Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/79

 TRINITY 51

proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in a. d. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clear- est terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", ii, P. L., II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternitj' of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii, P. L., II, 156, 157, 191). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodo.xy of the Montan- ists on this subject (H:er., Ixviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on a point so vital.

B. Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarized, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the se\-entecnth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Xicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e. g. Sand, "Nucleus historia; ecclesiasticae", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his great theologi- cal work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that some at least of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodox}' was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nica^na^", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thom- assinus, and other Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post- Nicene belief of the Church: (1) That the Son even as regards His Di\ine Nature is inferior and not equal to the Father; (2) that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuch as the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, how- ever, not so; (.3) that the Son is a created being; (4) that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time.

We shall examine the.se four points in order. (1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, pas- sages are cited from Jvistin (Apol., I, xiii, xxxii), Irena;us (Adv. ha>r., Ill, viii, n. 3), Clem. Alex. ("Strom.", VII, ii, P. G., IX. 410), Hippolvtus (Con. Noet., n. 14), Origen (Con. Cels., VIII, xv). Thus Irenaeus (loc. cit.) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established." And Origen, loc. cit., says: "We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Him.self : 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'" Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three Persons in so far as they are equallj' posse.ssed of the Divine Nature; or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, WTio is the solo source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of consi<lering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole .source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanxsius, Basil, Gregory Xazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their sjTiodical letter, all treat our Lord's words,

TRINITY

"The Father is greater than I", as having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin ^Titers who insist that creation and all God's works proceed from Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other. But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.

(2) Justin (Dial., n. 60), Irena;us (Adv. hxr., IV, XX, nn. 7, 11), Tertullian ("C. Marc", II, 27; "Adv Prax.", 15, 16), Novatian (De Trin., x\'iii, xxv), Theophilus (Ad AutoL, II, .xxii) are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remem- bered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. X'ow Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was believed by these WTiters that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Col., i, 15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" {cIkwv toO SeoC toC aopdrov). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an ((kuv i.s to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.". Ill, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.

(3) E.xpressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv, P. G., IX, 131; VI, vii, P. G., IX, 280), Tatian (Orat., v), Tertullian ("Adv. Prax.", vi; "Adv. Hermog.", xviii, xx), Origen (In .loan., I, n. 22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (irpuT6KTi<TTot), and Tatian terms the Word the "first- begotten work" (Ipyov TpwTdToKov) of the Father. Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Col., i, 16, St. Paul says that all things were created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word, since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the Word. The context invariably .shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses. The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never ha\e been employed but for the verse, Prov., viii, 22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created [fXTttrt] me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen, "Princ", I, ii, n. 3, P. G. XI, 131). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons w;vs the fruit of the contro- versies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subseoucnt errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous.