VOf God Trine in Persons

Chapter II. Of God trine in persons.

Before proceeding to the disclosure of the dogma itself, I involuntarily stop at the words "in persons," "God's person." I have read and studied the exposition of the dogmas about the essence of God. There was no definition there of the word person, or hypostasis, which was used in the definition of the Trinity. Only in the passage where the anthropomorphists were refuted it said that under the divine person we must understand "the manifestation of God in his works." But that apparently has no reference to the Trinity. Maybe the definition of this word, so necessary for the comprehension of the Trinity, will become clear from the exposition itself. I proceed to read. Here is the introduction :

"The truths about God, one in essence, and about his essential attributes, so far expounded by us, do not embrace the whole Christian teaching about God. In acknowledging God to be one, we have not yet the right to call ourselves Christians : the one God is professed also by the Jews, who did not accept Christ the Saviour as the Messiah, and who reject Christianity; he is also professed by the Mohammedans and has been admitted by many old and new heretics in the lap of- Christianity itself. The full teaching about God, which it is necessary to keep in the heart and profess with the lips, in order worthily to bear the name of Christian, consists in this, that God is one and trine, one in substance, trine in persons." (p. 156.)

What does that mean ? All the attributes of God, as given in the division about the essence of God, such as unlimitedness, immeasurableness, and the others, exclude the concept of person. The fact that God is a spirit is still less in agreement with persons. What, then, does "in persons "mean ? There is no answer to this, and the exposition goes on.

"This doctrine forms the radical, essentially Christian dogma : directly upon it are based, and, consequently, with its refutal are inevitably refuted, the dogmas about our Eedeemer the Lord Jesus, about our Sanctifier the Allholy Ghost, and after that, more or less all the dogmas which refer to the house-management of our salvation. And in professing God as one in essence and trine in persons — "(p. 168.)

In essence God is one, and God, it was said in the preceding, is a spirit. In spite of the essence, it was said that God had fourteen attributes. All the attributes exclude the concept of person. What then is "in persons "? There must, then, be still a third division. First it was (1) according to the essence and (2) according to the attributes. Now a third division is added : according to persons. On what is this division based ? There is no answer, and the exposition gpes on :

"By professing in this manner we differ not only from the pagans and certain heretics, who assumed many or two gods, but also from the Jews, and from the Mohammedans, and from all heretics, who have recognized the one God only."

What do I care from whom I differ ? The less I differ from other people, the better it is for me. What is a person ? There is no answer, and the exposition is continued :

"But being the most important of all the Christian dogmas, the dogma about the Most Holy Trinity is at the same time the most incomprehensible."

That is the very reason why I thirst so much, if not for an explanation, at least for an expression which would be comprehensible. If it is entirely incomprehensible, there can be no answer.

"We saw a number of incomprehensible things when we expounded the doctrine about God one in essence and about his essential attributes, especially about his selfexistence, eternity, omnipresence." (p. 167.)

There was nothing incomprehensible about that. All those were expressions from various sides of the first concept about the existence of God, — a concept which is familiar to every believer in God. These expressions were for the most part incorrectly used, but there was nothing incomprehensible in them.

"Manj incomprehensible things shall we also see later on, in disclosing the dogma of the incarnation and person of our Saviour, about his death on the cross, about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, about the action of grace upon us, and so on. But the mystery of Christian mysteries is indisputably the dogma about the Most Holy Trinity : just as there are three persons in one God, so the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, however not three Gods, but one God, — all this surpasses all understanding." (p. 157.)

That is precisely what I want to know. A father of the church says :

"What manner of reasoning, what power and might of the intellect, what vivacity of the mind and perspicacity of imagination will show me — ^How does the Trinity exist ? ' And in another place : ' However, what it is, is unspeakable; no tongue of the^ angels, much less of men, can explain it.'" (p. 157.)

The Trinity is God. What is God and how does he exist ? that surpasses my imagination. But if the essence of God surpasses my understanding, I can know nothing about the essence of God. But if we know that he is the Trinity, it is necessary to say what we understand by this appellation. What do these words mean in relation to God ? So far there have been no explanations of these words, and the exposition is contiQued :

"So this is the reason why the heretics who have tried to explain the truths of religion with their own intellect have stumbled over the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity more than over any other dogma. So, if at all anywhere, we must here more especially stick closely to the positive doctrine of the church, which has guarded and defended this dogma against all heretical opinions, and which has expounded it for the guidance of the Orthodox with the greatest possible precision." (pp. 157 and 158.)

