Catholicity

Trinitarianism

In the beginning, was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him,
and without Him, nothing was made that was made.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
and we beheld His glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth.
John 1, 1-3, 14

Therefore, the Jews sought all the more to kill Him,
because He not only broke the Sabbath,
but also said that God was His Father,
making Himself equal with God.
John 5, 18

However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.
For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears and
declare what is to come to you. He will glorify Me by taking from what is
mine and disclosing it to you. Everything that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and disclose it to you.
John 16, 13-15

My Explications of the Patristic Texts

Justin Martyr (A.D. 155)
First Apology, 13

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.”

The passage from Justin Martyr’s First Apology serves as a foundational text for early Christian thought, as it outlines key elements of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ.

Justin emphasizes that Jesus was born with a specific divine purpose, which underscores the belief that His life and actions were part of a greater plan orchestrated by God. This notion of purpose is critical in understanding why Christians view Jesus as essential to their faith.

By referencing the crucifixion during the governance of Pontius Pilate and under Tiberius Caesar, Justin places Jesus within a concrete historical timeframe. This not only affirms Jesus’ real existence but also aims to counter claims that Christianity is based on mythology rather than historical events.

Justin asserts that Jesus is the Son of the true God, a claim that establishes the divinity of Christ, central to Christian doctrine. This belief in the divine nature of Jesus underpins the practice of worship in Christianity, as it suggests that He is not just a prophet or a teacher, but rather a divine figure worthy of reverence.

The mention of the prophetic Spirit highlights the belief in divine revelation that is accessible to believers. This ties into the broader understanding of how God communicates with humanity through prophets and scripture, further legitimizing the Christian faith and its teachings.

Justin Martyr’s Apology is a defense of Christian beliefs against misconceptions and criticisms of the time. By articulating these beliefs with logic and historical evidence, he aims to validate the Christian faith in the public sphere, demonstrating the reasonableness of worshipping Jesus.

Through this text, Justin Martyr not only reinforces the beliefs held by early Christians but also addresses the intellectual challenges posed by the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, seeking to demonstrate that Christianity is a rational faith rooted in truth.

Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 180-89)
Against Heresies, 4,20:1

“For God did not need these [beings], to accomplish what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’ He took from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.”

The text discusses the theological perspective on creation as articulated by Irenaeus, a prominent early Christian theologian. It underscores the integral roles of God, the Word, and the Spirit in the act of creation.

Irenaeus posits that God is the ultimate creator who acts out of His own will. His act of creation is described as free and spontaneous, suggesting that it is not constrained by necessity but rather reflects His divine nature and intent.

The “Word” refers to the Logos, a concept that signifies both the divine reason and the creative order. In Christian theology, this is often associated with Christ as the pre-existent Word through whom all things were made (as seen in John 1:1-3). Irenaeus highlights how the Word is instrumental in creation, emphasizing that all things come into being through this divine reason.

The Spirit signifies the active presence of God in creation. It denotes the life-giving aspect of God, breathing life into creation and humans specifically. The mention of the Spirit emphasizes the dynamic relationship between God and His creation, indicating that creation is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process infused with God’s essence.

Irenaeus stresses that humans are created in God’s image and likeness, which speaks to their unique position in creation. He implies a relationship of intimacy between God and humanity, proposing that humans reflect certain divine attributes. This notion suggests that humans possess the capacity for reason, moral judgment, and spiritual communion with God.

By stating that the pattern of creation is derived from God, the author implies that the order and harmony seen in the universe are reflective of God’s own nature. The consideration of the “substance” of all creatures being sourced from God further underscores the idea that creation is not separate from the Creator; rather, it is a manifestation of God’s will and being.

In summary, the text articulates a view where God, through His Word and Spirit, creates the world and humanity with purpose and intention, emphasizing the profound connection between the Creator and His creation. This theological framework highlights the uniqueness of humanity and situates the act of creation within a relational context.

Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 181)
To Autolycus, II:10

“And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy, but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, having His own Word internal within His bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things created by Him, and by Him, He made all things. He is called the governing principle’ (archer) because He rules and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, being Spirit of God and governing principle, wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets and spoke of the world’s creation and of all other things through them. For the prophets, it was not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God, which was in Him, and His holy Word, which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.’ And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.’”

The text discusses Theophilus’s understanding of creation and the divine nature of God. He emphasizes that God created everything “out of nothing,” highlighting the idea that nothing else can compare to God’s power and essence. This foundational belief serves to establish God’s sovereignty over all creation.

Theophilus also points out that God existed before time, indicating a timeless and eternal nature. The act of creating the world was not arbitrary; it had a purpose: allowing humans to know and understand the universe around them. This suggests a relationship between the divine and humanity, where knowledge and awareness are fundamental.

