Sidor som bilder

ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὁ προσδεὴς τοῦ φωτός. Ἵνα ᾖ θεὸς, λόγος, o σοφία, ἄνθρωπος. Here we have indeed the word τριάς, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity; for as aveρwπos is mentioned as the fourth term, it is evident that the Tpiás cannot be taken here as a perfect whole, consisting of three joined in one; besides, the term oopía is used instead of тò πνεîμа ayiov. Comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. τpiás, where the passage from the (spurious) treatise of Justin, De Expositione Fidei, p. 379, is cited (Movàs yàp év tpiádi νοεῖται καὶ τριὰς ἐν μονάδι γνωρίζεται κ.τ.λ.); this passage, however, proves as little concerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise pilómатρis erroneously ascribed to Lucian, from which passages are cited. Clem. Strom. iv. 7, p.

588, knows a ȧyía тpiás, but in an anthropological sense (Faith, Love, Hope). On the terminology of Origen, comp. Thomasius, s. 285. [Comp. Burton, 1.c. p. 34-36, where the subject is treated at great length.]

(4) Tertullian, De Pudic. c. 21: Nam et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est Trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus S. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is the principle which constitutes the unity of the persons, or (according to Schwegler, Montan. s. 171) the spiritual substance common to the persons; comp. Adv. Praxeam, 2 and 3. [Burton, 1.c. p. 68 ff.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this usage. Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism). Novat. de Trinitate. [Burton, 1.c. p. 107-109, 116-123.]

§ 46.

Monarchianism and Subordination.

The strict distinction which was drawn between the hypostases (persons) in the Trinity led, in the first instance, to that system of Subordination in which the Son was made. inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son (1), which system also carried with it the appearance of tritheism (2). The orthodox were obliged to clear themselves from all appearance of tritheism, in opposition to the

Monarchians, who abandoned the personal distinctions in order to hold fast the unity of the Godhead, and thus exposed themselves to the charge of confounding the persons (Patripassianism), or even to the imputation of a heretical tendency denying the divinity of Christ (3). Origen now carried to such an extreme the system of hypostatizing, including the subordination scheme (4), that orthodoxy itself threatened to run over into heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian controversy in the following period.


(1) Justin M. Apol. i. c. 13: ... viòv avтoù TOÙ ÖVTWS θεοῦ μαθόντες (scil. τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν) καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρα ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, comp. i. 6 and i. 60. There are also passages in the writings of Irenæus which appear favourable to the idea of subordination, e.g. Adv. Hær. ii. 28. 6, 8; v. 18. 2: Super omnia quidem pater, et ipse est caput Christi; but elsewhere he represents the Logos as wholly God, and not a subordinate being (comp. § 42, note 9). "It cannot be denied that Irenæus here contradicts himself, and it would be a useless labour to remove this contradiction by artificial interpretation." Duncker, s. 56; comp. s. 70 ff. Dorner, s. 409 ff. Tert. Advers. Prax. c. 2: Tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie: unius autem substantiæ et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formæ et species in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur. Comp. c. 4 ff.

(2) Thus Justin M. says, Dial. cum Tryph. c. 56: The Father and the Son are distinct, not yvéμŋ, but åpɩ0μô; and Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 10), from the proposition that, if I have a wife, it does not necessarily follow that I am the wife herself, draws the conclusion that, if God has a Son, He is not the Son Himself. He repels the charge of tritheism, Adv. Prax. 3 Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim impudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus Diis seculi ad unicum et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua œconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad economiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis, divisionem præsumunt unitatis;

quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius Dei cultores præsumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresin faciat, et trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Comp. c. 13 and 22, where he expressly appeals to the point, that Christ did not say that He and the Father were one (unus, masculine), but one (unum, neuter), and he refers this unity to a moral relation the dilectio patris and the obsequium filii. In the same way Novat. De Trin. 22: Unum enim, non unus esse dicitur, quoniam nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur. . . Unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem, et per dilectionem. [Burton, 1.c. p. 120, 121.] He also appeals to Apollos and Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 8: qui autem plantat et qui rigat, unum sunt.

(3) Concerning the different classes of Unitarians, comp. § 24 and § 42.1 It is self-evident that all who held Christ to be a mere man could know nothing of any Trinity. These may be called deistico-rationalistic Antitrinitarians; God in His abstract unity was, in their view, so remote from the world, and confined to His heaven, that there was no abode for Him even in Christ. Widely different were those who, apprehensive of lessening the dignity of Christ, taught that God Himself had assumed humanity in Him, but did not think it necessary to suppose the existence of a particular hypostasis. The name modalistic Antitrinitarians would be more appropriate in their case (thus Heinichen, de Alogis, s. 34); or, if the relation of God to Christ be compared to that in which He stands to the world, they might be called pantheistic Antitrinitarians, for they imagined God, as it were, expanded or extended into the person of Christ. Among their number are Praxeas and Beryllus, the forerunners of Sabellius, the former of whom was combated by Tertullian, the latter by Origen. The opinion of

1 Origen already distinguishes two classes of Monarchians; the one spoke of Jesus merely as a praecognitum et prædestinatum hominem, while the other class taught the Godhead of Christ, but identified the Godhead of the Son with that of the Father. See Origen, Epist. ad Tit. fragm. ii. ed. Lommatzsch, tom. v., in Neander, Dg. s. 158. Comp. the remaining passages in Baur, Dg. 8. 454. Novatian, De Trin. 30.

Praxeas, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same (ipsum eundemque esse), which virtually amounted to the later ὁμοούσιος, was interpreted by Tertullian as implying, ipsum patrem passum esse (Adv. Prax. c. 20, 29),1 whence the heretical appellation Patripassiani. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 103, p. 588, and Testim. of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Trinity, etc., p. 68-83.] Philastr. Har. 65. The views of Noëtus were similar: Theod. Fab. Hær. iii. 3 : Ενα φασὶν εἶναι θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν, ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα ἂν βούληται· καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον· ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι ἠθέλησε ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ θνητόν. Απαθὴς γὰρ ὤν, φησί, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέμεινε· τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. Comp. Epiph. Hær. vii. 1. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 103, p. 589, 590.] Dorner, s. 532: “ It is worthy of recognition and consideration, that Noëtus already completes Patripassianism, and takes away from it the pagan illusion, whereby the divine nature is made directly finite, which we find in the system of Praxeas." Beryllus endeavoured to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difference. after the assumption of humanity, Euseb. vi. 33 : Βήρυλλος ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν δεδηλωμένος Βοστρῶν τῆς ̓Αραβίας ἐπίσ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παρεκτρέπων κανόνα, ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέρειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ' ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας μηδὲ μὴν θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ μόνην τὴν πατρικήν. Comp. Ullmann in the Dissert., quoted § 24, note 4, and Fork, Diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur (Trin.-Lehre, s. 289, and Dg. s. 474), Beryllus ought to be classed with Artemon and Theodotus;


1 As Praxeas was also a decided opponent of Montanism, he had to endure the reproach of Tertullian, that, during his residence in Rome, he had done the work of the devil in two respects: prophetiam expulit, et hæresin intulit, Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit, Adv. Prax. i. The argument of Tertullian is strikingly drawn out by Baur, Dg. s. 457.

Meier (Trin.-Lehre, s. 114), however, supposes a certain distinction between them. Comp. Dorner, s. 545, and Neander, Dg. s. 161 : “ The most natural conclusion is, that Beryl. did not wholly belong to either of the two classes (of Monarchians), but held a mediating view, which agrees with his historical position." Against this mediating position Baur protests (1.c.) most emphatically. A mediating position he certainly did not adopt, but an intermediate one between the two schools. To those who adopted the tendency of Noëtus belong Beron and his followers, who were combated by Hippolytus; comp. Dorner, s. 536 ff.

(4) On the one hand, Origen asserts that the Son is equal to the Father, Hom. viii. in Jerem. ii. Opp. iii. p. 171: Πάντα γὰρ ὅσα τοῦ θεοῦ, τοιαῦτα ἐν αὐτῷ υἱῷ) ἐστίν. He also speaks of the three persons in the Trinity as the three sources of salvation, so that he who does not thirst after all three cannot find God, ibid. Hom. xviii. 9 (Opp. iii. p. 251, 252). Nevertheless, the subordination of the Son is prominently brought forward, and forms, together with the strict hypostatic distinction, the characteristic feature of Origen's doctrine. The Son is called δεύτερος θεός, Contra Cels. v. 608 ; comp. vii. 735 : "Αξιος τῆς δευτερευούσης μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τιμῆς. De Orat. i. p. 222 : "Ετερος κατ' οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενός ἐστι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρός. The kingdom of the Father extends to the whole universe, that of the Son to rational creatures, that of the Holy Spirit to the holy (Christians), De Princip. i. 3. 5 : Ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων, μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν. Ελάττων δὲ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς φθάνων ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. Ἔτι δὲ ἧττον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔτι μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διϊκνούμενος. "Ωστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ πάλιν διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἡ δύναμις παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα ἅγια. Comp. also in Joh. tom. ii. 2 (Opp. t. iv. p. 50), where stress is laid upon the distinction made by Philo between θεός and ὁ θεός. How far this system of subordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from Origen, de Orat. c. 15 (Opp. t. i. 222),

« FöregåendeFortsätt »