§ 95.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONCLUDED.

The more accurately the Divinity both of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son was defined, the more important it became, first, exactly to determine the relation in which the different persons stand to the Godhead in general, and to each other in particular, and, secondly, to settle the ecclesiastical terminology. Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa in the Greek, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo the Great in the Latin church, exerted the greatest influence upon the formation of the said terminology. According to it the word ouoia (essentia, substantia) denotes what is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the abstract; the word oras (persona) signifies the individual, concrete.1) Each person, possesses some peculiarity (oorns), by which it is distinguished from the other persons, notwithstanding the existing sameness of essence. Thus underived existence (ayennoia) belongs to the Father, generation (yes) to the Son, and procession (IXTÓZEUGIE,

Ts) to the Holy Spirit.(2) Since Augustine rejected all the distinctions which had been formerly made between the different persons, and referred to the one God that which had been predicated before his time of the separate persons, he could not entirely avoid the appearance of Sabellianism.(3) Boëthius and others adopt

ed his views on this point.(+)

(1) The writers of this period avoided the use of the term góow, which would have corresponded more exactly to the Latin word "persona," while briora; means literally substantia, lest it might lead to Sabellianism; but they sometimes confounded ὑπόστασις with ουσία, and occasionally used φύσις instead of the latter. This was done e. g. by Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. xxiii. 11, p. 431. xxxiii. 16, p. 614. xiii. 11, p. 431. Ep. 1,

ad Cledonium p. 739. ed. Lips, quoted by Ullmann, p. 355, note 1, and p. 356, note 1. Gregory also sometimes attaches the same meaning to ὑπόστασις and to πρόσωπον, though he prefers the use of the latter, Orat. xx. 6, p. 379. Ullmann, p. 356, note 3. This distinction is most accurately defined by Basil, Ep. 236. 6. (quoted by Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 242, 243.): Obaia de nai ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν, ἢν ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθ ̓ ἕκαστον. οἷον ὡς ἔχει τὸ ζῶον πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα ἄνθρωπον. Διὰ τοῦτο οὐσίαν μὲν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς Θεότητος ὁμολογοῦμεν, ὥστε τὸν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον μὴ διαφόρως ἀποδιδόναι, ὑπόστα σιν δὲ ἰδιάζουσαν, ἵν' ἀσύγχυτος ἡμῖν καὶ τετρανωμένη ἡ περὶ Πατρὸς παὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἔννοια ἐνυπάρχη κ. τ. λ. Comp. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix. 11, p. 530. Ullmann, p. 355, note 3, and Orat. xlii. 16, p. 759, quoted by Ullmann, p. 356, note 3, where the distinction between ouría and órans is prominently brought forward.

(2) Greg. Naz. Orat. xli. 9 : Πάντα ὅσα ὁ πατὴς, τοῦ υἱοῦ, πλὴν τῆς ἀγεννησίας· πάντα ὅσα ὁ υἱὸς, τοῦ πνεύματος, πλὴν τῆς γεννήσεως κ. τ. λ. Orat. xxv. 16 : Ιδιον δὲ πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, πνεύμα τος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις, but the terms ἰδιότης and ὑπόστασις were sometimes used synonymously, e. g. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxiii. 16, p. 614. Ullmann, p. 357.

(3) Augustinus contra serm. Arian. c. 2, no. 4, (Opp. T. viii.): Unus quippe Deus et ipsa trinitas et sic unus Deus, quomodo unus creator. He referred the appearances of the Deity, which were formerly ascribed to the Logos alone, to the whole Trinity. In support of his view, he appeals to the three men who appeared to Abraham, de trin. ii. 18. He also thinks that the mission of the Son is not only a work of the Father, but of the whole Trinity. The Father alone is not sent, because he is unbegotten (comp. the passages quoted by Meier, i. p. 206, ss.) The distinctions between the persons are, in his opinion, not distinctions of nature, but of relation. But he is aware that we have no appropriate language to denote those distinctions, de trinit. v. 10: Quum quæritur, quid tres, magna prorsus inopia humanum laborat eloquium. Dictum est tamen: tres personæ, non ut illud diceretur, sed re taceretur. The persons are not to be regarded as species, for we do not say, tres equi are unum animal, but tria animalia. He brings his views concerning the Trinity into connection with anthropology, but by comparing the three persons with the memoria, intellectus, and voluntas of man (1. c. ix. 11; x. 10. 18; xv. 7,) he evidently borders upon Sabellianism, and would lead us to suppose that he believed in

mere modes of manifestation, instead of persons. On the other hand, he directs our attention to the practico-religious importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, by reminding us of the true nature of love without envy, de trin. ix. 2: Cum aliquid amo, tria sunt; ego et quod amo et ipse amor. Non enim amo amorem, nisi amantem amem: nam non est amor, ubi nihil amatur. Tria ergo sunt: amans et quod amatur et (mutuus) amor. Quid si non amem nisi meipsum, nonne duo erant, quod amo et amor? Amans enim et quod amatur, hoc idem est, quando se ipse amat. Sicut amare et amari, eodem modo id ipsum est, cum se quisque amat. Eadem quippe res bis dicitur, cum dicitur: amat se et amatur a se. Tunc enim non est aliud atque aliud amare et amari, sicut non est alius atque alius amans et amatus. At vero amor et quod amatur etiam sic duo sunt. Non enim cum quisque se amat, amor est, nisi cum amatur ipse amor. autem amare se, aliud est amare amorem suum. amatur amor, nisi jam aliquid amans, quia ubi nihil amatur, nullus est amor. Duo ergo sunt, cum se quisque amat, amor et quod amatur. Tunc enim amans et quod amatur unum est... Amans quippe ad amorem refertur et amor ad amantem. Amans enim aliquo amore amat, et amor alicujus amantis est... Retracto amante nullus est amor, et retracto amore nullus est amans. Ideoque quantum ad invicem referuntur, duo sunt. Quod autem ad se ipsa dicuntur, et singula spiritus, et simul utrumque unus spiritus, et singula mens et simul utrumque una mens. Cf. lib. xv.

Aliud est Non enim

(4) Boëthius, de trin. (ad Symmach.) c. 2: Nulla igitur in eo (Deo) diversitas, nulla ex diversitate pluralitas, nulla ex accidentibus multitudo, atque idcirco nec numerus. Cap. 3: Deus vero a Deo nullo differt, ne vel accidentibus, vel substantialibus differentiis in subjecto positis distat ; ubi vero nulla est differentia, nulla est omnino pluralitas; quare nec numerus; igitur unitas tantum. Nam quod tertio repetitur, Deus; quum Pater et Filius et Spir. S. nuncupatur, tres unitates non faciunt pluralitatem numeri in eo quod ipsæ sunt...Non igitur si de Patre et Filia et Spir. S. tertio prædicatur Deus, idcirco trina prædicatio numerum facit...Cap. 6: Facta quidem est trinitatis numerositas in eo quod est prædicatio relationis; servata vero unitas in eo quod est indifferentia vel substantiæ vel operationis vel omnino ejus, quæ secundum se dicitur, prædicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet unitatem, relatio multiplicat trinitatem, atque ideo sola sigillatim proferuntur atque separatim quæ relationis sunt;

nam idem Pater qui Filius non est, nec idem uterque qui Spir. S. Idem tamen Deus est, Pater et Filius et Spir. S., idem justus, idem bonus, idem magnus, idem omnia, quæ secundum se poterunt prædicari. Boëthius falls into gross Sabellian errors, by drawing an illustration from the pantheistic use of these terms: gladius, mucro, ensis, to denote one and the same thing, see Baur, Dreieinigkeitsl. ii. p. 34. The orthodox doctrine of the western church is expressed in very concise formulas by Leo the Great, e. g. sermo LXXV. 3: Non alia sunt Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed omnia quæcunque habet Pater, habet et Filius, habet et Spiritus S.; nec unquam in illa trinitate non fuit ista communio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere, LXXV. 1, 2: Sempiternum est Patri, coæterni sibi Filii esse genitorem. Sempiternum est Filio, intemporaliter a Patre esse progenitum. Sempiternum quoque est Spiritui Sancto Spiritum esse Patris et Filii: ut nunquam Pater sine Filio, nunquam Filius sine Patre, nunquam Pater et Filius fuerint sine Spiritu Sancto, et omnibus existentiæ gradibus exclusis, nulla ibi persona sit anterior, nulla posterior. Hujus enim beatæ trinitatis incommutabilis deitas una est in substantia, indivisa in opere, concors in voluntate, par in potentia, æqualis in gloria. Other passages are quoted by Perthel, Leo der Grosse, p. 138, 88.

§ 96.

TRITHEISM, TETRATHEISM.

In keeping the three persons in the Godhead distinctly separate, much caution was needed, lest the idea of oùsía, which refers to a unity, should be taken as a generic term, and made to embrace the ras as the species. This would necessarily have given rise to the notion of three Gods. But that error had also to be guarded against, by which God as such (ar) was distinguished from, and represented as superior to, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the latter case there would have been the appearance of four persons, or even four gods. Tritheites,(1) and Tetratheites,(2) indeed, are found in the catalogue of heretical teachers, though many of the charges

brought forward against them are founded on false inferences.

(1) To the Tritheites belonged John Coscusnages of Constantinople, and John Philoponus of Alexandria. The former, when examined by the Emperor Justinian concerning his faith, is said to have acknowledged one nature of the incarnate Christ, but asserted three natures and deities in the Trinity. The Tritheites Conon and Eugenius are said to have made the same assertions. The opinion of Philoponus can be seen from a fragment, (ATYrás) preserved by John Damascenus (de hæresib. c. 83, p. 101, SS. Phot. bibl. cod. 75. Niceph. xviii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. 251.) In his view the punc is the genus which comprehends species of the same nature. The term being and nature are identical, the term oras, or person, denotes the separate real existence of nature, that which the philosophers of the peripatetic school call arouov, because there the distinction between genus and species ceases to exist. Comp. Scharfenberg, J. G., de Jo. Philopono, Tritheismi defensore, Lips. 1768, (Comm. th. ed. Velthusen, etc. T. i.) and Trechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken 1835, part ss. Meier, 1. c. i. p. 195, ss.

ང

p.

95,

(2) The leader of the Tetratheites was Damianus, the Monophysite (Severian) patriarch of Constantinople. In his controversy with Peter of Callinico, patriarch of Antioch, he maintained that the Father is another, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another, but that none of them is God as such; they possess the Divine nature only in common, and each is God in so far as he participates in it. They were also called Damianites or Angelites (from the city of Angelium.) Comp. Niceph. xiii. 49. Schröckh, xviii. p. 624. Münscher von Cölln, p. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 364. Meier, i. p. 198.

§ 97.

SYMBOLUM QUICUNQUE.

J. G. Vossius, de tribus Symbolis, Amstel. 1642. Diss. ii. Waterland, Dan. Critical history of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge, 1724. 28. 8. Dennis, John the Athanasian Creed, 1815. Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 249, 50. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. 12. 4. 231. ii. 124. The doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity ap