Another key aspect of Theophilus’s discussion is the concept of God’s Word and wisdom. He describes these entities as existing alongside God before creation, underscoring their integral role in the creative process. By referring to the Word as a “governing principle,” Theophilus implies that there is an inherent order, logic, and purpose infused into creation, governed by divine wisdom.

Furthermore, Theophilus mentions the Spirit of God coming upon the prophets, which serves as a vehicle for divine revelation. This suggests that through the prophets, God’s intentions and insights about creation were communicated, adding a dimension of continuity from divine will to human understanding.

Lastly, Theophilus references figures like Solomon and Moses, grounding his arguments in scriptural authority. By drawing on these prophets, he reinforces the notion that God’s Word and wisdom were not only present at creation but also actively engaging with humanity throughout history.

Overall, Theophilus presents a theological framework where God’s nature, creative power, and communicative actions converge, affirming the significance of divine wisdom and the Spirit in understanding the universe and humanity’s place within it.

Tertullian (post A.D. 213)
Against Praxeas, 2

“Over time, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her–being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas.”

The text is a theological exposition by Tertullian, an early Christian writer, and it reflects key beliefs of early Christianity regarding the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian begins by asserting the belief in one God who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit (referred to as the Paraclete). This foundational Christian doctrine emphasizes that while there is one divine essence, it is manifested in three distinct persons, each fully God.

Tertullian explains the belief in Jesus Christ as both fully divine (“the Lord Almighty”) and fully human (“the Son of Man”). He describes how Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, embodying the dual nature of Christ—divine and human.

The author outlines key events in the life of Jesus: His suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. He argues that these events fulfill the prophecies of Scripture and are central to the Christian faith. The resurrection is particularly important, as it affirms Jesus’s divine authority and the promise of eternal life. Moreover, he notes that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, emphasizing the belief in an eventual reckoning and the importance of faith in him.

Tertullian highlights the role of the Holy Spirit, who is sent from the Father and the Son to sanctify believers. This reflects the belief in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians, guiding and empowering them in their faith.

Throughout, Tertullian insists that this doctrine of faith has been consistent and has been passed down since the beginning of the Gospel, predating various heresies. He mentions “Praxeas,” a contemporary he accuses of promoting heretical views, to illustrate the continuity and authenticity of orthodox Christian belief against those who deviate from it.

Overall, Tertullian’s writing encapsulates critical aspects of early Christian theology, particularly the nature of God, the incarnation of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the historical continuity of the faith against heretical interpretations.

Dionysius of Rome [regn. 260-268] (A.D. 262)
To Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius’ Nicene Definition 2

“” Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius’s opinions, for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father and the Father the Son. Still, they, in some sort, preach three Gods, dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must need to be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitat in God; thus, in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins–a devil’s teaching, not that of Christ’s faithful disciples and lovers of the Saviour’s lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods.”

The text reflects the theological concerns of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, regarding the nature of the Divine Trinity. It serves as a defense of the orthodox understanding of God’s nature against various interpretations that might distort the unity of the Divine Monarch.

Dionysius passionately argues against the idea that the Divine Monarch—God—is divided into three separate entities or gods. Instead, he emphasizes the necessity of understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a unified whole, rather than three distinct powers or divine beings.

He addresses what he perceives as a misunderstanding among some catechists and teachers of the Church who, while they oppose the views of Sabellius (who conflated the Father and Son), still inadvertently promote a form of tri-theism— the belief in three separate gods. This, he argues, contradicts the fundamental doctrine of the Church.

Dionysius refers to the teachings of Marcion, a controversial figure in early Christianity who proposed a dualistic view of God, suggesting a separation between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Dionysius categorizes Marcion’s views as a “devil’s teaching,” indicating his strong rejection of any doctrine that suggests a division within the Godhead.

He asserts that both the Old and New Testaments affirm the oneness of God and do not support the notion of multiple gods. This indicates a call to return to the scriptural teachings as the foundation for understanding God’s nature.

The text is essentially a theological exhortation to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity as a unified, single God that encompasses the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, warning against interpretations that could lead to a misunderstanding of God’s nature and the integrity of Christian teaching.

In short, Dionysius’s writing is characterized by a zealous commitment to maintaining the purity of Christian doctrine and a strong rejection of heretical teachings that threaten to undermine the faith.

Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 270)
Sectional Confession of Faith, 8

“Now, each person declares independence and subsistence. But divinity is the property of the Father. Whenever the divinity of these three is spoken of as one, testimony is borne that the property of the Father belongs also to the Son and the Spirit: wherefore, if the divinity may be spoken of as one in three persons,
the trinity is established, and the unity is not dissevered; and the oneness Which is naturally the Father’s
is also acknowledged to be the Son’s and the Spirit’s.”

Gregory the Wonder Worker discusses the concept of the Holy Trinity in Christian theology, specifically the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The phrase “each person declares independence and subsistence” suggests that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the Trinity, they each possess their own unique identity and existence.

The statement that “divinity is the property of the Father” emphasizes the belief that the Father holds a primary role in the divine nature. In traditional Christian theology, the Father is often seen as the source from which the Son and the Spirit derive their divinity.

The phrase “if the divinity may be spoken of as one in three persons” highlights the core belief in the unity of the Trinity. Despite their distinct persons, they share the same divine essence. The text asserts that this unity does not compromise their individuality; rather, it affirms that the divinity of the Father is also true for the Son and the Spirit.

Gregory suggests that when believers refer to the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, they proclaim a theological truth: the nature of God exists simultaneously as three distinct persons while remaining fundamentally one. This establishes the unity of the Trinity and affirms that each person shares in the divine essence.

In essence, the text is a theological affirmation of the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, maintaining both individuality and unity. This is a central tenet in Christian doctrine regarding the nature of God.

Methodius of Olympus (A.D. 305)
Oration on the Palms, 4

“For the kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is.”

The text attributed to Methodius presents a theological reflection on the nature of the Christian concept of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here are some key points to consider:

Methodius emphasizes that the kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a singular entity. This underscores the belief that while there are three distinct Persons within the Trinity, they are united in essence and authority.

The phrase “with one and the same adoration” indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity are equally worthy of worship. This challenges any notion that one Person could be superior to another, affirming a coequal and coeternal relationship.

The terms “without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor” express the eternal and unchanging nature of God. Methodius asserts that all three Persons have existed eternally and will continue to exist without change or succession, which is a fundamental tenet of Christian theology regarding the divine.

While Methodius emphasizes the unity of the Trinity, he also acknowledges the distinct roles of each Person. The Father remains the Father, the Son remains the Son and King, and the Holy Spirit retains His unique personality and substance. This distinction is important in understanding how the Trinity operates within Christian beliefs.

Overall, the statement is a strong affirmation of the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, protecting against any potential misunderstandings regarding the nature and relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Methodius articulates a vision of God that is simultaneously unified and diverse, eternal, and deserving of equal reverence, encapsulating core Christian beliefs about the divine nature.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350)
Catechetical Lectures, 16:4

“Let no one, therefore, separate the Old from the New Testament; let no one say that the Spirit in the former is one and in the latter another; since thus he offends against the Holy Ghost Himself, who with the Father and the Son together is honored, and at the time of Holy Baptism is included with them in the Holy Trinity. For the Only-begotten Son of God said plainly to the Apostles, Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Our hope is in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three God; let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son, we preach One God. The Faith is indivisible; the worship is inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion. But we know, according to godliness, One Father, who sent His Son to be our Saviour. We know One Son, who promised that He would send the Comforter from the Father; we know the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Prophets, and who on the day of Pentecost descended on the Apostles in the form of fiery tongues, here, in Jerusalem, in the Upper Church of the Apostles…”

The text attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem emphasizes the unity and indivisibility of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—while highlighting the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Cyril argues that one should not separate the two Testaments or suggest that the Spirit operates differently in each, as doing so would undermine the integrity of the Trinity and insult the Holy Spirit.

Cyril insists that both the Old and New Testaments are part of a cohesive divine revelation. He argues against any notion that suggests a difference in the Spirit’s nature or role across the two Testaments.

He affirms the concept of the Trinity, stating that there is one God manifested in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This underscores the belief that true worship and faith must recognize and honor this unity.

Cyril references Jesus’ command to the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a foundation for the Christian faith, establishing the importance of the Trinity in fundamental practices like baptism.

The text serves as a denunciation of certain heretical views, such as those of the Marcionites and Sabellius. Marcionites denied the goodness of the God of the Old Testament, while Sabellius conflated the persons of the Trinity. Cyril defends orthodox Christianity by reiterating the distinct yet unified nature of the three divine persons.

Cyril highlights the Holy Spirit’s active role, both in the past (speaking through the prophets) and in the present (descending on the Apostles at Pentecost). This reinforces the belief that the Holy Spirit is integral to Christian life and worship.

Overall, the passage is a robust affirmation of traditional Christian beliefs about the nature of God, Scripture, and the sacraments, calling for a deep reverence towards the mystery of the Trinity and a cohesive understanding of faith across the Christian community.

Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 359)
On the Trinity, 2:5,4:42,12:56

“I can see no limit to speaking concerning God in terms more precise than He has used. He has assigned the Names–Father, Son, and Holy Ghost–our information of the Divine nature. Words cannot express or feel embrace or reason apprehend the results of inquiry carried further; all is ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible. Language is exhausted by the magnitude of the theme, the splendor of its effulgence blinds the gazing eye, the intellect cannot compass its boundless extent…When Israel hears that its God is one and that no second god is likened, that men may deem him, God, to God Who is God’s Son, the revelation means that God the Father and God the Son are One altogether, not by confusion of Person but by unity of substance. For the prophet forbids us, because God the Son is God, to liken Him to some second deity….But I cannot describe Him, Whose pleas for me I cannot describe. As in the revelation that Thy Only-begotten was born of Thee before times eternal, when we cease to struggle with ambiguities of language and difficulties of thought, the one certainty of His birth remains; so I hold fast in my consciousness the truth that Thy Holy Spirit is from Thee and through Him, although I cannot by my intellect comprehend it.”

In this passage, Hilary of Poitiers grapples with the complexities of speaking about God, emphasizing the limitations of human language when confronted with divine realities. He begins by asserting that God has revealed Himself using specific names—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—designed for our understanding of His nature. However, Hilary quickly highlights the inadequacy of language to fully encapsulate the essence of God. The terms we use pale in comparison to the depth of the divine mystery, which remains “ineffable, unattainable, incomprehensible.”

He notes the grandeur of the divine theme, suggesting that attempts to articulate God’s nature can leave one feeling overwhelmed; the “splendor” of God’s attributes is akin to a blinding light that our intellect cannot fully grasp. When speaking of God’s oneness, particularly in relation to the distinction between the Father and the Son, Hilary emphasizes that this unity does not result in a confusion of identities (or Persons) but rather a unity of substance. He insists that the unique relationship between the Father and the Son as expressed in scripture indicates that they are one, reinforcing the idea that Christ (the Son) is indeed God and should not be perceived as a separate deity.

Despite acknowledging the struggles of articulating this relationship, Hilary holds firmly to the truth of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, emphasizing that some truths transcend our intellectual capacity to comprehend fully. He concludes with his belief in the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father, acknowledging that, like the nature of the Son’s existence, this too eludes total intellectual understanding but remains a core tenet of faith.

Overall, this text encapsulates Hilary’s theological position that while God’s essence and relational dynamics are ultimately beyond human comprehension, the truths revealed through scripture provide a foundational understanding that must be accepted in faith.

Basil the Great (A.D. 360)
To the Caesareans, Epistle 8

“[They] ought to confess that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, as they have been taught by the divine words and by those who have understood them in their highest sense. Against those who cast it in our teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one God not in number but in nature. For everything called one in number is not one absolutely, nor yet simple in nature, but God is universally confessed to be simple and not composite.”

In this passage, Basil addresses a theological issue concerning the nature of the Trinity—specifically, the relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He emphasizes that Christians believe all three persons are fully and equally God, contradicting charges of Tritheism, which is the belief in three separate gods.

Basil asserts that believers are taught to confess the divinity of each person in the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This belief comes from divine revelation and interpretation by those who have deeply understood these truths.

The author defends against accusations of Tritheism, clarifying that Christians affirm one God, emphasizing that this oneness is not based on numerical count but on a shared, singular divine essence or nature.Basil distinguishes between being “one in number” and “one absolutely.” He suggests that while something might be one in a numerical sense, it can still be complex rather than simple in its nature. In contrast, God is described as “simple and not composite,” meaning that God is not made up of parts or divisions. This simplicity underscores the unity of the divine essence that encompasses all three persons of the Trinity.

In summary, Basil’s argument serves to clarify and bolster the doctrine of the Trinity, asserting that the oneness of God transcends numerical distinctions and that God’s essence is fundamentally unified.

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 372)
To the Bishops in Africa, 11

“For this Synod of Nicea is, truthfully, a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and call Him a Creature. For the Fathers, after speaking of the faith in the Son, straightway added, ‘And we believe in the Holy Ghost,’ so that by confessing perfectly and fully the faith in the Holy Trinity, they might make known the exact form of the Faith of Christ, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. For it is made clear both among you and among all. No Christian can have a doubtful mind on the point that our faith is not in the Creature, but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of the heavens, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.”

This text from Athanasius of Alexandria underscores the significance of the Nicene Creed, which was established during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Athanasius emphasizes that this Council represents a definitive stance against heresies, particularly those that diminish the nature of the Holy Spirit by referring to Him as a created being.

The author points out that the Fathers of the Church, in articulating the Christian faith, affirm belief not only in the Son (Jesus Christ) but also in the Holy Spirit. This dual affirmation serves to clearly define the doctrine of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as integral to the Christian faith. The structure of belief in the Trinity is essential for understanding the full teaching of the Catholic Church and the faith rooted in Christ.

Athanasius asserts that true Christians must hold unwavering faith in one God, who is the creator of all things, and he delineates the relationship among the three divine persons. His affirmation of the Trinity is presented as the foundation of Christian identity and doctrine.

Furthermore, he promotes the idea that through baptism into this Trinity, believers are united with the Divine and are heirs to the kingdom of heaven, emphasizing the hope and promise afforded to Christians through their faith in Jesus. The concluding phrase reinforces the eternal glory and power belonging to God the Father, encapsulating the reverence inherent in this theological framework.

Overall, the text serves as a robust defense of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and a repudiation of heretical views, affirming the essential beliefs that underlie the Christian faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 380)
On the Christian Faith, 8:92

“The Substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that which is distinct, an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance. We hold the distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality; and thus we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each existing from and to eternity in this divine and wonderful Mystery: not in two Fathers, nor in two Sons, nor in two Spirits. For there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.’ There is One born of the Father, the Lord Jesus, and therefore He is the Only-begotten. There is also One Holy Spirit,’ as the same Apostle hath said. So we believe, so we read, so we hold. We know the fact of distinction; we don’t know anything of the hidden mysteries; we pry not into the causes but keep the outward signs vouchsafed unto us.”

The text delves into the profound and complex nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which articulates the relationship and distinction among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It emphasizes the idea that while these three persons are distinct, they share a common essence, reflecting a unity that is incomprehensible and ineffable.

The phrase “common Essence” indicates that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, they are unified in their divine nature. This essence is described as being beyond human comprehension, highlighting the mystery surrounding the divine.

Ambrose asserts the importance of recognizing the distinctions among the three persons of the Trinity, while simultaneously rejecting any notion of confusion or separation. This means that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate Gods (plurality) nor do they exist in a way that diminishes their individual identities. He emphasizes that each Person of the Trinity exists eternally—without beginning or end. The Father is identified as the source of all things, while the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are understood to exist from and to eternity in a unified divine mystery.

The reference to Jesus as the “Only-begotten” reinforces the belief that He is uniquely generated from the Father, distinguishing Him from all other beings. Ambrose acknowledges that while humans can recognize the distinctions and relationships among the Divine Persons, they must also accept the limitations of human understanding regarding the deeper, hidden mysteries of God. There is a call to respect these mysteries without claiming complete understanding.

The concluding lines highlight a strong affirmation of faith (“so we believe, so we read, so we hold”) and a reliance on the established teachings and scriptures that provide insight into these theological concepts.

In essence, the text is a reflection on the theological intricacies of the Trinity, advocating for a belief that emphasizes both unity and distinction, while also embracing the mystery inherent in divine nature.

Gregory Nazianzin (A.D. 380)
5th Oration (31), 31, 32

“I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind…but I have been unable to discover anything on earth to compare the nature of the Godhead…As others have done, I picture an eye, a fountain, a river to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost…Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again, there was a fear that people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things in the Sun. And in the second place, lest we give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal.”

The text reflects a deep theological contemplation on the nature of the Godhead, particularly within the framework of Christian doctrine. It appears to express the author’s struggle to articulate the complex relationships among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—often referred to as the Trinity.

Gregory acknowledges the challenge of finding suitable metaphors or analogies to describe the divine nature. This suggests an awareness of the limitations of human language and understanding when it comes to discussing the divine.

He presents several analogies: an eye (Father), a fountain (Son), and a river (Holy Ghost). These metaphors attempt to illustrate the distinct roles or manifestations of God. However, there is an underlying concern that such analogies may inadvertently misrepresent the nature of God.

Gregory fears that using the sun, its rays, and light as an analogy could lead to the misconception that the Godhead is a composite entity made of parts. This is significant because traditional Christian theology emphasizes the “Uncompounded Nature” of God, asserting that God is indivisible and without parts.

A critical concern raised in the text is the potential to attribute essence to the Father while reducing the other two Persons of the Trinity (the Son and the Holy Ghost) to mere “Powers” or attributes of God. This could lead to a form of subordinationism, where the Father is seen as the primary person and the others as secondary or less personal.

Overall, the text reveals a thoughtful engagement with the complexities of Trinitarian theology, emphasizing the importance of preserving the integrity of each Person of the Godhead while avoiding oversimplified or erroneous representations. The author is clearly wrestling with profound questions about divinity and the relational dynamics within the Godhead, reflecting a deep reverence for this theological mystery.

Jerome (A.D. 382)
Against Luciferians, 15

“For neither the centurion nor that poor woman who for twelve years was wasting away with a bloody flux, had believed in the mysteries of the Trinity, for these were revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ; so that the faith of such as believe in the mystery of the Trinity might have its due preeminence: but it was her singleness of mind and her devotion to her God that met with our Lord’s approval: ‘For she said within herself, If I do but touch his garment, I shall be made whole.’ This is the faith which our Lord said was seldom found. This is the faith that, even for those who believe right, is hard to find in perfection. ‘According to your faith, be it done unto you,’ says God. I do not, indeed, like the sound of those words. For if it be done unto me according to my faith, I shall perish. And yet I certainly believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, and I believe in God the Holy Ghost. I believe in one God; nevertheless, according to my faith, I would not have it done unto me.”

The text reflects on the nature of faith, specifically contrasting different types of belief in relation to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the personal devotion seen in biblical figures.

At the outset, Jerome points out that the centurion and the devoted woman suffering from a chronic illness, who both exhibit remarkable faith, do not explicitly believe in the Christian mystery of the Trinity, as it was revealed only after Christ’s resurrection. This suggests that genuine faith can exist outside formal theological understanding. Jerome emphasizes that the true essence of faith lies in one’s complete trust and devotion to God, mirroring the woman’s belief that merely touching Christ’s garment would heal her. This highlights the significance of personal faith, and the confidence individuals can place in divine power.

Jerome acknowledges that faith, even among believers in the Trinity, can be difficult to attain in its purest form. The phrase “According to your faith, be it done unto you” serves as a critical focal point. It evokes a sense of trepidation in Jerome; he reflects on the potential consequences of having his life shaped solely by his current level of faith, which he feels may not be enough, leading him to a place of despair.

Despite his doubts, he affirms his belief in the fundamental tenets of Christianity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—stating, “I believe in one God.” However, he expresses a contradiction: while he believes, he is acutely aware of the inadequacies of his faith. He doesn’t want his life to be determined solely by his faith, suggesting a fear of falling short in trust or connection to God.

In short, the text is a meditation on the complexity of faith, the recognition of its varying forms, and the tension between intellectual belief and heartfelt devotion. It suggests that true faith may transcend formal doctrinal beliefs and points to the necessity of a deep, personal trust in God, even amidst self-doubt and imperfection in one’s faith journey.

John Chrysostom (c. A.D. 392)
Homily on 1st Corinthians, 29:4

“Seest thou that he implies that there is no difference in the gifts of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Not confounding the Persons, God forbid! But declaring the equal honor of the Essence. For that which the Spirit bestows, this he saith that God also works; this, that the Son likewise ordains and grants. Yet surely if the one were inferior to the other, or the other to it, he would not have thus set it down, nor would this have been his way of consoling the vexed person.”

The text discusses the nature of the relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit within the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It emphasizes the equality of all three Persons, asserting that while they are distinct (not confounding or confusing the individual Persons), they share the same divine Essence and honor.

John Chrysostom implies that the gifts bestowed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not different in value or importance. Each Person of the Trinity contributes equally to the divine workings in the world.

The phrase “Not confounding the Persons” stresses the importance of recognizing each Person’s distinct role without diminishing their unity. It highlights the necessity of maintaining both unity and distinction in understanding the Trinity.

Chrysostom suggests that whatever the Holy Spirit imparts is also something that the Father and the Son are involved in, affirming a harmonious operation among the three. If one were to be considered inferior, the claims of shared action and gifts would not make sense.

The emphasis on equality is also a means of consolation for those who may feel troubled or confused. The author argues that by acknowledging the equal honor of each Person in the Trinity, one can find peace and assurance rather than confusion or despair.

In summary, the text articulates a theological position that underscores the equality and unity among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reinforcing that any perceived hierarchy contradicts the essence of their divine relationship and purpose.

Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 394)
To the City of Sebasteia, Epistle 2

“Since, then, in the case of those who are regenerate from death to eternal life, it is through the Holy Trinity that the life-giving power is bestowed on those who with faith are deemed worthy of the grace, and in like manner the grace is imperfect, if any one, whichever it be, of the names of the Holy Trinity be omitted in the saving baptism–for the sacrament of regeneration is not completed in the Son and the Father alone without the Spirit: nor is the perfect boon of life imparted to Baptism in the Father and the Spirit, if the name of the Son be suppressed: nor is the grace of that Resurrection accomplished in the Father and the Son, if the Spirit be left out :–for this reason we rest all our hope, and the persuasion of the salvation of our souls, upon the three Persons, recognized by these names; and we believe in the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Fountain of life, and in the Only-begotten Son of the Father, Who is the Author of life, as saith the Apostle, and in the Holy Spirit of God, concerning Whom the Lord hath spoken, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth”. And since on us who have been redeemed from death the grace of immortality is bestowed, as we have said, through faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, guided by these, we believe that nothing servile, nothing created, nothing unworthy of the majesty of the Father is to be associated in thought with the Holy Trinity; since, I say, our life comes to us by faith in the Holy Trinity, taking its rise from the God of all, flowing through the Son, and working in us by the Holy Spirit.”

The text by Gregory of Nyssa explores the importance of the Holy Trinity in the context of Christian baptism and salvation. It emphasizes that the process of regeneration, which brings individuals from spiritual death to eternal life, is reliant on the full acknowledgment of all three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Gregory asserts that the efficacy of baptism requires the mention of all three persons of the Trinity. Excluding any one of them results in an incomplete sacrament. This underscores the belief that each person of the Trinity plays a vital role in the process of salvation.

The Father is described as the “Fountain of life,” suggesting that all life and grace flow from Him. The Son (Jesus Christ) is identified as the “Author of life,” pointing to His role in providing salvation and eternal life through His sacrifice. The Holy Spirit is noted as the one who “quickens” (gives life), indicating the Spirit’s role in regenerating believers and imparting divine grace.

Gregory emphasizes that the grace of immortality is given through faith in the Holy Trinity. This means that a believer’s faith is essential to accessing the transformative power of grace, enabling them to overcome spiritual death.

The author concludes with a belief that no lesser or created thing should be associated with the Trinity. It reinforces the majesty and holiness of God, emphasizing that true life and faith are rooted in the divine nature of the Holy Trinity.

Overall, Gregory of Nyssa articulates a profound theological perspective that highlights the inseparable and essential nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Christian faith and the sacrament of baptism. He calls believers to recognize and uphold the complete doctrine of the Trinity as foundational to their spiritual life and salvation.

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 416)
On the Trinity, 8 Pref

“We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated Specially in the Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which are predicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but what whenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, then they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good, and the Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thus spoken of according to l essence, since in them to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. And that, therefore, they are called three persons, or three substances, not so that any difference of essence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by some one word, should anyone ask what three, or what three things? And that there is so great equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself.”

In this excerpt from Augustine of Hippo, the key themes revolve around the relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and their unity in essence. Here’s a breakdown of the main ideas.

Augustine explains that the terms used to describe the Trinity apply to each Person (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) in specific relational ways. For example, the Father is related to the Son, and both are related to the Holy Spirit, but they do not represent three separate entities.

While each person of the Trinity can be discussed individually (as the Father, God; the Son, God; and the Holy Spirit, God), Augustine emphasizes that they are ultimately one in essence. The use of singular terms like “God” and “good” indicates their unity.

Each Person of the Trinity is described as possessing divine attributes such as omnipotence and goodness. Importantly, Augustine asserts that while each Person has these qualities, it doesn’t imply that there are three gods or three separate forms of goodness; rather, it reinforces the belief in one God with one essence.

Augustine stresses that the equality among the three persons is vital. He argues that the Father is not greater than the Son, nor is the Son and Father together greater than the Holy Spirit. This equality signifies that each Person is fully and equally God, without hierarchy or division in substance.

The reference to the Trinity as three persons or substances serves to provide a way of answering questions about the nature of God. However, Augustine clarifies that this does not imply a difference in essence; hence, it’s a matter of terminology rather than of substance.

In essence, Augustine defends the fundamental Christian doctrine of the Trinity, highlighting the mystery of three distinct persons who are fully and completely united as one God. His writing encapsulates the complexity of understanding God’s nature while also promoting the equality and oneness of the Trinity.

John Cassian (A.D. 430)
The Incarnation of Christ, 2

“But after him, the schism of Sabellius burst forth out of a reaction against the heresy mentioned above, and as he declared that there was no distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he impiously confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity. Next, after him, whom we have mentioned, followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity, which, to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred Persons, declared that there were different and dissimilar substances in the Trinity.”

The text discusses theological conflicts in the early Christian church regarding the nature of the Trinity, specifically highlighting the challenges posed by two distinct heresies: Sabellianism and Arianism.

John Cassian begins by referencing Sabellius, a theologian who proposed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but rather different manifestations of a single divine entity. This belief rejected the traditional understanding of the Trinity, which holds that the three Persons are co-existing and coequal. The critique here emphasizes that Sabellius’s view tends to blur the distinctions among the Persons of the Trinity, which the author perceives as an impious conflation of their identities.

Following Sabellianism, Cassian transitions to Arianism, which arose as a reaction to Sabellian views but took a different approach. Arianism, led by Arius, argued that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and that he was of a different substance or essence. This position aimed to maintain a distinction among the Persons while suggesting a hierarchy within the Trinity, with the Father being greater than the Son. The author labels this view as a “blasphemy of Arian perversity,” indicating a strong disapproval and concern about how it undermines the unity and equality of the Trinity.

In summary, the text serves as a critique of two early Christian heresies that sought to conceptualize the nature of God and the Trinity. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining both the unity and distinctions within the Godhead, warning against oversimplifications or problematic interpretations that diminish the sacred and ineffable nature of the Trinity.

Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 461)
Sermon 77:2

“But although dearly beloved, the actual form of the thing done was exceeding wonderful, and undoubtedly in that exultant chorus of all human languages, the Majesty of the Holy Spirit was present, yet no one must think that His Divine substance appeared in what was seen with bodily eyes. For His Nature, which is invisible and shared in common with the Father and the Son, showed the character of His gift and work by the outward sign that pleased Him but kept His essential property within His own Godhead because human sight can no more perceive the Holy Ghost than it can the Father or the Son. Nothing is unlike or unequal in the Divine Trinity, and all that can be thought concerning Its substance admits of no diversity either in power, glory, or eternity. And while in the property of each Person the Father is one, the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet the Godhead is not distinct and different; for while the Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, not in the way that every creature is the creature of the Father and the Son, but as living and having power with Both, and eternally subsisting of That Which is the Father and the Son.”

The text attributed to Pope Leo the Great addresses theological concepts related to the Holy Spirit and the nature of the Divine Trinity. Here’s a breakdown of its key points.

Pope Leo emphasizes that while the Holy Spirit is present during significant spiritual events (e.g., during a sacramental act), His essence remains invisible and cannot be perceived through physical sight. This reflects the belief that divine entities transcend human understanding and perception.

The passage stresses that within the Trinity, there is no division in the Divine essence. While the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons with unique properties, they share a single divine substance. This underscores the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as a unified entity rather than three separate gods.

Leo points out that God’s true nature is invisible and cannot be fully comprehended by human beings. Just as people cannot visualize the Father, they cannot visualize the Holy Spirit. This serves to highlight the ineffable nature of God.

The Roman Pontiff elaborates on the roles within the Trinity. It describes the Father as the origin, the Son as the Only-begotten, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from Both, while maintaining equality and unity in essence. This unity does not imply that one Person is superior or inferior to the others; they are coequal and coeternal.

By stating that “nothing is unlike or unequal in the Divine Trinity,” Leo reinforces a foundational belief in Christian theology that the nature of God is consistent across its three Persons, ensuring their eternal and divine characteristics remain unaltered.

In short, Pope Leo the Great’s reflections convey deep truths about the Christian understanding of God’s nature, the distinct yet unified existence of the Trinity, and the limitations of human understanding when it comes to divine realities.

John of Damascus (A.D. 712)
The Orthodox Faith, I:8

“These hypostases are within each other, not so that they are confused, but so that they contain one another, following the word of the Lord: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me …We do not say three gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, we say only one God, the Holy Trinity, the Son, and the Spirit, going back to only one Principle, without composition or confusion, quite unlike the heresy of Sabellius. These Persons are united, not so they are confused with each other, but that they are contained within each other. There is a circumincession without mixture or confusion between them, by which they are neither separated nor divided in substance, unlike the heresy of Arius. In fact, in a word, the divinity is undivided in the individuals, just as there is only one light in three suns contained within each other, through an intimate interpenetration.”

The text by John Damascene discusses the nature of the Holy Trinity—comprising the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—explaining how these three distinct persons exist together in a relationship characterized by unity without confusion or division.

Damascene uses the term “hypostases” to refer to the individual persons of the Trinity. His point is that although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases, they exist within one another without losing their unique identities. This allows for a profound sense of unity among them, echoing the biblical declaration of Jesus, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”

He emphasizes that Christians do not worship three gods but one God manifested in three persons. This rejection of tritheism (belief in three separate gods) is crucial to maintaining the orthodox Christian understanding of God as a single divine essence.

Damascene contrasts his teachings with heresies, notably that of Sabellius, who proposed a modalistic understanding of God, suggesting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different modes of one divine person rather than distinct persons. He also references Arius, whose views suggested a separation between the Son and the Father, implying that the Son was a created being and not divine in the same way as the Father.

This term describes the mutual indwelling of the three persons of the Trinity. According to Damascene, this relationship allows them to be interpenetrated without losing individuality. They are united in their substance yet distinct in their personhood, ensuring that there is no mixture or confusion among them.

Finally, Damascene employs the metaphor of light from three suns to illustrate his point. Just as three suns can shine their light while remaining distinct, so too do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence without merging or blending into one another.

Overall, the text affirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity by articulating the unity and distinction of its three persons, while rejecting various heretical interpretations that distort this belief.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with
you always, to the close of the age.”
Matthew 28, 18-20

PAX VOBISCUM