THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 20
aaa ann IT nnEnEnNSSETNNTSE SEEN
the Father still remained the primal divine person, the “source of Godhead.’ In the interest of this unity the final dogmatician of the Eastern Church, John of Damascus, taught the interpenetration and mutual immanence of the three hypostases (perichéresis); though he clung to the superiority of the Father, from whom the Holy Ghost proceeded through the Son.
Augustine (De trinitate; Eng. transl., NPNF, Ist ser., iii.), unlike the Greeks, taught that the unity was neither in Father, Son, nor Spirit; but in the divine being in which all three in like manner participate. Each person is the undivided deity, and the three persons are together the one
God. This is conceivable only as the
2. The idea of person is sublimated somewhat
Western like a relation of the deity with itself.
Church. Augustine’s interest in reducing the
prominence of personality in favor of simplicity or unity was his Neoplatonism. This view diverges from the older modalism in that it rests not upon a theory of succession but of eternal coexistence and of mutual immanence, as shown by his choice of illustrations. These were the analogies of memory, intelligence, and will, resolving themselves in self-consciousness; or, again, of the lover, the loved, and love. It follows from the equality of persons that the Holy Ghost is to be regarded as proceeding from the Son as well as the Father. Thus became possible such formulations as the Athanasian Creed (q.v.). The doctrine of the immanent Trinity, which with Athanasius was most intimately connected with the doctrine of salvation, had now become fully independent of historical revelation, a subject best suited to a mystical contemplative piety. During the Middle Ages the Augustinian formulas prevailed either for mystical absorption or dialectic refinements, without inherent change. The charge of tritheism (Roscellinus) or countercharge of Sabellianism (Abelard) lay in the nature of the inherited problem, which demanded a delicate poise between unity and difference. Richard of St. Victor (q.v.) endeavored to develop Augustine’s speculations, deducing the necessity of a divine self-differentiation from the concept of love. Perfect love requires an object, and in the case of God that object can be only a person equal to himself in eternity, power, and wisdom. But since there can not be two divine substances, the two divine persons must be one and the same substance. The highest love, however, can not be limited to these two, but must rise to condilectio, through the wish that a third be loved as they love each other. Thus perfect love necessarily leads to the Trinity; and since God is absolute power, he can correspond fully to this requirement of the concept. Thomas Aquinas (q.v.), likewise seeking to remain in harmony with Augustine, deduced the generation of the Son from the immanent process of divine thought, and the procession of the Holy Ghost from the loving will, without reaching real personal distinctions. Duns Scotus (q.v.), though interested primarily in the latter side of the problem, dared give only a very reserved expression to his tendency.
The Reformers stood upon the ground of the
Church catholic. Protestant dogmatics, placing monotheism first, considers God a single divine being in whom three subjects, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, share equally, each of the
3. Protes- three being termed a person. These
tantism. persons must not be considered either |
real parts of the Godhead or individuals of a class, since the divine nature exists entire and undivided in each, so that to each one of them must be ascribed all divine qualities. Each person, however, has a distinctive hypostatic character, which has two features: one as regards its mode of being; and the other as regards its mode of revelation. The internal differences rest upon an immanent activity of the deity, and they refer not to the common action of the Godhead, but to the distinctive activities of the persons—the generation of the Son by the Father and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. This generation differs from the creation of the world in that by the latter is established an essentially different existence from the creator himself, whereas generation implies a person like the Father in essence. In view of these opera ad intra the three persons have distinct properties: the Father, “‘ paternity’; the Son, “‘ filiation’’; and the Holy Ghost, “ procession.”” While this would seem to imply priority of the Son over the Holy Ghost, and of the Father over both, as a matter of fact the three persons are absolutely equal in virtue of the identity of their divine essence, and mutually condition each other. The priority of the Father relates only to ‘“ order of subsistence ’’ not to being; it is merely logical, not real. The Father could not be the Father without the Son, nor could they both be the eternal principles of spirit and life without the procession of the Holy Ghost. In so far as the three persons can be conceived as possessing real distinctions and individualities, the inter-divine life must be regarded as a continuous circle, issuing from the Father, and returning to him through the Son and the Holy Ghost. As regards their mode of revelation, each of the three persons of the Trinity has specific activities: the Father, creation, preservation, and governance; the Son, redemption; and the Holy Ghost, sanctification. Unlike the opera ad intra, these functions (opera ad extra) are undivided activities of the deity and thus common to all three persons; for though a given function is held to be especially appropriate to the hypostatic character of a given person, the possession of the function in question is not denied the other persons. In this sense it may be said that power is especially characteristic of the Father, love of the Son, and wisdom of the Holy Ghost. It must be borne in mind, however, that dogmatic theology does not offer these explanations as a rational perception of the matter, but it holds the Trinity rather to be a mystery. These statements must, therefore, be considered rather as negative, preventing non-Christian views, than as positive elucidations.
Turning from these ecclesiastical formulations to their Biblical basis, the essential differences are manifest: (1) The New Testament speaks of the essential unity of the Son with the Father, and regards the Holy Ghost as the indwelling of God