Sidor som bilder


does not speak of the influence which He continues to exert upon believers (ibid. s. 329). On the other hand, in Justin the Logos, as the λóyos σTEрμaтiós, takes the place of the Holy Spirit, since to Him are ascribed good impulses in the minds of believers. (Comp. Duncker, Christl. Logoslehre, s. 37.) Irenæus, iii. 24. 1, calls the Holy Ghost the "communitas Christi, confirmatio fidei nostræ, scala ascensionis ad Deum; comp. iii. 17, v. 6, v. 10, and § 71. At the same time he considers Him as the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distinction between Him as the principle which animates and inspires, and that animation and inspiration itself, Adv. Hær. v. 12. 2: Ετερόν ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν... ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος· ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. Comp. Duncker, s. 60 ff.; Kahnis, s. 255 ff.

(3) Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7: 'O dè Beòs dià Toû Xóyov avtoû καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα; here σοφία is either synonymous with Xóyos, or forms the second member; in the former case, there would be no mention of the Spirit; in the latter, He would be identified with the oopía; and this agrees with ii. 15, where Oeós, λóyos, and copía are said to compose the Trinity; comp. § 45. Iren. iv. 20, p. 253: Adest enim ei (Deo) semper verbum et sapientia, Filius et Spiritus . . . ad quos et loquitur, dicens: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; and again: Deus omnia verbo fecit et sapientia adornavit. [Burton, l.c. p. 49-51.] Comp. iv. 7, p. 236: Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, i.e. Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 6: Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea, quæ cum Sophiæ ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque disposita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur

1 A similar image is made use of by Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. 9, when he says: ̓Αναφερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν σταυρὸς, σχοινίῳ χρώμενοι τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ.

et tenerentur. Comp. c. 7, and the formula De Orat. i. ab initio: Dei Spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utrumque Jesus Christus, dominus noster.

(4) From the time of Souverain (Platonismus der Kirchenväter, s. 329 ff.), most historians of doctrines have supposed that the Fathers1 in general, and Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the Spirit. Several of the more recent investigators have also come to the same conclusion. Thus Georgii (in the work referred to above), s. 120: "This much is evident, that in Justin the relation between the Logos and the Pneuma is indefinite, in flowing lines; as in him the Spirit has little, if any, different functions from those of the Logos, so a distinction between them could not, in his view, be demanded by any dogmatic necessity, but could only be occasioned by the conflict, in which the doctrine of the Spirit, as handed down by the Fathers, stood in relation to that of the Logos." Comp. Hasselbach, ubi supra. With them Baur (Dg. s. 504, and elsewhere) is in most distinct agreement. He considers this identifying of the Logos and Pneuma as belonging to the stage of Jewish Christianity. According to him,

the πνεῦμα and the λόγος unite in the idea of the σοφία. On the other hand, Semisch and Kahnis (s. 238 ff.) have tried to defend the Martyr against this objection. One of the principal passages is Apol. i. 33: Τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις, ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, comp. c. 36. He indeed there speaks of the πveûμa in Luke i. 35; and it cannot be inferred that he thoroughly identifies the Logos with the Spirit. But still there is here this confounding of the two; and it cannot be explained by saying that the Logos is conceived of as a spiritual being in general, nor by assuming that the Logos forms the body for Himself in the womb of Mary. And when Tertullian, Adv. Prax. c. 26, uses similar expressions, this goes to prove that other Fathers besides Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinctness. The same is true as regards the manner in which Justin ascribes the inspiration of the prophets, sometimes to the Logos, sometimes to the Pneuma, Apol. i. 36,

1 With reference to the apostolic Fathers, Baur (Dg. s. 507) refers to a remarkable passage in the "Shepherd" of Hermas (Simil. 5) which must not be overlooked.

and elsewhere. (Only it should not be forgotten that, even in the biblical usage, the distinction is not held with sharp doctrinal consistency.) The confusion of agencies leads to a (relative) confounding of the Persons. That Justin (in opposition to the baptismal formula and the common confession of the Church) formally put a dyas (two persons) in place of the trias, cannot be justly alleged; for he himself in other passages names the Father, Son, and Spirit (Apol. i. 6, 30, 60), and assigns the third place to the Spirit (comp. § 46): “but still it is none the less true, that his philosophical principles, logically carried out, lead only to a dyas, and that he could not doctrinally establish the difference between the Son and the Spirit," Duncker, 1.c. s. 38. There is unquestionably a formal confusion in Theophilus ad Autol. ii. c. 10 : Οὗτος ὁ λόγος) ὢν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ δι ̓ αὐτῶν ἐλάλει τὰ περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων· οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ προφῆται, ὅτε ὁ κόσμος ἐγένετο· ἀλλὰ ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ οὖσα ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἅγιος αὐτοῦ, ὁ ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ. Comp. the passage in note 3, above; and Möller, Gesch. der Kosmologie, s. 138, who sees in this wonderful mixture of names, not indeed "a definite doctrinal representation," but an embarras de richesses!

(5) Justin M. incidentally calls the Holy Ghost simply Swpeá, Coh. ad Græc. c. 32, though he assigns to Him (Apol. i. 6) the third place in the Trinity. On the question: What relation was the Holy Spirit thought to sustain to the angels? comp. Neander, Kg. i. s. 1040, and Dg. s. 182; Studien und Kritiken, 1833, s. 773 ff.; the latter essay was written in opposition to Möhler, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1833, i. s. 49 ff. (comp. 50, below). Athenagoras calls the Holy Spirit áróppola, Leg. c. 10 and 24, comp. Kahnis, s. 245. In general, there are many passages in the Fathers "which bring the Holy Spirit very near to the creature," Kahnis, s. 249.

(6) Tert. Adv. Prax. 4: Spiritum non alicunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Ibid. 8 Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Ibid. 30: Spiritus S. tertium nomen divinitatis et tertius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is assigned to the Spirit

when He is considered as Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, Præscr. 28 [could this properly be said to represent a subordinate position ?]; comp. Schwegler, Montanismus, s. 14. Origen, Comm. in Joh. t. ii. 6 (Opp. t. iv. p. 60, 61), acknowledges the personality of the Holy Spirit, but subordinates Him to both the Father and the Son, by the latter of whom He is created, like all other things, though distinguished from all other creatures by His divine dignity: 'Ημείς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα, τὸ πάντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου γενομένων, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πάντων είναι τιμιώτερον, καὶ τάξει πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Χριστοῦ yeyevvnμévwv. [Burton, 1.c. p. 99 ff.] Comp. t. xiii. 25, p. 234, and 34, p. 244 : Οὐκ ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τρέφεσθαι Xéyew. Nevertheless, there is an infinite chasm between the Spirit of God and other spirits created by God; comp. Comm. in Ep. ad. Rom. vii. (Opp. iv. p. 593). But in another passage (which is extant only in the translation of Rufinus, De Princip. i. 3. 3, Opp. i. 1, p. 61, Redep. p. 123) Origen says, that he had not as yet met with any passage in the sacred Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit was called a created being; though afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc., blamed him for maintaining this opinion; comp. Epiphan. 64, 5, Hieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94, quoted by Münscher (von Cölln), s. 194. Schnitzer, s. 43. Neander, Kirchg. i. 3, s. 1040. Thomasius, s. 144 ff. (Redepenning, Origenes, ii. p. 309 ff., and the other passages there adduced). [Burton, 1.c. p. 89.] Also Baur, Dg. s. 516.

$ 45. The Triad.

[Waterland's Works, new ed. Oxford 1842, vols. ii. and iii. G. S. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 vols. Lond. 1832. William Jones (of Nayland), Works, new ed. 1826, vol i., The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. Bishop Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, and his Judicium Eccl. Cath.; Works, by Burton, 8 vols. 1846.]

1 Origen's principal work, De Principiis, i. 3, also treats of the Holy Ghost; but, as it exists only in the translation of Rufinus, it is not available for our purpose.

The doctrine of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the doctrine of primitive Christianity (1), but has in the New Testament a bearing only upon the Christian economy, without any pretension to speculative significance, and therefore cannot be rightly understood but in intimate connection with the history of Jesus, and the work which He accomplished (2). Accordingly, the belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost belonged to the Regula fidei, apart from all speculative development of the doctrine of the Logos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, in this historicoepic form, without being summed up in a unity. The Greek name тpiás appears first in Theophilus (3); the Latin term Trinitas, of a more comprehensive doctrinal import, is found in Tertullian (4).

(1) Matt. xxviii. 19 (if the baptismal formula be genuine); 1 Cor. xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. xiii. 13, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, de Wette's biblische Dogmatik, § 238, 267, and especially Lücke in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, 1. [Pye Smith, the Script. Testim. to the Messiah, iii. p. 13 ff., iii. p. 258 ff.; Knapp, l.c. s. 119 ff., 132 ff.] Gieseler, Dg. s. 118, and Neander, Dg. s. 137, also distinguish correctly the practical element of the doctrine and its relation to the economy of the divine dispensations, from its speculative construction. Neander: "This doctrine of God, the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of humanity in Christ, was essential to the Christian consciousness, and therefore has existed from the beginning in the Christian Church."

(2) On this account some of the more recent writers on doctrinal theology, as Schleiermacher and Hase (2d ed. s. 626), handle the doctrine of the Trinity at the end of their system. A purely economic view of the doctrine is found in Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 9, where he says: "We are raised on high to the Father by the cross of Christ, as by an elevating engine, the Holy Spirit being the rope,"—a massive, but striking comparison. See above, § 44.

(3) Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15: Αἱ τρεῖς ἡμέραι [πρὸ] τῶν φωστήρων γεγονυῖαι τύποι εἰσὶν τῆς τριάδος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ. Τετάρτῳ δὲ τύπῳ [τόπῳ]



« FöregåendeFortsätt »