B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE

SECOND PERIOD.

FIRST CLASS.

THE CONTEST BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY. (POLEMICAL PART.)

FIRST DIVISION.

DOCTRINES RESPECTING THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY.

a. THEOLOGY PROPER.

§ 87.

THE RELATION OF THE FATHER TO THE SON.

Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria, and the followers of Origen.

THE term Logos, respecting which the earlier Fathers so little agreed, that some understood by it the Word, others the Wisdom, (reason, spirit), was so indefinite that even Lactantius, who lived towards the commencement of the present period, made no distinction between the λόγος and the πνεῦμα. Hence it happened that from the time of Origen it fell increasingly into disuse, and in its place the other term: Son, which, at all events, is more frequently employed in the New Test. in reference to the human nature of the historical Christ, was applied to the second person of the Godhead (previous to his incarnation). The disciples of Origen,2 in accordance with the sentiments of their master, understood by this second person a distinct hypostasis subordinate to the Father. Such is the view of Dionysius of Alexandria; but he endeavoured to clear himself from the charges brought

forward against him by Dionysius of Rome, by putting forth his notions in a less offensive form. The doctrine of Origen now met with a most remarkable fate. It consisted, as we have already seen, of two elements, viz. the hypostasis of the Son, and his subordination to the Father. The former was maintained in opposition to Sabellianism, and received as orthodox doctrine; the latter, on the contrary, was rejected, and, inasmuch as it was held by the Arians, condemned by the catholic church. Thus Origenism gained the victory on the one hand, but was defeated on the other. But by this very circumstance it is proved to be a necessary link in the chain, a necessary member of a series of systems which are connected by its means.

1 The theology of Lactantius must be considered as an isolated phenomenon in the present period, and has always been regarded as heterodox. (Concerning his prevailing moral tendency, see Dorner,. p. 777). Lactantius, after having opposed the gross and sensuous interpretation of the birth of Christ: ex connubio ac permistione feminæ alicujus, Instit. div. iv. c. 8, returns to the meaning which the term Word (sermo) has in common life: Sermo est spiritus cum voce aliquid significante prolatus. The Son is distinguished from the angels, in that he is not only spiritus (breath, wind), but also the (spiritual) Word. The angels proceed from God only as taciti spiritus, as the breath comes out of the nose of man, while the Son is the breath which comes out of God's mouth, and forms articulate sounds; hence he identifies Sermo with the Verbum Dei, quia Deus procedentem de ore suo vocalem spiritum, quem non utero, sed mente conceperat, inexcogitabili quadam majestatis suæ virtute ac potentia, in effigiem, quæ proprio sensu ac sapientia vigeat, comprehendit. There is, however, a distinction between the word (Son) of God, and our words. Our words being mixed with the atmosphere, soon perish; yet even we may perpetuate them by committing them to writing-quanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in æternum et sensu ac virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxerit. Lactantius is so far from holding the doctrine of the Trinity, that he finds it necessary to defend himself against the charge of be

lieving not so much in three as in two Gods. To justify his belief in the existence of two natures in the One God, he makes use of the same expressions which orthodox writers employed in later times for the purpose of defending the doctrine of the Trinity: Cum dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus: quod nec Pater a Filio potest, nec Filius Patre secerni, siquidem nec Pater sine Filio potest nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est. He then comes back to the illustrations used before him, e. g. those drawn from the river and its source, the sun and its beams; he even surpasses his predecessors in comparing the Son of God with an earthly son, who, residing in the house of his father, has all things in common with him, so that the house may be named after the son, as well as after the father, (the Arians reasoned very much in the same way).

2 Thus Pierius, the master of Pamphilus of Cæsarea, was charged by Photius (Cod. 119.) with having maintained that the Father and the Son are two οὐσίαι καὶ φύσεις. Nevertheless he is said to have taught evσeßŵs, by employing those terms in the sense of ὑποστάσεις; but δυσσεβῶς, by making the πνεῦμα inferior to both the Father and the Son. Theognostus was accused of considering the Son a тíoμa; but this assertion is not in accordance with the otherwise orthodox teaching of that theologian, comp. Dorner, p. 733, ss. Some disciples of Origen, e.g. Gregory Thaumaturgus even manifested a leaning towards Sabellianism; according to Basil, ep. 210. 5. Gregorg. taught атéρа кai viòv ἐπινοίᾳ μὲν εἶναι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν. Methodius of Patara avoided the use of the term oμooúotos in reference to the preexistence of the Son, which however he seems to have admitted, com. Opp. edit. Combefis. Par. 1644, p. 283-474, and Dorner, 1. c.

8 This is obvious, especially in the opposition which Dionysius offered to Sabellianism. Of his work addressed to the bishop of Rome and entitled: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ̓Απολογία, Lib. iv. fragments are preserved in the writings of Athanasius (περὶ Διονυσίου τοῦ Éπ. 'Aλ. liber.: Opp. i. p. 243), and Basil; they were collected by Constant in his Epistt. Rom. Pontt. in Galland. T. iv. p. 495. See Gieseler, i. § 64. Neander, i. 3, p. 1037. Münscher von Cölln, p. 197-200. Schleiermacher (see the next §) p. 402, ss. According to Athanasius, p. 246, Dionysius was charged with having compared (in a letter to Euphranor and Ammonius) the relation

subsisting between the Father and Son to that in which the husbandman stands to the vine, the shipbuilder to the ship, etc. The Arians even asserted, (see Athanasius, p. 253), that he taught like themselves: Οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός· ἀλλ ̓ ὁ μὲν θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ· ἀλλ ̓ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, οὐ γὰρ ἀἴδιος ἐστιν, ἀλλ ̓ vσTEρOV ÉπTIɣÉYOVev. Comp. however the expressions quoted by Athanasius, p. 254, which go to prove the contrary. But the bishop of Rome insisted that Dionysius should adopt the phrase óμoovola (Homousy), to which the latter at last consented, though he did not think that it was founded either upon the language of Scripture, or upon the terminology till then current in the church. An intermediate position was taken by Zeno of Verona (a contemporary of Origen and Cyprian), who in Hom. i. ad Genes. in Bibl. max. PP. iii. p. 356, ss., compared the Father and the Son to two seas which are joined by straits; comp. Dorner, p. 754, ss. Orthodox theologians of later times (e. g. Athanasius), endeavouring to do more justice to Dionysius of Alexandria, maintained that he had used the aforesaid offensive illustrations only κατ' οἰκονομίαν, and that they might be easily explained from the stand he took against Sabellianism, Athanasius, p. 246, ss.; see on the other side Löffler, Kleine Schriften, vol. i. p. 114, ss. (quoted by Heinichen on Euseb. vol. i. p. 306.)

$88.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The Theories of Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata.

Ch. Wormii historia Sabelliana. Francof. et Lips. 1696, 8. Schleiermacher, über den Gegensatz zwischen der sabellienischen und athanasianischen Vorstellung von der Trinität (Berlin. theol. Zeitschr. 1822, Part 3). Lange, der Sabellianismus in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung (Illgens Zeitschr, für historische Theol. iii. 2. 3.)—Feuerlin, J. G., de hæresi Pauli Samos. 1741, 4. Ehrlich, J. G., de erroribus Pauli Samos. Lips. 1745, 4. Schwab, de Pauli Sam. vita atque doctrina. Diss. inaug. 1839.

Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, such as Praxeas, Noëtus, and Beryl

lus; and maintained, in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were only so many different manifestations and names of one and the same Divine being. He thus converted the real distinction of persons (the Trinity of Essence) into a distinction of mere modes (the Trinity of manifestations). In illustration of his views, he made use not only of various images which his opponents sometimes misinterpreted, but also of such expressions as were afterwards transferred to the terminology of the orthodox church. By this means he avoided indeed, on the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and acknowledged the manifestation of the Deity in Christ as such; but, on the other, he destroyed the personality of the Son, and thus gave the appearance of Pantheism to this direct manifestation of God in Christ. For the denial of the incarnation of Christ (as distinct from God the Father) necessarily implied that of the existence of the Son as such. The opinions of Paul of Samosata are not, as was formerly done, to be confounded with the notions of Sabellius; they rather approached the earlier opinions of Artemon and Theodotus, which, as regards the nature of Christ, were not so much pantheistic as deistic.-The opinions of Sabellius, undoubtedly, exerted a much greater influence upon the development of doctrines during the present period, than those of Paul of Samosata; the notions of the latter are but too intimately connected with his repulsive personal character.2

1 Eus. vii. 6. Epiph. Hær. 62. Athan. contra Arian. iv. 2. and other passages. Basil, Ep. 210, 214, 235. Theodoret fab. hær. ii. 9. According to Epiphanius, Sabellius taught that there were : ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς ἐνέργειαι (ὀνομασίαι, ὀνόματα), and illustrated his views by adducing the human trias of body, soul, and spirit, and the three qualities of the sun, viz. the enlightening (OWTIOTIKOV), the warming (rò aλóv), and the periphery, (Tò