66

divisio possit intelligi. The will of man proceeds from his reason, but the one cannot be separated from the other in a similar manner we may imagine that the Son proceeds from the Father, but both are inseparable." (This illustration, though more abstract, is less vivid than that taken from the human word, § 42, note 3.)

(5) On the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father was the necessary consequence of a rigid adherence to the idea of a hypostasis, (comp. § 46.) On the other, the scriptural expression, vids rou to which is applied to Christ in his human nature, i. e. as the Messiah," was so confounded with the same term as used by the schoolmen, that the human and the Divine natures of the Son of God were not always distinctly separated. This gave rise to new controversies; comp. however, Dorner, Christologie, p. 42. He thinks that the doctrine of subordination was merely resorted to, "for the purpose of substituting several Divine hypostases for the very vague and indefinite opinions which were entertained respecting the distinctive characteristics of the different persons in the Godhead.”

& 44.

THE HOLY GHOST.

Keil, ob die altesten Lehrer einen Unterschied zwischen Sohn und Vater gekannt? in Flatts Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, vol. iv. p. 34, ss. [Burton, E., Testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers to the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, (Works, ii.) comp. the Introduct. where the literature is given.] Georgii, dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen über die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M. in the Studien der Geistlichkeit Würtembergs, x. 2, p. 69, ss. Hasselbach, in the theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1839, 2. p. 376, ss.

The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost was considered important from the practical point of view, both in reference to the inspiration of the prophets, (in the more comprehensive sense of the word), and to the witness

a" The more I endeavour to realize the manner of thinking and speaking current in the New Testament, the more I feel myself called upon to give it as my decided opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, cannot be called God, without completely destroying the monotheistical system of the Apostles." Lücke, Studien und Kritiken, 1840, i. p. 91.

which he bears in the hearts of men.(1) Those theologians, however, who, going beyond the Trinity of revelation, (i. e. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), endeavoured to comprehend and define the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the relation in which he stands to the Father and the Logos, involved themselves in great difficulties. Some applying the term

ayo to what is called wisdom by the Old Testament writers, on the foundation of which, the doctrine of the Logos had been developed, made a distinction between the Wisdom and the Logos ;(2) others identified the Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague and indefinite manner respecting their distinguishing characteristics;(3) in the writings of others, again, the idea of personality is more or less lost sight of, and the Holy Ghost appears as a mere quality, or a Divine gift and effect. (4) But the desire of bringing the doctrine of the Trinity to a conclusion led gradually to more definite views on the personality of the Holy Ghost (in distinction from the Logos.)(5)

The writings of the Apostolical Fathers contain nothing definite and connected relative to the nature of the Spirit. Justin M. makes, in particular, mention of the veμa gopixò, (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in his Apology, nine times in Trypho. See Semish, II. p. 332, note), while he does not speak of the influence which he continues to exert upon believers, (ibid. p. 329.) On the contrary, Irenæus, iii. 24. 1, calls the Holy Ghost the communitas Christi, confirmatio fidei nostræ, scala ascensionis ad Deum, comp. iii. 17; v. 6; v. 10. and § 71. At the same time, he considers him the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distinction between the principle which animates and inspires, and that animation and inspiration itself, adv. Hær. v. 12. 2 : Ετερόν ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν...... ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὴν τοῦ ποιήσαντος, ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον

(2) Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7: '0 de Seòç diά roû λóyóu aurou xai rñs 60φίας ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα ; here σοφία is either synonymous with λόγος, or forms the second member; in the former case, there would.

be no mention of the Spirit whatever; in the latter he would be identical with Gopia; and this agrees better with ii. 15., where 9, Aoyos and oopia are said to compose the Trinity, comp. § 45. Iren. iv. 20. p. 253: Adest enim ei (Deo) semper verbum et sapientia, Filius et Spiritus......ad quos et loquitur, dicens: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; and again: Deus omnia verbo fecit et sapientia adornavit. [Burton, 1. c. p. 49-51.] comp. iv. 7. p. 236: Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, i. e. Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Tert. adv. Prax. c. 6: Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea quæ cum Sophiæ ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque disposita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et tenerentur. Comp. cap. 7. and de orat, i. ab in. itio Dei Spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utrumque Jesus Christus, dominus

noster.

(3) From the time of Souverain (Platonismus der Kirchenväter, p. 329, ss.), most theologians have supposed that the Fathers in general, and Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the Spirit. Modern researches have, in the opinion of some, led to the same result. Semisch, however, has endeavoured to clear Justin from the charge in question. The principal passage bearing upon this question is, Apol. I. 33: Τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις, ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, comp. c. 36. He indeed speaks there of the vμa Luc. i. 35. from which it cannot be inferred that he always identifies the Logos with the Spirit ; nevertheless it cannot be denied that in this place at least he confounds the two. Tertullian, adv. Prax. c. 26. uses similar expressions, which go to prove that other Fathers beside Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinction. The same is true as regards the manner in which Justin ascribes the inspiration of the prophets, sometimes to the Logos, sometimes to the Pneuma, Apol. I. 36, and elsewhere. On the other hand, there are places in which the Son and Spirit are more distinctly separated, Apol. I. 6; I. 13; I. 60. Comp. Theophilus, ad Aut. II.

c. 10 : Οὗτος (ὁ λόγος) ὢν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ δι' αὐτῶν ἐλάλει τὰ περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων· οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ προφῆται, ὅτε ὁ κόσμος ἐγίνετο· ἀλλὰ ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ οὖσα ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἅγιος αὐτοῦ, ὁ ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ.

(4) Justin M. calls the Holy Ghost simply dwgsa, Coh. ad græc. c. 32, though he assigns to him (Apol. i. 6.) the third place in the Trinity. On the question: what relation was the Holy Spirit thought to sustain to the angels? comp. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. p. 1040. Studien und Kritken, 1833, p. 773, ss. the latter essay was written in opposition to Möhler, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1833, part i. p. 49, ss.

(5) Tert. adv. Prax. 8: Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio, Ibid. 30: Spir.S. tertium nomen divinitatis et tertius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is officially assigned to the Spirit, Præscr. 28. Origen, Comm. in Joh. T. ii. 6. Opp. T. iv. p. 60, 61, acknowledges the personality of the Holy Spirit, but subordinates him to both the Father and the Son, by the latter of whom he is created, like all other creatures, though sufficiently distinguished from them by his Divine nature : Ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πατρὸς είναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα τὸ πάντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου γενομένων, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πάντων εἶναι τιμιώτερον, καὶ τάξει πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Χριστοῦ γεγενημένων. [Burton, 1. c. p. 99, ss.] Comp. T. xiii. 25. p. 234; and 34. p. 244: Oix äтоTOV BE καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τρέφεσθαι λέγειν. Nevertheless, there is a great difference between the Spirit of God, and other spirits created by God, comp. Comm. in ep. ad. Rom. vii. Opp. iv. p. 593. But in another passage, (which is extant only in the translation of Rufinus, de princ. i. 3. 3. Opp. i. 1. p. 61.) Origen says, that he had not as yet met with any passage in the Sacred Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit was called a created being. It is remarkable, that afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc. blamed him on account of this same assertion, comp. Epiphan. 64. 5. Hieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94. quoted by Münscher ed. by Cölln, p. 194. Schnitzer, p. 43. Neander, i. 3. p. 1040. Thomasius, p. 144, ss. (where other passages are adduced.) [Burton, 1. c. p. 89.]

§ 45.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

[Burton, E., Testimonies of the Anten. Fath. to the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, (Works, ii.) Berrimann, W., An Historical Account of the Controversies that have been in the Church concerning the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever- Blessed Trinity, in eight Sermons. Lond. 1725.]

The doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is the doctrine of primitive Christianity, (1) but has in the New Test. a bearing only upon the Christian economy, without any pretension to speculative significance, and therefore cannot be rightly understood but in intimate connection with the history of Jesus, and the work which he accomplished. Accordingly, the belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was considered as an essential part of the Regula fidei, even apart from every speculative developement of the doctrine of the Logos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles' creed, in this historico-epic form, without any further allusion to the unity of the Deity. The Greek words was first used by Theophilus; (2) the Latin term trinitas, which has a more comprehensive doctrinal import, was introduced by Tertullian. (3)

(1) Matth. xxviii. 19, (if the baptismal formula be genuine); 1 Cor. xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. xiii. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, de Wette's biblische Dogmatik, § 238, 267, Lücke in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, 1. part. [Pye Smith, the Script. Testim. to the Messiah, iii. p. 13, ss. ; iii. p. 258, ss.; Knapp. 1. c. p. 119, ss., 132, ss.]

(2) Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15: Ai rges nuigai [gd] Twv pworźgwv γεγονυῖαι, τύποι εἰσὶν τῆς τριάδος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ. Τετάρτῳ δὲ τύπῶ [τόπῳ] ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὁ προσδεὴς τοῦ φωτὸς, ἵνα ᾖ θεὸς, λόγος, σοφία, ἄνθρωπος. Here we have indeed the word τριάς, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity; for as gwas is mentioned in the fourth place, it is evident that the rgias can not be taken here as a perfect whole consisting of three persons