Part I: The Holy Trinity in Unity, or the Threefold Personality of God

Both the fact that (ὅτι ἔστιν), and the intrinsic reason why (διότι ἔστιν) there are Three Persons in God, is positively revealed to us in the doctrine of the inner-divine processions (Filiation and Spiration). They form part of the immediate deposit of the faith, and constitute the dogma of the Divine Trinity. We have first to prove the fact of the threefold personality of God from Sacred Scripture (Chapter I) and Tradition (Chapter II); then (Chapter III) we shall enter into a dogmatic consideration of the cause of this fact, viz.: the mysterious vital processes immanent in the Godhead which are called “Filiation” and “Spiration.” In a concluding Chapter (IV) we shall discuss the speculative theological development of the dogma.¹

CHAPTER I: GOD’S THREEFOLD PERSONALITY PROVED FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE

There are traces of the dogma in the Old Testament, but they are rather indefinite and obscure unless viewed in the light of the New Testament. It is upon the latter, therefore, that the Scriptural argument is almost exclusively based. After briefly rehearsing the Old Testament intimations (§1), we will marshal the Trinitarian texts contained in the New Testament in a double series, first citing those which treat of all three Divine Persons together (§2), and secondly those which refer to only one of the three Divine Persons without mentioning the other two (§3). The dogma of the Holy Trinity is immutably grounded in the Unity of the Divine Essence. Accordingly, throughout the triple argument upon which we are about to enter for the purpose of tracing out the hypostatic differences of the Three Divine Persons, it will be important not to lose sight of the monotheistic foundation on which alone this dogma can be built up.

SECTION 1: THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD FORESHADOWED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. Primitive Intimations of the Dogma

Some theologians take the plural form of several of the names attributed to Jehovah² in the Old Testament as an obscure intimation of the dogma of the Trinity.

We are not inclined to press this argument. Neither do we attach much importance to the theory of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, who point to the expression bereshit in Gen. I, 1 as a proof for the Logos, explaining “in principio” to mean “in Verbo, i. e., Filio.” Upon close scrutiny this more than doubtful interpretation turns out to be of later origin and exegetically unsupported.³ In Gen. I, 26 sq., however, we come upon what appears to be a definite allusion to the mystery of the Divine Trinity: “Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram… . Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam — Let us make man to our image and likeness… . And God created man to his own image.” The hortatory subjunctive plural which heads verse 26, and is followed by an indicative verb in the singular in verse 27, cannot be taken as a pluralis maiestaticus, nor yet as addressed to the angels; for man was not created to the image of the angels, but to that of God Himself.

There is a similar passage in Gen. XI, 7 sq.: “Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue… . And so the Lord scattered them.”⁴ Many theologians in this connection recall the liturgical blessing of the priests, Num. VI, 24 sqq., which they regard as a parallel to the Christian formula, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This Old Testament benediction, dictated by Yahweh Himself to Moses, is as follows: “The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord show his face to thee, and have mercy on thee. The Lord turn his countenance to thee and give thee peace.”

The clearest allusion to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity in the Old Testament is probably the so-called Trisagion of Isaias (VI, 3): “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,” which is rightly made much of by many Fathers and not a few theologians. This triple “Holy” refers to an ecstatic vision of the Godhead, by which Isaias was solemnly called and consecrated as the Prophet of the Incarnate Word, an office which won for him the title of the “Evangelist” among the four major prophets.⁵

2. The Angel of Jehovah in the Theophanies

The various apparitions commonly known as theophanies, in which Yahweh figures both as sender and messenger, mark the gradual breaking of the dawn in the history of our dogma.

The God who is sent is called mal’akh, i. e., messenger, Angelus Domini, the word angelus being here employed in its literal sense of ἄγγελος, from ἀγγέλλω, to send. Since the “Angel of Jehovah” is described as YHWH, i. e., true God, we have in these theophanies two distinct persons, both of them Yahweh, the one “sending” and the other “sent.” An apparition of this character was the angel who spoke words of comfort to Hagar shortly before the birth of her son Ismael in the desert.⁶ According to Gen. XVIII, 1 sqq., “the Lord [YHWH] appeared to [Abraham] in the vale of Mambre,” in order to announce to him the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha.⁷

Probably the most familiar of the Old Testament theophanies is the apparition of the Angel of Jehovah in the Burning Bush. Exod. III, 2: “Apparuit ei Dominus in flamma ignis de medio rubi — And the Lord appeared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.” It is to be noted that the Lord who appears to Moses is Jehovah Himself. Exod. III, 14: “God said to Moses: I am who am.” Viewing this apparition in the light of the New Testament Revelation, the appearing God can be none other than the Logos, or Son of God, because the Father cannot be “sent.” True, the Holy Ghost may also be “sent”; but He cannot have appeared in the bush to Moses because the prophets expressly identify the “Angel of Jehovah” with the future Messias (i. e., Christ). Cfr. Is. IX, 6 (in the version of the Septuagint): “Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος, Magni consilii angelus;” Mal. III, 1: “Angelus testamenti.” The interpretation here adopted is common to all the Fathers. Thus St. Hilary teaches: “Deus igitur est, qui et angelus est, quia qui et angelus Dei est, Deus est ex Deo natus. Dei autem angelus ob id dictus, quia magni consilii est angelus. Deus autem idem postea demonstratus est, ne qui Deus est esse angelus [creatus] crederetur.”⁸

It is quite another question whether in these theophanies the Logos directly appeared as God in visible form, or through the intermediate agency of an angel. In the latter case the apparitions might with equal propriety be styled “angelophanies.” St. Augustine took this view, without, however, denying the theophanic character of such angelophanies. He held that a created angel appeared visibly as the representative of God in such a manner that the words he spoke must be understood as coming not from the actual speaker but from Jehovah himself. This opinion was shared by Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Gregory the Great, and others.⁹ The great majority of the Schoolmen espoused it mainly for the reason that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity had never appeared visibly upon earth prior to His Incarnation.¹⁰ The first immediate theophany of the Logos, they argued, coincided with the Incarnation; therefore in the Old Testament theophanies He must have employed angels as His representatives.

3. The Future Messias as True God

The Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were primarily designed to emphasize the Divinity of the future Messias. Hence Christ Himself and His Apostles justly appealed to them to prove not only the divine mission but likewise the Divinity of the Saviour and the fact that He was truly the Son of God.

Among the prophets Isaias speaks most clearly and emphatically. Not only does he refer to the Messias as “the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Prince of Peace,” but also as “God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come.”¹¹ He styles Him “Emmanuel,” i. e., God with us.¹² It is expressly said of Him that “God himself will come and will save you.”¹³ And again: “Prepare ye the way of the Lord… . Behold, the Lord God shall come with strength.”¹⁴ “His name shall be called God.”¹⁵ In Zach. XII, 10, God prophesies His own crucifixion: “Et adspicient ad me, quem confixerunt et plangent eum — And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they shall grieve over him.”¹⁶

The Messianic Psalms complete the picture outlined by the prophets; nay, they go far beyond the latter both in emphasizing the difference of persons by a contra-position of the pronouns “I” and “thou,” and also by indicating that the relation existing between the First and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is a relation of Father to Son, based upon Filiation. At the same time they do not omit to accentuate the undivided nature of both Divine Persons, which they express by the word YHWH. Thus especially Ps. II, 7: “Dominus [YHWH] dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te — The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee.”¹⁷ Similarly Ps. CIX, 1-3: “Dixit Dominus Domino meo [YHWH le-Adoni]: sede a dexteris meis; … ex utero ante luciferum genui te — The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand … from the womb before the day star I begot thee.”¹⁸ If the future Messias is the “Son of God,” and at the same time Jehovah, it is obvious that there must also be a “Father” who is Jehovah. Consequently, there must be two Divine Persons in one Divine Nature. This notion was so familiar to the Jews that Jesus, in order to prove His Divinity, had merely to advert to the fact that He was the Son of God to provoke them to anger and blasphemy.¹⁹ They well knew that to admit His Divine Sonship was tantamount to recognizing His Divinity.²⁰

4. The Teaching of the Sapiential Books

A great step towards the complete unfolding²¹ of the mystery is made by the Sapiential Books. There we find the notion of Hypostatic Wisdom closely blended with that of Filiation, and are given to understand that the Filiation which takes place within the Godhead is a purely spiritual process, and that He Who is “begotten by God” must be essentially conceived as “Begotten Wisdom” (Logos).

