had been used by the Sabellians and Paul of Samosata, in the third century, to signify an entire indentity of nature; and when they said the Son was duoovotos to яarpi, they meant that he was unum idemque, so that no personal distinction existed between them. Hence this term was rejected by the orthodox of that period. Vide s. 42. But when, in the fourth century, at the Nicene Council, the Arians too rejected it, supposing it to mean, what they denied, that the nature of the Son was the same with that of the Father; the orthodox then adopted it, expressly guarding, however, against the Sabellian misinterpretation. They explained themselves thus:-The Son was not created (x710δείς, ποιηθείς), but eternally generated (γεννηSeis) from the nature of the Father, (ovsía Пarpos,) and is therefore in all respects equal to him, and no more different, as to nature, from God than a human son is from his father, and so cannot be separated from the Father. In this way was the term Suoovocos defined by the orthodox fathers, so as to guard alike against the Arians and Sabellians. What the relation designated by this term is they never positively explained; nor could they do so, since we are unable to form any ideas respecting the internal connexion in the godhead. All that they meant to teach by the use of this word was, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the divine nature and divine perfections so in common that one did not possess more and another less; without asserting, however, that there were three Gods; in short, that in the godhead there were tres distincti, unitate essentiæ conjuncti. This is the doctrine contained in the creeds of the Lutheran church. It admits of a simple and intelligible explanation, and in the manner now pointed out may be kept clear from refinement and subtlety. Vide Morus, p. 69, 70, s. 13, extr. n. 2. Moreover, it is a doctrine which is taught in the Bible, as we have seen in chapter first of this article.

of these words gave occasion to much contro- | specting Jupiter and Neptune, Homer says, versy on account of its ambiguity, some con- duporépoɩsiv ¿uòv yévos, both were of one race, tending for ular inóoranır, others for pεis vno-born of one father, Il. xiii. 354, seq. This term ozássis. Before the Nicene Council, as we have seen, s. 42, iяóstasis and oioia were employed by the ecclesiastical fathers as synonymous; even in the Nicene symbol they appear as interchangeable words, (ixóovasis ovoía;) and Hieronymus, still later, contended for unam hypostasin (i. e., ovoíav) in God. But, as we before said, Origen had previously contended that there were peis iñosτásas and μía ovoia in God, making a distinction between these words. In this he was followed by many writers; and at length this distinction which he had introduced was established by ecclesiastical authority in opposition to the Arians; although many still continued, according to the ancient custom, to use ὑπόστασις and ουσία one for the other. In order to obviate the perplexity thus occasioned, and to put an end to the strife about words, many writers in the Greek church began, shortly after the Nicene Council, to use the word лpówлov instead of iЯóstasis. The former of these is an exact translation of the persona, which had been before introduced into the Latin church by Tertullian. But neither was this word free from ambiguity; and it was objected to by many, because it seemed to favour the theory of Sabellius, who was willing to admit that in the divine nature there were three яpósшra, meaning by the word different aspects or forms in which God revealed himself to men. The orthodox, however, employed this term in the sense in which it had been used by Tertullian, and afterwards by Augustine and others. Vide s. 42. The sense they intended to convey by it was, that the three subjects spoken of were truly distinguished from each other, and acted each for himself, eos esse à se invicem sic distinctos, ut singulis sua intelligentia et sua actio tribuenda sit, Morus, p. 67, s. 12. And that this is a truth taught in the Bible must be evident to all who impartially examine its instructions. It was with a particular reference to the Sabellian theory that this word was adopted by the fathers. In opposition to this theory they also sometimes said, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were à2205 xai ù220s—i. e., different subjects, though not αλλο καὶ ἀλλοί. e., of different nature, as the Arians affirmed.

3. 'Quoovolos, consubstantialis, Morus, p. 69, 8. 13, No. 2-one of the most difficult and controverted of all the terms employed on this doctrine. According to the oldest Greek usage it signifies, what belongs to the same species, or has the same nature, being, properties, with another thing. Thus Aristotle says, návтa тà àsтρà quoovoia, and Plato says, respecting souls, that they are quoovora Se. Thus, too, Chrysostom says, Adam was ὁμοούσιος with Eve, and re

III. The characteristics by which these persons may

be distinguished from one another.

If these three supposita are really distinguished from one another, there must be some signs by which this distinction can be recognised; and these signs must be of such a nature as to indicate a real personal distinction. In short, we must be able by these signs to distinguish these subjects, not merely as different names or attributes of God, or as different modes by which he has revealed himself to men, but as really distinct persons. Now there are two classes of signs (characteres personales, sive hypostatici, γνωρίσματα ἰδιώματα σχετικά) by which theolo

gians undertake to distinguish these persons the line of distinction between themselves and from one another.

of these unhappy dissensions were, however, very different from those which were alleged; and we have reason to suspect that they were less animated by zeal for the truth than by the mutual jealousies of the Roman and Byzantine bishops. But to whatever cause they are to be ascribed, these disputes terminated in the eleventh century in that entire separation of the Eastern and Western churches which continues to the present time. Cf. Morus, p. 67, s. 11, note. Walch, Historia Controversiæ Græcorum Latinorumque de processione Spiritus Sancti; Jenæ, 1751, 8vo. Ziegler, Geschichtsentwickelung des Dogma vom heiligen Geist, th. i. Num. 2 of his "Theologische Abhandlungen," where he gives an historical account of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the time of Justin the Martyr. Cf. especially s. 204, ff. of this essay. [Respecting the controversy in the Eastern and Western church concerning the Holy Spirit, cf. also Neander, b. ii. Abth. 2, s. 891; and Hahn, Lehrbuch, &c., s. 247, s. 57.]

left unshackled by authority, indulged them- | troversies arose between them. The true causes selves freely in philosophizing upon this subject, and adopted very different theories; as we find in the writings of Justin the Martyr, Origen, and others. Cf. s. 42. Nor was anything more definite with regard to his nature and his relation to the other persons of the Trinity than what has already been stated, established by the council at Nice, or even by that at Constantinople. To believe in the Holy Spirit, rò oùv Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, and ἐκ τοῦ Πατρος ἐκπορευόμενον, was all that was required in the symbol there adopted. It was not long, however, before dissension arose with regard to the latter phrase between the Greek and Latin church. The Greek fathers adhered for the most part to this formula, without going into any more minute distinctions; so Basilius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and others; though Epiphanius added to the formula, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, the explanatory clause, tz Tov Tiov záμßavov, according to John, xvi. 15; and John of Damascus, in the eighth century, represented that the Spirit did not proceed from the Son, but from the Father through the Son-a representation which had before been made by Novatian, (Spiritum Sanctum a Patre per Filium procedere,) and which undoubtedly was derived from John, xv. 26, I will send you the Comforter from the Father. With this modification the formula adopted by the Council at Constantinople, and appended to the Nicene symbol, was retained in the Greek church. But there were many, especially in the Latin church, who maintained that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Father only, but also from the Son. They appealed to John, xvi. 13, and to the texts where the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ-e. g., Rom. viii. 9, seq. To this doctrine the Greeks were for the most part opposed, because they did not find that the Spirit was ever expressly said in the New Testament to proceed from the Son. It prevailed, however, more and more in the Latin church; and when, in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Arians, who then prevailed very much in Spain, urged it as an argument against the equality of Christ with the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only, and not from the Son, the catholic churches of that region began to hold more decidedly that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both, (ab utroque,) and to insert the adjunct Filioque after Patre in the Symbolum Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum. In this the churches of Spain were followed, first by those of France, and at a later period by nearly all the Western churches. But as the Eastern church still adhered substantially to the moré ancient formula, it accused the Western church of falsifying the Nicene symbol; and thus at different periods, and especially in the seventh and ninth centuries, violent con

Note. Since these ecclesiastical terms de characteribus personalibus internis have now become common, they cannot be entirely omitted in the religious instruction of the people. Let the doctrine, therefore, (according to the advice of Morus, p. 64, No. 2, and p. 67, Note extr.) be first expressed plainly and scripturally thus: The Son is equal to the Father, and has the same nature with him; but has this from eternity through the Father. It may then be remarked, that this doctrine is briefly expressed by the words, the Son is generated by the Father. Respecting the Holy Spirit, let it be said, That he is equal to the Father and Son, and possesses the same nature with them; and it may then be added, that this is commonly expressed by the words, he proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

2. External, characteres externi. Morus, p. 68. Note 3. These are characteristics of the persons of the Trinity arising from the works of the Deity relating to objects extrinsic to itself, and called opera externa, sive, ad extra. They are twofold:

(a) Opera Dei æconomica, those institutions which God has founded for the salvation of the human race. They are the following:-The Father sent the Son to redeem men, John, iii. 16, 17. He also gives or sends the Holy Spirit, John, xiv. 26. The Son is sent from the Father to accomplish the work of redemption, and sends the Holy Spirit from the Father, John, xv. 26. The Holy Spirit formed the human nature of Christ, Luke, i. 35, and anointed it, (unxit, Acts, x. 38,) i. e., endowed it with gifts; and is sent into the hearts of men, and carries them forward towards moral perfection.

(b) Opera Dei attributiva, such divine works

as are common to the three persons, and are | for nothing more than an illustration of this fact sometimes predicated of them all; but which still are frequently ascribed (attributive) to one of the three. Theologians, therefore, have the rule, Opera ad extra (attributiva), tribus personis sunt communia. To the Father is ascribed the decree to create the world, the actual creation, and the preservation of it. To the Son also, the creation, preservation, and government of the world is ascribed; also the raising of the dead and sitting in judgment. To the Holy Spirit is ascribed the immediate revelation of the divine will to the prophets, the continuation of the great work of salvation commenced by Christ, and the communication and application to men of the means of grace. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 238.]

SECTION XLIV.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.

with regard to the divine existence, for the knowledge of which they believed man indebted to revelation alone. In the latter class we may place Philip Melancthon, who, in his "Loci Theologici," explained the Trinity in the following somewhat Platonic manner :-God, from his infinite understanding, produces thought, which is the image of himself. Our minds, too, produce thoughts, which are the images of things; but we are not able to impart personal existence to our thoughts; to his thought, howexer, God can do this; and this his thought bears the impress of the Father, is his likeness and resemblance, and is hence called by John, óyos. This illustration of the Trinity was rereceived without offence or suspicion, until the heresy which lurks beneath it was detected and exposed by Flacius. In connexion with this illustration, we may mention those drawn from nature. Many such are found in the writings of the fathers. Take, for example, that of Augustine, drawn from the human soul, which, he says, is one substance, with three principal powers, memory, understanding, and will; respecting which it may be remarked, that it is hard to see why many other powers might not have been named as well as these. Vide Semler, Inst. ad doctrinam Christianam, 305. Or take, as another example, that illustration of the Trinity given at an earlier period by Lactantius, who compares it with light, which unites in itself fire, splendour, and heat. In all illustrations of this nature the fault is, that the mere powers and qualities of things which have no personal existence are used to represent the subsistence of a trinity in unity. Hence such illustrations are more favourable to the theory of Sabellius than to the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from the Bible, and established at the Council at Nice. The latest attempt to explain the Trinity in this manner may be found in the September number of the "Berliner Monatschrift," for the year 1790, s. 280, where there is an article entitled,

If we consider how obscure and full of difficulties the doctrine of the Trinity must have been, as commonly taught after the Nicene Council, we shall not wonder, that when, in the sixteenth century, the spirit of inquiry and speculation revived in the West, many attempts should have been made to illustrate and explain the prevailing theory, to rectify its mistakes, or wholly to abandon it for another more rational and scriptural. Many of the writers, whose intention it was to explain and vindicate the ancient theory adopted at the Council of Nice, unconsciously deviated from it, and thus placed themselves in the ranks of the heretics. None, however, of the very numerous attempts which have been made since the sixteenth century to illustrate this doctrine, and vindicate it against the objections of reason, can lay claim to entire originality. The germ, at least, of many modern hypotheses may be found in the writings which belong to the period between the second and fourth centuries; and after all the inquiries then made, and the theories then published, it" Neues Gleichniss von der Dreyeinigkeit," is not probable that much remains to be said. Nearly all, therefore, of those who have written on this subject since the Reformation, belong to some one of the general classes which have been before mentioned; though it needs to be remarked, that those who bear a common name often belong to very different classes. This was the case with those who spread from Italy in such numbers in the sixteenth century, under the general name of Unitarians.

1. Some have attempted to illustrate and explain this doctrine by philosophy; and not a few have gone so far as to think that they could prove the Trinity à priori, and that reason alone furnishes sufficient arguments for its truth; though others of this class have looked to reason

written by Schwab, counsellor, and professor at Stuttgard. Space, he says, cannot be seen, felt, or recognised by any of our senses, and yet must be regarded, he thinks, as something substantial. It is, indeed, extended, and still one. This one substance has, however, three distinct dimensions, which are not arbitrarily assumed, and which cannot be considered merely as parts or accidents of space, but which belong essentially to it-viz., length, breadth, and thickness. Some chemists and theosophists suppose that there is, throughout the whole kingdom of nature, and even in material bodies, a threefold elementary principle, (as to the nature of which, however, they are not agreed,) and they refer to this as an illustration of the Trinity.

But, as we have said, there were others who 3. Other modern writers have inclined to supposed that the Trinity could not only be adopt the Sabellian theory as the ground of their illustrated by reason, but mathematically proved views on the Trinity. Among these is Michael à priori. Among these were Bartholomew Kec- Serveto, or Servetus, a native of Spain in the kermann, who wrote a "Systema Theologicum," sixteenth century, who published his views in Peter Poiret, and Daries, who published an Es- seven books, "De trinitatis erroribus," and in say, "in qua pluralitas personarum in Deitate e his Dialogues, "De Trinitate." He taught that solis rationis principiis, methodo Mathemati- there is one God, who, however, has made known corum, demonstratur;" Leovardiæ, 1735, 8vo. | his will to men in two personales representationes The attempt of this kind which deserves mosti. e., personal, or personified modes of reveattention is that made by Reusch, a celebrated lation, called Aoyos and IIvɛvua äytov. For these theologian and philosopher of Jena, in his "In- opinions he was brought to the stake by Calvin, troductio in theologiam revelatam," -an attempt at Geneva, 1553. Vide Mosheim, Leben Serwhich was regarded by the late Dr. Gruner as vet's; Helmstadt, 1748, 8vo, republished with entirely successful, and was adopted by him additions at the same place, 1750. The represubstantially in his "Institutiones theol. dog-sentation of the Trinity which Grotius gives in mat," l. i. c. 5. This demonstration is very much as follows:-In the divine understanding there are three acts: (a) God comprehends in his understanding the ideas of all things which can be conceived, and so far as he does this he is called Father; (b) he connects these ideas as means to an end, and devises all possible schemes or connexions of things in the possible world, and so far he is called Son; (c) from all these possible schemes, he selects, by his infinite wisdom, that which is best, and so far is called Holy Spirit. These acts of the divine understanding, in each of which there must have been a special exercise of the divine will, must be supposed distinct from each other; and yet, being in God, they cannot have been successive; and, finally, they must be regarded as personal, or as actus hypostatici, and be designated by particular personal names. But how this last consequence follows, it is hard to see; and where is the text from which it can be made to appear that any one of the inspired writers connected any such ideas with the names Father, Son, and Spirit? Another metaphysical demonstration has been proposed by Dr. Cludius, in his inaugural disputation, Philosophica expositio et defensio dogmatis orthodoxi de Trinitate; Gottingæ, 1788.

2. There have also been some in modern times who have expressed themselves so boldly on the subject of the Trinity that they have seemed to approximate towards tritheism, like those whom we have already mentioned in the sixth century. Vide s. 43, I. ad finem. To pass by those who have merely been unguarded in the manner in which they have defended and interpreted the Athanasian theory, we may mention in this class, Matthew Gribaldus, a Jurist of Padua, who flourished in the sixteenth century, and was for some time professor at Tubingen. He maintained that the divine nature consisted of three equally eternal spirits, between whom, however, he admitted a distinction in respect to rank and perfections. [Henry Nicolai, William Sherlock, and Pierre Faydit, belong to this class.]

1819.

his "Silvæ Sacræ" leans towards Sabellianism,
and agrees substantially with the theory ad-
vanced by Stephen Nye, an Englishman, in his
"Doctrine of the Trinity;" London, 1701.
God, he said, is a being who knew and loved
himself from eternity; and his understanding is
the Son, and his affection the Holy Spirit. [For
a more full statement of this supposed demon-
stration of the Trinity, vide Lessing, Das Chris-
tenthum und die Vernunft; Berlin, 1784, 8vo.
Mich. Sailer, Theorie des weisen; Spottes,
1781, 8vo. Marheinecke, Grundlehren der
christ. Dogmatik, s. 129, 370, seq.; Berlin,
Leibnitz, Defensio logica Trinitatis.]
In this class we must place the hypothesis of
Le Clerc, who supposes that the terms Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, designate the different
modifications of the divine understanding, and
the plans which God forms. God is called the
Father, so far as his understanding comprehends
all things and surveys them at once; Son and
Holy Spirit, so far as he produces and executes
a particular thought. Of the same nature is the
view of the Trinity which Dr. Löffler has ap-
pended to his translation of Souverain. In God,
he says, according to the New Testament, there
is but one subject, the Logos and Spirit are his
attributes, powers, relations, or modes of opera-
tion, and the term, Son of God, so far as it de-
notes a personal subject, is applicable only to
the man Jesus. Among the Arminians, and
even among the Puritans of England, there have
always been many who have inclined towards
Sabellianism. [This is the error into which
Weigel and Jacob Boehmen fell, and which has
always proved more seductive than any other to
mystics and pietists, and persons who have
mingled feeling and imagination with philoso-
phical investigation. In this divergency from
the established creed of the church, by far a
greater proportion of the modern theologians
and philosophers of Germany are found than in
the Arian heresy, which was formerly so much
more prevalent. They have so explained the
Trinity as to lose the idea of three divine persons