TRINITY
48
TRINITY
and all, are represented as the servants (Matt., xxi,
33 sqq.). (3) He is the Lord of Angels, who execute
His commands (Matt., xxiv, 31). (4) He approves
the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not
as Messias — a step long since taken by all the
Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He
declares the knowledge due to a special revelation
from the Father (Matt., x-vi, 16, 17). (5) Finally,
before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to
be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct
question affirms His claim to be the Son of God.
He is instantly declared by the high priest to be
guilty of blasphemy, an offence which could not have
been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias
(Luke, xxii, 66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John, xx, 31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only- begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John, i, 1-18). The imma- nence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: " Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (xiv, 10), and in other passages no less exphcit (xiv, 7; xvi, 15; xvii, 21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "What things soever he [the Fatherjdoth, these the Son also doth in Uke manner" (v, 19. Cf. x, 38) ; and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attri- bute of conferring life on whom He will (v, 21). In x, 29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all ... I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me", can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Nature, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (xiv, 28). They argue that this suffices to estabUsh that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (v, 19; viii, 28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves tha*, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So, too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, viz., that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doc- trine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationahsts have attempted to trace it, see Loncs.)
In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trin- ity, the passages which can be cited from the Synop- tists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke, i, 35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit", in the Old Testa- ment, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt., xii, 31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke, xii, 12, "The Holy Ghost .shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matt., x, 20, and Luke, xxiv, 49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connexion with Matt., xx\'iii, 19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (xiv-xvi). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission.
In them the Apostles are instructed not only as to
the personahty of the Spirit, but as to His office
towards the Church. His work is to teach them
whatsoever He shall hear (xvi, 13), to bring back to
their minds the teacljing of Chi'ist (xiv, 26), to con-
vince the world of sin (x\-i, 8). It is evident that,
were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have
spoken of His presence with the Apostles as compa-
rable to His o^Ti presence with them (>dv, 16, 17).
Again, were He not a Divine Per.son it could not
have been e.xpedient for the Apostles that Christ
should leave them, and the Paraclete take His
place (xvi, 7). Moreover, notwithstanding the
neuter form of the word (tw^o), the pronoun used
in His regard is the masculine exeipoi. The distinc-
tion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the
Son is involved in the express statements that He
proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son
(xv, 26; cf. xiv. 16, 26). Nevertheless, He is One
with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the
same time the presence of the Son (xiv, 17, 18),
while the presence of the Son is the presence of the
Father (xiv, 23).
In the remaining New-Testament ■nTitings numer- ous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostohc Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the co-ordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in II Cor., xiii, 13, St. Paul wTites: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communica- tion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in I Cor., xii, 4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spii-it; and there are diversities of ministries, but the .same Lord: and there are diver- sities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]". (Cf. also Eph., iv, 4-6; I Pet., i, 2, 3.)
But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinitj-. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. I Par., xvi, 36; xxix, 11; Ps. ciii, 31 ; xxviii, 2), is an ex-pression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (II Tim., iv, 18; II Pet., iii, IS; Apoc, i, 6; Heb., xiii, 20, 21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Apoc, v, 13; vii, 10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kt/pios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Qeis) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. I Cor., viii, 4). In the Apostohc writings 9e6s may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Ki/pios of the Son (cf. e. g. I Cor., xii, 5, 6) ; in only a few passages do we find Kypioj used of the Father (I Cor., iii, 5; vii, 17) or SeAs of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which KiJpios is u,sed, e. g., I Cor., x, 9 (Num., xxi, 7), Heb., i, 10-12 (Ps. ci, 26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts, ix, 31; II Cor., v, 11; Eph., V, 21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts, ii, 21; ix, 14; Rom., x, 13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Ki/piov 'ItjitoOi', Rom., x, 9; Ki/pios 'Iijo-oOs, I Cor., xii, 3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh (Lebreton, "Origines", 272 sq.). The
