II. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Later Theology
Questions for Further Study: What different views of the Logos and of His relation to the Father were prevalent before the Council of Nicea? How did Origen's doctrine of the Trinity compare with that of Tertullian? In what points was his doctrine defective? What conception did Arius have of God? How did his view of Christ follow from this? To what passages of Scripture did he appeal? What was the real point at issue at the Council of Nicea? What was Athansius' real interest in the matter? How did he conceive of man's redemption? Why was it essential that the term homoousion rather than homoiousion should be used? Why were the Semi-Arians so opposed to its use? How could they detect Saballianism in it? What valuable contribution did the Cappadocians make to the discussion?
How must we judge of the anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed?
How was the question of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the other Persons settled in the West and how in the East? Why was the East unalterably opposed to the famous "fileoque"? Does the final statement of the doctrine of the Trinity by John of Damascus differ much from that by Augustine?
Literature: Bull, Defense of the Nicene Faith; Scott, The Nicene Theology, pp. 213–384; Faulkner, Crises in the Early Church, pp.
113–144; Cunningham, Historical Theology I, pp. 267–306; McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought I, pp. 246–275; Harnack,
History of Dogma III, pp. 132–162; Seeberg, History of Doctrines I, pp. 201–241; Loofs, Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 140–157; Shedd,
History of Christian Doctrine I, pp. 306–375; Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I, pp. 198–262; Neander, History of Christian
Dogmas I, pp. 285–316; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine I, pp.
194–215; Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp. 105–131.
II. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Later Theology
1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN LATIN THEOLOGY
Later theology did not add materially to the doctrine of the Trinity.
There were deviations from, and consequent restatements of the truth. Roscelinus applied the Nominalist theory that universals are merely subjective conceptions to the Trinity, and thus sought to avoid the difficulty of combining the numerical unity with the distinction of persons in God. He regarded the three Persons in the Godhead as three essentially different individuals, which could be said to be one generically and in name only. Their unity is merely a unity of will and power. Anselm correctly pointed out that this position logically leads to Tritheism, and stressed the fact that universal conceptions present truth and reality.
If Roscelinus gave a Nominalistic interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Gilbert of Poitiers interpreted it from the point of view of a moderate Realism of the Aristotelian type, which holds that the universals have their existence in the particulars. He distinguished between the divine essence and God and compared their relation to that between humanity and concrete men. The divine essence is not God, but the form of God, or that which makes Him to be God. This essence or form (latin forma, i. e. that which makes a thing what it is) is common to the three Persons and in that respect they are one. As a result of this distinction he was charged with teaching Tetratheism.
Abelard spoke of the doctrine of the Trinity in a way that caused him to be charged with Sabellianism. He seemingly identifies the three
Persons in the divine Being with the attributes of power, wisdom, and goodness. The name of Father stands for power, that of Son for wisdom, and that of Holy Spirit for goodness. While he also uses expressions which seem to imply that he distinctions in the Godhead are real personal distinctions, he employs illustrations that clearly point in the direction of Modalism.
In Thomas Aquinas we find the usual representation, of the doctrine of the Trinity, and this was the prevailing view of the Church at the time.
2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN THE PERIOD OF THE
REFORMATION. Calvin discusses the doctrine of the Trinity at length in his Institutes I. 13, and defends the doctrine as formulated by the early Church. On the whole he preferred not to go beyond the simple statements of Scripture on the matter, and therefore during his first stay at Geneva even avoided the use of the terms "person" and "trinity". In his Institutes, however, he defends the use of these terms and criticizes those who are averse to them. Caroli brought a charge of Arianism against him, which proved to be utterly baseless.
Calvin held to the absolute equality of the Persons in the Godhead, and even maintained the self-existence of the Son, thereby implying that it is not the essence of the Son, but His personal subsistence that is generated. He says "that the essence of both the Son and the Spirit is un-begotten", and "that the Son, as God, independently of the consideration of person, is self-existent; but as the Son, we say, that He is of the Father. Thus His essence is unoriginated; but the origin of His person is God Himself." Institutes I. 13, 25. It is sometimes said that Calvin denied the eternal generation of the Son. This assertion is based on the following passage: "For what is the profit of disputing whether the Father always generates, seeing that it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating when it is evident that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity." Institutes
XIII. 29. But this statement can hardly be intended as a denial of the eternal generation of the Son, since he teaches this explicitly in other passages. It is more likely that it is simply an expression of disagreement with the Nicene speculation about eternal generation as a perpetual movement, always complete, and yet never completed.
