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 τριάδι νοεῖται καὶ τριὰς ἐν μονάδι γνωρίζεται κ. τ. λ.); this passage, however, proves as little concerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise póπaтρis erroneously ascribed to Lucian. Clem. Strom. iv. 7, p. 588, knows a άyía тpiás, but in a different 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.]

3 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. Comp. adv. Prax. 2 and 3, [Burton, 1. c. p. 68, ss.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this term. Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism). Novat. de Trinitate. [Burton, 1. c. p. 107109; p. 116-123.]

§ 46.

MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION.

The strict distinction which was drawn between the persons in the Trinity, led, in the first instance, to the system of Subordination, according to which the Son was thought inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to both the Father and the Son. Such a classification gave some ground to the charge of Tritheism which was frequently made against the orthodox.2 Accordingly, they were compelled to clear themselves from all appearance of Tritheism in opposition to the Monarchians, who, abandoning the said distinction, in order to hold fast the unity of the Godhead, exposed themselves to the charge of confounding the persons (Patripassianism), or the imputation of that heretical tendency which denies the Divinity of Christ.3 Origen, endeavouring to define the nature of the persons, and to determine the exact relation which they maintain to each other, went

K

to the other extreme; orthodoxy was so much extended that it became heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian controversy in the following period.

1 Justin M., Apol. i. c. 13:......viÒu CUTOU TOU ÖUTS O cou μαθόντες (scil. τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν) καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει.—There are also passages in the writings of Irenæus which appear favourable 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 in every respect equal to God, and not as a subordinate being, (comp. § 42, note 9). It cannot be denied that Irenæus here contradicts himself, and it would be a useless labour 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 yváμn, but ȧpißμg; and from the proposition that, if I have a wife, it does not necessarily follow that I am the wife herself, Tertullian (adv. Prax. c. 10) draws the conclusion, that, if God has a Son, it does not necessarily follow that he is the Son himself. He defends himself against 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 et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua œconomia 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. also 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 con

cordiam 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.

3 Concerning the different classes of Unitarians, comp. § 24, notes 4 and 5, and § 42. It is self-evident, that all who held Christ to be a mere man, also rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. They 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 he had no abode in Christ himself. They wisely differ from those who, apprehensive of lessening the dignity of Christ, taught that God himself had assumed humanity in him, and 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 in 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 later oμoovotos, was so interpreted by Tertullian, 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. Fath. 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: Ενα φασὶν εἶναι θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τῶν ὅλων δημι ουργόν· ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα ἂν βούληται καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον· ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι ἠθέλησε· ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ θνητόν. ̓Απαθὴς γὰρ ὤν, φησί, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέμεινε· τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀμομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο KaλоÚμEVOV. Comp. Epiph. Hær. vii. 1. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 103, p. 589, 590.] Beryllus endeavoured to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difference after the assumption of humanity, Euseb. vi. 33: Βήρυλλος ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν δεδηλωμένος Βοστρῶν τῆς ̓Αραβίας ἐπίσκοπος τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παρεκτρέπων κανόνα,

ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέρειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ' ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας μηδὲ μὴν θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ μόνην τὴν πατρικήν. Comp. Ullmann, in the dissert. quoted § 24, note 5, and Fork, diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur (Dreieinigkeitslehre, p. 289), Beryllus ought to be classed together with Artemon and Theodotus; Meier, however, supposes a certain distinction between them. To those who adopted the tendency of Noëtus belong Beron and his followers, who were combated by Hippolytus; comp. Dorner, p. 536, ss.

On the one hand, Origen asserts that the Son is equal to the Father, Hom. viii. in Jerem. 2 Opp. iii. p. 171: Πάντα γὰρ ὅσα τοῦ θεοῦ, τοιαῦτα ἐν αὐτῷ υἱῷ) ἐστίν. He also speaks of the three persons in the Trinity as the three sources of salvation, so that he who does not thirst after all of them cannot find God, ibid. Hom. xviii. 9, Opp. iii. p. 251, 252. Nevertheless the subordination of the Son is prominently brought forward, and forms, together with the strict hypostatic distinction, the characteristic feature of Origen's doctrine. The Son is called δεύτερος θεός, contra Cels. v. 608; comp. vii. 735: Αξιος τῆς δευτερεύουσης μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τιμῆς. De orat. i. p. 222: "Ετερος κατ ̓ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκειμενός ἐστι ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρός. Comp. also in Joh. Tom. ii. 2, Opp. T. iv. p. 50, where great stress is laid upon the distinction made by Philo between θεός and ὁ θεός. How far this system of subordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from Origen de Orat. c. 15, Opp. T. i. 222, where he entirely rejects the practice of addressing prayer to Christ (the Son); for, he argues, since the Son is a particular hypostasis, we must pray either to the Son only, or to the Father only, or to both. To pray to the Son, and not to the Father, would be most improper (ἀτοπώτατον); to pray to both, is impossible, because we should have to use the plural number: παρασχέσθε, εὐεργετήσατε, ἐπιχορη γήσατε, σώσατε, that which is contrary to Scripture, and the doetrine of One God; thus nothing remains but to pray to the Father alone. To pray to the Father through the Son, a prayer in an improper sense (invocatio?) is quite a different thing; contra Cels. v. 4, Opp. i. p. 579: Πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν καὶ προσευχὴν καὶ ἔντευξιν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἀναπεμπτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀγγέλων ἀρχιερέως, ἐμψύχου λόγου καὶ θεοῦ.

Δεησόμεθα δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόχου, καὶ ἐντευξόμεθα αὐτῷ,

καὶ εὐχαριστήσομεν καὶ προσευξόμεθα δὲ, ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως (si modo propriam precationis possimus ab impropria secernere notionem). Comp. however, § 43.

§ 47.

DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.

C. F. Rössler, Philosophia veteris ecclesiæ de mundo, Tubinga, 1783, 4. [Knapp, Lectures on Christ. Theology, transl. by L. Woods, p. 144-146.]

Concerning this doctrine, as well as the doctrine of God in general, the early Christians adopted the Monotheistic views of the Jews, and, in the simple exercise of faith, received the Mosaic account of the creation (Gen. i.) as Divine revelation. Even the definition ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων which was not introduced into the Jewish theology until afterwards (2 Macc. vii. 28), found its way into primitive Christianity.1 The orthodox firmly adhered to the doctrine that God, the Almighty Father, who is also the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is at the same time the creator of heaven and of earth,2 and rejected the notion of eternal matter.3 They did this in opposition to the Gnostics, according to whom the creator of the world was distinct from the Supreme God, as well as to the assertion made by some of them, and also by Hermogenes, that matter has existed from everlasting. But the speculative tendency of the Alexandrian school could not be satisfied with the notion of the creation having taken place in time. Accordingly Origen resorted to an allegorical interpretation of the work of the six days (Hexaëmeron), and following the example of Clement, (which, however, is doubtful, and to say the least, betrays indecision), he propounded the doctrine of an eternal creation in still more definite terms than Clement. But he did not maintain the eternity of matter as an independent power.7 On the contrary, Irenæus, from his practical position,