phranor. The Sabellians, though they denied the hypostasis, retained the idea of the ouoovorov; this led Dionysius to describe the Logos as foreign to the Father in his essence, as his roínua, to speak of his having a beginning, and to make use of striking comparisons to express his Subordination. As the Western Church had already developed with great distinctness the idea of Unity of Essence, Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, took offence at these expressions as derogatory to the divine nature. The Alexandrian Dionysius defended himself against these imputations in an apologetical letter. His moderation. stayed the controversy; he blamed his accusers for having laid so much stress on two comparisons, since in heavenly subjects it was not possible to use comparisons that were perfectly adequate. I was used to express the bringing forth of beings of the same kind. He also acknowledged the sameness of nature, only he scrupled to use the term oμoovorov, as he did not find it in Holy Writ. He had called the Son yeventós, not in order to express an origination in time, but the derivation of his being from the Father, his eternity as founded in that of the Father. He marked the Unity of Essence thus an dgx from which every thing else is derived, and with which the Logos is inseparably combined. The peculiar tendency of the Oriental Church was confirmed still more in conflict against a Monarchian who had just made his appearance-PAUL of Samosata.§ Though he concealed himself under an ambiguous phraseology, yet his peculiar doctrines were at length ascertained; and after several Synods had been held respecting them, he was deposed about the year 272. He belonged to the first class of Monarchians, and insisted afresh on the distinction between the λoyos ενδιάθετος and προφορικος. The Logos, as he taught, was the

* See the Fragments in Athanasius, De Sententiâ Dyonysii.

† See the Fragments of his work, in Athanasius, De Decretis Synoda Nicena.

‡ "Eλεуxos καi аroλoyia, a letter to Dionysius of Rome. Fragments in Athanasius, De Sententiâ Dyonisii.

§ Euseb. Hist. Ecles. vii. 27–30. Mansi, Coll. Conc. i. p. 1033, sq.. especially Epistol. Episcopar. ad Paul. v. 393. Epiphan. h. 65. A. Maji, Nov. Collect. vii. 1, p. 68, 299, sq. Fragments in Leont. Byz. Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. iii. in J. G. Ehrlich, Dissertatio de Errorib Pauli Samos: Lipz. 1745, 4, p. 23. G Fuerlin, De Hares. Pauli Samos Göttg. 1741, 4. J. B. Schwab, De Pauli Samos, vita atq. Doctr. Herbip. 1839.

divine reason which came forth actively at the Creation. The Logos, so far, is a divaμis dvuTóσraros, a mere power, an attribute without self-subsistent existence; he is equivalent to wisdom dwelling in God and operating out of him. Consequently he opposed the doctrine of a peculiar incarnation of the word, and admitted only a connexion in respect of qualities, κατὰ ποιότητα. Christ as Man was distinguished by the qualities of Reason and Wisdom, because the divine Logos operated upon him, and the divine Wisdom dwelt in him as in no other mortal. In order expressly to exclude the Divinity of Christ, he made use of the expression Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς κάτωOɛv, i.e., who as man was born and developed, and on whom the divine Logos specially operated in the improvement of his qualities. He had always been with God, but only iv goyvos, according to the divine predetermination, not according to his being. He attributed the name Son of God not to the Logos in himself, but only to the Man, and accused his opponents of admitting two Sons, the Logos and the Man. But in this respect even he did not always express himself consistently. In the Synodal letter directed against him,* he is accused of having excluded from the Church the hymns in praise of Christ, which had hitherto been used, and instead allowed psalms to be sung by women in his own praise. The first part of this account is not to be rejected; he probably disused the ancient Church hymns on the ground that only psalms, not human compositions, ought to be sung. As to the rest, there is probably much exaggeration. He was very vain and fond of hearing his own praises, but had too much sense to introduce hymns in praise of himself. He must have used the term oμoovσio in order to accommodate himself to the forms of the Church; on this account the Synod held against him at Antioch, about A.D. 269, condemned this expression: a remarkable fact which clearly shows how strong the opposition against it must have been in the Eastern Church It has been urged against the credibility of this account that it proceeded from the Arians, who were interested in casting an odium on that formula; but it is a confirmation of its truth that Basil of Cæsareat and Hilary of Poitiers do not venture to pronounce it false, but only give a different explanation of it. The interest against Monarchianism, therefore, operated in the Eastern Church even + Epist. 52.

* Euseb. H. E. vii. 30.

De Synod. c. 86.

THE NORTH AFRICAN POET, COMMODIANUS.

171

further for the distinction of the Logos and God the Father, according to their essence, and so for the rigouría, while in the Western Church the idea of Subordination was constantly supplanted by that of Unity.*

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

KEIL, Ob die ältesten Lehrer einen Unterschied Zwischen Sohn und Geist gekannt in Flatt's Magazin fur christliche Dogmata und Moral, iv. 34. K. A. KAHNIS, Die Lehre vom heiligen Geist: Halle, 1847.

There was not the same pressing inducement to elaborate the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as to complete that of the Son

The North African poet, Commodianus, was a contemporary of Paul of Samosata, and forms his counterpart; he is a witness how general and powerful in his church was the tendency to identify the Logos with the Father. Pitra, in the Spicilegium Solesmeure, t. i. p. 20, has inserted an apologetic poem by him, in which, along with the idea of the Logos, he shows a Patripassian style of thought. The one, all-filling God, who appeared momentarily in the Theophanies of the Old Testament and then vanished (v. 122), appeared also in the form of the Son: it was a Revelation of his glory in the flesh without relinquishing his omnipresence in the heavens :

v. 275. Hic pater in filio venit, Deus unus relique ;
Nec pater est dictus nisi factus filius esset.
Nec enim relinquit cœlum, ut in terra pareret,
Sed sicut disposuit visa est in terra majestas.
Jam caro Deus erat, in qua Dei virtus agebat.

The Incarnation consisted in the assumption of a body; in this
buman body God suffered for us. In truth the Father was crucified;
but they are mistaken who suppose that God had intended to make
this known beforehand by the Prophecies; it rather lay in the plan of
Redemption to keep this secret from the Devil, and to conquer death
by the Resurrection; on this account he took the name of Son.
v. 352. Stultia suhit multis, Deum talia passum

Ut enuntietur crucifixus conditor orbis

Sic illi complacuit consilio neminis usus
Nec alius poterat taliter venire pro nobis.

Mortem adinvenit, quum esset invidus hostis
Quam ebibit Dominus passus ex interno resurgens.
Idcirco nec voluit se manifestare, quid esset,

Sed filium dixit se missum fuisse a patre,

Sic ipse tradiderat semet ipsum dici prophetis
Ut Deus in terris altissimi filius esset.

Commodian wrote in this poem, as well as in his Instructions throughout, in the consciousness of belonging to the Catholic Church, and agreeing with it in this dogma. Thus the Logos doctrine, connected with Patripassianism, prepared for the reception of the Nicene dogma See JACOBI, Commodian und die alt kirch. Trinitätslehre. Deutsche Zeitschr. f. chr. Wissenschaft, 1856. No. 26. [JACOBI.]

of God, and for a long time it remained unsettled. There was indeeed a continuity in the Christian consciousness of the influence of the Holy Spirit; for in relation to the practical, in the acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit as the source of divine life proceeding from Christ, as the bond of union in all matters connected with the Church, there was complete unanimity, and this acknowledgment formed the basis of the articles of the Apostles' Creed. But the intellectual expression of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the divine essence by no means corresponded, and we here recognise a fresh instance of the disproportion between the Christian life and intellectual definitions.

THE CHRISTIAN TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

JUSTIN* calls the Holy Spirit the gift come down from heaven, which Christ imparted to believers after his glorification, but to the Prophets even before his Incarnation.t He distinguishes the Logos from him, but sometimes confounds their operations. Thus he says. that no one can suppose the TVEûμa, who inspired the Prophets, to be any other than the Logos. His representation in one passage is very striking.§ He enumerates as the objects of veneration among Christians, the Supreme God, the Son proceeding from him, the host of Angels, and then the Holy Spirit. It is strange that he does not name the Holy Spirit till after the Angels. The passage has given rise to much discussion, and some would substitute στρατηγόν for στρατόν, so that the Holy Spirit would be designated the leader of the Angelic Hosts; but such an alteration of the text is unjustifiable; we are not to explain Justin's words according to later expressed ideas, and must grant a nearer relation of the Holy Spirit to the Angels. When he thought of him as standing in the middle between the Logos and the Angels, as the highest being of those brought forth by the Logos, it is explicable why he mentioned the Holy Spirit especially after the Angels. This view is confirmed by another

* Georgii, ub. d. Lehre v. h. Geist bei Justinus d. Mar. in den Studien der Geistlichkeit Würtembergs von Stirm. x. 2, p. 69.

† Cohort. c. 32.

Apol. i. 33.

§ Apol. i. 6.—ἀλλ ̓ ἐκεῖνον τε (sc. τὸν πατέρα) καὶ τὸν παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικον ρεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν.

*

THEOPHILUS AND ATHENAGORAS.

173

passage, in which he describes the Holy Spirit as the Angel of God, as the power which is sent to our aid from God through Jesus. This representation continued to be employed as late as the fourth century. Semischt indeed has explained the passage differently, and endeavours to prove that Justin could not have held such a view, as it would be inconsistent with his style of thinking, but Justin's style of thinking is wanting in logical development. Hence Justin might ascribe the third place in the Triad to the Holy Spirit, although he places him at the head of the Angels.§

THEOPHILUS of Antioch plainly distinguishes the Holy Spirit as a self-subsistent being from the Logos; distinguishing the Logos and Sophia, he refers the passages in the Old Testament in which Sophia is mentioned to the Holy Spirit, and hence says that the Holy Spirit emanated jointly with the Logos. He is the first Christian writer in whom the term Triad occurs.

ATHENAGORAS illustrates the Spirit by the image of a ray issuing from the Sun, which might lead us to suppose that he ascribed no personality to him. But this comparison has been used for the emanation of personal Spirits. At all events, he thought alike in this respect of the Holy Spirit and of the Logos. However strong his expressions on the Unity of the divine essence, he yet admits a division in it, diapéσeis and a certain order in that division which includes a Subordi

* Dial c. Tryph. § 116. p. 344.—ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ πεμφθεῖσα ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησου Χριστοῦ ἐπιτιμᾷ αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ διαβολῳ) καὶ ἀφίσταται ἀφ' ἡμῶν.

† Justin der Martyrer, ii. 305. Compare Möhler, Theol. Quartalschr. 1833, 1.

† Apol. i. 13.—υἱὸν αὐτοῦ του ὄντως θεοῦ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρα ἔχοντες, πνευμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, οτι μετὰ λόγου τιμωμεν, ἀποδείξομεν.

§ The Jewish Angelology might form a transition to this. The JewishChristian sect of the Elkesaites, who at the beginning of the third century spread themselves from Asia to Rome, asserted that they had received the contents of their sacred books by the revelation of an Angel; εἶναι δὲ σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ θήλειαν, ἧς τὰ μέτρα κατὰ τὰ προειρημένα ειναι λεγει, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἄρσενα υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ, τὴν δὲ θήλειαν καλεῖσθαι ἅγιον πνεῦμα. Hippol. ἔλεγχος 9, 13, p. 292.

Ad Autolyc. 10. Cf. i. 7.

f Apol. ii. c. 15 αἱ τρεῖς ἡμέραι [πρὸ] τῶν φωστήρων γεγονυίαι τύποι εἰσὶ τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ.