philosophy of Plato. And had not divine providence interposed in a special manner, there is reason to think it would have been the established doctrine of the church.

But there was another class of learned, philosophizing Christians, who either rejected the principles of the Platonic philosophy, or applied them differently from the orthodox fathers; and these substituted another theory in place of that which had prevailed on the subject of the Trinity, which, however, no less than the one which they rejected, was formed rather from their philosophical ideas, than from the instructions of the Bible. Among the writers of this class was Praxeas of the second century, to the confutation of whose errors Tertullian devoted an entire book. Praxeas contended, that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not distinguished from each other, as individual subjects; but that God was called Father, so far as he was the creator and governour of the world; Son (Móyos) so far as he had endowed the man Jesus with extraordinary powers, and enabled him to teach and to suffer for the good of the world; etc. In accordance with this view, Theodotus denied any higher, preexisting nature in Christ; and with him Artemon agreed, and in the third century Noetus and Beryllus of Bostra. They agreed in rejecting the existence of the Logos, as a particular subject in God, before the birth of Jesus; and supposed that what was extraordinary in the person of Christ, was merely the divine influence of the Father (called Son, Logos, etc.), which dwelt in Jesus, and acted through him.-But among these opinions, which arose in opposition to the general doctrine of the orthodox fathers, the theory of Sabellius, who flourished in the third century, was the most celebrated. Sabellius regarded the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as merely describing different divine works, and various modes of divine revelation. According to him, there is only one divine person (μía vпóσταois), but a threefold divine work, or three forms (Toоiα пo̟óσшлα), in which God has revealed himself to men.-With Sabellius agreed, for the most part, Paul of Samosata, who also flourished in the third century. He rejected the personal distinction in the Godhead, and in opposition to it contended, that the Son was ὁμοούσιος or συνούσιος τῷ πατρί, i. e. unum idemque cum Patre. It was in this sense of the word ouoovolos, as involving the denial of a personal distinction in the Godhead, that it was condemned by the third council held at Antioch.-In opposi

IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES.

301

tion to these theories, the disciples of the Alexandrine school contended with great zeal for the idiάv vnóσταow, the proper personality of the Logos.

[Note. The seceders from the Catholic faith here described were in the early ages commonly denominated Monarchians, because they insisted upon the unity of God, which they supposed infringed by the common doctrine which placed three eternal persons in the divine nature. Monarchiam tenemus, they said often, when comparing themselves with the orthodox fathers. But this general class comprehended many who differed more from each other, than they did even from those reputed orthodox, and who indeed had nothing in common but a great zeal for monotheism, and a fear lest the unity of God should be endangered by the hypostases of the Alexandrine fathers. Without any regard, however, to these essential differences, all who, in behalf of the divine unity, in the first centuries rejected the doctrine of distinct persons in the Deity, are here thrown promiscuously together, as they have commonly been. And Theodotus, Artemon, and Paul of Samosata, are placed by the side of Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus of Bostra, and Sabellius, between whom and themselves, on every essential point of Christian doctrine, there was a total opposition. They agreed only in denying, that the prophoric Logos, whom they admitted as a power or manifestation of the deity, existed before his incarnation, as a distinct person; while with regard to the manner of his being in Christ, they differed as widely as possible. Theodotus and his followers supposed this divine energy to be in Christ merely as influence exerted upon him, in the same way, as upon the ancient prophets, though in a higher degree. They thus regarded Christ as a man inspired and commissioned by God; and differed but little in opinion respecting him from the ancient Ebionites, or from modern Unitarians. Praxeas, on the contrary, and those of his school, supposed that this divine, though impersonal energy, or God himself, was in Christ, in a manner altogether new and peculiar, not acting upon, but dwelling in, and forming one with him. In Christ then, they saw a full and complete representation of the deity, and went beyond even the Catholic fathers in the views which they entertained of his divinity; so that in answer to the objections urged against his doctrines, Praxeas is said to have asked his opponents, ti zazór noi dožátor Xocotor; It was on account of this intimate union, and almost identity for which they contended between God and Christ, that they were charged by their opponents with teaching, that the Father himself suffered in the passion of Christ, and were hence called Gɛonaozītaι, patripassiani, patripassians.— There is plainly, therefore, occasion for a subdivision among those who agree in rejecting the previous hypostatical existence of the Logos.

In the following table the writers of the three first centuries on the subject of the Trinity are ranged according to their opinions.

III. Terms employed in the discussion of this doctrine during the second and third centuries. The theologians of this period, in the learned discussion and the scientific statement of this doctrine, made use of some peculiar and appropriate terms, which they found convenient as concerted watchwords, to distinguish those of their own party, from others who differed from them; vid. Morus, pp. 67, 68, § 12. The more the prevailing theory was controverted, the greater was the number of new terms invented by the different parties, who labored to state their opinions as clearly and distinctly as possible, and thus to secure their system from contradiction.-These new modes of expression were first employed in the Oriental church, and were introduced into it from schools of heathen philosophy; indeed, they can most of them now be found in the writings of Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, and other Platonists of that age; and even those which do not seem to be directly borrowed from this foreign dialect, are yet analogous to the terms employed by these Platonic philosophers, and are used in the same sense and spirit which they give to their terms.-This newly invented phraseology was afterwards introduced from the Grecian church into the Latin, by Tertullian, who enlarged it by some terms of his own. He therefore must be regarded as the principal author of that ecclesiastical dialect on the doctrine of the Trinity, (as well on the other doctrines), which was first adopted in the African church, and afterwards generally throughout the Latin church, and which has come down to us improved and extended by his successors. Among the terms which were employed in the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity during the second and third centuries, the following are the most common; viz.

1. Tolas. This term is among those which were employed by

IN THE EARLY DISCUSSION OF THIS DOCTRINE.

303

the Platonic philosophers, Plotinus, Proclus, etc., who spoke of many triads in the Deity. It was first introduced into the discussion of the Trinity among Christians, as far as we can learn, by Theophilus of Antioch, of the second century; and was afterwards often used by Origen in the third century. It was translated into the Latin by Tertullian, by the word trinitas; and the phrase trinitatis unitas, answering to the evoots of Athenagoras, occurs in his book, Adver. Praxeam, c. 2, 3, etc. [Of this word the English trinity is the exact translation.] It is less correctly rendered in German by the word Dreyeinigkeit [-the usual term for denoting the Trinity among German theologians, less accurate, however, than the word trinity, because it expresses agreement of affection and will merely, and therefore seems to lean towards tritheism. It contains the same implication as would be expressed in the English word, trianimity, if such a word may be supposed.] It was at first rendered into German by the word Dreyfaltigkeit [Anglicé, triplicity], which, however, was opposed by Luther as favoring the Sabellian view of the divine nature. Basedow recommends, that the word Dreyeinheit [triunity] be used to denote this doctrine, and to render the Latin trinitas. And this word, it must be confessed, would better express the Scriptural doctrine, and the theory of the church at the present day, than the term commonly employed. It is less proper, however, than Dreyeinigkeit, to express what was intended in the second and third centuries by the terms roías, trinitas, trinitatis unitas, which was not so much the unity and perfect equality of nature, as simple agreement of will, which is exactly rendered by the word Dreyeinigkeit. The latter word, on the other hand, taken in its common and literal acceptation, does not express the doctrine of the Bible and of the church at the present day, so well as the term Dreyeinheit [triunity]. If we wished to designate this doctrine by a German word as various and comprehensive in its meaning as the Latin trinitas [Engl. trinity]; the word Dreyheit would be the best. But if we wished to express more exactly the doctrine of the Bible, and the present belief of the church, we must prefer the word which Basedow has recommended, viz. Dreyeinheit [triunity].

2. Οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. These terms were not sufficiently distinguished from each other by the Greek fathers of the second and third centuries, and were often used by them as entirely synon

ymous. Tertullian translates ovoia by substantia, and affirms substantia unitatem in the Trinity.-By the word unоoraois the older Greek fathers understood only a really existing subject, in opposition to a non-entity, or to a merely ideal existence; in which sense they also not unfrequently used the word ovoia. Thus according to the Platonists, the Aóyos existed in God even from eternity, but at first as an impersonal idea, and became an hypostasis only shortly before the creation of the world, in order that the world might be created by him. The New Platonists employed the word vquorával in reference to the deity in itself, and called their triads vnoorάoes or za úqiorauiva, vid. Proclus, Tim. pp. 131, 177. But the meaning of this word has gradually been altered in later times, especially since the fourth century; vid. § 43, II. 2.

3. Persona. This word was first employed by Tertullian, in the passage above cited; and by it he means, an individual, (subjectum intelligens,) a single being, distinguished from others by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and relations; and so he calls Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, tres persona, at the same time that he ascribes to them unitas substantiæ, because they belong to the divine nature (ovola) existing from eternity. He asserts this in opposition to Praxeas, who would allow of no distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit.-Among the Greeks, Origen is the first who used the word vлóoracis in a sense like that which Tertullian connects with persona; and he accordingly says: We believe in three vnoorάoεis, Πατέρα, Υἱὸν, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

43. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during the fourth century; and of the distinctions established at the Nicene Council, and since adopted in the Orthodox church.

I. The Trinity as held in the fourth century.

It had already been settled by many Councils held during the third century, and in the symbols which they had adopted in opposition to Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that the Father must be regarded as really distinguished from the Son, and the Holy Spirit as