 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
TESTIMONIES OF
THE ANTE-NICENE
FATHERS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
AND
OF THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY GHOST.
BY
THE REV. EDWARD BURTON
INTRODUCTION.
It is
unnecessary to state, that the present work is intimately connected with one
which has been already published, entitled, Testimonies of the Ante- Nicene
Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. The two works might not improperly have been
incorporated, and the whole would have formed a body of Ante-Nicene testimony
to the doctrine of the Trinity. I preferred however making a distinct
collection of all the passages, which assert a belief in Christ’s divinity: and
I had intended to follow this up by a similar collection of quotations concerning
the divinity of the Holy Ghost. It is known to the readers of ecclesiastical
history, that there was no specific controversy concerning the third person of
the Trinity till the fourth century. It might not be incorrect to say, that
till then the divinity of the third person was never doubted or denied: but
however this may be, the absence of controversy might prepare us for few
passages, which bear directly upon this subject; and I have therefore thought
it better to bring together in the present work all the testimonies which
remain, whether they relate to the doctrine of the Trinity, or the divinity of
the Holy Ghost.
The
doctrine of the Trinity is in fact established by any passages, which prove the
divinity of the second and third persons: and by the doctrine of the Trinity, I
mean the doctrine of there being three distinct persons, each of whom is God,
but all of whom, when considered as to their substance or essence, are only one
God. I am not now explaining the nature of this mystery, but merely stating
what is meant by the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been held by the
catholic church from the earliest ages to the present; and I repeat, that this
doctrine is established by any passages, which prove the divinity of the Son
and the Holy Ghost.
If this
position be denied, we have no alternative between adopting the Arian or
Sabellian hypothesis, or acknowledging a plurality of Gods. The Arians
professed to believe, that Jesus Christ is God: they even called him very God
of very God: but then they used the term God in a different sense, when applied
to the Son, from what it bears, when applied to the Father. They believed that
there was a time, when the Son did not exist: they believed him to have been
created by the Father: and by this twofold meaning of the term God, they
avoided the charge of holding a plurality of Gods, while they also differed
totally from the orthodox faith. The Arians however can hardly be rescued with
truth from acknowledging more Gods than one. They did not acknowledge two Gods
in the same sense of the expression ; but there were two Beings of a
different
nature, to whom they applied the same term God: and if they are to be acquitted
of the charge of polytheism, the same indulgence may be extended to the
heathen, who believed Jupiter to be God in a different sense from their deified
heroes.
The Arian
creed, if considered in all its bearings and deductions, will perhaps appear
much less rational and philosophical, than has been sometimes asserted. It has
been described as a simpler and less mystical hypothesis, than that of the
Trinitarians : and yet it requires us to apply the same term God to two
Beings, who differ as widely from each other, as the Creator and his creature.
It requires us to speak of Christ, as the begotten Son of God, though he only
differs from all other creatures by having preceded them in the order of time.
It requires us to believe of this created Being, that he was himself employed
in creating the world; and to invest him with every attribute of Deity, except
that of having existed from all eternity. If we contrast these notions with
the creed of the Trinitarians, they will be found to present still greater
difficulties to our faculties of comprehension : but the Arian hypothesis,
whatever may be decided concerning it, confirms very strongly the fact, which
I am endeavouring to establish, that the notion of Christ being a mere man was
not held in early times. If the Fathers were unanimous in speaking of him as
God, they could not have believed him to be a mere man in the sense of the
modern Unitarians.
It will be
conceded, that they did not mean to speak as polytheists: and many passages
were adduced in my former work, as well as in the present, which are
sufficient to shew that they were not Arians. They expressly denied, that there
was a time, when the Son did not exist; and they as expressly asserted him to
be of one substance with the Father. These were the two tests, which were always
applied to persons suspected of Arianism; and if they are applied to the
writings of the Ante- Nicene Fathers, they will be found to remove them
altogether from the suspicion of Arianism.
There are
also many other expressions in their writings, (beside those which assert the
eternity and consubstantiality of the Son,) by which we might argue that they
could not have agreed with the sentiments of Arius. Such are all those passages,
in which they speak of the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son;
of the Son being one with the Father; and of Christ being the begotten Son of
God. These expressions are of frequent occurrence in Ante-Nicene writings, and
many instances may be found in this and my former work. Any one of them, as I
conceive, is sufficient to prove, by legitimate and necessary inference, the
doctrine of the Trinity. We will take the assertion of Christ being the
begotten Son of God. The words begotten Son are either to be interpreted
literally
or figuratively. If they are taken figuratively, they may merely mean, that
Christ was beloved by God; that he was God’s minister or messenger, like any
other of the prophets, but that he received preeminent tokens of love and
affection from Goda. It is in a sense somewhat similar to this, and
evidently in a figurative sense, that all Christians are called sons of God,
and even said to be begotten by God. But if Christ is the Son of God merely in
this figurative sense, as being an adopted Son, the epithet of only begotten
could not apply to him: for upon this hypothesis all Christians are equally
begotten sons of God; and therefore the term povoyevyf, only begotten, must
lead us to infer, that Christ is the Son of God in a different sense from
those, who are called sons by adoption. Christians are made sons by adoption;
Christ is the only Son, who is begotten by God.
This
distinction between begotten and adopted sons seems clearly marked in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, where Moses is said to have been faithful as a
servant, but Christ as a Son. (iii. 5, 6.) There are also passages in the New
Testament, where the argument is wholly illogical and inconsecutive, if we do not
understand Christ to be the begotten Son of God, according to the analogy of
human fathers and human sons. Thus in the parable of the householder and his
vineyard, (Matt. xxi. 33—39>) the words, they will reverence my son, and
this is the heir, require us to make a marked difference between the son, i.
e. Jesus Christ, and the servants, i. e. all other prophets and teachers. The
son in the parable is literally a begotten son, and the application of the
parable requires us to believe the same of Jesus Christ. So also when St. Paul
savs, He that
spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with
him also freely give us all things ? (Rom. viii. 32.) the inference is not
true, that God will certainly give us all things, if we understand by his own
Son a mere human prophet or teacher, whom God sent into the world, and
permitted to be put to death. Though it was an act of mercy on the part of God
to send such a teacher, and we might perhaps infer from one such act of mercy,
that others might be expected, yet we should not be justified in arguing, that
God would therefore freely give us all things. The argument would then be a
minori ad majus, and would not
be
consecutive. But if God literally spared not his begotten Son, but delivered
him up for us all, we may then argue a majori ad minus, that God will freely
give us all thingsb; for there is nothing, which can be so dear to
God as his own begotten Son.
Having
thus attempted to shew from the plain words of scripture, that Christ is
literally the begotten Son of God, I shall not proceed to consider the mode of
the divine generation, but merely to remark, that human language must be
interpreted according to the analogy of human ideas. We know what is the
relation of father and son, when we are speaking of men; and the scripture
tells us to apply the same analogy to the relation which subsists between God
and Jesus Christ. But since our ideas do not allow us to conceive of a son,
that he is of a different nature from his father, we are compelled to form the
same conception of God and his Son: both of them must be of the same nature;
and since the Father is God, the Son, who is begotten by him, must be likewise
God.
I was led
into these remarks by considering the expressions in the writings of the
Fathers, which speak of Christ as the begotten Son of God. The modern
Unitarians interpret these expressions figuratively, and so did the Arians in
the fourth century ; but both of them came to very different conclusions. The
Arians believed Christ to be a created God: the Unitarians believe him to be a
mere human being; and these opposite conclusions perhaps furnish a strong
reason against having recourse to figurative interpretations. The orthodox
party, or the Athanasians, as they have been termed in contempt, did not seek
to be wise above what is written, but interpreted the words of Scripture literally
: they believed that Christ is really the begotten Son of God: and this
belief, as I have already observed, requires us to acknowledge the Son to be of
the same nature with his Father, and therefore to be verily and truly God.
We are
brought to the same conclusion by considering those expressions, which speak
of the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son. It is true, that we
read in the New Testament of God and His Son dwelling in all believers: and all
Christians are said to be one with the Father and the Son: hence it has been
contended that Christ is one with the Father in the same sense that all Christians
may be said to be one with God. The reader will judge from the following
quotations, whether this was the sense in which the Ante-Nicene writers spoke
of the unity of the Father and the Son. I
would
refer particularly to N°. 1,11,12, 18, 25, 45, 50, 51, 57, 63, 64, 70, in all
of which places we find assertions of this mysterious union: and if it should
be decided, that the Fathers would not have spoken of God being thus united
with any created being, we are again brought to the conclusion, that the Son is
God, of the same nature with the Father.
I have
said above, that if we do not admit the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, we must
suppose the Fathers, when they spoke of the Son and the Holy Ghost as God, to
have adopted either the Arian or Sabellian hypothesis. I have given reasons for
concluding that the Fathers were not Arians : and though their expressions
concerning the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, have been
explained in the Sabellian sense, such an explanation can only be given by
persons, who have not studied the Fathers. The Sabellian hypothesis removes
some of the difficulties in the doctrine of the Trinity, but it does not remove
the whole of them, and it creates new difficulties of its own. It saves us from
enquiring into the mode of the divine generation, and simplifies the notion of
the unity of God: but it fails to explain, why the Apostles constantly used
such figurative language; and why God is spoken of as being Son to Himself. It
assigns no reason, why God should be called the Son, when viewed as the
Redeemer of mankind; and the notion of the Son interceding with the Father, of
his having made satisfaction to his Father, and of
his being
a mediator between God and man, must lead us to the notion of two Beings, who
in some way or other have distinct individuality. That Sa- bellianism, when it
appeared in the third century, was looked upon as a heresy, is not a matter of
speculation, but of history. It was the creed of a party, which was not
inconsiderable in numbers, but it was not the creed of the church. The sentiments
of Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, and Dionysius, would alone be sufficient to
prove this point. They refute the Sabellian hypothesis, not merely by inference
or incidentally, but in writings expressly directed against the defenders of
it: and the Index to this and my former work will furnish many passages, which
prove that the Fathers were not Sabellians.
We are
again therefore brought to the same conclusion, that if the Fathers spoke of
the Son and the Holy Ghost as God, and if they did not use the term God in the
Arian or Sabellian sense, they must have used it in the sense which it bore at
the time of the council of Nice. That the Fathers Were not Socinians or
Unitarians, is, I conceive, capable of demonstration to every reasonable and
unprejudiced mind. I have always admitted, and am still ready to admit, that
the testimony of the Fathers is not infallible. They were liable to error like
ourselves, and in some points they erred exceedingly. But let those persons,
who reject the doctrine of the Trinity, declare plainly and openly what are
their
sentiments
upon this point. Let them not appeal to the Fathers, as agreeing with
themselves, and then, when they are driven from this ground, attempt to
depreciate the Fathers as unworthy of the appeal. The first question for
enquiry is whether the writers of the first three centuries were unanimous;
whether one uniform system of belief concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost can
be extracted from their writings, or whether they opposed and contradicted each
other. Even if we should adopt the latter conclusion, it would by no means
follow, that they held the Socinian or Unitarian notions. Pains have been taken
to rescue some of them from an inclination to Arianism ; and the present work
may shew whether the attempt has not been successful ; but there is not even a
shadow of proof, that any one of these writers approached to the Socinian or
Unitarian tenets. It will however be seen, that the Fathers of the first three
centuries were perfectly unanimous. There are no signs of doubt or dissension
in any of their writings. Some of them were engaged in controversy, while
others merely illustrated scripture, or applied themselves to practical
theology. In all of them we find the same uniform mode of expression concerning
the Son and the Holy Ghost. The testimony is collected with equal plainness
from the casual and incidental remark, as from the laboured conclusion of the
apologist and the polemic.
The next
question is respecting the doctrine, which was thus unanimously maintained.
Upon this subject it does not become me prematurely to decide. The reader will
draw his own inference, when he has read the testimonies, which are collected
from the writers themselves: but if he should perceive in them an uniform and
unvarying agreement with the doctrines which are now held in the catholic
church concerning the Trinity, I must repeat the observation, which was made
in my former work, that the belief of those Christians, who lived in the
earliest times, was most likely to be genuine and apostolical. I have not seen
any reason to alter or abandon this opinion. It is one which seems to be
founded upon the most rational and natural principles : and until some
argument is advanced, which will account for all these primitive Christians
being in error, we may be content to believe them to have been right: and when
we also find them agreeing perfectly with ourselves, we are perhaps not reasoning
unphilosophically or presumptuously, if we see in the unanimous testimony of
these writers a powerful and convincing support to the opinions, which we
ourselves maintain. Whatever may be thought of the execution of the present
work, the intention at least was honest: and that man has read the Fathers
with very different feelings from myself, who does not thank God for having
preserved to these latter days the light of purer times.
In my
former work I mentioned the names of other writers, who had partly traversed
the same field: and I said that the treatise most nearly resembling my own in
its design was that written by Burgh, entitled, An Enquiry into the Belief of
the Christians of the first three Centuries respecting the one Godhead of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I had not
then read much of the controversy, out of which this work of Burgh arose: and I
may state that the first publication was The Apology of Theophilus Lindsey,
M.A. on resigning the Vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire. London, 1774. Mr.
Lindsey resigned his preferment upon the adoption of Unitarian tenets: and his
Apology called forth A Scriptural Confutation of the Arguments against the
Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By a Layman. London, 1774. This
Layman was Mr. Burgh: and there appeared at the same time A Vindication of the
Doctrine and Liturgy of the Church of England, occasioned by the Apology of
Theophilus Lindsey, M.A. By George Bingham, B. D. Oxford, 1774. This was
followed by A Vindication of the Worship of the Son and the Holy Ghost against
the exceptions of Mr. Theophilus Lindsey from Scripture and Antiquity. By
Thomas Randolph, D. D. President of C. C. C. and Lady Margaret’s Professor of
Divinity. Oxford, 1775. About the same time appeared Remarks on a late
Publication, entitled “ A Scriptural Confutation, &P? London, 1775: and
soon after Mr. Lindsey published A Sequel to the Apology on resigning the
Vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire. London, 1776.
Dr.
Randolph then replied in A Letter to the Remarker on the Layman's Scriptural
Confutation, wherein the Divinity of the Son of God is farther vindicated
against the Remarher's Exceptions: to which is added an Appendix, taking some
notice of Mr. Lindsey's Sequel. Oxford, 1777. Last of all, Mr. Burgh published
the work which I have already- mentioned, An Inquiry into the Belief of the
Christians of the first three Centuries, respecting the one Godhead of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. York, 177S. There were other works connected with
this controversy; and in those which I have mentioned, the reader will find copious
references to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
I have
also met with another work, which was before unknown to me, entitled
TIIOTTnOSIS, sive Catholicce circa S. S. Trinitatem fidei delineation ex
scriptis Patrum Ante-Niccenorum de- sw?raj9ta.Londini,l677. The author was Dr.
Samuel Gardiner; and the design, as may be seen from the title, was very
similar to that of the present work. I am not aware, that any important
passage, which is adduced by Dr. Gardiner, has been omitted by myself: but his
work, which is written in Latin, is so deficient in arrangement, and so little
is added to connect or illustrate the quotations, that the obscurity, into
which it has fallen, is by no means surprising.
There is
another work with the following title, which I have not yet seen: Testimonies
from the
Writers of the first four Centuries to the
Divinity of Christ: by Knowles. London, 1789 : and since the publication of my
former work there has appeared Fides Niccuna de Filio Dei, sanctorum Patrum
atque Doctor urn, 'qui tribus •primis sceculis floru- erwit, traditione
confirmata. H. G. Vogelsang. Colo- mae, 1829. It is a very short work, and does
not give many original passages.
OF THE
TO
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
AND OF THE
DIVINITY
OF THE HOLY GHOST.
Ignatius, A. D. 107.
lgnatii Epist. ad Magnesianos, §. 7. p. 19-
The first
passage, which I shall quote, is from Ignatius, who exhorts the Magnesians to
unity, by saying, “ As the Lord did nothing, either by him- “ self or his apostles,
without the Father, being “ united with him; so dcTyou also do nothing with- “
out the bishop and elders*.” 'Hvcopevoc is a strong expression, as denoting the
unity of the Father and the Son ; and_j^ould hardly, as I conceive, have been,
applied to any union, which~~migITt~ bl[jsaid to have, existed between God and
Moses, or any other prophet. It may be said, perhaps, that Ignatius only
intended an unity of purpose or action; and that he shews this by proceeding to
speak of the unity between the different members of the church. If this be so,
the testimony is not strong in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity: but the
concluding words of the same chapter are very remarkable, and it is difficult
in a translation to express the intimate union and mutual indwelling, which
Ignatius seems to. have intended: “ All of “ you therefore come together to one
temple of God, “to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who proceeded “from one
Father, and in that one exists and is “ contained b.” The last
words, els eva ovra Ka) %upvj- cravToc, may remind us of many expressions of
the later fathers, and of the doctrine which spoke of the 7repixupY)(Tt$ or
circuminsessio of the Father and Son, and which bishop Bull explains by “ unio
rerum “ sese invicem usquequaque immeantiumc.” I shall have occasion
to speak of this doctrine more at length hereafter; and at present I shall only
compare the passage in Ignatius with the following words of Dionysius of Rome,
who wrote in the third century: “ The divine Word must be united “ with the God
of the universe ; and the Holy “ Ghost must reciprocally pass into and dwell in
“ God.” The expressions yjvcc^hog, ek eva ovra, and 'Xupvjo-avTa, of Ignatius,
agree with vjvaaQat and qu</>/- Aoycopeiv of Dionysius; and there can be
no doubt, that the latter writer used them in the sense of a modern
Trinitarian, as may be seen in N°. 71? where the whole passage is quoted.
We find a
similar expression as to the unity of the Father and the Son in the following
passage:
“ After his resurrection he ate and drank with
them, “ as a person having a body, although he was spi- “ ritually united to
(or one with) the Fatherd.” These words prove the two natures of
Christ, the divine and the human, if they do not also prove the hypostatical
union of the Father and the Son.
Such were
the expressions used by Ignatius, who had conversed with the apostles, and
wrote at the beginning of the second century. We may suppose also, that there
was some traditionary notion of his having held the doctrine of the Trinity, from
the following passage in Socrates the ecclesiastical historian, who tells us,
“that the custom of singing “ anthems (tou$- avTi<j>^vovg vfxvovg) in the
church be- “ gan in this way. Ignatius, the third bishop of “ Antioch after the
apostle Peter, who had .also “ lived with the apostles themselves, saw a vision
“ of angels, who answered each other in singing “ hymns to the holy Trinitye,
and he caused the “ church of Antioch to preserve by tradition the “ method
which he had observed in this vision: “ from whence also the tradition has
spread among “ all churches.” Socrates wrote in the fifth century, and is the
earliest writer, who has noticed this anecdote in the life of Ignatius. It may
perhaps be rejected, as not worthy of credit: but it must at least be
supposed, that a tradition of this kind was preserved at Antioch: and the
persons, who first invented the story, could not have seen any thing in the
writings of Ignatius, which made it improbable.
It should
be added however, in fairness, that the passage does not necessarily mean, that
Ignatius received the doctrine of the Trinity from angels, but that he heard
angels singing hymns to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three persons who
were described, in the time of Socrates, by the name of the Trinity. The value
of this testimony must depend upon the antiquity of the tradition; and that*
cannot now be ascertained.
Polycarpus, A. D. 108.
In my
Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, I did not
give any particular account of Polycarp, because no passage was alleged from
his writings, though his name was incidentally mentioned in that work, and
some facts' were alluded to in connexion with his history. The most valuable
information concerning him is that furnished by Irenaeus, who tells us that he
had seen him, and adds, “ He had not only been instructed “ by the apostles,
and had lived with many who “ had seen Christ, but had been appointed to the “ bishopric
of Smyrna by the apostlesf.” Polycarp was a very old man, when
Irenaeus saw him; and the expression used by himself, of “ having served “
Christ eighty-six years s,” is generally taken to mean, that then, at the time
of his death, he was eighty-six years old. The time of his death has been fixed
at different periods. Eusebius placed it in 167: and the latest date assigned
to it is in 175i but Pearson has advanced some strong arguments for supposing
it to have happened in 147h. According to this notion he was born
about the year 61, or five or six years before the death of St. Peter and St.
Paul: and since there is reason to believe, that most of the apostles died soon
after that period, we are probably to restrict the expression of Irenaeus to
Polycarp having lived with St. John, and having been appointed by that apostle
to the bishopric of Smyrna. If these words of Irenaeus are in any sense to be
taken literally, Polycarp must have been bishop of Smyrna before the death of
St. John, who was the last surviving apostle : and if St. John wrote his
Apocalypse but a short time before his death, we can hardly avoid concluding,
that the angel of the church in Smyrna, addressed in ii. 8, Was Polycarp ; and
such was the opinion of Usher and several learned men. Irenaeus speaks of
Polycarp having gone to Rome, when Anicetus was bishop of that see: and
Eusebius supplies the additional fact, that he went thither on account of the
dispute between the eastern and western churches concerning the time of
celebrating Easter1. Pearson and Dod- well suppose Anicetus to have
held the see from 142 to 161; which will enable us nearly to fix the date of
Polycarp’s arrival in Rome, if we also adopt the notion of Pearson, that he
suffered martyrdom in 147. The two bishops could not come to any agreement,
since both of them urged ancient, if not apostolical authority for the customs
of their respective churches. It is pleasing however to read, that the
conference was carried on amicably; and writers of the church of Rome have been
perplexed to find it said, that when the two bishops were in the church
together, Anicetus allowed Polycarp, as a mark of • Hist. Eccl. IV. 14. p. 160.
V. 24. p. 249.
honour, to
consecrate the eucharist. Polycarp is stated, during this visit to Rome, to
have brought back to the church many heretics, who had embraced the tenets of
Valentinus and Marcion: -and Irenaeus informs us, that meeting one day with
Marcion himself, who said to him, “ Do you recognise me ?” he replied, “ I
recognise the firstborn of Satan.”
The
martyrdom of Polycarp took place in the amphitheatre of Smyrna, in the presence
of the proconsul : and a most interesting account of it was written by the
Christians in that city, and sent to the other churches. Eusebius has preserved
part of this letter in his Ecclesiastical History, (IV. 15,) and the whole of
it was published by archbishop Usher in 1647. We have the authority of Irenaeus
for the fact of Polycarp having written many epistles : but only one genuine
work of this kind has come down to us, which was addressed to the Christians
at Philippi. It was published for the first time in Latin by J. Faber
Stapulensis in 1498, and in Greek by Peter Halloix in the first volume of his
Lives of Oriental Writers, p. 525, in 1633. A fuller and more perfect copy of
it was printed by archbishop Usher in 1644.
3. Epistola Ecclesice Smyrnensis de Martyrio
Polycarpi.
The
testimony, which I adduce from the words of Polycarp, is not taken from his
Epistle to the Phi- lippians, but from the circular Epistle, which was written,
as just stated, by the church at Smyrna: and I adduce it, as enabling me to say
a few words concerning the form of the ancient doxologies.
The holy
martyr, when he was fastened to the stake, and was about to surrender his soul
to the
Master,
whom he had faithfully served so many years, addressed Him in a solemn and
affecting prayer, the last words of which were, “ For this “ and for every
thing I praise thee, I bless thee, I “ glorify thee, together with the eternal
and hea- “ venly Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, with whom “ to thee
and the Holy Ghost be glory, both now “ and for evermore. Amen k.”
Such are
the concluding words of the prayer in the edition of archbishop Usher: but
Eusebius has quoted them differently, “ — I glorify thee, through “ the eternal
High Priest Jesus Christ, thy beloved “ Son, through whom be glory to thee with
him “ in the Holy Ghost, both now and for evermore. “ Amen1.” The
difference between these two forms of expression appears considerable, and is
connected in some measure with the Arian controversy: for it is well known,
that the Arians, if th£y would have used the former doxology at all, would have
greatly preferred the latter: and Usher seems to hint, that the genuine words
of Polycarp may have been altered by a favourer of Arianism. The first of the
two forms unites the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, and ascribes equal
glory to all the three persons : the second seems to place the Father above the
two other persons, and by expressions which are not very distinct and
intelligible, to glorify the Father through the Son and in the Holy Ghost. It
was remarked so long ago as by Socrates in the fifth century, that one of the
grounds for charging Eusebius with Arianism was taken from his using the phrase
through Christ in his doxologiesra: and that such was his practice,
may be seen in some of his works now extant11. It is added however
by Socrates, that the phrase was often used by orthodox writers : and bishop
Bull observes, that the words jue0’ ol and h9 ol9 with whom and through whom,
occur in doxologies written before the council of Nice °. “ The early orthodox
writers,” as bishop Bull goes on to remark, “ while they glorified “ the
Father through the Son, intended to express “ the subordination of the Son, in
his relation of “ Son, and the preeminence of the Father, in his “ relation of
Father: but by adoring the Son toge- “ (her with the Father, they intended to
express his “ being of one substance and his existing in the “ same divine
essence and nature with the Father.” Basil also defends the expression, through
the Son, in the Holy Ghost, as bearing an orthodox sense p: and it may be
stated generally, that both forms were used indifferently before the council of
Nice; but the Arians after that time made a distinction, and glorified the
Father, not together with, but through the Son. Theodoret informs us, that in
the middle of the fourth century the clergy and people of Antioch were
divided, some using the conjunction and9 when they glorified the
Son, (i. e. saying and to the Son,) and others applying the preposition through
to the Son, and in to the Holy Ghosts This was the period, when the dispute
concerning the form of doxology became general: and Philostorgius, the Arian
historian, is speaking of the same time and place, when he says, “ that Flavianus
was the first “ person who used the words, Glory to the Father “ and to the Son
and to the Holy Ghost: for be- “ fore his time some had said, Glory to the
Father “ through the Son in the Holy Ghost, which was “ the expression in most
general use; and others, “ Glory to the Father in the Son and Holy Ghost* T
Nicephorus supplies us with still another form, Glory to the Father and to the
Son in the Holy Ghosts; which was probably adopted by those who
wished to lower the divinity of the third person in the Trinity. Philostorgius
is undoubtedly wrong, when he says, that Flavianus was the inventor of the
first of these forms, Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
In the passage, which I shall quote at length from Clement of Alexandria, in N°.
20, thanks are offered “ to the Father and to “ the Son with the Holy
GhostHippolytus also says, after speaking of the Son, “ to him be glory “ and
power with the Father and Holy Ghost in “ the holy church both now and for ever1.”
Dionysius of Alexandria concludes one of his works with the following words,
“To God the Father, and to “ the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy “
Ghost, be glory and power for ever and everu;”
having
prefaced this doxology by saying, 44 I con- 44 elude what
I have now written to you, in accord- 44 ance with all this, and
having received the form 44 and rule from the old persons who have
'preceded “ us, and expressing my thankfulness in words 44 which
agree with theirs.” But a form of equal force, as implying the equality of the
three persons, had been used much earlier by Polycarp, where the phrase petf
ol, with whom, can only imply, that equal or the same glory was to be ascribed
to the Son as to the Father and the Holy Ghost. Basil, in the treatise already
quotedx, expressly says, that “ the 44 church recognises
both forms, and rejects neither Dionysius of Alexandria, and Origen. He then
quotes Africanus, who lived in the third century, as saying, “We give thanks to
the Father, who sent 44 our Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory
and 44 majesty with the Holy Ghost for evera.” After
which he observes, 44 Whoever is acquainted with 44 the
hymn of Athenogenes, which he left as a fare- 44 well-gift to his
companions, when he was going 44 to be burnt, will know what
sentiments were held 44 by the martyrs concerning the Spiritb.”
This hymn of Athenogenes is unfortunately lost: but Basil speaks of an evening
hymn, which was in general use in his own day, (i.e. A.D. 370,) though he did
not know the author of it: and the people, as he says, did not think that they
were committing an impiety, when they joined in the words, 44 We 44
praise the Father, and Son, and holy Spirit of 44 Godc.”
This ancient evening hymn is probably extant: at least the Greek church still
makes use of one, which contains the words quoted above by Basil, and which has
sometimes been ascribed erroneously to Athenogenes. The hymn, as edited by Dr.
Routh, is as follows:
44 O Jesus
Christ, the joyous light of the blessed 44 glory of the immortal
Father, who is in heaven, 44 holy and blessed, having come to the
setting of 44 the sun, having seen the evening light, we praise 44
the Father, Son, and holy Spirit of God. Worthy
“ art
thou at all times to be praised by holy voices, “ Son of God, who givest life:
wherefore the world “ glorifieth thee d.”
If this is
the hymn alluded to by Basil, and which was so ancient, that he did not know
the author of it, there are good grounds for giving it this place among the
Ante-Nicene testimonies to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Basil then
proceeds to pass a high eulogium upon Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus, who was
bishop of Neocaesarea in Cappadocia, and flourished about A. D. 254. He does
not quote any passage from his writings, but appeals to the notoriety of the
fact, that the form of doxology, which was objected to by the heretics, had
been constantly used in the church, because it was handed down from a man of
such celebrity as Gregory. He says the same of Firmilianus, who was a bishop in
the same country a few years earlier; and also of Meletius, whose name is
omitted by Cave, but who is evidently the same person mentioned by Athanasiuse,
as being present at the council of Nice.
I might
perhaps have been excused, if I had translated the whole of this passage, which
contains such an interesting assemblage of Ante-Nicene testimonies: but I am
contented with quoting merely those parts, which contain actual fragments of
the writers themselves: and unless we suppose Basil to have been the most
imprudent as well as the most deceitful of men, he would never have made this
appeal to antiquity, when he was defending himself for ascribing the same glory
to the Son and the Holy Ghost, as to the Father.
It is
true, that Eusebius appears to have found a different reading in his copy of Polycarp’s
prayer: and a critical question like this can never be demonstrably settled.
It is however worthy of remark, that in the letter of the church of Smyrna,
alluded to above, we find the following expression at the close of it: “We wish
you health, brethren, while <e you walk according to the gospel
of Jesus Christ, “ with whom be glory to God the Father and the “ Holy Ghost V’
The words are almost literally the same as those used by Polycarp, and in their
meaning are precisely equivalent: so that if they do not lead us to conclude,
that Usher’s edition gives the true reading, they at least supply us with
another passage of the same date, in which the Son is made a partaker in glory
with the Father and the Holy Ghost. A similar passage occurs in that very
ancient and interesting document, the Martyrdom of Ignatius, concerning the
genuineness of which little or no doubt is entertained. It ends
with these
words, “ in Christ Jesus our Lord,
“ through
whom and with whom be glory and
“ power to the Father with the Holy Ghost for
“ ever£.” Here we find both the forms, through whom and with whom: and so in
fact do we read in the prayer of Polycarp as given by Eusebius, where the words
ov avv avrS> are equivalent to ov tea) ol, and thus even Eusebius makes Polycarp
ascribe glory to the Father together with the Son. For the preposition with
being equivalent to the conjunction and in these doxologies, I would refer to
Basil. 1. c. c. £5.
The
question now remains, whether doxologies such as these do not prove, that the
doctrine of the Trinity was held by those who used them; whether such persons
did not believe, that the Son and the Holy Ghost, who were equal in glory with
the Father, were also of the same nature and substance. It might seem trifling
to enquire, whether created beings could ever be put upon an equality in glory
and power with God: and we may say with Athanasius, when he is speaking of the
form used in baptism, “ What communion is there between the “ creature and the
Creator ? why is the thing made “ numbered with Him who made ith?”
or with Basil, “We say that beings of the same dignity are “ to be coupled
together; but where there are de- “ grees of inferiority, one must be
enumerated after “ the otheri.” We may here refer to the Arians
themselves as allowing, that doxologies, such as that used by Polycarp, were
not agreeable to their own
theories
concerning the nature of Christ: for why then did they prefer the other form,
which glorified God, not with Christ, but through Christk? It is however demonstrable,
that the form with Christ was used as early as the second century: and I
therefore conclude, that the doctrine of the Trinity, which considers the three
persons in the Godhead to be co-equal, was held in the second century by
Polycarp, who was the immediate disciple of St. J ohn \
Justinus
Martyr. A.D. 150.
4. Justin. Apol. I. 6. p. 47.
In the
present instance I must depart from my usual plan of giving a translation of
the passage, and adding the original in a note: for the Greek words have been
cited with such opposite views, and translated in so many different ways, that
it is absolutely necessary to lay them in the first instance before the reader.
Justin is answering the charge of atheism, which was brought against the Christians,
and observes, that they were punished for not worshipping evil demons, which
were not really gods.
With the
exception of the words, which I have included in brackets, there can be no
difficulty in translating this passage. “ Hence it is that we are “ called
atheists: and we confess that we are atheists “ with respect to such reputed
gods as these: but “ not with respect to the true God, the Father of “justice,
temperance, and every other virtue, with “ whom is no mixture of evil. But Him,
and the “ Son who came from Him and gave us this in- “ struction, and the
prophetic Spirit, we worship “ and adore, paying them a reasonable and true “
honour, and not refusing to deliver to any one “ else, who wishes to be taught,
what we ourselves “ have learnt.”
With
respect to the words included in brackets, Roman catholic writers have quoted
them as supporting the worship of angels: and if we connect tov (TTparov immediately with ae/3o[JLe6a kou
Trpo<jKvvovfj.ev} Justin certainly appears to say, “We reverence
and “ worship the Father, and the Son, and the host of “ the other good angels
which attend upon and re- “ semble them.” Bellarmin refers to the passage with
this viewm: and Prudentius Maranus, the Benedictine editor
of Justin Martyr, argues at some length in his preface11, that the
words cannot receive any other interpretation. Scultetus, a protestant divine
of Heidelberg, in his Medulla Theologies Patrum0, which appeared in 1605, gave a totally
different meaning to the passage, and instead of connecting tov arpwrov with o-e/3o(jLe6a, connected
it with hla%avTa. The words would then be rendered thus : “ But Him, and the
Son who came from
“ Him, who also gave us instructions
concerning “ these things, and concerning the host of the other “ good angels,
we worship &c.” This interpretation is adopted and defended at some length
by bishop BullP, and by Stephen Le Moyne and even the Benedictine Le Nourryr
supposed Justin to mean, that Christ had taught us not to worship the bad
angels, as well as the existence of good angels. Grabe, in his edition of
Justin’s Apology, which was printed in 1703, adopted another interpretation,
which had been before proposed by Le Moyne and by Cave8. This also
connects tov arparov with l&alavra, and would require us to
render the passage thus: <c and the Son who came from Him,
“ who also
taught these things to us and to the host “ of the other angels &c.” It
might be thought, that Langus, who published a Latin translation of Justin in
1565, meant to adopt one of these interpretations, or at least to connect tov
o-tparov with h^avra. Both of them certainly are ingenious, and are not perhaps
opposed to the literal construction of the Greek words : but I cannot say that
they are satisfactory; or that I am surprised at Roman catholic writers describing
them as forced and violent attempts to evade a difficulty. If the words
enclosed in brackets were removed, the whole passage would certainly contain a
strong argument in favour of the Trinity: but as they now stand, Roman catholic
writers will naturally quote them as supporting the worship of angels. There is
however this difficulty in such a construction of the
passage:
it proves too much: by coupling the angels with the three persons of the
Trinity, as objects of religious adoration, it seems to go beyond even what
Roman catholics themselves would maintain concerning the worship of angels.
Their well-known distinction between XaTpeia. and lovXeia would be entirely
confounded: and the difficulty felt by the Benedictine editor appears to have
been as great, as his attempt to explain it is unsuccessful, when he wrote as
follows: “ Our adversaries in vain object “ the twofold expression, aefiopev
rcai TrpocrKvvov^v, we “ worship and adore. For the former is applied to “
angels themselves, regard being had to the dis- “ tinction between the creature
and the Creator: “ the latter by no means necessarily includes the “ angels.”
This sentence requires concessions, which no opponent could be expected to
make: and if one of the two terms, <xe;Qopev kcu irpoo-Kvvovfjiev,
may be applied to angels, it is unreasonable to contend that the other must
not also. Perhaps however the passage may be explained so as to admit a
distinction of this kind. The interpretations of Scultetus and Grabe have not
found many advocates: and upon the whole I should be inclined to conclude, that
the clause, which relates to the angels, is connected particularly with the
words Xoyw kcli aXvjQela
TifxoQvreg.
A
transposition was proposed by Dr. Ashton, who published an edition of the two
Apologies in 1768, which would make this construction still more apparent, and
would in fact remove every difficulty. He proposes to place the words, which I
have included in brackets, after TipwvTeg. The passage would then be as
follows: “ But Him, and the Son who “ came from Him and gave us this
instruction, and
“ the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore
ra- “ tionally and truly, honouring also the host of the “ other angels
&c.” This transposition has been adopted by Mr. Lowe, in his Letter to Dr. Milner,
and in an article published in the British Critic, for January 1830, p. 165. It
would certainly deprive the Roman catholics of the use which they make of this
passage, and would at once point out the distinction between the adoration
paid to God, and the honour given to created and ministering spirits. If we
were to adopt the transposition at all, I should perhaps place the words after
nTpoa/cvvovfAev, and so connect Aoyco kou
akrjdeia with the honour paid to the angels. Justin might be supposed to use
the words rationally and truly with reference to the irrational and false
worship which he had lately been exposing, as paid by the heathen to evil
demons. But upon the whole I cannot bring myself to do such violence to the
text upon mere conjecture, and in the face of every manuscript. The
transposition would be convenient, and perhaps decisive: but in such cases it
is the part of criticism as well as of candour to say,
Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Tempus
eget:
and I
would rather give up the passage to the Roman catholics, and call upon them to
rescue Justin from the charge of confounding the creature with the Creator: or
(which is perhaps the safe and true course) we may fairly extract from the
passage the same meaning which is given to it by Dr. Ashton, without having
recourse to his unauthorized transposition.
Justin, as
I observed, is defending the Christians c 2
from the
charge of atheism: and after saying that the gods, whom they refused to
worship, were no gods, but evil demons, he points out what were the Beings, who
were worshipped by the Christians. He names the true God, who is the source of
all virtue; the Son, who proceeded from him; the good and ministering spirits;
and the Holy Ghost. To these Beings, he says, we pay all the worship,
adoration, and honour, which is due to each of them: i. e. worship, where
worship is due, and honour, where honour is due. The Christians were accused
of worshipping no gods, that is, of acknowledging no superior beings at all.
Justin shews, that so far was this from being true, that they acknowledged
more than one order of spiritual Beings: they offered divine worship to the
true God, and they also believed in the existence of good spirits, which were
entitled to honour and respect. If the reader will view the passage as a whole,
he will perhaps see that there is nothing violent in thus restricting the words
cre(3ofAe6a Ka) itpoaKwovpev, and ttfxiovTeg, to certain parts of it
respectively. It may seem strange, that Justin should mention the ministering
spirits before the Holy Ghost: but this is a difficulty, which presses upon the
Roman catholics as much as upon ourselves: and we may perhaps adopt the
explanation of the bishop of Lincoln, who says, “ I have sometimes thought that
in this pas- <e sage Ka) rov—crrparov is equivalent to fxera tov— “ arparov, and that Justin had in his mind the glori- “
fied state of Christ, when he should come to judge “ the world, surrounded by
the host of heaven V’
t Some account of the Writ- Martyr, p. 53. A similar re-
ings and Opinions of Justin mark is made by Basil concern-
The bishop
then brings several passages from Justin, where the Son of God is spoken of,
as attended by a company of angels: and if this idea was then in Justin’s mind,
it might account for his naming the ministering spirits immediately after the
Son of God, rather than after the Holy Ghost, which would have been the natural
and proper order.
That this
was the meaning of Justin, and that he did not intend to include the angels in
that divine worship, which is paid to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may
appear from a similar passage in the same Apology, where 110 mention is made of
angels. “ That we are not atheists, who would not “ acknowledge, when we
worship the Creator of “ this universe, and Jesus Christ, who was our in- “
structor in these things, knowing him to be the “ Son of this true God, and
assigning to him the “ second place ? And I shall prove presently, that “ we
honour the prophetic Spirit in the third rank, “ and that we are reasonable in
so doing u.” If this passage should appear at first sight to
represent an inequality between the three persons of the Trinity, and
particularly with respect to the third person, it may at least prove, that in
the former passage the writer did not mean to assign a fourth place to the Holy
Ghost, and after the ministering spirits: for he here distinctly says, that the
prophetic Spirit has the third place: and there is no reason to suppose, that
Justin meant to say any thing more, than what
is and
must be said by the soundest Trinitarian, that the Father is the first person,
the Son is the second person, and the Holy Ghost is the third person in a
co-equal and co-eternal Trinity.
Further
light may be thrown upon the sentiments of Justin, and upon the construction of
the controverted passage, if we compare it with another in the Legation of
Athenagoras, where the same train of reasoning is pursued, but where a marked
difference is preserved between the three persons of the Trinity and the
angels. “ Who would not be aston- “ ished to hear us called atheists, when we
speak of “ the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the “ Holy Ghost, shewing
at the same time their power “ in unity, and their distinction in order? Nor
does “ the system of our theology stop here : but we say “ that there is a
multitude of angels and ministers, “ whom God the Maker and Creator of the
world “ distributed by the Word proceeding from himself, “ and appointed them
their stations at the elements “ and the heavens, the world and every thing
there- “ in, and the harmony of them*.” There are some passages in Origen which
agree still more remarkably with the words of Justin, and shew plainly what
were the sentiments of the fathers concerning the honour due to angels. In his
work against Celsus, he says, “ Because together with God we “ worhip his Son,
Celsus thinks that it follows upon
“ our
principles, that not only God, but his minis- “ ters also are worshipped
(depomevce-Qai). If he had “ meant those beings who are truly ministers of “
God after his only begotten Son, such as Gabriel, “ and Michael, and the other
angels and archangels, fiC and had said that
these ought to be worshipped; “ perhaps after having purified (eKKaQjipavreg)
the “ meaning of the term worship, (Qepaneveiv,) and the “ actions of the
worshipper, I might have explained “ what conceptions we are able to form
concerning “ them?.” He afterwards says, “ If we see certain “ beings appointed
to these offices, not demons, but “ angels, we address them as blessed and
happy, “ (evcf>Y)fji.QvfjLev kou fxaKapi^ofxev,) but we do not pay to “ them
the honour (tipyv) which is paid to God2:” which agrees with what he
had said at the beginning of this work, that we are to believe in “ the “
supreme God, and in him who taught us to wor- “ ship (aepew) him only, and to
pass by all other ob- “ jects, either as having no real existence, or, if they
“ exist, as being worthy of honour, but not of ador- “ ation and worship,
(ttpoa-KWYja-ecog kou aefiao-fAov*).” All these passages taken together may
lead us to conclude, that Justin Martyr considered the Son and the Holy Ghost
as objects of religious worship. He makes no distinction between the adoration
paid to them and to the Father: and when called upon to prove that the Christians
were not atheists, he proves that they worshipped God, because they worshipped
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
The next
quotation requires us to bear in mind what I mentioned in my former work, (No.
23.) that whenever God is said in the Old Testament to have revealed himself,
or to have been seen by any person, it was not the Father, but the Son.
Justin, as I then stated, is very diffuse in establishing this position : and
many of the passages which are thus explained compel us to conclude, that he
applied the term God to the Son in the fullest and highest signification. He
now shews that he did not understand this manifestation of the Father by the
Son in a Sabellian sense: and though theology had not yet employed any Greek
term equivalent to person, he sufficiently expresses the distinct personality
of the Father and the Son.
<e Returning
to the Scriptures, I will endeavour e< to persuade you, that this
God, who is said in the <e Scriptures to have been seen by
Abraham and “ Jacob and Moses, is a different Being' from the " God who
created the universe; I mean different i6 in number, (or numerically,)
but not in counsel: “ for I affirm, that he never did any thing, except “ what
the Creator himself, above whom there is “ no other God, wished him to do or to
sayb.”
The word
person, as I have observed, not having yet come into use in this sense, Justin
could hardly have employed any other which would more plainly convey an idea of
distinct individuality than
numerically. The following passages will also
shew that something like Sabellianism had already been maintained, but that
Justin was decidedly opposed to it. “ The Jews, who think that it was always “
the Father of the universe who talked with Moses, “ whereas the person who
spoke to him was the Son “ of God, who is also called an angel and apostle, “
are justly convicted of knowing neither the Fa- “ ther nor the Son : for they
who say that the Son “ is the Father, are convicted of neither understand- “
ing the Father, nor of knowing that the Father of “ the universe has a Son, who
also being the first- “ born Logos of God, is likewise Godc.” He
speaks still more plainly in the following passage : “ I am “ aware that there
are some who wish to meet this “ by saying, that the power which appeared from
“ the Father of the universe to Moses, or Abraham, “ or Jacob, is called an
angel in his coming among “ men, since by this the will of the Father is made “
known to men: he is also called Glory, since he “ is sometimes seen in an
unsubstantial appearance: “ sometimes he is called a man, since he appears “
under such forms as the Father pleases: and they “ call him the Word, since he
is also the bearer of “ messages from the Father to men. But they say, “ that
this power is unseparated and undivided from “ the Father, in the same manner
that the light of “ the sun when on earth is unseparated and un- “ divided from
the sun in heaven; and when it sets, “ the light is removed with it: so the
Father, they “ say, when he wishes, makes his power go forth; 44 and
when he wishes, he brings it back again to “ himself. In this same manner,
according to their c Apol. I. 63. p. 81.
“ doctrine, he also made the angelsd.” This is
little else than Sabellianism: and Justin shews his own opinion of such an
irrational hypothesis when he goes on to say, “ But that there are angels, and
that “ they continue always to exist, and are not resolved “ into that out of
which they were produced, has “ been proved above: and I have also proved at “
some length, that this power, which the pro- “ phetical language speaks of as
God, and as an “ angel, has not a mere nominal enumeration like “ the light of
the sun, but also in number [i. e. in “ numerical individuality] is something
different6.” We have here the same term, apiQpu, used, as I have
explained it, for numerical individuality: and though the sun, and the light
proceeding from the sun, are not in fact one and the same, yet Justin says,
that the Father and the Son are still more numerically distinct: which
demonstrably proves that he was entirely opposed to the Sabellian hypothesis:
and his conclusion of this part of the argument is, that “ that which is
begotten is numerically dif- “ ferent from that which begets itf.”
He nevertheless made use of the analogy of the sun and its effulgence to
illustrate the manner in which the Son proceeded from the Father: and the
persons who anticipated Sabellius replied to his argument by saying, that the
substance of the Father was thus divided into two. To which Justin answers, “ I
“ have explained in a few words before, that this
“ Power was begotten by the Father, by his
power “ and will, and not by being severed from him, as “ if the substance of
the Father was divided in the “ same manner as all other things which are
divided “ and severed are not the same as they were before “ they were severed
: and I used as an example the “ fires lighted from another fire, which we see
to be “ different, though that from which many may be “ lighted is not
diminished, but continues the same s.” The passage to which he alludes was
probably this, “ As in the case of fire, we see another fire produced, “ though
that from which it is lighted is not dimin- “ ished, but continues the same;
and that which is “ lighted from it appears to have its own existence, “
without diminishing that from which it was “ lighted11.” Tatian, the
disciple of Justin Martyr, made use of the same illustration to express the generation
of the Son1: but I shall not dwell longer upon this part of the
subject, which has been so profoundly investigated by bishop Bullk;
and I have only noticed these expressions in the writings of the fathers, as
shewing that they believed the Son to be of the same nature or substance with
the Father, and yet to be personally distinct from him.
Athenagoras, A. D. 170.
6. At/ienag. Legat. pro Ckristianis, c. 10.
p. 286-7.
The
following passage, which was written towards the end of the second century,
may surprise those persons who have allowed themselves to believe that the
mystery of the Trinity is a recent invention. Athenagoras is explaining the
belief of the Christians in the Father and the Son, and after stating the
latter to be the Logos of the Father, which Logos is either in the mind, or
displayed in the action, he adds, “ For all things were made by “ him and
through him, the Father and the Son “ being one: and since the Son is in the
Father, “ and the Father in the Son, by the unity and “ power of the Spirit,
the Son of God is the Mind “ and Word of God1.” This passage is
followed shortly after by that which I have, quoted at p. 22. where Athenagoras
says, “ We speak of the Father “ as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy
Ghost, “ shewing at the same time their power in unity, “ and their distinction
in order.55
7. Atlienag. Legat. pro Cliristianis, c. 12.
p. 289.
The
following passage is still more remarkable,
in which
Athenagoras, after contrasting the expectations of a future life, which the
heathen could have, with the sure and certain hope of a Christian, observes, “
But we who look upon this present life as “ worth little or nothing, and are
conducted through “ it by the sole principle of knowing God and the “ Word
proceeding from him, of knowing what is
“ the unity of the Son with the Father, what
is the “ communion of the Father with the Son, [or, what “ the Father
communicates to the Son,] what is the “ Spirit, what is the union of this
number of per- “ sons, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and in what
“ way they
who are united are divided------------------ shall
we
“ not have
credit given us for being worshippers of “ Godm?”
8. Athenag. Legat. pro Christianis, c. 24. p.
302.
The
following passage is obscure, and requires the reader to be acquainted with the
peculiar language of the fathers: but the general meaning of it cannot be
mistaken. We speak of God, and the Son his “ Word, and the Holy Ghost, which
are united in “ their essence, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, be- “ cause the
Son is the Mind, Reason, or Wisdom of “ the Father; and the Spirit is an
emanation,' as “ light from fire11.” If it be said, that the personality
of the second and third persons in the Trinity could hardly have been believed
by Athenagoras, when he speaks of the Son as the Mind of God, and of the Holy
Ghost as an emanation, anoppoia, it may
TovfAcda 6eo<re(3eiv; I have adopted same writer at p. 22. and there
the Benedictine editor’s emend- seem to be some words wanting
jtt€v
Kara. §vva.(Aivy tov
Hare pa, tov Ttbvy to Hvev[/.ct, on vothoyoq, cotyia. Ti'o$ tov UarpoSy na\ a.Troppoia,y
&<; (pZ$ a.Tco nvpos, to nvevy.cn. The Benedictine editor explains
vafAiq in this passage to mean oivfa, and so I have translated
'it.
'EvovfAevcc (Aev Kara, $vvscy.iv
may remind
us of t»jv ev t$ ivaa-ei Wvapiv, as quoted from this
here, such
as diaipovpeva. Se hoi/tcc ra^iv' but I
suspect a longer lacuna,
be
answered, that these expressions were used by the fathers merely as
illustrations. It seems probable that they borrowed the illustration from the
Platonizing Jews of Alexandria, who had learned almost to personify the mind or
reason of God, as may be seen in the works of Philo Judaeus; and had taken to
speak of wisdom, as the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence
flowing from (aTroppoia) the glory of the Almighty. (Wisd. vii. 25.) It may be
demonstrated, that these Alexandrian Jews did not really mean to speak of
Wisdom, or the Reason of God, as distinctly existing persons0: but
the Christian fathers found their expressions so very applicable to an idea of
personality, that they borrowed them, when speaking of the Son and the Holy Ghost:
though they guard against the notion of these expressions being applied too
literally, and say repeatedly, that the Father and the Son are numerically, i.
e. personally, different. Still, however, the Mind or Reason of God, which is
not the same as God, though inseparably united with him, furnished some
analogy for the unity and the distinction of the Father and the Son: and the
Holy Ghost was spoken of as an efflux or emanation, because such an expression
conveys some idea of a being proceeding from God, while it excludes the notion
of creation. Expressions such as these, if they stood alone in the writings of
the fathers, though they demonstrate that the Son and the Holy Ghost could not
have been looked upon as created beings, might yet seem to present an agreement
with the Sabellian hypothesis: but other expressions, as
° 1 may
refer the reader for a the seventh of my Bampton consideration of this subject
to Lectures.
I have
already shewn, are directly opposed to this notion: and hence we conclude by
comparing the fathers with themselves, and with each other, that they neither
divided the substance, nor confounded the persons, in the Godhead.
I ought,
perhaps, in this place to introduce the testimony of a heathen writer, who was
a contemporary of Athenagoras : and the passage which has often been adduced
from the Philopatris of Lucian, must certainly be considered as confirming in a
remarkable manner the belief of a Trinity in Unity. The speakers in this
dialogue are Critias and Trie- phon; the former an heathen, the latter a
Christian; and when Critias has offered to swear by different heathen deities,
each of which is objected to by Triephon, he asks, “ By whom then shall I swear
?” to which Triephon makes the following reply, the first words of which are a
quotation from Homer,
“ By the great God, immortal, in the heavens;
<fi The Son
of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from fifi the Father, one out
of three, and three out of one, 66 Consider these thy Jove, be this thy God.”
Critias
then ridicules this <c arithmetical oath,” and says, <e
I cannot tell what you mean by saying that “ one is three, and three are one p.”
There can
be no doubt, that when this dialogue was written, it was commonly known to the
heathen, that the Christians believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though
in one sense three, in another sense to be one: and if the dialogue was written
by Lucian, who lived in the latter part of the second century, it would be one
of the strongest testimonies remaining to the doctrine of the Trinity. This
was acknowledged by Socinus, who says in one of his works, “ that he had never
read any “ thing which gave greater proof of a worship of “ the Trinity being
then received among Chris- “ tians, than the passage which is brought from the <e
dialogue entitled Philopatris, and which is reck- “ oned among the works of
Lucian <*.” He then observes, that the dialogue is generally supposed by the
learned to be falsely ascribed to Lucian; and he adds some arguments which
might make the passage of less weight, in proving that all Christians of that
day believed a Trinity in Unity. I have no inclination to notice these
arguments : but Socinus was correct in saying, that the learned had generally
decided against the genuineness of this dialogue as a work of Lucian. Bishop
Bullr believed it to be genuine, and Fabriciuss was
inclined to do the same. Some have ascribed it to a writer older than the time
of Lucian; others, to one of the same age; and others, to much later periods. I
need only refer the reader to discussions of the subject by Dodwell1,
Blondellu, Lardnerx, &c.: but J. M. Gesner has
considered the question in a long and able Dissertationy, the object of which
is to prove that the Phi- lopatris was written in the reign of Julian the apo-
tate. His arguments appear to me to deserve much attention; and though the
learned do not seem in general to have adopted his conclusion, I feel so far
convinced by them, that I cannot bring forward this remarkable passage, as the
testimony of a writer of the second century.
Theophilus, A. D. 180.
In my
former work I gave no account of this father, (though his writings were
incidentally quoted,) because the passages, which I wish to adduce, not only
support the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, but of the Trinity, and may
therefore be more suitably introduced in this place.
Some
doubts have been raised concerning the identity and the date of Theophilus: but
it seems to be generally agreed, that the person whose works have come down to
us was the sixth bishop of Antioch, and was appointed to that see about the
year 168. He tells us himself, that he had been bred up in heathenism, and it
is plain that his language and thoughts retained a lasting impression from the
Platonic philosophy. None of his genuine works have come down to us, except
three books addressed to Autolycus, who was a friend of Theophilus, and a man
of profound learning, but strongly opposed to Christianity. Theophilus is
supposed to have written this work at the beginning of the reign of Commodus, and
to have died soon after, about the year 181.
I quote
this passage, not on account of the sentiment which it contains, (for the
allusion is sufficiently puerile,) but because it is the earliest passage in
the works of any of the fathers, where we find the Greek word Tpiag, Trinity7-: and we can thus
prove, that the term was applied to the three persons of the Trinity as early
as toward the end of the second century.
Theophilus
had been giving an accoimt of the creation, as described by Moses in the book
of Genesis ; and following that allegorical method of interpretation, which
the fathers borrowed too freely from the schools of Alexandria, he extracts a
hidden meaning from the fact of the heavenly bodies being created on the fourth
day. <e In like manner also “ the three days, which preceded the
luminaries, are “ types of the Trinity, of God and his Word and “ his Wisdom a.”
It is not necessary to attempt to explain this typical allusion; and the reader
is perhaps aware, that the term Wisdom was applied by the fathers to the
second and third persons of the Trinity, though more frequently to the second.
As bishop Bull observes, “ Veteres secundae et tertiae " personae, ob
communem utrique turn naturam, turn “ ab eadem Trrr/ji derivationem, etiam nomina
“ fecisse
communiab.” It is plain, that in the present instance the term
Wisdom is applied to the
z This
passage is overlooked tunes, by
Suicer in his Thesaurus, v. a ‘Clravrag koI at rpelq ypJpai
Tptaq, who very properly ob- ray <pa<rrrtp'j;v jey'jyvL'xi
Tvroi
serves,
that the Expositio recta elm ryjq
TpLaZo<;, roZ SeoZ, k*i roZ
confessionis, in which the word X&ycv avrcZ, kx.) rr& <ro<pIa<; avroZ. occurs, and which has been as- b Def. Fid.
Nic. II. 4,10. See
cribed to
Justin Martyr, is later also Grotius in
Marc. ii. 8. than that writer by some cen-
Holy
Ghost, as bishop Bull has shewn it to have been by Irenaeus, Origen, and others
c: and if this indiscriminate application of names should lead any
persons to imagine, that the fathers confounded the personality of the Son and
the Holy Ghost, we may adduce the present passage as a proof to the contrary,
in which the word and the allusion to three distinct days, require us to
interpret the Word of God, and the Wisdom of God1 of two distinct persons.
It is hardly
necessary to add, that in adducing this passage as the earliest instance of the
use of
the word
Tjiir, I confine the remark to the eede-
t '3
siastical
meaning of the term, and to its application to the three persons of the
Godhead. It would appear from Aulus Gelliuswho probably wrote a few years
before Theophilus, that in Greek, as termlo in Latin, signified the number
three: and if we speak of the cube, or square, or any other power of three, we
should not say but t^t
The word
is also frequently used by Philo Judaeus in his work upon the creation where he
speculates upon the number of days in a manner very similar to that followed by
Theophilus. The passage in A. Gellius might lead us to think, that Pythagoras
had made use of the term and his
peculiar
theory
concerning numbers led him to pay particular regard to the number three. The
word also occurs in one of those spurious oracles, which have been ascribed to
Zoroaster and the Persian magi:
IIcam ysp
(7 orur /jora T:au', aas,* and from this and similar expressions it has been
c Def. Fid.
Nic. IL 5, 7. IV. * I. 20.
3,11. e DeOpiiao,p.ia
thought by
some persons, that the Chaldees and Persians had a notion of a Trinity in unityf.
I cannot, however, persuade myself, that there is any real foundation for this
opinion. It is true, that the later Platonists found out several allusions to a
Trinity in the writings of Plato; and many of the fathers extracted a similar
meaning from these passages. The former wished to prove, that the Christians
had borrowed from Plato: and the latter incautiously thought to support the
doctrines of the Gospel, by finding a resemblance to them in the writings of
Plato. This is, I believe, a correct account of the system which prevailed in
the early ages of Christianity, of interpreting Plato in a Christian sense:
and the same spirit, which led to the distortion and misrepresentation of the
Athenian philosopher, was most probably the cause of the forgery of many of
those oracles, which were ascribed to the Sibyls and the Magi. It is demonstrable,
that some of these oracles were in existence in the time of Justin Martyr: and
his manner of quoting them proves not only their existence, but that they must
have been written a certain time before, so as to have obtained a general
circulation and belief in those days. The forgeries of this kind may perhaps be
traced to Alexandria as their birthplace : and the same injudicious feeling,
which I have supposed to have weighed with the Christian fathers, may have
induced the Alexandrian Jews to appeal to certain ancient records of Greece and
Persia as agreeing with Moses. The heathen philoso-
f See
Cudwortli, Systema In- to my Bampton Lectures, note tellectuale, and Mosheim’s
notes, 90. p. 546.
IV. 17. p.
436. I may also refer
phers made
the same appeal, with a view to depreciate the antiquity and originality of
the books of Moses: and thus the spurious works of Orpheus, Zoroaster, the
Sibyls, &c. were received and quoted by both parties. Many of these oracles
or fragments of ancient poetry bear undoubted marks of being written by Jews,
or by persons acquainted with the Jewish scriptures: and these may be traced to
Alexandria. Others again speak plainly and explicitly of Christ and the
gospel: and these may be ascribed to the later Platonists, or their injudicious
Christian opponents. The passage quoted above, in which the word Tpiat occurs,
is taken from the writings of Damascius, who lived in the sixth century: and
it may therefore have been a late forgery, when the controversy concerning the
Trinity attracted the notice of the heathen philosophers.
We perhaps
ought not to infer from the words of Theophilus, that the term rpiag had come
in his day to bear the signification of a trinity in unity. He may have used it
merely to express three things; and the three days, which he compares with the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, might have been spoken of by him as tpta$ tcov
vjpepav, a triad, or trinity of days. In this sense Clement of Alexandria
speaks of “ the holy triad or trinity, faith, hope, and “ charity«and Origen
uses the terms rpiag and t€tpas for periods of three and four years respectively11:
Tertullian also at the end of the second century used the term trinitas in the
same ordinary sense, for any three things *: but the passage, which
I shall
quote at length in N°. 30, seems to shew, that in his day the term was applied
in a particular manner to the three persons of the Godhead. I would not
therefore argue from the mere occurrence of the word in the writings of
Theophilus, that Tpia$ contained a signification of unity, as well as of
trinity: but this much is at least evident, that Theophilus must have
considered some resemblance, if not equality, to have existed between the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or he would not have included them in the same
type: and who would venture in any sense to speak of a trinity of beings, if
one of the three was God, and the other two were created?
The next
writer, who uses the word in the ecclesiastical sense, is Clement of
Alexandria, who flourished a few years later than Theophilus. Like many of the
fathers, he supposed Plato to have had a Trinity in view, when he wrote that
obscure passage in his second Letter to Dionysius, Ilep) tov nav- rccv fiacriXea. ttolvt
eor), kou eiceivov eveKa ra it
dvr a’ kcu Ikuvo alnov oc7ra.vTcov
tcov KaXwv' &eiWepov irep) to. tievrepa' kcu rpnov 7T€pt ra Tpira. Upon which Clement observes, 44 I understand this in no other
way, than as con- 44
taining mention of the blessed Trinity: for the “ third thing is the Holy
Ghost, and the Son is the 44
seconder Hippolytus, in a fragment of one of his works, speaks of 44 the knowledge of the blessed 44 Trinity1:” and in
another, after reciting the form of words used at baptism, he adds, 44 For by this 44 Trinity the Father is
glorified111.” Origen also
frequently
made use of the term. Several places are marked in the note11 where the word Trinitas
occurs in the Latin translation of Origen’s treatise de Principiis: but I
forbear to dwell upon these instances for the reasons given in N°. 44. The
word Trinitas also occurs in the following places in Origen’s Homilies upon
Genesis, which only exist in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and upon the accuracy
of which we cannot depend. Horn. II. 5. p. 64. IV. 6. p. 73. Also upon Exodus,
Horn. IX. 3. p. 163: and though the word may in some cases have been added by
Rufinus, we may be more inclined to think its insertion genuine, because in
some fragments of Origen’s commentary upon the Book of Numbers, where the
original Greek has been preserved, we find the term tpiag. In a highly mystical
interpretation of Numb. xxiv. 6, as gardens by the river side, he says, “ they
are intellectual “ gardens, a place in which the trees of reason are 66 planted, watered either by
the contemplation of “ nature, or by the contemplation of the blessed “ Trinity0.”
The Homilies upon Numbers, like those upon the preceding books, were translated
by Rufinus; but he does not profess to have rendered them accurately. The word
Trinitas occurs in Horn. I. $. 3. p. 277. X. §. 3. p. 303. XI. §. 8. p. 310.
XII. Ij. 1. p. 312. In translating the Homilies
upon the Book of Joshua, Rufinus professes to have simply followed the
original: and we may
therefore
conclude, that the author of them made use of the word Trinity, as in the
following passage, where he is giving a figurative and fanciful meaning to
what we read of nine tribes and an half being on one side of the Jordan, and
two and an half on the other; so that neither was the number ten complete on
the one side, nor the number three on the other: “ In which I conceive this to
be in- “ dicated, that those former people, who were under <e the
law, possessed a knowledge of the Trinity; “ not however entirely and
perfectly, but in part. “ For there was wanting to them in the Trinity a “
knowledge of the incarnation of the only begotten
“ God p. Those tribes therefore were not two,
“ lest the
fathers should be without the faith and “ salvation of the Trinity; nor were
they three en- “ tire and perfect, lest the mystery of the blessed “ Trinity
should seem already complete in them V’ After quoting John xvi. 14. he
continues, “ You see “ that not only in the time of Moses is that number “
three shewn to be incomplete, but Jesus also says “ to his disciples, Ye cannot
yet hear, unless the “ Comforter be come, the Spirit of Truth: because “
through him and in him is.completed the perfec- “ tion of the Trinityr.”
One of the
most remarkable passages in support
of the
Trinity is in Origen’s first Homily upon the Book of Kings: and though this
Homily only ex^ ists in a Latin translation, the author of which is unknown,
yet we cannot doubt, that the sentiment at least proceeded from the original
writer. 44 What,” he
says, 44 are those
things, in which it is my duty 44
to speak in a lofty strain ? When I speak of the 44 omnipotence of God, of his invisibility and eter- 44 nity, I speak in a lofty
strain. When I speak of 44
the coeternity of his only Begotten, and his other 44 mysteries, I speak in a lofty strain. When I dis- 44 cuss the greatness of the
Holy Ghost, I speak in 44
a lofty strain. In these things only is it allowed 44 us to speak in a lofty strain. After these three 44 things you should use no more
lofty language. 44
For all things are low and mean, with reference 44 to the loftiness of this Trinity. Be unwilling, 44 therefore, to speak loftily
upon many subjects, ex- 44
cept concerning the Father, and the Son, and the 44 Holy Ghosts.”
We have
also the Greek word tpias in Origen’s commentary upon Psalm xvii. 16, The foundations
of the world were discovered at thy rebuke; upon which he observes,4f
It is good also that the founda- 44
tions of the world were discovered, that the blessed 44 Trinity might be seen, which
has the command of
“
creation1.” Again,
upon Psalm xxiii. 1, The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the
world, and they that dwell therein, Origen says, “ Not only “ the earth, and
the fulness thereof, but also the “ world. The sinner dwells in the wilderness;
but . “ he that is in the church, which is filled by the “ blessed Trinity,
dwells in the world, which is the “ church &c.u”
Origen’s
commentary upon the 36th, 37th, and 38th Psalms was translated by Rufinus, who
tells us, that he merely expressed what he found in the original. I therefore
quote the following remarkable passage from this Latin version. After referring
to Exodus iii. 3, he says, “ It is therefore a “ great sight, when God is seen
with a pure heart. “ It is a great sight, when the Word of God, and “ the
Wisdom of God, which is his Christ, is recog- “ nised with a pure heart. It is
a great sight to “ recognise and believe in the Holy Ghost. This “ great sight
therefore is the knowledge of the “ Trinity x”
Again we
have the Greek word rpia$ in the commentary upon Psalm xxxvii. 22, Forsake me
not,
O Lord
my God, be not far from me. Origen writes, “ This is a good beginning to
prayer, For- “ sake me not, O Lord my God, be not far from “ me; make haste to
help me, O Lord my salva-
“ tion; for he has in himself also the blessed
Tri- “ nity y.” Again, upon Psalm xxxviii. 5, Lord, make me to know mine end,
he observes, “ The end “ of reasonable nature is the knowledge of the “ blessed
Trinity2.” Again, upon Psalm lxi. 4, I ivill abide in thy tabernacle
for ever, he writes, “ Every one that is perfect abideth in holiness for “ ever
in that tabernacle: which is shewn in the “ following passage, Who shall
tabernacle in thy “ holy hill ? (Ps. xv. 1.) For this abiding for ever “ is the
same with the tabernacle, which the Lord “ pitched and not man. (Heb. viii. 2.)
But if such “ a tabernacle as this has such great perfection, as “ to be the
holy of holies, yet there is after this a “ condition exceeding the powers of
reason, accord- 44
ing to which they will be in the Father and the “ Son, or rather in the Trinitya.”
Again, upon Psalm cxxxvi. 2, Give thanks unto the God of gods, after shewing
the meaning of gods, he continues, “ The apostle also says, though there be
gods many “ and lords many in heaven and on earth, (1 Cor. “ viii. 5.) yet that
those who are called Gods, after “ the Trinity, are such by a participation of
divinity: “ but the Saviour is God, not by participation, but “ in essence b.”
Again, upon Psalm cxlv. 3, Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, and of
his greatness there is no end, he writes, <e The contem- “
plation of all created things is bounded: but only
<e the
knowledge of the blessed Trinity is without “ endc.” Again, upon
Psalm cxlvii. 13, He hath strengthened the bars of thy gates, “ The bars of “
Jerusalem are the practical virtues, which hinder “ the enemy from entering:
but the bars of Sion “ are the heavenly doctrines, and the right faith in “ the
adorable and blessed Trinity d.” These two words, TTpoa-KvvYiTrjg
rpia^og, contain in fact the whole doctrine of the Trinity: for they shew, that
Origen united all the three persons as objects of the same adoration.
There are
some very remarkable attestations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and repeated
use of the term Trinitas, in the Latin version of Origen’s commentary upon the
Song of Solomon: but since Rufinus seems to have made a loose and paraphrastic
translation, I shall only give references to some of the passages. They will be
found in Prolog, p. 29, 30. lib. II. in Cant. i. 11, 12. p. 62. lib. III. in
Cant. ii. 9. p. 83, 84.
The same
may be said of Origen’s Homilies upon Isaiah, which were translated by Jerom:
in which, according to Rufinus, he took great liberties with the original, and
removed objections from passages concerning the Trinity. This is expressly said
of the first of the following passages, in all of which the word Trinitas will
be found. Horn. I. 2. p. 107. Ib. 4. p. 107. Horn. IV. 1. p. 112: but the same
testimony, which charges Jerom with interpolating the first passage, proves
that Origen interpreted the
two
seraphim, mentioned in Isaiah vi. 2, of the Son and Holy Ghost.
In his
commentary upon St. John, we find Origen speaking of a person committing
himself at baptism “ to the divine influence of the names of the ador- “ able
Trinity, which are then invokede.”
The word
Trinitas is also found in the following passages of Origen’s commentary upon
the Epistle to the Romans. Lib. III. §. 8. p. 514. lib. VII. §. 13. p. 611,
612. lib. VIII. §. ult. p. 642.
Methodius
in his Symposium made use of the word rpiag' and though we may condemn him for
seeing an allusion to the Trinity in the sacrifice offered by Abraham, Gen. xv.
9, it is plain from the passage, that the word was in general use in his dayf.
But there is another passage in the same work, which shews still more clearly,
that not only the name, but the doctrine of the Trinity, was well understood in
those days. Having compared the stars, which are mentioned in Rev. xii. 4. to
the heretics, he adds in the same allegorical strain which was then too
common, “ Hence they are called “ a third part of the stars, as being in error
eon- “ cerning one of the numbers of the Trinity; at one “ time concerning that
of the Father, as Sabellius, “ who said that the Omnipotent himself suffered; “
at another time concerning that of the Son, as “ Artemas, and they who say that
he existed in ap- “ pearance only; and at another time concerning
“ that of the Spirit, as the Ebionites, who
contend “ that the prophets spoke of their own impulses.”
I have
brought all these passages together, as shewing the use of the term tpia? among
Greek writers, who lived in the three first centuries. Suicer has noticed very
few of them.
10. Theophili ad Autolycum, 18.
p. 362.
Theophilus,
after making some remarks upon the creation of man, as recorded by Moses, says,
“We <c also find God speaking, as if he wished for assist- “
ance, Let us make man after our image and like- “ ness. But He did not say, Let
us make, to any <c other than to His own Word and His own Wis- “
domh.” Here again we find the term Wisdom applied to the Holy Ghost;
though it might perhaps be thought, that Theophilus meant merely to speak of
the Son, and to apply to him the two epithets of the Word and Wisdom. This
however is rendered improbable by the preceding passage: and we find Irenaeus
expressing precisely the same sentiment: “ The angels did not make us, nor form
“ us ; nor could angels make the image of God; “ nor any one else, except the
Word of the Lord, “ nor any power which was far removed from the “ Father of
the universe. For God had no need of <c those to make what he had
predetermined with
“ himself to make, as if he had not his own
hands. “ For there is always present with him his Word ec and
Wisdom, the Son and Holy Ghost, by whom “ and in whom he made all things freely
and volun- “ tarily; to whom also he speaks, when he says, €e Let us
make man after our image and likenessi.” Irenseus expresses the same
notion in another place; “ This is the Father, this is God, this is the Crea- ce
tor, who made those things by himself, that is, by €€ His Word and
Wisdomk.” These passages are sufficient to shew, that it is not
merely a modern interpretation, which finds an argument for the Trinity in the
words spoken by God in Gen. i. 26; and Irenaeus not only supposed the Son and
the Holy Ghost to be present with God in the work of creation ; but he
considered it to be indifferent, whether he spoke of God creating the world by
himself or by his Son and the Holy Ghost.
Iren^eus, A.D. 185.
11. Irencei
lib. IV. c. 4. $. 2. p. 231.
Any
passage, which speaks of the Father being in the Son, and the Son in the
Father, may be quoted as an instance of belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
One of these, from the writings of Irenaeus, has been given in my other work, N°.
49: “ It is “ by the Son who is in the Father, and has the Fa- “ ther in
himself, that he, who is truly God, has
44
been manifested unto us.” The following passage is still more remarkable, in
which Irenaeus appears to quote from some other writer: 44 He also spoke 44 well, who said that the
Father himself, who can- 44
not be measured, is measured in the Son; for the 44 Son is the measure of the Father, since he also 44 contains Him1.”
The passage, when thus literally translated, is somewhat obscure and mystical:
but to conceive of any being, that he is the measure of God, and that he
contains or comprehends Him, who is immeasurable and incomprehensible, can only
be reconciled with a belief in the divinity of that being. Irenaeus expresses
his own ideas upon this subject, when he says elsewhere, 44 With relation to 44 His greatness and marvellous
glory no man shall 44
see God and live: for the Father is incomprehen- <e sible m.”
He here says that the Father is incomprehensible, incapabilis, and in the former
passage he calls Him immeasurable, immensus; and yet he says that the Son
comprehends, capit, Him. Bishop Bull has some valuable remarks upon this
passage": and he refers to the words of Irenaeus in another place, where
he is speaking of the Gnostic notion that 44 Bythus and Sige produced Nus, which was sirni- 44 lar and equal to him who
produced it, and which 44
alone comprehends the greatness of its Father °.” The notion, like most of
those connected with Gnos-
ticism, is
involved in fable arid absurdity: but it shews, that if a being is supposed to
comprehend the greatness of God, it must also be supposed to be similar and
equal to God.
12. Irencei 1. IV. c. 14. 1. p.
243.
I give the
present passage, not merely as asserting the existence of Christ before all
creation, (for the Arians did not deny this position,) but on account of the
expression of the Son abiding in the Father, which, as I observed in N°. 11. is
a direct support of the doctrine of the Trinity. “ For not “ only before Adam,
but before all creation, the “ Word glorified his Father, abiding in Him p.”
The reader will remember, that the expressions of the Father being in the Son,
and the Son in the Father, are used on more than one occasion by our Saviour;
John x. 38; xiv. 10,11; xvii. 21—23. The Socinian and Unitarian interpreters
explain these to mean, that there is an unity of counsel and operation between
the Father and the Son ; and that the Son is in the Father, because he did not
speak or work miracles of himself, but from the Father. The reader will judge,
whether this was the sense in which such expressions were used by Irenaeus.
13. Irencei 1. IV. c. 20. §. 3. p. 253.
The
present passage might have been added in N°. 10. to those which were brought to
prove, that Irenaeus applied the term Wisdom to the Holy Ghost: but I quote it
separately, as bearing a remarkable testimony to the divinity of the third person
of the Trinity: “ That the Word, that is, the
p
Non enim solum ante A- ditionem glorificabat Verbum dam, sed et ante omnem con-
Patrem suum, manens in eo.
“ Son, was always with the Father, I have
proved at “ much length : but that Wisdom also, which is the “ Spirit, was with
him before all creation, he says “ in the words of Solomon V’ Irenaeus then
quotes Prov. iii. 19, 20; viii. 22—27. which passages (as I have observed in my
other work, N°. 28.) were , constantly referred by the fathers to the second
and third persons of the Trinity.
14. Irencei 1. IV. c. 20. 6. p. 254.
Some
allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity will perhaps be found in the following
passage, where the three persons are united in a manner which would hardly have
presented itself, if the second and third persons were merely created beings. “
This “ then was the mode in which God was manifested; “ for God the Father is
revealed through all these “ means, the Spirit operating, the Son ministering,
“ and the Father approving, by all which together “ man’s salvation is
completedr.” A similar idea may also be traced in the following
passage, where the original Greek is preserved: “ Man, who was f<
created and formed, was made after the image and “ likeness of the uncreated
God; the Father approv- ttf ing and commanding; the Son executing
and cre- <e ating; and the Holy Ghost supplying nourish- “ ment
and increases.”
15. Irenczi 1. IV. c. 20. §. 12. p. 257- The
following passage could only have been written in an age, when allegorical
interpretation was eagerly followed: but I would add, that it could only have
proceeded from a writer, who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity: “ So also
Rahab the “ harlot—entertained the three spies, who spied the “ whole country,
and hid them in her house, i. e. the “ Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost
V’ It is not my intention to defend Irenaeus for this fanciful allegory. The
fault was in the system, not in the individual writer; and whoever will consult
Origen upon this passage, will find him not only interpreting the three spies
to mean three angels, but indulging in many trifling speculations upon the
name of Rahab and the whole of her history u. Irenseus, as will be
seen, merely mentions the allusion, and does not dwell upon it: but I repeat,
that the notion would never have entered into his mind, if he had not seen some
kind of resemblance or equality between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
16. Irencei 1. V. c. 18. §. 2.
p. 315.
“ And thus
there is shewn to be one God the “ Father, who is above all, and through all,
and in “ all things. The Father is above all things, and “ he is the head of
Christ: the Word is through all “ things, and he is the head of the church: the
“ Spirit is in all of us, and he is the living water,
“ which the Lord supplies to those who believe
“ rightly in him, and love him, and know that there “ is one Father, who is
above all, and through all, “ and in us all*” I have quoted this passage, not
only as illustrating the belief of Irenaeus himself, but as containing an
interpretation of the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, iv. 6.
That this text might be considered to contain an allusion to the Trinity, had
been my own notion upon the first perusal of this Epistle : and I subsequently
found the idea confirmed by the passage now produced from Irenaeus. There can
be no question, that Irenaeus conceived St. Paul’s words to admit an
application to the Son and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father. ' He
probably had the same text in view, and applied it in the same way, when he
said in another place, “ The Son has been present “ with his creatures from the
beginning, and reveals “ the Father to all, to as many as the Father wishes, <f
and when he wishes, and how he wishes: and “ therefore in all and through all
things there is <c one God the Father, and one Word the Son, and
“ one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in “ him y.” Nor was
Irenaeus the only one of the fathers, who. gave this ^meaning to the words of
St.
Paul.
Hippolytus, in a passage which I shall quote more at length in N°. 43. and
which contains an express assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity, says, “ The
Father is over all, the Son through all, “ and the Holy Ghost in allz.”
Origen’s commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans contains a similar allusion
: but I only refer to the passagea, because the Latin version of
Rufinus cannot be depended on for its accuracy. Athanasius quotes the passage
as indicative of the Trinity in several places, but particularly in the two
following: “ There is one God the Father, having his existence “ in himself,
inasmuch as he is over all; and re- “ vealed in the Son, inasmuch as he extends
through “ all; and in the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as he “ operates in all by the
word which is in himb.” And again; “ And thus one God is preached in
the “ church, who is over all) and through all, and in “ all: over all, as the
Father, as the principal and “ fountain; through all, by the Word ; and in all,
“ in the Holy Ghostc.”
The object
of the present work does not lead me to consider whether the fathers were right
in supposing St. Paul to allude to the three persons of the Trinity in Eph.
iv. 6.d But if any person should
oppose
this interpretation, he must oppose it upon the principle, that in all the
three expressions, above all, through all, and in all, St. Paul had only in
view God the Father: and he must then allow, even upon his own hypothesis, that
the fathers applied expressions to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, which can
only be applied properly to God the Father.
Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 194.
17. Clementis Pcedagog. 1. I. c.
6: p. 123.
The
following passage is quoted by bishop Bull,
as 44 a full and perfect confession
of the most holy 44
Trinitye:” and it is the more remarkable, because there is nothing
preceding, which led Clement thus to apostrophize the three persons, or to
mention the third person at all. He had been alluding to our Saviour’s words in
Luke xi. 28, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it
: and the occasion, which called forth these words, leading him to speak of
Christ being born of a virgin, he breaks out into the following exclamation: 44 O mysterious wonder! The
universal Father is 44
one; the universal Word also is one; and the 44 Holy Spirit is one, and this same Spirit is every <4 wheref.” Beside
the testimony here borne to the doctrine of a Trinity, the reader will observe,
that ubiquity is ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
18. Clementis Pcedagog. 1. I. c. 7. p. 129In
accordance with the remark made at the beginning of N°. 11. the following
passage is indicative of the doctrine of the Trinity: 44 Since I have
“
proved that we are all called children by the “ scriptures, and not only this,
but that we who be- “ lieve in Christ are figuratively termed babes, and “ that
the Father of the universe is alone perfect: “ (for the Son is in Him, and the
Father in the “ Son:) it is time for me, according to the order “ which I am
following, to explain the nature of “ our Instructors.” The words included in
the parenthesis seem to have been called for by some such train of thought as
this. Having said that God the Father alone is perfect, Clement was aware that
he might seem to exclude the Son from being perfect: and he meets such a remark
by saying, that the perfection of the Son is implied and included in the
perfection of the Father: for the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the
Son. That this train of thought has not been attributed fancifully to Clement,
is evident from his own words in another part of this treatise; where, after
quoting the magnificent prophecy of Isaiah, ix. 6. he exclaims, “ O the mighty
“ God ! O the perfect Child! the Son in the Father, “ and the Father in the Son11!” Here
Clement not only says, as in the first quoted passage, that the Father is in
the Son, and the Son in the Father; but he says expressly, not by implication
and inference, that the Son, the mighty God, is perfect: and since he says in
the other place, that the Father alone is perfect, the two statements can only
be reconciled by the addition, which is made by himself, that the Father is in
the Son, and the Son in the Father; which is in fact the doctrine of the
Trinity.
The same
notion is also expressed in the following passage, where, after enumerating the
different epithets and attributes of God, he concludes, 44 So that “ it is evident that
the God of the universe is one, 44
and one only, good, just, the Creator, the Son in 44 the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. 44 Amen1.”
19.
Clementis JPcedagog. 1. I. c. 8. p. 135.
The
following passage was quoted incidentally in my former work, N°. 80. 44 Nothing therefore is 44 hated by God, nor yet by the
Word, for both are “ one, God: for he says, In the beginning the Word 44 was in God, and the Word was
Godk.” This same idea of both being one is found still more strongly
expressed at the end of this treatise, where Clement addresses a prayer to the
Logos, and begins it with these words, which it is difficult to translate: 44 Be merciful, Instructor, to
thy children, O Father, 44
the Director of Israel, Son and Father, both one, 44 Lord1.”
20. Clementis
Pcedagog. 1. III. c. ult. p. 311.
The next passage is obscure, and difficult to be translated : but, as
bishop Bull justly observes, 44
in 44 meridiana luce
caecutit, qui non clare videt, in hac 44 hlokoyla, plenam et perfectam consubstantialis Tri- 44 nitatis, hoc est, unius Dei
in tribus personis, 44
Patre nempe,tFilio et Spiritu S. subsistentis, con- 44 fessionem continerim.”
It
is a continuation of the
6. 4.
StW' ou&e vno rov Aoyov’ tv yap a[A-
prayer, of
which I have quoted the beginning in N°. 19; and Clement asks leave to 44 offer praise “ and
thanksgiving to the only One, to the Father “ and Son, Son and Father, to the
Son, who is In- 44
structor and Teacher, together with the Holy 44 Ghost, in all things one, in whom are all things, 44 through whom all things are
one, through whom is 44
eternity11.” There may be parts of this sentence which are difficult
to comprehend; but it is unquestionable, that the Son and Holy Ghost are
united with the Father as objects of praise, and the Greek words can hardly
admit any other construction than that which declares the three persons to be
One.
21. Clem, Alex, Strom, lib. VII.
c. 13. p. 881.
If Clement
had not believed the Son to be equal with the Father, and in some sense
identified with him, he could never have written the following sentence without
blasphemy. 44 Does
not our Saviour, 44
who wishes the Christian to be perfect as the 4£ Father who is in
heaven, that is, himself; who 44
says, Come ye children, hear from me the fear of “ the Lord, (Psalm xxxiv. 11.)
does he not wish 44
him to be worthy of receiving assistance from 44 himself0?” It would be sufficiently
remarkable, that Clement makes Christ the speaker of those words in Psalm
xxxiv. 11. but it is much more so,
that in
alluding to the passage, JBe ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect, (Matt, v. 48.) he says that Christ proposed 44 the Father, 44 i. e. himself,” as this model
of perfection.
22. Clem. Alex. Quis Dives
Salvetur? §. 33. p. 954.
Having
given exhortations to charity, he tells the Christian not to regard the outward
appearance, however mean or squalid it may be: 44 this figure is 44 laid upon us from without, the covering of our “ entrance
into the world, that we may be able to 44 enter into this place of common discipline: but 44 the unseen Father dwelleth
within, and his Son, 44
who died for us, and rose again with us p.” What follows is still stronger, and more
expressive of the Trinity. 44
This figure, which meets the eye, de- 44 ceives death and the devil. For the internal riches 44 and beauty cannot be
discerned by them:—they 44
do not know what sort of treasure we bear in 44 earthen vessels, (2 Cor. iv. 7.) which is fenced 44 round with the power of God
the Father, and the 44
blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy 44 Ghosts” I have alluded to the remarkable expression of 44 the blood of God the Son” in
my other work, N°. 11. but the passage strongly confirms the doctrine of the
Trinity, as well as of Christ’s divinity. The term dew may be merely
metaphorical, as in our liturgy, pour upon them the continual dew of thy
blessing: or it may allude to the Holy Ghost accompanying the water of baptism.
Archbishop
Potter extracted this fragment from a MS. in the Bodleian Libraryr,
which contains a work of Macarius Chrysocephaluss upon the gospel of
St. Matthew. The fragment begins thus : Ovk
avOpcaTTivrjv ovv opotuaiv o 7rapa.KXv)T0$ evravQa \afxj3ava, aWa
Trepio-Tepae. The same fragment was also
published by Fabricius, in his edition of Hippolytus, (vol. II. p. 71. Append.)
with this variation, that instead of
o TrapaKXrjTog,
he reads o ©eoV. Fabricius quotes the same MS. which was copied by Potter, and
also another in the same library*. The latter MS. contains another work of
Macarius upon the gospel of St. Luke, in which a small part of the same passage
is quoted from Clement of Alexandria : but it is there given as follows : Ovk avdpomivyv ofxoiwaiv IvravQa tov 0eot5
7rapetXy)<pQT0$} oikXoc to nepiaTepag
d^og. This variation is stated correctly by Potter, as I have observed by an
inspection of the MSS., and Fabricius, perhaps, had not an accurate collation.
There can be no doubt that the second reading is the correct one. It is
confirmed by a Greek catena upon St. Luke, in a MS. at Vienna11;
and by one published in Latin by Corderiusx, in which we read, 44 Non hie hominis, 44 sed columbse similitudinem
Deus assumpsit:” so that we have here the remarkable expression 44 of 44 God having assumed, not the
likeness of man, but 44
the form of a dove.”
Tertullianus, A. D. 200.
24. Tertulllani
Apol. c. 21. p. 19.
Having
spoken of the Son of God as the Logos or Word, he says, “We have learnt that he
was “ put forth from God, and begotten by being put “ forth, and was therefore
called the Son of God, “ and God, from unity of substance: for God is a “
Spirit. And when a ray is put forth from the “ sun, a part from the whole, yet
the sun is in the “ ray, because it is a ray of the sun, nor is the sub- “
stance separated, but extended. Thus Spirit pro- “ ceeds from Spirit, and God
from God, as one light “ kindled from another light. The original con- “ tinues
entire and undiminished, although you bor- “ row from thence many derivatives.
In the same “ manner what proceeds from God is God, and the “ Son of God, and
both are one?.” This passage requires no comment. I have already spoken, in my
other work, N°. 302, of the favourite illustration of the fathers, by which
they compared the generation of the Son to the kindling of one light from
another. Like all other illustrations or analogies, this is valid only in certain
points, nor must it be carried beyond the proper bounds. The fathers did not
mean to explain the mode of the divine generation, but merely to shew how one
thing may proceed from another without the original being dimin-
ished; and
that the substance of both may be the same. The expression of the Nicene Creed,
“ God “ of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God,” is only a modification
of the words used by Tertul- lian an hundred and twenty-five years before.
25. Tertulliani de Oratione c.
2. p. 130.
Among the
passages of scripture which seem to support the unity of the Father and the
Son, and consequently the doctrine of the Trinity, none are more plain and
unequivocal than the declaration of our Saviour himself, / and the Father are
one, John x. 30. The Socinian commentators contend, that this means an unity of
counsel and action: “ Ut voluntate ita operatione conspiramus: quicquid “ ego
volo, vult Pater ; et quicquid Pater operatur, “ per me operaturz.” “ Penitus inter nos consenti-
“ mus et conspiramus. Unum
inter se dicuntur,
<e qui inter se uniti sunt, et plane consentiunt, unum “
spirant; quod maxime locum habet inter filium “ patri obsequentissimum, et
patrem filii amantissi- “ muma.” Such are the Socinian
explanations of this passage, though the author of the last notices the fact,
that the Jews, who heard our Saviour deliver these words, put a very different
construction on them, and took up stones to stone him, because that thou, being
a man, malcest thyself God. It is unquestionable, therefore, that the Jews
understood something more than an unity of counsel: they thought, that if the
Father and the Son are one, the Son as well as the Father must be God: and
unless we believe that there are two Gods, we can only explain their unity
according to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Tertullian appears to have taken the
T Crellius ad locum. B Slichtingius ad locum.
same view
of these words. In his treatise upon the Lord’s Prayer, when he is explaining
the first words of it, Our Father, which art in heaven, he says, “ In
addressing him as Father, we also call him “ God. It is an appellation of
affection and of “ power. The Son also is invoked in the Father: “ for /, he
says, and the Father are oneb.” If Tertullian had understood our
Saviour to have spoken merely of an unity of counsel and action, he could not
have inferred, that the Son, as well as the Father, is always included in the
invocation of the Lord’s Prayer. See N°. 45.
26. Tertulliani de Oratione9 c. 25.
The
following passage is not in the edition of Tertullian published by Priorius in
1675. The treatise de Oratione was printed for the first time by Gagneius at
Paris in 1545, and was evidently imperfect. The edition of 1664 contained a
few lines in continuation of the fourteenth chapter, which were supplied from a
very ancient MS.: and in 1713 Mu- ratori published at Padua, in the third
volume of his Anecdota, nine additional chapters, which he found in a MS.
in^the Ambrosian library at Milan. The bishop of Lincoln is inclined to doubt
the genuineness of these additional chapters0: but they are admitted
by Semler in his edition of Tertullian published at Hall in 1770, and again in
1824. In the fourth volume of that edition, c. 25, we have a dissertation upon
the hours of prayer observed in the apostolical times: and the writer, after
observing, that the third, sixth, and ninth hours are mentioned in the
/ .b
Item in Patre Filius invoca- c Eccles. Hist, of the Second tur; Ego
enim, inquit, et Pater and Third Centuries from the unum sumus. Writings of Tertullian, p. 406.
Acts of
the Apostles, continues, “ Although no ob- “ servance of these hours is
positively enjoined, yet “ it may be well to lay down some rule, which may “
enforce the exhortation to prayer, and drive us at “ times, as if by a law, to
leave our business, and “ turn to such duties; so that we may do, what we “
read was observed by Daniel according to the “ Jewish custom, and pray not less
than three times “ a day at least, being under this obligation to the “ Father,
Son, and Holy Ghostd.” Whatever translation may be given of the
last sentence, it seems plainly to declare, that we are bound to unite the
three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in our adorations: and perhaps we
may find some confirmation of the genuineness of this passage, when we see
Cyprian also connecting the three Jewish hours of prayer with the Trinity, in a
passage, which has considerable resemblance to this of Tertullian. Cyprian also
wrote a treatise upon the Lord’s prayer, in which he says, “We find that “
Daniel and the three children in offering their “ prayers observed the third,
sixth, and ninth hours, “ as a sacramental type of the Trinity, which was “ to
be revealed in the last times e.” The same idea may be traced in a
contemporary of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, who writes as follows: “ If
“ some allot fixed hours for prayer, as for
instance “ the third, sixth, and ninth, the perfect Christian “ makes his whole
life a Course of prayer, being “ anxious through prayer to commune with God:
“ but the triple division of these hours,
and
“ their
being honoured by equal services of prayer, “ is known to those who are
acquainted with the 44
blessed trinity of the holy stationsf.” The last sentence will be
understood by those persons, who are familiar with the Greek term [aovyj, and the Latin term statio, in the early ecclesiastical
writers; by which they meant to speak of certain fixed times and seasons for
religious exercises, whether for prayer or fasting £. These were called
stations; and it appears from this passage, as well as others, that three such
stations were reckoned particularly holy and solemn.
I did not
quote this passage at p. 38, among the other instances of the word Trinity
being used by Clement, because no express allusion is made to the three persons
of the Godhead; though I have little doubt, that the same fanciful notion,
which was held by Tertullian and Cyprian, was also passing in the mind of the
Alexandrian father: and though we may not agree with these writers in seeing
any resemblance between the three hours of prayer and the three persons of the
Godhead, yet the early writers must have been strongly impressed with the
latter doctrine, or they would not have discovered for it such a fanciful
analogy.
It has
often been observed, that St. Paul says in one place to his converts, Know ye
not, that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost tvhich is in you ? 1 Cor.
vi. 19 ; and in another, Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God, and that
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you f iii. 16; and the divinity of the Holy Ghost
has been justly inferred from a comparison of the two places. Tertullian may be
quoted as holding the same doctrine, and expressing it in terms which cannot be
mistaken. “ Since we “ are all the temple of God, the Holy Ghost being 44 placed within us and
consecrated, Modesty is the “ priestess of that temple, which permits nothing “
unclean or profane to be introduced, lest the God, “ who dwells within, may be
offended at the pollu- “ tion of his sanctuary and leave it V’
28. Tertidliani de JBaptismo, c.
6. p. 226.
Having
compared the water of baptism to the pool of Bethesda, he carries on the
analogy by supposing an angel to give to the baptismal water its spiritual
efficacy. “ The angel, who witnesses the “ baptism, prepares the way for the
Holy Ghost “ which is to follow by the washing away of sins; “ which washing is
obtained by faith, sealed in the “ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For if in three
“ witnesses every word shall be established, (Matt. “ xviii. 16,) how much more
does the number of 44
the divine names supply confidence to our hope,
“ while we have in the blessing the same
persons as “ witnesses of our faith, who are also the promisers “ of our
salvation ? But when the witnessing of “ our faith and the promise of our
salvation are “ given under the pledge of three persons, there is “ necessarily
added a mention of the church: for “ where the three are, that is, the Father,
Son, and “ Holy Ghost, there is the church, which is the “ body of the
threeThis remarkable passage might lead to much discussion concerning the confession
of faith, which was made anciently at baptism : and bishop Bull has quoted it
to shew, that the article of belief in the holy catholic church, or at least in
the church, was found in the creeds recited at baptism in the days of
Tertulliank. I shall only observe, that the Apostles’ Creed, as we
now use it, is an extension or expansion of a more simple creed, which
received successive additions in order to meet successive heresies. It is
probable, that at first the catechumen said, “ I believe in God, the “ Father,
Son, and Holy Ghostand then the baptism followed in the name of these same
three persons J. This remark may illustrate the passage now
quoted
from Tertullian: and I would observe, that when a person said, “ I believe in
God, the Father, “ Son, and Holy Ghost,” the application of the term God to the
second and third persons is more apparent than in the present expanded form of
the Creed. The clause, which seems to have followed this confession in the days
of Tertullian, was, and in the church, or perhaps, and in the holy church.
It is
plain from this passage of Tertullian, that the form of words prescribed by our
Saviour for baptism was used in his day: and he tells us in another place, that
the person “ was immersed not “ once, but three times, at each of the names m.”
If this form of words, as has often been shewed, is itself a strong
confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, we have certainly a right to add,
that Tertullian viewed it in this light; and the passage is so far available
to my object. I do not intend to press it any further, nor to quote it as
supporting the authenticity of 1 John v. 7. Tertullian has been supposed to
allude to that text in another passage, which I shall adduce in N°. 38. I
cannot however subscribe to this notion : and I would merely observe, that the
advocates for the authenticity of the text might refer with equal reason to
the passage now before us, where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are so
expressly mentioned as three witnesses.
29. Tertulliani adv. Marcionem, 1. II. c. 9. p.
386.
The
divinity of the Holy Ghost is implied in the
following
passage, in which Tei'tullian is exposing the error of the Gnostics, who made
the Creator in some measure the author of evil, because the soul of man, which
is the breath of life, was breathed into him by God: (Gen. ii. 7.) Upon which
Tertullian observes, “We ought to have a clear idea of what 44 the soul is: and in the first
place we must keep 44
to the meaning of the Greek term, which is not 44 spirit, but breath. For some persons, who have 44 translated from the Greek,
without reflecting on “ the difference, or regarding the propriety of words, 44 put spirit instead of breath,
and give occasion to 44
the heretics of staining the Spirit of God, i. e. God 44 himself, with sin11.”
30. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 2. p. 501.
The whole
of Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas might be cited as demonstrating his
belief in the Trinity ; but I shall only bring forward some of the plainest
passages. Praxeas was one of the precursors of Sabellius, and confounded the
persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, asserting the second and third
persons not to be distinct beings, but merely modes or energies of the Father0.
Tertullian says of him, 44
He thinks that we cannot believe in 44 one God in any other way, than if we say that the 44 very same person is Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; 44
as if one might not be all, (if all proceed from 44 one,) by unity of substance; and still the mystery
“ of the divine economy be preserved, which
divides “ the unity into a trinity, pointing out three, the “ Father, the Son,
and Holy Ghost: but three, not “ in condition, but in order; not in substance,
but “ in form; not in power, but in species ; but of one “ substance, and of
one condition, and of one power.
“ These persons assume the number and ar-
“
rangement of the trinity to be a division of the “ unity: whereas the unity,
which derives a trinity “ from itself, is not destroyed by it, but has its dif-
“ ferent offices performed. They therefore boast, that “ two and three Gods are
preached by us, but that “ they themselves are worshippers of one God; as 44 if the unity, when improperly
contracted, did not “ create heresy; and a trinity, when properly consi- “
dered, did not constitute truth p.” It
would be hardly possible for Athanasius himself, or the compiler of the
Athanasian Creed, to have delivered the doctrine of the Trinity in stronger
terms than these. I shall only remark, that the unity of substance, or
consubstantiality of the Father and Son, is here expressly maintained: and the
meaning, which Tertullian attached to the word substance, may be seen
by what he
says in another place, that the names of God and Lord are applied differently
to the Deity; that the name of Lord implies his power, but “ God “ is the name
of the substance itself, that is, of the “ divinity V’
31. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 4. p. 502.
He goes on
to shew, that he does not destroy
“ the
monarchy,” i. e. the unity and sole sovereignty of God, by believing the Father
to be assisted in his government of the world by the Son and Holy Ghost. This
would be the case, if he agreed with the Gnostics in imagining another God,
independent of, and opposed to, the Creator: “ but when I de- “ rive the Son
from nothing else, but from the sub- “ stance of the Father, when I suppose him
to do “ nothing without the will of the Father, and to “ have obtained all
power from the Father, how “ caij I be said by this belief to destroy the mo- “
narchy, which I thus preserve by supposing it to “ be delivered to the Son by
the Father ? I would “ also have my expressions applied to the third or- “ der,
because I conceive the Spirit to be derived “ from no other source, than from
the Father by “ the Sonr.”
32. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 8. p. 504. His
argument having led him to speak of the
Word as put forth from God, he observes that
this putting forth, (irpofiokri,) when applied to the genera-
tion of
the Son, is very different from the sense given to the term by the Gnostics,
when they speak of one aeon producing another. “ The Word is “ always in the
Father, as he says, I am in the “ Father: (Johh xiv. 20.) and always with God,
as “ it is written, and the Word was with God: (i. 1.) “ and never separated
from the Father, or different “ from the Father, because I and the Father are “
one. (x. 30.) This, which is the true sense of the “ word probola, (putting
forth,) preserves the unity; “ in which sense we say that the Son was put forth
“ from the Father, but is not separate from him. “ For God put forth the Word,
as the root puts “ forth the shrub, and the fountain puts forth the
“ river,
and the sun puts forth the ray nor yet
“ is the
shrub distinct from the root, nor the river “ from the fountain, nor the ray
from the sun; as “ neither is the Word from God. According, there- “ fore, to
the form of these analogies, I profess to “ speak of two beings, God and his
Word, the Fa- “ ther and his Son. For the root and the shrub “ are two things,
but united: and the fountain and “ the stream are two species, but undivided ;
and “ the sun and the ray are two forms, but adhering “ together. Whatever
proceeds from another must “ be second with reference to that from which it “
proceeds, but it is not therefore separate. Where- “ ever there is a second,
there are two things ; and “ where there is a third, there are three things. “
For the Spirit is the third from God and his Son, “ as the fruit which comes
from the shrub is third “ from the root; and the river which proceeds from “
the stream is third from the fountain; and the “ point which proceeds from the
ray is third from
“ the sun. Always
remember, that this is the
“ rule
which I follow, when I assert the Father, “ Son, and Holy Ghost to be not
separated from 66 each others.”
33. Tertulliani
adv. Praxeam, c. 11. p. 506.
Having
quoted some passages of Scripture, in which God speaks of his Son, he
continues, “ You “ will make him a liar and deceiver and a false ex- 66
pounder of this faith, if, when he himself is son “ to himself, he ascribed the
person of a son to an- “ other being, whereas all these passages of scrip- “
ture prove the clear existence and the distinction “ of a Trinity*.” I need not
observe, that this argument is directed against the Sabellian notion, which
destroys the personality of the Son, and in fact makes God to be Son to
himself, as Tertullian here
remarks.
It will also be seen, that the word persona is used in this passage: and the
advocates of Sabellianism would wish us to understand, that it merely means a
character assumed, or a part performed, by some person: as when Cicero says of
himself, “ I sustain myself three characters, (per- “ sons,) my own, that of
the adversary, and of the “judge".” It is true that Cicero here uses the
word persona in its originalx and classical sense: but to assume
from such an instance, that this was the meaning given to the word by
ecclesiastical writers is most illogical, and betrays little acquaintance with
the works of the fathers. It is in fact a petitio principii; it is to assume
the very point at issue. What we want to ascertain is, not what was the meaning
given to the word by Cicero and classical writers: that may be learned from
dictionaries and indices: but we wish to know whether this classical sense was
retained by the fathers; or whether in course of time the word did not receive
a new theological meaning. This can only be discovered by a perusal of the
writings of the fathers: and if we find them using persona, according to its
modern sense, for a separately existing being, for a person distinguished by
individuality, it is in vain that the Sabellian refers to classical antiquity:
the criticism may be correct, but it is irrelevant: and Cicero can no more
acquaint us with the meaning of persona, as used by Tertullian or Jerom, than
these late writers can enable us to illustrate Cicero.
In the
passage which I have quoted from Tertullian, he is exposing the inconsistency
of Sabellianism: and he says, that when God speaks of his Son, if he does not
mean a Son in the proper sense of the term, i. e. a Being individually
distinct, He deceives us by giving the person of a Son to another Being, or
rather to Himself. Here the word persona is used by Tertullian in its classical
sense : in which sense, no doubt, ’Praxeas used the terms “ persona “ filii,”
the person of the Son: but Tertullian goes on to shew, that the word persona
had come to bear a different meaning, and was applied to the persons of the Son
and the Holy Ghost, according to the doctrine which was held by the orthodox
party. Having quoted some more passages which speak of the Father as having a
Son, he concludes, “ These “ few instances will shew very plainly the distinc-
“ tion of the Trinity: for there is the Spirit who “ speaks, and the Father to
whom he speaks, and “ the Son of whom he speaks. So the other words, “ which
are spoken either to the Father concerning “ the Son, or to the Son concerning
the Father, or “ to the Spirit, establish each person in his own in- “
dividualityy.” Unless we suppose Tertullian to have been advocating the
doctrines which it was the express object of this treatise to confute, we must
conceive him here to have used the word person in its theological, and not in
its classical signification.
y His
itaque paucis tamen quae nunc ad Patrem de Filio manifeste distinctio
Trinitatis vel ad Filium, nunc ad Filium exponitur. Est enim ipse qui de Patre vel ad Patrem, nunc pronuntiat Spiritus j et
Pater, ad Spiritum pronuntiantur, u- ad quem pronuntiat; et Filius, hamquamque
personam in sua de quo pronuntiat. Sic caetera, proprietate constituunt.
This is
still more evident in the continuation of the same argument, which also shews
Tertul- lian’s interpretation of Gen. i. 26. “ If you still take “ offence at
the number of the Trinity, as if it was “ not connected in simple unity, I ask
how does one “ individual Being speak in the plural number? Let “ us make man
&c. when he ought to have said, I “ will make man &c. as being one and
singular. So “ also in what follows, Behold Adam is become as “ one of us,
(Gen. iii. 22.) he deceives us, or is “ amusing himself, by speaking in the
plural, when “ he is one, and alone and singular. Or was he “ speaking to the
angels, as the Jews explain it, be- “ cause they also do not acknowledge the
Son? or “ because he was himself Father, Son, and Spirit, “ did he therefore
make himself plural, and speak “ plurally to himself? The fact is, that he used
the “ plural expressions, Let us make, and our, and to us, “ because the Son, a
second person, His Word, was “ united to him, and the Spirit, a third person,
in “ the Word. For with whom did he make man, “ and to whom did he make him
like? It was with “ his Son, who was to put on the human nature, “ and with the
Spirit, who was to sanctify man, “ that he conversed as with ministers and
witnesses, “ by the unity of the Trinity. Again the follow- “ ing words
distinguish between the persons, And “ God made man, in the image of God made
he him. “ (Gen. i. 27.)z” Tertullian then goes on to speak of
the Son as
assisting the Father in all the works of creation, according to that passage in
St. John, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, (i.
3.) after which he adds, “ if this “ same being is God, according to the
expression of “ St. John, the Word was God, you have two be- “ ings, one
saying, Let it be made, another making “ it. But I have already explained in
what sense “ you are to understand another, with reference to “ person, not to
substance; to distinction, not to “ division. But although I every where hold
one “ substance in three united beings, yet from the “ necessary meaning of
words I must make him “ who commands, and him who executes, to be dif- “ ferent
beingsa.”
It will
perhaps be allowed from these passages, that Tertullian understood the Son and
the Holy Ghost to be separately existing persons, according to the full meaning
given to that term by Trinitarian writers.
unus ex nobis,
fallit aut ludit, ut, istris et arbitris, ex unitate tri- cum unus et solus et
singularis nitatis loquebatur. Denique esset, numerose loqueretur. Aut sequens
scriptura distinguit in- numquid angelis loquebatur, ut ter personas, Et fecit
Deus ho- Judsei interpretantur, quia nec minern, ad imaginem Dei fecit
ipsiFilium agnoscunt? An quia ilium.
ipse erat Pater, Filius, Spiritus, a Qui si ipse Deus est,
secun- ideo pluralem se prsestans, plu- dum Joannem, Deus erat Sermo, raliter
sibi loquebatur} Immo habes duos, alium dicentem ut quia jam adhserebat illi
Filius, fiat, alium facientem. Alium secunda persona, Sermo ipsius, autem
quomodo accipere debeet tertia Spiritus in Sermone, as, jam professus sum;
personae ideo pluraliter pronuntiavit, Fa- non substantiae nomine5 ad dis-
ciamus, et nostram, et nobis, tinctionem, non ad divisionem. Cum quibus enim
faciebat ho- Ceterum etsi ubique teneo unam minem, et quibus faciebat si-
substantiam in tribus cohseren- milem? cum Filio quidem, qui tibus, tamen alium
dicam opor- erat induturus hominem, Spi- tet ex necessitate sensus, eum ritu
vero, qui erat sanctificatu- qui jubet, et eum qui facit. rus hominem, quasi
cum min-
34. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 13. p. 507.
Part of
the following passage has been adduced in my other work, N°. 55, where I have
considered the words of St. Paul in Rom. ix. 5. It is preceded by several
quotations from the Old Testament, such as Gen. xix. 24; Psalm xlv. 7, lxxxii.
6, ex. 1; Isaiah liii. 1 ; in which mention is made of more than one God or
Lord: and Tertullian, like all the other fathers, interprets these expressions
of the first and second persons of the Trinity. Being charged, in consequence
of this interpretation, with preaching two Gods and two Lords, he denies it,
and says,
“ We do
indeed distinguish two, the Father and the
“ Son, and
three with the Holy Ghost: Not
how-
“ ever
that we ever name with our mouth two Gods “ or two Lords, although the Father
is God, and the “ Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each “ is Godb.”
He then observes, that though two Gods and two Lords are mentioned in the Old
Testament, and before the coming of Christ; yet since his coming, when the
heathen were drawn off from many gods to one, the Christians had been unwilling
ever to speak of God in the plural number:
“ Therefore I will not in any way use the term
“ Gods or Lords, but I will follow the apostle; so “ that if the Father and the
Son are to be men- “ tioned together, I would call the Father God, and “ would
name Jesus Christ as Lord. But I can “ speak of Christ singly as God, as the
same apostle • “ says, of whom is Christ; who, he says, is God
“ over all> blessed for ever. For I might
call a ray “ of the sun by itself the sun: but if I am naming “ the sun, of
which it is a ray, I will not immedi- “ ately call the ray also the sun. For
although I “ would not make two suns, yet I would as much “ reckon the sun and
its ray to be two things, and “ two species of one undivided substance, as God
“ and His Word, as the Father and the Sonc.”
35. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 19. p. 511.
The
following quotation is similar to the last, and, if possible, contains a still
stronger attestation to the doctrine of a trinity in unity. 66 If
they are “ unwilling that the Son should be reckoned a se- “ cond person with
reference to the Father, lest a “ second should make two Gods to be named, I
have “ shewn that two Gods and two Lords are in fact “ mentioned in scripture:
and lest they should still “ take offence at this, I have given the reason,
that “ there are not two Gods nor two Lords mentioned, “ except as the Father
and the Son are two: and this “ not by a separation of the substance, but
according “ to the divine economyd; when we assert the Son “ to be
not divided and separated from the Father;
“ and different, not in nature, but in order;
who “ although he is called God, when he is named by “ himself, does not
therefore make two Gods, but “ one, from the very circumstance of his being
called “ God from the unity of the Father e.” *
36. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 22. p. 513.
The
remarkable words of our Saviour in John viii.
19, are thus commented on by Tertullian. “ When
“ asked, where was the Father ? he answered, that “ neither himself nor the Father was known to
them; “ in which he speaks of two persons as unknown: “ but if they had
known him, they would have known “ the Father: not as if he was himself Father
and “ Son, but because from their indivisibility the one “ can neither be known
nor unknown without the “ otherf.”
“ not
separated, although he says that he proceeded “forth, as some take advantage of
this expression: “ but he proceeded forth from the Father as a ray “ from the
sun, as a stream from the fountain, as a “ shrub from the seed s.” Tertullian
seems to have given the right interpretation of this passage, by understanding
el;vj\6ov and yjku to
contain different meanings. ’E^ASov relates to the generation of the Son by the
Father, %ku to his being sent into the world.
38. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 25. p. 515.
Tertullian
notices those passages, in which the Son speaks of sending the Comforter, and
yet the Father was to send him: and upon those words of our Saviour, All things
that the Father hath are mine: therefore said 1, that he shall take of mine,
and shew it unto you, (John xvi. 15.) he observes, “ Thus the union of the
Father in the Son, and of “ the Son in the Comforter, makes three beings “
united one to the other : which three are one “ thing (unum), not one person
(unus): as it is writ- <fi ten, I and the Father are one, (John
x. 30.) with “ respect to the unity of substance, not to numerical “
individuality h.” This passage has been quoted in support of the
genuineness of 1 John v. 7: to which text Tertullian is supposed to allude,
when he says, which three are one, “ qui tres unum sunt.” But if any argument
is to be drawn from this passage, it
would
rather appear to be unfavourable to the genuineness of the text: for after
saying, ivhich three are one, Tertullian confirms the assertion by quoting, I
and the Father are one: but had he already meant to quote the stronger and
plainer passage in 1 John v. 7. he would hardly have proceeded to prove the
unity of the three persons, by citing a passage, which asserts only the unity
of two \
39. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 30. p. 518.
I add this
passage on account of its strong attestation to the divinity of the Holy
Ghost. cc He “ poured forth the Holy Ghost, the gift which he “ had
received from the Father, the third who bears “ the divine name, the third in
the order of majesty “ —who leads into
all truth, which according to the “ Christian sacrament is in the
Father, and the Son, “ and the Holy Ghost. But it is a sort of Jewish <c
creed, to have such a belief in one God, as that “ you refuse to reckon the Son
together with Him, “ and after the Son the Spirit. For what other dif- “ ference is
there but this between ourselves and “ them ? What is the effect of the gospel,
what is “ the substance of the New Testament, which says “ that the Law and the
Prophets were until John, “ unless
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whom “ we believe as three, make one God ?
It was the “ wish of God to give a new form to faith, so that a <c
new belief might be held concerning his unity “ through the Son and Holy Ghost,
that God might “ now be openly known under his proper names and cc
characters, who formerly also was preached by
' See the
Bishop of Lincoln’s work upon Tertullian, p. 544.
“ the Son
and Holy Ghost without being under- “ stood k.”
After the
quotations which have been given from Tertullian, and particularly from his
treatise against Praxeas, few of my readers can deny that he acknowledged a
trinity in unity; that he believed the Son and the Holy Ghost to be each of
them God, of the same substance or nature with the Father, and to be
inseparably connected with Him, though each is a distinct person. Whoever
consults the treatises from which these extracts are taken, will find that some
of them were written after Tertullian had adopted the errors of Montanus.
Allusions to this heresy will be observed in some of the passages which support
the doctrine of the Trinity: upon which I need only refer to what was stated in
my former work, that the opinions of Montanus were never objected to concerning
the Trinity. It will be seen, that the word Trinitas is of frequent occurrence
in the writings of Tertullian: and I have observed, that he uses the term
persona in its modern theological sense. Semler informs us, that no writer
before Tertullian had used either of these terms in
k Hie
interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divi-
nitatis, et tertium gradum ina- jestatis—deductorem omnis veri- tatis, quae in
Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto secundum Chri- stianum sacramentum. Ceterum
Judaicse fidei ista res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnu- merare ei
nolis, et post Filium Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter
nos et illos, nisi differentia ista? Quod opus Evangelii, quse est
substantia Novi Testamenti, sta- tuens Legem et Prophetas usque ad
Joannem, si non exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum
sistunt ? Sic Deus volnit novare sacramentum, ut nove unus credere- tur per
Filium et Spiritum, ut coram jam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis
cognosce- retur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intel-
ligebatur.
a similar
manner1: a remark which it is impossible to disprove, because the
writings of no Latin Father, prior to the age of Tertullian, have come down to
us; but this very circumstance reduces the remark itself to a gratuitous
assumption ; and if Tertullian was not the first writer who held the doctrine
of the Trinity, it is of no importance, whether he was the first to make this
use of the term Trini- tas or no. I would observe of this term, as of the Greek
rpiag, that it has no necessary connection with the language of theology, nor
does it of itself convey the notion of a trinity in unity. Trinitas merely
signifies three things; and when Semler asserts, that Tertullian was the first
writer who applied the term to the persons of the godhead, he makes an assertion
which is extremely improbable. If a person had merely spoken of the three names
repeated in the form of baptism, he would have been likely to call them a
trinity of names. Praxeas, whose tenets were an anticipation of Sabellianism,
might undoubtedly have spoken of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a Trinity;
meaning, that they were three modes or operations; so that the real question
is, whether Tertullian delivered a doctrine concerning these three persons,
which had not been expressed by any former writer. The German editor would have
wished to insinuate this: but, as is usual with his school, he knew that more
effect may be produced by suggesting an inference, than by making a direct
assertion, which admits of being refuted ; and whether the doctrine of a
trinity in unity was held by writers who preceded Tertullian, I leave to the
reader to decide.
1 Note to the treatise adv. Praxeam, c.
21.
G 2
It may be
added, that, according to Jerom m, Tertullian wrote a work De
Trinitate, which is now lost.
Hippolytus, A. D. 220.
The
treatise of Hippolytus against Noetus is a suitable companion to that of
Tertullian against Praxeas. The two heretics nearly agreed in their sentiments,
and both of them were forerunners of Sabellius; but Noetus appears to have been
a more decided maintainer of the Patripassian doctrines. Hippolytus confuted
him in a special treatise; and the following extracts from it will shew his own
opinion concerning the second and third persons of the Godhead.
40. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c.
7. vol. II.
p. 11.
“ If Noetus remarks that our Saviour himself
“ said, I
and the Father are one, (John x. 30.) let “ him attend and observe, that he did not say, I and “ the Father am
one, but are one. For the word <f a7%e is not used with reference to
one, but it points “ to two persons and one essencen.” The
reader will observe, that Hippolytus here uses the Greek term npocwTrov, as
Tertullian the Latin term persona, to imply a person in the modern sense of the
term.
41. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c.
8. vol. II.
p. 12.
<f He is
compelled even against his will to ac-
“
knowledge the Father God Almighty, and Christ “ Jesus, the Son of God, who is
God and became “ man, to whom the Father subjected every thing
m De Baptismo, c. 15. num. Ka) b
iraryp tv icrfJLtv, eiwrravira
106. and
perhaps in Catal. Script, rov vovv kou [/.avOccvera, on ovk
elirev
Eccles. where he calls Novatian’s on lyu kou
b UctTyp ev a,XXa
treatise
de Trinitate an epitome ev eV/xev. To yap
ea-pev ovk i<{> ivoi;
of the
work of Tertullian. Xeyerat, a A A’ 8vo
irpdo-ctma e8et-
n ’Eav 8e Xeyeiy
avrot; elnev, ’Eya tjev, hvvafxiv $e
f^lav.
“ except
himself and the Holy Ghost, and that these “ are in this manner three °. But if
he wishes to “ know how God is proved to be one, let him under- “ stand that
his essence is one, and as far as relates “ to his essence, he is one God; but
with respect to “ the dispensation, his manifestation is threefold p.”
42. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c.
12. p. 14.
The
following passage is important from its mentioning the third person of the
Trinity as an object of worship. “ It is thus that we contemplate the “
incarnate word : through him we form a concep- <c tion of the
Father; we believe in the Son; we “ worship the Holy Ghosts”
43. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c.
14. p. 15.
In order
to understand the following passage, we must remember that Noetus accused the
orthodox party of believing in two Gods. Hippolytus, after quoting the
beginning of St. John’s gospel, observes, “ If then the Word is with God, being
himself God, “ why would any one say that this passage speaks “ of two gods ? I
never speak of two gods, but one; “ yet I speak of two persons and a third
dispensa- “ tionr, the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Fa-
three
persons had a real exist- /xev Uaxepa, §** avrov voovptv, vlS ence, and were
not mere modes Se Tti<n6voy.ev, Uveuuan dyla it pea--
Ka) Xptarrlv ’Ivjarovv vlh 0eo5 ©cov former
work, N°. 45* P* 7°k
KVVOVfMV.
r OlKovofAiav, concerning which word I must
again refer to my
44 ther is
one; but there are two persons; because 44 there is also the Son;
and the third is the Holy “ Ghost. The Father commands, the Son performs; 44
and the Son is manifested as the means of our be- “ lieving in the Father. A
dispensation of agree- 44 ment is comprehended in one God, for God
is one. 44 For it is the Father who commands, the Son who 44
obeys, and the Holy Ghost who gives wisdom. 44 The Father is above
all, the Son is through all, 44 and the Holy Ghost is in alls. We cannot form 44
a conception of one God in any other way, unless 44 we really
believe in the Father, and the Son, and 44 the Holy Ghost. For the
Jews glorified the Fa- 44 ther, but did not give thanks; (see Luke
xvii. 14 44 —18.) for they did not acknowledge the Son. 44
The disciples acknowledged the Son, but not in 44 the Holy Ghost:
wherefore they also denied him. 44 The paternal Word therefore
knowing the dispen- 44 sation and the will of the Father, that the
Father 44 wished to be glorified in no other way than this, 44
commanded his disciples after his resurrection in 44 these words, Go
and teach all nations, baptizing 44 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 44 and
of the Holy Ghost; (Matth. xxviii. 19.) shew- 44 ing that whoever
omits any one of these does not 44 perfectly glorify God. For the
Father is glorified 44 by this Trinity. For the Father willed, the
Son 44 executed, the Spirit manifestedt.” There may be
s An
allusion to Eph. iv. 6. UvevfAtzroq.
Haryp ph yap elq,
See N°.
16. 'itpoauma Se Wo, on kou o vloq, to Se
1 E< Se ovv o Aoyoq •npoq rov 0eov, rptrov to ayiov Uvev/J.a. Uocrvjp iv-
0to? uv,
tI ovv (prl<r€i€v av Tiq TeXXerai, Aoyoq arcoTeXer, vloq Se
Af'yeiv
®eovq ", Avo ph ovk ipa ®eovq SewcwTai,
§»’ ov HaTrip ntcrTevezai.
aXX’ 7]
€vcc, TtpoTumot 8e Svo, oIkovo- OiK0V0y.la
avi/,(puv{aq cvvayerai elq
{A.!av Se rp/TTjy, ttjv %apiv rev aytov eVa
0eoV el? ydp lesriv o &eoq. *0
expressions
in this passage, which might seem at first sight to support the notion of the
Son and the Holy Ghost being operations of the Father; but since Hippolytus
wrote this treatise purposely to confute such a notion, it is plain, that this
could not have been his meaning; and Hippolytus undoubtedly believed the Son
and the Holy Ghost to be distinct persons. Concerning the other expressions,
in which he speaks of the second and third persons being subordinate to the
first, I would refer to bishop Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Faith, sect. IV.
The doxology with which Hippolytus concludes this treatise has been given at p.
9.
Origenes, A. D. 240.
44. Origenis de Principiis, 1. I. c. 6. p. 55.
I mentioned in my former work, that Origen’s
treatise De Principiis only existed in a Latin translation made by Rufinus,
and that the translator had been strongly suspected of making several alterations.
On this account we cannot place much de- pendance upon the arguments or
expressions of Origen which are taken from this book. But though Rufinus may
have altered certain phrases, and introduced passages of his own, he would
hardly have
yap KeXtvuv Har'/jp, o $e irrraKOvuv ovv
o TtarpZoq Aoyoq trjv oiKCvo^lav
Tlo$, to 8e avverItfiv oiyiov Wvev(/.a. kcu to 6eXrji/.a tov Tlarpoq, %ti ovk
‘O &v UccTrjp in) huvtgov, o Se
Tlo$ a,XXa<; {SovXerai doid^eadai o
Tlarrjp
dia navrcov, to ayiov
UvevjAa iv vj ovtu$} ava/XTaq ttapebccKev toiq
pa-
Tca<riv. VAXX&>$ re eva, ©eov vo(A.i<rai Orjraiq
Xeycov, Tlopevdevreq y.adv}Tev-
[Mi tivvafAtOa, iav fjwj ovrooq Tlarp) <rare
ndvra ta eBvq, fiami^ovTeq
Kai
) Tlip Ka) dylcp UvevfAan m<TTev- aitTOvq
e<? to ovofAa k. t. X. tieiKvvccv,
<ru[A€v. 'lovta'ioi //ev yap ibo^acrav oti itaq av ev n tovtccv iKXimj,
Holtepa, aXX’ ovk vjvxapio-Tiqo-av, Ttov reXeiaq ©eov ovk itio^a<rev. Aicc yap
yap ovk ineyvacrav. Madvjra) in- Tvjt;
tpia%o$ TavTY}$ YlaTrjp dofca^eTai.
eyvutrav Tiov, dXX* ovk iv HvevfAaTt HaTrjp
yap rjdeXvjGev, Tlo<; eVonjcrcv,
aytcp, Zi o Ka) Tjpv^aavTO. Yivuctkuv UvevfAa i(pavepu<rev.
given a
new character to the whole tenor of any argument ; and we must suppose Origen
to have spoken of the nature of the Son in some such terms as those which occur
in the passage now before us.
I have often alluded to the favourite illustration
of the Fathers, by which they compare the generation of the Son to the
effulgence proceeding from light. Origen makes use of it very frequently, as I
have shewn in my former work: but in the present instance he proves how utterly
inadequate every such analogy really was. “ It is impossible,” he says, “ to
compare God the Father in the gene- “ ration of his only begotten Son, and in
his mode “ of existence, to any man or other animal who fifi begets:
but there must necessarily be something “ special and suited to God, for which
no compa- “ rison of any kind can be found, not only in exist- “ ing things,
but not even in thought and idea, so as “ for human thought to comprehend how
the unbe- <tf gotten God is made the Father of an only begot- “
ten Son. For the generation is eternal and ever- “ lasting, in the same manner
as effulgence is gene- “ rated from light. For he does not become a Son “ from
without by spiritual adoption, but is Son by “ nature u.” Origen
then confirms this by passages of scripture, such as Heb. i. 3 : but he dwells
particularly on Col. i. 15, where the Son is called the image of the invisible
God. He considers in what sense the term image can be applied to the Son of
u sed ne in
cogitatione reterna ac sempiterna genera-
quidem vel sensu inveniri pot- tio,
sicut splendor generatur ex
est, ut humana cogitatio possit luce.
Non enim per adoptio-
apprehendere quomodo ingeni- nem
spiritus Filius fit extrinse-
tus Deus Pater efficitur uni- cus,
sed natura Filius est. c. 4. geniti Filii. Est namque ita
God: and
having observed, that every son may be called the image of his father who begat
him, he says, that in this sense the Son of God may be the image of God: “
which image contains the unity “ of nature and substance of the Father and Sonx.”
If we could be certain, that these were the genuine words of Origen, we have
here direct proof of his believing the consubstantiality of the Father and the
Son: and the passage might be added to the others which I have noticed in my
former work, N°. 305, where I have shewn that the term opoovo-ios, of one
substance, was not unknown to the Ante- Nicene fathers. As I observed above,
something of this kind must have been said by Origen, though his words may have
been altered by Rufinus. He believed Christ to be strictly and literally the
begotten Son of God: and I have shewn in the Introduction to this work, that
such a notion leads us necessarily to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Other
passages, which assert the same doctrine, may be found in the following places
of the treatise De Principiis, lib. I. c. 6. §. 4. p. 71. lib. III. c. 5. §. 8.
p. 151. lib. IV. §. 37. p. 195. and the personality and divinity of the Holy
Ghost are asserted with equal plainness in the following places: lib. I. praef.
4. p. 48. c. 1. §. 3. p. 50. c. 3. §. 3. p. 61. and the last passage is so
strongly worded, that the translator would hardly have ventured to introduce
it, if it had not existed in the original: “ Up to the “ present time I have
not been able to find any ex- “ pressions in the scriptures, by which the Holy
“ Ghost could be said to be made or created y.”
x Quae
imago etiam naturae continet unitatem. ac substantiae Patris et Filii >’
Usque ad praesens nullum
45. Origenis c. Celsum 1. VIII. §. 12. vol. I.
p. 750.
The
following passage was partly adduced in my former work, N°. 261, where I
observed, that the term hypostasis was used in Origen’s time to express
individual existence, i. e. personality. It also remarkably confirms the fact
of Christ being worshipped. Celsus had said of the Christians, 44
If “ they worshipped no other being but one God, 44 their argument
against other persons would per- 44 haps have weight: but now they
pay the highest 44 worship to this person who appeared so lately, 44
and yet they think that they commit no offence 44 against God,
although his servant is worshipped 44 by themz.” To this
Origen replies, 44 If Celsus 44 had considered the words,
I and the Father are 44 one, (John x. 30,) and those spoken by the
Son of 44 God in his prayer, as I and thou are one a,
(xvii. 44 22,) he would not have thought, that we worship 44
any one else beside the supreme God: for he says, 44 the Father is
in me, and I in the Father, (xiv. 44 11: xvii. 21.) But if any one
be inclined to fear 44 from this, that I am going over to those who 44
deny the Father and Son to be two persons, let 44 him observe that
expression, And of them that 44 believed there was one heart and one
soul, (Acts 44 iv. 32,) that he may understand that other, I and 44
the Father are one. We therefore worship one 44 God, as I have
proved, the Father and the Son; 44 and our argument against other
persons continues
sermonem
in scriptis sanctis in- Sev
wXvj/>c/xeXe<y vojn/£oucn nep) tov
venire
potuimus, per quem Spi- ©toy, el kcu vnvjpeTv^
olvtqv 6epa-
ritus Sanctus factura esse vel nevO'freTcu.
creatura
diceretur. a ‘{1$ eya kou <ri> ev iepev. Ori-
z Nw) de
Toy evayx°<; (pavevTa, gen
quoted from memory. The
T0VT0V
Vftepdpvi<TK€VOV<ri, KOU Q[AUS oil- words
are, Kadus 7Jpets IV e<T[A€V,
“ valid:
and we do not pay the highest worship to “ him who appeared so lately, as to a
person who “ had no previous existence; for we believe him “ when he says
himself, Before Abraham was, 1 “ am, (John viii. 58;) and when he says, I am
the “ Truth, (xiv. 6:) and none of us are so stupid as “ to imagine, that the
substance of truthb had no “ existence before the times of the
coming of Christ. “We therefore worship the Father of Truth, and “ the Son who
is Truth, two in person, [or, in the “ mode of existence,] but one in
unanimity, and “ agreement, and identity of will; so that he, who “ has seen
the Son, the brightness of the glory, and “ the express image of the substance,
of God, (Heb. “ i. 3,) has seen in him the very image of God, God “ himself0.”
Origen saw the necessity and the difficulty of steering between tritheism and
Sabellian- ism: but this passage, even if it stood alone, would be sufficient
to acquit him of either. That he worshipped the Son as God, is here expressly
asserted:
b ‘H Tyq
aXv)6eiaq oiarta. Ori- gen probably meant, substantial Truth, or Truth
personified, i. e. Christ. See my former work, N°. 100.
c Enrep vevo^Ket 6 KeXaoq to, 'Ey&> Ka) o
Uarrjp ev €07x61/, Ka) to e’v evyjri k. t. X. ovk av $eTo rt[Aaq Ka) aXXov Otpaneveiv
napa tov iv) va<ri OeoV O yap UaTvjp, (pvj<r)>, e’v ituo)t
Kay a iv [Jar pi. Ei he t tq iK tovtuv
vepicvaaOriveTai, [/.$ ttvj av- Toy.oXav[JL€v itpoq Tovq avatpovvraq hvo elvai
vvoa-Taareiq tlarepa Kai T/ov, iviOT^a’aTu to?,tHv 2Se vdvTwv k. t.X. <va
Qecoprjirrj to, 'Eya k. t. X. tfEva ovv @eov, uq anrodehaKa/xev, tov Tla- repa Ka) tov Ttov, Oepavevoixev. Ka)
(Aevet vjfMv 0 vpoq tov; aXXovq drevYjq Xoyoq' Ka) ov tov evay%oq ye
(pa- VfVra, uq vporepov ovk ovra, ivep- 6py<TK(:V0iA.ev' aiiTw yap veidoptBa
t$> elvovTt k. t. X. Ka) ov% ovra tiq rifAuv i<TTiv avhpano'bov, &q
o’ie<r6at OTi rj t yq dXyQelaq ova la 7ipo tZv Xpovav Tvjq tov Xpurtov
evityavelaq ovk rjv. &pvjffKevo[Aev ovv tov UaTtpa Trjz ’AXrjdelaq, Ka) tov
Tiov ryjv ’AXij- Qeiav, ovt<z 8i>o tSj vvoottdaei vpdy- para, ev £e tSj
o/xovo/ijt, Ka) t>J <rvfA.~ (puvlp, Ka) Ty TavTOTVjTi tov j3ovXrj-
fAaToq' uq tov eupaKOTa tov Tiov ovta avavyacfAa Trjq Bfaq, Ka) %a- paKTripa
Tvjq wto<7Ta<reu:q tov Qeov, eupaKevai
iv avTq>, ovti eiKovi tov @eov, tov &eov.
he also as
plainly declares, that he did not worship two Gods: and though what he says of
the unity of agreement might appear, if taken by itself, to favour
Sabellianism, it will be observed, that he speaks of the Father and the Son
being two in hypostasis, which can only mean, in person or individuality of
existence. It is important also to remember, that Origen took an active part in
the controversy excited by Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia; and it was
principally owing to his arguments, that Beryllus recanted his errors.
Eusebius, who relates this circumstance, represents Beryllus as maintaining, “
that our Lord and Saviour had no preexist- “ ence in individual distinctness of
being, before his “ appearance in the world; and that he had no dis- “ tinct
divinity, but only that of his Father residing “ in himselfd.” This
was nothing else than the doctrine, which was taught by Sabellius a few years
later: and since Origen succeeded in making Beryllus abjure this error, his
own orthodoxy and anti- Sabellian sentiments cannot be called in question.
I would
again refer the reader to my former work, N°. 261, note b, where
instances are given of Origen’s use, of the term hypostasis: and I would add
the following passage, in which he uses another analogy for the unity of the
two persons. Upon those words in Genesis xi. 1, And the whole earth was one
lip, and all had one speech, he observes, “ To those who do not understand the
expression, “ I and the Father are one, (John x. SO,) and there- “ fore deny
the distinct personality of the Son, I
d Tov
<ruT7}pa, kc&) Kvpiov /mj filets' pj&e (M]y Oeorvjra Itilav e%€tvy npovipeo-rdvai kc&t lUav ovalaq itepi- tzKk* i[AiroAnevGy.evy)v
ccvtcS jtcovvjy Trtv ypctfpriv, npo rrjq elq avOpunovq ezidij-
Uc&TptKvjy. H. E. VI. 33.
“ would
quote this passage, And the whole earth “ was one Up, and all had one speeche.”
Origen evidently meant to adduce this analogy, as shewing that unity may be
predicated of persons who have a distinct existence. He did not mean to say,
that the particular kind of unity was the same in both cases: but he argued,
that unity may exist between persons who are individually distinct.
46. Origenis in Genesim Horn. XVII.
$.
5. vol. II. p. 108.
I have
mentioned at p. 39, that Origen’s Homilies upon Genesis only exist in the Latin
translation of Rufinus, which cannot be depended upon for accuracy. I have
therefore only given references to several places where the word Trinitas
occurs; and all of which, if literally translated, would demonstrate Origen’s
belief of a Trinity in unity. The following passage is taken from the same
Latin version ; and the reader will wonder at the length to which the
allegorical interpretation of scripture was carried. But this very circumstance
inclines me to think that the passage is genuine, and not an addition of
Rufinus; for Origen’s propensity to this method of interpretation is too well
known: and, as I observed in N°. 44. though Rufinus may have altered the
language, yet the turn of thought, and the tenor of the argument, must have
proceeded from the original author. He is commenting upon that part of the
prophecy of Jacob which relates to Judah : Judah is a lion's whelp who shall raise
him up ? (Gen. xlix. 9.) and after saying,
that a
e To% [w
voovai to, ’E<yia kou o o/cro(aev
to, *Hv noLcra. v) yvj Uotrrjp tv
iapev, kou dia tovto ap- tv, kou (pccvrj plot, mccai. In Gen. vov/Aemq
vtcoittchtiv iblav Tlov, <npo<r- vol. II. p. 34.
mystical
exposition is most suited to the place, and that the lion's whelp signifies
Christ, he proceeds to interpret his being raised up of his rising from the
dead. He quotes Rom. viii. 11. as shewing that God raised him up ; and again,
his own words in John ii. 19—21. as speaking of himself raising up his own
body. Origen then observes, “ Because he “ says that he himself raises up his
own temple, and “ God is said to have raised him up, the prophet “ rightly
says, as if struck with awe at such unity “ and indivisibility of Father and
Son, Who shall “ raise him up{?” It is unnecessary to disclaim any agreement
with such fanciful expositions of scripture : and I merely quote the passage,
as shewing how strongly the doctrine of the Trinity must have been impressed
upon the mind of a writer who introduced it upon such an occasion as this.
The
Homilies upon Exodus also furnish many remarkable testimonies to the doctrine
of the Trinity ; but the same doubt exists as to their genuineness, which
attaches to the Homilies upon Genesis; for Rufinus expressly mentions, that he
had made some additions in his Latin translation of them. I shall therefore
only give references to the passages. Hom. V. 3. p. 145; Hom. VI. §. 5. p. 148;
Hom. VIII. §. 4. p. 158.
The same
may be said of the Homilies upon Leviticus. See Hom. XII. $. 3. p. 251 ; Hom. XIII. §. 4. p. 256; and upon Numbers, Hom. XII. §. 1. p. 313.
f Quia ergo et ipse se dicit Patris et Filii unitatis
atque in- suscitare templum suum, et discretions attonitus ait, Quis Deus ilium
dicitur suscitasse, suscitabit eum P recte propheta stupore tantse
47. Origenis in Psalm. XVIII. 6.
vol. II.
p. 614. The following passage may be of use as shewing
the
interpretation affixed by Origen to certain passages of scripture. The words
of the Psalm are, as translated by the LXX. In the sun hath he set his
tabernacle; upon which Origen observes, “ Our “ Lord is the sun of
righteousness, and the Father “ dwelleth in him, according to the words, I am
in “ the Father, and the Father in me: (John xiv. “ 10.) and again, The Father
that dwelleth in me, “ he doeth the works: (ib.) and the apostle says, “ God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto “ himself, (2 Cor. v. 19.g)”
48. Origenis in Psalm. CXXII. 2.
vol. II.
p. 821. Origen gives the following fanciful interpretation
of those
words, As the eyes of servants look upon the hand of their masters, &c. 44
The servants of “ their masters, the Father and the Son, are the “ body and
spirit; and the handmaid of her mis- “ tress, the Holy Ghost, is the soul; and
the three “ are the Lord our God; for the three are oneh.” This
passage has been advanced in support of the notion, that the disputed text in 1
John v. 7. is genuine, and was read by Origen in his copies of the New
Testament. Though this inference will not perhaps be generally allowed, there
can be no question as to the writer of this sentence having held the doctrine
of the Trinity.
49. Origenis in Jerem. Homil.
XVIII. 9-
vol. III.
p. 251.
The Septuagint
version of Jeremiah xviii. 14. is
g ‘O KVpio$
yfAMV o yj\to$ S<- Tlvev/xa kou aZfAa' iraiStffKvi
Se Ku-
KCtlO<TVVVjS tCTTiVj iv dVTM §€ KC6TC6- T0U dyiOV HvfVfACCTQq, 1) XpVffl.
otojvo* o
HaTr)p, Kara to k. t. X. Ta 8c rpta Kvpioq o ©co$ vjy.Sv etrnv’
h Aot/Xoi Kvpiuvy liar pit; kou Tlov,
ol yap rpuq to ev elvtv.
very
different from the Hebrew. It begins thus ; Will breasts fail from the rock ?
i. e. will the rock cease to pour out water ? and this mention of water leads
Origen to quote Psalm xlii. 2. My soul thirst- eth for the living God: upon
which he asks, “ Who “ hath thus thirsted for the breasts of the rock ? “ but
the rock was Christ. (1 Cor. x. 4.) Who hath “ thus thirsted for the Holy
Ghost, so as to say, “ hike as the hart panteth after the fountains of “ water,
so panteth my soul after thee, O God ? “ (Psalm xlii. 1.) Unless we thirst for
the three “ fountains of water, we shall find no fountain of “ water. The Jews
seem to have thirsted for one tc fountain of water, which was God:
but since they “ did not thirst for Christ and the Holy Ghost, they “ are not
able to drink even of God. The heretics “ seem to have thirsted for Christ
Jesus; but since “ they have not thirsted for the Father, who is the “ God of
the Law and the Prophets, for this reason “ they do not drink even of Jesus
Christ. They “ also, who keep to one God, but set at nought the “ prophecies,
have not thirsted for the Holy Ghost “ that is in the prophecies. For this
reason they “ do not drink even of the fountain of the Father, “ nor of Him who
cried in the temple and said, If “ any man thirst, let him come to me and
drink'.
1 Tt5 ovrccq idtyyo-e @eov, u<tt daibt'
eneid?] §e ovk e^txpYjCav tov
av eiVeTv, 'Edtipyjtrev, k. t. a. ; T!; XpicTov kou to ayiov Tlvevf^a, ovk
ovTccq eBA/ojere tov$ y.a(TT0vq rvjg Tie- eleven itieiv ovhe Sciro tov Seov. ESo-
tpat;; *H irirpa Se y\v o Xpio-Toq. fjav
^edt^Kevai 01 ano rav alpeaeav
T{q cvruq edl\prj<r€V ay lay UvevfAaTOt;, Xdkttov *lr)(T0vv' aXX’ eirei ovk e8<-
uktt av elneTv, *Ov
rponov k. t. X. j iprj<rav tov
TlaTepu, ovra vo[aov Kai
’Eav [/.vj Ta$ Tpa$ Trqya$ tuv vtdruv irpo<p^Tav
@eov, tovto ov i:ivov<tiv
Siip'qcrafAev, Gufieu'av nyyyv twv v$a- ovfie cciib 'lyaov Xpi<TT0v. OI 8e eva
tm evprj<roy.ev. vE8ofav dedupvjKevai [tev
TypovvTeq ®eov, e£av$evovvT€<; 8e
fAiaq nyyvjq twv
vbarcm tov Seov ’lot;- ruq
itpo<pr)Teia<;, ovk efii'iprjcrav to
“ (John
vii. 37.)” It is plain that the three fountains of water are the three persons
of the Trinity, and that Origen considered a belief in each of them to be
indispensable.
50. Origenis in JEzech. Homil. IV.
§. 5. p. 372.
“ When you belong to Christ, you will belong “
also to the Almighty Father; for they are one “ and of an united naturek.” These
homilies upon Ezekiel are preserved only in the Latin version of Jerom; but he
speaks of having translated them faithfully, and I therefore quote from them
this very strong expression, which has a close agreement with the following.
51. Origenis in Matthceum, tom. XIII. §. 19.
vol.
III. p.
597.
Upon those
words of our Saviour, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth
me, Luke ix. 48. Origen immediately adds, “ Then, “ since the Father is
inseparable from the Son, He “ is with the person who receives the Son1.”
52. Origenis in Mattliceum, tom. XVII. §. 14.
vol.
III. p.
789.
I have
shewn in N°. 45. that Origen’s belief concerning our Saviour was decidedly
opposed to Sa- bellianism. The following passage will prove the point still
farther. Having observed that the multitude, who looked upon Jesus as a
prophet, (Matt, xxi. 46.) did not rightly or perfectly understand him, he
continues, “ We must not think that those “ are for him who have false
conceptions concern-
Uvevua to dyiov to iv to?; irpo^- omnipotentis Patris, quia unum
ratq. A ta tovto ov itlovTai oiJSc cmto sunt unitaeque
naturae.
mjyvjq rrjq naTptKvjq, ojJSc aisb tov 1 ETt* iire) ccyppurToq £<tti tov
KeKpayoToq K. t. X. Tfov o TlaTvjp, ylvtTai irapa, t£ &c£a-
k Cum fueris Christi, eris et ^ivu tov Tlov.
“ ing him ; such as those who confound
the idea of “ Father and Son, fancying the Father and Son to “ be one in
person”1, distinguishing the one subject “ in conception only and in
the names11.”
53. Origenis in hiicam Horn. XXV.
vol. III.
p. 962.
Origen’s
homilies upon St. Luke exist only in a Latin translation, which was made by
Jerom: but there is every reason to think that he translated them literally: and
the following passage shews very plainly what was Origen’s opinion concerning
the third person of the Trinity. It is also curious, as presenting an instance
of that wild and irrational method of interpretation which was pursued by the
Gnostics. “ Others, when they read, I will send “ you a Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, (John
xiv. “ 16.) do not understand a person who is third after “ the Father
and the Son, and a divine and sublime “ nature, but the apostle Paul0.”
54. Origenis in Joannem, tom. II.
§. 6. vol. IV.
p. 60.
I have had
occasion to observe, that the sentiments of Origen concerning the Trinity have
furnished matter for much discussion among ancient and modern writers; and
that he has been charged with using expressions concerning the Son and the Holy
Ghost which are inconsistent with the orthodox notion of their divinity. I
have ventured, in
m tTrK0<rrd<T€i. See my former ovdfiaai diaipovvreq to tv virOKelpevov.
work, No. 261. 0 Alii legenles,
Mittam vobis
n Ov vojXKjtiov yap tlvai vnep Advocatum Spiritum veritatis,
avrov rovq ta ipevfy (ppovovvraq ntep) nolunt intelligere tertiam per-
avrov* oTToib/ tier iv ol
avy^ioyTeqlla- sonam a Patre et Filio,
et di vi—
Tpoq Ka) Tiov
ewoiav, /cat ry vttocttu- nam sublimemque naturam, sed
<T€i tva. htlovTcq elvai tov HaTepa apostoluni Paulum.
Ka) tov Tllv, ty iirtvoiqt, tudv>j Ka) roiq
concurrence
with bishop Bull, to question the justice of the attacks which have been made
upon Origen on these points: and the following is perhaps one of the passages,
in which he has been suspected of lowering the third person in the Trinity to
the rank of a created being. He is commenting upon those words at the beginning
of St. John’s Gospel, All things were made by him, (i. 3.) and he allows himself
to enter into a discussion which might well have been avoided.
44 If it is
true, that all things were made by him, 44 we must inquire whether
the Holy Ghost was 44 made by him : for as it seems to me, if a
person 44 says that the Holy Ghost was made, and if he 44
grants that all things were made by the Logos, he 44 must
necessarily admit that the Holy Ghost was 44 also made by the Logos,
the latter preceding him 44 in order of time. But if a person does
not choose 44 to say that the Holy Ghost was made by Christ, 44
it follows that he must call him unproduced, if 44 he thinks that
this passage in the Gospel is true. 44 But there may be also a third
opinion, beside that 44 of admitting that the Holy Ghost was made by
44 the Logos, and that of supposing him to be un- 44
created p, namely, the notion of
there being no 44 substantial individual existence of the Holy Ghost
44 distinct
from the Father and the Son^. We,
44 however,
being persuaded that there are three hyP The word here is ayewirov, little in
these cases, and I should though a few lines above it is be inclined to read
ayivtpov in ayewvjTov: and since Origen was both places. In the translation in
each case noticing the same I have followed the Benedictine opinion, we might
have expect- edition.
ed him to
use the same terms. This is clearly the Sabel- The evidence of MSS. is very
lian doctrine.
* H 2
“
postases, [persons,] the Father, the Son, and the “ Holy Ghost, and believing
that nothing is unpro- “ duced beside the Father, adopt this as the more “
pious and the true opinion, that all things being “ made by the Logos, the Holy
Ghost is more “ honourable than all of them, and more so in rank “ than all the
things which were made by the Fa- “ ther through Christ. And perhaps this is
the “ reason
why he is not also called the very Son of “ God, there being only one who by
nature and “ origin is Son, viz. the only-begotten, who seems “ to have been
necessary to the Holy Ghost, and to “ have assisted in forming his hypostasis,
not only “ that he might exist, but also that he might have “ wisdom, and
reason, and righteousness, and what- “ ever else we suppose him to have,
according to his “ participation in those qualities which we have “ before
mentioned as attributed to Christr.”
r ’E^eraareov aXydc/vi; ovrog rov, Tlavra Si’ uvrov
iyevero, el Ka) to II vevfAa to ayiov Si avrov iyevero. OifAai yap on ra [Aev
<pa<TK0vn ytvrj- rov avro eivai, Kai rp&ie/AeVtt to, Tldvra h' avrov
iyevero, avayKouov •napabe^aaBai on to ayiov UvevfAa did rov Aoyov iyevero,
Kpeafivrtpov •nap avro rov Aoyov rvyyavovroq. Tw Se [Mj (3ovXofAevx to ayiov
UvevfAa, Sia rov Xptarov yeyovevai, eiterai to dyevvi\rov avro Xeyeiv, dXvjOq
rd iv ra evayyeXlp rovra eivai Kplvovri. >/E<rrai Se nq Ka) rpirot;
napd rovq $vo, rov re ha rov Aoyov napa&eyj*- fAevov to UvevfAa to ayiov
yeyovevai, /cai to dyevtpov avrov eivai vnoXa/A- fidvovra, tioyfAarl^av (AVjle
oixriav riva lYiav v(pe<rrdvai rov dylov Tlvevy.aro<; erepav irapd rov
Uarepa Kai Toy Tiov.——‘Htu.eTq fAevroiye
rpeTq vitoardaeiq •neiOofAtvoi rvyyjz- veiv, rov Uarepa, Kai rov Ttov,
Kai to ayiov UvevfAa, koi ayevvyrov [Ay- Sev erepov rov Uarpbq elvai marev-
ovreq, aq evaefie<rrepov Ka) dXrt6eq, irpoaiefAtQa to, irdvrav
Sia rov Aoyov yevoyJvav, to ouyiov UvevfAa itav- rav elvai rtfAidrepov, Ka)
rd£ei itdv- rav rav vieo rov Uar poq tiia Xpurrov yeyevvjfAevav. Kai rd%a avrvj
e<rr)v rj alria rov fAr, Ka) avroviov xpyfAa- ri^eiv rov 0eotJ, fAOvav rov
Movaye- vovq (pvaei Tiov apyfijOev rvyyjxvovroq, ov Xp’feeiv eoiKe to ayiov
Uvev/Aa, haKCVovvroq avrov tt; vTto<rra<Teii ov fAovov eIq to
elvai, aXXd Ka) <ro<pov elvai Kai XoyiKov, Ka) S/#caiov, Ka) itav or n:
or ovv %pr) avro voeTv rvyxa- veiv, Kara fAeroyjqv rav irpoeipyfAevav YjfATv
Xpiarov inivoiav.
Such is
this extraordinary, and I must add, unfortunate, passage of Origen, which I
have quoted at length, and have endeavoured to translate with the utmost
fairness. If the reader should decide from it, that Origen did not believe the
eternity of the Holy Ghost, he will think that the enemies of Origen were not
without grounds when they questioned his orthodoxy. It is not my intention entirely
to exculpate him. He is at least guilty of indiscretion in entering upon such
perilous ground, and in speculating so deeply upon points, which after all must
elude the grasp of human ideas and phraseology. But the testimony of Origen,
even in this passage, is not without its value in the controversies which have
arisen concerning the third person in the Trinity. In the first place, he
distinctly notices the Sabellian hypothesis, and as distinctly declares that he
did not maintain it. He held that there are three hypostases in the Trinity: which
expression, as I have already explained it, can only mean that there are three
persons. Secondly, he says that the relation between the Father and the Holy
Ghost is such, that it would scarcely be improper to call the Holy Ghost the
Son of the Father. He gives a reason why such a term is not applied; but he
would never have said this, if he had believed the Holy Ghost, in the common
sense of the term, to be a creature. Thirdly, what he says of nothing being
unproduced (ayevvvjrov) excerpt the Father, is strictly orthodox, and has
always been the doctrine of the catholic church. The Son and the Holy Ghost
have always been said to be derived from the Father; the one by generation,
the other by procession: neither of them is self-existent,
H 3
and therefore
neither of them is unproduced: but this doctrine was never considered to be
incompatible with the eternity of the Son or the Holy Ghosts.
Origen seems to have considered himself bound by those words of St. John, All
things were made hy him, to include the Holy Ghost among the things which were
made by Christ: and it was this which led him into his dangerous speculation.
But the word which we translate, were made, does not necessarily imply creation
in the ordinary sense of the term : it means, were called into existence: and
though Origen undoubtedly understood from this passage, that the world was
created by Christ, yet he makes an express distinction between the Holy Ghost
and the works of creation. It appears from this passage, that he would have said
of the Holy Ghost, eyevero ha XpiaTov: and the western church never held
any other doctrine, than that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father by the
Son. Whether this was the notion which Origen meant to express, I would leave
to others to decide. His words are certainly not opposed to it: and though I
would again repeat my regret that he entered into such speculations, I must
add, that neither Sabellians, Arians, nor Socinians can claim the authority of
Origen as supporting their tenets. If he erred, it was a peculiar error of his
own:. and I would caution the reader not to draw his inference from this
particular passage, till he has compared it with the other extracts from works
of the same writer.
If we
could be certain, that Origen’s commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans was
faithfully translated by Rufinus, the following passage might s See
Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. \v.
be quoted
as shewing his sentiments concerning the eternity of the Holy Ghost: but for
the reasons alleged in my former work, I do not bring any separate testimony
from this treatise. I can hardly, however, imagine that Rufinus inserted the
whole of the following passage, or that the substance of it at least was not to
be found in the original work of Origen. “ I know that some persons misunder- “
standing the newness of the Spirit, (Rom. vii. 6.) “ have perverted it, to
prove that the Spirit is some- “ thing new, as not having existed before, and
not “ known in ancient times: in which they are not “ aware that they are guilty
of very grievous blas- “ phemy. For this very Spirit is in the Law, he is “ in
the Gospel, he is always with the Father and “ the Son, he always is, and was,
and will be, as the “ Father and the Son1.”
55. Origenis in Joannem, tom. X. §.
21. vol. IV:
p. 199. .
The
sentiments of Origen concerning the Sabellian hypothesis are expressed with
equal plainness in the present quotation. “ But since some persons are “
perplexed when they come to the question of the “ Father and the Son, adducing
this passage, We “ are found false witnesses of God, because we “ have
testified of God, that lie raised up Christ, “ whom he raised not up, &c.
(1 Cor. xv. 15.) and “ other similar passages, which prove that he who “ raised
was different from him who was raised ;
t Novitatem sane spiritus scio blasphemare. Ipse enim Spi-
quosdam
male intelligentes illuc ritus est
in lege, ipse in Evan-
traxisse, lit dicerent novum esse gelio,
ipse semper cum Patre et
Spiritum, tanquam qui ante non Filio
est, et semper est et erat
fuerit, nec veteribus innotuerit: et
erit, sicut Patef et Filius. VI.
et
nesciunt se in hoc gravissime 7. p. 580.
H 4
44 and this,
Destroy this temple, and in three days <fi I will raise it up;
(John ii. 19.) from which they “ think to prove, that the Son does not differ
nume- “ ricallyu [personally] from the Father; but that £<
both being one, not only in essence, but also in “ subject, are called Father
and Son, according to “ certain different ideas, but not in person; we must “
quote against them, in the first place, the passages f‘ which
preeminently prove the Son to be different “ from the Father*.”
56. Origenis in Joannem, tom. XIX. §. 1. vol.
IV.
p. 282.
“ I must
observe, that our Saviour sometimes <fi speaks of himself as if
he was speaking of a man, “ and sometimes as if of a nature which is more “
divine, and united to the unbegotten nature of the “ Father?.”
57. Origenis in Joannem, tom. XX.
16. p. 330.
Origen
compares the declaration of our Saviour,
I proceeded forth and came from God, (John
viii. 4<2.) with that passage in Micah, (i. 3.) Rehold the Lord cometh forth
out of his place: and though we may not agree with him in seeing a resemblance
between the two passages, we cannot mistake his sentiments concerning the
unity of the Father and the Son. “ When the Son is in the Father, being in
11 'Apidpu. See N°. 5. p. 24. aysporepovq, Kara rtvaq entvolaq ha-
x ’Eirei Sc
01 <rvyxl€o[A€V6i ev rep (popovq, ov Kara vitoaracriv KeyeaBai
irep) Uarpoq Ka) T lav toVo>, (rvvd- Hare
pa Ka) T lov, V.zktcov npoq av-
yovreq to,
Eipi<TK0(Ae6a k.
t. X. Ka) rot/? nrparov [Aev to
itpoyjyovjAevci'q
to rovroiq
0[A0ia ZvjXovvra erepov el- Karaa-KevaariKa
fora rev erepov ei~
vai tov eyeipavra <napa tov
ey/\yep‘ vai tov Ttoy ntapa tov
Uarepa.
J/Jvovy Ka) to, Avtrare k. t. a. olov y
AeKreov Se npoq ravra ort o
to
[oiOVTfltiJ eK rovrav itapl<rra<rQai <7C0Tr,p
ore [Aev icep) eavtov, coq ntep)
[avj §ia(f)epeiv t<p
api8(A<p tov Ttov tov avBpantov diuXeyeTai, ore Se aq
imp)
Tlarpoq, aXX’ ev, ov (aovov ov<riq.> Qeiorepaq <pv<reaq, Ka) vjvufAevqq ttj
aXX« Ka)
vnoKeiiAevut tvyyjxvwraq ayevvtjt^ tov
Tlarpoq <pv<rei.
44 the form of God, before he lowered himself God 44 is as it
were his place: and if any one thinks of 44 him, who, before he
humbled himself was in the 44 preeminent form of God, he will see
his Son, who 44 had not as yet come forth from God, and the 44
Lord, who had not yet come forth out of his place. 44 But when with
this condition of the Son he com- 44 pares that which results from
his tahing the form 44 of a
servant by humbling himself, he will under- 44 stand how the
Son of God proceeded forth and 44 came to us, and became as it were out of him who 44
sent him, though in another sense the Father did 44 not leave him
alone, but is with him, and is in the 44 Son, as he also is in the
Father. And unless you 44 understand in another sense, that the Son
is in 44 the Father, as he was before he came forth from 44
God, there will seem to be a contradiction between 44 his coming
forth from God, and the person who 44 came forth from God being
still in God. Others 44 have explained the words 1 proceeded forth
from 44 God, as I was begotten by God, who go on to 44
say that the Son was begotten of the substance of 44 the Father; as
if the Father had his substance 44 lessened and made deficient by
the substance of
44 his Son,
which he had before . These per-
44 sons also
say, that the Father and the Son are 44 corporeal, and that the
.Father is divided, which 44 are the notions of men who have not the
most 44 distant conception of an invisible and incorporeal 4‘
nature, which is properly his substance. It is 44 plain also, that
they ascribe bodily place to the 44 Father, and suppose the Son to
have come bodily 44 upon earth by changing from one place to
another, 44 and do not look upon it as a change merely from
“ one
condition to another, as we understand itz.” This remarkable passage
may be added to the many which were quoted in my former work, N°. 70. concerning
the meaning of St. Paul in Phil. ii. 5—11. It removes all doubt as to Origen
believing in the preexistence of Christ, and shews that he believed him in that
previous state to have been united to God.
It has
been argued from this passagea, that Origen did not believe the Son
to be of the same substance with the Father, because he condemns the opinion
of those 46 who said that the Son was be- “ gotten of the substance
of the Father.” But this is entirely to mistake the meaning of Origen, who only
condemned those persons who supposed the substance of God to be diminished by
the substance
z "Ore
b T/o? iv ra TLarpt ianv, iv pop(pri ©eov VTtdp%av, itptv iavrov KevZaat,
clove) rdnoc, avrov larrtv o ©eoV vo^crat
rov itpo
rov Kevuxxat exvrov iv ry itpoyyov- fikv^ vTiap’Xfivra ©ecu pop(j)vj,
oxperat rov f/.r^eita i£e\v}\v6ora inch rov ®eov Tiov avrov, Ka) Kvptov rov
/.«}- deita iKitopevopevov iK rov rornv eavrov. ’Eitav Be iKetvrj ry
Karaaracrei rov Ttov avyKplvri rvjv iK rov avetXyj- <pevat rrjv rov SovXov
[AOptpyv iavrov K€v6<ravra, crvvqcret itu$ b Tloq rov &cov iijvjX$e, Ka)
vjK€ itpoq vju-aq, Ka) olove) e£w yeyevyrat rov ittfxxpavroq avrov" el Ka)
Kar aXXov rpditov ovk afpyKev avrov pdvov b Uarrjp, aXXa per avrov icrn, Kai
tVnv iv r!p Ti£, acritep Ka) avro$ iv rS Ylarpi. Ka) el Kar’ aXXov ye rpditov
voy- trau; elvat rov Ttov iv ra WarpI, at; vjv 7tp)v i^eXdrj aito rov Qeov,
$o£ei itepte^etv fidy^v ro Ka) il'ehqhvQevai aito rov ©eou, Ka) etvat rov
i^eXi]Xv- Qora aito rov @eov, ert iv tco ©ea.
VAXXot Be to,
’E£vjX0ov aizo rov ©eotl, fttviyyaravro avrt tow, reyevriy.ai aito rov Seov, on; aKoXovOe? 4k rrj$ ovcrtaq
<pd<TKetv rov Tlarpos ytyevv^aBat rov Ttov, otove) [Aetovpevov Ka)
Xeiitovroq ry overt?., jj itpdrepov e*%e, rov Tiov—. ’AKoXovOeT Be avro7<;
Ka) <raj/.a Xeyetv rov Tlarepa Ka) rov Tiov, Ka) dirjprj- crdat rov IlaTepa,
aitep icrn hdyy&ra avBpaitav, ovap
<pv<nv adparov
Kat aaafiaTOv it€(f>avraay.evav, ovcrav Kvplat; ova Lav' ovrot Be
hyXav on iv crcofAartKa rditto overt rov Tlartpa, Ka) rov Tiov rditov Ik roitov
afitlxpav- ra cra>[AariKUi; i7tihe^vj[X’/}Kivai rep fMq>, Kat ov%)
Kard<rractv eK Karacrrd* creaq, ucritep vj/xeTi; i^etX^<pauev. Compare
Origen de Prindp. 1. iv. c. ult. §. 28. p. 189. as quoted in my former work,
N°.
>78- ’ . . .
a Jackson,
in his Dissertation, prefixed to his edition of Novatian, p. xlix.
of the Son
being taken from it. The proofs of Origen believing in the consubstantiality
of the Father and Son will be found in N°. 44.
With respect
to Origen’s commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, since it only exists in
the translation of Rufinus, which can be proved to be by no means literal, I
shall only give references to the following places, where some strong
expressions will be found in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. Lib. I.
fj. 16. p. 472. Lib. III. §. 8. p. 514. Lib. IV. §. 9. p. 540. ib. §. 10. Lib.
VIII. §. 5. p. 626. But Basil has preserved a fragment of the original Greek,
in which Origen expressly speaks of “ the divinity of the Holy Spiritb.”
Cyprianus,
A.D. 250.
58. Cypriani Epist. LXXIII. p. 131.
I
observed, in N°. 39, that the word Trinitas is often applied by Tertullian to
the three persons of the Godhead. Cyprian, who was bishop of the church, to
which Tertullian belonged, used it in the same sense, as may be seen in the
following passage. “ When the Lord sent forth his disciples after his “
resurrection, he instructed and taught them how “ they were to baptize, saying,
All power is given “ unto me in heaven and in earth: go ye therefore, “ and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name “ of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy “ Ghost. (Matt, xxviii. 18.) He implies a Trinity, “ by the
mystery of which all nations were bap- “ tizedc.” We find the same
sentiment repeated,
b De
Spiritu S. c. 29. AI Upa\ tijto?.
%vvd(A€i<; xufflUKcu tov
[/.ovoywovq, c Dominus post resurrectio- Kai rvjs tov ayiov itvevy.'xToq Oeo- iicin tliscipulos
suos mittens
and the
same use of the word Trinitas, in another part of this epistle. “ When after
the resurrection “ the apostles are sent by the Lord to all nations, “ they are
commanded to baptize them in the name “ of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy “ Ghost. How then do some say, that a Gentile “ who is baptized out of
the church, and even con- “ trary to the church, provided it be done in the “
name of Jesus Christ, any where and in any man- “ ner, can obtain remission of
sins, when Christ “ himself orders all nations to be baptized in the “ full and
united Trinity d?”
59. Cypriani Epist. LXXIII. p. 133.
Cyprian,
as is well known, was inclined not to allow the validity of baptism
administered by heretics : and the opinion of the early church concerning
baptism, as well as concerning the Trinity, may be illustrated by the following
passage. He asks, “ If they are not in the church, and what is more, “ if they
act contrary to the church, how can they “ baptize with the baptism of the
church ? For it “ is no small and trifling concession which is made “ to
heretics by our admitting their baptisms, since “ from thence begins the source
of all faith, the “ saving entrance to the hope of eternal life, and “
acceptance with God for His servants who are to “ be purified and made alive.
For if a person may “ be baptized by heretics, he may therefore obtain “
remission of sins. If he obtains remission of sins, “ he is also sanctified,
and made the temple of God.
quemadmodum baptizare debe- gentes
baptizarentur.
rent instruxit et docuit, dicens, d quando ipse Christus
Data est mihi &c. Insinuat gentes
baptizari jubeat in plena
Trinilatem,
cujus sacramento et adunata Triuitate,
p. 135.
“ If he is
sanctified and made the temple of God, I “ ask, of what God ? If you say, of
the Creator, “ I say that he cannot, because he does not believe “ in him. If
you say, of Christ, I say that neither “ can he, who denies Christ to be God,
be made the “ temple of Christ. If you say, of the Holy Ghost, “ since the
three are one, I ask, how can the Holy “ Ghost be reconciled to him, who is at
enmity either “ with the Son or the Fathere ?” It is plain, that
Cyprian was speaking of the Gnostic heretics, who made the supreme God, and the
creator of the world, to be two different beings: but the passage is most
valuable, as shewing that Cyprian considered the name of God to apply to the
Son and the Holy Ghost, as much as to the Father.
The words,
“ cum tres unum sint,” since the three are one, have also been quoted as one of
the proofs, that 1 John v. 7. was found in the copies of the New Testament used
by Cyprian: but the strongest passage in favour of that text is in the
treatise de uni- tate ecclesice, where after making several observations in
support of unity, he adds, “ The Lord says, “ I and the Father are one: (John
x. 30.) and again “ it is written of the Father and the Son and the “ Holy
Ghost, And these three are onef.” It certainly appears from this
passage, that Cyprian meant to quote the words, “ et hi tres unum sunt,”
e Si sanctificatus est, si tem- Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse
plum Dei factus est, quaero, ei
potest, qui aut Filii aut Pa-
cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, non tris
inimicus est ?
potuit, quia in eum non credi- f
Et iterum de Patre et Filio
dit. Si Christi, nec hujus fieri et
Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,
potuit templum, qui negat De- Et
hi tres unum sunt. Page
umChristum. Si SpiritusSancti, 195—6.
cum tres unum sint, quomodo
as written
somewhere or other in the New Testament : and it is not denied by any person,
that these words, or others equivalent to them, are written in 1 John v. 8: the
question is, whether they are also written in 1 John v. 7. Those, who oppose
the genuineness of the seventh verse, contend, that Cyprian meant to allude to
the eighth verse; and that following the figurative interpretation, which was
used by many of the fathers, he chose to say of the eighth verse, that it is
written, i. e. it is to be interpreted, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Facun- dus, a bishop of the African church in the 6th century, appears to have
understood Cyprian in this way. He writes as follows: 66 The apostle
John in “ his
Epistle writes thus of the Father, and the Son, “ and the Holy GKost, There are
three that bear “ witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the “ blood; and
these three are one; by the spirit sig- “ nifying the Father, by the water the
Holy Ghost, “ and by the blood the Son. Which testimony of “ the apostle John,
Cyprian, in an epistle or book, “ which he wrote concerning the Trinity, under-
“ stands to have been said of the Father, and the “ Son, and the Holy Ghost:
for he says &c. s.” and then he quotes the very words of Cyprian in this
passage.
I would
observe upon this quotation from Facun-
g Defens.
I. 3. Joannes Apo- sanguine vero
Filium significans.
stolus in
epistola sua de Patre Quod
tamen Joannis Apo-
et. Filio
et Spiritu Sancto sic stoli
testimonium B. Cyprianus
dicit, Tres sunt, qui testimonium Carthaginensis
antistes et mar-
dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et tyr in epistola, sive libro, quem
sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt: de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre et
in spiritu significans Patrem Filio et Spiritu Sancto dictum
in aqua vero Spiritum intelligit. Ait enim, “ Dominus
Sanctum
significans, in &c.”
dus, that
two things are undeniable: 1. that Facun- dus himself interpreted the spirit,
the water, and the blood, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that
he does not quote the seventh verse, but only the eighth. 2. That he also understood
Cyprian to have given the same figurative interpretation to the three
witnesses mentioned in the eighth verse. It will perhaps be observed, that Fa-
cundus quotes Cyprian’s Epistle or Book de Trini- tate, whereas the words cited
above are taken from the treatise de Unitate Ecclesice. But this does not
really make any difference: for the words quoted by Facundus are precisely the
same which are read in the treatise de Unitate Ecclesice: and though we might
think, that Cyprian inserted the same passage in two different works, still
Facundus would have made the same remark upon each of them, and would have
said, that Cyprian gave a figurative interpretation to the eighth verse. The
question to be decided is, whether Facundus was right in this representation of
Cyprian’s meaning; i. e. whether Cyprian, when he said,44 et iterum
de Patre et Filio <fi et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres
unum “ sunt” meant to say, that what we read of the spirit, the water, and the
blood, is written and is to be understood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost If we adopt this notion, the testimony of Cyprian is to be withdrawn from
the number of those writers, who support the genuineness of the text: and it
cannot be denied, that many of the fathers were fond of giving an allegorical
meaning to the three witnesses mentioned in the eighth verse. It has been said
in answer to this, that the custom of allegorizing this passage did not exist
so early
as the
time of Cyprian: but whoever will refer to Origen’s Eighth Homily on Leviticus,
10 and 11, will find him alluding to the mystery of the water and blood, and
quoting St.John as.saying in his epistle, “ that purification is made in the
water and “ the blood and the spirithafter which he proceeds to
other allegories upon the number three, and concludes with saying, “ So that in
every in- “ stance we are to understand that purification can “ not be made
without the mystery of the Trinity This seems to leave no doubt, that Origen
saw the mystery of the Trinity in the spirit, the water, and the blood: but if
the Trinity had actually been mentioned in the verse preceding, it is hardly
possible that Origen would not have quoted it, or would have been contented
with proving the mystery by inference and allegory.
I have no
inclination to dwell longer upon this disputed passage; and my subject does not
require me to do so, except so far as the testimonies of the fathers are
concerned. But having been led to consider the internal evidence in my Bampton
Lectures k, I would only observe, that the external evidence is
capable of being summed up in a few words. There are only four Greek MSS. in
existence which are known to contain the text: 1. Codex Ravii, which is at
Berlin, and which has been proved to be a transcript of the Complutensian
Polyglot1.
h Quod
Joannes ponit in k Note 85.
p. 522.
epistola
sua, et dicit purifica- 1
See La Croze, Thes. Epist.
tionem
fieri in aqua, et san- Vol. III. p.
2. and particularly
guine et spiritu. Vol. II. p. 234. Untersuchung der Ravischen
' Ut ubique intelligamus pu- Grechischen
Handschrift des
rificationem fieri non posse sine Neuen
Testaments, von G. G.
mysterio Trinitatis, p. 235. Pappelbaum.
Berlin 1785.
2. Codex Guelpherbytanus D. (N°. 131 of Michaelis.) One of the
MSS. preserved at Wolfenbuttel; but it is acknowledged to have been written in
the seventeenth century, and is therefore deserving of no notice. 3. Codex
Montfortianus, now at Dublin, the date of which has been controverted; but it
is generally placed in the fifteenth century, if not still later. 4. Codex
Ottobonianus, in the Vatican, which has only been collated lately at the
suggestion of the bishop of Salisbury, through whose kindness I have received a
facsimile of the disputed passage. There are therefore only two MSS. which in a
critical point of view can be said to contain the text: and it is remarkable,
that neither of these MSS. have furnished the text of our modern printed editions:
and what is still more striking, the text, as it now stands, is not to be found
in any MS. whatever. The latter fact will appear still plainer, if the evidence
is also summed up concerning the printed editions.
The
earliest edition of the Greek Testament, which contains the text, is in the
Complutensian Polyglot, which seems to have been printed in 1514, but was not
published till 1520 or 1522. In the interval between these periods, Erasmus
published his first edition of the Greek Testament, in 1516; but it did not
contain the disputed verse: neither did his second edition, which appeared in
1519: but in 1522 he put out a third edition, in which the seventh verse is
inserted upon the authority of a “Codex “ Britannicus,” which is generally
conceived to be the Codex Monfortianus; for the text, as printed by Erasmus,
agrees exactly with the latter MS. but the text of the Complutensian edition is
different;
and neither of them agrees with the text of
our modern printed editions. Erasmus altered the text in his subsequent
editions, by prefixing the article respectively to the three words, Tra-rfy?,
Xoyog, and irvevpa, though neither of the two existing MSS. contains this
addition. Robert Stephens also in 1546 printed the text, as it stood in the
later editions of Erasmus, making only the slight variation of ayiov irvevfjLa
for irvev^a ayiov, though the latter, it will be observed, is the reading of
both the existing MSS. The edition of R. Stephens has formed the basis of all
subsequent editions ; and the disputed passage, as it now stands, follows the
reading of Stephens.
The
substance of what has been said will appear plainer by the following table,
which contains the readings of the two MSS. Montfortianus and Otto- bonianus;
together with those of the Compluten- sian edition, the fifth edition of
Erasmus, and that of R. Stephens, which last may be called the textus receptus:
but since all these authorities agree in the first words of the seventh verse,
on rpe7$ elaiv ol pap- rvpovvres, they may be omitted in this comparative view.
|
Codex
Montfortianus. Eras- rai ed. tertia. |
Codex
Ottobo- nianus. |
Ed.
Complut. |
Erasmi
ed. quinta. |
Ed. R.
Stepbani. Textus receptus. |
|
ev rip
ovpavcS iccnrip Xayoq Ka) icveZfAa ayiov ku) ovtoi ol r tf > €V
€1<TI |
onto rov Qvpavov narrip 'Aoyoq Ka) Tcvevpa aryiov Ka) ol Tpuq e!$ to ev €i<ri |
iv t@
ovpava o icarrip kou o Aoyo$ Ka) to
ayiov nvevjxa Ka) ol tpetf ) \ tf » €*$ to
ev euri |
ev tS
ovpcLvSj o icarrip o Xoyog Ka) to
icvetfAU aryiov Ka) ovtoi
ol tpt?$ t! > ev eto-i |
iv t
£ ovpava 0 ItUTYjp o Xoyo$ Ka) to
ayiov mupt Ka) OVTOI ol Tp(% tf > ev etcri |
My
subject, as I have already stated, did not require me to enter into this
detail: and after the
volumes
which have been written upon this controversy, it may appear presumptuous to
sum it up in so few words: but having expressed my opinion as not favourable to
the genuineness of the text, I wished to explain to the reader the real state
of the critical part of the question. It is of course a suspicious circumstance,
that so short a passage should contain so many various readings: and it will be
observed, that the newly collated MS., the Codex Ottobonianus, presents an
entirely new reading, ano rov ovpavov, and in the eighth verse aitb yvj$. But
without pressing this point, the opponents of the text have a right to call
upon the defenders of it, to say what it is, which they mean to defend. They
cannot defend it, as it stands in the two existing MSS., for these two
documents differ materially from each other, and one or both of them differ
from the textus receptus in every clause. If we are called upon to defend the
textus receptus, I answer, that it is not to be found in any existing MS., and
we are defending the words, not of an inspired apostle, but of a printer, who
lived at Paris in the sixteenth century.
60. Cypriani Testim. lib. III.
c. 101. p. 327.
Whatever
may be thought of Cyprian’s judgment in the interpretation of scripture, there
can be no doubt as to his opinion of the Holy Ghost, when he makes the title or
subject of this chapter, “ That “ the Holy Ghost frequently appeared in fire,”
and brings the following passages in proof of it: <c In “ Exodus,
(xix. 18,) And mount Sina was alto- “ gether on a smoke, because God descended
upon “ it in fire. Also in the Acts of the Apostles, (ii. 2,) “ And suddenly
there came a sound &c. Also when-
i 2
“ ever God
accepted sacrifices, fire came down from <e heaven, which
consumed the offerings. In Exo- “ dus, (iii. 2,) The Angel of the Lord appeared
in “ a flame of fire out of a bush m.”
Novatianus,
A. D. 257.
In my
former work I quoted several passages from Novatian’s treatise de Trinitate,
all of which support the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and consequently (as
is stated in the Introduction) the doctrine of the Trinity also. The title of
this treatise might be sufficient to persuade us, that the author of it
believed in the Trinity: and some of the extracts might perhaps have been more
properly reserved for the present work: but having already made use of them
with reference to the second person of the Trinity, I shall not repeat them
here, and shall only adduce a few more, which have a more immediate connection
with the Trinitarian controversy.
61. Novatiani de Trinitate, c.
12. p. 714.
Having
quoted Isaiah xxxv. 3—6, which speaks of God coming, and having applied the
passage to the coming of Christ, he continues, “ If the prophet “ says that
these will be the signs at the coming of “ God, let them either acknowledge
Christ to be the “ Son of God, at whose coming, and by whom, these “ signs of
miraculous cures were made; or, being “ overpowered by the truth of Christ’s
divinity, let
m Spiritum
Sanctum in igne ito &c. Item in sacrifices quae- frequenter apparuisse. In Ex- cunque accepta habebat
Deus, odo, Et mons Sina fumabat to- descendebat
ignis de coelo, qui tus, quoniam descenderat Deus sacrificata consumeret. In Exin
eum in igne. Item in Actibus odo,
In Jlamma ignis apparuit Apostolorum, Et factus est sub- Angelus Domini de rubo.
“ them
fall into the other heresy, and refusing to “ confess Christ as the Son of God,
and God, let “ them confess him to be the Father. For they “ cannot escape from
the words of the prophets, and “ cannot refuse to call Christ God n.”
Shortly after he says more plainly, “ Whom do they mean is “ come ? If they say
that Almighty God the Fa- “ ther is come, then God the Father comes from a “
particular place, from which he is therefore ex- “ eluded, and is confined
within the limits of a par- “ ticular spot; and thus, as I said before, the
sacri- “ legious
heresy of Sabellius is confirmed by these “ persons °.” Again at the end of the
chapter, “ Let “ them then choose out of the two which they please, “ that he,
who is come, is the Son or the Father: “ for God is said to ham come. If they
say, the “ Son, why do they hesitate to call Christ God ? “ For the scripture
says that it was God who was “ to come. If they say it was the Father, why do “
they hesitate to join themselves to the rashness of “ Sabellius, who calls
Christ the Father ? except “ that whether they say it was the Father or the “
Son, they will be compelled, however unwillingly, “ to depart from their own
heresy, having been ac- “ customed to call Christ a mere man, and now
n Si in
adventu Dei dicit prophetes hsec futura signa quae facta sunt, aut Dei Filium
ag- noscant Christum, in cujus adventu et a quo haec sanitatum signa facta
sunt; aut divinita- tis Christi veritate superati, in alteram hseresim ruentes,
Christum dum Filium Dei et Deuni confiteri nolunt, Patrem ilium
esseconfitebuntur. Vocibusenim
prophetarum
inclusi jam Christum Deum negare non possunt.
° Quem
volunt isti venire ? Si venisse aiunt Omnipotentem Deum Patrem, ergo de loco
Deus Pater venit, ex quo etiam loco cluditur, et intra sedis ali- cujus angustias
contineturj et jam per istos, ut diximus, Sa- belliana haeresis sacrilega cor-
poratur.
“ being
compelled to put him forward as God, whe- “ ther they choose to call him the
Father or the “ Son p.” .
Whatever
we may think of such texts as Isaiah xxxv. 4. Habaccuc iii. 3, &c. being
applied to Christ, the fact of Novatian’s own belief is not affected by these
interpretations. We may ascertain his own tenets, by observing the tenets which
he refutes: and nothing can be plainer, than that he first opposes the notion
of Christ being a mere man; and then argues, that the maintainer of this heresy
will be compelled to run into Sabellianism. Sabellius had risen into notice in
Novatian’s own time; and we here see the manner in which this hypothesis was
spoken of by a contemporary writer of the Roman church.
62. Novatiani de Trinit ate, c. 21. p. 720.
The same
argument against Sabellius is continued in the present quotation. “ But because
Christ is “ proved by the authority of holy scripture to be “ not only man, but
God, other heretics ^ break forth, “ and try to shake the character of Christ’s
religion, “ wishing to shew by this very argument that Christ “ is God the
Father, since he is asserted to be not
p Eligant ergo ex duobus quid est,
qui Christum hominem tan-
velint, hunc qui ab Africo venit, tummodo
solent dicere : dum
Filium esse an Patrem : Deus ilium
rebus ipsis coacti Deum
enim dicitur ab Africo venturus. incipiunt
promere, sive dum il-
Si Filium, quid dubitant Chris- lum
Patrem sive dum ilium Fi-
tum et Deum dicere ? Deum lium
voluerint nuncupare. enim scriptura dicit esse ventu- In the interval between
the
rum. Si Patrem, quid dubitant last
quotation and the present,
cum
Sabellii temeritate misceri, he had been
refuting the here-
qui
Christum Patrem dicit ? nisi tics, who
considered Christ to
quoniam
sive ilium Patrem sive be a mere man, and
he now re-
Filium
dixerint, ab haeresi sua, turns to the
Sabellians. inviti licet, desciscant necesse
44 only man,
but also God. For they argue thus: 44 If it be allowed that there is
only one God, but 44 Christ is God; therefore if the Father and
Christ 44 is one God, Christ must be said to be the Father. 44
In which argument they are convicted of error, 44 because they do
not know Christ, but merely re- 44 cognise the sound of the word :
for they refuse to 44 acknowledge him as the second person after the
44 Father, but as the Father himself. To whom I 44 shall
say but a few words, because the answer is 44 easy. For who would
not acknowledge that there 44 is a second person of the Son after
the Father, 44 when he reads of the Father saying to the Son, 44
Let us make man &c.r?” He then quotes several passages, which
prove the Son to be a distinct person, and continues, 44 It would
be too long, if I 44 should try to bring together all passages
bearing 44 upon this point, since not only the Old but the 44
New Testament every where proves him to have 44 been born of the
Father, by whom all things were 44 made, and without whom was
nothing made; who 44 always has been and is obedient to the Father, 44
having always power over all things, but a power
r Sed ex
hac occasione, quia Christus non homo tantum, sed et Deus, divinarum literarum
sacris auctoritatibus approba- tur, alii hseretici erumpentes statum in Christo
religionis concutere machinantur, hoc ipso Patrem Deum volentes osten- dere
Christum esse, dum non homo tantum asseritur, sed et Deus promitur. Sic enim, in- quiunt, si unus esse Deus promitur, Christus autem Deus;
ergo, inquiunt, si Pater et
Christus est unus Deus, Christus Pater dicetur. In quo er- rare
probantur Christum non noscentes, sed sonum nominis approbantes: nolunt enim ilium
secundam esse personam post Patrem, sed ipsum Patrem. Quibus quia facile
respondetur, pauca dicentur. Quis enim non secundam Filii post Patrem ag-
noscat esse personam, cum le- gat dictum a Patre consequent ter ad Filium,
Faciamus &c.
“ which is
delivered, which is granted, which is be- “ stowed upon him by his own Fathers.”
I would only observe upon this passage, that it fully confirms what is said in
N°. 33. of the use of the word persona.
63. Novatiani de Trinitate, c.
22. p. 720.
“ But
because they often bring against us that if passage, in which it is said,
I and the Father are “ one, (John x. 30,) we shall with equal ease refute “
them also in this. For if Christ were the Father, “ as these heretics imagine,
he ought to have said, “ I the Father am one. But when he first says I, “ and
then introduces the Father, by saying I and “ the Father, he separates and
distinguishes his “ own peculiar personality (i. e. the Son’s) from the “
authority of the Father, not only as to the sound “ of the word, but as to the
order and arrangement “ of power; when, if he had been conscious that he “ was
himself the Father, he might have said, I the “ Father. And since he said one
thing, (unum,) 66 let the heretics understand that he did not say “ one
person, (units.) For one, in the neuter, sig- “ nifies harmony of agreement,
not unity in person.
“ Then he goes on to say, we are, not I
am,
“ that by
these words, I and the Father are, he “ might shew that there are two persons :
but when “ he says one thing, (unum,) it relates to agreement “ and identity of
opinion and union of affection, so
8 Et satis
longum facio, si enisus fuero omnes omnino ad lianc partem voces- congregare,
quandoquidem non tarn veteris quam etiam novi testamenti scriptura divina
ubique osten- dat ilium ex Patre natum, per
quem facta &c. qui obedierit semper Patri
et obediat, semper habentem rerum omnium potestatem, sed qua traditam, sed qua
concessam, sed qua a Patre proprio sibi indultam.
44 that the
Father and Son are properly one thing 44 (unum) by agreement, and by
love, and by affec- 44 tiont.
I have
already considered more than once those words of our Saviour, I and my Father
are one: and I am, at present only concerned with the sense in which they were
understood by the fathers. That Novatian did not extract from them the Sa-
bellian notion of unity is demonstrable: and if he should seem to speak of an
unity of counsel and will, rather than of nature or essence, we may compare
the above passage with what he says of the same text in another place. “ If
Christ be merely a 44 man, what is that which he says, I and the Fa-
44 tlier are one f For how can this be, if the Son as 44
well is not also God, who may be said to be one 44 with the Father,
since he is from him, and is his 44 Son, and is born of him, and is
proved to have 44 proceeded from him, in which way also he is 44
Godu?” Novatian therefore considered the divi-
1 Sed quia frequenter inten- dunt ilium nobis locum quo dictum
sit, Ego et Pater unum sumus, et in hoc illos aeque facile vincemus. Si enim erat, ut haeretici putant, Pater
Chris- tus, oportuit dicere, Ego Pater unus sum. At cum ego dicit, deinde
Patrem infert, dicendo, Ego et Pater, proprietatem personae suae, id est
Filii, a paterna auctoritate discernit atque dis- tinguit, non tantummodo de
sono nominis, sed etiam de or- dine dispositae potestatis: qui potuisset
dicere, Ego Pater, si Patrem se esse meminisset. Et quia dixit unum,
intelligant hae- retici, quia non dixit unus. U-
num enim neutraliter positum societatis
concordiam non uni-
tatem personae sonat. De-
nique adjicit dicens, sumus, non sum, ut ostenderet per hoc quod dixit,
sumus ego et Pater, duas esse personas: unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et
ean- dem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum
sit Pater et Filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem.
11 Si homo
tantummodo Chris- tus, quid est quod ait, Ego et Pater unum sumus? Quomodo enim
Ego ct Pater unum sumus, si non et Deus est et Filius ? qui idcirco unum potest
dici
nity of
Christ to be a natural consequence of his being the begotten Son of God: and at
the end of the treatise he points out the opposite errors of Sa- bellianism and
Unitarianism in the following remarkable words. 44 As well they who
say that Jesus 44 Christ is God the Father, as they who consider 44
him to be a mere man, draw this hasty conclusion 44 as the origin
and cause of their error and per- 44 verseness. Perceiving it to be
written that there “ is one God, they think that they cannot hold that 44
opinion in any other way, except by believing Christ
44 to be
either a mere man, or God the Father.--------------------------
44 In fact,
our Lord is as it were crucified between 44 two thieves, in the same
manner that he was once 44 nailed to the cross, and thus receives on
each side 44 the sacrilegious reproaches of those hereticsx.”
He then proceeds to explain his own opinion, that there is one God, and yet
that Christ is God: and having said, 44 there is proved to be one
true and 44 eternal God, the Father,” he adds, 44 from
whom 44 alone this divine power is sent forth, and being 44
delivered to the Son is again by communion of 44 substance brought
back to the Fathery:” where
the words
communion of substance can hardly be explained in any other way, except as
maintaining the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.
Dionysius Alexandrinus, A. D. 260.
64. Dionysii ex Elencho et
Apologia, p. 93.
In my former
work I have given an account of the treatise written by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, in defence of his own opinions. Having illustrated the generation
of the Son by the common, though inadequate, analogy of a word proceeding from
the mind, he says of the Father and the Son, “ The former, who sent him forth,
continued and is “ what he was before: and the latter, who was sent “ forth,
proceeded from him, and goeth every where; “ and thus each is in each, though
each is different “ from the other, and though two, yet they are one: “ for
thus it was said that the Father and the Son “ are one and in each otherz.”
65. Dionysii ex Elencho et
Apologia, p. 93.
Dionysius
had been accused of separating the Son
from the
Father, and of speaking of the one, as having no relation or connection with
the other: to which he replies; “ Each of the two names, which “ I have used,
is inseparable and indivisible from “ the other. Thus if I mentioned the
Father, by “ implication I also mentioned the Son in the Fa- “ ther, even
before I introduced his name: or if I “ introduced the name of the Son, even if
I had not “ mentioned the Father before, He would certainly
44 have had
his name anticipated in that of the Son: 44 or if I added the Holy
Ghost, at the same time I 44 subjoined from whence and by whom he
came. 44 But these persons are not aware, that the Father, 44
in his relation of Father, is not separated from 44 the Son; for the
name implies union. Nor is the 44 Son removed from the Father; for
the name of 44 Father signifies community. In their hands also 44
is the Spirit, which can neither be separated from 44 the person
sending, nor from the person convey- 44 ing it. How then, while I
make use of these 44 names, can I conceive that these are divided
and 44 altogether distinct from each other a?”
Athanasius,
who has preserved all these fragments, represents Dionysius as saying shortly
after, 44 Thus we expand the unity into the indivisible 44
Trinity; and again we sum up the undiminished 44 Trinity in the
unity V’
66. Dionysii ex Elenclio et
Apologia, p. 98.
The two
following fragments of the same work are preserved by Basil. In the first of
them it is necessary to remember, that the term hy
postasis, was sometimes used for the nature or
esa TSv vtc
ijxov 'heyfiivTuv ovoud~ Haryjp npoavjyopioc fr/]Xo7 tyjv koivu-
Tvjq avvoccpeiocq to
ovopa’ ovt€ 0 Tlbq peOoc. aicuKHTTou tov UaTpoq. 'H yap
sence of the Deity; sometimes for a person, i.
e.
for the substantial individuality of the three persons in the Godheadc.
The Sabellians declined saying, in the latter sense of the term, that there
were three hypostases;
and wished to argue, that such an expression implied three distinct,
unconnected Beings. Dionysius observes, “ Though they may say, that “ the
hypostases, by being three, are divided, still “ they are three, though it may
not suit these per- “ sons to say so: or else let them altogether deny “ the
divine Trinityd.” We may infer from this remark, that the word
Trinity was in common use before the Sabellian controversy began: and Dionysius
assumes it as an undisputed point, that in some sense or other there was a
Trinity in the Godhead. The Sabellians probably denied, that the word t^as-
implied three wroaTadeig, or distinctly existing persons : but the history of
Dionysius and his writings leaves no doubt as to the body of believers maintaining
this opinion.
67. JDionysii ex Elencho et
Apologia, p. 99.
The
following fragment would have been more intelligible, if the context had also
been preserved; but the expressions, which have already been quoted from this
writer, might prepare us for his saying, “ For this reason there is also, after
the unity, the “ most divine Trinitye.”
“ Word of the same species with himself: the
two “ persons are inseparable, as also the substantially “ existing Spirit of
the Father, which was in the “ Son: for it was made manifest to all, that he
was “ in him, and came upon him in the form of a “ dove; and the same, the
Comforter, the Holy “ Ghost, participated in his sufferingf.”
69. Dionysii Alex, contra Paul.
Samos. Quasi.
IV. p. 232.
It is
difficult to translate every word of the following passage, but the meaning of
the whole cannot be mistaken. Christ is apparently speaking of himself, and
says, “ I am he that exists personally “ and for ever, that is equal to the
Father in the “ unalterable nature of the essence, coeternal also “ with the
Spirit which is the Lord, to which when “ Ananias and Sapphira lied, because
they did not “ lie to man, but to God, they died: for the Para- “ clete is God,
in the same sense as the Father of “ Christ, coeternal with Christ
We have
the same expression of the Spirit being COetemal with Christ, avTov eivai to avvaihov Ylvevfm, at p. 236. I may also refer the reader to my former
work, p. 128, 401, 404, 409, (second edition,) in which there are strong
assertions of a belief in the Trinity, as held by Dionysius.
70. Dionysii contra Paul. Samos.
Qucest. VI.
p. 245.
Dionysius
alludes to the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; but his manner of
quoting and commenting upon them affords a remarkable proof of his believing
the second and third persons of the Trinity to be intimately united with the
first and with each other. " It searcheth the heart and reins, “ because
the Spirit, as God, knows even the deep “ things of God: as also no one knows
the deep “ things of man, except the spirit of man which is “ in him. Here St.
Paul evidently tells us, that the “ Holy Spirit alone knows the Father of the
incar- “ nate Word; and the Holy Spirit knows Jesus “ Christ, the incarnate
Word, because he is in “ Christ. For it is written, The Father who “ abideth in
Christ the Word, he doeth the works, “ as also doth Christ who is in his
Father. (John ee xiv. 10.) The Holy Ghost knoweth how the “ Father
containeth the Son, and the Son the Fa- “ ther h.”
Dionysius Romanus, A. D. 260.
The words
of Dionysius, bishop of Rome, are, if possible, still more express in favour of
the Trinity, than those of his namesake of Alexandria. Only a small portion of
his treatise against Sabellius has been preserved by Athanasius, from which I
extracted so much in my former work, as related particularly to the divinity
of the Son. The following quotation, which immediately precedes the other,
defines the catholic doctrine of the Trinity with as much precision as
Athanasius himself could have used. “ It would be right for me to address
myself “ next to those who divide and separate and destroy “ the holiest
doctrine of the church of God, the “ unity, into three essences and divided
existences “ and three Godheads. For I hear that there are “ some among your
teachers and preachers of the “ word, who countenance this notion; who. are op-
“ posed, as I may say, diametrically to the opinion “ of Sabellius. For the
blasphemy of the latter “ consists in his saying, that the Son is himself the “
Father, and vice versa: but these others preach “ in a manner three Gods,
dividing the holy unity “ into three existences, foreign from each other, and “
altogether separate: whereas the divine Word “ must be united with the God of
the universe; “ and the Holy Ghost must reciprocally pass into “ and dwell in
God : in short the divine Trinity “ must be summed up and brought together into
“ one, as a head, I mean the almighty God of the “ universei.” Then,
after condemning the heresy of
Marcion,
and the notion of Christ being a creature, he continues, “We must therefore
neither divide “ the wonderful and divine unity into three God- “ heads ; nor
destroy the dignity and exceeding “ greatness of the Lord by making him a
creature: “ but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, “ and in Christ
Jesus his Son, and in the Holy “ Ghost; and that the Word is united with the “
God of the universe: for /, he says, and the Fa- “ ther are one: (John x. 30.)
and I am in the Fa- “ ther, and the Father in me: (xiv. 10.) for thus “ both
the divine Trinity, and the holy doctrine of “ the unity, will be preserved k.”
This
remarkable passage may illustrate the different meanings, which were affixed
to the word mTo<jroL(Tig by ecclesiastical writers: and some persons have
attempted to prove, that Dionysius of Rome differed from his namesake of
Alexandria in this particular, and consequently in his notion of the Trinity.
But no attempt could be more unsuccessful. Dionysius of Alexandria certainly
maintained that there were three Iwoo-rao-eis in the Godhead; by which, as I
have already explained, he meant that there were three persons, i. e. three
distinct individualities, in the Godhead: and he maintained this against the
Sabellians. Dionysius of Rome was
equally
opposed to the doctrine of Sabellius, who denied the personality of the Son and
Holy Ghost: but he also opposed the notion of there being three distinct,
independent vTroaTaaeig in the Godhead: and in this he would have had the full
concurrence of his namesake of Alexandria; as may be seen in all the passages,
which I have adduced from his writings. It is sometimes said, that Dionysius
of Alexandria used the term vnoo-Tao-ig for person, while Dionysius of Rome
used it for substance or essence, in which sense it was undoubtedly used by
later writers; but in the age of these two bishops the term was always used for
substantial or individual existence, in other words, for personality; and I
conceive, that Dionysius of Rome meant to employ it in this sense. He only
wished to guard against the notion of these three viroaraaeig, or persons,
being separate from, and independent of, each other. In order to convey his
idea of the intimate union between the three persons, he makes use of the remarkable
word efu/HXoywpeiv, which it is almost impossible to translate, but which I
have attempted to express by reciprocally passing into. In the fourth century,
this doctrine of mutual inhabitation or permeation was expressed by the Greek
term irepix^pv- aig, and by the Latin circumincessio or circumin- sessio; (for
it is written both ways:) and Bellarmin has explained the meaning of it in a
few words, “ illam intimam et perfectam inhabitationem unius “ personae in alia
V’ A fuller definition of it is given by Genebrardus, who says, “ Hepi'/wp^tg
et circum- “ incessio ilia dici potest unio, qua unum existit in
1 De Christo II. 5. Op. vol. I. p. 383.
44 alio, non
tantum per naturae participationem, sed 44 etiam per plenam et
intimam praesentiam. Hoc 44 inexistentiae, ut sic dicam, genus
nostri circumm- 44 cessionem appellant; quia per
illud aliqua, quan- 44 tumvis a se invicem absque separatione
distin- 44 guantur, in se absque confusione insunt, seque 44
veluti immeantm.”
I am not
concerned with attempting to explain this mystery any farther: and the
concluding words of bishop Bull, in his immortal Defence of the Ni- cene Faith,
are well worthy of our consideration; 44 Denique illud imprimis
considerandum est, hanc 44 divinarum personarum nepiyupYiaiv revera
maxi- 44 mum esse mysterium, quod religiose adorare po- 44
tius, quam curiosius rimari debemusn.” It will perhaps be found,
that the Anti-Trinitarians have been the principal offenders against this
salutary caution: and though they scoff at those, who believe in a mystery
which they cannot explain, they seem to forget, that there is no less
difficulty in explaining how such a mystery could have obtained general
belief, if it had not been revealed, or at least if it had not been handed
down, from the beginning. It is the particular object of the present work to
shew that it was so handed down. That these two bishops in the third century
believed and maintained the mutual indwelling of the three persons of the
Trinity, can hardly be denied: and I may now refer the reader back to the first
quotation in the present work, where he will find Ignatius, the
m De Trinitate, II. p. 103. 23 ; IV. 4, 9; IV. 4, xo;
IV.
n Def. Fid. Nic. IV. 4, 14. 4. 125 IV. 4, 13.
Animadv. in He has illustrated this doctrine G. Clerke, §. 4. in II. 4, 9; II.
9, 11 ; II. 9,
companion
of the apostles, at the beginning of the second century, expressing ideas
equally mysterious and equally inexplicable concerning the mutual indwelling
of the Father and the Son. So utterly unfounded is the notion, that the
doctrine of the Trinity was the offspring of the fourth, or, as it is sometimes
called in disparagement, the Athanasian age.
I have
only to add to these extracts from the works of the two Dionysii, that the
bishop of Alexandria expressly uses the term bpoovo-iog, as applied to the
relation of the Father and the Son. The reader will find some remarks upon this
subject in my former work, N°. 305, which might perhaps have been more properly
introduced in this place. It will also be remembered, as was stated in the same
work, that Dionysius of Rome convened a council of his clergy, to consider the
tenets of Sabellius: and the result of their deliberation was, that the bishop
wrote the treatise, from which the preceding extract was made: so that the
opposition to Sabel- lianism was not the act of one individual only, but of the
whole Roman clergy assembled in council.
72. Concilium Antiochenum, A. D. 269.
This
council was held about the year 269 on account of the heresy of Paul, bishop
of Samosata: and at the end of the letter which was addressed to him by the
assembled bishops, there is the following sentence, which may perhaps admit of
different grammatical constructions, but there can be no doubt as to its
maintaining the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. “ But if Christ be
the “ Power of God, and the Wisdom of God, he is
“ before
the worlds: so is he also, inasmuch as he “ is Christ, being one and the same
in substance °.” This is perhaps almost the earliest instance of the word
ova-i'a being used for substance or essence.
Theognostus, A. D. 283.
The
testimony from Theognostus was quoted incidentally in my former workP: and the
following account of him is taken principally from Cave.
He was
unquestionably a pupil of Origen, and one of his successors in the catechetical
school of Alexandria: but it is uncertain, whether he followed him
immediately, or whether Pierius intervened, as president of the school.
Athanasius speaks of him as a man of learning^; and we know that he composed a
work in seven books, entitled Hypo- typoses, which is now lost. In the three
first books he treated of the three persons of the Trinity; and Photius, who
has preserved an account of them, represents him as lowering the Son and the
Holy Ghost to the rank of creaturesr. There is however good reason
to conclude, that Photius was led to make this charge by his abhorrence of
Origen, of whom Theognostus is acknowledged to have been a follower. Photius
himself allows, that toward the end of the work he expressed himself in a more
words, can
hardly be mistaken: and it is th| valuable, because Athanasius advances it
first proof, that the fathers, who lived befj council of Nice, did not decline
to speak Son as begotten of the substance of the The words of Athanasius would
lead us t| Theognostus earlier than Dionysius of Alexl but I have prefixed the
date which is by Cave. The testimony of this father is] lows:
“ The
substance of the Son is not so]
“ which
was extrinsic and adventitious, noi “ superinduced from things which once hac “
istence; but it was produced from the si “ of the Father, like the effulgence
of li^
“ the
vapour of water: for the effulgence “ the very sun, nor the vapour the very “
nor yet is it something different; but it is an “ efflux from the substance of
the Father, which “ substance did not undergo partition: for as the “ sun
continues the same, and is not diminished by “ the rays which proceed from it,
so neither does “ the substance of the Father undergo alteration, “ by having the Son
an image of itselfs.”
In my
former work I adduced no testimony from any writer, who flourished after the
year 325, in which the first general council was held at Nice. The object of
the work required me to stop at that period: but perhaps it would not have been
unfair, if I had quoted from authors, who were present at the council, but who
had recorded their opinions in writing before the Arian controversy began. Even
Alexander himself, the bishop of Alexandria, who was the cause of the Arian
doctrines being examined before a council, might be cited as a witness to the
novelty of the doctrines. It is plain that he thought them contrary to those
which he had received from his predecessors, or he would not have felt it his
duty to punish the maintainers of them. Nor was it only the zeal of the
orthodox bishop, which stepped forward to check the innovation. A
up an
anathema against Arius and his followers. The sentiments of Alexander may be
learnt from three of his epistles, which are still extant1. He speaks
unequivocally of believing the divinity of Christ, and appeals to the consent
of ancient writers upon the controverted points. The tenets of the Arians are
explained with great minuteness; from which we learn, that the opposite of
these tenets, the eternity of the Son, his generation by the Father, and their
consubstantiality, were held by the Alexandrian bishop and his clergy as fully
and unequivocally, as they were afterwards defined by his illustrious
successor Athanasius. He also as plainly rejects the Sabellian interpretation,
which had been put upon those passages, which speak of the unity of the Father
and the Son; so that whatever may be thought of the polemical violence of the
orthodox party, (and both parties were perhaps in this respect equally
blameable,) it is at least certain as a matter of fact, that the Trinitarian
doctrine was held by nearly all the clergy, when the controversy first began.
Alexander mentions only three bishops, five presbyters, and six deacons, who
supported Arius in his heresy; and without supposing these persons to have been
actuated by improper motives, (a suspicion, which is more than insinuated
against some of them,) it is only reasonable to decide, that the sentiments of
so small a minority are not to be weighed against the deliberate declaration of
the whole catholic church u.
There are
perhaps some treatises of the great Athanasius himself, which might be quoted
upon the same principle, as having been composed before the appearance of the
Arian controversy. Athanasius was born about the year 296, so that he was
twenty-nine years old, when he attended the council of Nice: and since he was
chosen bishop of Alexandria in the year immediately following the council, he
must already have arrived at considerable celebrity. He had probably been
known as a writer before that time: and Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor of
his works, supposes two of his treatises, the Oratio contra Gentes, and that de
Incarnatione Verbi, (which are perhaps parts of the same treatise,) to have
been written before the commencement of the Arian heresy. The doctrine of the
Trinity is frequently and explicitly maintained in both these compositions.
Eusebius
is another writer, who must have distinguished himself before the time of the
council of Nice, and had probably published expressions concerning the nature
of Christ, before the Arian controversy had given to that subject its
paramount importance. It has not however been proved, that any of his works,
which are now extant, were composed before the period which I have taken as
limiting these testimonies : and some persons would add, that the sentiments
of Eusebius are rather to be quoted on the other side, since it is well known,
that both in ancient and modern times he has been suspected of Arianism. The
charge was brought formerly by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Je- rom, and
others; and has been repeated by Baro- nius, Petavius, Le Clerc, and several
later writers. For a defence of Eusebius from these attacks, I would refer the reader
to Cave’s Dissertation, which he wrote expressly upon this subject, and to his
Apologetical
Epistlex directed against the arguments of Le Clerc. Cave has
brought many passages from the writings of Eusebius, which, if they stood
alone, could hardly be interpreted in any but the orthodox sense. He speaks of
the divinity of Christ in terms which it would seem impossible for an Arian to
have used: and yet there are other passages, from which an Arian would infer,
that his own tenets had been held by Eusebius. Many instances might be brought
forward in support of either opinion; but since this has been done so copiously
in the works, to which I have referred, it is not necessary to repeat them. I
shall only adduce one instance from the commentary upon St. Luke, which has
lately been published by Angelo Mai y, but was not known to Cave. It is upon
those words in the genealogy of our Saviour, (Luke iii. 38,) where Adam is
called the Son of God: upon which Eusebius observes, “ The evangelist began the
ge- “ nealogy from the new Adam, and carried it up “ to the old. He then says,
who was the son of “ God, that is, who was from God: for Adam has “ no man for his
father, but God formed him. You “ will observe also that he begins from the
human “ nature of Christ, and then carries up the genea- “ logy to his
divinity, as much as to shew that “ Christ had a beginning as man, but had no
be- “ ginning as God z.”
I have
translated this passage, because it has not yet been quoted in the controversy
concerning the doctrine of Eusebius, and because the notion of Christ, “as God,
having no beginning,” seems directly opposed to the Arian tenets: but on the
whole I would subscribe to the observation made by Cave, who says, 44
It was not my intention, nor 44 is it now, to clear Eusebius from
every imperfec- 44 tion: on the contrary, I have acknowledged more “
than once, that his writings contain many incau- “ tious, harsh, and dangerous
expressions, which 44 call for a fair and candid reader; and that
some- 44 times we meet with unusual and improper forms 44
of speech, greatly at variance with the received 44 rules of
theologians, and such as I neither approve “ of nor defend.” Eusebius however
presented a creed or confession of faith to the council assembled at Nice,
which deserves to be mentioned in this place. It would be interesting as
connected with the history of that council; and if it should be thought to
favour Arianism, it will be difficult to prove that the Arians did not hold the
doctrine of the Trinity: but it also forms a legitimate portion of the
Ante-Nicene testimony to this doctrine, when we find Eusebius speaking thus of
its presentation to the council: 44 In the same manner that I re- 44
ceived from the bishops my predecessors, both 44 when I was taught
my catechism, and when I “ was baptized; and as I have learnt from the 4C
scriptures, and according to my own belief, and 44 the instruction
which I have given as a presbyter 44 and as a bishop, so do I now,
according to my 44 present belief, lay before you my own creeda.”
Eusebius
was born about the year 270: so that a creed, which he recited at his baptism,
would carry us back to at least ten years before the end of the third century:
and though we are not bound to suppose that this creed was actually recited
word for word by Eusebius at the time of his baptism, we must at least believe
that the doctrines contained in it were in accordance with those, which every
catechumen was expected to profess at the end of the third century. The words
of Eusebius might allow us to refer to a still earlier period. The creed is as
follows:
“ I
believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the “ Maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in “ one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of “ God, Light
of Light, Life of Life, the only begot- “ ten Son, the first-born of every
creature, begotten “ of God the Father before all the worlds; by whom “ also
all things were made ; who for our salvation “ was incarnate, and lived among
men, and suffered, “ and rose again the third day, and returned to the “
Father, and will come again in glory to judge the “ quick and dead. I believe
also in one Holy Ghost, “ believing that each of these has a being and exist- “
ence, the Father really the Father, and the Son “ really the Son, and the Holy
Ghost really the “ Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when he sent his dis- “ ciples to
preach, said, Go and teach all nations, “ bapti%ing them in the name of the
Father, and “ of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: concerning “ whom I affirm,
that I hold and think in this manner, and that I long ago held thus, and shall
hold “ so until death, and persist in this faith, anathema- “ tizing every
impious heresy. I declare in the “ presence of Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus
“ Christ, that I have held all these sentiments from “ my heart and soul, from
the time that I know “ myself, and that I now think and express them <fi
sincerely, being able to shew by demonstration, “ and to persuade you, that my
belief was thus and “ my preaching likewise in time pastb.”
Eusebius
informs us, that this creed was approved by the emperor and the council, who
merely made the addition of the word opoovo-ioe, of one substance. This
statement is not exactly correct; though a person, who was ignorant of the
Arian controversy, would scarcely observe any other material difference between
the creed proposed by Eusebius, and that finally adopted by the council. We
shall see however, that some clauses were left out, and others added: and in
all these variations it is plain that the orthodox party was labouring to meet
the evasions and equivocations of the Arians. The creed subscribed at Nice by
nearly all the 318 bishops assembled there was as follows: and the reader will
perhaps think, that this document forms a suitable termination to the series of
Ante-Nicene testimony, which I have adduced to the doctrine of the Trinity.
“ We
believe in one God the Father Almighty, “ maker of all things visible and
invisible. And in <c one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son
of “ God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the sub- “ stance of the Father:
God of God, Light of Light, “ very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by
whom0 all “ things were made, both things in heaven, and “ things on
earth ; who for us men and for our sal- “ vation came down, and was incarnate,
was made fiC man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and “
ascended into heaven, who is coming to judge the “ quick and dead. And in the
Holy Ghost. And “ those who say, there was a time when he did not “ exist, and
that he did not exist before he was be- <fi gotten, and that he
was made out of things which “ were not, or who say that he was of another
substance or essence, or that the Son of God is cre- “ ated, or liable to
change, these persons the catholic “ and apostolical church anathematises d.”
It will be
observed, that this Creed differs in several clauses from that which is now
called the Nicene Creed, and which is recited in the Communion service. These
additions and alterations were made by the council, which was held at
Constantinople in the year 381: and the Creed, as it was originally drawn up in
Greek, may be seen in the notes e. It is said to have been composed
by Gregory, bishop of Nyssaf. Between the two periods of the
councils of Nice and Constantinople, the Macedonian heresy had sprung up, which
denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and some clauses were added at the end
of the Creed to exclude these opinions. It will be observed, however, that it
is said of the Holy Ghost, tvho pro- ceedeth from the Father; and the
Constantinopoli- tan Creed was subscribed without the clause, which we now add,
and the Son. These words never formed part of the Creed, as acknowledged by the
Eastern church; nor is the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well
as from the Father, received by the Greek church to the present day. Doubts
have arisen as to the time and place, when the words Filioque were first added
to the Latin form of the Creed, and admitted by the Western church. Some have
supposed them to have been introduced by a council held at Rome at the same
time with that held at Constantinople: but it is more probable, that they were
not added till the following century, or perhaps considerably later.
It only
remains for me to remark concerning the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed,
that all the clauses of it, which relate to the divinity of the Son and the
Holy Ghost, may be supported by the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers. It
has been my object in the present and former work to demonstrate this point.
These clauses may be summed up in the following propositions; that Jesus Christ
had two natures, the divine and the human; that he existed in his divine nature
previous to his incarnation, and that his incarnation was the operation of the
Holy Ghost; that he was the begotten Son of God, and of the same substance or
nature with God, and himself very God; that his generation preceded all time,
and that he was the Creator of the world. If the reader will consult the Index
to this and the former work, he will find that all these points were maintained
by writers who preceded the council of Nice. The doctrine, which is least
clearly stated in the Constantinopolitan creed, is perhaps that which is termed
in theological language, the eternal generation of the Son; or, to express it
in simpler terms, the existence of the Son from all eternity; for the words,
eternal generation, contain in fact an assertion of two doctrines; one, that
Christ is the begotten Son of God; and another, that though proceeding from the
Father by generation, he is still coeternal with Him. The fact of Christ being
the begotten Son of God is clearly expressed in the Constantinopolitan creed;
and if his eternity should appear to be less strongly asserted, it is because
the words, before all worlds, are not equivalent to the Greek, npo vavTcov t&v oduvm. The Socinian and Unitarian interpreters would remind us, that
the term alavec does not necessarily mean worlds, but may be translated ages,
periods of time, or dispensations. The remark is not incorrect, him means in
its primary sense an indefinite period of time; and in a secondary sense, the
system or scheme of things
which continued through any period. Thus the
period from the creation to the deluge was one aim' from the deluge to Abraham
was another: the kingdom of the Messiah is another: and so we may speak of the
Mosaic dispensation as one alobv, and the Christian dispensation as another.
But al&veg in the plural must mean more than one of these periods or
dispensations: ol alwveg might mean all the divisions of time, or all the
dispensations, which ever have been or will be: and it is not difficult to see,
how ol alcoves rm alwvw came to be used for eternity by persons who
considered, though erroneously, that eternity is an infinite multiple of time.
When the Unitarian translators render rovg alZvag in Heb.
i. 2. xi. 3, the ages, or the dispensations,
though the translation would convey little meaning, it would not be incorrect,
if we understand by it all the dispensations, which ever have existed; and the
assertion, that Christ was the author of all these dispensations, is very
remarkable: but if we compare the two passages together, the correctness of our
authorized version will perhaps be apparent. If we translate the words ttpo iravroov tw alvvm in
the Con- stantinopolitan creed, before all ages or dispensations, they perhaps
come as near to an expression of eternity, as the finite nature of language
will permit. The period, which preceded creation, was as much an aim, as any
of those which followed it: and 7vpo iroofrm rm alwoov can only be taken as
equivalent to before all time, i. e. before there were any divisions of time,
which can be called alSvec: and our powers of abstraction will perhaps not
allow us to have a more definite idea of eternal existence than
this. It
may also be remarked, that if the Constan- tinopolitan creed should be
considered as defective in asserting the eternity of the Son, there can be no
doubt as to this doctrine having been held by the writers of the three first
centuries. I would again refer the reader to the Index concerning this point:
and whoever consults these testimonies, will scarcely doubt what was the
meaning of the creed, which speaks of the Son as begotten before all time.
The
divinity of the Holy Ghost is asserted in the creed, by words which denote his
preexistence, which give to him the titles and attributes of Deity, which
separate him from created beings in the mode of his existence, and unite him as
an object of worship with the Father and the Son. Concerning the latter point,
I would refer to what has been said at p. 14. and the Indices will shew, as
before, that the Ante- Nicene Fathers held the same sentiments concerning the
divinity of the Holy Ghost.
I should
only be repeating, what has already been observed in the Introduction, if I
should remind the reader, that to assert the divinity of the Son and the Holy
Ghost, is in fact to assert the doctrine of the Trinity. If each of these
persons is God, we must either believe that there are three Gods, or we must
believe, that though in one relation they are three, in another they are one.
The latter is the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity. It has not been my intention
in either of these works to explain the nature of this doctrine, but merely to
prove that such a doctrine was maintained in the earliest times. The reader
will decide, whether this point is established by the testimonies which have
been
L 2
alleged:
it is for those who deny the doctrine, to explain how the church can have been
in error from the beginning, and to name the period, when the Unitarian
opinions were those of the universal church.