essence (homoidusianism) was adapted to satisfy the mind, when, among other things, he calls to mind that many things may be of similar nature without having sprung from each other (as silver and tin, a wolf and a dog); De Synod. § 41. The Semi-Arians, with the Arians, maintained that the Son was created from the will of the Father; the opposite of this appeared to them to be mere compulsion or force. In reply, Athanasius held up the idea of an internal necessity, founded in the very nature of God, to which the category of force does not apply. He compared the relation to that of the shining of the light. Orat. contr. Ar. ii. 2. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 311. Neander, Dg. 311. [Voigt on Athanasius and the Immanent Trinity, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. Baur, Dogmengesch. s. 165, says of the Semi-Arians, that they had a half-way position, reducing the absolute ideas of the two parties to indeterminate terms, and running back into the old subordination and emanation views.]

(7) The opinions of Marcellus (who died about the year 374) are derived partly from the fragments of his treatise against Asterius (de Subjectione Domini, edited by Rettberg, under the title "Marcelliana," Gött. 1791), partly from the writings of his opponents, Eusebius (Kaтà Mapκéλλov, lib. ii., and περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv. 27, 33), and partly from his own letter to Julius, Bishop of Rome (Epiph. Hær. 72, 2). The earlier writers are divided in their opinions concerning the orthodoxy of Marcellus: the language of Athanasius is very mild and cautious (dià Toû πρoσáπov peidiáσas, Epiph. Hær. 72, 4), though he does not directly approve of his sentiments. Basil the Great, on the other hand (according to Epiphanius, 69, 2, and 263, 5), and most of the other Eastern bishops, insisted upon his condemnation; most of the later writers considered him a heretic, comp. Montfaucon, Diatribe de Causa Marcelli Ancyrani (in Collect. Nova Patr. 1707, t. ii. p. li.); Klose, s. 21-25; Gieseler, Kg. ii. 1, s. 51, Anm. Marcellus had formerly defended the term oμoovoios at the Council of Nicæa. When, in the course of the controversy, and of his opposition to the Arian sophist Asterius, he seemed to lean more towards Sabellianism, this may have occurred without his being directly conscious of it; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. s. 277,

278. [Ueber die Orthodoxie des Marc., von F. A. Willenberg, Münster 1859.] Concerning the doctrine itself, Marcellus returned to the old distinction made between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and πρopoρikós; he imagined, on the one hand, that the Xoyos was ovxátov in God, and, on the other, that it was an ἐνέργεια δραστική proceeding from Him. Inasmuch as he maintains the reality of the Logos (whom he does not consider to be a mere name), in opposition to the Sabellian view of a τριὰς ἐκτεινομένη καὶ συστελλομένη, and rejects the idea of generation adopted by the Council of Nicæa (because it seemed to him to infringe upon the Godhead of the Logos), he occupies an intermediate position between the one and the other. He also endeavoured to reintroduce the older historical signification of the phrase viòs Ocoû, as applying to the personal manifestation of the historical Christ, and not to the pre-existence of the Logos, to whom the idea of generation cannot be applied. He consequently referred the biblical phrases, Col. i. 15, and the like, in which Christ is spoken of as the image of God, to the incarnate Logos; so, too, the πρWτÓTOKOS TÁσns kтiσews; comp. Neander, Dg. s. 315. His disciple Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (to whom his opponents, with poor wit, gave the nickname ΣKOTEIós), adopted similar views, but carried them to a much greater extent; he died about the year 376. His doctrine was condemned in the aforesaid formula paкρóστixos, and again at the Council of Milan (A.D. 346). He himself was dismissed from his office by the Council of Sirmium (A.D. 351). The sect of the Photinians, however, continued to exist till the reign of Theodosius the Great. From what has been said concerning him by Athan. de Syn. § 26, Socrat. ii. 19, Epiph. Hær. 70, Hilary (Fragm. and De Synodis), Marius Mercator (Nestorii Sermo IV.), and Vigil. Tapsens. (Dialogus), it cannot be fully ascertained how far Photinus either adhered to the principles of his master or deviated from them. Comp. on this point, Münscher, Handbuch, iii. s. 447. Neander, Kg. ii. 2, s. 908, 425. Baumgarten-Crusius, s. 279. Gieseler, 1.c. Hase, Kg. (6 Auf.), s. 116. Klose, s. 66 ff. He too asserted the coeternity of the Logos (but not of the and employed the term λoyomáτwp to denote their unity, as Subellius had used the word vioπáτwр. He applied the name

Son) with the Father,

The only differ

"Son of God" only to the incarnate Christ. ence between Marcellus and Photinus probably was that the latter developed the negative aspect of Christology more than his master, and consequently considered the connection of the Logos with the historical Christ to be less intimate. Hence his followers were called Homuncionita (according to Mar. Mercator, quoted by Klose, s. 76). Thus Photinus corresponds more with Paul of Samosata, and Marcellus with Sabellius. So, too, Photinus viewed the pre-existence of Christ in a merely ideal way, referring it (as the Socinians afterwards. did) to predestination. In these controversies it is very striking, as Münscher has said, "that theologians then but little understood the distinction made by Marcellus and Photinus between the terms LOGOS and SON OF GOD. In refuting their opponents, they invariably confounded these expressions, and thus might easily draw dangerous and absurd inferences from their propositions. But, at the same time, it is evident that their own arguments would take a wrong direction, and thus lose the greatest part of their force," Münscher, Handbuch, 1.c. Comp., however, Dorner, i. 3, s. 864 ff. Baur, Trinit. i. s. 525 ff. Meier, i. s. 160 ff., especially on the transverse relations in which Photinus stood to his teacher in respect to Christology. [Baur, Dogmengesch. s. 168: "Marcellus distinguishes the Son from the Logos, and makes the Logos itself to be both quiescent and active; the Sonship of the Logos has both a beginning and an end. The doctrine of Marcellus is partly Arian and partly Sabellian. With Arianism he sundered God and the world as far as possible. The doctrine of Paulinus is the same, excepting that, like Paul of Samosata and Arius, he adopted the view that the human Christ was deified by means of His moral excellences."]

$ 93.

Godhead of the Holy Spirit.

[Kahnis, Gesch. d. Lehre vom Heiligen Geiste. Burton, Test. of Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, 1831 (Works, vol. ii.). Hare's (Archd.) Mission of the Comforter, 2d ed. 1851. Gaume, Traité du Saint Esprit, 2 vols. var. ed. Swete, Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Camb. 1873.]

The Nicene Creed decided nothing concerning the Holy Spirit (1). While Lactantius still identified the Word with the Spirit (2), other theologians regarded the Spirit as a mere divine power or gift, or at least did not venture to determine His nature in any more definite way, though accustomed to teach the Godhead of the Son in unequivocal terms (3). But Athanasius correctly inferred from his premises the Godhead of the Holy Spirit (4), and was followed by Basil, surnamed the Great, as well as by Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa (5). At last the Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 381), influenced by Gregory of Nazianzus, adopted more precise doctrinal definitions concerning the Holy Spirit, especially in opposition to the Macedonians (πvevμaтoμáxovs) (6). Though the term oμooúσios itself was not applied to the Spirit in the canons of this council, yet, by determining that He proceeds from the Father, they prepared the way for further definitions, in which honour and power, equal in every respect to those of the Father and the Son, were ascribed to Him (7).

(1) The opposition to Arius would necessarily lead to more precise definitions; for Arius (according to Athan. Orat. 1, §6) maintained that the Spirit stood as far below the Sou as the Son was below the Father, and that He was the first of the creatures made by the Son. But it did not appear wise to complicate the matter in question still more by contending about the Godhead of the Spirit, since many of the Nicene Fathers, who consented that the term ópoovaios should be applied to the Son, would not have so easily admitted it in reference to the Spirit. See Neander, Kg. ii. 2, s. 892.

(2) See above, § 87, note 1.

(3) There were here again two ways-the one falling back into Sabellianism, the other a continuation of Arianism. Lactantius, on the one hand, separated the Son from the Father (after the manner of the Arians); and, on the other, confounded the Spirit with the Son (as the Sabellians did). Some writers followed the same course, while others ascribed a distinct personality to the Spirit, but asserted that He was subordinate to both the Father and the Son (the Arian view).

Gregory of Nazianzus gives a summary of the different views entertained in his time in the fifth of his theological orations, which was composed about the year 380 (De Spir. S. Orat. xxxi. p. 539): "Some of the wise men amongst us regard the Holy Spirit as an energy (évépyeta), others think that He is a creature, some again that He is God Himself, and, lastly, there are some who do not know what opinion to adopt, from reverence, as they say, for the sacred Scriptures, because they do not teach anything definite on this point." Eustathius of Sebaste belonged to this latter class. He said in reference to the Macedonian controversy (Socr. ii. 45): 'Eyà OUTE Oεòv ὀνομάζειν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αἱροῦμαι, οὔτε κτίσμα καλεῖν Tоλμnσaμ. Comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz. s. 380. Neander, Kg. ii. 2, s. 892. Eusebius of Cæsarea was the more willing to subordinate the Spirit to both the Father and the Son, as he was disposed to admit the subordination of the Son to the Father. He thinks that the Spirit is the first of all rational beings, but belongs nevertheless to the Trinity, De Theol. Eccles. iii. 3, 5, 6. Hilary was satisfied that that which searcheth the deep things of God must be itself divine, though he could not find any passage in Scripture in which the name God was given to the Holy Spirit, De Trin. lib. xii. c. 55; Tuum est, quicquid te init; neque alienum a te est, quicquid virtute scrutantis inest. Comp. de Trin. ii. 29: De spiritu autem sancto nec tacere oportet, nec loqui necesse est, sed sileri a nobis eorum causa, qui nesciunt, non potest. Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, quia de patre et filio auctoribus confitendum est, et quidem puto an sit, non esse tractandum. Est enim, quandoquidem donatur, accipitur, obtinetur, et qui confessioni patris et filii connexus est, non potest a confessione patris et filii separari. Imperfectum enim est nobis totum, si aliquid desit a toto. De quo si quis intelligentiæ nostræ sensum requirit, in Apostolo legimus ambo: Quoniam estis, inquit, filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra clamantem: Abba pater. Et rursum: Nolite contristare Spir. S. Dei, in quo signati estis. . . . Unde quia est et donatur et habetur et Dei est, cesset hinc sermo calumniantium, cum dicunt, per quem sit et ob quid sit, vel qualis sit. Si responsio nostra displicebit, dicentium: Per quem omnia et in quo omnia sunt, et quia spiritus est Dei, donum fidelium; displiceant et