Says Warfield: "Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless." Calvin and Calvinism, p. 247 f. The doctrine of the Trinity, as formulated by the Church, finds expression in all
Reformed Confessions, most completely and with the greatest precision in chapter III of the Second Helvetic Confession.
In the sixteenth century the Socinians declared the doctrine of three Persons possessing a common essence, to be contrary to reason, and attempted to refute it on the basis of the passages quoted by the
Arians, cf. above p. 89. But they even went beyond the Arians in denying the pre-existence of the Son and holding that Christ, as to His essential nature, was simply a man, though He possessed a peculiar fulness of the Spirit, had special knowledge of God, and since His ascension received dominion over all things. They defined the Holy Spirit as "a virtue or energy flowing from God to men." In their conception of God they were the forerunners of the present day
Unitarians and Modernists.
In some quarters subordinationism again came to the foreground.
Some of the Arminians (Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and Limborch), while believing that all three Persons shared in the divine nature, yet ascribed a certain preeminence to the Father over the other Persons in order, dignity, and power or domination. In their estimation belief in the equality of rank was almost sure to lead to Tritheism.
3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AFTER THE PERIOD OF
REFORMATION
In England Samuel Clarke, court preacher to queen Anne, published a work on the Trinity in 1712, in which he approached the Arian view of subordination. He speaks of the Father as the supreme and only
God, the sole origin of all being, power, and authority. Alongside of Him there existed from the beginning a second divine Person called the Son, who derives His being and all His attributes from the Father, not by a mere necessity of nature, but by an act of the Father's optional will. He refuses to commit himself on the question, whether the Son was begotten from the essence of the Father, or was made out of nothing; and whether He existed from all eternity or only before all worlds. Alongside of these two there is a third Person, who derives His essence from the Father through the Son. He is subordinate to the Son both by nature and by the will of the Father.
Some of the New England theologians criticized the doctrine of eternal generation. Emmons even called it eternal nonsense, and Moses Stuart declared that the expression was a palpable
contradiction of language, and that their most distinguished theologians, for forty years past, had declared against it. He himself disliked it, because he regarded it as contrary to the proper equality of the Father and the Son. The following words seem to express his view: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are words which designate the distinctions of the Godhead as manifested to us in the economy of redemption, and are not intended to mark the eternal relations of the Godhead as they are in themselves."
Sabellian interpretations of the Trinity are found in Emanuel Swedenborg, who denied the essential Trinity and said that what we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is simply a distinction in the eternal
God-man, assuming human flesh in the Son, and operating through the Holy Spirit; in Schleiermacher, who says that God in Himself as the unknown unity underlying all things is the Father, God as coming into conscious personality in man, and especially in Jesus Christ, is the Son, and God as the life of the risen Christ in the Church, is the Holy Spirit; and in Hegel, Dorner, and others who adopt a somewhat similar view. In Ritschl and in many Modernists of the present day the view of Paul of Samosata reappears.
Questions for Further Study: In what sense did the Scholastics regard the doctrine of the Trinity as a mystery? Why did Roscelinus deny the numerical unity of essence in God? How did the Church judge of his teaching? Why was Gilbert of Poitiers charged with Tetratheism? What was the nature of Abelard's Sabellianism? What was the attitude of the Church to his teaching? What was the generally accepted definition of a person in the Trinity, as given by Boethius? What criticisms were leveled against it? Did the Scholastics regard the divine essence of the Son or his personal subsistence as the object of generation? How did they distinguish between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy
Spirit? What relation did they express by the term 'circumincessio'?
How did Calvin define a person in the Trinity? How did he conceive of the generation of the Son? Where do we find the doctrine of the