et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utrumque Jesus Christus, domius noster.

From the time of Souverain (Platonismus der Kirchenväter, p. 329, ss.), most historians of doctrines have supposed that the fathers in general, and Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the Spirit. Several of the more recent investigators have also come to the same conclusion. Thus Georgii (in the work referred to above), p. 120: “This much is evident, that in Justin the relation between the Logos and the Pneuma is indefinite, in flowing lines; as in him the Spirit has little, if any, different functions from those of the Logos, so a distinction between them could not, in his view, be demanded by any dogmatic necessity, but could only be occasioned by the conflict, in which the doctrine of the Spirit, as handed down by the Fathers, stood in relation to that of the Logos." Comp. Hasselbach, ubi supra. On the other hand, Semisch and Kahnis (p. 238, sq.) have tried to defend the Martyr against this objection. One of the principal passages 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 there speaks of the πvεvμа in Luc. i. 35; and it can not be inferred that he always identifies the Logos with the Spirit. But still there is here this confounding of the two; and it can not be explained by saying that the Spirit means spiritual nature in general, nor by assuming that the Logos forms the body for himself in the womb of Mary. And when Tertullian, Adv. Prax. c. 26, uses similar expressions, this goes to prove that other fathers besides Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinctness. 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. (Only it should not be forgotten that, even in the biblical usage, the distinction is not held with sharp doctrinal consistency.) The confusion of agencies leads to a (relative) confounding of the Persons. That Justin (in opposition to the baptismal formula and the common confession of the church) formally put a dyas (two persons) in place of the triad, can not be justly alleged; for he himself in other passages names the Father, Son, and Spirit (Apol. I. 6, 20, 66), and assigns the third place to the Spirit (comp. 646): "but still it is none the less true, that his philosophical principles, logically carried out, lead only to a dyas, and that he could not doctrinally establish the difference between the Son and the Spirit," Duncker, u. s. 38. There is unquestionably a real confusion in 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. Comp. the passage in Note 3, above.

Justin M. incidentally calls the Holy Ghost simply dopeá, 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, Church History, and History of Doctrines, p. 172 (Ryland's translation); Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 773,

ss.; the latter essay was written in opposition to Möhler, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1833, part i. p. 49, ss. (comp. § 50, below). Athenagoras calls the Holy Spirit á óppola, Leg. c. 10 and 24, comp. Kahnis, p. 245. In general, there are many passages in the fathers, "which bring the Holy Spirit very near to the creature;" Kahnis, p. 249.

6

* 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: Spiritus S. tertium nomen divinitatis et tertius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is assigned to the Spirit, when he is considered as-Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, Præscr. 28: comp. Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 14. 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 things, though distinguished from all other creatures by divine dignity: Ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα, τὸ πάν των 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: Ovк атолоν dè καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τρέφεσθαι λέγειν. Nevertheless, there is an infinite chasm 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, Redep. p. 123), 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; though afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc., blamed him for maintaining this opinion; comp. Epiphan, 64, 5, Hieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94, quoted by Münscher, ed by Cölln, p. 194. Schnitzer, p. 43. Neander, History of Church (by Torrey), i. p. 593. Thomasius, p. 144, ss. (Redepenning, Origenes, ii. p. 309, sq., and the other passages there adduced. [Burton, 1. c. p. 89.]

§ 45.

THE TRIAD.

[The works of Dorner, Baur, Meier, and Burton, previously referred to. D. Waterland's. Works, new ed. Oxford, 1842, vols. ii. and iii. G. S. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 vols. Lond. 1832. William Jones (of Nayland) Works, new ed. 1826, vol. i. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. W. Berrimann, Historical Account. 1725. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, and his Judicium Eccl. Cath.; Works by Burton, 8 vols. 1846.]

The doctrine of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the doctrine of primitive Christianity,' but has in the New Test. a bearing only upon the Christian economy, without any pretension to speculative significance, and therefore cannot be rightly under

stood 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 belonged to the Regula fidei, even apart from any speculative development of the doctrine of the Logos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles' creed, in this historico-epic form, without being summed up in a unity. The Greek word Tolás was first used by Theophilus ; the Latin term trinitas, of a more comprehensive doctrinal import, is found in Tertullian.‘

1 Matth. xxviii. 19 (if the baptismal formula be genuine); 1 Cor. vii. 4–6 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, de Wette's biblische Dogmatik, § 238, 267, and especially 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.] Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 118, and Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 130, also distinguish correctly the practical element of the doctrine and its relation to the economy of the divine dispensations, from its speculative construction. [Neander : "This doctrine of God, the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of humanity in Christ was essential to the Christian consciousness, and therefore has existed from the beginning in the Christian church."]

* On this account some of the more recent writers on doctrinal theology, as Schleiermacher and Hase (2d ed. p. 626) handle the Trinity at the end of the system. A purely economic view of the doctrine is found in Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 9, where he says, "We are raised on high to the Father by the cross of Christ, as by an elevating engine, the Holy Spirit being the rope"-a massive, but striking comparison. See above § 44.

Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15: Αἱ τρεῖς ἡμέραι [πρό] τῶν φωστήρων γεγ ονυῖαι 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 rpias, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity; for as avoрwπоç is mentioned as the fourth term, it is evident that the Tρiàs can not be taken here as a perfect whole, consisting of three joined in one; besides, the term σοφία is used instead of τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Comp. Suicer, Thesaurus s. v. Tpiás, where the passage from the (spurious) treatise of Justin, De Expositione Fidei, p. 379, is cited (Movàs yàp Ev тpiádi voet̃tai kai Tpias év povádi yvwpíšεTαι K. T. 2.); this passage, however, proves as little τριὰς μονάδι γνωρίζεται cencerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise piλóraTpic erroneously ascribed to Lucian, from which passages are cited. Clem. Strom. iv. 7, p. 588, knows a dyía тpiás, but in an anthropological sense (faith, love, hope). On the terminology of Origen, comp. Thomasius, p. 285. [Comp. Burton, 1. c. p. 34–36, where the subject is treated at great length.]

Tertullian De Pudic. c. 21: Nam et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est Trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus S.; accordingly, the Holy Spirit is the principle which constitutes the unity

of the persons; or (according to Schwegler, Montanism, p. 171), the spiritual substance common to the persons; comp. Adv. Praxeam, 2 and 3. [Burton, 1. c. p. 68, ss.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this usage. Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism). Novat. de Trinitate. [Burton, 1. c. p. 107-109; p. 116-123.]

§ 46.

MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION.

The strict distinction which was drawn between the hypostases (persons) in the Trinity, led, in the first instance, to that system of Subordination, in which the Son was made inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son ;' which system also carried with it the appearance of tritheism. The orthodox were obliged to clear themselves from all appearance of tritheism, in opposition to the Monarchians, who abandoned the personal distinctions in order to hold fast the unity of the Godhead, and thus exposed themselves to the charge of confounding the persons (Patripassianism), or even to the imputation of a heretical tendency denying the divinity of Christ. Origen now carried to such an extreme the system of hypostases, including the subordination scheme, that orthodoxy itself threatened to run over into heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian controversy in the following period.

1 Justin M., Apol. i. c. 13 :. . ...υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ μαθόντες (scil. τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χῶρα ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προOηTIKÒV EV TPÍTη táže, comp. i. 6, and i. 60. There are also passages in the writings of Irenæus which appear favorable to the idea of subordination, e. g., Adv. Hær. ii. 28, 6, 8; v. 18, 2: Super omnia quidem pater. et ipse est caput Christi; but elsewhere he represents the Logos as wholly God, and no subordinate being (comp. § 42, note 9). "It can not be denied that Irenæus here contradicts himself, and it would be a useless labor to remove this contradiction by artificial interpretation." Duncker, p. 56; comp. p. 70, ss. Dorner, p. 409, ss. Tert. Advers. Prax. c. 2: Tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie: unius autem substantiæ et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formæ et species in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur. Comp. c. 4, ss.

2 Thus Justin M. says, Dial. cum Tryph. c. 56: The Father and the Son are distinct, not yvóun, but ȧpioμ; and Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 10), from the proposition that, if I have a wife, it does not necessarily follow that I am the wife herself, draws the conclusion that, if God has a Son, he is not the Son himself. He repels the charge of Tritheism, Adv. Prax. 3: Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim impudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus Diis seculi ad unicum

3

et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua aconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad economiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis, divisionem præsumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius Dei cultores præsumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresin faciat, et trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Comp. c. 13 and 22, where he expressly appeals to the point, that Christ did not say that he and the Father were one (unus, masculine), but one (unum, neuter), and he refers this unity to a moral relation-the dilectio patris and the obsequium filii. In the same way Novat. De Trin. 22: Unum enim, non unus esse dicitur, quoniam nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur......Unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem, et per dilectionem. [Burton, 1. c. p. 120, 121.] He also appeals to Apollos and Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 8: qui autem plantat et qui rigat, unum sunt. Concerning the different classes of Unitarians, comp. § 24, and § 42.* It is self-evident, that all who held Christ to be a mere man could know nothing of any Trinity. These may be called deistico-rationalistic Antitrinitarians; God in his abstract unity was, in their view, so remote from the world, and confined to his heaven, that there was no abode for him even in Christ. Widely different were those who, apprehensive of lessening the dig nity of Christ, taught that God himself had assumed humanity in him, but did not think it necessary to suppose the existence of a particular hypostasis. The name modalistic Antitrinitarians would be more appropriate in their case (thus Heinichen, de Alogis, p. 34); or, if the relation of God to Christ be compared to that in which he stands to the world, they might be called pantheistic Antitrinitarians, for they imagined God, as it were, expanded or extended into the person of Christ. Among their number are Praxeas and Beryllus, the forerunners of Sabellius, the former of whom was combated by Tertullian, the latter by Origen. The opinion of Praxeas, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same (ipsum eundemque esse), which virtually amounted to the latter duoovolos, was interpreted by Tertullian as implying, ipsum patrum passum esse, Adv. Prax. c. 20, 29, whence the heretical appellation Patripassiani. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 103, p. 588, and Testim. of the Antenic. Fathers to the Trinity, etc., p. 68-83. Neander, 1. c. ii. p. 260-262.] Philastr. Hær. 65. The views of Noëtus were similar: Theod. Fab. Hær. iii. 3 : Ἕνα φασὶν εἶναι θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν, ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα ἂν βού ληται· καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννη τον· ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι ἠθέλησε· ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνατον, καί πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ θνητόν. Απαθὴς

*Origen already distinguishes two classes of Monarchians; the one spoke of Jesus merely as a pracognitum et prædestinatum hominem, while the other class taught the divinity of Christ, but identified the divinity of the Son with that of the Father. See Origen Epist. ad Tit. fragm. ii. ed. Lommatzsch, Tom v., in Neander's Hist. of Dogmas (Ryland's transl.), p. 149, note.