son, not grandson of the Father, but ever proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son: not ahen from the Father and Son, but from, €k, the same Essence, from, e/c, the same Godhead, from, e/e, the Father and the Son, ever subsisting . . . Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. For it is the Spirit of the Father, Who speaketh in you, and My Spirit standeth in the midst of you, the third in appel lation, ... the bond of the Trinity," etc. Again, in Ancoratus, 73, DIVINE PROCESSIONS AND RELATIONS 235 t "And the Son and the Father are not, unless the Holy Spirit, who is from the Father and from the Son," S n-apa tov warpbs Kal ex tov vlov. St. Cyril of Alexandria is equaUy expUcit. In his 3d Epis. ad Nestorium, formaUy accepted by the 4th, if not also by the 3d, Ecum. Coundl, he says that the Spirit is not alien from the Son, "for He is named 'the Spirit of Truth,' and Christ is the Truth; and He is shed forth from Him, irpoxetrat trap' airov, even as He is also, of course, from, ck, God the Father." In the ninth anathema he described the Spirit as the tStov tov vlov; and Theodoret assailed this language, denying that the Spirit is in any sense eternaUy derived from the Son. St. Cyril was not shaken from his position, but in an explanation submitted to the Council of Ephesus, Explic. XII Capit, anath. 9, he described the Son as "being aU that the Father is, save only being the Father, and having as His own the Holy Spirit, which is out of, Zk, Him and essentiaUy existing in Him." Unfortunately the Coundl, while siding with St. Cyril against Theodoret on the main question, gave no expUcit decision as to the derivation of the Spirit from the Son. (See Swete, p. 146, note 3.) Elsewhere, In Johann. Lib. II (cited by Pusey, pp. 131, 132), he says, "How shaU we separate the Spirit from the Son, thus inexisting and essentiaUy united, who cometh forth through Him and is by nature in Him, . . . who is His very own and is by nature poured forth from, trap, Him." Other passages might be cited (see Pusey, pp. 126-136; and Swete, pp. 136-150). The classic rank in the East of St. John Damascene's de Fide Orthodoxa gives especial historical importance to his language on the Holy Spirit. In the interests of the pavapxla, he refuses to admit that the Spirit proceeds out of, ex, the Son; but acknowledges that His procession from the Father is through, Sii, the Son. In Bk. I. 12, he describes the Holy Spirit as "proceeding from the Father through the Son. . . . And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from, e/c, Him, but as proceeding through Si, Him from, Sk, the Father; for the Father alone is cause." See Pusey, pp. 96-101; and Swete, pp. 202-204. The language of the Coundl of Lyons has been elsewhere quoted (P- 95 (d), above), as repudiating two principles and two spirations. The definition adopted at Florence, 1439 a.d., contains the fol lowing language: "We the Greeks have declared that what we say, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, we do not say 236 THE DIVINE PERSONS If the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, as is plainly confessed or imphed in various statements made by Eastern fathers, He proceeds reaUy, although in diverse manners, from both. That is, He proceeds from the Father and from the Son. No doubt this last phrase is undiscriminating, and can justly be criticised as faiUng to assert what needs to be asserted in such a connection — the priority of the Father in the mystery of spiration, as Fountain of Godhead. The canonical questions involved in the filioque controversy Ue outside the scope of this treatise,1 and with the intent of excluding the Son: but, because we thought that the Latins said that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son as of two Origins and two Spirations, we have abstained from saying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. And we the Latins affirm that what we say, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, we do not say in the sense of excluding the Father from being the Source of aU Godhead, of the Son, that is, and the Holy Ghost: or .that this, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, the Son hath not from the Father, or in the sense of affirm ing that there are two Sources or two Spirations; but we affirm that there is One sole Source and Only breathing of the Holy Ghost, as heretofore we have asserted." Given by Pusey, On the Clause 'And the Son,' pp. 104, 105. Unhappfly the Synod of Bethlehem (in language quoted on P- 95 (/)> above) adopted language which seems to exclude any eternal derivation of the Spirit from the Son; and the attitude of the East- ems who attended the Conferences of Bonn, 1874 and 1875 a.d., seriously reduced the adequacy of the propositions which were there adopted. See Pusey, op. cit, 182-184. xThe position taken by E. B. Pusey, op. cit, and Thos. Richey, Nicene Creed and the Filioque, appears to be the correct one. G. B. Howard's Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches does justice neither to the real facts nor to the theological issues involved. DIVINE MONARCHY 237 modern conditions have caused them to have only an academic interest. The filioque has come to serve in the West as a practically indispensable safeguard of two leading particulars of the cathoUc doctrine of the Trinity; and its abandonment, even in the interests of canonical regularity and reunion with the East, may not be permitted until sufficient pro vision has been made for a continued maintenance and assertion of the truths which the clause in question protects. These truths are the co-equahty of the Son with the Father, obscured by modern and semi- pantheistic interpretations of the o/mmmhos; and the eternal relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son,1 which, by reason of their controversial attitude in behaU of the Father's sole principatus, the Easterns are inclined to disregard. The Easterns misunderstand the filioque, which indeed fails to bear expUcit witness to the principatus of the Father, but which, neither in its own necessary meaning nor in the Western use of it, involves a denial of that truth. On the contrary, Western theology has continued to retain a place for it. III. Divine Monarchy § 8. The distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and their eternal relations, are determined, as we 1 Cf. R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 195-199. Some Ught is thrown upon the attitude of modem Easterns by a correspondence in the London Guardian, continued through several weeks of Dec, 1909, and Jan., 1910. A letter from W. J. Birkbeck in the issue of Jan. 28, p. 126, is especiaUy valuable. 238 THE DIVINE PERSONS have seen, by the eternal processions — the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Ghost. For a complete view of these distinctions and relations we have to reckon with the doctrines of subordination and circumcession: — the former exhibiting at once the unity in origin and the distinction in eternal order of the Persons, and the latter guarding the doctrine of subordination from Arian or Unitarian misinterpre tation. The doctrine of subordination, or divine monarchy, is well summarized by Bishop Browne.1 He says that the orthodox fathers held the eternal generation "to be a proof that He was of one substance and eternity with the Father; but the relation of the Father to the Son they held to constitute a priority of order, though not of nature or power. They held, that is, not that the Son was, in His nature as God, in any degree different from, or inferior to the Father; but that, as the Father alone was the source and fountain {injyn, "-PXV, oItIo) of Deity, the Son hav ing been begotten, and the Spirit proceeding, so there is a subordination without diversity of the 1 Thirty Nine Articles, art. ii. On the doctrine at large, see Bp. Bull, Defence of the Nicene Faith, Bk. IV; Newman, Tracts Theol. and Eccles., pp. 161, 167-191; St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xxxiii. 1; xlii. 3; Schouppe, Elem. Theol. Dogm., Tr. vi. § 174; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 18, 140-143; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 202 (note 1), 431, 432, 447; Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, PP- 59-73, 569> S7o; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. II. pp. 259-261; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. vv. alrla; &px*r, Trf; the writer's Doctrine of God, Q. lxviii. DIVINE MONARCHY 239 Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son."1 (a) Several particulars are to be noted. In the first place, the principle of origin in the Trinity is absolutely one, and is seated in the Father. This truth is signified by the phrase, "principatus of the Father."2 The other divine Persons proceed from Him, but He proceeds from none. Each divine Person is ©eos, for each possesses the divine essence, and without confusion contains the other two; but the Father is Airodeos.3 {b) This introduces the second particular, that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is A4to'0cos, for each derives His essence — His being God — from the Father. These two are God in a subordinate manner, although not in a subordinate sense of the word God.4 That is, their being God is due to their proceeding from the Father; but they are as truly God as is the Father, because the very essence of the Father is fully and eternally Theirs. They are co- eternal and co-equal with God the Father. (c) The third particular is that the same reason which compels us to regard the Son as second in the 1 J. H. Newman, in St. Athan., de Decretis, § 26, note h, says, "By the Monarchy is meant the doctrine that the Second and Third Persons in the Ever-Blessed Trinity are ever to be referred in our thoughts to the First, as the Fountain of Godhead." 2 Newman, Tracts, as above cited. 3 Cf. D. Waterland, in Second Vindication, pp. 519, 520 (Van Mildert's ed. of Works). 4 D. Waterland, dp. cit., p. 525. 240 THE DIVINE PERSONS eternal order of divine Persons requires us also to reckon the Holy Spirit as third. Inasmuch as He is related to the Son as the Son is to the Father,1 and since He derives His essence from the Father through the Son, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son as weU as to the Father. In brief, the order in which the divine Persons are specified in the Name into which Christ commanded behevers to be baptized is not accidental and meaningless, nor is its significance unimportant. It reveals to us an eternal order; and one by which our thoughts concerning the Trinity, and our fives in relation to the divine Persons, ought to be governed. {d) FinaUy, we should remember that since this order pertains to Persons who eternaUy possess the fulness of the indivisible Godhead, it involves neither temporal sequence of origin nor inequahty of essence, nature, or power.2 As the Athanasian Symbol says, 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. The manner in which the Scriptures name the divine Persons imphes the doctrine of subordination. The Father is necessarily prior in personal order to His Son and Spirit; the Son must be thought of as derived from His Father and as presupposed in His 1 So St. Athanasius, ad Serap., iii. i, quoted in p. 232, above. On the subordination of the Spirit, see Hutchihgs, Holy Ghost, pp. 43.44- 2 D. Waterland, Vindication, Qq. xix, xx; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cdth. Theol, Vol. I. pp. 327, 328. DIVINE MONARCHY 241 Spirit; and the Spirit presupposes the Father and the Son of whom He is declared to be the Spirit. If at times the Persons are named in a different order,1 the connection is such as to leave [intact the truth of eternal monarchy and subordination; and the principatus of the Father is imphed in the fact that when the Persons are mentioned together it is the Father alone to whom the name God is appUed.2 This is so because He is the fountain of Deity, and the other two Persons are God because They are derived from Him and participate in His essence. They are indeed given divine titles at times when separately mentioned,3 lest we should be deceived as to Their co-equaUty with the Father; but none the less care is taken when the Father is mentioned with Them to protect His principatus from obscuration. The doctrine which we are considering is also sug gested by, and explains the fitness of, the subordina tion of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, in their economic operations and temporal missions. The Father is never spoken of as sent; whereas the Son is said to be sent by the Father, and the Spirit by the Father and the Son. But this subordination, whUe it fittingly corresponds to the eternal order of Persons, is merely economic, and is explained by the divine wiU and plan.4 It does 1 E.g. 2 Cor. xui. 14; 1 St. Pet. i. 2. 2 For examples, see p. 139, note 4, above. 3 See ch. iv. §§ 11, 14 fin., above. , 4 Cf. pp. 258-260, below. 17 242 THE DIVINE PERSONS \ not reveal an essential inequahty of Persons; nor does it, of itself, demonstrate even the eternal sub ordination with which we are here concerned. § 9. The doctrine of subordination was formulated by TertuUian, as against the confusion of Persons which the patripassian error introduced.1 Origen also enlarged upon it,2 and his language was sophisti caUy employed by Arians in their arguments against the doctrine of the Son's co-equaUty with the Father. It was not on that account, however, surrendered by the orthodox,3 but was guarded by St. Athanasius and other Eastern writers from such misinterpretation by emphasis upon the doctrine of circumcession — a doctrine which we shall consider in the next section. The doctrine of subordination was also acknowl edged by St. Augustine.4 But he paid httle attention to it; and until comparatively recent times it has been somewhat neglected by Western writers,6 to whose practical minds it has often seemed to be an 1 See adv. Prax., 3, 8, 9, 18, 19, 21, 30; Cf. Justin M., Apol, I. 6, 13, 60; Athenagoras, Pleafor Christians, rc>, 12; St. Irenaeus, adv. Haer., II. xxviii. 8. TertuUian was foUowed by Novatian, de Trin., 16, 18, 26, 27. 2 De Princip., I. ui. 7, 8. Cf. ch. iii. § 8, above. 3 St. Alexander of Alex., Epis. I. ad Alex. Const, 12; St. Atha nasius, c. Arian., I. vi. 21; II. xix. 51; IV. 1-3; St. Hilary, de Synod., v. 39; de Trin., iv. 15; St. Basil, c. Eunom., i. 25; Homil c. Sabell., 4; St. Greg. Naz., Oral, xx. 7, xxix. 3. *de Trin., ii. 2, 3; iv. 29; v. 13, 15. 6 It is acknowledged, however, by St. Thomas, and among our own writers, Bishops Pearson and BuU, Dr. Waterland, Bishops Browne and Forbes, and others have done justice to it, as the refer ences given in the previous section show. DIVINE MONARCHY r243 unnecessary subtlety, easily lending itself to Arian misapphcation. The fact is, however, that, rightly understood, it guards both the distinction and the unity of the divine Persons; and its neglect weakens men's hold upon both of these truths. The doctrine of consubstantiahty of the divine Persons, and of their existence in each other, easUy lends itself to SabeUian use when the doctrine of subordination is disregarded. On the other hand, a correct under standing of this doctrine enables us to perceive the error of interpreting in an Arian sense the passages in the New Testament which teach the principatus of the Father. The true remedy for Arian misappli cation does not he in a surrender of the doctrine of subordination, nor even in ignoring it, but in correctly understanding and defining it. To evade this task is to yield the field to an Arian misuse of Scripture; for that some kind of subordination of the second and third Persons of the Trinity is there taught is obvious to aU thoughtful Bible readers.1 § 10. The doctrine of circumcession {circumcessio, circumincessio, commeatio, irtpvxy>p-qaK, avp,Trepixpriois, jrepi£yxa>pi7o-is) or coinherence is to some extent the counter-truth of the doctrme of subordination. It asserts the existence of the divine Persons in each other without confusion of Persons, and the truth that in each Person we apprehend the fulness of 1 On the patristic theology of subordination, see Bp. BuU, Defence, Bk. IV; Newman, op. cit., pp. 167-191; R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. II. pp. 259-261; Bright, St. Leo on the Incarn., notes 116, 128. 244 THE DIVINE PERSONS God, the undivided Trinity. This doctrine is a necessary inference from the consubstantiahty of the Persons, and from the truth that the divine processions are immanent x — that is, do not cause the Person who proceeds to be external to Him from whom He proceeds.2 This mystery is clearly taught in the New Testa ment. It is imphed. in our Lord's words to Philip, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."3 Inasmuch as Christ habitually refers to the Father as to another Person, He cannot be understood here to be identifying His own Person with that of the Father. His meaning is made clear when He adds, "The words that I say unto you I speak not from My self: but the Father abiding in Me doeth His work. Beheve Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me."4 St. Paul explains why the Spirit searcheth the deep things of God by saying, "For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the things of God 1 Cf. p. 220, above. 2 On the doctrine of circumcession, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xlu. 5; Bp. Bull, Defence, IV. iv. 9-14; Petavius, de Trin., IV. xvi; Bright, St. Leo, note 83; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 81, 82; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, p. 34; note g.; Archd. Wilberforce, Holy Euch., pp. 222-227; J. H. Newman, Select Treatises, Vol. II. pp. 72-79; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, § 106; Perrone, Praelee de Trin., § 268; the writer's Doctrine of God, Q. lxvii. 3 St. John xiv. 9. 4 Verses 10, n. Cf. i. 18 (The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father); x. 30; xvii. 21. DIVINE MONARCHY 245 none knoweth, save the Spirit of God":1 — the un expressed imphcation being that the Spirit is in God. Elsewhere he describes the divine Persons as equaUy operating — cohering in action — in the work of grace. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministra tions, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in ah." 2 The work which he thus describes three times is in each description one and the same, and in referring it to the Spirit, to the Lord, and to God, he is clearly indicating that the special economy of the Spirit, of which he is speaking in the context, is not less the operation of the Son and of the Father, because economicaUy referred to Him. The fathers both East and West acknowledge the doctrme of circumcession. Commenting on the last passage which we have quoted from St. Paul, Origen says, "From which it clearly foUows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father."3 St. Dionysius of Rome, writing to his namesake of Alexandria in the third century, says, "It is essential that the divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Spirit should abide and dweU in God; and thus that the Divine Trinity should be reduced and 1 1 Cor. ii. 11. 2 1 Cor. xii. 4-6. ' In de Princip., I. iii. 7. 246 THE DIVINE PERSONS r gathered into one, as if into a certain head."1 In his reply St. Dionysius of Alexandria agreed that we may not sunder the divine Persons, saying, "We extend the Monad (/*oros) indivisibly into' the Triad (rotas), and conversely gather together the Triad without diminution into the Monad."2 Rebutting the charge that he had denied Christ to be of one essence with God, he says, "For even if I argue that I have not found this word (6/toowriov) nor read it anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, yet my subsequent reasonings, which they have suppressed, do not dis agree with its meaning."3 As was to be expected in view of his earnest contention for the doctrine of consubstantiahty, St. Athanasius asserted the doctrine of ¦n-epix^pv"'^ in plain terms. In an important passage4 he inter prets both negatively and positively our Lord's words, "I in the Father and the Father in Me";6 and shows that they are not in each other as filling a vacancy; nor as God is in His saints; nor in the sense of the passage, "In Him we Uve and move and have our being";6 nor because the Son's teaching and works are the Father's; but because, "whereas the Form and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it foUows that the Son is in the Father and the Father 1 Fragment in St. Athan., de Decretis, xxvi. 2 Quoted by St. Athanasius, de Sent. Dion., xvu. 3 Ibid., xviii. 4 In c. Arian., III. xxiii. B St. John xiv. io. 6 Acts xvii. 28. DIVINE MONARCHY '247 in the Son." "He added 'I in the Father and the Father in Me,' by way of showing the identity of Godhead and the unity of essence. For They are one, not as one thing divided into two parts,1 . . . nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son,2 . . . but they are two, because the Father is . . . not also Son, and the Son is . . . not also Father; but the nature is one . . . And so . . . the same things are said of the Son which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father." A httle further on he adds that " the fulness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God."3 In his Letters to Serapion 4 he says, "When the Father is mentioned, His Word is with Him, and the Spirit who is in the Son. And if the Son be named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not external to the Word." St. Augustine says that "in corporeal things one thing alone is not as much as three together, and two , are something more than one; but in that highest Trinity one is as much as the three together, nor are two anything more than one. And They are infinite in Themselves. So both are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and aU in aU, and aU are one." 6 1 It was this interpretation of bpaoiatos by Paul of Samosata that caused the rejection of that term at Antioch in the third century. 2 The SabeUian error. 3 St. Athanasius here plainly imphes that the Son is bp.ooicn.os with the Father in the sense of identity of essence. 4 Ad Scrap., i. 14. 6 In deTrin.,xi. 12. Cf. i. 7, 19, 25;iv.3o; vi.8,9; vii. 11; ix. 8; etc. 248 THE DIVINE PERSONS § ii. The doctrine of circumcession involves the truth of the following propositions: {a) The Persons mutually interpenetrate, so that each is in the other two; {b) Each Person contains the other two; (c) The essence which aU possess is not exceeded in sub stantial content by any one of the Persons in which it subsists; {d) The Trinity is not a larger entity, so to speak, than one of the Persons separately con sidered. Each Person is whole God. But these propo sitions must not be interpreted so as to nullify the distinction of Persons, which is indeed implied when we say that one Person is in another.1 The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father; the Son is not the Spirit, nor is the Spirit the Son; and the Father is not the Spirit, nor is the Spirit the Father; although each is in the other two, as the hght of three torches in one room interpenetrate although the torches are three.2 The value of this doctrine can be seen when we observe that it helps to protect other and vital truths from perversion and neglect. (a) As has been shown, it is the counter truth of the doctrine of subordination, and prevents us from misapplying that doctrine in the manner of the Arians; for if each Person contains the fulness of God, the derivative manner in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine does not lower the sense in which we acknowledge Them to be very God. 1 See Bp. Bull, op. cit, IV. iv. 14, p. 653. 2 An illustration given by pseudo-Dion. Areop., Div. Names, ch. u. DIVINE MONARCHY 249 {b) Since each Person is whole God, each can be worshipped without polytheism, and without danger of creature-worship. (c) The divine essence cannot be the source or cause of operations from which any one of its full Possessors are or can be excluded, so as not to be worker of them. St. Augustine says "that the oper ation of the Trinity is also inseparable in each sev eraUy of those things which are said to pertain properly to the manifesting of either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit."1 In brief, no one of the several economies of the divine Persons excludes any one of these Persons from being cause thereof.2 {d) Whatever Christ and the Holy Spirit have done and are doing for us is to be referred to God — to whole God — as its Author. It is God in Christ who is reconciling the world to Himself, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is the grace of God, the Three in One. 1 In de Trin., iv. 30. 1 Cf. pp. 251, 252, below. CHAPTER VIII THE ECONOMIC TRINITY I. In General § i. Thus far we have been considering the divine Persons in their essential and eternal relations to each other. But these Persons have relations to the universe and to mankind : — relations which arise from voluntary dispensations of creation, redemption, and sanctification, although determined by the essen tial relations of which we have been treating. The divine Persons, therefore, can be regarded in two ways: — as facing inward, so to speak, towards each other; and as facing outward, towards Their crea tures. To put this in another way, They may be regarded essentiaUy and economicaUy. The phrases "Essential Trinity" and "Economic Trinity" embody this distinction between the in ward and the outward aspects of the Trinity; and when we speak of the Economic Trinity we mean the Trinity in those aspects in which the divine Persons manifest Themselves in history.1 It was the error of the ancient patripassians and SabeUians that they confined the distinction of Persons in God to the 'Martensen, Christ. Dogmatics, §§54, 57, 58; Dorner, Christ. Doctrine, Vol. H. pp. 9-20. 250 IN GENERAL 251 Economic Trinity, and refused to acknowledge those internal and eternal distinctions which are signified by the phrase "Essential Trinity." They regarded the names Fattier, Son, and Holy Spirit as denoting merely so many aspects, manifestations, and operative dispensations of one and the same Person. Each might indeed be caUed a person, ttooowov, but only in the etymological sense of face or manifesta tion.1 The cathohc and bibUcal doctrine requires us to. acknowledge both the economic and the eternal aspects of the Trinity; and we have to interpret the Economic Trinity as presupposing, and as determined by, eternal and personal distinctions in the divine essence itseU. The phrase "divine economies," used in this con nection, signifies the particular dispensations and operations which revelation teaches us to attribute to the several divine Persons. In the Church Cate chism, our children are taught to say, "First, I learn to beheve in God the Father, who hath made me, and aU the world. Secondly, in God the Son, who hath redeemed me, and all mankind. Thirdly, in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me, and all the people of God." These words express the truth that the opera tions of creation, redemption, and sanctification are in a special sense to be attributed to distinct Persons. This may not, however, be taken to mean that the Father is exclusively the Cause of creation, the Son alone the Cause of redemption, and the Holy Spirit 1 Cf. pp. 65, 67, 68, above. See TertuUian, adv. Prax., xiii. 252 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY the sole personal Cause of sanctification: for, as has elsewhere been shown, the divine Persons coinhere in action as well as in essence, and indivisibly operate in all things.1 It means simply that special relations are revealed in each case between the Persons who are named and the operations which are attributed to Them, relations which are sufficiently distinctive to justify such manner of speech. AU the Persons operate indivisibly, but the manner in which each Person operates is distinct. The distinction between the divine economies is suggested and determined not only by the peculiar relations which the several divine Persons necessarily have — because They are essentiaUy distinct — to wards their common operations; but also by the several relations in which, according to revelation, we ourselves stand towards each of Them. These relations constrain us to contemplate the Father in relation to creation and the natural order; the Son in relation to the supernatural revelation and dis pensation of redemption; and the Holy Spirit in relation to inspiration and sanctifying grace. Yet we are neither prohibited nor permitted on this ac count to exclude any divine Person from being Cause of any divine operation. We must at once acknowl edge the distinction of divine economies and the indivisible operation of the divine Persons in aU Their external works. § 2. The word economy, oi/covo/tia, originally sig- 1 St. Augustine, de Trin., iv. 30, quoted in p. 249, above. IN GENERAL 253 nified the management of a household, and it was anciently apphed at large to the stewardship and dispensation of revenues in accordance with a pre conceived plan. In the New Testament the word occurs in seven passages,1 and signifies either a stew ardship or a dispensation — plan of administration of the household of God, the Church. In the latter sense the olKovop.la constitutes a dispensation of grace,2 and of truth or faith;3 and has the Incarna tion as its central feature.4 The dispensers of grace and truth, the ministers of Christ, are by St. Paul caUed olKovop.01, stewards. "Let a man so account of us as of ministers of Christ, and stewards, oIkovouovs, of the mysteries of God."8 FoUowing St. Paul, the early fathers used the word as meaning dispensation. In this sense they de scribed the Incarnation itself as the oIkovoouj.; and extended their apphcation of the term to signify that part of theology which treats of the Incarnation.6 1 St. Luke xvi. 2-4; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Ephes. i. 10; iii. 2; iii. 9; Col. i. 25; 1 Tim. i. 4. 2 Ephes. ui. 2. » 1 Tim. i. 4. Cf. St. John i. 17. 4 Ephes. ui. 10. Cf. Lightfoot, Epp. of St. Paul, p. 319. 0 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Cf. Tit. i. 7; 1 St. Pet. iv. 10. 6 On patristic usage, see Lightfoot, Apost Fathers, Pt. II. Vol. II. p. 75 (on St. Ignatius ad Ephes., xviii); R. L. Ottley, Incarn., Vol. H. p. 245; J. H. Newman, Arians, pp. 49-89; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. olKOj/opia; C. Bigg, Christ Platonists, p. 166, note. The fathers inci- dentaUy used the word to describe the method of reserve discover able in divine revelation; and consequently also the ecdesiastical disciplina arcani, or cautious unfolding of Christian mysteries to catechumens. Newman, Arians, ch. I. iii. 254 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY Tertulhan • and Hippolytus 2 appropriated the term to describe the distinct relations of the divine Persons in the Godhead. This use of the word passed away, but has perhaps suggested the modern use with which we are concerned in this chapter; which combines the apphcation of the term to the divine Persons with its more common meaning of dispensation. That is, it signifies the several dispensations or methods of operation which in Scripture are attributed to the several divine Persons. It does not refer to the eternal relations, as with Tertulhan, but to external operations and manifestations. The "Economic Trinity" is the Trinity regarded in external and temporal manifes tation. § 3. The distinction between divine economies, or the distribution to particular Persons of operations which belong to the entire Trinity, is a branch of what is caUed appropriation, KoWyaK. The mode of divine subsistence (t/joVos virdpieoK) requires, and the method of divine self-manifestation (i-poVos d™- KaXv\j/em) teaches us to acknowledge, certain differ ences in our relations to the several divine Persons, and in Their relations to Their common essence and attributes, and, as we have been explaining, to Their common operations. Appropriation is based upon these differences, and is the practice of distributing to particular Persons in the Trinity certain names, 1 In adv. Prax., ii. 2 In c. Noel, viii. IN GENERAL 255 attributes, and operations which, by reason of the consubstantiahty of the divine Persons, belong to Them all.1 Connected with appropriation, although distinct from it, are certain differences in terms and phrases which have to be observed in describing the distinct part of each Person in the divine econo mies.2 (a) Of the divine names, " God" is used in the New Testament with particular reference to the Father;3 because the Godhead has its primary and underived subsistence in Him, and He is the fountain of Deity.4 The name "Lord," on the other hand, is appropriated to the Son, as the Only-begotten Heir,6 and as the Person to whom aU authority is given,6 and who is the Head of the Church,7 preeminent in aU things.8 There is no corresponding appropriation to the Holy 1 On appropriation, see St. Augustine, de Vera Relig., fin; St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xxxix. 7, 8; Petavius, de Trin., VIII. iii. 1; R. Owen, Dogm. Theol, ch. v. § 8; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, § 107; Vacant, Die. Theol Cath., s.v. "Appropriation aux personnes"; Cath. Encyc, s.v. "Appropriation"; Franzelin, de Deo Trino., Thh. xii, xiii. 2 Thus the second and third persons only may be said to be sent; and the Son alone is incarnate. 3 E.g. St. John i. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Ephes. i. 3; iv. 4-6; 1 St. Pet. i. 3. Cf. pp. 139, 140, above. 4 Cf. ch. vu. § 8, above. 6 Heb. i. 2. Appropriations of "Lord" to the Son are very nu merous in the New Testament. The texts referred to in next to the last note afford critical examples. 6 St. Matt, xxviii. 18. 7 Ephes. v. 23; Col. i. 18. 8 1 Cor. xi. 3; Col. i. 17; ii. 10; Heb. i. 8, 9. 256 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY Spirit; but He is habitually described by His proper personal name, "The Spirit." {b) Of divine attributes, those which especiaUy signify a negation of origin and of comprehensibihty, such as eternity, invisibihty, and ineff abiUty, are apt to be appropriated to the Father,1 because He alone is underived from another Person, and is revealed only through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Unity, truth, and hoUness are respectively appropriated to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;2 and the same is the case with power, wisdom, and love.3 (c) We have already seen that the operations of creation, redemption, and sanctification are appro priated in the same manner; and in relation to these economies the will and the purpose are appropriated to the Father,4 revelation to the Son,5 and iUumination and inspiration to the Holy Spirit.6 In regard to causation, divine operations and gifts are said to be of or from the Father, through the Son, and in or by the Holy Spirit. The moving cause is the Father's will, the mediating cause or Agent is the Son, and the efficient and perfecting cause is the Holy Spirit. In describing the Worship of God, we speak of worship- 1 St. John i. 18; Col. i. 15; 1 Tim. i. 17; vi. 16. 2 Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 5 with St. John xiv. 6 and Rom. i. 4. 3 Cf. St. Luke xxii. 69 with 1 Cor. i. 30 and Gal. iv. 6. On the appropriation of wisdom to the Son, see St. Augustine, de Trin., vii. 4, 5- 4 St. John vi. 38; 1 Tim. ii. 4; Heb. x. 7. 1 St. Matt. xi. 27; St. John i. 18; Heb. i. 2. • 1 Cor. xii. 8; 2 St. Pet. i. 21. IN GENERAL '257 ping the Father through His Son and by or in the Holy Spirit; and this use of language, which determines the liturgical forms of the Church, leaves untouched the truth that "we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." These various appropriations are controlled by the doctrme of processions and divine monarchy; and are justified both by the several and distinctive rela tions in which the Persons stand to what They have in common, and by the pecuhar manner in which each Person is made known to us. They are of great prac tical value, because they enable us readily and safely to distinguish the Persons, and thus to perceive the particular relation in which we stand to each of Them. Holy Scripture not only appropriates to particular Persons what, essentiaUy speaking, pertains to the whole Trinity, but also describes the second and third Persons in terms that cannot be appropriated consistently with truth to any other Person than Him to whom they are there apphed. Thus the Son alone is rightly caUed Mediator 1 between God and man, because He alone has assumed our nature so as to unite the Godhead and the Manhood in His own Person. This reason justifies the practice of attributing human titles such as "Son of Man," human attributes, and human experiences and limi- tions to Him;2 but we may not appropriate them to 1 1 Tim. ii. 5. Cf. Heb. viii. 6; ix. 15; xii. 24. 1 Cf . ch. v. § 2, above. Human attributes are not apphed to His 18 258 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY the other Persons, because He alone is God-incarnate. There are also the predications which we make in connection with "divine mission." This subject requires another section for its treatment. § 4. The New Testament in various places speaks of divine Persons being sent into the world, and of Their being given to men — the Son by the Father, and the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. Theology has generahzed the teaching of these pas sages, with due regard for their contexts and for the general teaching of Scripture concerning the divine Persons, and has formulated the results of this in duction in the doctrine of divine mission. In concise terms, divine mission is the procession of one Person from another in relation to a temporal economy and effect.1 The term procession is here employed in a special and economic sense — one which is in hne with its use to describe the eternal derivation of the Son from the Father and of the Holy Spirit from the Father Godhead, but to His Person. To speak of Him under a divine per sonal title as under human Umitations is not an exception; for the title signifies the Person — not the nature from which it is derived. This is the doctrine of the communication of idioms, of which we expect to treat in our sixth volume. It is perverted in modern German theology, and often misunderstood by our own critical writers. 1 On mission, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xhii; Petavius, de Trin., VIII; A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed, pp. 124, 125; Thirty Nine Arts., I. pp. 19-21; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, § 108; FranzeUn, de Deo Trino, Th. xUi-xlviii; Schouppe, Elem. Theol Dogm., Tr. vi. §§ 166-173. IN GENERAL 259 and the Son, but which should not be confused with that meaning of the term. It has to do with what is temporal, economic, and relative.1 Our Lord declared Himself to have been sent into the world by His Father. "I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of Myself, but He sent Me." 2 He also taught that the Father was to send the Holy Spirit in His name;3 and claimed Himself to have part in this sending.4 The Father is nowhere said to be sent, but comes with His Son to abide in those who love Him.5 It is noticeable that the divine missions or temporal processions, wherever they are mentioned in the New Testament, appear to be in Une with the eternal processions, which invariably determine divine econo mies. The Son is sent and given by the Father, rather than by the Holy Spirit, because He eternally proceeds from the Father; and the Holy Spirit is sent and given by the Father and the Son, because He eternaUy proceeds from both. The Father sends and gives, but is not sent or given, for the other Persons eternaUy proceed from Him and He proceeds from none. Mission is an aspect of the divine econo- 1 See ch. vi. § 13 (ii), above — esp. p. 209, note 1. 2 St. John vui. 42. Cf. vi. 57; xiv. 24; Gal. iv. 4; and the parable of the wicked husbandmen, St. Matt. xxi. 33-37. Cf. also the men tion of the Father giving the Son: St. John iii. 16; Eph. i. 22. 3 St. John xiv. 26. Cf. 1 St. John iv. 13; Gal. iv. 6. 4 St. John xv. 26. Cf. Acts ii. 33. That the Holy Spirit is given, see Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 1 St. John iii. 24. B St. John xiv. 23. 2<5o THE ECONOMIC TRINITY mies and these are determined by the eternal pro cessions 1 Neither the processions nor the economies involve any essential inequality of Persons; and the econo mies are explained by wiU and purpose, pertaining to the entire Trinity,2 and not violating the law that the three Persons coinhere in action and operate indivisibly in everything.3 Yet the distinction of missions represents a real difference between the relations of the several Persons to the temporal ends and effects which we are considering. Therefore the predications which are made in relation to divine missions are personal and notional.4 They may not be transferred either to another Person, or to the whole Trinity. If there is no inequahty and no mutual separation of Persons involved in divine mission, so also there is neither any spatial movement nor change on the divine side to be inferred therefrom. The spatial and temporal aspects of mission are economic and pertain wholly to the effects. When a divine Person is said to be sent and to come into the world, this does not mean that He becomes present where He has previously been absent; but it signifies that He reveals His presence in the world in a new manner 1 St. Thomas, op. cit, I. xUii. 4, 8; St. Augustine, de Trin., iv. 27, 28. 2 D. Waterland, Second Vindication, p. 516. 3 TertuUian, adv. Prax., xxiii. Cf. pp. 249, 251, 252, above. 4 Schouppe, op. cit, Tr. vi. § 168. IN GENERAL 261 and by a new temporal effect.1 Moreover, the novelty of the effect does not require us to suppose a change in God; for the divine wiU and operations, like the divine essence, are eternal and immutable. But, although God does not and cannot change His wiU, He can and does will changeable effects, and we can properly describe His operations in terms bor rowed from these effects. The whole terminology of mission is to be regarded in this hght. It is not em ployed to describe divine operations in their own nature, for that is ineffably mysterious and tran scends any human description.2 Divine mission is distinguished into external and internal mission. It is caUed external when its effects are visible to human senses, and internal when these effects consist of invisible workings of grace in human souls. The external mission of the Son is revealed in His taking our nature into HimseU and in mani festing HimseU in the flesh as Revealer and Redeemer. The Gospels describe this mission, and its exphcation pertains to that part of Dogmatic Theology which is caUed Christology.3 The Son's internal mission is the fruit of His assumption of our nature; and is 1 St. Athanasius, e Arian., iv. 36. Cf. St. John iii. 13. Rejec tion on critical grounds of the specific phrase, "which is in heaven," leaves this imphcation of the passage unaffected. See Kenotic Theory, pp. 133, 134. 2 St. Thomas, op. cit, I. xliii. 2, ad 2. 3 To be treated of in Vols. VI, VII, of this series. On the distinc tion between external and 'internal mission, see St. Thomas, op. cit, I. xliii. 3, 5-7; Wilhelm and ScanneU, op. cit, § 108, IV. et seq. 262 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY His being imparted to us, and His working in us, by means of the nature which He has assumed, through the instrumentaUty of His mystical body and sacra ments of grace, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and on the condition of our faith and repentance.1 The external mission of the Holy Spirit is exhibited by His descent as a dove upon Christ,2 by His hover ing as a bright cloud over the Mount of Transfigura tion,3 by His being imparted through the breathing of Christ,4 and especially by His descent upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost in a mighty wind and in cloven tongues of fire.5 These appearances were aU symbols, whereas the Son manifested Him self in His own proper flesh. Therefore to speak of the Spirit's external mission is to use metaphorical phraseology, although it is justified by the fact that in each case the symbols were real signs of the Spirit's mission and special presence. The internal mission of the Spirit is revealed in the whole mystery of sanctifying grace. It is based upon His being given to dwell in us 6 as in a temple,7 and upon His working for our enUghtenment and sanctification as an Ad vocate8 sent by the Father and the Son, who has 1 Gal. ii. 20; iv. 19; Ephes. iii. 17; and elsewhere. 2 St. Matt. iii. 16; St. Mark i. 10; St. Luke iii. 22; St. John i. 32. 3 St. Matt. xvii. 5; St. Mark ix. 7; St. Luke ix. 34. 4 St. John xx. 22. 6 Acts ii. 2-4. 6 Acts ii. 38; viii. 15, 18; xix. 2-6. 7 1 Cor. vi. 19. 8 St. John xv. 26. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 263 created the Church, making it to be the mystical body of Christ,1 and who abides in that body in order to make it the home of truth and grace.2 II. The Persons Described § 5. The rest of this chapter wiU be devoted to a concise and comprehensive summary of what revela tion teaches concerning each divine Person,3 and to a description of some of the chief illustrations and analogies of the Trinity. The proper title of the first Person is that of Father. But this title is apphed not only to the first Person in distinction from the other two, but also to the Supreme Being without reference to personal dis tinctions in the Godhead.4 As thus used it implies one or other of several relations to creatures. God is Father (a) of aU creatures as their Maker; (6) of mankind as Governor and Provider of every good which we enjoy; (c) of mankind, again, because we are made in the image of God in order to develop 1 Ephes. i. 22, 23. 2 Among other passages on the internal mission of the Spirit are Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27; xxxvn. 9-14; xxxix. 29; Joel ii. 28-32 (dted in Acts ii. 17, 18); Rom. v. 5; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Cor. xii. H. E. Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost; and Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost; and Hutching's Holy Ghost will be found valuable. 3 In so far as matters already treated of are recapitulated, and matters to be dealt with more fully in future volumes are anticipated, references wiU to some extent be omitted. 4 See Being and Attributes of God, ch. x. § 2 (e), on the name "Father." 264 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY after His hkeness and enjoy filial relations with Him; {d) of the chosen people as subjects of special and fatherly deahngs; (e) of the members of Christ by adoption and grace, through our union with His proper and only-begotten Son.1 When apphed to the first Person in distinction from the other two, the name Father signifies what is comprehended in the notions of innascibility, pater nity, and spiration. His innascibiUty constitutes Him Father in a unique and absolute sense. Being underived from another Person, He is the ultimate source of the mystery of personal production. He is the Father, for He has no Father of HimseU but is the principle of aU fatherhood. Consequently He is properly called the fountain {ttvyv, °-PX0, oItul) of Deity. And this explains the appropriation of the name God to Him, even when the other divine Per sons are mentioned with Him, as well as the prac tice above .mentioned of using the name Father as equivalent to the Supreme Being. The Son and the Holy Spirit are each fuU ®«>s, but He is without per sonal derivation — AuTo0eos. The personal notions of paternity and spiration describe the fact that the Father begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit, in an eternal mystery that inheres in the divine nature. It is contrary to the nature of the Father ever to be without His Son and Holy Spirit; and yet the operation of generation and spiration must be regarded as free and spontane- 1 Cf. p. 229, above. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 265 ous, for there can be no manner of opposition between essence and wiU in the Divine Being. For a reason similar to that which justifies our appropriating the name God to the Father, we also appropriate to Him the attributes which especiaUy signify or suggest self-existence and remoteness from creaturehood, such as eternity, invisibility, and in- eff ability; also the attributes of unity and almighti- ness. In relation to economies and iriissions, the divine wiU and purpose which they reveal is appropriated to the Father, because He is the ultimate source, economicaUy speaking, of every external operation. They aU flow from Him, and the times and seasons are in His power. His wiU is the moving cause of aU. Accordingly, the economy of creation is appro priated to Him, although every divine Person is essentiaUy Creator, and the natural order is especially referred to His providential operation. Our relations to the Father are those of children: — whether as comprehended in a universe which He has created, or as being subjects with all mankind of His providence and paternal goodness, or as re generate children by adoption and grace through union with His proper and only-begotten Son. From our natural relations to the Father springs the blessed fact of the common brotherhood of man kind, just as from our relation to the Son is derived the mystery of a supernatural and special Christian brotherhood; and the common brotherhood makes 266 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY^ possible the Christian brotherhood, by being at once the source of its membership and the sphere of its overflowing love and impartial extension. We refer aU natural and temporal blessings to the Father, and by His love we explain the whole dis pensation of mercy and grace which has been revealed and achieved through Christ and by the Holy Spirit. To the Father we hold ourselves ultimately to be accountable, and it is to Him, through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, that our worship is hturgicaUy directed. In brief, He is the first Person in the Godhead in relation both to what is eternal and to what is dis- pensational and economic. So that to Him especiaUy we appropriate the title Supreme Deity, although in His Godhead there exist two other Persons who are co-essential, co-eternal, and co-equal with Him,1 and whom together with Him we worship and glorify without abatement or reserve — "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."2 § 6. The primary title of the second Person is that of Son — the only-begotten Son of God. The con templation of our own relation to God as His chil dren helps us to apprehend the meaning of this title, but the contrast between His sonship and ours is very great. We are sons of God by creation, whereas 1 As has been said, each Person is fuU 6«6s, but He alone is AvrbBtos. 2 On the doctrine of the Father at large, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xxxiii; Petavius, de Trin., Lib. V; Bp. PearsoD, Apos. Creed, art. i; W. N. Clark, Can I Believe in God the Father? THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 267 He is co-eternal with the Father and uncreate; we are children of God by adoption and grace, whereas He is by nature the proper Son of God, being eternaUy begotten of Him, and possessing as His own the very esserice and nature of God. Moreover, our highest filial relation to God — the one which is most nearly akin to His — is not intrinsic, but arises from our incorporation into His body by redeeming grace. The relation between a human father and son affords the best creaturely analogy of the relation between the divine Father and Son, and from this analogy the title Son of God is derived. But the analogy is imperfect, and the title, proper though it be when rightly understood, is symboUcal. The begetting of a human son involves a division of paren tal substance, and an external separation between father and chfid; but the divine substance or essence is indivisible, so that the whole essence of the Father is communicated to, and possessed by, the Son; and inasmuch as the Father and the Son are Selfs of one and the same indivisible essence, there can be no mutual separation between Them. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. Again, human sonship involves temporal sequence in origin of father and son; whereas the begetting of the Son of God is eternal, and He is co-eternal with the Father. Once more, a human son is begotten in a state of partial development, and has to grow be fore he can attain to the fuU manhood of his father; whereas the Son of God possesses from aU eternity 268 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY the irreducible fulness of His Father's Godhead. Finally, a human begetting constitutes a passing beginning of sonship, and one which is subsequently to be regarded as a past event; whereas the genera tion of the Son and His Sonship are alike eternal and are coincident. We say that the Son is, rather than has been, begotten. An endless, yet ever complete, generation distinguishes the sonship of the second Person of the Trinity — a relation wholly unique. All things that the Father hath, except His being Father, are communicated to the Son, and are essen tiaUy and eternally His own. Therefore the Son has this from the Father, that He has part in the Father's spiration of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit pro ceeds from (e«) the Father, He proceeds through (S«£) the Son, and therefore also from the Son; but without there being involved either a division in the spiration or any infringment upon the Father's unique principatus. By reason of His eternal generation the Son is consubstantial or co-essential with the Father, possess ing with Him one indivisible essence or Godhead. He is therefore very God and co-equal with the Father, existing inseparably in the Father and the Father existing in Him. Yet He is not Avto&os, as is the Father, for all that He hath and is comes from the Father. He is "God of God," ©eos IVc ©eoS, a second Person; and the mode of His personal subsistence makes Him subordinate to the Father, although this subordination involves no inferiority of essence in Him. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 269 The Son is also caUed in Scripture the Word, Xdyos, of God. This title is given because He is the expression of the Father's mind, and to Him properly pertains the economy of external manifesta tion and mediation. Existing eternaUy in the bosom of the Father, Xdyos £VSia0eros, it is His economy to go forth as the Father's Agent in creation, Xdyos vpotbopiKoi. He is also caUed "the Image of the invisible God," "the effulgence of His glory, and the very Image of His substance"; so that, since He has taken our nature and enthroned it as His own, in Him dweUeth aU the fulness of the Godhead bodily.1 To Him especiaUy is appropriated the title "Lord," for He is the Heir to whom aU authority is given; and also the descriptions of "truth" and "wisdom," because He manifests the mind of God. His proper economy is that of redemption, in connection with which revelation is a characteristic operation. All the works of God, however, are performed through Him,2 and through Him we gain access to the Father in worship and communion.3 As Redeemer He was sent into the world to take our nature, and, without ceasing to be very God, to become very Man, in order that He might be a true and effective Mediator between God and man.4 Being the Son of God it was fitting that He, rather 1 Col. ii. 9. 