the heresy of Sabellius is virtually a denial, not a perversion, of the doctrine of the TRINITY.

'Trine

§. 13. I will only notice further the dispute, which arose of the term in the ninth century between Hincmar archbishop of Rheims Deity." and the monk Gotteschalck about the term 'Trine Deity.' This the Archbishop wished to see expunged out of the Church hymns, to avoid the appearance of acknowledging a Triple Deity. Gotteschalck and Ratramnus opposed him at the peril of being charged with heresy.P Natalis Alexander says; "that the cause of Gotteschalck and Ratramnus was better than that of Hincmar is agreed from the judgment of the Church, which in the hymn 'Sacris Sollemniis' published by S. Thomas Aquinas sings everywhere:

'Te, Trina Deitas Unaque, poscimus,

Sic nos tu visita, sicut Te colimus ;
Per Tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus,
Ad lucem quam inhabitas.'"

But I applaud Hincmar. The Deity or Divine Nature is one, not trine. If trine, then divisible; which is blasphemous. GOD lived on earth and died in the Person of the SON, not in the entire Godhead.

P Vid. Mabillon. in Præfat. ad Part. II. sæc. iv. Actt. SS Ord. S. Benedicti, §. ix. cap. 2, p. 72.

Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccles. Tom.
VI. p. 299.

132

Of the Di

vinity of the WORD.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE LOGOS OR WORD OF GOD; OF HIS ETERNAL GENE-
RATION, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY WITH THE FATHER.

§. 1. IT was the usual practice of the early Christian writers, in introducing the doctrines of the Faith to the consideration of the heathen philosophers, to blend the Revelation of the Second Person in the TRINITY with the received theories concerning the archetypal Reason or Intellect, which framed the visible universe and emanated directly from the mysterious and hidden First Cause of all things. It may be that they erred on the side of indiscreet zeal; that in their anxiety to smooth the way for the acceptance of Christianity by many who came as near to the Truth as unaided human reason would allow, they mixed up too much of the earthly element with the heavenly, and laid the foundation for future heresies. But it is not for us who have entered on the inheritance of the Faith without prejudices to be removed or difficulties to be overcome, whose belief too often amounts to nothing better than an indolent uninterested assent to propositions recommended by custom or authority: it is not for us lightly to blame them, or to affect the supercilious brow of an immaculate and superior criticism. Be it ours to profit by the results of their stammering efforts, and acquiesce in the decisions of the Catholic Church. It was necessary to assume some starting point in breaking up the ground, which issued in the rich harvest of the Gentiles; and the fresh turn, which the Fathers gave to the Platonic disquisitions respecting the Logos or Divine Reason, was as legitimate as S. Paul's developing the incident of the Athenian inscription 'to the Unknown GOD' into a declaration of Him Whom they

ignorantly worshipped. The Jewish belief in the coming MESSIAH, however alloyed with dreams of His temporal splendour, and invariably falling far short of the spiritual reality, still formed the ground on which Apostolic missionaries might build up souls in the faith. And the purest Greek philosophy was as it were a thinner and clearer atmosphere, through which the light of the Gospel might shine forth serenely.

Accordingly we find Tertullian thus availing himself of the notions current among the philosophic heathen, in these terms. "We have already declared that GOD formed this universe by His Word, and reason and power. With your own wise men, too, it is agreed, that the Logos, that is, Word and Reason, appears to be the artificer of the universe; for him Zeno determines to be the Maker, Who hath formed all things in order and calls the same Fate' and 'GOD 'and 'the soul of Jupiter' and 'the necessity of all things.' These names Cleanthes confers on a Spirit which he will have to pervade the universe. And we too entitle Spirit as His proper essence to the WORD and Reason and Virtue, whereby we have declared that GOD formed all things; in Whom the WORD indwelleth when He foretells, and Reason is at hand. when He disposes, and Virtue presides when He accomplishes. Him we have taught to have proceeded from GOD, and to have been begotten by procession, and that He is therefore called Sox of GOD' and 'GOD' from the unity of substance. For GOD also is a Spirit; and when a ray proceeds out of the sun, a portion is put forth out of the sum total; but the sun will be in the ray, because it is the sun's ray, nor is the substance separated but extended. So is SPIRIT of SPIRIT, and GOD of GOD, as light kindled of light. The matrix of a material remains entire and fails not, although you may borrow many grafts. So too that which hath proceeded from GOD is. GOD and SON of GOD, and both are One. So also SPIRIT of SPIRIT and GOD of GOD. He maketh another in modification (modulo), not in number; in grade, not in condition; and retires not from His matrix, but proceeds from it." r

19.

Tert. Apologeticus. cap. xxi. p.
Petavius thus expounds the

term modulus' as used above: "Nam modulum vocat (Tertulli.

In like manner S. Justin Martyr in his Apology even claims credit to Christianity for gathering within its cycle of doctrine all that was excellent in the Pagan systems. "As many things," he says, "as have been well said among all belong to us Christians. For next to GOD (UETÀ TÒV OEòv) we adore and love the WORD (proceeding) from the unbegotten and ineffable GOD; since He also for our sake became Man, that having become partaker in our sufferings He might likewise effect our healing."s How dangerous and (to say the very least) unguarded this language of Justin's is may be seen by Origen's development of it in his book against Celsus. In one passage he not only calls the Logos a 'second GOD,' but seems to insinuate that this Plotinistic Logos dwelt in JESUS only in a more complete and perfect way than in other men; which is not even an Arian but a Socinian tenet. Thus he writes; "Even though we call Him a second God, let them know that by the 'second GOD' we mean nothing else than the Virtue that embraces all virtues, and the Reason that embraces all reason whatsoever of those, who according to nature have been produced pre-eminently and for the benefit of the universe. And this Reason we assert to have attached Itself to, and been united with, the soul of JESUS especially beyond any soul; Who alone was able perfectly to contain the consummate participation of the absolute Reason, Wisdom, and Justice (TOû avroλóyov Kai Ts αυτοσοφίας καὶ τῆς αὐτοδικαιοσύνης).”t Again: “We worship then the FATHER of Truth, and the SON (Who is) Truth; being two things in substance, but one in unanimity and harmony and identity of will: so that he that hath seen the SON, being the reflexion of the glory and the impress of the substance of GOD, hath seen GOD in Him, being the image

nus,) τρόπον τῆς ὑπάρξεως, ut Greci loquuntur, certum modum, quo derivatus a Patre Filius existit; uti radius emissus a sole extra ipsum extenditur: ita ut idem sit status, hoc est, ουσία, vel ὑπόστασις, ut tum loquebantur, luminis; gradus vero diversus, id est, persona. Sic in libro adversus Praxeam, Tres esse,' scribit, 'non statu, sed gradu;

nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie.' Ubi forma' est Personalis Proprietas; ut et 'species;' quæ communem naturam modificat ad seque trahit." Petavius, Dogm. Theol. De Trinitate, L. i. cap. v. §. 4.

S. Justin. Mart. Apolog. I. Opp. p. 51.

Orig. Cont. Cels. Lib. iv. p. 265.

of GOD."" Elsewhere he assigns to the LoGos no higher functions than are attributed to the Saints in the Roman Theology. "But we," he writes, "venerate JESUS, Who hath translated our intellect from every sensible object, such as is not only corruptible, but doomed to perish, and hath raised it to the honour, which relates to the Supreme GOD; with prayers, which we offer to Him; inasmuch as He is in truth between (uɛTağù ovтos) the nature of the Unbegotten and that of all begotten things, and brings us the benefits of the FATHER, and as High-priest conveys our prayers to the Supreme GOD." Here the LOGOS is spoken of only as the mesothesis or middle term existing between the Created and the Uncreated, the Finite and the Infinite. Prayers are offered to the FATHER through Him as our High-priest; which might pass, provided Origen had spoken also of offering prayers equally to the Logos in His own person."

I cannot accept the strange language of Theophilus of Antioch. He says that the LOGOS was continually laid up in God's heart (évdiábεтov év кapdía Ozoû). "For before anything was made, He had Him as His Counsellor, being His mind and Wisdom. But when GOD willed to make as many things as He chose, He begat this WORD in expression (πpopoρixòv), first born of all creation; not emptying Himself of His WORD, but begetting the WORD and continually conversing with Him. Whence the Holy Scriptures teach us, and all the inspired writers; one of whom John saith, 'In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD;' showing, that at first GOD was alone, and the WORD in Him. Then he says, 'And the WORD was GOD. All things were made through Him (di avтoû), and apart from Him (xwpis aÚTOû) was there not made a single thing."

Bull labours

warped by the conflicting representations of Petavius and Bishop Bull. I would say that many statements of the ante-Nicene Fathers lend themselves to an Arian meaning. See, for instance, the shocking deliverance of Eusebius, cited above, chap. v. §. 10, which Bishop Bull somehow does not notice.

* S. Theor hilus, ad Autolycum, Lib. ii. p 100.