quos et loquitur dicens: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. The Son is in every respect equal to the Father: Adv. Hær. ii. 13: Necesse est itaque, et eum, qui ex eo est Logos, imo magis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et inpassibilem esse. In accordance with his practical tendency, Irenæus has less to say of the Logos prior to His incarnation than of Christ the God-man (of which, infra). In his opinion, the Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father (iv. 6. 6); or (after an unnamed author) the Son is the measure of the Father (mensura Patris filius, quoniam et capit eum), iv. 2. 2; he even calls the Son and the Spirit the hands of God.' Comp. Möhler, Patrologie, 357 ff. Münscher, Handbuch, i. s. 411 ff. Duncker, 1.c. s. 40 ff. Dorner, s. 467 ff. Baur, s. 172 ff., and Dg. s. 439 ff.

§ 43.

(d) Origen's Doctrine of the Logos.

After Tertullian had employed the term "Son" in reference to the personality of the Logos more distinctly than had previously been done (1), Origen decisively adopted this terminology (2), and was led to the idea of an eternal generation (3). Though he kept clear with all strictness from any notion of physical emanation (4), yet he was on the other hand pressed to a subordination of the Son to the Father (5). Consequently his definitions by no means satisfied the consciousness of the Church, but led to new misunderstandings, and were the source of new wide-reaching controversies (6).

(1) Comp. § 42, note 9.

(2) Hom. i. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 22 ss. He finds fault with those who, in a one-sided manner, merely adopt the term Logos (ἐπὶ δὲ μόνης τῆς λόγος προσηγορίας ἱστάμενοι), and are not able to infer the identity of the terms Logos and Son

1 The same idea is found in the Clementines, in which the copia appears as χερ δημιουργοῦσα, Baur, Dg. s. 441.

from the other predicates applied to Christ; who also restrict the term Logos to the Word, imagining that the πроopoрà πατρική consists οἱονεὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς. In his opinion the Logos is not merely the Word, but a transcendent living hypostasis, the sum of all ideas, the independent personal Wisdom of God; comp. in Joh. i. 39, 1.c. p. 39: Oủ yàp èv ψιλαῖς φαντασίαις τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει ἡ σοφία αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὰ ἀνάλογα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἐννοήμασι φαντάσ ната. Εἰ δέ τις οἷος τέ ἐστιν ἀσώματον ὑπόστασιν ποικίλων θεωρημάτον, περιεχόντων τοὺς τῶν ὅλων λόγους, ζῶσαν καὶ οἱονεὶ ἔμψυχον ἐπενοεῖν· εἴσεται τὴν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν κτίσιν σοφίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καλῶς περὶ αὐτῆς λέγουσαν· Ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισέ με κ.τ.λ. Comp. De Princip. i. 2. 2: Nemo putet, nos insubstantivum dicere, cum filiam Dei sapientiam nominamus, etc.; and thus he calls (Contra Cels. vi. 64) the Logos, ovcíav ovorov, idéav ideov; comp. Thomasias, s. 113. What is true of the Logos in relation to creation holds good also of the Son. He is the organ for the creation of the world. As a house or a vessel is built according to the ideas of the architect, so God created the world according to the ideas which are contained in Wisdom; comp. Hom. xxxii. in Joh. (Opp. iv. p. 449), and De Princip. i. 2 (Opp. i. p. 53). God never existed without the Wisdom (the Son); for, to maintain the contrary, would virtually amount to the assertion, that God either could not beget or would not beget, either of which is absurd and impious. With all his love for abstractions, Origen here calls images to his aid. Besides the already used-up comparison with the sun and its beams, he employs a new one of a statue and a copy on a reduced scale; this comparison, however, he refers rather to the incarnate Son (Christ in the flesh) than to Him as existing before the world (the Logos). But with him both run into each other.

(3) It is difficult to determine whether this idea of generation is consistently carried out, since it is not quite evident whether Origen refers it to the nature or the will of the Father; see Baur, s. 204; on the other side, comp. Dorner, s. 640 ff.

(4) De Princip. i. 4 (Opp. i. p. 55; Redep. p. 110): Infandum autem est et illicitum, Deum patrem in generatione unigeniti Filii sui atque in subsistentia ejus exæquare alicui

vel hominum vel aliorum animantium generanti, etc.; and again (Redep. p. 112): Observandum namque est, ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas fabulas eorum, qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinam naturam in partes vocent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est dividant, cum hoc de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari non solum extremæ impietatis sit, verum etiam ultimæ insipientiæ, nec omnino ad intelligentiam consequens, ut incorporeæ naturæ substantialis divisio possit intelligi. "As the will of man proceeds from his reason, and the one is not to be separated from the other, so the Son proceeds from the Father." Origen did not make use of the comparison with the human word, which was previously employed. He also considers the generation of the Son as eternal, because God did not at any time begin to be a Father, like fathers among men. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmeng. s. 143 [the passage is in a fragment in Eusebius, contra Marcellum, 1.c. 4]. According to Baur, "it is not clear whether Origen regards the Son as derived from the essence of the Father or not; statements are found which look both ways, and which do not appear to be capable of reconciliation," Dg. s. 451. According to Baur, therefore, "Origen unites the two opposite systems of doctrine, the germs of the Athanasian and the Arian are both found in him," Dg. s. 453. [In another passage (in Athanasius, De Decretis Conc. Nic. § 27) he says: "As light cannot be without its brightness, so God can never have been without the Son, the brightness of His majesty."]

(5) See below, § 46.

(6) Particularly was the expression vics Toû coû, which in the New Testament is undeniably used in respect to the historical Christ, confounded with the metaphysical and dogmatic usage of the schools; and here were the germs of new controversies, which in the end led to a recognition of the difference on the biblical basis. On the other hand, from the speculative standpoint, we may, with Dorner, in this doctrine of the eternal

1 "The more I endeavour to realize the manner of thinking and speaking in the New Testament, the more decided is my opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, cannot be directly and absolutely called God in the New Testament without completely destroying the monotheistic system of the apostles." Lücke, Stud. und Krit. 1840, i. s. 91. [But see in reply, Nitzsch in the same journal, 1841. Comp. also G. L. Hahn, Die Theologie des N. T. 1854, § 87.] Cf. also Redepenning, Origenes, ii. p. 88.

To attain to this

generation, descry a thankworthy progress. "mystery, which contains the very kernel of Christianity, subordination has the character of an auxiliary doctrine." It is (Dorner says in his earlier edition, s. 42) “a necessary aid in the substitution of several actual hypostases in God, for the doctrine of the Logos, as previously held, which only vaguely maintained the distinction of hypostases in God."

§ 44.

The Holy Ghost.

*Keil, ob die ältesten Lehrer einen Unterschied zwischen Sohn und Geist gekannt? in Flatts Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, Bd. iv. s. 34 ff. [Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Works, ii.). Comp. the Introduct. where the literature is given.] Georgii, dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen über die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M., in the Studien der Geistlichkeit, Würtembergs, by Stirm, x. 2, s. 69 ff. Hasselbach in the theolog. Stud. und Krit. 1839, s. 378 ff. Semisch, Justin d. Märt. ii. s. 305 ff. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom heiligen Geiste, i., Halle 1847. [H. B. Swete, Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Camb. 1873.]

The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost, like that of the Son, was considered important from the practical point of view (1), in reference to His prophetic agency (in the more comprehensive sense of the word), to the witness which Hel bears in the hearts of believers, and, in fine, to His living power in the Church (2). As soon, however, as the attempt was made to go beyond the Trinity of revelation (ie. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), and to comprehend and define the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the relation in which He stands to the Father and the Logos, difficulties sprung up, the solution of which became problems of speculative theology. By some, the Wisdom of the Old Testament, from which the doctrine of the Logos was developed, was called πveûμa åɣiov, and made co-ordinate with the Word (3). Others either identified the Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague manner as to the distinction between them (4), and the Holy Ghost (impersonally

viewed) appears as a mere divine attribute, gift, or agency (5). But the pressure of logical consistency led gradually to the view of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and his definite distinction from the Word (6).

(1) In the O. T. the (Gen. i. 3) appears already as the creative power of life, comp. Ps. civ. 30, and other passages; as the Spirit of heroism, Judg. vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25, etc.; as the Spirit of insight and wisdom, Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31; Job xxxii. 8; Isa. xi. 2; especially as the Spirit of prophecy, Num. xxiv. 2; 1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xix. 20, 23, etc.; also as the good, holy Spirit, Ps. li. 13, cxliii. 10. In the N. T., too, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is made equivalent to the δύναμις ipioTOV, Luke i. 35, and to the copía, Acts vi. 3, 10. Specifically Christian is the making the Holy Spirit equivalent to the Spirit of Christ, as when it is said that the Spirit descends upon Christ (Matt. iii. 16 and the parallel places), and is given to Him without measure (John iv. 34), or that He proceeds from Christ and is given to the disciples (John xx. 22), or is promised to them as the Paraclete, John xv. 26, etc. It has been held essential to the Christian faith to believe that the Spirit from the time of the pentecostal outpouring (Acts ii.), and other extraordinary manifestations of His presence (Acts viii. 14, 17, xix. 1-6), abides in the Church (2 Cor. xiii. 13), and thus that all believers have part in the Spirit, who manifests Himself as one, externally in the different gifts (charismata, 1 Cor. xii. 4, etc.), and internally working as the Spirit of sanctification, of trust, and of love; and who is also a pledge and seal of the grace of God, 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5; Eph. i. 14, etc. Compare the works on Biblical Theology.

(2) It is not to be forgotten that the trias of revelation was held in a complete form long before the Church came to clear statements respecting the essential trias. (Comp. note 1 of the next section.) In the former the Holy Ghost has His definite position along (co-ordinate) with the Father and the Son, 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Matt. xviii. 19. In the apostolic Fathers, we find only isolated declarations as to the Holy Ghost. Justin M. makes particular mention of the πνεῦμα προφητικόν (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in his Apology, nine times in Trypho; see Semisch, ii. s. 332, note), while he