게시자 주: 이 글은, 평소의 저의 글들에서처럼, 이 글의 게시자인 필자 개인의 개인적 견해/의견/주장을 말씀드리는 글이 아니라, 가톨릭 보편 교회가 전통적으로 가르치고 있는 내용들을 담고 있는 대단히 신뢰할 수 있는 영문 자료들을 찾아, 여전히 그 벽이 높은 문화 장벽 혹은 언어 장벽 때문에, 오로지 국내의 독자들의 편의를 위하여, 그리고 내용 전달의 효율성 및 정확성을 위하여, 필요시에는 게시자가 마련한 우리말로의 직역 번역문의 추가와 함께, 전달해 드리는 글입니다. 그리고 지금 말씀 드린 바는, 이 글 중에서 대단히 충실하게 제시되고 있는 출처/근거들을 확인하면 누구나 쉽게 확인할 수 있을 것입니다. 따라서 이 글은, 이 글의 독자들께서, 이 글에서 다루고 있는 신학적 특정 주제에 대하여, 자신 고유의 견해/의견/주장과 가톨릭 보편 교회의 가르침을 스스로 비교/검토하고 또 스스로 판단 할 수 있도록 제공해 드리는, 신뢰할 수 있는 자료성 글이지, 이 글의 독자들을 가르치기 위하여 마련된 글이 결코 아닙니다.
(이상, 게시자 주 끝).
-----
출처: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
(영어 가톨릭 대사전)
The Blessed Trinity
복되신 성삼위
This article is divided as follows:
이 항목(article)은 다음과 같이 나누어져 있습니다:
• Dogma of the Trinity
• 삼위일체 교의
• Proof of the doctrine from Scripture
• 성경 본문으로부터 이 교리의 증명
• Proof of the doctrine from Tradition
• 성전(사도전승)으로부터 이 교리의 증명
• The Trinity as a mystery
• 한 개의 신비로서 삼위일체
• The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology
• 그리스 신학 안에서 해석되는 바에 따른 이 교리
• The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology
• 라틴 신학 안에서 해석되는 바에 따른 이 교리
The dogma of the Trinity
삼위일체 교의
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
삼위일체(trinity)는, 하느님 되심/신성이라는 단일성(the unity of the Godhead) 안에 성부, 성자, 그리고 성령이라는 세 분의 위격(Three Persons)들이 계신다는 진리인, 그리스도교 종교의 핵심(central) 교리를 나타내기 위하여 도입된 용어(term)입니다.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
따라서, 아타나시오 신경(Athanasian Creed)의 표현들에 있어 다음과 같습니다: "성부께서는 하느님이시고, 성자께서는 하느님이시며, 그리고 성령께서는 하느님이시고, 그리고 그럼에도 불구하고 세 분의 하느님들이 계시는 것이 아니라 한 분의 하느님께서 계십니다." 바로 이러한 위격들의 삼위일체에 있어 성자께서는 영원한 생성(eternal generation)에 의하여 성부로부터 낳아지시고(is begotten), 그리고 성령께서는 성부와 성자로부터 영원한 나오심(발출, procession)에 의하여 나오십니다(proceeds). 그러나, 원천(origin)에 관한 이러한 차이점에도 불구하고, 이 위격들은 다음과 같이 상호 영원하고(co-eternal) 그리고 상호 동등합니다(co-equal): 이들 모두는 마찬가지로 창조되지 않았으며(uncreated) 그리고 전능합니다(omnipotent). 바로 이것이, 하느님의 아드님(the Son of God, 성자)이신 예수 그리스도께서 이 세상에 전달하시고자 땅 위로 오셨던 하느님의 본성에 관한 계시(revelation regarding God's nature)라고 교회는 가르치며, 그리고 교회가 교회의 전체적 교의 체계의 기초로서 사람에게 제시하는 바로 그 계시입니다.
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
성경 본문에는, 그것에 의하여 세 분의 신성적(Divine) 위격(Persons)들이 함께 나타내어지는, 단일의 용어(single term)는 지금까지는 없습니다. (라틴어 단어 trinitas 가 그것으로부터의 번역 용어인) trias 라는 단어는 기원후 180년경에 안티오키아의 테오필로(Theophilus of Antioch)에게서 첫 번째로 발견됩니다. 그는 "하느님[성부], 당신의 거룩한 말씀 그리고 당신의 거룩한 지혜" 에 대하여 말합니다 [To Autolycus II.15]. 이 용어는, 당연히, 그의 시대 전에 사용되어 왔을 수도 있습니다. 그이후로 이 단어는 테르툴리아노(Tertullian)에게서 trinitas 라는 이 단어의 라틴어 형태로 등장합니다 [On Pudicity 21]. 그 다음 세기에 있어 이 단어는 일반적 사용에 있습니다. 이 단어는 오리제네스(Origen)의 많은 구절들에서 발견됩니다 [("In Ps. xvii", 15]. 그 안에 이 단어가 첫 번째로 등장하는 신경(creed, 신앙고백)은 오리제네스의 제자인 그레고리오 타우마투르고(Gregory Thaumaturgus )의 신경입니다. 기원후 260년과 270년 사이에 작성된 그의 Ekthesis tes pisteos 에서, 그는 다음과 같이 씁니다:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the
Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it
once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father
has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and
this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
그러므로 삼위일체에 있어 창조된 어떠한 것도 없고, 서로에게 종속적인 어떠
한 것도 없으며, 그리고 또한, 마치 그것이 과거에 존재해 오지 않았던 것이
아니라 이후에 등장하였던 것처럼, 추가되어진 어떠한 것도 없으며, 그리하
여 그 결과 성부께서는 성자 없이 계셔 온 적이 전혀 없었고, 또한 성령 없
이 성자께서 계셔 온 적이 없었으며, 그리고 바로 이 동일한 성삼위께서는 영
원히 불변이시며(immutable) 그리고 교체될 수 없습니다(unalterable)
[P.G., X, 986].
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.
대단히 신비한 한 개의 교의가 한 개의 신성적 계시(a Divine revelation)를 사전 전제로 함(presupposes)은 명백합니다. 사람을 향한 하느님의 말(speech)로서의 그 충만한 의미 안에서 이해되는 계시(revelation)라는 사실이 더 이상 인정되지 않을 때에, 이 교리의 거부는 필연적 결과로서 뒤따릅니다. 바로 이러한 이유 때문에 이 교의는 오늘의 자유주의적 개신교주의(Liberal Protestantism) 안에서 아무런 자리를 가지지 못합니다. 이 학파의 저술가들은 삼위일체 교리가, 교회에 의하여 고백되었듯이, 신약 성경에 포함되어 있는 것이 아니고, 2세기에 처음으로 정식화되었으며 그리고 아리우스 및 마케오니아 논쟁(Arian and Macedonian controversies)들의 결과로서 4세기에 최종적 인가(approbation)를 받았다고 주장합니다. 이러한 주장과 관련하여(in view of) 성경 본문에 의하여 제공되는 증거(evidence)를 다소 상세하게 고찰할 필요가 있습니다. 삼위일체 교리에 비교 종교학(comparative religion)의 더 극단적인 학설들을 적용하려고 하는, 그리하여 사람들로 하여금 세 개의 것들로 자신들의 경배의 대상들을 분류하도록 강요하는 어떤 상상의 자연의 법칙에 의하여 이것을 설명하려고 하는, 시도들이 최근에 행하여져 왔습니다. 모든 학파의 진지한 사색가(thinkers)들이 근거가 결여되었기에 거부하는, 이러한 터무니없는 견해들에 대한 한 개의 언급보다 더 많은 것을 제공하는 것은 불필요한 것으로 보입니다.
Proof of doctrine from Scripture
성경 본문으로부터 이 교리의 증명
New Testament
신약 성경
The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.
복음서들로부터의 증거는 마태오 복음서 28,19의 세례 위임(baptismal commission)에서 절정에 달합니다. 그리스도께서 단계적으로 열두 사도들에게 이 위대한 진리가 오로지 알게 되도록 하셨음은 복음사가들의 이야기들로부터 명백합니다.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.
첫 번째로 당신께서는 하느님의 영원한 아드님을 당신 자신 안에서 알아차리도록 그들을 가르치셨습니다. 당신의 사역이 끝에 가까워졌을 때에, 당신께서는 성부께서 당신의 자리에, 성령이라는, 또다른 신성적 위격(Divine Person)을 보내주실 것임을 약속하셨습니다. 최종적으로 당신의 부활 후에, 당신께서는 그들에게 "가서 모든 민족들을 제자로 삼아, 아버지와 아들과 성령의 이름으로 세례를 주고, 내가 너희에게 명령한 모든 것을 가르쳐 지키게 하여라" (마태오 복음서 28,19)라고 명령하심으로써, 명백한 표현으로 이 교리를 드러내셨습니다. 이 구절의 힘은 결정적입니다. "아버지(the Father, 성부)" 와 "아들(the Son, 성자)"가 구분되는 위격(Persons)들임은, 서로 배타적인, 이 용어들 자체들로부터 뒤따릅니다. 이 동일한 일련에 있어, 성령(the Holy Spirit)에 대한 언급은, 이 이름들이 접속사들 "과 ... 과"에 의하여 서로 연결되었기 때문에, 성부 및 성자와 대등한(co-ordinate) 한 분의 세 번째 위격을 우리가 가진다는 증거이며, 그리하여 사도들이 성령을 한 분의 구분되는 위격이 아니라, 피조물들에 대한 당신의 행동에 있어 면밀히 검토되는(viewed) 하느님으로서 이해하였다는 가정을 전적으로 배제합니다(excludes).
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.
"이름으로(in the name)" (eis to onoma) 라는 구(句)는 마찬가지로 이 위격들의 하느님 되심/신성(the Godhead)과 본성(nature)에 있어서의 그들의 단일성(unity)을 확언합니다. 유다인들 사이에서 그리고 사도로부터 이어오는 교회(the Apostolic Church)(*) 안에서 이 신성적 이름(the Divine name)은 하느님을 대표하였습니다. 이 이름을 사용할 권리를 가지셨던 당신께서는 엄청난 권위(vast authority)를 지니게 되셨습니다: 이는, 당신께서 그분의 이름을 사용하셨던, 바로 그분의 초자연적 힘들을 당신께서 산출하셨기 때문입니다. 만약에 언급된 위격들 모두가 동등하게 신성적이지(Divine) 않다고 한다면, "이름으로" 라는 구(句)가 여기서 사용되어져야 한다는 것은 믿어지지 않습니다. 더구나, 복수가 아닌, 단수인 "이름(name)"의 사용은 이들 세 위격들이 이 사도들이 믿었던 바로 그 한 분이신 전능하신 하느님(One Omnipotent God)이심을 보여줍니다. 정말로 하느님의 단일성은 마찬가지로 히브리 사람들의 그리고 그리스도 사람들의 종교의 너무도 근본적인 한 개의 신념(a tenet)이며, 그리고, 바로 이 교리와 모순되는 어떠한 설명도 전적으로 받아들여질 수 없을, 구약 및 신약 성경들의 수많은 구절들에서 확언되고 있습니다.
-----
(*) 번역자 주: "사도로부터 이어오는 교회(the Apostolic Church)"는 니케아-콘스탄티노플 신경을 미사 중에 고백하는 교회, 즉 가톨릭 교회를 말한다.
-----
The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.
당신의 사역(the Ministry)의 바로 그 시작에서 제시되었던, 그리스도의 세례에서의 초자연적 출현이 삼위일체 교리에 대한 한 개의 명백한 계시로서 인용됩니다. 이것은 한 개의 착오(a mistake)로 우리에게 생각됩니다. 복음사가들이 이 출현 안에서 세 분의 신성적 위격(Three Divine Persons)들의 어떤 현시(顯示 a manifestation)를 본 것은 사실(true)입니다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 그리스도에 의한 그 이후(subsequent) 가르침으로부터 떨어져, 이 광경의 교의적 의미(the dogmatic meaning)는 거의 이해되지 못하여 왔을 것입니다. 더욱이, 복음 이야기들은 그리스도와 세례자 이외의 누구도 신비한 비둘기(the Mystic Dove)를 눈으로 보고(see), 그리고 메시아께서 신성적 아드님 되심(Divine sonship)되심을 증언하는 말들을 귀로 들을(hear), 특권이 허락되지 않았음을 나타내는 것 같습니다.
Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.
이들 구절들 이외에 복음서들에는, 특히 세 분의 위격들 중의 한 분 혹은 다른 분에 대하여 언급하고 그리고 각 위격의 구분되는(separate) 인격성(personality) 및 신성(Divinity)을 분명하게 표현하는, 많은 다른 구절들이 있습니다. 성부 위격에 관하여 특별한 인용들을 제시할 필요는 없을 것입니다: 예수 그리스도께서 하느님의 아드님이심을 선포하는 인용들이 바로 그것에 의하여 또한 성부의 구분되는 인격성을 확언합니다. 그리스도의 신성은 단순히 성 요한(St. John)에 의하여서뿐만이 아니라 공관 복음사가(Synoptists)들에 의하여서도 필요 이상으로(amply) 많이 증언되고 있습니다. 이러한 점은 다른 곳에서 다루어지고 있기에 [예수 그리스도(JESUS CHRIST)를 보라], 공관 복음사가들로부터 다음과 같이, 그 안에서 그리스도께서 당신의 신성(His Divine Nature)에 대하여 증언하시는, 더 중요한 메시지들 중의 몇 개들을 열거하는 것은 여기서 충분할 것입니다:
• He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew
25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a
distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
• 당신께서는 당신께서 모든 사람들의 심판자가 되고자 오실 것임을 선포하십
니다 (마태오 복음서 25,31). 유다 신학에 있어 이 세상에 대한 심판은,
특징적으로 신성적 특권이지, 메시아의 특권이 아닙니다.
• In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the
son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are
represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
• 사악한 소작인들의 비유에서, 당신께서는 당신 자신을 밭임자의 아들로서
묘사하시나, 이와는 달리 예언자들은, 누구나 다, 종들로서 표현되고 있습
니다 (마태오 복음서 21,33 이하).
• He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
• 당신께서는 천사들의 주님(Lord)이십니다 (마태오 복음서 24,31).
• 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 (Matthew 16:16-17).
• 당신께서는, 오래 전에 사도들 모두에 의하여 받아들여졌던 한 단계인 메시
아로서가 아니라, 베드로(Peter)가 당신을 하느님의 아드님(the Son of
God)로서 명백하게 인식할 때에, 베드로의 고백을 인정하시며(approves),
그리고 당신께서는 이 지식이 성부로부터의 특별한 계시에 기인한다고 선포
하십니다 (마태오 복음서 16,16-17).
• 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 offense which could not have
been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
• 마지막으로, 카야파(Caiphas) 앞에서 당신께서는 당신 자신을 메시아이시라
고 단지 선포하시는 것이 아니라, 두 번째의 그리고 분명한 질문에 대한 답
변에서 하느님의 아드님이시라는 당신의 주장을 확언하십니다. 당신께서는
대사제에 의하여, 단순히 메시라라는 주장에 붙여질 수가 없는 죄(an
offence)인, 신성 모독죄를 저질렀다고(be guilty of blasphemy) 즉시 선포
됩니다 (루카 복음서 22,66-71).
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 20:31). 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 1:1-18). The immanence 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?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, 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 Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.
성 요한(St. John)의 증언은 복음사가들의 증언들보다 더구나 더 분명합니다. 그는 자신의 복음서의 바로 그 목적이 예수 그리스도의 신성을 확증하는(establish) 것임을 강력히 주장합니다(asserts) (요한 복음서 20,31). 서문에서 그는 거룩한 말씀, 성부의 독생자, 모든 영원으로부터 하느님과 함께 존재하시는 분, 하느님이신 분과 당신을 동일시하십니다 (요한 복음서 1,1-18). 성부 안에 성자의 내재(immanence, 內在) 그리고 성자 안에 성부의 내재는 그리스도의 말씀들 안에서 성 필립보(St. Philip)에게 다음과 같이 선포되며: "내가 아버지 안에 있고 아버지께서 내 안에 계시다는 것을 너는 믿지 않느냐?" (요한 복음서 14,10), 그리고 다른 구절들에서 결코 덜 분명하지 않게 선포됩니다 (요한 복음서 14,7; 16,15; 17,21). 그분들의 힘과 그분들의 작용의 단일성(oneness)은 다음과 같이 확언되며: "그분께서 하시는 것을 아들도 그대로 할 따름이다" (요한 복음서 5,19; 10,38 참조), 그리고 성자께, 성부께보다 결코 덜하지 않게, 그 위에 당신께서 의도하시는, 생명을 수여하심이라는 신성적 속성(Divine attribute)이 속합니다 (요한 복음서 5,21). 요한 복음서 10,29에서, 그리스도께서는 성부와 함께 하는 본질에 있어서의 당신의 단일성을 다음과 같이 명백히 가르치십니다: "내 아버지께서 나에게 주신 것은 모든 것보다 위대하며 ... 아버지와 나는 하나이다(That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one)."(*) "내 아버지께서 나에게 주신 것" 이라는 표현은, 문맥을 고려할 때에, 성부에 의하여서처럼 성자에 의하여 그 충만함 안에서 소유하게 되는, 신성적 이름(Divine name) 이외는 다른 의미를 가지지 못합니다.
-----
(*) 번역자 주: 다음은 "새 번역 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29의 바로 이 영어 번역문은, 여기를 클릭하면 읽을 수 있는, Douay Rheim Version 을 따르고 있는데, 이 번역문은 "새 번역 성경"의 해당 우리말 본문과는 상이한 번역이다.
그러나, 요한 복음서 10,29에 대한 "주석 성경"의 주석에는 다음과 같은 언급이 있으며, 따라서 요한 복음서 10,29의 우리말 번역시에, 위의 영어 본문의 전후 문맥 안에서, 바로 이 "주석 성경"의 주석에 제시된 또 다른 우리말 번역을 필자는 따랐다:
다음은 "주석 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29ㄱ 에 대한 주석 전문이다:
(발췌 시작)
이 29ㄱ 절에 해당하는 그리스 말 본문은 여러 가지로 전해져, 어떤 것이 원문인지 가려내기가 매우 어렵다. 본문 비평학적으로는 "내 아버지께서 나에게 주신 것은 모든 것(또는, '사람')보다 위대하여(또는, '뛰어나')"가 가능성이 더 크다. 그러나 여기에서 성부께서 주신 것은 "양들"이 되는데(27절), 이 경우에는 그 내용을 이해하기가 어려워, 위와 같이 수정해 옮긴다.
(이상, 발췌 끝).
-----
다음은 "주석 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29ㄴ 에 대한 주석 전문이다:
(발췌 시작)
"그들을"은 내용상 덧붙인 말이다.
(이상, 발췌 끝).
-----
참고 자료 1: 다른 한편으로, 다음은 교황청 홈페이지 제공의 라틴어본 불가타 성경(Nova Vulgata) 요한 복음서 10,29 전문이다:
출처: 여기를 클릭하십시오.
(발췌 시작)
29 Pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est, et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris.
(이상, 발췌 끝)
"새 번역 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29ㄴ에서, "주석 성경"의 주석에서 언급하고 있는 내용상 덧붙인 말인, "그들을" 에 해당하는 라틴어 단어가, 위의 라틴어 본문 중에 있지 않음에 또한 주목하라.
참고 자료 2: 다음은 개신교측의 영어 성경인 NIV(New International Version) 요한 복음서 10,29ㄱ 에 대한 각주 전문이다:
(발췌 시작)
Many early manuscripts: What my Father has given me is greater than all
(졸번역)
많은 초기의 사본들: 내 아버지께서 나에게 주신 것은 모든 것보다 위대하다
(이상 발췌 및 번역 끝)
(요청 사항 세 개)
따라서, 가톨릭 보편 교회의 공인 성경인 라틴어본 불가타 성경의 요한 복음서 10,29 라틴어본 본문을 존중하고 또 여러 지역 언어들로 번역되더라도 라틴어본 본문과 동일한 의미를 공유하고자 한다면,
(1) "새 번역 성경" 및 "주석 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29ㄴ에서 "그들을" 이라는 임의적으로 추가된 표현은 삭제되어야 할 것이며, 그리고 다음과 같이 번역되어야 할 것이다: "내 아버지께서 나에게 주신 것은 모든 것보다 위대하며,"
(2) 그리고 이러한 조치와 함께, 우리말로의 번역 작업 과정에서 임의로 의역 번역(free translation)된 현재의 "새 번역 성경" 및 "주석 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29 대신에, 위의 라틴어 불가타 성경의 요한 복음서 10,29를 우리말로 직역 번역하여야 할 것이다. 또한
(3) "주석 성경"의 요한 복음서 10,29ㄱ 에 대한 주석에서, "그러나 여기에서 성부께서 주신 것은 "양들"이 되는데(27절), 이 경우에는 그 내용을 이해하기가 어려워, 위와 같이 수정해 옮긴다." 라는 의역 번역에 대한 설명은 더 이상 필요가 없으므로, 삭제되어야 할 것이다.
(이상, 번역자 주 끝)
-----
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish 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 (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, 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, namely, 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 doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)
합리주의 비판자(Rationalist critics)들은 다음의 본문에 커다란 강조를 합니다: "아버지께서 나보다 위대하신 분이시기 때문이다" (요한 복음서 14,28). 그들은 이 구절이 이 복음서의 [인간] 저자가 종속주의적 관점(subordinationist views)들을 견지하였음을 설정하는 데에 충분하다고 주장하며, 그리고 그들은, 그 안에서 이러한 의미 안에서 성자께서 성부에 대한 당신의 종속을 선포하시는, 특정한 본문들을 상세히 설명합니다 (요한 복음서 5,19; 8,28). 사실의 관점에 있어 강생 교리(the doctrine of the Incarnation)는, 당신의 인성에 관하여, 성자께서 성부보다 더 작으셔야만 함을 뜻합니다(involves). 그러므로, 가톨릭 교리에 반하는 어떠한 주장도 바로 이 본문으로부터 도출될 수 없습니다. 역시 마찬가지로, 성부에 대한 성자의 종속성에 대하여 언급하는 구절들은 삼위일체 교의, 즉 성부께서, 당신으로부터 신성/신성적 본성(Divine Nature)과 완미(perfection)가 성자께로 흐르는, 궁극적 원천(supreme source)이시라는, 본질적인 바를 오로지(but) 표현하는 것입니다. [그리스도의 위격에 대한 성 요한(St. John)의 교리와, 거기에까지 많은 합리주의자들이 거슬러 올라가고자 시도해 왔던, 알렉산드리아의 필로(Alexandrine Philo)의 로고스 교리 사이의 본질적인 차이점에 대하여서는, 로고스(LOGOS)를 보라].
In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, 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 (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:18, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction 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 (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).
복되신 성삼위의 세 번째 위격에 대하여, 공관 복음사가들로부터 당신의 구분되는 인격성(personality)을 증명하는 것으로서 인용될 수 있는 구절들은 매우 적습니다(few). 당신의 피조물들에 작용하시는 분으로서의 하느님을 나타내기 위하여, 구약 성경에 있는 "하느님의 영(the Spirit)" 이라는 용어의 사용을 고려할 때에, 가브리엘(Gabriel) 천사의 말(루카 복음서 1,35)은 이 교리에 대한 한 개의 명확한 계시(a definite revelation)를 포함한다고 거의 말해질 수 없습니다. 이 동일한 이유 때문에 성령(the Holy Spirit)에 대한 모독(blasphemy)에 관하여 바리사이(the Pharisees)들을 향한 그리스도의 경고(마태오 복음서 12,31)가 증거로서 제시될 수 있는지 미덥지 않습니다(dubious). 그러나 "너희가 해야 할 말을 성령께서 그때에 알려 주실 것이다" 라는 루카 복음서 12,12에서 (마태오 복음서 10,20 그리고 루카 복음서 24,49), 당신의 인격성은 분명하게 암시되고 있습니다. 이들 구절들은, 마태오 복음서 28,18과의 관련 안에서 해석되어졌을(taken) 때에, 성 요한에 의하여 (요한 복음서 제14, 15, 16장) 기록된 최후의 만찬을 가진 방(Cenacle)에서의 강론들에서 우리가 발견하는 바와 같은 그러한 가르침의 존재를 사실로서 가정합니다(postulate). 우리는 이들 장들에서 세례 위임(baptismal commision)을 위한 필요한 준비를 가집니다. 이들 장들에서 사도들은 이 하느님의 영(the Spirit)의 인격성(personality)에 관하여서 뿐만이 아니라 또한 교회를 향하는 당신의 직무(His office)에 관하여서 가르쳐지고 있습니다. 당신의 위업(His work)은, 죄에 대하여 이 세상을 납득시키시고자(요한 복음서 16,8), 그들의 마음(minds)들에 그리스도의 가르침(요한 복음서 14,26)을 생각나게 하고자, 당신께서 반드시 들으실(요한복음서 16,13) 바 무엇이든지를 가르칩니다. 만약에 이 하느님의 영(the Spirit)께서 한 분의 위격(a Person)이 아니셨더라면, 사도들과 함께 계시는 당신 고유의 현존에 동등한 것으로서(as comparable to), 사도들과 함께 계시는 그분의 현존에 대하여(요한 복음서 14,16) 그리스도께서 말씀하셨을 수가 없었을 것은 명백합니다. 게다가 또, 만약에 그분께서 한 분의 신격(a Divine Person)이 아니시라면, 그리스도께서 그들을 떠나셔야 하며, 그리고 보호자(Paraclete)께서 당신의 자리를 차지하셔야 함이(요한 복음서 16,7) 사도들을 위하여 적절하게 될 수가 없었을 것입니다. 더 나아가, 이 단어(pneuma)의 중성 형(the neuter form)에도 불구하고, 그분에 관해서 사용되는 대명사는 남성형인 ekeinos 입니다. 성부로부터 및 성자로부터 성령의 구분은 그분께서 성부로부터 나오시며 그리고 성자에 의하여 보내어지신다는 명확한 문장들에 관련합니다(요한 복음서 15,26; 요한 복음서 14,16 및 14,26을 참조하라). 그럼에도 불구하고, 그분께서는 다음과 같이 다른 분들과 하나입니다: 제자(the Disciples)들과 함께 하는 그분의 현존은 동시에(at the same time) 성자의 현존인데(요한 복음서 14,17-18), 동시에(while) 성자의 현존은 성부의 현존입니다(요한 복음서 14,23),
In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication 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 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)
나머지 신약 성경의 기록들에 있어 다수의 구절들은 이 세 분의 신성적 위격(three Divine Persons)들에 대한 사도로부터 이어오는 교회(the Apostolic Church)의 믿음(belief)이 얼마나 분명하고 그리고 명확하였는지를 확언합니다. 특정 본문들에 있어 성부(the Father), 성자(the Son), 그리고 거룩한 영(the Spirit, 즉 성령)의 정합(整合, coordination)은 저자(the writer)의 의미에 대하여 어떤 가능한 의심도 할 여지가 없습니다. 따라서 2코린토 13,13에서 성 바오로(St. Paul)는 다음과 같이 씁니다: "주 예수 그리스도의 은총과 하느님의 사랑과 성령의 친교가 여러분 모두와 함께하기를 빕니다." 여기서 이 문장의 구조는 이 사도가 세 분의 구분되는 위격들에 대하여 말하고 있음을 보여줍니다. 더구나, 하느님 및 성령(the Holy Ghost)이라는 이름들은 마찬가지로 신성적 이름(Divine names)들이기 때문에, 예수 그리스도께서도 한 분의 신성적 위격(a Divine Person)으로서 또한 간주됨이 결론으로서 뒤따릅니다. 마찬가지로 또한, 1코린토 12,4-11은 다음과 같습니다: "은사는 여러 가지지만 성령은 같은 성령이십니다. 직분은 여러 가지지만 주님은 같은 주님이십니다. 활동은 여러 가지지만 모든 사람 안에서 모든 활동을 일으키시는 분은 같은 하느님이십니다." (또한 에페소 4,4-6; 1베드로 1,2-3을 참조하라).
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 Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38(36); 29:11(10); Psalm 103(104):31; 28(29):2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).
그러나 이 세 분의 위격들에 대한 명확한 언급이 있는 이들과 같은 구절들 이외에, 그리스도와 성령에 관한 신약 성경의 가르침은 모든 모호함으로부터 자유롭습니다. 그리스도에 관하여서, 사도들은, 히브리 믿음(Hebrew faith) 안에서 가르쳐졌던 사람들에게, 당신의 신성(Divinity)에 대한 믿음(belief)을 필연적인 결과로서 나타내었던, 화법의 양식(modes of speech)들을 적용하고 있습니다. 예를 들어, 그러한 것은 당신에 대한 언급에 있어 영광송(the Doxology)의 사용입니다. "주 이스라엘의 하느님께서는 찬미받으소서, 영원에서 영원까지." (1역대기 16,36; 29,10; 시편 104,31; 29,2를 참조하라) 라는 영광송은 오로지 하느님께만 봉헌되었던 찬양의 한 표현입니다. 신약 성경에 있어 우리는 이것이 성부 하느님께만 오로지 말해졌던 것이 아니라, 또한 예수 그리스도에게 (2티모테오 4,18; 2베드로 3,18; 요한 묵시록 1,6; 히브리 13,20-21), 그리고 결합하여 성부 하느님과 그리스도에게 (요한 묵시록 5,13; 7,10) 말해졌던 것을 발견합니다.
Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.
설득력이 결코 더 낮지 않은 것은 주님(Lord, Kyrios)이라는 호칭(title)의 사용입니다. 이 용어는, 하느님(God, Theos)이 엘로힘(Elohim)을 나타내는 것고 꼭 마찬가지로, 히브리어 아도나이(Adonai)를 나타냅니다. 이들 두 이름들은 동등하게 신성적 이름(divine names)들 입니다 (1코린토 8,4를 참조하라). 사도로부터 이어오는 저술들에서 하느님(Theos)은 성부 하느님의 한 개의 고유한 이름(a proper name)으로서, 그리고 주님(Kyrios)은 성자의 한 개의 고유한 이름으로서 (예를 들어, 1코린토 12,5-6을 보라) 간주된다고 거의 말할 수 있을(may) 것이며, 그리고 단지 몇 개의 구절들에서 성부에 대하여 사용된(1코린토 3,5; 7,17) 주님(Kyrios)[이라는 단어]를 혹은 그리스도에 대하여 사용된 하느님(Theos)[이라는 단어]를 우리가 발견합니다. 사도들은, 거기에서 주님(Kyrios)가 사용되고 있는 구약 성경의 구절들을, 예를 들어, 1코린토 10,9 (민수 21,7), 히브리 1,10-12 (시편 101,26-28), 그리스도께 때로는 적용하며, 그리고 그들은 "주님을 경외하며" (사도행전 9,31; 2코린토 5,11; 에페소 5,21), 성부 하느님에 대하여 그리고 그리스도에 대하여 무차별적으로 "주님이라는 이름을 받들어 부르는" (사도행전 2,21; 9,14; 로마 10,13) 등과 같은 표현들을 사용합니다. "예수님은 주님이시다" (Kyrion Iesoun, 로마 10,9; Kyrios Iesous, 1코린토 12,3)는 야훼(Jahweh)로서의 예수님에 대한 인정(acknowledgement)입니다. 거기에서 성 바오로가 그리스도 안에 하느님 되심의 충만함이 거주하고 계신다고(콜로새 2,9), 당신의 강생 전에 당신께서 하느님의 본질적 본성을 소유하셨다고(필리피 2,6), 당신께서는 "만물 위에 계시는 하느님으로서 영원히 찬미받으실 분입니다"(로마 9,5)라고 확언하는 본문들은 자신의 서간들의 많은 다른 구절들 안에 암시되어 있지 않은 어떠한 것도 우리에게 말하지 않습니다.
The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.
성령에 관한 교리도 동일하게 분명합니다. 당신의 구분되는 인격성이 충만하게 인식되었음은 많은 구절들에 의하여 보여집니다. 따라서 당신께서는 당신의 명령들을 교회의 사역자들에게 다음과 같이 드러내십니다: "내가 일을 맡기려고 바르나바와 사울을 불렀으니, 나를 위하여 그 일을 하게 그 사람들을 따로 채워라." (사도행전 13,2). 당신께서는 사도들의 선교 여행을 다음과 같이 지시하십니다: "미시아에 이르러 비티니아로 가려고 하였지만, 예수님의 영께서 허락하지 않으셨다." (사도행전 16,7; 사도행전 5,3; 15,28; 로마 15,30을 참조하라). 신성적 속성(Divine attributes)들이 당신으로부터 확언됩니다.
• He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known
only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
• 당신께서는 무한한 지식[전지(全知), omniscience)]을 소유하시며 그리하
여 오로지 하느님께만 알려진 신비들을 교회에 드러내십니다 (1코린토
2,10);
• it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
• 카리스마들을 분배하시는 분은 바로 그분이십니다 (1코린토 12,11);
• He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
• 당신께서는 초자연적 생명의 제공자이십니다 (2코린토 3,8);
• He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His
temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
• 당신께서는, 당신의 성전에서처럼, 교회 안과 개별 사람들의 영혼들 안에
거주하십니다;
• The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1
Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the
same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2;
Galatians 2:17).
• 의화(justification)와 성화(sanctification)의 위업은, 다른 구절들에서
동일한 작용들이 그리스도에게 귀속되는 것과 꼭 마찬가지로 (1코린토
1,2; 갈라티아 2,17), 그분께 귀속됩니다 (1코린토 6,11; 로마
15,16).
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST).
요약하면 다음과 같습니다: 삼위일체 교리의 다양한 요소들은 신약 성경에서 모두 명백하게 가르쳐지고 있습니다. 이 삼위들의 신성(Divinity)은 너무 많아서 헤아릴 수 없는 구절들에서 확언되거나 혹은 암시되고 있습니다. 본질의 단일성은, 그들에게 "종속하는 신적 존재들(subordinate deities)" 생각될 수 없었을 것인, 이스라엘의 종교 안에서 양육된 사람들의 엄격한 유일신주의(monotheism)에 의하여 단순히 가정되는(is postulated) 것이 아니라. 그것은, 우리가 이미 보았듯이, 마태오 복음서 28,19의 세례 위임에 있어 개입되어 있으며, 그리고, 성부와 성자에 관련하여, 요한 복음서 10,38에서 명백하게 확언되고 있습니다. 이 위격들이 상호 영원하며(co-eternal) 그리고 상호 동등한(co-equal) 것은 이것으로부터의 한 개의 단순한 따름 결과(a mere corollary)입니다. 신성적 발출(Divine processions)들에 관련하여, 첫 번째 발출이라는 교리는 성부와 성자라는 바로 그 용어들 안에 포함되어 있으며, 그리고 성부와 성자로부터 성경의 발출은 성 요한에 의하여 기록된(요한 복음서 14-17장) 주님의 강화에서 가르쳐지고 있습니다. (HOLY GHOST를 보라).
Old Testament
구약 성경
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)
초기의 교부들은 삼위일체 교리에 대한 암시들이 구약 성경에 있어야만 함을 확신하고 있었으며 그리고 그들은 몇 개의 구절들에서만 발견하였던 것이 아니었습니다. 그들 중의 많은 이들은 예언자(the Prophets)들이 그것에 대하여 이미 증언하였다고 단순히 믿었던 것이 아니라, 그들은 이것이 심지어 이스라엘 민족의 조상들에까지 이미 알려지게 되었음을 견지하였습니다(held). 그들은 창세기 16,7; 16,18; 21,17; 31,11; 탈출기 3,2의 신성적 전령(Divine messenger)이 성자 하느님이셨음을 확실한 것으로서 간주하였으며, 그리고 아래(III. B.)에 언급된 이유들 때문에 그들은 성부 하느님께서 그러한 방식으로(thus) 당신 자신을 드러내실 수 없었음이 자명하다고 생각하였습니다. [cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.]. 그들은, 영감을 받은 저술가들이 "주님의 거룩한 영(the Spirit of the Lord)" 에 대하여 말할 때에, 이 언급이 삼위일체의 세 번째 위격에 대한 것임을 견지하였으며, 그리고 한 두 명들은 [Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10] 지혜서들에 있어서의 위격적 거룩한 지혜(the hypostatic Wisdom)를, 성 바오로와 동의하여, 성자로부터가 아니라 (히브리 1,3; 지혜서 7,25-26을 참조하라), 성령으로부터로 해석하였습니다. 그러나 교부들 중의 다른 이들에 있어, 더 건전한 견해인 것처럼 보이는 바인, 옛 계약 하에서 이 교리에 대한 어떤 뚜렷한 암시(intimation)가 제시되지 않았음이 발견됩니다. [Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.]
Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel."
그러나, 이들 중의 일부는 이 신비에 대한 지식이 옛 율법(the Old Dispensation)의 예언자들과 성도(saints)들에게 허락되었음을 인정하였습니다 [Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I]. 예언들 중의 일부에 있어 그 길(the way)이 계시를 위하여 마련되고 있음이 흔쾌히 인정될 수도 있습니다. 메시아에 대하여 확언되는 임마누엘(Emmanuel) (이사야 7,14)과 용맹한 하느님(God the Mighty) (이사야 9,6) 이라는 이름들은 약속된 구조자(the promised deliverer)의 신성/신성적 본성(Divine Nature)에 대하여 말합니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 복음 계시(the Gospel revelation)는 이 구절들의 충만한 의미를 분명하게 하기 위하여 필요하였던 것처럼 보입니다. 심지어 이러한 고귀한 호칭들도 오기로 되어 있는 구세주께서 다름 아닌 하느님 당신 자신이심을 유다인들이 인식하도록 이끌지 못하였습니다. 칠십인역 성경의 번역자들은 심지어 용맹한 하느님이라는 한 마디 말(the words)을 과감히 글자 그대로 번역한 것이 아니라, 우리에게, 그들의 자리에, "커다란 권고의 천사"를 제시합니다.
A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).
준비에 있어서의 어떤 더 높은 단계가 하느님의 신성적 지혜(Divine Wisdom)에 관련한 지혜서들의 교리 안에서 발견됩니다. 잠언서 제8장에서, 지혜는 인격화되어(personified) 나타나며, 그리하여 성스러운 저자가 어떤 단순한 은유(metaphor)를 적용하고 있었던 것이 아니라 그의 마음 이전에 한 개의 실제 인격을 가지고 있었음을 암시하는 방식으로(잠언 8,22-23을 참조하라) 나타납니다. 유사한 가르침이 집회서 제24장에서, "지극히 높으신 분의 군대(the assembly of the Most High)"로, 즉 천사들의 면전에서, 발언하도록 선포되고 있는 한 개의 강화(a discourse, 講話) 안에서, 거룩한 지혜가 나타납니다. 이러한 어법(phrase)은 거룩한 지혜가 인격으로 인지됨을 확실하게 암시합니다. 이 인격성의 본질이 분명하지 않게 남겨져 있으나, 그러나 천체 땅이 거룩한 지혜의 나라(Wisdom's Kingdom)라고, 그녀가 하느님의 위업들 모두에 있어 자신의 즐거움을 발견한다고, 그러나 이스라엘은 어떤 특별한 방식으로 그녀의 일부분이며 그리고 그녀의 상속이라고 우리에게 말해집니다 (집회서 24,8-13).
In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:22), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).
솔로몬의 지혜서에서 우리는 여전히 한층 더한 진전을 발견합니다. 여기서 거룩한 지혜는 다음과 같이 야훼(Jehovah)로부터 분명하게 구분되고 있습니다: "지혜는 하느님 권능의 숨결이고 전능하신 분의 영광의 순전한 발산이어서 ... 영원한 빛의 광채이고 하느님께서 하시는 활동의 티없는 거울이며 하느님 선하심의 모상이다" (지혜서 7,25-26. 히브리서 1,3을 참조하라). 더구나 그녀는, 창조 행위(the creation)가 어떤 방식으로 그녀에게 귀속됨을 가리키는 한 개의 표현인, "모든 것을 만드는 장인"(panton technitis, 지혜서 7:22)으로서 묘사되고 있습니다. 그러나 이후의 유다주의에 있어 바로 이 칭찬되는 교리는 그늘짐(eclipse)을 겪으며, 그리하여 잊혀져 버렸던 것 같습니다. 실제로 이 구절이, 비록 이 구절이 신성(Godhead)의 두 번째 인격성(a second personality)에 대한 어떤 지식을 분명하게 드러낸다고 하더라도, 삼위일체에 대한 한 개의 계시를 구성한다고 말해질 수 없습니다. 이는 구약 성경에 있어 어디에서도 우리는 제3 위격에 대한 어떤 분명한 암시를 발견하지 못하기 때문입니다. 주님의 영(the Spirit of the Lord)에 대하여 언급이 가끔 되고 있으나, 그러나 이 영(the Spirit)이 야훼 당신 자신과 구분되는 것으로서 간주되었음을 보여주는 어떠한 것도 거기에 없습니다. 이 용어는, 우주에서 혹은 영혼에서든지간에, 당신의 일하심에 있어 생각히는(considered in) 하느님을 나타내기 위하여 항상 적용됩니다. 이 건은 에피바니오(Epiphanius, 310/320-402/403년)에 의하여, 그가 다음과 같이 말할 때에, 올바르게 요약되는 것 같습니다: "한분이신 신성(Godhead)은 무엇보다도 먼저 모세(Moses)에 의하여 선포되며, 그리고 [성부(Father)와 성자(Son)라는] 두 겹의(twofold) 인격성(personality)은 예언자들에 의하여 정력적으로(strenuously) 확언됩니다. 삼위일체는 복음(the Gospel)에 의하여 알려지게 됩니다" [에피바니오(Epiphanius, 310/320-402/403년), "Haer.", lxxiv].
Proof of the doctrine from tradition
전승으로부터의 이 교리의 증명
The Church Fathers
교부들
In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, First Apology 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.4.2).
(1) Baptismal formulas
We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptised to the one true God (Tertullian, De Spectaculis 4; Justin, First Apology 4). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" (Sermon on Theophany 10).
(2) The doxologies
The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii).
It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians 58-59; Justin, First Apology 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Hebrews 13:15).
But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use.
• In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to
Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to
come" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14; cf. 22).
• Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only
Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (The
Pedagogue III.12).
• St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him
be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church
now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Against Noetus 18).
• Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father
and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory
forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 29.72).
• St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among
Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God
with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou
("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God").
(3) Other patristic writings
The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, First Apology 6; Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.
Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus (Against Heresies I.22 and IV.20.1-6). In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in The Pedagogue I.6, and somewhat later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his Creed.
(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.
It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared — at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum", claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man."
Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality.
The information we possess regarding another heresy — that of Montanus — supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist (Against Praxeas 2); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (Against Praxeas 27). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). 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.
Later controversy
Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", 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 theological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, 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:
• That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not
equal to the Father;
• that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament,
inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, however, not
so;
• that the Son is a created being;
• that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time.
We shall examine these four points in order.
(1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from Justin (First Apology 13, 32), Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.2), Hippolytus (Against Noetus 14), Origen (Against Celsus VIII.15). Thus Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established. And Origen (Against Celsus VIII.15) 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 Himself: "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 insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering 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 Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "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 writers 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 (Dialogue with Trypho 60) Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.20.7-11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; Against Praxeas 15-16), Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.22), 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 remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now 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 writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, 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) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata V.14 and VI.7), Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5), Tertullian (Against Praxeas 6; Against Hermogenes 18-20), Origen (Commentary on John I.22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father."
Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Colossians 1:16, 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 have been employed but for the verse, Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created (ektise) 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, De Principiis I.2.3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons was the fruit of the controversies 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 subsequent errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous.
(4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from the Father. These are found in Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 61), Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5), Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians 10), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.10); Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10); Tertullian (Against Praxeas 5-7; Against Hermogenes 18). Thus Theophilus writes (To Autolycus II.22):
What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is
also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a
counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos
endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had
determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos
prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself
being left without Reason (logos), but having begotten Reason, and ever
holding converse with Reason.
Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the Church herself was never involved in the error (see LOGOS). Yet it does not seem necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatible with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense.
It should further be remembered that throughout this period theologians, when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible.
The trinity as a mystery
The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae — "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, Against Eunomius I.14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI; St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).
At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).
The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology
Nature and personality
The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology.
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.
This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.
The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Against Heresies I.22, II.4.4-5, II.30.9 and IV.20.1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, On the Holy Spirit 38; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost."
The divine unity
The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenæus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, "His two hands" (Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.
This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the Son the Father would be without His Wisdom; apart from the Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases. Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them.
The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, Epistle 189, no. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom., " John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith III.14). Here we see an important advance in the theology of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a distinct and separate function.
Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence, will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the Homoüsia.
It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developed by St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one. Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).
Mediate and immediate procession
The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology. It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed. It is assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orations 31.31-32), of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene (Of the Orthodox Faith I.13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to HOLY GHOST.)
The Son
The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 29.8, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XI.19; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word (Athanasius, Dionysius of Alexandria, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius IV; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 30; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi).
We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John Damascene (Origen apud Athanasius, De decr. Nic.; Athanasius, Against the Arians I; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.12). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No action, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their basis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power — a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink.
The Holy Spirit
A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (On the Trinity XV.37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith; Basil, Epistle 214.4; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 25.16). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.4).
On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of Christ (John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the Three Persons come to his soul.
In Greek theology the order is reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have received sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive the gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued existence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, Commentary on John II.6; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of God's children (Athanasius, loc. cit.; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on us the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology
The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected.
It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:
• He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for
him not God the Father, but the Trinity. This was a step of the first
importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the
equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could
never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had
adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have
derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it
the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of
Augustine's genius.
• He insists that every external operation of God is due to the whole
Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by
appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have
seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three
Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was
unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured
by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.
• By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the
Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind
(On the Trinity IX.3.3 and X.11.17), he became the founder of the
psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few
exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer.
In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St. Thomas.
The Son
Among the terms employed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3).
Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petavius, VI, i, 7; Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth.
The Holy Spirit
Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
If the immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to note St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his love. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name.
The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the Latins before his time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the "De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the "De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the West. The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of revelation.
The divine relations
The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 9; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Augustine insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found in God (On the Trinity V.5). But it was at the hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it.
From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three Persons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine Nature, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the Holy Spirit.
Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)
It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like quantity or quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the infinite perfection of the Godhead.
The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY). Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.
The question was raised by the Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know, indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2).
Divine mission
It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes two conditions:
• That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender and
• that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated.
The procession, however, may take place in various ways — by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul. (See also HOLY GHOST; LOGOS; MONOTHEISTS; UNITARIANS.)
Sources
Among the numerous patristic works on this subject, the following call for special mention: ST. ATHANASIUS, Orationes quatuor contra Arianos; IDEM, Liber de Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto; ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orationes V de theologia; DIDYMUS ALEX., Libri III de Trinitate; IDEM, Liber de Spir. Sancto; ST. HILARY OF POITIERS, Libri XII de Trinitate; ST. AUGUSTINE, Libri XV de Trinitate; ST. JOHN DAMASCENE, Liber de Trinitate; IDEM, De fide orthodoxa, I.
Among the medieval theologians: ST. ANSELM, Lib. I. de fide Trinitatis; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, Libri VI de Trinitate; ST.THOMAS, Summa, I, xxvii-xliii; BESSARION, Liber de Spiritu Saneto contra Marcum Ephesinum.
Among more recent writers: PETAVIUS, De Trinitate; NEWMAN. Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism in Theol. Tracts. (London, 1864).
----------
번역자: 교수 소순태 마태오 (Ph.D.)