2 TertuUian, adv. Prax., xvi. 3 St. John xiv. 6. 4 1 Tim. u. 5. See L. PuUan, in Hastings, Die. of Christ, s.v. "Mediator." 270 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY than the Father or the Holy Spirit, should become the Son of Man, and enable His adopted brethren through union with Him to become sons of God. This external mission carries with it an internal mission, whereby He becomes " Christ in us, the Hope of glory," l the Source of saving and sanctifying grace, whereby we are enabled to become like unto Him. By reason of His Incarnation aU titles and predi cates which pertain to men as men become proper to Him, although there can be no mixture of His Godhead with His Manhood, no transfer of the properties of one nature to the other, and no shorten ing of His divine nature and attributes. Accordingly, while remaining in His eternal nature what He was, He became the Son of Man, and made human hmi tations also His own, sin alone being excepted. He has experienced our experiences, resisted our tempta tions, and has died a human death for our salvation; also rising again, and becoming the Son of Man in glory, our High Priest and ever-hving Intercessor. We have manifold relations to Him, relations dis tinct from those which we have to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. He is indeed our God; and to Him, with the Father and the Spirit, we owe adoration and obedience. But He is also the Revealer of God, and His teaching demands our full and unquaUfied accept ance. Since He is our Redeemer and Mediator, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, it is to Him immediately that we must come for hght and grace. He is also 1 Col. i. 27. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 271 our Example, who has translated divine righteousness into the terms of human experience; and our Judge, to whom we have to render account in the last day according to the deeds which we have done in the body. In brief, we are so related to Him that unless we know and accept Him as our Lord and Saviour, through whom alone we can be reconciled to God and approach the Father, we cannot enjoy eternal hfe.1 § 7. The name of the third Person of the Trinity, "Spirit" (wveC/io), etymologically signifies wind or breath.2 The Enghsh "Ghost" has a similar mean ing; 3 and the Holy Spirit is revealed to us as pro ceeding from the Father by spiration or breathing. This description is of course symbolical, and the difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit cannot be exhibited except in symboUcal terms. We learn enough from revela tion, however, to perceive that the terms generation and spiration could not be interchanged in personal reference without incongruity and error. It is appar ent that the relation of the Spirit to the Father is not filial, and that spiration is an untrue description of the Son's procession. 1 On the doctrine of the Son at large, see St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xxxiv, xxxv; IH. i-lix; Petavius, de Trin. Lib., VI; Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, arts, ii-vu; J. H. Newman, Arians; D. Water- land, Works; H. P. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord; P. G. Medd, One Mediator; M. F. Sadler, Emmanuel; Archd. Wilberforce, The Incar nation; Norris, Rudiments of Theol; and very many other works. 2 Spirare, to blow or breathe; and tri/ita, meaning the same. 3 Anglo-Saxon, Gast 272 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY The third Person is described as the Spirit of the Son as weU as of the Father, and as the gift of both. Moreover, the sign which Christ employed in impart ing the Spirit to His apostles, breathing upon them,1 agrees with the teaching that the relation of the Spirit to the Son is in Une with His relation to the Father — one of derivation by spiration. Accordingly we maintain that the Son participates in the Father's eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit. This doctrine agrees with, and is confirmed by, the economic sub ordination of the Spirit to the Son, who is described as sending the Spirit. Our Lord seems to teach the reason for this subordination when He says of the Spirit, "He shaU glorify Me; for He shaU take of Mine and shaU declare it unto you. AU things what soever the Father hath are Mine; therefore said I, that He taketh of Mine," etc.2 The present tense, "taketh,"3 which is preferred by the Revisers of 1 88 1, imphes that to take of the Son constitutes a law of the Spirit's hfe. The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father as principium or fountain of Deity; but, by reason of the Son's eternal possession of the Father's essence, in thus proceeding He also taketh from the Son. A recognized summing up of the matter is that the Spirit eternaUy proceedeth from (ek) the Father through {Sia) the Son. Since He proceeds from both the Father and the 1 St. John xx. 22. 2 St. John xvi. 14, 15. 3 Aappdvu. The margin gives Xjferai. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 273 Son, although with the difference above explained, the Holy Spirit is in the order of procession subordi nate to both, and is the third Person of the Trinity. Yet He eternaUy possesses the fulness of the Father's essence, and "with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified," as co-eternal and co equal with both. As receiving His essence from the other two Per sons, He is often said to be the bond of unity,1 and the love of the Trinity. To Him is appropriated the abounding goodness of God, and His relation to divine operations in general is that of efficient, quickening, sustaining, and perfecting cause. He is also the gift of God, and it is by His presence that the Father and the Son are made present in our hearts and operate effectuaUy for our good. To blaspheme Him, there fore, is the climax of outrage against God,2 and utterly to faU away from Him is to sin beyond re pentance.3 His economy is to sanctify the people of God, and, as ministering to this end, to iUuminate. It is by His inspiration that the prophets wrote, and that the Sacred Scriptures, however produced, have become permanent and divinely authoritative vehicles of teaching to those who have learned the Gospel of 1 This appears first in Athenagoras, Legal., 10, 24. Cf. Victorinus Afer, de Trin. Hymn., 3; St. Augustine, de Trin., vi. 7; vii. 6; xv. 27-37; Hutchings, Holy Ghost, pp. 44, 45; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, Vol. I. p. 333. 2 St. Matt. xii. 31-33; St. Mark ui. 28, 29. 3 Heb. vi. 4-8. z9 274^ THE ECONOMIC TRINITY Jesus Christ in the Church of God; and through Him the Church is guided into all truth. By His operation we are born anew; and He is bestowed upon us by the laying on of hands, in order that He may dwell in us as another Paraclete and impart His gifts — in particular the gifts of wisdom1 and of spiritual strength,2 — so that we may be convinced of sin,3 grow in the love of God,4 and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit.5 His economy is not a substitute for that of the Son; for He is the Spirit of the Son, and was imparted to the Manhood of Christ without other measure than the essential Umitations of re ceptive capacity of human nature.6 He is sent by the Son, and it is by His operation that we are made members of Christ and Christ comes to us with sav ing power.7 AU these truths are involved and impUed in the combination of figures by which the Spirit's presence and operations are symbolized in the Scriptures: {a) The wind which invisibly bloweth where it listeth with quickening power; 8 {b) The iUuminating and purifying fire;9 (c) The regenerating and cleansing 1 Ephes. i. 17; 1 Cor. xii. 8. 2 Rom. viii. 26; Ephes. iii. 16. 3 St. John xvi. 8-1 1. 4 Rom. x. 3-5; Ephes. iii. 17-19; Phil. i. 9-11; 1 St. John iv. 12, 13- 6 Gal. v. 22, 23. • St. John iii. 34. ' 1 St. John iii. 24; iv. 13. Cf. St. John xiv. 16-18. 8 Ezek. xxxvii. 9, 10, 14; St. John iii. 18; Acts ii. 2. 9 Isa. iv. 4; Acts ii. 3, 4; Revel, iv. 5. THE PERSONS DESCRIBED 275 water;1 {d) The gentle and harmless dove;2 (e) The authenticating, assuring, and appropriating seal;3 (J) The consecrating, illumining, healing, and gladdening oil;4 and others. It ought not to be difficult for us to perceive that we have pecuUar relations and obUgations to the Holy Spirit. As a divine Person we ought to worship Him, and to foUow His guidance in aU things.5 We are dependent upon Him as the Bes tower of Ufe and grace, and only by His inspiration are we enabled to think and do what is right.6 We may not grieve Him,7 and, as has been said, to blaspheme Him or to faU away from Him is the chmax of wickedness. Those only who are led by the Spirit are proper chil dren of God.8 Even the treatment of our bodies is to be determined by the fact that they are temples of the Holy Spirit;9 and apart from His abiding pres ence in our hearts the redeeming work of Christ is of no avail for us. It is indisputable that such rela tions and obligations cannot be duly acknowledged unless we distinguish the Spirit from the Father and 1 St. John in. 5; Ephes. v. 26; Heb. x. 22. 2 St. Matt. ui. 16. Cf. x. 16; and Gal. v. 22. 3 St. John vi. 27; Ephes. i. 13, 14; iv. 20. 4 Exod. xxix. 7; xxx. 30; Isa. lxi. 1, 3 (with Heb. i. 9); St. Luke x. 34; 1 St. John ii. 20, 27; Revel, ui. 18. Cf. St. Mark vi. 13; St. Jas. v. 14. 6 Rom. viu. 4-17. Cf . CoUect for Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity. 6 Cf. CoUect for the Ninth Sunday after Trinity. 7 Ephes. iv. 30. 8 Rom. viu. 14. • 1 Cor. vi. 19. 276 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY the Son, and acknowledge that He is co-essential, co-eternal, and co-equal with both.1 III. Analogies and Illustrations § 8. To treat comprehensively of such a rich subject as the doctrine of the Trinity in one short volume requires much condensation, and we have been compeUed almost wholly to dispense with the employ ment of iUustrations. Their use, however, in connec tion with trinitarian doctrine, has been frequent both in revelation and in theological development. The general subject, therefore, of trinitarian analogies and iUustrations — their value and Umitations, and the principles to be observed in employing them — ought not entirely to be ignored. Mysterious truths cannot be made known to human minds without some use of analogies borrowed from common experience, and the terms of divine revelation itself are controUed by this law. If they were not thus determined, they would be uninteUi- gible and meaningless to us. The human mind is in capable of thinking or conceiving in any other terms than such as are afforded by human experience. If, therefore, we are to be taught concerning matters which transcend such experience, this teaching must 1 On the doctrine of the Holy Spirit at large, see H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Test; and Early Hist, of the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost; St. Thomas, Summa Theol, I. xxxvi-xxxviii; Petavius, de Trin., Lib. VII; Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, art. viii; W. H. Hutch- ings, Pers. and Work of the Holy Ghost; J. Forget, in Cath. Encyc, s.v. "Holy Ghost"; Hastings, Die. of Bible, s.v. "Holy Spirit"- ANALOGIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 277 none the less be given in its terms, for no others are available. This means that the terms of revelation of the Trinity are necessarily symboUcal. It does not foUow that they are untrue, or that they are lacking in permanent vahdity, but that they exhibit truth through the windows of finite experience and knowl edge. They afford beginnings of correct apprehen sion.1 Divinely inspired terms, of course, can never become false when rightly interpreted, for they are employed by the omniscient Source of truth, who cannot misrepresent. They may, indeed, in subse quent ages, and under different inteUectual conditions, have to be translated in order to be understood; but they remain forever true, and if it were possible some day for us to become omniscient, their truth would not cease to be apparent to us. But their truth is missed when they are taken to afford com prehensive knowledge, and when they are torn away from their context and employed as basis of dog matic inference concerning what is not revealed. This may be iUustrated by astronomical analogies. The phenomena which the heavens afford to our unaided eyes do not become false, although their significance is wondrously enlarged, when we in vestigate the same heavens with the aid of modern 1 On the incipient nature of our knowledge of divine mysteries and the symbolical nature of theological terms, see Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. v. § 16 (a); Being and Attributes of God, ch. ii. §§ 6, 12 (c); ch. x. § 4. 278 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY instruments. Nor is the impression gained by the naked eye misleading, unless we assume that the knowledge which it conveys is more complete than is really and obviously the case, and make rash infer ences therefrom. To speak of sunrise and sunset does not cease to be correct, although we no longer infer from these phenomena that the sun revolves around the earth. To put this in another way, the terms of nature's revelation to the ancients — the terms of sunrise and sunset — wiU continue to be vaUd and inteUigible so long as the solar system re mains; but the fuller knowledge of modern days shows how very inadequate these terms are, and how misleading they become when regarded as a sufficient basis of speculative astronomy.1 So it is with the revelation of the Trinity. That mystery has been exhibited to us in terms or analogies of threefold personaUty, generation, spiration, etc.;2 and our only experience of these things exhibits them to us as finite, and as subject to conditions which cannot reasonably be regarded as inhering in the Divine Being. We acknowledge, therefore, that they are analogies and only symbohcaUy true as appUed 1 A bUnd person who asked what scarlet was like was told that it was like the sound of a trumpet. The answer was true, and per haps was as adequate as could be given to a blind person, for the sound of a trumpet is to other sounds what scarlet is to other colours. Moreover, the symbolical truth of the description would not be destroyed for the blind person, if his acquisition of eyesight brought his dependence upon it to an end. 2 That is, in terms of experience, which these words correctly summarize and define. ANALOGIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 279 to God. Yet we perceive that they are true symbols, not only because God has chosen them — a sufficient reason for our acceptance of them, — but because the necessities of thought concerning personahty agree with and support them. Therefore, however much the divine reahty transcerids any conception which we can form of personaUty, generation, and spiration, we rest assured that in accepting such terms hes the beginning of a knowledge of God which will never be stultified or reduced to unreaUty by any knowledge that may be in store for us in the hfe to come. More than this, our knowledge of God, partial though it be, is sufficient to enable us to avoid reading too much into the terms of revelation, and to keep from committing ourselves to unwarrantable infer ences from them. Christian history supports this contention. The doctrine of three divine Persons in God has never become either tritheistic or Sabelhan among those who have faithfully received the Church's teaching; and the Church has never permitted her doctrines of divine generation and spiration to be determined in their meaning and impUcations by physical and temporal connotations. § 9. The most orthodox theologians, however, have felt free to make use of extra-scriptural iUus trations, borrowed from human experience at large, for the purpose of supplementing the analogies em ployed in revelation. Our grouping of them is not strictly logical, but we find it practicaUy convenient 280 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY to mention the more important of them under four heads.1 (a) The first class of illustrations has to do with the counter truths of the divine processions and the indivisible unity of the Godhead. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Son is said to be the "effulgence," atravyaapa, of the Father's glory,2 and somewhat in Une with this, certain ancient fathers described the Son's procession as resembhng that of brightness from hght, or hght from hght.3 Tertulhan likened the three Persons to the sun, its ray and the apex of the ray,4 and St. Gregory Naz. mentions, with ad verse criticism, the analogy of the sun, its ray and its Ught.5 Tertulhan also used the iUustrations of root, tree, and fruit, in one plant; and of fountain, river, and stream, in one water.6 Closely related to these are St. Augustine's iUustrations of the spring, the river, and the cup of the same substantial water; and the root, the trunk, and the branch of the same 1 On trinitarian analogies and illustrations, see Thomassinus, Theol. Dogm., Tr. II. ch. xxvi; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. rplas, Col. 1297; R. Owen, Dog. Theol, ch. v. §9; IUingworth, Personality, pp. 69-75 (d. note 27, pp. 272-274); R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 170-176; Hagenbach, Hist, of Christ. Doe, §42; J. H. Newman, Select Treatises, Vol. II. pp. 173-177. 2 Heb. i. 3. 3 Justin M., Dial., 56; Origen, de Princip., I. ii. 7; St. Dionysius Alex., Ep. ad. Dion., 3, 4; St. Athanasius, c Arian., H. xviu. 33; HI. xxvu. 36. Tatian, To the Greeks, uses the figure of a torch from fire. 4 ApoL, 21; adv. Prax., viu. 5 Theol Orat., v. 31-33. ' Adv. Prax., viii. ANALOGIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 281 wood.1 St. Dionysius of Alexandria caUed the Son the breath of God's power; 2 and Victorinus Afer described Him as the utterance of the divine wiU. Another description of the three Persons is that of the invisible self, its visible expression in action, and the responding effect. To iUustrate the non-necessity that the procession of the Spirit should be a second begetting, the divine Persons are likened to Adam, Eve, and Seth. Whereas Seth was begotten of Adam, Eve was not, although she proceeded from his side.3 Bearing in mind the fact that the fanfily constitutes the social unit, apart from which human persons cannot come into being, some hkened the Trinity to father, mother, and child. This comparison was regarded as suspicious, however, as importing a feminine element into the Godhead, and as inconsist ent with the eternal order of the divine Persons.4 It is clear that none of the iUustrations of this group can be pressed in their connotations of physical com position and motion and of temporal sequence. {b) The second class of iUustrations is largely psychological, being based upon the fact that man is created in the image of God, and being suggested by analysis of human nature. These iUustrations bear on the problem of reconciling unity of essence with tri-personal subsistence. They do not, directly at 1 In de Fid. et Symb., 17. 2 Ep. ad Dion., 3, 4. 3 St. Gregory Naz., Theol. Orat, v. n. 4 St. Augustine, de Trin., xu. 5-8. The same objection was made against the comparison with Adam, Eve, and Seth. 282 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY least, bear on the mystery of divine processions. Some have made use of the union of body, soul, and spirit in human nature, but this analogy has ordinarily been set aside as having elements which are obviously misleading in such a comparison.1 Psychology divides the activities of the soul into the three branches of emotion, reason, and will; and this analogy is a more favorite one because whoUy spiritual and personal. Yet there is but one person in the human soul, and in this particular the iUustration fails and may mis lead. The same may be said of the trinity of intel lectual, moral, and spiritual functions; and of the various subtle trinities which St. Augustine skilfuUy and beautifuUy brings to Ught and employs:2 — memory, understanding, and will;3 mind, word, and love thereof; idea, contemplation of it, and love of it; object, seeing it, and attending to it, or image, memory, and attention. A modern hne of thought was anticipated by Victorinus Afer when he likened the Son to the object of the Father's seU-knowledge; and J. R. Illingworth calls attention to the presence of subject, object, and relation between the two in personahty. "A person ... is a subject who can become an object to himself, and the relation of these two terms is necessarily a third term."4 Such an 1 It is vigorously objected to by J. B. Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, ch. viii. 2 In de Trinitate, esp. Lib. IX-XIV. 3 See note in Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers, St. Augustine's de Trin., p. 143. 4 Personality, pp. 69, 70. ANALOGIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 283 iUustration cannot be pressed far without SabelUan impUcation, for the terms mentioned are in reaUty aspects in the functioning of single personalities. A trinity of real persons in one being, so far from being suggested, is made to appear more remote from the verisimiUtude of truth. (c) A third group includes iUustrations derived from external objects and relations: — such as the three colours of the rainbow;1 the three dimensions of space; the past, present, and future relations of time; three torches in a room serving as, foci of one hght; 2 the widely prevalent threefold grouping of leaves in the vegetable kingdom; the three forms of carbon — diamond, graphite, and coal. {d) FinaUy we come to the representations of the Trinity in art, the illustrative value of which is plainly quite limited. The most commonplace are the triangle, of which we shaU have something to say, and the trefoil, a conventionahzed natural sym bol. In the pictorial art of the Church, the Trinity is usuaUy represented by a hand extended from a cloud, a figure of Christ as Man, and a dove. Such representations are not intended to illustrate the mystery of tri-unity. They merely raise our thoughts to the divine Persons.3 1 St. Basil, Epis., xxxvrii. 4, 5. 2 Pseudo-Dion. Areopagite, Divine Names, ch. ii. 3 Smith and Cheetham, Die. of Christ. Antiq., s.vv. "God the Father, Representations of"; "Jesus Christ, Representations of"; and "Trinity, the Holy (in Art)"; J. R. Beard, Historical and Artis tic Illust. of the Trinity. 284 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY § 10. The various iUustrations which we have mentioned can be seen to have very unequal value. Some of them are obviously inappropriate, and no one of them is either adequate or capable of being pressed very far without implying error.1 In so far as they are of purely human device they cannot, even within the limits of their safe employment, possess the authority and finaUty in determining doctrine which belong to the terms of revelation. It has been acknowledged that even these terms are analogical and inadequate, and that they may not be pressed in their finite connotations; but, unlike aU other terms, they have divine sanction. This assures us that, when rightly taken, they are true and permanently vaUd. They, and they alone, de termine cathoUc doctrine. Yet the resort to extra- scriptural iUustrations, in order to facilitate the task of combining the opposite truths of revealed doc trine in one apprehension and act of faith, is inevi table; and, if their hmitations are properly allowed for, these iUustrations are neither misleading nor to be condemned. That they have some value seems Ukely when we remember that the realities of human experience are the handiwork of God; and, although finite, cannot fail to exhibit some reflection of the nature of their Maker. Moreover, we are assured that man is created in the image of God; 2 and, however inadequate an 1 Bp. EUicott, Foundations of Sacred Study, 1st Series, pp. 123, 124. 2 Gen. i. 26, 27. ANALOGIES AND DLLUSTRATIONS 285 image of the Infinite he may be, we are warranted in looking for partial and fragmentary analogies between the divine and the human natures. But humanly produced analogies can never afford a basis of definition of divine mysteries. Their proper use and value hes whoUy in their confirmatory suggestive- ness. At best they simply help us to receive the terms of revelation without being disturbed by the antith eses of thought and insoluble problems which these terms obtrude upon the attention of critical minds. The problems defy our efforts to solve them, but when we perceive that partially analogous antitheses and insoluble problems are exhibited in common experience, we become less inchned to regard the seeming oppositions of trinitarian doctrine as afford ing warrant for its rejection. Furthermore, the human mind is so constituted that imagination plays an important and necessary part in assisting the reason to apprehend and assimilate even the most abstract truths — truths which are not in their own nature capable of being actuaUy represented by the imagination. But, although we inevitably make use of concrete figures as windows, so to speak, through which to contemplate super-physical realities and mysteries, and although these figures have a suggestive value which may not be denied, yet safety in thinking of the ineffable Trinity requires us to remember their inadequacy, and their misleading nature when pressed too far and given a definitive or proving function. 286 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY They are in any case finite, and cannot do more than suggest the mysteries of infinite Deity. Their physi cal and temporal connotations should be disregarded as utterly foreign to a correct description of the non- spatial and eternal essence of God. Cathohc writers have not been apt to forget these considerations, and the ancient fathers often cautioned their readers against taking their iUustrations Uterally or with forgetfulness of the difference between the Creator and His creatures.1 The combination of suggestive value and essential inadequacy .which is discoverable in the best iUus trations of the Trinity can be seen in the common representation of the triune God by a triangle.* A triangle is an externally Umited and spatial figure, whereas God transcends spatial relations and has neither figure nor external limitation. Again, the triangle is a thing of mutually excluding parts; but God, although He fills the universe, has neither parts nor measures, and the whole Trinity exists in each divine Person. Finally, a triangle is a Ufeless dia gram, and its internal relations are purely geometrical and non-personal; whereas God is essentially Ufe, and is wholly and absolutely personal. So true is this that in Him alone are the requirements of complete personaUty satisfied, without impersonal mixtures. Yet a triangle does combine coherent unity and distinct threefoldness without confusion, and both are 1 E.g. St. Gregory Naz., Theol Orat, v. 31-33; St. Augustine, de Trin., xv. 42, 43. ANALOGIES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 287 essential to the notion of a triangle. Each of its three angles exhibits a point, mathematicaUy speak ing, without dimensions; and each is what it is in the triangle by reason of the mutual relations which the sides represent. These pecuUarities are certainly suggestive, and it is because of them that a triangle is so frequently used to iUustrate the unity of three distinct Persons in the Godhead, each indivisible and immeasurable. Moreover, the obviousness of the points of contrast between this mystery and the figure employed to represent it removes aU danger of regarding the iUustration as adequate, and of pressing it beyond the very limited range of its applicability. And this exemplifies what appears to be a law in relation to aU uninspired iUustrations of the Trinity. The law is that the need of caution in employing these iUustrations is proportionate in degree of urgency to their seeming value as illustrations; and the more evident are the incidental points of contrast between the iUustration and the mystery to which it is apphed, the less likely is the mind to be misled. In other words, the suggestive value and the safety of trini tarian iUustrations, when used by untrained and irresponsible thinkers, vary in inverse proportion. The most purely physical iUustrations appear least adequate; and just for that reason they are the safest, since they are least likely to be pressed be yond truth and reason. On the other hand, the most satisfying iUustrations — for example, those in which 288 THE ECONOMIC TRINITY r super-physical and personal quaUties and relations are employed — are the ones in which the evidences of inadequacy are least conspicuous, and therefore most apt to be at least partiaUy disregarded. It would seem, therefore, that psychological analogies — such as were employed by St. Augustine, and such as are congenial to certain modern writers — require the most careful handling. If unduly emphasized, they may suggest the SabelUan error, rather than the coinherence of three real Persons in the one God head.1 A multipUcation of illustrations, especiaUy if they are derived from diverse sources, wiU go far to safe guard their use. It will lessen the danger of em phasizing unduly, or depending too much upon, any one of them. And the possible misappUcations of each will be corrected by comparison with other and diverse analogies. 1 On the Umitations of the analogy of human father and son, employed by St. Athanasius and Cappadodan writers to illustrate the consubstantiaUty of the eternal Son with the Father, see pp. 180 (note i), 267, 268, above. CHAPTER IX PRACTICAL VALTJE I. Practical Aim of Revelation § i. Having completed our treatment of the doc trine of the Trinity in its historical, scriptural, and technical aspects, it remains to show that this doctrme is supremely practical: — that it is neither a mere triumph of speculative construction, having academic interest only, nor simply a challenge to the reason, imposed in order to put us to a probation of intellec tual surrender. We may be sure that no doctrine is likely either to be regarded as necessary to be beheved or reaUy to be inteUigible which has no evident relation to a better understanding of human hfe and destiny, and no bearing on human conduct.1 That the universe of truth is at unity with itseU may be reckoned as a necessary assumption of in telUgent minds. AU truths must therefore be regarded as having mutual connection; and it is by learning as much of truth as is knowable that men acquire 1 On the practical value of the doctrme of the Trinity, see IUing- worth, Trinity, chh. vii-ix; Wilhelm and ScanneU, Cath. Theol, § no; Bp. Pearson, Apos. Creed, various passages on the need of beUef, art. u, pp. 180-186, 253-257, 276-279; art. viu, pp. 585-589; D. Waterland, Importance of the Doc. of the Trinity, esp. ch. ii; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 494-504. 20 289 290 PRACTICAL VALUE such understanding as they are capable of gaining of the meaning of Ufe and of the principles by which human hfe ought to be guided. No truth or aspect of truth stands entirely by itseU; and, although we rightly distinguish between the abstract and practical aspects of truth, these aspects are invariably related and mutuaUy determinative, if both are true. When they appear to be mutuaUy disconnected, the credi bility of at least one or other of them is destroyed; and, since the practical is most obvious and urgent in its claims upon our acceptance, this means that abstract and theoretical propositions fafl to secure behef when they cannot be related to any thing practical. Relatedness is a fundamental condition of credibiUty and of intelhgibiUty. The unrelated is necessarUy dismissed from serious consideration by thoughtful man as irrational and unimportant.1 The doctrine of the Trinity has often been fiercely assailed, and every resource of logic, rhetoric, and external influence has again and again been enUsted for its overthrow; but it has held its own for many centuries, and continues to determine the convictions of the most enhghtened portion of the human race. This fact indicates that the doctrine in question has shown itself to be highly credible.2 But it shows 1 See Hakluyt Egerton, Liberal Theology, pp. 82-93; the writer's Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. ii. § 5; Evolution and the Fall, Lee. v. Pt. H. 2 Cf. IUingworth, Divine Immanence, pp. 190-194. He says of this doctrine, "It supports and is supported by the whole weight of a fact in history, with which nothing else in the wide world can even PRACTICAL AIM OF REVELATION 291 more than this. In view of the law above set forth, that propositions depend for credibiUty upon their relatednesss to what is practical, it affords evi dence that the doctrine of the Trinity has been found or thought to be related to Ufe and to have practical value. § 2. An intelUgent Christian behever is not likely to acquiesce in the notion that the God whom he has learned to regard as the sum and source of wisdom and love has manifested Himself to His creatures in terms which simply obtrude upon our attention an inteUec tual problem, and which afford us no guidance in drawing near to Him and in fulfilling the end for which He made us.1 To beheve in the love and wisdom of God carries with it a conviction that any genuine seU-revelation of God wiU be found to be designed for our weUare, and to afford knowledge which wiU throw hght over the pathway of Ufe and enable us more securely to advance towards our heavenly goal and enjoy God forever. So irresisti ble for spiritual minds is this logic that, when men are seen to miss the practical value of revealed doctrine, the inference is inevitable that they either have not entered into a true knowledge of God or for a moment be compared. .That fact is the age-long empire of Jesus Christ over the hearts of men." i 1 J. R. Illingworth, in op. cit, pp. 180-187, shows the practical origin of trinitarian teaching. The purpose of the Incarnation was to reveal God as love, and this was most effectively done by exhibit ing the plurahty of Persons in the Godhead, between whom love is eternaUy exercised. 292 PRACTICAL VALUE do not reaUze the supreme and practical importance of spiritual ideals and aims. In the latter case they fail to perceive the value of trinitarian doctrine because their minds are unspiritual, and spiritual things are spirituaUy examined.1 We do not mean to assert that non-trinitarians generally are unspiritual. We prefer to beUeve that many who profess Christi anity without accepting trinitarian doctrine have never really understood its content and meaning, and for this reason have failed to perceive its practical value. They reject it under the influence of intellec tual misapprehension. The conclusion to which our argument leads is that to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity has been divinely revealed is also to estabhsh its practical value.2 A revelation which is really divine is neces sarily possessed of practical bearing and value, and this practical value helps to make its divine source credible. We do not mean to imply that the practical value of given particulars of revelation is necessarily and immediately apparent to those who receive them. The truths of God are, of course, fuU of mys tery; and it often requires careful scrutiny to discern their bearing on hfe. Moreover, this practical bearing cannot be fully reaUzed until after some experience in the consequences of behef has been had. But to maintain that a revealed doctrine has no bearing on hfe — no practical value — is to throw discredit 1 1 Cor. ii. 14. 2 On this point, see D. Waterland, op. cit, ch. iii. PRACTICAL AIM OF REVELATION 293 upon the love and wisdom of the divine Revealer. It is, in effect, to encourage irreverent thoughts of God. We conclude, therefore, that, having abundant reasons to beheve, as has been shown in previous chapters of this volume, that the doctrine of the Trinity has been divinely revealed, we are constrained to regard this doctrine as having practical value, and as capable of enhghtening our minds in pursuing the way of everlasting hfe. This conclusion we hold to be inevitable whether we can adequately understand and exhibit the practical bearings of our doctrine in detaU or not. If, however, we succeed in estabUshing the value of the doctrine as a whole, we shall also have justified the inference that its particulars are important; for the doctrine of the Trinity is a co herent mystery, which cannot be taken to pieces without subverting and nulhfying it. § 3. The objection may be urged at this point that what has been said apphes only to the original and bibhcal form of the doctrine, and not to the meta physical propositions of ecclesiastical dogma. This objection has already been discussed in another con nection,1 and we need not repeat aU that has been said in that place. The substance of our reply is that ecclesiastical dogma has no other content than that of bibUcal doctrine. Its sole purport is to define bibUcal teaching in terms calculated to shut out erroneous and subversive interpretations thereof. 1 In ch. i. § 3, above. 294 PRACTICAL VALUE Some of these terms were certainly borrowed from phUosophical sources. But the Church did not take over the metaphysical systems of thought with which they^had previously been associated. On the contrary, she employed them in new connections, connections which gave them meanings that fitted them for the purpose of correctly defining the teaching of Scripture and traditional behefs of Christians, inherited from apostohc days. Inasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine of the Creeds and Councils of the Church is no other than the teaching of Scripture, to estabUsh the practi cal value of the one is to prove that of the other. Speaking in the abstract, it is undoubtedly sufficient for personal salvation if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity in exclusively bibUcal terms, provided subversive interpretations are avoided. It is the truth itself that emancipates us and guides our footsteps, rather than any particular terms of its embodiment. But truth cannot be made known or preserved with out the use of suitable terms, and the terms which were employed in revelation, suitable as they were for that purpose, were not necessarily capable by themselves of preserving an accurate knowledge of revealed truth among the people of later ages. Suc ceeding generations have brought many confusing changes in the forms of thought and language which govern men's conceptions, and much scholarship is required to put ourselves into the mental atmosphere to which the terms of revelation were adapted. Moreover, revelation was given to a great extent in PRACTICAL AIM OF REVELATION 295 terms of unique experience, rather than in definitions, and such terms are pecuharly liable to be misinter preted by those whose experience is determined by changed mental conditions. If the teaching of experi ences so unique as were those of the pentecostal age was accurately to be preserved for future generations, it had sooner or later to be embodied, at least in its determinative particulars, in definitions the terms of which could be employed in sufficiently crystaUized meanings to be susceptible of being correctly inter preted in subsequent ages. The need of dogmatic definitions was therefore certain to be felt when the experiences of primitive behevers began to seem remote. Changed conditions had their inevitable effect, and the scriptural records of revelation, useful and necessary as they continued to be for verification of inherited truths, needed interpretation; and this demanded a correct knowl edge of the primary elements of revealed doctrine on the part of those who undertook to interpret them. In the meantime, many erroneous interpretations were exploited, and the task of assimilating bibhcal doctrine without resort to extra-bibhcal guidance became practically too difficult for ordinary readers of Scripture. The Creeds define the determinative particulars of this teaching, and define them sufficiently for ordi nary guidance; and the technical terms of catholic theology, which are selected for the use of those who are competent to make a scientific study of revealed 296 PRACTICAL VALUE truth, have no other purpose than to co-ordinate the contents of revelation for more intelUgent considera tion, and to equip those who are caUed to be teachers. A successful teacher is necessarily one who possesses a thorough and more or less technical mastery of his subject. § 4. The rejoinder may be made that the revela tions recorded in Scripture are not doctrines about the divine Persons, but self-manifestations by means of which God in Christ has estabhshed the hving rela tions between us and Himself wherein true religion essentially consists. It may be urged, therefore, that to bring in dogma is vitally to change the nature of Christianity. Assuming that there are three divine Persons, the fact remains that bibhcal Christianity consists in hving relations with Them, in trustful dependence upon Them. Propositions about Them are irrelevant; and, when imposed as conditions of salvation, they necessarily obscure the real meaning of the Gospel, and sap the hfe of religion. We of course agree with the contention that the essence of true religion consists of hving relations with God, and that propositions concerning the divine Persons have rehgious value and justification only on the assumption that they are needed for the preserva tion of these relations, and for our assurance of their reahty and necessity. To take a different ground would be to adopt a hopelessly unscriptural position. But our reply to the objection which we are consider ing hes in the truth of the assumption just mentioned PRACTICAL AIM OF REVELATION 297 — an assumption which i's abundantly justified by the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures. These Scriptures everywhere imply that what we think of Christ must determine our personal attitude towards Him; and therefore they contain definite propositions concerning Him, and concerning the Father and the Holy Spirit as weU. Ecclesiastical dogmas merely translate these propositions into terms which the Church's experience with error has shown to be required for their protection from destructive mis interpretation. To raise objections against them, on the plea which we are discussing, is in effect to find fault with the teachings of Scripture which they define, and to accuse the sacred writers themselves of subverting the Gospel. We are not justified in rendering allegiance to the divine Persons without such knowledge of Them as wiU afford a sufficient reason for so doing. The doctrine of the Trinity affords this knowledge. It supphes the only possible justification of the relations to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, a practical observance of which constitutes Christianity. No doubt this doctrine was practicaUy appUed rather than denned by ordinary beUevers in the first age of Christian history. But the progress of error has long since made definition necessary, if the worship and other rehgious practices of Christians are to be justified and continued; and it is quite impossible to restore primitive conditions in this regard. In- teUigent people at least can no longer feel justified 298 PRACTICAL VALUE < < in worshipping the Trinity, without coming to con clusions concerning the questions to which the Creeds and other definitions of the universal Church give the only true answers. The practical value of these definitions, therefore, is indisputable, and hes in the fact that they are needed vehicles and preservatives of truths which determine and justify our attitude towards the Persons whose self -revelation is recorded in Holy Scripture. § 5. If, as has been maintained, the general con tents of divine revelation are determined by divine love and wisdom, and therefore by our practical needs, we may be sure that no part of revealed doctrine is practically superfluous. God never wastes His teaching; and every particular in His self -manifesta tion must have its own value and relation to the general and practical purpose for which He reveals Himself to us. It must have this, whether we are able to understand its relation to the whole or not. It is with no intention of disparaging the value of other contents of revelation that we insist upon the especiaUy critical importance of the more central and fundamental particulars of revealed doctrine.1 And we have clear warrant for insisting upon the supreme importance and value of the doctrine of the Trinity. - All the Scriptures are either directly or indirectly concerned with this doctrine. They con- 1 On the faUacy of distinguishing between essential and non essential contents of divine revelation, see Authority, Eccles. and Biblical, ch. viii. § 6. FOR OTHER CHRISTIAN BELIEFS 299 stitute a record of the successive stages of its reve lation; and the mystery of the Trinity affords the chief clue to the significance of sacred history, and to the divine meaning of the Old as well as of the New Testament.1 The Scriptures exhibit their fun damental and connected meaning only when they are interpreted as describing the manifold ways in which, and the conditions under which, God from the begin ning trained His chosen people for the reception of His fuUer self-manifestation, and, after much break ing of ground, clearly revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three distinct Persons sub sisting in one indivisible Godhead. AU other particu lars of revelation recorded in Scripture are related to, and determined in meaning by, this central mys tery. The dispensations of creation, redemption, and sanctification are revealed as economies of the several divine Persons; and the relations and obligations in which, and under which, we stand towards God are determined in form and meaning, according to Scripture, by their connection with the mystery of The Three in One. II. For Other Christian Beliefs § 6. The conclusion to which we are driven by what has been said in the previous section is that, if Christian doctrine in general has practical value — Christian behevers at least cannot consistently deny this, — the doctrme of the Trinity is supremely vital 1 The evidence of this has been given in chh. ii, iv, above. 300 PRACTICAL VALUE and important for the guidance of those who would rightly serve God and enter into everlasting Ufe with Him. Our conclusion will be fortified, however, if we consider a few leading examples of the dependence of other Christian beliefs upon an acceptance of this mystery. That belief in a hving and personal God — a God who has not only made us, but who treats us as His children, providing for our welfare, and regarding the prayers of those who caU upon Him, who indeed judges us according to our deserving, although with the merciful judgment of a Father — that such a belief has immense value in giving vital reahty to moral ideals, in fortifying us in our struggles for righteousness, in encouraging the hope of immortahty and of ultimate self-reahzation, and in making Ufe appear to be worth hving, is not to be denied by those who value such results and have not suppressed their rehgious instincts. Man is indeed by nature a reUgious being. With out religion he cannot satisfy His deepest instincts or realize himself; and religion is essentially a Uving relation by which we are bound to God — one which, among other essential elements, requires conscious behef in God as a hving and personal Being, with whom we can enjoy some kind of personal com munion and fellowship.1 Theistic agnosticism is necessarily fatal to a genuine rehgious consciousness; and pantheism mocks rehgious aspirations with a 1 See H. P. Liddon, Some Elements of Religion, Lee. i. FOR OTHER CHRISTIAN BELD2FS '301 philosophy of being from which the personal element — the very hfe of religion — is expressly excluded. Polytheism is utterly discredited among the intelU gent; and the deification of humanity which posi tivism suggests can never hft mankind above its existing level. Nothing but behef in one supreme and personal God and Father of us aU can satisfy the requirements of human nature and give vital power to the moral ideals upon which the progress of our race depends. It is clear, therefore, that a doctrine which gives Uving reaUty and vaUdity to beUef in a personal God, and which removes the chief inteUectual difficulty that hinders phUosophical thinkers from believing in the conceivability and possibility of infinite per sonahty, has immense practical value — greater value than any other conceivable doctrine. Such doctrine establishes religion on secure foundations, and gives vahdity to the only credible prulosophy of a hfe worth Uving. Now the doctrine of the Trinity, when thoughtfuUy considered, can be seen to do aU this, and therefore to be the most enhghtening and help ful of aU doctrines. The argument by which its value for behef in a personal God is estabhshed has already been indi cated.1 But it seems desirable to remind the reader that the conception of an isolated person has been discarded by the best modern inteUigence as involving self-contradiction. The existence and functioning 1 In ch. vi. § 11. Cf. ch. vii. § 2. 302 PRACTICAL VALUE of a divine Person, therefore, seems to require that such Person should possess an alter-ego; and uni tarian thought has never been able to discover an adequate alter-ego for an infinite Person in the finite universe. In fact the tendency of unitarian thought is pantheistic — a tendency which is not successf uUy disguised by such a term as "supra-personal." If to caU God supra-personal means that He is supremely personal ^- personal in a more perfect sense than man can be reckoned to be — such a conclusion is to be insisted upon as a vital truth. But it usuaUy means that God is impersonal — a notion which is inconsistent with the superhuman nature of God, and which nullifies that in God that makes Him the object of personal service and adoring love.1 The only adequate alter ego of an infinite Person is a second infinite Person; and the impossibihty that there should be more than one infinite and supreme Being requires that this distinction between ego and alter-ego should have its basis and actuahty within the indivisible essence of God. If the personaUty of God depends upon anything external to His own Being, He is externahy Umited in essence and finite — that is, not God. Behef in plural personaUty within the Godhead appears, therefore, under the conditions of modern thought,2 to be required for intelUgent beUef in a 1 Cf. IUingworth, Divine Immanence, pp. 188, 189. 2 We are giving an argument the vaUdity of which depends upon the vaUdity of modem thought concerning the necessities of per- FOR OTHER CHRISTIAN BELIEFS 303 God who is at once supreme and personal.1 But there is no other doctrine of plural personahty in God which is seriously to be reckoned with except the doctrine of the Trinity. Behef in a duahty of divine Persons is acknowledged to be peculiarly hard to reconcile with behef in divine unity; and the Chris tian beUef in a third divine Person has shown itself to be capable of removing this difficulty. Mono theism has been most consistently and effectuaUy maintained among trinitarians; and the history both of higher thinking and of popular behef proves that, so far from weakening the doctrine of divine unity, trinitarian doctrine fortifies behef in one supreme and personal God against aU assaults and aU diffi culties. Its vital importance is therefore indisputable. § 7. The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary in order to justify beUef in Christ. Such behef, including an acceptance of Christ's personal claim, constitutes the very heart and inspiration of Christian faith in general. If Christ is not what He claimed to be, the sonal fundioning. We do not venture, however, to dogmatize as to the possibiUties or non-possibiUties of divine personality. Yet seeming necessities may rightly be employed, when relevant, for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. 1 A God who is supreme and yet not far from His children must be both transcendent and immanent. Deism exclusively considered, and therefore caricatured, the divine transcendence; and pantheism in a simUar manner caricatures the immanence of God. The Incar nation, and the trinitarian doctrine which that mystery presupposes, combine both truths and avoid caricaturing either. DUngworth, Trinity, pp. 193-203; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 452-459> Sparrow-Simpson, Christ Doc. of God, Lee. iv. 3o4 PRACTICAL VALUE whole Christian system has a false basis; and the overthrow of Christianity involves a nullification of the forces and inspirations which have emancipated countless miUions from superstition, and have made modern civilization a possibiUty. "What think ye of Christ?" is a question the answer to which deter mines either a continuance of human progress or a lasting nightmare of irrehgion, moral faUure, and human ruin.1 Christ in us is the sole "hope of glory"; 2 and upon behef in Him depends our assurance of access to God our Father, the Uving source of aU that sustains us under the burdens and trials of our earthly pilgrimage. The dilemma, Christ is either God or not good, has never been successfuUy evaded; for it is incredi ble that a mere man should be inspired by sane and righteous motives in claiming to be one with God, in exacting forms of personal aUegiance which per tain exclusively to the Supreme Being, and in accept ing the worship which men cannot lawfuUy render except to their Creator. Christ indeed exhibits the character of ideal Man, but His virtues cannot be separated from His claim to be divine without re ducing the Gospel narratives to incoherent fragments. As they stand, these narratives exhibit a sobriety and a self-consistency which justify our acceptance 1 Guy Thome's novel, When It Was Dark, fiction though it be, gives, a credible portrayal of the moral and sodal results that would ensue, if the traditional beUef in Christ's Person were proved to be false. 2 Col. i. 27. FOR OTHER CHRISTIAN BELD2FS 305 of their substantial truth, and the portrait of Christ which they give is too unique in its spiritual quaUty to have been invented. At aU events, it is the beUef that Christ is very God as well as very Man, and that in His Person we discover God taking our nature upon HimseU in order to save us from sin and impart to us eternal Ufe, it is this behef which has justified Christian hopes, and which is therefore practicaUy vital. But the whole scheme of Christian doctrine, as weU as the exphcit teaching of Christ, requires us to distinguish the Person of Christ our Redeemer from the Person of the Father who sent Him into the world. That the Father is God, aU confess; that Christ is God, is the basis of Christian hopes; and no tenable theory can justify a recognition of distinct Persons as equally to be identified with the Supreme Being except the doctrine of the Trinity.1 A doctrine which is thus essential to the vahdity of Christian hopes is indisputably of priceless value. It is indis pensable for Christian security and for guidance in the way of Ufe. § 8. The evangehcal doctrine that we are saved from sin only through the death of Christ and His victory over death in our behah — a doctrine which cannot be repudiated, if historical Christianity is to be accepted, — is a truth of obvious practical impor tance; and, when seriously examined, can be seen to be the most complex of Christian mysteries. Its 1 See Illingworth, Trinity, pp. 147-149. 21 306 PRACTICAL VALUE truth, like that of our Lord's divine claim, is essential to the vahdity of Christian hopes.1 But, thanks to one-sided caricatures, it has suffered much disparage ment in modern Uterature. The chief modern diffi culties in this connection grow out of the two errors of making the victim of Calvary a pure scapegoat, an absolute substitute for us in the mystery of making satisfaction for sin; and of setting a loving Saviour over against a vengeful Father. The doctrine of the Trinity bears pointedly on the mystery of the Cross; and, when duly allowed for, reUeves it of both of these misconceptions and diffi culties. That doctrine involves the truth that the Victim of the Cross was divine as weU as human, being no other than the second Person of the Trinity. If so, two things follow: In the first place God took upon Himself, after assuming our nature, the consequence of our guilt. It is a wretched caricature to say that God selected out a just man from his guilty fellows, and punished him while letting the rest go free. In a sense, indeed, -Christ did suffer alone — i.e., initiaUy and redemptively speaking. But, as God, He had power to gather us into union with HimseU iri His body, and to make us real and sacra mental participators in His death. He suffered apart only that He might become in us the Sanctifier of our 1The rest of this chapter to some extent reproduces part of a paper read by the author before the Chicago Clericus, and pub lished in pamphlet form in 1905 : The Practical Value of the Doctrine of the Trinity. FOR GUIDANCE OF LIFE 307 sufferings, and our Head and Representative in suffering before the Father. Again, if Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, there can be no difference of attitude toward sin on His part and on the part of the Father. They are not only inseparable in essence, but in purpose and operation as weU. It was the love of the Father as weU as of the Son that caused our Lord's endurance of death in our behalf; and it was His own fury against sin, as weU as the outraged justice of a holy Father, that made such suffering the only possible means of remission of sin. If the doctrine of the Trinity thus clears so practical a mystery as that of the Cross from difficulties which have been unwarrantably added to it, then that doctrine is of priceless practical value, as priceless as is the value of our hope in our Redeemer.1 ni. For Guidance of Life § 9. A doctrine which is perceived to constitute a necessary basis and justification of intelhgent beUef in a personal and Uving God, of acceptance of Christ as our Example and Lord, and of behef in the propi tiatory and saving value of the death of Christ, cannot be seriously regarded as a mere inteUectual puzzle, or as other than the true and practical work ing philosophy of Ufe. But the importance of realizing xSee IUingworth, Trinity, pp. 155-159; D. Waterland, op. cit, pp. 425-434; St. Athanasius, c. Arian., II. xxi. 69, 70; W. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarn., note 6. 308 PRACTICAL VALUE the practical value of this doctrine is so great, and the absence of such reaUzation is so wide-spread, that we shaU go on and indicate some of the more direct bearings of trinitarian teaching on human conduct. If there is a trinity of Persons in God, and if these Persons have come into the economic relations towards us which we have elsewhere described,1 then we have distinct relations and duties to each of Them as well as to the whole Trinity. These rela tions and duties constitute the determinative content of practical Christianity, which has no conceivable basis if trinitarian doctrine is false.2 In the order of nature we come into relations with the Father, to whom we owe countless blessings. These blessings afford reasons and opportunities for creaturely and grateful service which an enhghtened conscience may neither ignore nor faU to distinguish from the blessings which the dispensations of Christ and of the Holy Spirit secure for us. To hve according to nature, rightly understood, is a condition of obedience to the Father's wiU. Again, the doctrine we are considering brings us into relation to a mediatorial Redeemer, to be truly recognized only when we distinguish Him from the Father. These relations also involve privileges and duties which must be enjoyed and performed if the wiU of God is to be supreme in us, and if we are to share in the higher sonship of God which comes 'In ch. vii. §§ i, 2, 5-7. J,D. Waterland, op. cit, pp. 416-421; and Lady Moyer Sermons, p. 172. FOR GUIDANCE OF LIFE 309 through our union with Christ in His body, the Church. AU the duties of the Christian covenant derive their nature and obligation from the truth that Christ is the second Person of the ever blessed Trinity. Once more, the economy of the Holy Spirit of grace and sanctification involves peculiar relations to the third Person of the Trinity. We must make our bodies fit temples for His abode. We must value and use the instruments of sanctification, which are made what they are by His operation. We must lend our inner minds to His guidance and must pray with His help, if we would have our prayers penetrate to the Divine Majesty. FinaUy, the truth that these Three are one Supreme Being, although truly distinct Persons, serves to com bine aU our several relations and duties to the divine Persons in one coherent ideal of hfe. The moral and the rehgious are inseparable, and have equal sanction and value. This interpretation of duties may be Ulustrated by the mode of our approach to God in prayer, especiaUy in the central function of rehgious hfe — the Holy Eucharist. To approach God rightly we must have in at least imphcit view the Father as the ultimate goal of worship; the Son as the Mediator through whom we gain access to the Father, and the Spirit as the Operator by whose power and grace we cry Abba, Father. So our Eucha- ristic Sacrifice is offered to the Father, through and with the Son, and by the Holy Spirit whose transform ing operation we invoke upon what we offer. 310 PRACTICAL VALUE These considerations ought to make clear the practical bearing of the doctrine of the Trinity upon duty. § 10. The most pressing problem in human hfe is the problem of sin. The mystery of evil which hes behind it, abstractly considered, cannot be solved by human philosophy,1 and it is useless to trouble"- our minds with efforts to solve the insoluble. But the problem of escaping from sin is a practical one, which we cannot evade without sacrificing every hope of the world to come. A doctrine^ therefore, which enables us to perceive the real meaning of sin, and to discover its remedy, is necessarily a doctrine of overwhelming practical importance. Such is the value of the doctrine of the Trinity. It shows that a divine society exists of eternal and therefore immutable nature. That society is grounded in holiness, and nothing unholy can be admitted into communion therewith. We were made in order that we might be admitted into divine feUowship — as crea tures it is true, but none the less into divine feUow ship. The revelation of the Trinity is a revelation of the utter impracticabihty of an admission of sinners. Thus it brings into bold reUef the conse quences of sin, as shutting us out of the society for which we were made, and therefore as leaving us to those consequences suggested by St. Augustine's famous saying, "The heart is restless until it find rest in Thee, O God." 1 Cf. Being and Attributes of God, ch. vii. § 5. FOR GUIDANCE OF LIFE 311 Again, the direful nature of the disorder which sin has caused is more vividly understood when it is seen to involve a divine society in its consequences. We may not indeed say that the society of the Trinity is rendered less blessed to its ineffable participants by our sin and exclusion; but, without being able to formulate the mystery with safety, we can perceive that the revelation of the Trinity, and of the purpose of our creation, imphes that sin does somehow vio late the laws of divine society, and is neither rightly nor adequately understood when regarded as a faUing out with only one Person. The evil is more complex, and demands a comphcated remedy. And so, finaUy, trinitarian doctrine modifies our whole conception of the road to reconciUation. We deal with a divine society, and the dispensations and provisions by which the remedy for sin is afforded are dictated by eternal and unalterable relations of the divine Persons. Our worship we saw to be governed by these relations, and they determine the manner of our reconciliation, with which all of the divine Persons have to do. The Father sends His Son into the world; the Son assumes our nature and suffers in it in our behaU, thus sanctifying Him seU as Mediator, one with the Father as touching the Godhead and one with us as touching the Man hood; the Holy Ghost energizes and operates through means of grace whereby we can find " God in Christ reconciling the world unto HimseU." We aU have sinned, and therefore must all find 312 PRACTICAL VALUE peace with God in the manner and under the cove nant conditions which these truths involve. No proposition is more practical, but its vahdity cannot be maintained successfuUy apart from the doctrine of the Trinity. § n. The last particular which we have to con sider, in exhibiting the significance of trinitarian doctrine for human life, ought to be at once the most convincing and the most inspiring of aU: — its bear ing on personal reUgion or the spiritual hfe. The fact has to be acknowledged that the interests of what alone is entitled to be called the spiritual Ufe — our interior and personal conversation with God — have suffered greatly among professing Christians in modern days. Many causes have been alleged. ExternaUy speaking they may be summed up as two: sectarian polemics, which have put men out of touch with the deeper principles of Christianity; and the recent and vast enlargement of mundane interests, due to widened scientific knowledge, me chanical inventions, and increased production. So far from Ughtening Ufe's burdens, these advances have had the immediate result at least of seriously compUcating for the million the problem of getting a Uving. This outcome has naturally caused purely earthly interests to overshadow and displace the spiritual. Countless professing Christians, over whelmed with the worries of modern competition, are losing abihty to perceive that the ultimate and eternal issues of life are really practical. What can FOR GUIDANCE OF LD7E /313 only be described as a pagan utiUtarianism deter mines the values of things for many professing Chris tians, and a doctrine about the nature of God — mysterious as it necessarily is — cannot be taken seriously or regarded as of practical moment by those whose minds and hearts are wholly absorbed in, and racked by, the difficulty of getting on in this world. The sympathy which we ought to feel towards those who are thus harassed and diverted from a due consideration of spiritual interests may not bUnd us to the fact that spiritual interests are the most vital of aU, and that the doctrine of the Trinity can not be disregarded without causing them to suffer. The truth is that we were made for no other end than to become the friends of God, and to enjoy His fellow ship in a sacred communion of saints forever. "This is hfe eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent."1 A knowledge of God which embraces the knowledge of Jesus Christ in its scope is obviously the knowl edge of more than one divine Person, a knowledge which, as we have seen, presupposes the trinitarian conception of God. And what is this knowledge? Surely eternal hfe is not to be identified with mere information about God, vitaUy dependent as it certainly is upon such information, nor with mere behef. Even the de scription of hfe which the late Herbert Spencer, the apostle of agnosticism,, gave will teach us better. 1 St. John xvu. 3. 314 PRACTICAL VALUE He described hfe as correspondence with environ ment.1 That is, a thing hves only when in touch with its appropriate surroundings. Thus, when our bodies are in gear with their material environment, they appropriate their proper sustenance and hve; but when such correspondence begins to fail the body begins to die. Similar to this is the truth revealed by Christ with reference to the spiritual hfe. That Ufe is the corre spondence of our spirits with their proper environ ment, which is God. The nature of spirit is such that this correspondence has no reahty whatever unless it is conscious correspondence — i.e., conscious touch — with God. If I say that I know a person, I necessarily imply that I know about him, but I mean more; I mean that I have had personal rela tions with him. We are "personaUy acquainted," as the phrase goes. Life eternal is then conscious and discerning personal contact with God — the relation graciously conceded to us by God when He promises that we shaU be His friends.2 We were made for this, and the truism that man is naturaUy reUgious means that, apart from sinful corruption, the human soul is "athirst for God"; so that, in the end, no happiness is available that is not grounded in direct divine communion and fellow ship. This is why a heaven is in the nature of things impossible for any who do not attain to that charac- 1 First Principles, 6th Ed., p. 70. * Cf. B. F. Westcott, Epp. of St. John, pp. 214-218. FOR GUIDANCE OF LIFE 315 ter and those tastes which permit a real and perma nent joy in facing God. Service in God's behalf is no doubt a necessary fruit of such character, but it cannot do duty for the cultivation of personal rela tions with Him. We aU say that love is the chief and sum of Christian virtues. Do we mean the love of man? Yes, but not exclusively, nor even primarily. Love begins in God, and it is our love of God which makes Ufe eternal possible, and constitutes the sole sufficient motive and guide in the love of man. We cannot conceive of a love worth considering which can fulfil itself without taking advantage of all the knowledge of the being who is loved that is avaUable. We cannot conceive of unaUoyed bUss derived from contact with a being of whose nature, hfe, and purposes we are whoUy ignorant. But we cannot sufficiently, or even truly, know about God apart from the doctrine of the Trinity. In view of the relations in which we stand to the divine Persons, and the fundamental laws of ap proach to God involved in that doctrine, we cannot fulfil the conditions which enable men to find God, and intelligently to enjoy Him, unless our Uves are in accord with the requirements of that doctrine. Let us suppose the opposite. Suppose that we toil on in ignorance of the three divine Persons. Suppose we think to serve a unitarian God, and form our men tal habits and spiritual attitude upon a deistic basis. It may be that God will in another and intermediate 316 PRACTICAL VALUE state after death mercifully correct and reconstruct our characters. We have no promise that He wiU, and no assurance that such a reconstruction is possible. But if we come to a trinitarian God with a unitarian preparation, what shaU we find? We shaU find a strange and unknown God — one with whom we shall still have to become acquainted, and to whom we shaU have to adjust ingrained ideas, habits, characters, and tastes before we can find rest and joy in Him. It is here that we are to do these things. It is on earth that we are to begin that feUowship with the true God which wiU indeed be wondrously enriched hereafter, but which wiU fulfil rather than subvert our earthly progress in hfe. Our God cannot be found, nor can He be truly known when He is found, except as manifesting Himself in an adorable Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whom we worship as one God forever. Amen. By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Pro fessor of Dogmatic Theology in the Gen eral Theological Seminary, New York. THE LONG DESIRED ANGLICAN SUMMA OF DOCTRINE A series of ten volumes in Dogmatic Theology, crown 8vo., each complete in itself, designed to constitute a con nected treatment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. Price, each volume, $2.00 net I. Introduction (published in 1907). II. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical (pub lished in 1908). III. The Being and Attributes op God (published in 1909). IV. The Trinity (published in 19 10). V. Creation and Man. (published in 1912). VI. The Incarnation. (Published in 1915). .VII. The Redemption and Exaltation of Christ. VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. IX. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology and Indexes. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. NEW YORK, LONDON, BOMBAY and CALCUTTA HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Occupying a point of view which is Anglican and Catholic, the writer joyfully recognizes the value of modern advances in knowledge and thought, and seeks to coordinate the new with the old. Convinced that the ancient Catholic Faith cannot be imperilled by Truth from any quarter, he also believes that it needs to be exhibited in the terms of modern intelligence, if theology is to retain its place as the queen of sciences. The volumes which have thus far been published have secured a favorable and encouraging reception on both sides of the Atlantic. The learning, skill in argument and clearness of exposition shown in the work; the author's success in trans lating ancient doctrines into modern terms, and his sympa thetic understanding of new knowledge and contemporary thought, have been acknowledged by reviewers of every type — Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant alike; — and his reverent adherence to Catholic doctrine has also been noticed. The following brief extracts are selected from a considerable number of generally favorable reviews. Volume I. INTRODUCTION Pp. xlii-273. Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford and Cambridge: "The author's learning and wide reading are as conspicuous. throughout the book as is his fidelity to the point of view. ..." Church Union Gazette, London: . . . "is a compara tively small book into which an immense amount of valuable fact and criticism has been compressed . . . there breathes a spirit of large-mindedness, a refusal to be confined within any groove of prejudice." Church Times, London: "This admirable treatise should be found very useful on both sides of the Atlantic. . . .The. book reaches a high level of excellence . ' ' HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY The Living Church, Milwaukee: "It exhibits the qualities which previous books have led us to expect from Dr. Hall, the severely restrained language, the careful accuracy of statement, the equitable judgement, and- the background of knowledge. . . .When completed, the series will undoubtedly be a monumental addition to Anglican and indeed to Catholic Theology. It may, indeed, in time be recognized as holding such a place in Anglican theology as is held by the Swmma of Thomas Aquinas in the Latin communion." Church Standard, Philadelphia: "Dr. Hall is not Latin. He is Catholic, to be sure, very much so, but in the true Anglican spirit he continues to bring the modern into his Catholicity, and give us a modern while he is giving a Catholic theology." Expository Times: After referring to the writer's briefer outlines, "the fuller scope of the new volume reveals a new writer, a writer with a very extensive knowledge of the litera ture of his subject, to which he makes continual reference, and one who has manifestly mastered its literature and made his subject a real personal possession." Scottish Chronicle: "Its earnestness and learning are admirable." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "Dr. Hall is eminently qualified for the task he has undertaken. . . . Not the least of Dr. Hall's qualifications as a theologian is his extensive acquaintance with our Catholic authors . . . his style may be commended as a model of theological writing in English; it is clear; concise, direct, dignified, and elegant." Pax, England: "That Dr. Hall possesses the necessary qualifications for the task will be apparent to those who know his theological monographs and his book on The Kenotic Theory; and this volume promises well for the success of his undertaking." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume II. AUTHORITY 'Ecclesiastical and Biblical Pp. xvi-300. The Guardian, London: "The present volume, which forms a treatise complete in itself, is even abler than the first, and most opportune. . . .The entire book is marked by caution, balance, and restraint, and deserves to be carefully read. A noticeable feature of the book is the immense inumber of modern writers referred to or discussed." London' Quarterly Review: "Dr. Hall uses his space well. . .he writes with candor and ability." Church Times, London: "Everything that is said in this book about oecumenical authority, the authority of Councils, of National Churches, and so forth, is admirable. . .[Referring to the whole series.] That is a great enterprise, worthily begun." Record-Herald, Chicago: "It is refreshing to meet such a book, simple and lucid in style, scholarly, thorough, con servative, but not bigoted, marshalling arguments and meet ing objections after the manner of the masters of theology." The Churchman, New York: "Of special value. . .is the chapter on the Dogmatic Office and Tradition. . . .There is a good analysis of the various theories of inspiration and a cautious discussion of the functions and legitimate scope of Biblical criticism." Scottish Chronicle: "This book. . .will be welcomed by many students of divinity. It is a well thought-out treatise on the meaning of authority in religion, in which are consid ered the three factors of spiritual knowledge. . .viz., eccle- siatical authority, biblical authority, and reason." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Living Church, Milwaukee: "We beheve that. . .Dr. Hall states most adequately and most accurately the answer of the Anglican communion to the questions that divide Christians to-day, and that on substantially the lines of his answer must be built up the position that will ultimately prove the factor that will unite Christendom." Sewanee Review, Tennessee: "Prof. Hall has a very dis tinct gift for systematizing." Church Union Gazette, London: "Its chief value lies in the way in which he recognizes and emphasizes all the factors which are Involved in any true knowledge of Divine things, not minimizing any, nor exalting oiie at the expense of another; but showing how, by the combination of all, we obtain a certitude which nothing can overthrow." Pax, England: "As a really good compendium with valu able references, this book deserves all praise." Volume III. THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OP GOD Pp. xvi-310. Expository Times : "It is the book of a student, the book of a thinker, the book of a believer. There is not a loose sentence in it, and there is no trivial rhetoric. It is above all the book of a student. Professor Hall's knowledge of the subject Is an amazement." Living Church, Milwaukee: "Dr. Hall has produced a noble book." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "We. . .are glad to be able to praise the third still more unreservedly than its predecessors. It is an excellent manual of systematic theism, HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY the very best of its kind by an Anglican that we know of, and one of the absolutely best. . .the book has to be read in order to be appreciated." Journal of Theological Studies, London: "No argu ment for the existence of God has escaped his notice, and any one who reads his book must feel that Christian theists have no cause to be ashamed of the intellectual case they can present." The Guardian, London: ". . .the admirable second volume on Authority led us to expect much from the writer. . . . One of the best things between the covers is the discussion of the Ontological Argument. ... It should be needless to add that Professor Hall's work is marked throughout by the firm and reverential adherence to the Catholic religion which character izes all the products of the author's mind." Church Union Gazette, London: "An atmosphere of solid, hard work breathes through this book. The reader is made to feel that every sentence has been deeply weighed, and more than once rewritten. The task. . .is of an intensely difficult nature, but the result. . .can be generally described as successful in the better sense of the word." Church Times, London: "His theology is always thoroughly Catholic and scientific. . .preserving the balance and propor tion of faith. . .is a compendium of sound and luminous the ology, which should be on every student's shelf." Interior, Chicago: "The previous numbers we have heartily commended. . . .Every page bears witness to the learning of the writer and the precision of his mental processes. Such a study so pursued is rare nowadays, but in its matter and its method it justifies itself." Volume IV. THE TRINITY Pp. xix— 316. Guardian, London: "The most valuable part of this volume. . .is the chapter on personality and related terms in HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY modern thought. . .we have again to thank him for a learned and useful exposition." Churchman, New York: "It must be reckoned the most important and valuable of the series so far; indeed, the most noteworthy theological treatise of the year. . .one may hope that many clergy and laity. . .will make themselves masters of this admirable volume. American and English Christianity owes a great debt to the learned and devout scholar." Church Times, London: "Professor Hall's excellent and worthy series But we refer the reader to Dr. Hall's volume, which will be indispensable to every student, elementary or advanced." Record, London: "The student. . .will find in this book a useful and comprehensive survey of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, and its theological significance." Living Church, Milwaukee: "The marvel is how Dr. Hall can so exactly treat in such a brief way the many matters he handles. . . .We have said enough to show how valuable and masterly is this volume." Continent, Chicago: "It cannot be said that the able and learned author avoids any real difficulty, although dealing with a most difficult theme. . . .No one can deny that these lectures are able, clearly stated and imbued with the spirit of a true believer." Church of Ireland Gazette: "Professor Hall. . .has made a decidedly valuable contribution to Dogmatic Theology by his. . .book on the Trinity. . . .The chapter dealing with 'Difficulties' is exceedingly well written. This is a book which should find a place at an early date on every well appointed book-shelf. Its freshness, the straight, clear presentation of its matter, will appeal to everyone." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume V. CREATION AND MAN Pp. xviii-353 The Guardian, London : " We heartily commend this book as a very able introduction to the vast subject of which it treats. . . . The subject-matter is admirably arranged and the main arguments are lucid and satisfying. The references to modern hterature are extensive and supply a very complete course of reading with Dr. Hall as a competent critic and guide." Living Church: "A large number of difficult problems falling within the domain not merely of the theologian, but also within the domain of the philosopher and metaphysician and scientist, are taken in hand by Dr. Hall in his wonted lucid, calm, and balanced way of treating his subjects. . . . We trust that many will procure and carefully read Dr. Hall's able treatise." Southern Churchman: "As a clear statement of the posi tion of the Catholic faith, the young theologian can find no better help than this." Biblical World: ". . . The book should be found in all theo logical libraries. . . . The author has defined with great care his attitude toward the results of modern physical and biological investigation. . . ." Churchman: "The author shows in this, as in the previous volumes of the same series, a wide range of reading, logical thought, clear and convenient arrangement of material, and painstaking scholarship. Beside this, abundant and valuable references to many books and treatises, ancient and modem, may well stimulate the reader to a criticism and amplification of the author's own conclusions. Dr. Hall is a theologian of whom our Church may well be proud. Able, sincere, and scholarly theological work, such as this volume exhibits, is of real service to the Church, and is bound to be useful to serious students of all schools of thought." American Journal of Theology: "The style is simple, vigorous, eminently readable — one might almost add fascinating. The book is supplied with abundant bibliographical notes. . . ," HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume VI. THE INCARNATION Pp. xix-353. Church Times: "Each volume has increased our admiration for his scholarship, wide learning, and amazing industry." Living Church: "It must be said that no point of modern Christological speculation has escaped his notice, and that he endeavors throughout to preserve a sympathetic and open mind, quite as much as to state his own very positive convictions." Churchman, New York: "All of Dr. Hall's writing is impor tant, and it is gratifying to have such a work as his presented to the world as the characteristic product of the American Episcopal Church. He is one of our few really distinguished theologians." Expository Times: "Now Professor Hall is very capable, and even on such a subject as the Person of our Lord he is en titled to write. He is both ancient and modern." The Biblical World: "Dr. Hall's exposition of the tra ditional orthodox view of the incarnation is admirable. . . . Anyone who will study and not merely read his book will at least respect the traditional view and see that there is still some hving thought in bygone controversies." Holy Cross Magazine: "It is . . . not only a spiritual but an intellectual treat, to find Dr. Hall moving with such complete ease amid the Incarnation data, yet appreciating at the same time the theologian's moral obligation at least to attempt to express the Faith in 'a language understanded of the people' . . . We commend the book for the clarity with which the Cathohc perspective is expressed, and for the reverent agnos ticism which is the inevitable corollary." Southern Churchman: "The result is a work of great value . . . Dr. Hall excels in accuracy of definition and in lucidity of expression, and the reader has no difficulty in grasping his mean ing nor in following the steps of his reasoning." EVOLUTION AND THE FALL By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Author of "Dogmatic Theology," "The Kenotic Theory," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii+225. Cloth, net, $1.50 The author's aim is to show that one may frankly and fully accept the scientific hypothesis that man is descended on the phys ical side of his nature from the lower species, and may acknowl edge that his natural evolution from brute ancestors constitutes an important factor in causing his existing moral state, without incurring the necessity of qualifying his acceptance of the Cathohc doctrine of man's primitive state and fall. His argument involves an elimination, on the physical side, of the speculative philosophy called naturalism, and, on the theological side, of speculative conceptions of original sin that are not sup ported by really Cathohc authority. He seeks to do adequate justice to evolutionary science, being convinced that real science must inevitably fortify one's hold upon really Cathohc doctrine. Reviews Christian World, London: "It would be good if all theolo gians who write on the evolutionary hypothesis manifested the same knowledge and appreciation of its strong and weak points." Churchman, London: Referring to the exposition of the evo lutionary theory: "Nothing could be clearer or more helpful than this part of the treatment, especiaUy in its freedom from technical scientific terminology." Guardian, London: "Like aU the author's work, the book is cautious and careful, strongly conservative, yet sympathetic with modern conceptions." Church Times, London: "We welcome Dr. HaU's book as the work of a man who seems thoroughly abreast of aU that is being done in the field of biological science. . . . His work as a teacher has developed in him the gift of clear exposition, and he moves with apparent mastery in this thorny and difficult field." THE KENOTIC THEORY CONSIDERED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ITS ANGLICAN FORMS AND ARGUMENTS By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., author of "Dogmatic Theology," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii-r-247. Cloth, net, $1.50. This volume is written in opposition to the theory that, in order to assume a real manhood and submit to human conditions, our Lord emptied Himself of certain divine prerogatives and attributes during the period of His earthly hfe. The writer endeavors to show that this theory is (a) a modern novelty; (b) contrary to the Church's oecumenical decree of faith; (c) rejected by Cathohc doctors; (d) not warranted by the facts contained in the Gospels of the statements of Holy Scripture; (e) faUacious in its reasoning; and (/) perilous in its logical results. Clearness and simplicity of treatment is aimed at, and numerous citations are made from ancient and modern authorities. Reviews Livtng Church: "It is his thorough grasp of those funda mental principles that has enabled Dr. Hall to give us in his 'Kenotic Theory' a theological treatise of more than ordinary value. It has the singular charm of being direct, to the point, lucid, and without verbiage from beginning to end. . . . Dr. HaU . . . lays down, with exactness and precision, the question at issue. . . . Dr. HaU has done good work in discriminating as he has done between the views of Kenotic Schools. . . . No where have we seen a better answer to the baseless assumptions which have been made in England and America to formulate a complete doctrine of the Incarnation out of a single passage in St. Paul's writings." Church Ttmes: "The book should be in every circulating hbrary, and should not be merely read, but studied, as a treatise which from its merits is a candidate for a place as a handbook upon an integral question in theology." LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. PUBLICATIONS CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE. By HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN, D.D., Late Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History; Cambridge; etc. With a Preface by the Rev. E. W. WATSON, D.D., Regius Pro fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 8vo. Pp. viii+416. $5.00 net. "An informed and intelligent student will find in this book what, so far as I know, has never been published in England on a scale both modest and comprehensive — a survey of our secular and eccle siastical development, in due co-ordination and proportion." — From the Preface. LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HODGKJN, Fellow of Uni versity CoUege, D.C.L. Oxford and Durham, D.Litt. Dublin. By LOUISE CREIGHTON, author of "Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, D.D.," etc. With Portraits and Other Illus trations. 8vo. Pp. xvi-j-445. $4.50 net. THE CONVERSION OF EUROPE. By CHARLES HENRY ROBINSON, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon and Editorial Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 8vo. Pp. xxiv+640. $6.00 net. "We may congratulate him on his selection of a branch of mis sionary history so full of opportunity for the valuable work which the missionary world has learned to expect from him. He treats the various countries or races in twenty separate chapters and ' devotes 33 pages to a bibliography." — The Times (London). THE LIFE AND FRIENDSHIPS OF CATHERINE MARSH. By L. E. O'RORKE. With 5 Portraits and 6 Other IUustrations. 8vo. $3.75 net. A biography, illuminated by much correspondence, her own and others, of the author and philanthropist (1818-1912) — known as an author chiefly by her "Memorials of Capt. Hedley Vicars"; and as a devoted worker in the cause of Missions to Navvies, of the distribution of Bibles to troops in the Crimean, Franco-Prussian, and South African Wars, and of convalescent homes. FATHER STANTON'S SERMON OUTLINES. From his own Manuscript. Edited by E. F. RUSSELL, M.A., S. Alban's, Holborn. Crown 8vo. Pp.xx+236. $1.75 net. PRIMITIVE WORSHIP AND THE PRAYER BOOK: Ra tionale, History, and Doctrine of the English, Irish, Scottish and American Books. By the Rev. WALKER GWYNNE, D.D., author of "The Christian Year: Its Purpose and Its His tory," etc. Crown 8vo. Pp. xxvi+426. $2.30 net. "Just the book needed by theological students and laymen in general, being fully informing and happy in style. . . . Just the one to place in the hands of a non-Church friend who wishes to know the why of the Prayer Book."— The North East. 3 9002