The Sapiential Books speak of Uncreated, Divine Wisdom in a manner which leaves no doubt that they mean more than a personified attribute. The following texts read like parallel passages to certain verses of St. John’s Gospel. Prov. VIII, 24 sqq.: “Nondum erant abyssi et ego [i. e., sapientia] iam concepta eram: … ante colles [i. e., ab aeterno] ego parturiebar… . Cum eo [scil. Deo] eram, cuncta componens et delectabar per singulos dies, ludens coram eo omni tempore, ludens in orbe terrarum, et deliciae meae esse cum filiis hominum — The depths were not as yet, and I [Wisdom] was already conceived … before the hills I was brought forth… . I was with him [God] forming all: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times: and my delights [were] to be with the children of men.” The subject of this passage is obviously not a divine attribute, but a Divine Person, who is called “Conceived Wisdom.” The expression, “I was with him,”²² has a parallel in John I, 1: “The Word was with God” (Verbum erat apud Deum; πρὸς τὸν Θεόν). The Book of Wisdom,²³ in designating Divine Wisdom as “a vapor of the power of God” (vapor virtutis Dei), “a certain pure emanation of glory” (emanatio claritatis), “the brightness of eternal light” (candor lucis), “the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty” (speculum maiestatis), “the image of his goodness” (imago bonitatis), reminds one of the manner in which St. Paul characterizes Christ’s relationship to God the Father, i. e., as “the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance” (splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius).²⁴ The following sentence,²⁵ “And thy wisdom with thee, which knoweth thy works, which then also was present when thou madest the world — Et tecum [erat] sapientia tua, quae novit opera tua, quae et affuit tunc, quum orbem terrarum faceres (παροῦσα ὅτε ἐποίεις τὸν κόσμον),” is again distinctly Johannine in style and sentiment. The same impression is conveyed by Ecclus. XXIV, 5: “I came out of the mouth of the most High [as the Word], the firstborn before all creatures.”²⁶

In view of this striking concordance between the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament and the Gospel of St. John, it is not astonishing that certain learned Jewish rabbis at a later period elaborated an independent theory of the “Word of God,” called Memrah,²⁷ by which they endeavored to explain the Old Testament teaching regarding Wisdom without any reference to Christ.²⁸ It is easy to see, too, why the Fathers of the Nicene epoch appealed to the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament to prove the Consubstantiality and consequent Divinity of Christ. The Arians, on their part, quoted the Sapiential Books in support of their heretical tenet that the Logos was a creature.²⁹

5. The Holy Ghost

The Old Testament references to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity are neither as plain nor as definite as the texts relating to the Son. It is natural to expect more references to the Son than to the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, because it prepares and announces the coming and manifestation of the Son in the Incarnation.³⁰

The Old Testament references to the Holy Ghost can nearly all of them be explained as personifications. “Spiritus Dei” may merely mean a breath of the Divine Omnipotence,³¹ or the supernatural effects of the spirit of God, which, according to Ps. CIII, 30, “renews the face of the earth.” The Fathers in their exegetical works quote a number of Old Testament texts in which they profess to find references to the Holy Spirit as a Person.³² But their interpretation of these and similar passages is inspired by, and owes its impressiveness to the light derived from, the New Testament. It is in this light, too, that we must regard Wisd. IX, 1 sqq., the only Old Testament passage in which the Three Divine Persons are mentioned together: “Deus patrum meorum, qui fecisti omnia … Verbo tuo, da mihi sedium tuarum assistricem sapientiam. Sensum autem tuum quis sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris Spiritum Sanctum tuum de altissimis? — God of my fathers, … who hast made all things with thy word, … give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne … Who shall know thy thought, except thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from above?”

It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. Aside from certain specially enlightened individuals, such as Abraham, Moses, Isaias, and David, the Jews could not, from the more or less enigmatic hints scattered through their sacred books, have obtained a sufficiently distinct knowledge of the Blessed Trinity to make it appear as an article of faith.

Nevertheless it remains true that the Trinity was not announced in the New Testament suddenly and without preparation. On the contrary, the great mystery of the Godhead was foreshadowed from the very beginning of the Jewish Covenant and assumed more definite and luminous proportions during and after the time of David, until at last it stood fully revealed in the mystery of the Incarnation,³³ and the mission of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day.

Readings

Drach, De l’Harmonie entre l’Église et la Synagogue, Paris 1844. — P. Scholz, Theologie des A. B., Vol. I, §§ 29 sqq., Ratisbon 1861. — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § 110, Freiburg 1875 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, I, pp. 283 sqq.). — Heinrich, Dogmat. Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. III, §§ 214–218, Mainz 1883. — Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 6 and 7, Romae 1881.

On the “Angel of Jehovah,” cfr. A. Rohling in the Tübinger Quartalschrift, 1866, pp. 415 sqq., 527 sqq. — L. Reinke, Beiträge zur Erklärung des A. T., Vol. IV, pp. 355 sqq.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 89 sqq., Paris 1910.

On the Messias, cfr. König, Theologie der Psalmen, Freiburg 1857; L. Reinke, Messianische Psalmen, 2 vols., Giessen 1857–1858; H. Zschokke, Theologie der Propheten, Freiburg 1877; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, London 1867; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893–5.

On the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament cfr. Fr. Klasen, Die alttestamentliche Weisheit und der Logos der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Philosophie, 1878; also J. Réville, Le Logos d’après Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris 1877; Zschokke, Der dogmatisch-ethische Lehrgehalt der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsbücher, Wien 1889; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, 89 sqq., 441 sqq., Paris 1910.