The Trinity

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”

Matt 28:19

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me…”

Isa. 61:1

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo… He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove… And lo a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son…'”

Mt. 3:16-17

Subsections

God
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
Perichoresis
Filioque
Autotheos

Order of Contents

Articles 20+
Books 30+
Early & Medieval 14+
Latin & French 6
Historical 24+
In Jewish Writings 1

Definition of ‘Person’ 3
Numeric Order 1
Divine Nature Communicated 3
Eternal Generation 10+
Autotheos 8
. In Nicene Creed ‘God of God’ 4
. Meaning of ‘Light of Light’ 4
God has One Will (not Three) 5
Relation to Covenant of Redemption 3

Less Certain Aspects 1
Fundamental of Faith 3
Practical Godliness 1
Heresies
. Anti-Trinitarianism
. Eternal Subordination of Son 12+
. Tri-Theism 16
. Unitarianism 1

Biblios 2

Articles

Anthology of the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 6, ‘The Holy Trinity’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 105-32

Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.

1500’s

Bullinger, Henry

3^rd Sermon, ‘Of God; of the True Knowledge of God & of the Diverse Ways how to Know Him; that God is One in Substance & Three in Persons’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 3, 4^th Decade, pp. 123-73

1. ‘Of the Holy Trinity’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (1560; London, 1572), p. 1

Melanchthon, Philip – 2. ‘Of the Three Persons, Eternal Father, Eternal Son & Eternal Holy Spirit, who are One United Divine Being’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 11-39

Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Of the Holy Trinity’ in 12. ‘Of the Name of Jehovah, and of Sundry Attributes of God’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 1, pp. 100-101

Beza, Theodore

‘Beza on the Trinity, 21 Theses’ also entitled: ‘Theses or Axioms on the Trinity of Persons & their Unity of Essence as Derived from Theodore Beza’s Lectures’ in Tractationes Theologicae Bezae, Volumen I (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1570), p. 651. In Ordained Servant Online, OPC

A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1562)

Ch. 1, 2. Of the Trinity of Persons Distinct in One Unity of Substance

pp. 2-3 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)

Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)

The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith

5. Of the Trinity of Persons, in the Unity of the divine essence, and of their proprieties, and of the creation of the world 6-7

The Summary of the Christian Doctrine

Of the Unity & Trinity in the Divine Essence

A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism

5^th Dialogue

Of the Unity & Trinity that is in the Essence of God
Of the Difficulty that is in this Matter

10^th Dialogue

If there be any Beginning in the Divine Essence, and how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son

How we Ought to Understand the Order which is in the Persons of the Trinity

Olevian, Caspar – An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (London, 1581), pt. 1

That the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons and yet that they are one and the same substance

What fruit we receive by this, that we know and believe the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and the Holy Ghost to be the only true and eternal God: and that there is no other God

Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).

Ursinus, Zachary

The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), “I believe in his only Son”

2. How Christ is the Son of God
3. Why Christ is called the only begotten and first begotten Son of God
4. Whether Christ be the Son Coeternal with God the Father, or of Christ’s Divinity

1^st Conclusion: The Son of God is a subsistent in the flesh borne of the Virgin, and before the flesh
2^nd Conclusion: The Son of God, Christ, is a Person really distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost
3^rd Conclusion: The Word is equal with the Father
4^th Conclusion: The Word is consubstantial with the Father

Other Rules, whereby the objections of the Arians are dissolved
The Principal Arguments against the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, together with the Answer unto them

A Preface to… the Catechism, wherein are deciphered the pestilent pamphlets of some divines of this age: and Calvin the most valiant champion defendant of Christ’s glory is briefly cleared of the slanderous crime of Arianism [on the Trinity] in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)

Zanchi, Girolamo

Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 10-14 & 276-77

Ch. 2, ’Of God, & of the Divine Persons & Properties’ 10-14
On Aphorism 1 276
On Aphorism 3 277

‘Certain Positions’, ‘Of One True God, Eternal Father, Son & Holy Ghost [On the Trinity]’ (1572) 370

Finch, Henry – 1. Of God: The Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 1

Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.

Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 2. ‘Of the Holy & Unsearchable Trinity’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 3-5

Perkins, William

‘The Three Persons’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 25

Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.

5. Concerning the Persons of the Godhead in A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)

1600’s

Bucanus, William – pp. 7-13 of 1. ‘Of God’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606)

How many Persons be there in that one essence of God?
By what testimonies of Scripture do you prove the Trinity?
Have you any more pregnant proofs out of the New Testament?
Seeing the Scripture does not use the name of the Trinity, does the Church well to retain the same?
How does this word ‘essence’ differ from this word ‘Person’ in God?
How manifold is the difference of Persons?
But did the Son take his deity from the Father?
Is this difference rational, essential, or real?
What is the outward difference?
What things be contrary to this doctrine?

Ames, William – ch. 5, ‘The Subsistence of God’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1, pp. 88-91

Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.

** Leiden Professors – Disputation 7, ‘On the Holy Trinity’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology… ed. Dolf te Velde tr. Riemer A. Faber (1625; Brill, 2015), vol. 1, pp. 184-201

Concise and breathtaking.

Ruiz de Montoya, Diego – ‘Preface to Disputations on the Trinity’ in Commentaria ac Disputationes in Primam Partem Sancti Thomae, De Trinitate (Lyon, 1625) p. 1

Ruiz de Montoya (1562-1632) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian.

Wolleb, Johannes – 2. ‘The Persons of the Godhead’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 40-45

Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.

Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology 3rd ed. (1634)

Outline
Doctrine of the Trinity, pt. 1, 2

Wendelin (1584-1652)

Cotton, John – ‘A Letter on the Late-Disputes About the Ever-Blessed Trinity, to Thomas Bradbury’ 5 pp. prefixed to Thomas Bradbury, The Necessity of Contending for Revealed Religion… (d. 1652; London, 1720), pp. xix-xxiv

Cotton (1585–1652) was a New England puritan. Cotton expresses his concern for the rising popularity in England of Tritheism and Arianism, which were being allowed under the Anglican 39 Articles under latitudinarianism.

Bradbury was was an English, reformed, congregationalist minister.

Goodman, Godfrey – ‘The Ineffable Trinity’ in The Two Great Mysteries of Christian Religion, the Ineffable Trinity, [the] Wonderful Incarnation, Explicated to the Satisfaction of Man’s own Natural Reason, and according to the Grounds of Philosophy (London, 1653), pp. 11-72.

Godfrey (1582 or 1583–1656) was an Anglican bishop who converted to Romanism. Nonetheless, from a quick skim, this work appears orthodox and helpful.

Leigh, Edward – ch. 16. Of the Trinity, or the Distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 2, pp. 204-16

Durham, James – Lecture 1, ch. 1, ‘Concerning the Holy Trinity & Object of Worship’ in A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation… (Edinburgh, 1658)

Vincent, Thomas – The Foundation of God Standeth Sure, or, A Defence of Those Fundamental and so Generally Believed Doctrines of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence, of the Satisfaction of Christ, the Second Person of the Real and Glorious Trinity, of the Justification of the Ungodly by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, against the cavils of W.P.J., a Quaker, in his pamphlet entitled, The Sandy Foundation Shaken etc.: wherein his and the Quakers’ hideous blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical opinions are discovered and refuted... (London, 1668)

ch. 5, ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity of Distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence, Asserted & Proved’

ch. 6, ‘An Answer to Part of the 10th, the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Pages of W. P.’s Pamphlet, which He Entitles, ‘The Trinity of Distinct Separate Persons in the Unity of Essence, Refuted from Scripture, Right Reason, with Information and Caution in the Close”

Sterry, Peter – The Appearance of God to Man in the Gospel, and the Gospel Change, together with Several Other Discourses... (d. 1672; London, 1710), 1st Part

ch. 11, ‘An Explication of the Trinity in Three Sections’, pp. 422-451

ch. 13, ‘Five Letters’, Letter 1, ‘Of the Trinity’, pp. 467-9

Sterry was a Westminster divine.

Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 4, ‘Trinity’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 45-52

Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3^rd Topic

23. ‘What are the meanings of the words ‘essence,’ ‘substance,’ ‘subsistence,’ ‘person,’ ‘Trinity,’ homoousion in this mystery; and may the church properly use them?’ 253

24. ‘Is the mystery of the Trinity a fundamental article of faith? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 261

25. ‘In the one divine essence are there three distinct persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? We affirm against the Socinians.’ 265

26. ‘Can the mystery of the Trinity be proved from the Old Testament, and was it known under it? We affirm against the Socinians.’ 272

27. ‘Can the divine persons be distinguished from the essence, and from each other, and how?’ 278

Barrow, Isaac – A Brief State of the Socinian Controversy Concerning a Trinity in Unity (London, 1698) 23 pp.

Barrow (1630–1677) was an Anglican theologian and mathematician who is generally given credit for his early role in the development of infinitesimal calculus; in particular, for the discovery of the fundamental theorem of calculus. He was a teacher of Isaac Newton.

This piece is one of the most beautiful and profound, orthodox statements and guardings of the Trinity, and the mystery of the depths of it, beyond our knowledge, in English, though outside of the title, it does not mention Socinians or the history or state of the controversy.

Barrow also wrote ‘A Defence of the Blessed Trinity’ (before 1698).

van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 2, pt. 1, bk. 2, pp. 497-592

ch. 24, ‘The Most Holy Trinity’ 497
ch. 25, ‘God the Father’ 527
ch. 26, ‘God the Son’ 539
ch. 27, ‘God the Holy Spirit’ 567-92

Heidegger, Johann H. – 4. ‘On the Triune God’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 29-35

1700’s

à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 3, ‘The Divine Persons’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 139-93

a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and was a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.

Tennent, Gilbert – Twenty-Three Sermons upon the Chief End of man… and the Doctrine of the Trinity... (Philadelphia, 1744)

sermon 20, ‘The Oneness of God’, p. 385 ff. on Dt. 6:4
sermon 21, ‘The Life of God Explained’, p. 403 ff. on Jer. 10:10
sermon 22, ‘A Trinity of Persons Proved’, p. 420 ff. on 1 Jn. 5:7
sermon 23, ‘The Holy Spirit Proved to be God’, p. 449 on 1 Jn. 5:7

De Moore, Bernardinus – ch. 5, ‘On the Trinity’ in Continuous Commentary

Outline
1-2. Trinitarian Terminology, pt. 1, 2, 3
3. Divine Persons & Substance, pt. 1, 2
3. Calvin & Alting on the Divine Persons & Substance
4. Abiding Usefulness of Traditional Trinitarian Vocabulary
5. God One with Respect to Essence
5. Three Modes of Subsistence in the One Divine Essence
5. Three Persons Subsisting in One Essence
5. Three Persons, Equal in Honor & Glory
5. Emperichoresis
6. [missing]
7. Person of the Father
8. Generation of the Son
8. Generation of the Son, Ps. 2:7
8. Generation of the Son, Mic. 5:2
8. Unique Sonship of Jesus Christ
8. Eternal Generation of the Son (Prov. 8)
8. Hyperphysical Generation of the Son
8. Proper Generation of the Son
8. Proper Generation of the Son (Jn. 5:26)
8. Communication of the Divine Essence by Generation, pt. 1, 2
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Arianism
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Socinianism
9. Eternal Generation Defended against the Remonstrants, pt. 1, 2, 3
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Roellius, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
10. Son as Autotheos, pt. 1, 2, 3
11. Procession of the Holy Spirit & John 15:26, pt. 1, 2
11. Procession of the Spirit as Spiration
11. The Spirit as “Holy”
12. Controversy of the Greeks & Latin over the Procession of the Spirit
13-16. Old Testament Confirmation of the Trinity, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
16-18. New Testament Confirmation of the Trinity, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
19. Socinians among the Anti-Trinitarians
19-20. Answering the Anti-Trinitarian Objections of the Socinians, pt. 1, 2
21. Deity of Christ Demonstrated from Divine Titles, pt. 1, 2, 3
21. Deity of Christ Demonstrated from Divine Attributes, pt. 1, 2, 3
21. Deity of Christ Demonstrated from Divine Works
21. Deity of Christ Demonstrated from Divine Worship
22. Deity of the Son Defended, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
23. Truth of the Spirit’s Person Defended, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
24. Spirit as a Distinct Person
24. Spirit as a Single Person
25. [missing]
26-27. Defense of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
28. Sublimity of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
29. Necessity of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pt. 1, 2
30. Utility of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Venema, Herman – Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850)

9. Trinity (Unity of taught by Reason & Scriptures, Trinity taught by Revelation Alone, General Exposition, Scriptural & Ecclesiastical Names of, Meaning of Doctrine, Proofs of Godhead, Elohim, Plural Number, Angel of Lord, Scriptures) 195

10. Trinity (Special Exposition, Unity of Three Persons, Numerical & Specific Unity, Distinction of Persons, Mode & Order of Subsistence, Mode & Order of Operations) 216

11-12. Divinity of Christ (Sources of Proof, Called God, Objections Refuted, Divine Perfections & Attributes Ascribed to, Scriptures, Objections, Divine Works, Objections) 223

13. The Trinity (Relative Subsistence of Persons, Proofs, Names of Persons, Reasons, Opinions about Son, Arianism, Semiarianism, Socinianism, Holy Spirit, Heresies of Macedonius, Noetus, Praxeas & Socinus, Opinions about Mode of Personal Subsistence, Objections Answered) 243

14. The Trinity (Objections to Personality of Holy Spirit, Figurative Language, Alleged Contradictions, Refutation of Reasons Assigned why Christ called Son of God, Miraculous Birth, Mediatorial Office, Resurrection from Dead, Objections founded on his Generation & Relative Mode of Subsistence, Practical View of Trinity) 255

Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller

1800’s

Alexander, Archibald – 6. ‘Trinity’ in God, Creation & Human Rebellion: Lecture Notes of Archibald Alexander from the Hand of Charles Hodge (1818; RBO, 2023), pp. 96-112

Bavinck, Herman – ‘The Divine Trinity’ no date or source info, 56 paragraphs

Buchanan, James – ‘Father, Son & Holy Spirit: Each Have a Part in Saving Sinners’ HTML (1867) from his Doctrine of Justification (Baker), pp. 388-92

Cunningham, William – Historical Theology (1863), vol. 2

‘Distinction of Persons in the Godhead’, p. 192 ff., 10 pp.

‘Trinity & Unity’, p. 203 ff., 9 pp.

Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 3, ‘The Trinity’ in Reformed Dogmatics 1 vol. ed. (1896; 1910; Lexham Press, 2020), pp. 48-86

1900’s

Warfield, B.B. – ‘The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity’ (1915) annotated Fred Sanders. Originally in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Barr

Sanders is a conservative evangelical writer on the Trinity. See his necessary introduction to this piece.

Sanders: “The substantive entry (about 15,000 words, running for 20 columns in the ISBE) has been very influential, partly because it was incorporated into a well-regarded reference work, but mainly because of the high quality of Warfield’s writing.

…in my judgement, the early parts of the essay are magnificently helpful, while the conclusion swerves off course in a few ways. When I think of this essay, my immediate response is gratitude: the way Warfield describes the revelation of the Trinity in the economy of salvation and its canonical witness in Scripture is revolutionary. My first reading of it was an intellectual and spiritual event for me…

But if I reflect further on the entire essay as it stands –that is, not just on what it did for me, but more objectively on what it contains and on what others might therefore take from it– I wince to recall that Warfield bends his powers to keep the exegetical case from supporting the traditional Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit. He pulls his punches on the meaning of the terms Son and Spirit; he cordons off the economy of salvation as the only place where we can be certain that the second and third persons come from the first; he gets stingy with how much is revealed in the order of operations among the three; he overloads covenantal categories in order to bypass ontic categories; he comes within a hairs-breadth of affirming a merely messianic sonship; and for the life of him he can’t imagine how anybody could reconcile eternal relations of origin with absolute equality of persons. Never mind that the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession of Faith both instruct him otherwise; here he forges his own way ahead, and his overall trinitarianism fares the worse for it, more anemic than it needed to be after the vigor of his biblical proof.”

Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Holy Trinity’ (1949) 35 paragraphs in Systematic Theology (1949)

2000’s

Zuber, Kevin – ‘Indications of the Trinity in the Old Testament’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 47-75

Sanders, Fred – ‘Incorruptible Trinity: Sketch of a Doctrine’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 115-27

Books

1500’s

Zanchi, Jerome – On the Triune Elohim, Eternal Father, Son & Holy Spirit, One & the Same Jehova, pt. 1, bks. 1-3 ed. Ben Merkle, tr. Wenden House Scholars: Michelle Bollen, Angela Filliceti, Rachel Jo, Sam Taylor (1572) 170 pp.

For background on this work, see the dissertation by Merkle, Benjamin – Triune Elohim: the Heidelberg Antitrinitarians and Reformed Readings of Hebrew in the Confessional Age (Univ. of Oxford, 2012)

Abstract: “In 1563, the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism marked the conversion of the Rhineland Palatinate to a stronghold for Reformed religion. Immediately thereafter, however, the Palatinate church experienced a deeply unsettling surge in the popularity of antitrinitarianism… later, the displaced Italian theologian and Heidelberg professor, Girolamo Zanchi… [wrote] his De Tribus Elohim (1572)… [the] variety of responses to Zanchi’s argument demonstrates the diversity of assumptions about the nature of the biblical text within the Reformed church, contradicting the notion that the Reformed world in the age of “confessionalization” was becoming increasingly homogenous or that the works of John Calvin had become the authoritative touchstone of Reformed orthodoxy in this period.”

1600’s

Cheynell, Francis – The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit GB (1650) 480 pp.

Cheynell was a presbyterian, Westminster divine.

Owen, John – Works ed. Goold (NY: Robert Carter, 1851; rep. Banner), vol. 2

Of Communion with God the Father, Son & Holy Ghost (1657), pp. 2-274 ToC

A Vindication of Some Passages in a Discourse Concerning Communion with God from the Exceptions of William Sherlock… pp. 276-364

“The best puritan works on the Trinity are Volume 2 of John Owen’s Works… and the last one hundred pages of Volume 2 of John Howe’s Works… Owen’s major work in Volume 2, Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (365 pages) is unsurpassed in Christian literature in detailing how the believer experimentally communes with each person in the Trinity.” – Joel Beeke, Reader’s Guide, p. 17

’The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained & Vindicated’ in A Brief Declaration & Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity: as Also of the Person & Satisfaction of Christ… pp. 365-413

Stillingfleet, Edward

The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation Compared as to Scripture, Reason & Tradition. The First Part in a New Dialogue Between a Protestant & a Papist: wherein an Answer is Given to the Late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books Called Consensus Veterum [Consensus of the Ancients] & Nubes Testium [Clouds of Witnesses], etc. (London, 1688)

Stillingfleet (1635–1699) was a latitudinarian Anglican theologian and scholar.

“…against [Roman] Catholic views of the rule of faith… Stillingfleet… reiterate[d] his conviction that the doctrine of the trinity, being derived from a historically sound scripture, albeit above reason, was an assured certainty of faith; whereas that of transubstantiation, being contrary to reason and sense, was not. The Catholics argued for an exact parallelism and believed that the Protestants had no reliable arbiter in their disagreements about biblical interpretation.

By 1687 Stillingfleet had opened up the debate over the identification of substance and the distinction of persons. This was an opportunity for a growing Unitarian movement on the edge of Anglicanism to weigh in, seeking to demonstrate on clear and distinct principles that both the trinity and transubstantiation were equally indefensible and to promote a revisionist account of the atonement. Simultaneously with this, a rising tide of deism—religious belief based on natural reason alone without revelation—was beginning to pose awkward questions about the credibility of revelation.” – Encyclopedia.com

A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, with an Answer to the Late Socinian Objections Against it from Scripture, Antiquity & Reason, & a Preface Concerning the Different Explications of the Trinity, & the Tendency of the Present Socinian Controversy (London, 1697)

“Stillingfleet had already attacked Socinianism, a continental form of Unitarianism, in 1669 and Deism in 1677, without obvious effect. Beset with opposition on so many fronts, he published A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (1696).” – Encyclopedia.com

“‘Stillingfleet’s Vindication stands out among the many polemical works of the 1690’s by virtue of its eirenical tone, and the breadth of learning displayed marks it off as a minor classic of seventeenth-century theology.’ (Dixon, Nice & Hot Disputes: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the 17th Century (2005), pp. 143–4)

It had three intentions: repelling the Unitarians, shoring up the unity of the orthodox Trinitarians, and doctrinal defence of the Trinity. Under the third heading, Stillingfleet took on John Locke, and his Essay on Human Understanding. He wrote Three Criticisms of Locke (1697).” – Wikipedia

Wallis, John

Eight Letters Concerning the Blessed Trinity ed. Flintoff (1690; London, 1840) 260 pp.

Wallis (1616–1703) was a non-voting scribe at the Westminster Assembly.

Three Sermons Concerning the Sacred Trinity (London, 1691) 100 pp.

Howe, John

A Calm & Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead, in a Letter to a Person of Worth: Occasioned by the Lately Published Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. [John] Wallis, Dr. [William] Sherlock, Dr. S–th, Dr. [Ralph] Cudworth, etc…. (London, 1694) 141 pp.

Wallis was a reformed, Westminster divine.

Sherlock (c. 1641–1707) was a leading Anglican minister. “In 1690 and 1693, he [Sherlock] published works on the doctrine of the Trinity, which helped rather than injured the Socinian cause and involved him in a controversy with Robert South and others.” – Wikipedia

Dr. S–th (this is how the name seems to always appear) appears to have been a Socinian opponent of Sherlock.

Cudworth (1617–1688) was an English Anglican clergyman, Christian Hebraist, classicist, theologian and philosopher, and a leading figure among the Cambridge Platonists.

A Letter to a Friend Concerning a Postscript to the Defense of Dr. Sherlock’s Notion of the Trinity in Unity, Relating to the Calm & Sober Enquiry upon the Same Subject (London, 1694)

A View of that Part of the Late Considerations addressed to H.H. about the Trinity, which concerns the Sober Enquiry on that Subject: in a Letter to the Former Friend (London, 1695)

Howe (1630-1705) was an English Puritan and presbyterian theologian. He served briefly as chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. These works are at the end of the 2nd volume of the three volume reprint of his works.

“The best puritan works on the Trinity are Volume 2 of John Owen’s Works… and the last one hundred pages of Volume 2 of John Howe’s Works…” – Joel Beeke, Reader’s Guide, p. 17

Gastrell, Francis – Some Considerations Concerning the Trinity: & the Ways of Managing that Controversy OTA (London: 1696)

Gastrell (1662-1725) was a reformed Anglican divine.

1700’s

Edwards, John – Some Animadversions on Dr. [Samuel] Clark’s Scripture-Doctrine (as he Styles it) of the Trinity [1712]: Briefly Showing that his Quotations out of the Fathers are Forced: his texts produced from scripture are wrested: his arguments and inferences are weak & illogical: his whole performance falls short of his design (London, 1712)

Edwards (1637-1716) was a leading reformed, Anglican divine.

Clarke (1675–1729) was an English philosopher and Anglican clergyman. He is considered the major British figure in philosophy between John Locke and George Berkeley. Clarke was an Arian who wrote at length on and debated the Trinity, especially with Daniel Waterland, who defended orthodoxy.

Bradbury, Thomas – An Answer to the Reproaches Cast on Those Dissenting Ministers who Subscribed their Belief of the Eternal Trinity: In a Letter to John Barrington-Shute, Esq. (London, 1719) 40 pp.

Bradbury was was an English, reformed, congregationalist minister.

4 London Ministers – The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity Stated & Defended (1719) ToC

The four sections of this work were written by four Calvinistic ministers in the context of the Salters’ Hall controversy (see below). The second chapter is entitled, ‘Of the Harmony of the Reformed Churches…’.

In the Introduction, William Tong (see below) makes his case for subscription to the Trinity amongst the English dissenting ministers, which action he was a leader in implementing.

Tong, William – A Plain & Faithful Narrative of the Differences Among the Dissenters at Exeter Relating to the Doctrine of the Ever Blessed Trinity, so far as gave Concern to Some London Ministers (1719) 32 pp.

Tong (1662-1727) was an English, presbyterian minister and the biographer of Mathew Henry.

Tong was at the center of the complex, Salters’ Hall controversy (amongst English dissenters, presbyterian and congregationalist) regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which was initially prompted by James Peirce‘s (1674?–1726) inclining towards a non-Arian, eternal subordination of the Son.

Tong was a leader amongst the majority of the group which ‘imposed’ amongst the ministers subscription to the Trinity.

Taylor, Abraham – The True Scripture Doctrine of the Holy & Ever-Blessed Trinity, Stated & Defended, in Opposition to the Arian Scheme (London, 1727) 560 pp. ToC The work is dedicated to Daniel Waterland.

Taylor (fl.1726-1740) was an English, Calvinistic, Independent minister and dissenting academy tutor, known as a controversialist.

Calamy, Edmund – Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity… together with a Vindication of that Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7 from being Spurious… (1732; London, 1772)

This Calamy (1671-1732) was a moderate, English, Baxterian, presbyterian minister and historian, known for his ecclesiastical biographies.

Mastertown, Charles – The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Asserted from the Sacred Scriptures (1734) 96 pp.

Mastertown (1679–1750) was born in Scotland but served in the Irish Presbyterian Church. He uses the Westminster Confession of Faith through his short book.

Edwards, Jonathan – An Unpublished Essay of Edwards on the Trinity, with Remarks on Edwards and his Theology (d. 1758; New York: C. Scribner’s sons, 1903)

Edwards (1703-1758) is the famous, American, reformed, congregationalist divine. This work is here for reference and is not particularly recommended.

Edwards was very influenced by empiricism and uses hetero-orthodox categories in his investigation into the Trinity, which leads him to a paradigm of the Trinity which is less than orthodox. Specifically, he makes great use of the analogy of mind, will and love in human psychology with respect to the Persons of the Trinity, something the reformed orthodox before him thought it best to stay away from (though such was precedented in the early and medieval Church).

1800’s

Bickersteth, Edward – The Trinity (1859; 1892) 87 pp.

Bickersteth was an Anglican bishop.

Joel Beeke: “A nineteenth-century classic, Edward H. Bickersteth, The Trinity… is the best older work. First published in 1859 under the title, The Rock of Ages, this little work promotes a worshipful tone in approaching the doctrine of the Trinity and provides considerable biblical evidence for belief in the eternal Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit. The concluding chapter, ‘Faith, the Scriptures, and the Trinity,’ is particularly helpful.” – Reader’s Guide, p. 17

1900’s

Preuss, Arthur – The Divine Trinity, a Dogmatic Treatise 2^nd ed. trans. (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1912) 305 pp. ToC Advanced

Toon, Peter – Our Triune God: a Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity (Wheaton, ILL: Victor Books, 1996) 265 pp. ToC Intermediate

Fowl, Stephen – ch. 6,‘The New Testament & the Nicene Dogma: a Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis’ in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic & Contemporary Readings in Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology (Blackwell, 1997), pp. 87-102 Intermediate

“This chapter shows how Phil. 2 leads to Nicene terms by talking about the distinction between judgments and concepts.” – Mark Jones

White, James – The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Bethany House, 1998) 225 pp. ToC Introductory

2000’s

Swain, Scott & Andreas J. Kostenberger – Father, Son & Spirit: the Trinity & John’s Gospel Pre (IVP Academic, 2008) ToC

Sanders, Fred

The Triune God in New Studies in Dogmatics Pre (Zondervan, 2016) ToC

“Offers an account of Trinitarian exegesis, especially of OT texts.” – Mark Jones

The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything 2^nd ed. Pre (Crossway, 2017) ToC

Swain, Scott

Trinity, Revelation & Reading: a Theological Introduction to the Bible & its Interpretation in T&T Clark Theology Pre (Bloomsbury, 2011) 150 pp. ToC

The Trinity: an Introduction Ref (Crossway, 2020) 160 pp.

The Trinity & the Bible: on Theological Interpretation Ref (Lexham Press, 2021) 144 pp.

Webster, John – God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1: God & the Works of God Pre (T&T Clark, 2015) ToC

Mark Jones: ”Puts Trinitarian thinking to use in both talking of God in Himself and God in his works. Essays on ‘eternal generation,’ ‘it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him,’ and ‘place of Christology in ST’ are especially significant.”

White, Thomas Joseph – The Trinity: On the Nature & Mystery of the One God in Thomistic Resourcement Series Ref (Catholic University of America Press, 2022) 734 pp.

White is a Romanist of the Dominican Order.

“…there are some stellar Roman Catholic theologians today, despite being critically wrong on some key doctrines. What Reformed theologian today can hold a candle to Thomas Joseph White on the doctrine of God?” – Mark Jones

Early Church

Irenaeus of Lyons.

Against Heresies in ANF, 1:309-567 Need to get specific sections.

Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202)

Proof of the Apostolic Preaching trans. Joseph P. Smith in Ancient Christian Writers: the Works of the Fathers in Translation (Newman Press, 1952)

Tertullian – Against Praxeas, in which He Defends, in all Essential Points, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in ANF, 3:597-632

Tertullian (c. 155 AD – c. 220)

Origen

Origen: Commentary on John, bks. 1-10 in Fathers of the Church, vol. 80 Ref (Catholic Univ. of American Press, 1948) This work is partially in ANF, vol. 9.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 – c. 253)

Origen: Commentary on John, bks. 13-32 trans. Ronald Heine in Fathers of the Church, vol. 89 Pre (Catholic Univ. of American Press, 1993)

On First Principles in ANF 4.239-385 Need to get specific sections.

Hilary of Poitiers – On the Trinity in NPNF2, 9:40-234

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310 – c. 367)

Basil – Against Eunomius tr. Cogliano & Gallwitz in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 122 Pre (Catholic Univ. of American Press, 2011)

Basil of Caesarea (330–379)

“Key texts from later fourth century father.” – Mark Jones

Gregory Nazianzus

On God & Christ: The Five Theological Orations & Two Letters to Cledonius in Popular Patristics Series 23 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002)

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390)

“Includes his five theological orations and a couple key letters. Single most significant patristic starting point.” – Mark Jones

Select Orations in NPNF2, 7:203-436 Need specific sections.

Gregory of Nyssa

Against Eunomius in NPNF2, 5:33-314

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395)

On the Holy Spirit against the Followers of Macedonius in NPNF2, 5:315-25

On the Holy Trinity, & of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, to Eustathius in NPNF2, 5:326-330

On ‘Not Three Gods.’ to Ablabius in NPNF2, 5:331-336

Augustine – On the Trinity in NPNF1 3.1-228

Augustine (354-430)

Cyril of Alexandria – That Christ is One, by Way of Dispute with Hermias in A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church… (Oxford: James Parker, 1881), pp. 237-328

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444)

Medival Church

Maximus the Confessor – On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ in Popular Patristics Series 25 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993)

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662)

John of Damascus – An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book 1 in NPNF2 9.1-17

John the Damascene (b. c. 675)

Richard of St. Victor – On the Trinity ed. & tr. Ruben Angelici (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011)

Richard of Saint Victor (d. 1173)

Aquinas, Thomas – pt. 1, chs. 1-15 & pt. 2, chs. 1-31 of Contra the Errors of the Greeks

Latin Articles

1600’s

Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – ch. 2, ‘Of the Threeness in Oneness & Most Simple Essence of God, or the Nature & Persons of God, or of God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’, pp. 91-121

Voet, Gisbert

Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 2 Abbr.

II. Of the Trinity in General

1. Of the Equality, Mutual Relation & Order of Persons & Personal Notions, likewise of the Ways of Speaking& Corollaries
2. Of the Divine Relations [Not explicitly subtitled]
3. Of the Divine Notions, Powers & Notional Acts in General
4. Of the Procession & Origin of the Divine Persons
5. Of the Notional Acts, where is in specific of the Generating Power
6. Of the Giving & Mission of the Divine Persons; in Specific:

(1) Of the Person of the Father
(2) Of the Person of the Son
(3) Of the Person of the Holy Spirit

Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648 / 1669)

vol. 1

28. ‘Of the Necessity & Utility of the Doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity’ in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1648), vol. 1, pp. 466-89

29. ‘Of the Same’, pt. 2, pp. 489-520

vol. 5

1. Notes & Excercitations on Thomas, Summa, pt. 1, questions 27-44, on the Divine Persons, pt. 1 136-47

Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 3. God: The Three Persons in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 11-13

French

1600’s

Jurieu, Pierre – The Religion of Latitudinarianism, with a Defense for the Holy Trinity, Called the Heresy of Three Gods… (Rotterdam, 1696) ToC 455 pp.

Jurieu (1637–1713)

The History of the Trinity

On the Whole of Church History

Books

Fortman, Edmund J. – The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity Pre (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972) 410 pp. ToC Liberal publisher

eds. Emery, Gilles & Matthew Levering, The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity Pre (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011) 606 pp. ToC

On the Early Church

Articles

Cunningham, William – The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church 1863, p. 267 ff., 38 pp. from his Historical Theology, vol. 1

Kelly, J.N.D. – Chs. 4-5 & 9-10 of Early Christian Doctrines (1958)

Cross, Richard – ‘Two Models of the Trinity?’ in Heythrop Journal XLIII (2002), pp. 275–94

“A commonplace of the history of doctrine has it that the East (following the Cappadocian Fathers) and the West (following Augustine) adopt radically divergent accounts of the Trinity, though it is less commonly agreed just what the differences between the accounts are. For example, it is often held in the textbooks that the Eastern view somehow ‘starts from’ the persons, whereas the Western view somehow ‘starts from’ the essence… Ayres is clearly correct in supposing that this characterization of the matter is false, and I would like to develop that assessment here.
…

What I shall do here is briefly consider a couple of philosophical theories on the relations between particulars and universals (section I), and then show how, if at all, the theories could dovetail with Trinitarian theology (section II). In my final section – section III – I attempt to deal with an objection to my analysis, namely that Eastern views, as commonly understood, seem compatible with ‘social’ views of the Trinity in ways that Western views do not. I shall argue that this analysis is mistaken, both on historical and on conceptual grounds.”

On this topic, see also Butner below.

Books

1900’s

Bishop, W.S. – The Development of Trinitarian Doctrine in the Nicene & Athanasian Creeds: a Study in Theological Definition (New York, 1910) 95 pp.

Prestige, G.L. – God in Patristic Thought Buy (1936) 301 pp.

“The appearance of G. L. Prestige’s God in Patristic Thought initiated a sort of polarization between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies. What seemed to be at stake to many was a conflict between the personalistic or the essentialistic character(s) of Trinitarian ontology, inasmuch as the supposedly personalist East contradicted the supposedly essentialist West and vice versa, and without any real possibility of synthesizing the two. Today we know that this was a rather schematic way of understanding the difference, resulting in an unfair opposition between East and West.” – Nikolaos Loudovikos, ‘Consubstantiality Beyond Perichoresis’

Torrance, Thomas F. – The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 360 pp. ToC

Torrance was Neo-Orthodox.

2000’s

Douglass, Scot – Theology of the Gap: Cappadocian Language Theory & the Trinitarian Controversy (NY: Peter Lang, 2005) 310 pp. ToC

** Ayres, Lewis – Nicaea & its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology Buy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006) 490 pp.

Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea: the Development & Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine Buy Pre (Baker Academic, 2011) 352 pp. ToC

“Helpful history of key figures and moves.” – Mark Jones

On the Medieval Church

Articles

Muller, Richard – pt. 1, ch. 1, ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Tradition: the Medieval Backgroun’ ToC in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pp. 17-59

Butner, D. Glenn – ‘For & Against [Theodore] de Regnon: Trinitarianism East & West’ (2015) 13 pp.

Abstract: “Modern systematic theologians frequently claim that Eastern trinitarianism begins with the persons while Western trinitarianism begins with the divine essence, and fails to truly differentiate the persons. This article explores the origins of this claim in the writing of Theodore de Régnon [1831-1893], noting recent criticism of his paradigm’s applicability to the patristic era. In response to these criticisms, I argue ﬁrst for the limited validity of the de Régnon paradigm by demonstrating its applicability in the Carolingian–Photian dispute surrounding the ﬁlioque. I then argue against the deployment of the paradigm as a controlling schema in systematic theology by pointing to problems this narrative has created in the theology of Robert Jenson and John Zizioulas.”

On this topic, see also Cross above.

800’s

Book

Tavard, George H. – Trina Deitas [The Trine Deity]: the Controversy between Hincmar & Gottschalk (Marquette University Press, 1996) 155 pp. ToC

Gottschalk, known for his orthodox view of predestination, in polemics with opponents in his age, here, while denying tritheism, argued that affirming trina deitas (a threefold deity) was orthodox and traditional. Hincmar argued it was heretical (tritheism) and not traditional. Gottschalk accused Hincmar of heresy.

On Aquinas

Books

Emery, Gilles – The Trinitarian Theology Of St Thomas Aquinas (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990) 445 pp. ToC

“Best introduction to medieval and patristic terminology and distinctions.” – Mark Jones

Levering, Matthew – Scripture & Metaphysics: Aquinas & the Renewal Of Trinitarian Theology (Blackwell, 2004) 266 pp. ToC

“Engages narrative theology and post-metaphysical thought of the last 75 years by retrieving the exegetical and metaphysical account of Aquinas.” – Mark Jones

Wanless, Brandon L. – Universality & the Divine Essence: St. Thomas
Aquinas on the Unity Characteristic of the Trinitarian Persons a Masters thesis (University of St. Thomas, 2015) 92 pp.

Introduction: “The greatest of the Scholastic doctors understood himself as a conduit of the wisdom he himself received from earlier doctors of the Church. This medieval method of theology—originating in part with such persons as St. John of Damascus in the East and Peter Lombard in the West—amounted to a synthetic engagement of the patristic theologians with the goal of producing a unified and holistic theological account of the faith…

…The disagreement itself regards the proper predication of the relation of the three persons of the Trinity to the divine nature, and whether we can speak of the divine essence as a universal, that is, as a relation of three individuals to a species. In other words, are the trinitarian persons three individuals of the one divine species of divinity? Augustine argues in the negative, whereas [John the] Damascene speaks affirmatively….

After addressing the specifics of the relative positions of Augustine and Damascene, and their treatment by Peter Lombard in his Sentences in the following chapter, I will spend the bulk of this paper examining Aquinas’s theology of the Trinity… he uniquely provides a definitive account of the various concepts needed to thoroughly understand the relation of individuals to a species and its applicability to the Godhead… Aquinas proves on multiple levels that, properly
speaking, God cannot be said to be a divine species with three subordinate individuals… I will also show how it is that Aquinas recognizes some similarities (and thus allows for Damascene’s
position) between the species/individual relationship and that of the divine essence and persons…

What follows in this paper is a relatively unique Thomistic analysis of this question, putting to use his trinitarian and metaphysical principles as a way to understand all the critical implications of a relationship of universality between essence and persons in the Godhead.”

On Late Medievalism

Books

Friedman, Russell L. – Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 205 pp. ToC

Paasch, JT – Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology: Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus & William Ockham (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012) 220 pp. ToC

On the Post-Reformation

Books

Muller, Richard – Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003) ToC

For an overview of the era on the topic, see pt. 1, ch. 2, pp. 59-143 ToC.

Dixon, Philip – Nice & Hot Disputes: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century (2005)

On Calvin

Book

Ellis, Brannon – Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, & the Aseity of the Son Buy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012) 260 pp. ToC

On the Puritans

Books

McGraw, Ryan – A Heavenly Directory: Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship & a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology Pre (V&R, 2014) 250 pp. ToC

Truman, Carl R. – The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Paternoster, 1998) 280 pp. ToC

On the 1800’s

Articles

Eitel, Adam – 3. ’Trinity & History: Bavinck, Hegel & Nineteenth Century Doctrines of God’ in ed. John Bolt, Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck, A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2011), pp. 101-28

Butner, D. Glenn – ‘For & Against [Theodore] de Regnon [d. 1893]: Trinitarianism East & West’ (2015) 13 pp.

On the 1900’s

Book

Swain, Scott – The God of the Gospel: Robert Jenson’s Trinitarian Theology Pre (IVP Academic, 2013) 250 pp. ToC

”Interacts with evangelical historicist approaches to theology and economy in Jenson and McCormack (pt 1) and then offers a catholic and Reformed alternative (pt 2).” – Mark Jones

In the Jewish Writings

Allix, Peter – The Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church Against the Unitarians in the Controversy Upon the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Our Blessed Savior ToC (1821) 405 pp.

Allix (1641-1717) was a reformed Huguenot minister.

On the Definition of ‘Person’

Articles

1600’s

Cheynell, Francis – ch. 6, ‘The Divine Subsistence being the Most Excellent Subsistence that is or can be, the Word ‘Subsistence’ or ‘Person’ Cannot be Attributed After the Same Manner to God, Angels & Men’ in The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit… (London, 1650), pp. 61-180

South, Robert – Tritheism Charged upon Dr. [William] Sherlock’s New Notion of the Trinity (1695) 316 pp.

South (1634-1716) was a reformed, episcopal, Anglican. William Sherlock (c. 1641–1707) was an Anglican, who wrote the book, A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy & Ever Blessed Trinity (1690) and then defended it in, A Defence of Dr. Sherlock’s Notion of a Trinity in Unity: In Answer to the Animadversions Upon His Vindication (1694). South replies to the latter book.

Sherlock’s new notion of the Trinity stemmed from the influence of Rene Descartes (1596-1650), which included self-consciousness in the definition of ‘person’. Self-consciousness is essentially self-knowledge, which is an operation of the intellect. If all three Persons of the Trinity have a distinct mind, this is contrary to the classic doctrine of God where the three Persons share the same divine intellect, which intellect was understood to be part of the common nature of God (and not uniquely and separately attributable to each Person).

Richard Muller:

“In none of these usages [by the reformed orthodox] does the term ‘persona’ have the connotation of emotional individuality or unique consciousness that clearly belongs to the term in contemporary usage. It is quite certain that the trinitarian use of ‘persona’ does not point to three wills, three emotionally unique beings, or, as several eighteenth-century authors influenced by Cartesianism argued, three centers of consciousness; such implication would be tritheistic.

It is equally certain that contemporary theological statements to the effect that the God of the Bible is a ‘personal’ God point not to the Trinity, but to the oneness of the divine will in loving relation to creatures. In other words, despite the variety of usages and implications we have noted, the patristic, medieval, Reformation, and Protestant scholastic definitions of the term ‘persona’ are united in their distinction from colloquial modern usage.” – Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (2nd. Ed.), pp. 263-4

1800’s

Stuart, Moses – p. 60 of Miscellanies… (Andover: Allen, 1846), Supplementary Note to Letter 2

Stuart gives quotes in Latin from: Melanchthon, Buddaeus, Baumgarten, Morus, Reinhard, Gerhard, Sohnius, Zanchius, Turretin & Calvin.

On Numeric Order in the Trinity

Cheynell, Francis – The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit… (London, 1650)

p. 234 (#6) in ch. 6
pp. 184 (#3), 227 (#5) & 235-7 in ch. 7

On the Divine Nature being Communicated Amongst the Persons of the Trinity

Articles

1700’s

De Moor, Bernard – 8. Communication of the Divine Essence by Generation, pt. 1, 2 in Continuous Commentary, ch. 5, ‘Of the Trinity’

2000’s

Wanless, Brandon L. – ‘The Incommunicability (& Communicability) of the Divine Nature’, pp. 75-80 in ch. 9, ‘Communicability & Incommunicability’ in Universality & the Divine Essence: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity Characteristic of the Trinitarian Persons a Masters thesis (University of St. Thomas, 2015)

Quote

Theodore Beza

‘Beza on the Trinity, 21 Theses’ from Tractationes Theologicae Bezae, Volumen I (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1570), p. 651 tr. David Noe

“Thesis XIV… For because divine essence is infinite, most simple, and eternal, therefore the three hypostases subsisting in it—although they are truly three in number—because these individual hypostases are distinguished by their own incommunicable properties, they are nevertheless not three gods nor are they said to be three gods in the same way that there are three men…

But instead, in the divine this happens by an indescribable communication of the whole essence from eternity, in which no point of beginning, middle, or end can be stated.†

† dari, i.e., cannot be stated or supplied because it does not exist.”

On the Eternal Generation of the Son

See also ‘Commentaries on the Apostles’ Creed’ on ‘his only begotten Son’.

Articles

1500’s

Bullinger, Henry – 6^th Sermon, ‘That the Son of God is Unspeakably Begotten of the Father; that He is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore true God; that the selfsame Son is true man; consubstantial with us; and therefore true God and man, abiding in two unconfounded natures, and in one undivided Person’ The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 3, 4^th Decade, pp. 238-73

Olevian, Caspar – An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (London, 1581), pt. 2

’His only begotten Son’

Testimonies out of the prophets and apostles
What the meaning of these words is, ‘His only begotten Son’
Why the Scripture calls Him ‘the only begotten,’ seeing all we which believe are the sons of God

Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).

1600’s

Leiden Professors – Disputation 8, ‘On the Person of the Father & of the Son’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology… ed. Dolf te Velde tr. Riemer A. Faber (1625; Brill, 2015), vol. 1, pp. 202-227

Cheynell, Francis – ‘Conclusions Concerning the Eternal Generation’ in ch. 7 in The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit… (London, 1650), pp. 191-248

Owen, John – pp. 33-34 (1.)-(3.) of Exercitation 26 in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews… vol. 2 ed. W.H. Goold in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 19, Preliminary Exercitations

Turretin, Francis – 29. ‘Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3^rd Topic, pp. 292-302

1700’s

De Moore, Bernardinus – Continuous Commentary, ch. 5, ‘On the Trinity’

8. Generation of the Son
8. Generation of the Son, Ps. 2:7
8. Generation of the Son, Mic. 5:2
8. Unique Sonship of Jesus Christ
8. Eternal Generation of the Son (Prov. 8)
8. Hyperphysical Generation of the Son
8. Proper Generation of the Son
8. Proper Generation of the Son (Jn. 5:26)
8. Communication of the Divine Essence by Generation, pt. 1, 2
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Arianism
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Socinianism
9. Eternal Generation Defended against the Remonstrants, pt. 1, 2, 3
9. Eternal Generation Defended against Roellius, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

1800’s

Bavinck, Herman – ‘Son: Generation or Filiation’ in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, pp. 308-10

This is a great section on what constitutes the nature of the eternal generation of the Son. That is, what is it? What does ‘eternal generation’ mean?

2000’s

Muller, Richard – Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pt. 2

ch. 5, B, 2. ‘The Father’s Active Generation of the Son’, pp. 260-2

ch. 6.1, ‘The Person & Generation of the Son’, pp. 275-88 ToC

Johnson, Phil – ‘A More Excellent Name: Eternal Sonship & Ps. 2:7 in Heb. 1’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 99-115

Barrett, Matthew – ‘What is Eternal Generation? (& Interview)’ in The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 33, no. 1 (Spring, 2022), pp. 185-95

Books

Paasch, JT – Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology: Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus & William Ockham (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012) 220 pp. ToC

‘Production’ refers to one Person of the Trinity producing another, whether that be by generation or spiration.

eds. Sanders, Fred & Scott Swain – Retrieving Eternal Generation Pre (Zondervan, 2017) ToC

Can those who hold to Autotheos Confess that Christ is ‘God of God’ in the Nicene Creed?

Quotes

Theodore Beza

‘Beza on the Trinity, 21 Theses’ from Tractationes Theologicae Bezae, Volumen I (Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1570), p. 651 trans. David Noe

“Thesis XVII. ὁμούσια (homousia) or ὁμοούσια (homoousia)… And so this term was adopted for divine phenomena in order to refute the Arians, who claimed that the Son was from the Father—not begotten from the Father’s substance but made ex nihilo. Consequently, they claim, the Son is God by participating in his power, not by nature. Therefore, against such men it was decided that the Son is ὁμούσιον (homousion) or ὁμοούσιον (homoousion) with the Father.

They did not, however, intend by this term merely that the essence of the Father and of the Son is similar, as is the case in natural phenomena (this is how two essences numerically would be taken, and thus there would be numerically two gods, which is anathema). Instead, they wished to describe two realities: first, that the Son is not different from the Father in essence, not because he was made ex nihilo, but as he was begotten from the Father himself, and so from eternity. This distinction they marked by another term, coeternal.

Second, that he is from the Father insofar as he is the Son, such that he is one with the Father insofar as he is God. That is to say, that the Son’s essence is not somehow a derivative essence which took its origin from another principal. The heretics called this notion ex traduce, and today some men advance this idea under the term essentiation. But we assert that the actual, complete essence—by which the Father is God—is the Son by begetting, as the essence has been shared with him by the Father.

As a result, Father and Son—insofar as they subsist in one and the same essence, or are of one and the same essence numerically, with respect to essence—are the one and same God, although, nevertheless the Father is not the Son.
…

Thesis XX. The ancients used these formulas [such as homoousios and homousios] not to convey the notion of a plurality of essences but to show that there was identity of essence in the relations of the persons, against those who said that Christ was made ex nihilo and in fact made in time. For statements of the Arians like the following lead to that understanding: “there was a time when he was not” and, “he was created from things that were not.” In other words, that he was established from things that did not exist. Therefore the Fathers added to the Creed the phrase “true God from true God” to show that God from whom God exists, i.e., the Father, and God who is from God, i.e., the Son, are by reason of essence one God.”

Thomas Beard

A Retractive from the Romish Religion… (London, 1616), Motive 12, pp. 469-70

“71. Fourthly, they [Romanists] accuse us of blasphemy against the Son of God, for denying (as they say) that He is Deus ex Deo, God of God: against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed; and this they call the atheism of Calvin and Beza: a palpable slander: for neither Calvin nor Beza did ever imagine, much less utter the same in that sense which they lay to their charges: for let [Robert] Bellarmine their sworn adversary speak for them: ‘Calvin and Beza teach’ (says he)

‘that the Son is of Himself in respect of his essence, but not in respect of his Person, and they seem to say that the essence of the Deity in Christ is not begotten, but is of itself: which opinion’ (says he) ‘I see not why it may not be called Catholic.’

Here Bellarmine tells us truly what their opinion was, and does acknowledge it to be a true catholic doctrine: and yet in the same chapter he contemns Calvin for his manner of speaking of it and of intolerable sauciness for finding fault with the harshness of the phrase used by the Nicene Council, ‘God of God: Light of light’. Mark (I pray you) his absurdity, it is catholic, and yet it may not be spoken: it is true, and yet it is to be blamed. May not a catholic doctrine be spoken then? or must the truth be smothered? This is such an inconsequence as neither reason nor religion can any ways bear withal: and for his saucy dealing with the Nicene Council, all that ever he says is, that it is durum dictum, ‘a hard phrase’:

yet so that he confesses it may receive a good and commodious interpretation if it be understood in the concrete, that Christ who is God, is of the Father that is God: the word being taken personally, and not in the abstract; as if the essence of the Deity of the Son should be from the Father, which is entirely subsisting, in, of, and by its own eternal, incomprehensible, and most glorious nature: and this without question was the true intendement of the Council; for else it had not confuted, but favored the blasphemous heresy of Arius, against whom it was assembled, which Calvin and Beza do not anyways cross, but onely bring unto it a fit and fauourable exposition.

Thus we have Bellarmine, Calvin’s and Beza’s patron in this doctrine, though full ill against his will: and not only him, but Ribera and Gregory de Valentia, two other no mean Rabbies, both which do conclude that:

‘the Son as He is a Person, is of another; but as He is a simple ens [being], is not of another: and that the essence does not beget the essence, but the Father the Son;’

so that either they are slanderers of the truth, or their catholic doctrines may be atheism and blasphemy.”

Articles

Featley, Daniel

‘On Christ as ‘God of God” Sacra Nemesis, The Levite’s Scourge… (Oxford: 1644), pp 17-18

Featley was a reformed Anglican bishop and a Westminster divine.

‘In Defense of the Apostles’ & Athanasian Creeds’ Sacra Nemesis, The Levite’s Scourge… (Oxford: 1644), pp. 14-16

What does ‘Light of Light’ Mean?

Bibles verses

Jn. 1:5 “And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Jn. 1:9 “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”

Jn. 8:12 “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world…”

Jn. 16:28 “I came forth from the Father.”

1 Tim. 6:16 “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;”

Heb. 1:3 “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power…”

Historical Quotes

Early Church

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235)

Against Noetus

“And as the Author, and fellow-Counsellor, and Framer of the things that are in formation, He begot the Word; and as He bears this Word in Himself, and that, too, as (yet) invisible to the world which is created, He makes Him visible; (and) uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord, (and) His own mind; and whereas He was visible formerly to Himself alone, and invisible to the world which is made, He makes Him visible in order that the world might see Him in His manifestation, and be capable of being saved.

11. And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God. All things, then, are by Him, and He alone is of the Father. Who then adduces a multitude of gods brought in, time after time? For all are shut up, however unwillingly, to admit this fact, that the All runs up into one.”

Post-Reformation

Henry Bullinger

Fifty Godly & Learned Sermons… (London, 1577), 4th Decade, 3rd Sermon, ‘Of God, of the True Knowledge of God…’, pp. 630-31

“But in all the things that God has made… there is nothing which can properly be likened to the nature of God: neither are there any words in the mouths of men that can properly be spoken of it: neither are there any similitudes of man’s inuention that can rightly and squarely agree with the divine essence. And St. Basil, disputing De Ousia & Hypostasi, says:

‘It cannot be that the comparisons of examples should in all points be like to those things, to the use whereof the examples do serve. Thou mayest say that injury is done to the majesty of God if it be compared with mortal things. But for because the holy scripture does not a little condescend and attemper itselfe to our infirmity, I will put a similitude, although in very deed much unlike, which is usually taken and commonly used.

Behold the sun and the beams that come from it, and then the heat that proceedes from them both. As the sun is the head-spring of the light and the heat: so is the Father the headspring of the Son, who is light of light. And as of the sun and the beams together the heat does come, so of the Father and the Son together the holy Ghost proceeds. But now, put case, or imagine that the sun were such, as never had beginning, nor ever shall have ending, and should not then I pray you, ye beams of this everlasting sun be everlasting too? and should not the heat, which proceeds of them both, be everlasting as well as they? Finally, should not the Son be one still in essence or substance, and three by reason of the three subsistences or persons?

This parable of the sun did Tertullian use (contra Praxeam.), whose words, which do also contain other similitudes, I will not be grieved to recite unto you. ‘I wil not doubt’ (says he)

‘to call both the stalk of a root, the brook of a springhead, and a beam of the sun, by the name of a son: for every original is a parent and every thing that issues of that original is a son: much more then the Word of God may be called a Son, which even properly has the name of Son, and yet neither is the stalk separated from the root, nor the brook from the springhead, nor the beam from the sun, no more is the Word separated from God.

Therefore according to the fashion of these examples I profess that I say there are two, God & his Word, the Father and his Son. For the root and the stalk are two things, but joined in one. And the springhead and the brook are two kinds, but undivided. And the sun and the beams are two forms, but both cleaving the one to the other.

Everything that comes of anything must needs be second to that out of which it comes, and yet it is not separated from that from which it proceeds. But where a second is, there are two, and where a third is there are three. For the third is the spirit of God and the Son: even as the third from the root is the fruit of the stalk, the third from the springhead is the river of the brook, and the third from the sun is the heat of the beam: yet none of these is alienated from the matrix [womb] of which they take the properties that they have.

So the Trinity descending by annexed and linked degrees from the Father, does not make against the monarchy, and does defend the economical state, that is, the mystery of the dispensation. Understand everywhere that I profess this rule wherein I testify, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are unseparated one from another, and so thou shalt know how everything is spoken.’

And so forth. For all these are the words of Tertullian, who flourished in Africa not long after the age of the apostles.”

Samuel Hill (1648-1716)

A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers Against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum… (London, 1695), pt. 2 Hill was an Anglican canon and minister.

section 6, pp. 61-66

“Now first, I confess, I have found this mystery [in the Fathers] assimilated to the light, motion and heat of fire, which are all coeval (Athenagoras, Legat. [Greek]; Augustine, Exposition on Jn. ch. 5, tract 20 & Sermon 199; De quin{que} Haeresibus & de Verb Apost. & quor. al., Sermon 1).

I have also observed a simile of fire, generating fire in itself, brought by St. Hilary (On the Trinity, bk. 7) to illustrate the homoousion, with an excuse for its singularity and indignity, to which he was forced hereby to succour the faith of the plainer and simpler sort of people against the tricks of the heretics, who endeavoured to shake their faith by objecting to them the difficulty of its conception, which he thought fit to be helped by corporeal comparisons.

But note, he is so far from the simile of two separate candles, or fires, or lights that his discourse runs altogether against them; and so in his judgment these separate lights are no proper, or safe, or congruous representations, or originals for the received Light of Light.”

section 8, pp. 71, 77-78

“Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho had asserted

‘that in the beginning before all Creatures God begat out of Himself a certain rational Virtue (or Power)… for that He was begotten by the will of the Father, after the manner we see a word produced in us. For when we utter a word, we beget it not by abscission or separation, so as to lessen the internal word or reason by this utterance. And as we see in fire, that out of one fire another is kindled without the diminution of the first fire from whence it was kindled, this remaining the same. And that which is kindled of it also appears to subsist not having lessened that from whence it was lighted…

They say also that this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, after the same manner as they say the light of the sun upon the earth is not to be cut off or separated from the sun which is in heaven, but when he sets [at sunset] the light is carried off with it… and that he is not as the light of the sun only nominally numbered, but really is another in number, I have shown by exquisite reason in my former discourses in short…

And for example’s sake, I took those instances, as we see from one fire other fires kindled, that fire not being lessened from whence many may be kindled, but remaining the same.’

Thus Justin. By which it appears that these kind of pro-Sabellians used the simile of the sun and its light to prove the Logos non-subsistent, no Person, Son, or Angel of the Father, and therefore Justin rejected that simile by which the sun and its light, and God and his Logos are only nominally distinguished, and took the simile of fires kindled from fires, in which there is none of that diminution, which those adversaries object to our doctrine of the consubstantiality, and both fires subsist really after one is kindled from the other in a true diversity…

This appears further to be his sense from the like doctrine of Tatian, who after he had taught that God the Father had before the creation the Logos subsistent in Him, at length thus speaks (Contra the Gentiles):

‘By the will of God’s simplicity the Logos [Greek] goes forth, and going forth not in vain, [Greek] per vacuum, he becomes the firstborn production [Greek] of the Spirit. But thus he became by [Greek] communication, not abscission. For that which is cut off is separated from its first original, but that which is communicated [Greek], being endowed with its proper function, did not leave him from whence it was taken void of the Logos.

For as many fires are kindled from one torch, and the light of the first torch is not diminished through the kindling of many torches: So also the going forth out of the power of his Father did not render his Father void of Reason, or without the Logos.'”

God Only has One Will, Not Three

Articles

1600’s

Owen, John – pp. 244-46 of Christologia… in Works, vol. 1

On this section, see under Muller below.

2000’s

Muller, Richard – 3. ‘The Love of the Father for the Son & the Pactum Salutis‘ in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), pp. 266-67

In this section Muller quotes John Owen to say that the eternal, intra-Trinitarian love of the Father for the Son is not through a difference of will, but rather is “a natural, necessary act of the divine essnece,” which is Love, “in its distinct personal existence.” That is, the bond and act of love between them is their indwelling each other, sharing the same essence, the Son “being begotten in the entire communication of the whole divine nature.” (Owen, Christologia in Works 1.144)

This is the same doctrine as was taught by the early and medieval Church with regard to perichoresis, as may be confirmed in that section on this page.

Jones, Mark

‘God’s Will & Eternal Submission’ (2016) at NewCityTimes

‘Subordination in the Pactum? (And the irony of ESS)’ at NewCityTimes

Quotes

1600’s

John Owen

An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews… vol. 2 ed. W.H. Goold in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 19, Preliminary Exercitations, Ex. 28, ‘Federal Transactions Between the Father & the Son’, pp. 87-88

“The will is a natural property, and therefore in the divine essence it is but one. The Father, Son, and Spirit, have not distinct wills. They are one God, and God’s will is one, as being an essential property of his nature; and therefore are there two wills in the one person of Christ, whereas there is but one will in the three persons of the Trinity…

…for such is the distinction of the persons in the unity of the divine essence, as that they act in natural and essential acts reciprocally one towards another—namely, in understanding, love, and the like; they know and mutually love each other. And as they subsist distinctly, so they also act distinctly in those works which are of external operation.

And whereas all these acts and operations, whether reciprocal or external, are either with a will or from a freedom of will and choice, the will of God in each Person, as to the peculiar acts ascribed unto Him, is his will therein peculiarly and eminently, though not exclusively to the other persons, by reason of their mutual in-being.

The will of God as to the peculiar actings of the Father in this matter is the will of the Father, and the will of God with regard unto the peculiar actings of the Son is the will of the Son; not by a distinction of sundry wills, but by the distinct application of the same will unto its distinct acts in the persons of the Father and the Son.”

1800’s

Charles Hodge

Systematic Theology

“As the essence of the Godhead is common to the several persons, they have a common intelligence, will, and power. There are not in God three intelligences, three wills, three efficiencies. The Three are one God, and therefore have one mind and will.

This intimate union was expressed in the Greek Church by the word perichoresis, which the Latin words inexistentia, inhabitatio, and intercommunio, were used to explain.”

In Relation to the Covenant of Redemption

See also our page, The Covenant of Redemption.

Article

Muller, Richard – Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: the Rise & Development of Reformed Theology, ca. 1520 – ca. 1725, vol. 4, The Triunity of God 2nd ed. (Baker Books, 2003), p. 267

2. ‘The Eternal Decree & the Election of Christ’, pp. 265-66

3. ‘The Love of the Father for the Son & the Pactum Salutis‘, pp. 266-67

Books

Woo, Hoon – The Promise of the Trinity: the Covenant of Redemption in the Theologies of Witsius, Owen, Dickson, Goodwin & Cocceius Abstract (V&R, 2018) 317 pp.

Abstract – “The doctrine formulated by Owen endorses the doctrines of inseparable operations and terminus operationis so as to give deep insight into the Trinity. In Dickson’s doctrine, the Son’s voluntary consent and obedience to the will of the Father are highly emphasized. Likewise, Goodwin’s depiction of the Holy Spirit secures the divinity of the Spirit as well as his indispensable role for the transaction and accomplishment of the pactum. The doctrine in the theology of Cocceius sheds much light on the vibrant dynamic of the Christian life in accordance with the ordo salutis.”

Yazawa, Reita – Covenant of Redemption in the Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards: The Nexus Between the Immanent Trinity & the Economic Trinity Pre (Pickwick, 2019) ToC Foreward by George Marsden

On the Less Certain Aspects of the Trinity

Quote

John Owen

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained & Vindicated, pp. 407-8 in Works ed. William H. Goold (NY: Robert Carter, 1851), vol. 2

“There are, indeed, very many other things that are taught and disputed about this doctrine of the Trinity, as: the manner of the
eternal generation of the Son, of the essence of the Father, of the rocession of the Holy Ghost, and the difference of it from the generation of the Son, of the mutual in-being of the persons, by reason of their unity in the same substance or essence, the nature of their personal subsistence, with respect unto the properties whereby they are mutually distinguished; all which are true and defensible against all the sophisms of the adversaries of this truth.

Yet, because the distinct apprehension of them, and their accurate expression, is not necessary unto faith, as it is our guide and principle in and unto religious worship and obedience, they need not here be insisted on.

Nor are those brief explications themselves before mentioned so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank or order with the original revelations before insisted on, but only are pressed as proper expressions of what is revealed, to increase our light and farther our edification.

And although they cannot rationally be opposed or denied, nor ever were by any, but such as deny and oppose the things themselves as revealed, yet they that do so deny or oppose them, are to be required positively, in the first place, to deny or disapprove the oneness of the Deity, or to prove that the Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost, in particular, are not God, before they be allowed to speak one word against the manner of the explication of the truth concerning them.

For either they grant the revelation declared and contended for, or they do not. If they do, let that concession be first laid down, namely that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God; and then let it be debated, whether they are one in substance and three in persons, or how else the matter is to be stated. If they deny it, it is a plain madness to dispute of the manner of anything, and the way of expressing it…”

That the Trinity is a Fundamental of the Faith

Articles

1600’s

Cheynell, Francis – The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit… (London, 1650)

ch. 8, ‘The Grand Mystery of Three Divine & Coessential Subsistents in the Single Godhead is Not Problematical, but Fundamental’, pp. 248-70

ch. 10,‘Christians who have a Lively Sense & Sweet Experience of this Grand Mystery of Faith & Practical Mystery of Godliness are Afraid to Hold Communion with such as Pretend to be Spiritual Christians & yet Deny the Divine Nature & Distinct Subsistences of Christ & his Holy Spirit’, pp. 417-80

Turretin, Francis – 24. ‘Is the mystery of the Trinity a fundamental article of faith? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3^rd Topic, pp. 261-65

The Trinity in Practical Godliness

Cheynell, Francis – ch. 9, ‘This Grand Mystery of Faith has an Effectual Influence into the Practical Mystery of Godliness & Power of Religion’ in The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit… (London, 1650), pp. 270-416

Heresies

Anti-Trinitarianism

Reformed Books Online

Free, Biblical, Reformed, Historic Books & Articles Online

The Trinity