It is precisely this exposition that I am in search of, that is, I want to know what is meant by God one and three. For, if I say that I believe, without understanding, and if any one else says that he believes that God is one and three, we are lying, for it is impossible to believe what we do not understand. It is possible to repeat with the tongue, but it is not possible to believe words which not merely have no meaning, but directly violate sound reason. Here is the way the Orthodox Church expounds this doctrine with precision :

"(1) In the symbol of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Bishop of Neocsesaria : ' There is one God, Father of the living Word, of wisdom and self-existing force, and of the eternal form : the perfect progenitor of the perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one God, one from one, God from God, form and expression of the Deity, active word, wisdom, containing the composition of all, and force building the whole creation; true Son of the true Father, the unseen of the unseen, the incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal. And there is one Holy Ghost, issuing from God, having appeared through the Son, that is, to men; life, in which is the cause of the living; holy source; holiness offering sanctification. To him appears God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. Trinity, perfect in glory and eternity, indivisible and inseparable in dominion. And so there is in the Trinity neither created, nor ancillary, nor additive, which has not been before, or which will come later. The Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Holy Ghost; but the Trinity is invariable, unchangeable, and always one and the same.'

"(2) In the Mcaeo-Constantinopolitan symbol : ' I believe in one God the Father — and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, born from the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, born, uncreated, of one substance with the Father — and in the Holy Ghost, the life-creating Lord, who proceedeth from the Father; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.'

"(3) In the symbol which is known under the name of that of St. Athanasius of Alexandria : ' This is the Catholic creed: Let us worship the one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in the One, neither blending the hypostases, nor separating the essence. For different is the hypostasis of the Father, different that of the Son, and different that of the Holy Ghost. But that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one Deity, an equal glory, a coeval grandeur. As the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Ghost — Thus : God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Ghost; and yet not three Gods, but one God — God is not created by any one, nor born. The Son was not created by the Father himself, nor made, nor born, nor issued from him — And in this Trinity nothing is first or last; nothing more or less; but the three hypostases are complete, coeval with each other and equal.' "(pp. 158 and 159.)

That is the exposition with the greatest possible precision ! I read farther down :

"Examining more closely this doctrine of the Orthodox Church about the Most Holy Trinity, we cannot help observing that it is composed of three propositions : one general and two particular, which directly result from the general and disclose it through themselves.

"The general proposition is in God, one in substance, three persons or hypostases : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The particular propositions : the first, — as it is one in essence, so three persons in God are equal to each other and uni-existent; and the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, not three gods, but one God. The second : however, as three persons they are different among themselves by their personal attributes : the Father is not born from any one; the Son is born from the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father." (p. 159.)

I have not left out anything, hoping all the time to find an explanation, and what ? The author not only does not find it necessary to explain what is said here, but, looking attentively at it, he finds here, too, subdivisions, and he proceeds, (p. 161.)

As I get no definition not only of the persons of the Trinity, but even of the word "person," though there is an unnecessarily detailed statement about the essence and the attributes of God, I involuntarily begin to suspect that the author and the church have no definition of this word, and so speak themselves not knowing what. My suspicion is confirmed by the following article. As always, after the exposition of an unintelligible dogma there follows the exposition of the dispute, which has led to this exposition. And here it says :

"That God is one in substance and trine in persons, has unchangeably been professed by the holy church from the very beginning, as is witnessed by its symbols and other incontrovertible proofs."

From what beginning remains unknown. But from common sense, from the historical data, even from the exposition given here and in Art. 28 of the different opposing opinions, it is evident that there was no such beginning, and that the dogma was formed by degrees. Then follows a confirmation of the fact that the dogma was not formed in an indefinite "very beginning," but at a very definite historical period of church history.

"But the manner of expression of this truth in the first centuries was unequal even among the Orthodox teachers of the faith. Some used the words ova-ca, <f>v(TL<:, substantia, natura, in order to signify the essence or substance of God; others, however only few of them and rarely, used these words to designate the divine persons. Similarly, certain words, v7r6<Tra(n<s, wap^ts, or rpowo^ vwaplecos, designated the persons in God; others, on the contrary, designated by these words the essence of God, and for the designation of the persons used the words Trpoo-wTros, persona. The different use of the word ' hypostasis ' has even led to considerable disputes in the East, especially at Antioch, and for some time created discord between the Eastern and the Western churches, of which the first taught that it was necessary to profess three hypostases in God, fearing a reproach of Sabellianism, while the others affirmed that there was but one hypostasis in God, fearing a reproach of Arianism. To solve the misunderstanding a council was called in Alexandria (in the year 362), where, together with St. Athanasius the Great, there were present bishops from Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya. At the council, the representatives of both parties were heard, and it turned out that both sides believed precisely alike, differing only in words, both the Orthodox and those who said, ' In God there is one essence and three hypostases,' and the others who said, ' In God is one hypostasis and three persons,' for the first used the word 'hypostasis ' instead of Tr/aoo-wTros, persona, while the latter used it instead of ova-Ca, substantia, essence." (pp. 160 and 161.)

Farther on it says that if at first the words ovo-ca and vTrdo-rao-ts were used differently, or rather, indifferently, in the sixth, seventh, and the following centuries the concept appears as generally accepted, that is hypostasis was used in reference to three, ova-La to one. Thus, if I had the slightest hope of getting an explanation of what is to be understood by the word "person," of that on the basis of which 1=3, I, after reading this exposition about the use of the words by the fathers, came to understand that such a definition (which is inevitably necessary for the comprehension of the Trinity) does not exist and cannot be; the fathers used words without ascribing any meaning to them, and so used them indiscriminately, now in one, and now in a contrary sense, and finally agreed not on the ideas, but on the words. The same is confirmed by what follows :

"But while the Orthodox teachers of the faith differed only in words, invariably professing one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in One, the heretics perverted — "(p. 162.)

That is, now without any farther explanation. One is equal to the Trinity, and the Trinity is equal to One. But the holy fathers professed :

"The heretics perverted the very idea of the dogma, some of them denying the trinity of persons in God, while others admitted three Gods."

Again some say black, and others say white. Both are wrong, but we say, "Black is white, and white is black." Why is it so ? Why, because the church said so, that is, the tradition of those men who believe in that tradition. Here is the idea of the heretics who denied the Trinity :

"(a) Even during the life of the apostles : Simon the

Magician taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy- Ghost were only manifestations and forms of the selfsame person, and that the one God, in the capacity of Father, had revealed himself to the Samaritans; in the capacity of the Son, as Christ, to the Jews; in the capacity of the Holy Ghost, to the pagans; (h) in the second century, Praxeas afhrmed that one and the same God, as concealed in himself, was the Father, but as having appeared in the work of creation and later, in the redemption, was the Son Christ; (c) in the third century, Noetus, who also recognized the Father and Son as one person, one God, who had become incarnate and had suffered torment and death; Sabellius, who had taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were only three names, three actions {Ivipyua) of one and the same person, God, who had been incarnate and had suffered death for us; and Paul of Samosata, according to whose words the Son and the Holy Ghost were in God, as mind and strength were in man; \d) in the fourth century, Marcellus of Ancyra and his disciple Photinus : they preached, after Sabellius, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were only names of the selfsame person in God, and after Paul of Samosata, that the Son, or the Word, was the mind of God, and the Holy Spirit, the power of God." (pp. 162 and 163.)

Here is the conception of other heretics :

"The common idea of all these was that although the divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were of one substance, they were not one in substance, and that they had one nature, but had it each separately, as, for the example, three persons of the human race, and so were three Gods, and not one God." (p. 163.)

Without having the question answered whether the teaching of the heretics was true or false, I am unable to say that I understand what they have been saying. Similarly, without entering into a discussion as to whether it is right that God should be one and three, I am unable to say that I understand what it means, although the dogma is expounded in all its fulness, as the author avers. In all its fulness the dogma is expounded as follows :

"' Let us worship the one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in the One, neither blending the hypostases, nor separating the essence.' Neither blending the essence, that is, recognizing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost not merely as three names, or forms, or manifestations of the selfsame God, as the heretics have represented him, nor as three attributes, or forces, or actions, but as three independent persons of the Deity, since each of them, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, possessing a divine mind and the other divine attributes, has his own, personal properties, ' for one is the hypostasis of the Father, another, of the Son, and still another, of the Holy Ghost.' Nor separating the essence, that is, affirming that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in essence, exist inseparably one in the other, and, differing from each other only in their personal attributes, have an identity of mind, will, and all the other divine attributes, — not at all as there exist three entities of any class of beings among the creatures, entities that have one nature. ' Among the creatures,' let us speak with the words of St. John Damascene, ' the common nature of the entities is perceived only by the mind, for the entities do not exist one in the other, but each separate and distinct, that is, in itself, and each has much to distinguish it from the others. They differ in place and time, in disposition of the will, in firmness, in external appearance or form, in habits, in temperament, in worth, in the manner of life, and in the other distinctive properties, but most of all, because they do not exist one in the other, but each exists separately. For this reason we say : two, three, many men. But in the holy, transubstantial, all-surpassing, incomprehensible Trinity we see something different. Here the universality and unity are viewed in fact according to the coeternality of the persons, according to the identity of the essentiahty, activity, and will, according to the concord of definitions, according to the identity — I do not say similitude, but identity — of power, almightiness, and goodness, and according to the one tendency of motion — Each of the hypostases has a unity with the other, not less than with itself; that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in all respects but uugeneratedness, birth, and derivation, and are divided only in our ratiocination (iTTLvoux). For we know only one God, and only in the properties of fatherhood, sonhood, and derivation do we present a difference — In the unlimited Deity we cannot assume, as in us, spatial distance, because the hypostases exist one in the other, but in such a way that they are not blended, but united, according to the words of the Lord : I am the Father, and the Father in me (John xiv. 11); nor distinction of will, definitions, activities, power, or anything else, which in us produce a real and complete division. Therefore we recognize the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost not as three Gods, but as one God in the Holy Trinity.' The whole incomprehensibility of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity consists precisely in this, that the three independent persons of the Deity are one in essence and entirely inseparable; if they existed separately one from the other, like three entities among the creatures, there would be nothing incomprehensible in that. ' The Deity is one and three : oh, most glorious transformation ! ' What is united in essence is divided according to the persons : the indivisible is divided, what is one is trebled : that is the Father, the Son, and the living Spirit, preserving all." (pp. 164 and 165.)

So here it is, all the doctrine, all the God -revealed truth, revealed to me in all its fulness for the sake of my salvation. "The Deity is one and three. Oh, most glorious transformation ! "The exposition and explana- tion are ended, and there will be nothing else. And this through the mouth of his church says God the Father to me, his son, who with all my power am looking for truth and salvation ! To my entreaty and tears of despair he replies to me : "The indivisible is divided, what is one is trebled : that is the Father, the Son, and the living Spirit, preserving all." And to the demands of my reason, which has been given me for the comprehension of God, there is no other answer. I cannot say, nor can any one else say, that I have comprehended it, and so I cannot say that I believe. With my tongue I can say that I believe that "what is one is trebled. Oh, most glorious transformation 1 "But when I say that, I am a liar and an atheist, and it is precisely this that the church demands of me, that is, those people who assert that they believe in it. But that is not true : they do not believe and nobody has ever believed it. What a marvellous phenomenon ! Christianity will soon have existed for a thousand years in Eussia. For a thousand years the pastors have been teaching their flocks the foundations of the faith. The foundation of the faith is the dogma of the Trinity. Ask a peasant, a country woman, what the Triuity is. Out of ten hardly one will answer you. It cannot be said that that is due to ignorance. Ask them what the teaching of Christ consists in. Everybody will tell you. And yet the dogma of the Trinity is not complicated or long. Why, then, does no one know it ? Because it is impossible to know what makes no sense.

Then there follow proofs that these truths, that is, that God is a Trinity, have been revealed by God to all men. The proofs are divided into proofs from the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, which forms the teaching of the Jews, of those Jews who regard the Trinity as the greatest blasphemy, in this Old Testament do they look for proofs that God has revealed his threefold nature to men. Here are these proofs from the Old

Testament : (1) Because God said, "Let us make," and not "Let me make : "that was so because he spoke with his Son and the Holy Ghost, (pp. 165, 166.)

(2) Because he said, "Adam, one of us." By "us "are meant the three : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (3) The Bible says : "Let us confound their language," and not, "Let me confound; "consequently the three Gods wanted to confound it. (4) Because three angels came to Abraham, — those were the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who came to see Abraham, (pp. 169, 170.)

(5) Because in the Book of Numbers it is commanded that the word "Lord "should be repeated three times. (6) Because in David's Psalter it says, "Their whole host." "Their "proves the Trinity. (7) A proof of the Trinity is found in the fact that Isaiah said three times, "Holy, holy, holy." (8) Proofs are found in all those passages of the Old Testament where the words "son and spirit "are used (Psalm ii. 7; Is. xlviii. 16, xi. 2, Ixi. 1; Job xxxiii. 4). "The Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. The Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him," and so forth. Those are all the proofs from the Old Testament. I have not omitted a single one. The author sees himself that the proofs are poor, and that it is possible to find as many or even more proofs in any book you please, and so he thinks it necessary to give explanations. Later on he says :

"And why they are not entirely clear, why it has pleased God to disclose in the Old Testament the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity only to a certain degree, — that is concealed in the plans of his infinite wisdom. The godly teachers assumed for this two main causes : (<x) one lay in general in the property of human nature, which was hmited and impaired, and had to be led to the knowledge of the highest mysteries of revelation only by degrees, in proportion to its unfolding and strengthening, and receptivity. ' It was not without danger,' reasons St. Gregory the Divine, ' before professing the Divinity to preach clearly the Son, and before the Son had been called (I shall express myself rather boldly) to weigh us down with the sermon about the Holy Ghost, and to subject us to danger and make us lose our last strength, as is the case with people who are burdened with food which is not taken in measure, or who direct their feeble vision to the sun's light; it was necessary for the treble light to shine on the illuminated by progressive additions, as David says, by ascensions (Psalm Ixxxiv. 5), progressions from glory to glory, and advancements.' (b) Another cause lay in the quality and weaknesses of the Jewish nation, to whom the Old Testament revelation was made : ' God, in his infinite wisdom,' says the blessed Theodoret, * was not pleased to communicate to the Jews any clear idea of the Holy Trinity, in order that they might not find in this a good cause for worshipping many gods, — since they had been so prone to follow the Egyptian abomination; this is the reason why, aft'^r the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews felt such a distinct loathing for polytheism, we meet in their sacred and even profane books many more passages than before in which the divine persons are mentioned.' We must observe, at last, that, in picking out the places from the Old Testament, which contain references to the Most Holy Trinity, we had in view mainly to prove that the teaching about this mystery is by no means so new in the New Testament, as the later Jews say. and that the pious men of the Old Testament believed in the same tri-hypostatic God, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in whom we beheve — But the foundations of this most important of all the Christian dogmas is, beyond doubt, contained in the Books (Art. 21—1) of the New Testament." (pp. 173 and 174.)

Here are the proofs from the New Testament. The first proof the Theology finds in Christ's conversation with his disciples: Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John xiv. 11); and whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son (John xiv. 13). From the fact that Jesus Christ calls himself the Son of the Father, God, just as he taught all men to call themselves the sons of God, it is argued that Jesus Christ is a second person of God. The author says : "Here evidently two persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son, are distinguished." (p. 175).

The second proof is taken from the passage where Jesus Christ says to his disciples, If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive (John xiv. 15-17). The last verse is not written out, but instead of it the continuation is taken from verse 26 of the same chapter: but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (p. 175.)

From this it is concluded :

"Here all three persons of the Most Holy Trinity are distinguished, namely, as persons : the Son, who speaks of himself: I will pray, — the Father: I will pray the Father, — the Holy Ghost, who is called another Comforter, consequently distinct from the Father; and he will be sent to take the place of the Son with the apostles and to teach them everything; consequently, he is just such a person as the Son." (p. 175.)

Because the paraclete, that is, the comforter, whom Christ promises his disciples after his death, is once during that conversation called the Holy Ghost, it is taken as a proof that Christ in this conversation revealed the mystery of the Holy Trinity. No attention at all is paid to the meaning which this word has in the whole conversation, for even there the comforter is called the spirit of truth, precisely what Christ calls his teaching. I go away, and come again unto you (John xiv. 28); and I in you, and ye in me (ib. 20); if a man love me, he will keep my words : and my father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him (ib. 23); I will not leave you comfortless : I will come to you (ib. 18); for he shall receive the Spirit of truth, and shall shew it unto you (John xvi. 14).

These passages, which explain the whole meaning of the conversation, are not quoted, but the word "holy," which is attached as an epithet to the spirit, is taken as a proof that here Christ spoke of the third person of the Trinity.

Third proof : But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (John xv. 26). These words, which quite clearly and simply say that when I shall no longer be alive, and you shall be permeated by the spirit of truth, by that truth which I have taught you, and which proceeds from God, you will convince yourself of the truth of my teaching, — these words are taken as a new proof that here are clearly distinguished, as in the previous texts, all three persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and at the same time they prove the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with God : the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father.

Fourth proof: The words of John (xvi. 15), Therefore said I, that the Spirit of truth shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you, — the words which clearly speak of the spirit of the teaching as given by Jesus Christ serve as a proof that here mention is made of the consubstantiality with the Son.

Fifth : The words, I came out from God, I came forth from the Father (John xvi. 27, 28), which cannot signify anything but the fihal relation of any man to God, precisely what Jesus Christ has preached, are taken as a proof that "here with new force is expressed the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father."

In the second series of proofs from the New Testament there appear first the concluding words of St. Matthew : Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt, xxviii. 19), which Jesus Christ said, when he appeared to his disciples after the resurrection.

Without saying anything about the meaning and the especial character in general of the whole Gospel after the resurrection, of which mention will be made later, these words serve only as a proof, — as which even the church understands it, — that in accepting Christianity it was necessary to acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as the foundations of the teaching. But from this does not follow by any means that God consists of three persons, and so the demands that the words "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost "be used can by no means have anything in common with the arguments about the existence of God in three persons.

The Theology itself admits that the customary formula of baptism can by no means be regarded as a proof of the Trinity of God, and so, on pp. 177 and 178, it explains why it is necessary to understand God in three persons by this. The explanations are as follows :

"The Saviour had before explained to the apostles more than once that under the appellation of the Father was to be understood God the Father who had sent him into the world (John vi. 38-40; vii. 16, 18, 28; xi. 42, and elsewhere) and who is another that beareth witness of him (John V. 32); under the name of the Son he understood himself, whom the apostles indeed professed as the Son of

God who came from the Father (Matt. xvi. 1 6; John xvi. 30); finally, under the name of the Holy Ghost he understood another Comforter whom he had promised to send to them in his place from the Father (John xiv. 16; XV. 26)." (p. 177.)

No proof is needed that Christ understood God by the Father, for that is admitted by everybody, but there is no proof, and there can be none, that under the Son he meant himself, and under the Holy Ghost a new person of the Trinity. As a proof that he is the second person they adduce the passage (Matt. xvi. 16), where Peter says to Christ what Christ has always said about all other people, that is, that they are sons of God; and John xvi, 30, where his disciples say to him what he teaches all other men. In proof of the separate existence of the third person there are repeated the same verses (John xiv. 14 and XV. 26), which mean something different.

Under the name of the Comforter Jesus Christ understands the spirit of truth, but cannot understand any third person. The clearest proof of it is that in the gospels there are no proofs; outside of these passages, which prove nothing, it is impossible to find anything else. But the Theology, not at all embarrassed by this, regards its proposition as proved, and says :

"Consequently, since the Saviour did not consider it necessary to add a new explanation of the above mentioned words (Matt, xxviii. 19), he in the present case understood, and the apostles understood with liim, nobody else but the three divine persons by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

In the third series there is one last and chief proof from the New Testament; those are the words of John in his first Epistle, v. 7 : For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three are one. The Theology says :

"In this passage there is expressed, even more clearly than before, the Trinity of the persons in God and the unity of the essence. The Trinity of the persons : for the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are called three witnesses; consequently they are distinct from each other and the Word and the Holy Ghost, mentioned as witnesses with the Father, are not merely two of his attributes, or forces, or actions, but just such persons as the Father. The unity of the essence : for if the Word or the Holy Ghost did not have the selfsame divine nature and substance with the Father, but a lower, created nature, there would be an endless distance between them and the Father, and it would not be possible to say : and these three are one."

But unfortunately, although this passage, no matter how weak it is, may serve, if not as proof, at least as an incentive to the assertion that God is one and three, unfortunately not all agree with the theologians. It says :

"Unjust are those who wish to weaken the power of this passage, by asserting that the three celestial witnesses, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are represented as one, not in relation to their essence, but only in relation to their unanimous testimony, just like the three terrestrial witnesses, who are mentioned in the following verse : There are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood : and these three agree in one (1 John V. 8), form unquestionably one, not by their essence, but only in relation to the testimony. It must be remarked that (a) the apostle himself distinguishes the unity of the celestial and the unity of the terrestrial witnesses; of the latter, which are indeed different among themselves or different in their essence,, he expresses himself only by saying : and these three agree in one (koI ol rpeis €is TO €1/ eio-iv), that is, in one, in relation to the testimony; but of the first he says : And these three are one (Kat ovTOL ot rpets ev eicrtv), and not, agree in one; consequently * are one ' is a great deal more than what the terrestrial witnesses are, — they are one, not only in relation to the testimony, but also in their essence. This is the more certain since (b) the holy apostle himself in the next verse calls the testimony of the celestial witnesses, without any distinction, the witness of God : If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; consequently he assumes that the three witnesses of heaven are one, namely in their Divinity, or are three persons of God. It is the more certain since (c) the same holy apostle even before, in his Gospel, mentions each of the three witnesses of heaven, the Father, the Son or Word, and the Holy Ghost, and mentions them as three persons of God, consubstantial among themselves, when expounding the words of the Saviour : Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true : for I know whence I came, and whither I go. I am one that bears witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (John viii. 14, 18; cf. John v. 32, 37); but when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (John xv. 26); he shall glorify me : for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine : therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John xvi. 14, 15)." (pp. 179 and 180.)

Still more unfortunate it is that this solitary passage, which, however weak it is, at least in some way confirms the words of the three Gods and of one, that this same passage turns out, according to the testimony of the Theology, to be debatable, and, according to the unanimous testimony of all learned criticism, spurious :

"Unfair is the attempt which is made to doubt the authenticity of the passage under discussion, by pointing out that it does not exist in certain Greek texts of the New Testament and in certain translations, especially in the East, and by showing that it was not used by the ancient fathers of the church, such as St. Gregory the Divine, Ambrose, Hilary, nor by the Councils of Nice and Sardis and others, which were against the Arians, though this verse might have served as an important tool against the heretics, and though some of the fathers have made use of verses 6 and 8 of the same chapter, which are much less strong and decisive. All these proofs of the assumed spuriousness of the verse under discussion are quite insufficient for their purpose and, besides, are refuted by positive proofs : (a) if in some Greek texts of the New Testament, which have been preserved until the present, this verse does not exist, it has been and still is in many others. Why then, arises the question, should we give preference to the first over the latter and conclude that it was added to the latter, and not omitted in the first ? On the contrary, justice demands that preference be given to the latter." (pp. 180, 181.)

Those are all the proofs from Holy Scripture of the Old and the New Testament. The only passage from the whole Scripture which presents a similitude of that assertion that God is one and three is spurious, and its reality is confirmed by the polemics of the composer of the Theology.

But there are also proofs from Holy Tradition : "(28) Confirmation of the same truth from Holy Tradition. No matter how clear and numerous the passages are from Holy Scripture, especially from the New Testament, which contain the doctrine of the Trinity of the persons in one God, it is necessary for us here to turn to Holy Tradition which has been preserved in the chur^^h from its very beginning. It is necessary to do so because all these passages from Scripture have been subject to all kinds of interpretations and controversies, which cannot be permanently settled, at least not for a believer, but by the voice of the apostolic tradition and the ancient church. It is necessary also in order to defend the church itself against the unjust rebuke of the freethinkers that the church began to offer the doctrine about the three hypostases in God only with the fourth century, or with the First QEcumenical Council, but that before that time it was entirely unknown to the church, or was presented in an entirely different form. Consequently it is sufficient to take the thread of the tradition to the fourth century, or to the First CEcumenical Council, and to show whether and how the ancient Christian church taught about the Holy Trinity in the first three centuries."

So we have learned from the Theology, that there are absolutely no proofs in Scripture in confirmation of the Trinity, except the polemics of the composer of the Theology; we have also learned that it is not even possible to assert that the church has always adhered to this tradition and that the only foundation of this assertion is left in the polemical art of the composer of the Theology. I have read all the proofs of Art. 28, which show in fifteen pages that the church has always professed the Trinity, but these arguments have not convinced me, not because I have read more exact and convincing proofs against it, but because my feeling revolts and I cannot believe that God, who has revealed himself to me in such a senseless, wild expression as that "I am one and three, and I am the Father and the Son, and I am the Spirit," should not have given me in his Scripture, or in his Tradition, or in my soul, any means to understand what it signifies, but has condemned me, for the solution of the question about God and my salvation, to have recourse to no other means than believing the argument of the Orthodox Theology against the rationalists, and repeating, without comprehension of what I am saying, the words which the Orthodox Theology will dictate to me.

I was on the point of making my last conclusion about this dogma, when, immediately after the article about the Tradition, there was revealed to me Art. 29, and as the crown of the whole: The relation of the dogma about the Trinity of the persons in one God to common sense, — "we shall now take the liberty to say a few words about its relation to common sense, in order, on the one hand, to overthrow the false opinions in respect to this subject, and, on the other, to point out and elucidate to ourselves the true opinion. Since antiquity there have existed two false opinions in respect to this matter. Some have asserted that the teaching of the triune God is contrary to common sense, because it is contradictory in itself, but they assert so without any foundation : (a) Christianity teaches that God is one and trine not in the selfsame relation, but in different relations, that he is one in essence, but trine in person, and gives us one conception about the divine essence, and another about the divine persons, so that these concepts in no way exclude each other : where then is the contradiction ? "

Christianity gives us one conception about the essence, and another about the divine persons. That is precisely what I have been looking for, namely, what these different conceptions about the persons and the essence are, but that is not to be found anywhere. Not only is it absent, but there can be no answer,, because the words ovaia and woo-rao-ts now mean something different, and now mean one and the same, and are used indiscriminately.

"If Christianity taught that God is one in essence and trine in essence, or that there are in him three persons and one, or again, that person and essence in God are identical, then there would indeed be a contradiction. But, we repeat, Christianity does not^ teach that, and he who does not intentionally mix the Christian conceptions of the essence and the persons in God will never think of looking for an internal contradiction in the teaching about the Holy Trinity." (p. 204.)

Does not intentionally mix. Have I not strained all the powers of my mind in order to find in the teaching the slightest difference in the conceptions about the essence and the persons, without finding any ? And the author knows that there is none^ "(&) In order to call a certain idea contradictory to common sense and to itself, it is necessary first of all completely to grasp this idea, to comprehend the meaning of its subject and predicate, and to see their incongruity. But in relation to the mystery of the Holy Trinity no one can boast of that; all we know is what nature or essence or person among creatures is, but we do not fully comprehend the essence, or the persons in God, who infinitely surpasses all his creations. Consequently we are not able to judge whether the idea of God one in essence and trine in persons is congruous or not; we have not the right to assert that the idea that God one in essence and three in persons includes an internal contradiction. Is it sensible to judge of what is not comprehensible ? "(p. 204.)

In division a it was said that the conception of the essence was one, and of the persons another, and that Christianity taught it, but this teaching did not appear anywhere; but let us suppose that we have not read what precedes, have not studied the whole book, and have not convinced ourselves that such a distinction exists, and that we believe it. How then is it said in division h : that we cannot and have not the right to call an idea "contradictory to common sense without having comprehended the meaning of its subject and predicate "? The subject is 1, the predicate 3, — that is comprehensible. But if the subject is one God and the predicate three Gods, the contradiction is by the laws of reason the same. If, according to the Introduction of the concept of God, one may become equal to three, we shall insensibly be talking about what we do not comprehend, before we insensibly judge of what we do not understand. And it is there where it begins. And these senseless words, according to the confession of the Theology, the highest reason and the highest goodness speaks in reply to the entreaties of his children searching after truth.

"(c) On the contrary, common sense cannot help recognizing this idea as completely true and devoid of any contradiction. It does not comprehend its internal meaning; but on the basis of external testimony it knows conclusively that this idea has clearly been communicated by God himself in the Christian revelation : God is the God of truth." (p. 205.)

What is said cannot be understood, but it is so "on the basis of external, conclusive testimony,*' so that it is possible, without understanding them^ to repeat the words which the Theology speaks; but in this case, as we see, there are none of those external proofs, not only no conclusive proofs, but no proofs at all. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does it say that the Spirit of God is a third person. What Moses wrote about God saying to himself, "Let us make," cannot be called a reliable proof. And the fact that in Jesus Christ's conversation in St. John there is once used the word Holy Ghost when speaking of the truth, is not a conclusive evidence. The fact that in baptizing into Christianity the words, "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost," are used is also not an evidence. The spurious verse from the Epistle of John not only does not argue in favour of the Trinity, but is a clear proof of there not being, and never having been, any proof, and that those who wanted to prove it felt so themselves.

From the external evidences there is left only the polemic of the author against those who reject the verse from St. John and against the rationalists who assert that the church did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century. Let us assume that I am so little in= telligent and so illiterate that I believe the polemic of the author and agree with him that the dogma of the Trinity is recognized by the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Infallible Church, and that I want to believe in it. I cannot believe it, because I cannot form any concept about what is meant by the triune God. Neither I nor any one else can recognize this dogma, if for no other reason, because the words, as they were expressed at first, have remained, after long speeches, quasi-explanations and proofs, nothing but words which can have no meaning whatever for a man with an unimpaired reason.

On the basis of the sacred church tradition you may assert anything you please, and if the tradition is imperturbable, it is impossible not to recognize as true what is transmitted by tradition; in any case, it is necessary to assert something, but here nothing is asserted, — these are words without any inner connection. Let us assume that it is asserted that God lives on Olympus, that God is made of gold, that there is no god, that there are fourteen gods, that God has children, or a son. All those are strange, wild assumptions, but with each of them some idea is connected; but no idea is connected with the assertion that God is one and three. So, no matter what authority may assert it, even if it be all the living and dead patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and no matter what uninterrupted voice from heaven may call out to me, saying, "I am one and three," I shall remain in the same condition, not of unbelief (there is nothing here to believe in), but of perplexity about what these words mean, and in what language and by what law they may receive a meaning. For me, a man educated in the spirit of the Christian faith, who after all the erring of his life has retained a dim consciousness of what there is true in it; for me, who by the blunders of life and the seduction of reason have reached the negation of life and most terrible despair; for me, who have found salvation in uniting with it the spirit of religion, which I recognized as the only divine force which moved humanity, and who have heen in search of the highest expression of this religion, which would be accessible to me; for me, who above all believe in God my Father, through whose will I exist, suffer, and agonizingly search after his revelation; for me to admit that these senseless, blasphemous words are the only answer which I can receive from my Father in response to my entreaty as to how to understand and love him, for me this is impossible.

It is impossible to believe that God, my good Father (according to the teaching of the church), knowing that my salvation or perdition depends on my comprehension of him, should have expressed the most essential knowledge about himself in such a way that my reason, which he has given me, should not be able to comprehend his expressions, and (according to the teaching of the church) should have concealed all that truth, so important to men, under indications in the plural number of verbs and, in any case, in an ambiguous, obscure interpretation of words, such as the Spirit and the Son, in Jesus' farewell conversation in St. John, and in the spurious verse in the Epistle, and that my knowledge of God and my salvation and that of billions of men should depend on a greater or lesser verbal glibness of all the Eenans and Makaris. I shall believe him who has the best arguments.

No ! If it were so, God would have given me such an intellect that 1=3 would be as comprehensible as it is impossible now, and such a heart that it would be a joy to admit three gods, whereas now my heart revolts against them, or, at least, he would have given all that to me in a definite and simple manner, and not in debatable and ambiguous words. God cannot have commanded me to believe. The very reason why I do not believe is because I love, worship, and fear God. I am afraid to believe the lie which surrounds us and to lose God. That is impossible, and not only impossible, but it is quite clear that it is not the truth, that I was mistaken in thinking that I could find an answer and a solution of my doubts in the church. I had intended to go to God, and I found my way into a stinking bog, which evokes in me only those feelings of which I am most afraid : disgust, malice, and indignation. God, that incomprehensible, but still existing one, by the will of whom I live ! Thou hast implanted in me this striving after the knowledge of thee and of myself. I have erred, I have searched after the truth in the wrong place. I knew that I erred. I have pampered my evil passions, and I knew that they were bad, but I have never forgotten thee; I have always felt thee, even in moments of erring. I came very near perishing, when I lost thee, but thou gavest me thy hand, and I grasped it, and life was illuminated for me. Thou hast saved me, and I am searching after this alone : to come near unto thee, and to understand thee as much as is possible. Help me, teach me ! I know that I am good, that I love and want to love all, and want to love truth. Thou art the God of love and truth, take me nearer unto thee, disclose everything to me, so that I may be able to understand about myself and about thee !

And the good God, the God of truth, replies to me through the mouth of the church : "The Deity is one and trine. Oh, most glorious transformation ! "

Go yourselves to your father, the devil, you who have taken the keys of the kingdom of heaven and have not yourselves entered it and have closed it against others! You are not speaking of God, but of something else.