et mundus et locus et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrinsecus præter illum. Ceterum ne tunc quidem solus: habebat enim secum, quam habebat in semetipso, rationem suam scilicet, etc. C. 8: Protulit enim Deuin sermonem, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium; nam et ista species probole sunt earum substantiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. In c. 9, the Son is even called a portio of the Father. Comp. Neander's Antignosticus, p. 476, ss. "We find in Tertullian, on the one hand the effort to hold fast the entire equality of the Father and the Son—on the other hand, the inequality is so manifestly conceded or presupposed, it is every where expressed in so marked, and, as it were, involuntary a way, and it strikes its roots so deeply into his whole system, and modes of expression, that it must doubtless be considered as the real and inmost conception of Tertullian's system;" Schwegler, in his Montanismus, p. 41 [but comp. Meier, Gesch. d. Trin. i. 80, sq.; Dorner, i. 477, 564-601.] According to Dorner, p. 588, Tert. uses the word filiatio in a threefold sense; that which is new in the system of Tertullian, and of importance in reference to later times, is this, that he employs the term "Son" (instead of "Word") in order to denote the personal existence of the Logos; see p. 600. At the same time there is in Tertullian this peculiarity, that he distinguishes the three factors (momenta) of the Trinity as so many periods of time; Adv. Praxeas c. 12, 13; Baur, p. 176; Meier, p. 80, sq.

• Iren. Advers. Hær. ii. 28, p. 158: Si quis itaque nobis dixerit : Quomodo ergo filius prolatus a patre est? dicimus ei: Quia prolationem istam sive ge nerationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus inenarrabilem existentem, nemo novit, non Valentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Basilides, neque Angeli, neque Archangeli, neque Principes, neque Potestates, nisi solus qui generavit, Pater, et qui natus est, Filius. Inenarrabilis itaque generatio ejus quum sit, quicunque nituntur generationes et prolationes enarrare, non sunt compotes sui, ea, quæ inenarrabilia sunt, enarrare promittentes. Quoniam enim ex cogitatione et scnsu verbum emittitur, hoc utique omnes sciunt homines. Non ergo magnum quid invenerunt, qui emissiones excogitaverunt, neque absconditum mysterium, si id quod ab omnibus intelligitur, transtulerunt in unigenitum Dei verbum, et quem inenarrabilem et innominabilem vocant, hunc, quasi ipsi obstetricaverint, primæ generatianis ejus prolationem et generationem enuntiant, assimilantes eum hominum verbo emissionis (scilicet λóу пророpik). In the opinion of Irenæus, faith in the Son rests simply on the Taрádoσiç. The Logos is both reason (wisdom), and the Word (adv. Hær. iv. 20, 1): Adest enim ei (Deo) semper Verbum et Sapientia (Fil. et Spirit.), per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur dicens: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. The Son is in every respect equal to the Father; Adv. Hær. ii, 13: Necesse est itaque, et eum, qui ex eo est Logos, imo magis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et inpassibilem esse.-In accordance with his practical tendency, Irenæus has less to say of the Logos prior to his incarnation, than of Christ the God-man (of which, infra). In his opinion, the Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father (iv. 6, 6); or (after an unnamed author) the Son is the measure of the

Comp. Möhler, Patrologie, Dorner, p. 467, ss. Baur,

Father (mensura Patris filius, quoniam et capit eum), iv. 2, 2; he even calls the Son and the Spirit the hands of God. 357, ss. Münscher, Handbuch, i. p. 411, ss. p. 172, ss. [Burton, 1. c. pp. 75, 77, 102, etc.; Bull's Judicium; Faber's Apostolicity of Trin.]

§ 43.

d. Origen's Doctrine of the Logos.

3

After Tertullian had employed the term Son in reference to the personality of the Logos more distinctly than had previously been done,' Origen decisively adopted this terminology.' and was led to the idea of an eternal generation. Though he kept clear with all strictness from any notion of physical emanation, yet he was, on the other hand, pressed to a subordination of the Son to the Father." Consequently his definitions by no means satisfied the consciousness of the church, but led to new misunderstandings, and were the source of new, wide-reaching controversies." [Comp. Niedner, Kirchengesch., 279-282.]

' Tom. i. in Joh. App. iv. p. 22, ss. He finds fault with those who, in a onesided manner, merely adopt the term Logos (én về μóvηs τns λóyос проσnyopías loτáμεvot), and are not able to infer the identity of the terms Logos and Son from the other predicates applied to Christ; who also restrict the term Logos to the Word, imagining that the πроσдорà патрin consists oiovei év ovλλaßaiç. In his opinion the Logos is not merely the Word, but a transcendent, living hypostasis, the sum of all ideas, the independent personal Wisdom of God; comp. in Joh. i. 39, l. c. p. 39: Oỷ yàp ¿v piλałę φαντασίαις τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει ἡ σοφία αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὰ ἀνάλογα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἐννοήμασι φαντάσματα. Εἰ δέ τις οἷός τέ ἐστιν ἀσώματον ὑπόστασιν ποικίλων θεωρημάτον, περιεχόντων τοὺς τῶν ὅλων λόγους, ζῶσαν καὶ οἱονεὶ ἔμψυχον ἐπενοεῖν· εἴσεται τὴν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν κτίσιν σοφίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καλῶς περὶ αὐτῆς λέγουσαν· Ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισέ με, K. T. λ. Comp. De Princ. i. 2, 2: Nemo putet, nos insubstantivum dicere, cum filiam Dei sapientiam nominamus, etc.; and thus he calls (Contra Cels. vi. 64) the Logos, ovoíav ovoɩwv, idéav ide☎v; comp. Thomasias, p. 113. What is true of the Logos in relation to creation holds good also of the Son. He is the organ for the creation of the world. As the architect builds a house, or a vessel, according to his ideas, so God created the world according to the ideas which are contained in Wisdom; comp. Hom. xxxii, in Joh. (Opp. ix. p. 449), and De Princ. i. 2 (Opp. i. p. 53). God never existed without the Wisdom (the Son); for, to maintain the contrary, would virtually amount to the assertion, that God either could not beget, or would not be get, either of which is absurd and impious. With all his love for abstractions, Origen here calls images to his aid.

Besides the already used-up

comparison with the sun and its beams, he employs a new one of a statue and a copy on a reduced scale; this comparison, however, he refers rather to the incarnate Son (Christ in the flesh), than to the ante-mundane (the Logos). But with him both run into each other.

It is difficult to determine whether this idea of generation is consistently carried out, since it is not quite evident whether Origen refers it to the nature or the will of the Father; see Baur, p. 204; on the other side, comp. Dorner, p. 640, ss.

4 De Princ. i. 4 (Opp. i. p. 55): Infandum autem est et illicitum, Deum patrem in generatione unigeniti Filii sui atque in substantia ejus exæquare alicui vel hominum vel aliorum animantium generanti, etc.; and again (Rede. penning, p. 112): Observandum namque est, ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas fabulas eorum, qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinum naturam in partes vocent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est dividant, cum hoc de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari non solum extremo impietatis sit, verum etiam ultimæ insipientiæ, nec omnino ad intelligentiam consequens, ut incorporeæ naturæ substantialis divisio possit intelligi. "As the will of man proceeds from his reason, and the one is not to be separated from the other, so the Son proceeds from the Father. Origen did not make use of the comparison with the human word (speech), which was previously employed. He also considers the generation of the Son as eternal, because God did not at any time begin to be a Father, like fathers among men. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 143 [the passage is in a fragment in Eusebius, contra Marcellum, l. c. 4. In another passage (in Athanasius De Decretis Conc. Nic. §27) he says: "As light can not be without its brightness, so God can never have been without the Son, the brightness of his majesty."]

6

See below, § 46.

Particularly was the expression vids Tov Oɛou, which, in the New Testament, is undeniably used in respect to the historical Christ,* confounded with the metaphysical and dogmatic usage of the schools; and here were the germs of new controversies, which in the end led to a recognition of the dif ference on the biblical basis. On the other hand, from the speculative standpoint, we may, with Dorner, in this doctrine of the eternal generation, descry a thankworthy progress. To attain to this "mystery, which contains the very kernel of Christianity, subordination has the character of an auxiliary doctrine." It is (Dorner says in his first edition, p. 42), “a necessary aid in the substitution of several actual hypostases in God, for the doctrine of the Logos, as previously held, which only vaguely maintained the distinction of hypostaes in God."

"The more I endeavor to realize the manner of thinking and speaking in the New Testament, the more decided is my opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, can not be directly and absolutely called God in the New Test., without completely destroying the monotheistic system of the Apostles." Lücke, Studien und Kritiken, 1840, i. p. 91. [But see, in reply, Nitzsch in the same journal, 1841. Comp. also, G. L. Hahn, Die Theologie des N. Test., 1854, § 87.]

§ 44.

THE HOLY GHOST.

Keil, ob die ältesten Lehrer emen Unterschied zwischen Sohn und Vater gekannt? in Flatts Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, vol. iv. p. 34, ss. [Burton, E., Testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers to the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Works, ii.), comp. the Introduct. where the literature is given.] Georgii, dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen über die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M. in the Studien der Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs, x. 2, p. 69, ss. Hasselbach, in the theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1839, p. 376, ss. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom heiligen Geiste. i. Halle, 1847. [Hare's Mission of the Comforter, new ed. 2 vols. 1851.]

The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost, like that of the Son, was considered important from the practical point of view,' in reference to his prophetic agency (in the more comprehensive sense of the word), to the witness which he bears in the hearts of believers, and, in fine, to his living power in the church.' As soon, however, as the attempt was made to go beyond the Trinity of revelation (i. e. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), and to conceive of the essence of the Holy Spirit in itself, and the relation in which he stands to the Father and the Logos, difficulties sprung up, the solution of which became problems of speculative theology. By some, the Wisdom of the Old Testament, from which the doctrine of Logos was developed, was called veμa ayıov, and made coördinate with the Word. Others either identified the Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague manner as to the distinction between them, and the Holy Ghost (impersonally viewed) appears as a mere divine attribute, gift or agency. But the pressure of logical consistency led gradually to the view of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and his definite distinction from the Logos.

'In the Old Test. the

(Gen. i. 3) appear at first as the creative power of life, comp. Psalm civ. 30, and other passages; as the Spirit of heroism, Judges, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25, etc.; as the Spirit of insight and wisdom, Exod. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31, Job xxxii. 8, Isaiah xi. 2; especially as the Spirit of prophecy, Numb. xxiv. 2, 1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xix. 20, 23, etc.; also as the good, holy Spirit, Psalm li. 13, cxliii. 10. In the New Test., too, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is made equivalent to the δύναμις ὑψίστου, Luke i. 35, and to the oopía, Acts vi. 3, 10. Specifically Christian is the making the Holy Spirit equivalent to the Spirit of Christ, as when it is said that the Spirit descends upon Christ (Matt. iii. 10, and the parallel places), and is given to him without measure (John iv. 34), or that he proceeds from Christ and is given to the disciples (John xx. 22), or is promised to them as the Paraclete, John xv. 26, etc. It has been held essential to the Christian faith (from the time of the pen

tecostal outpouring, Acts ii.), to believe that the Spirit abides in the church (2 Cor. xiii, 13), and thus that all believers have part in the Spirit, who manifests himself as one, externally in the different gifts (charismata, 1 Cor. xii, 4, etc.), and internally working as the Spirit of sanctification, of trust, and of love; and who is also a pledge and seal of the grace of God, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, Eph. i. 14, etc. Compare the works on Biblical Theology.

It is not to be forgotten that the trias of revelation was held in a complete form long before the church came to clear statements about the essential trias. (Comp. Note 1 of the next section.) In the former the Holy Ghost has his definite position along (coördinate) with the Father and the Son, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Matt. xviii. 19. In the apostolic fathers, we find only isolated declarations as to the Holy Ghost. Justin M. makes particular mention of the пνεvμа проoητikov (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in his Apology, nine times in Trypho, see Semisch, ii. p. 335, Note), while he does not speak of the influence which he continues to exert upon believers (ibid. p. 329). On the other hand, in Justin the Logos, as the λóуoç σлεрμatiKós, takes the place of the Holy Spirit, since to him are ascribed good impulses in the minds of believers. (Comp. Duncker, Christl. Logoslehre, p. 37.) Irenæus, iii. 24, 1, calls the Holy Ghost the "communitas Christi, confirmatio fidei nostræ, scala ascensionis ad Deum ;"* comp. iii. 17, v. 6, v. 10, and § 71. At the same time, he considers him as the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distinction between him as the principle which animates and inspires, and that animation and inspiration itself, Adv. Hær. v. 12, 2: "Etepóv ¿oti tvoǹ Swijs, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος· ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. Comp. Duncker, p. 60, sq.; Kahnis, p. 255, sq.

* Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7 : Ο δε θεὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα; here σοφία is either synonymous with λόγος, or forms the second member; in the former case, there would be no mention of the Spirit; in the latter, he would be identified with the oopía; and this agrees with ii. 15, where θεός, λόγος and σοφία are said to compose the Trinity ; comp. § 45. Iren. iv. 20, p. 253: Adest enim ei (Deo) semper verbum et sapientia, Filius et Spiritus . . ad quos et loquitur, dicens: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; and again: Deus omnia verbo fecit et sapientia adornavit. [Burton, l. c. p. 49-51.] Comp. iv. 7, p. 236 Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, i. e., Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 6: Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea, quæ cum Sophiæ ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque disposita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et tenerentur. Comp. cap. 7, and the formula De Orat. i. ab initio : Dei Spiritus * A similar image is made use of by Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. 9, when he says: ̓Αναφερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅσ ἐστιν σταυρὸς, σχοινίῳ χρώμενος τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ.