THE HOLY TRINITY 1049

THE HOLY TRINITY

, v 4AA& /car’ oinrlav iffr'i Beds (Selecta inpilmos, Opp. ed. Lommatsch, xiii. p. 134; seeilso Praam. Comm, in JJebracos, v. 299 ft. Lomm.).And since He is God Ka t’ ovo-lao, it follows (hatH e is of the very same essence or substance withthe Father. If H e > 8 an effluence from theFather, He is bpoovcrios with that from whichHe is an effluence (aporrhoea) (in Fsalmos, u.s.).And the Son was from all eternity begotten ofthe Father (De Prineip. I. ii. 2-9); for wecannot conceive God without His Wisdom, northe Father beginning to be a Father. He usesthe expression “ there never was a time whenthe Son was not the Son ” (in Ilebr. p. 296), andagain apologises (He Prineip. IV. 28) for applyingto the timeless Three-in-One terms which belongto time, such as “ never ” and “ time when.”He adheres to the word “ beget ” (yevvav) forthe indescribable act which can only be repre-sented by imperfect metaphor. “ Prolatio,” theequivalent for the Gnostic 7rpo/3oA^, he expresslyrejects, as he does also the “ conversio partisalicujus Dei in Filium ” and the “ procreatio exnullis substantibus,” which some advocated (DePrineip. IV. 28; cf. VI. ii. 4). And the Son,the Logos, has a distinct personal existence; Heis “Sapientia Dei substantialitcr subsistens ”(De Prino. I. ii. 2); the Son is essentially adistinct being from the Father (eVepos ko.t‘ovtriav Kal inroxeifierov, De Orat. 15) ; the Fatherand the Son are two things in substance (5do rfjfaotndiru TTpaypara), though one in absoluteidentity of will (c. Cels. viii. 12).

But Christ is not the one God (S Boos), notVery God by Himself (a vrSBeos). We may callHim “a second God,” but by these words wemean the Virtue that includes all virtues andthe Reason that includes all reasons (e. Celsum,v. 39). The Father is the unoriginated origino( all things; even the Son originates fromHim; He is alnartU. Moreover, the Father issimple and absolute Unity, while the Son is inrelation to the Many (bid ra 7roAAa, in Joann.tom. i. c. 22; cf. tom. xiii. c. 25). The Son istherelore, in a sense, inferior and subordinate tothe Father (c. Cels. vi. 62, 64; De Orat. 24;

, Prineip, I. iii. 5). On Origen’s doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit, see Holy Ghost, Vol. III. 119.

Father,^ Son, and Holy Spirit are three Sub-staucej (bnoa-Tatrets, in Joann, tom. ii. c. 6).

’.e Father is the author of all Being, the Son ofal Reason, the Holy Spirit of ali sanctification1 e . nrccip. I. iii. 5-8). Father, Son, and Holyspirit form a Trinity to which nothing can becompared. In honour and dignity the threeeisous are alike, and all are of one substancer c ' '! cf - Mom. in Num. vol. x. p. 127, ed.inm is with Origen the very

nmost secret of the faith. To err on this is the. a °,L a , ftw 'sh and carnal mind,ofth 'r . e } K0 . Mionysii .—A fresh development1)V nL r >mtarian controversy was brought aboutrVol T , bish0 l’ of Alexandria (248-265)

h ^ , Suhellianism spread from Pto-mtunlT E . 1 ’,, the l . nei g hlj °uring district, it wasto refiito°H b f,,| 5 J s ^ 10 P of Alexandria to attemptself to w! ’ / b ' S did in such a way as him-His on ' Ua ^ er suspicion of an opposite heresv.Father allegea that he separated the

Son -A 1 le . Son ’ tllat he denied that thewith the v ?r i1 \ n<1 consubsta utial (&p.ooi<nos)h tbe iather > (in fact) he regarded the

Son as a creature (Athanasius, De Sententia Dio -nysii, cc. 10, 14, 10, 18). Complaints were madeto Dionysius of Rome [Vol. I. 852], who wasthereby moved to refute the tenets of his Alex-andrian namesake, whose name, however, henever mentions (fragment in Athanasius, DeDecrctis Synodi Nicaenae, c. 20 ; see Routh’sReliquiae, iii. 374 ff.). The Roman bishop, withthe discretion which characterised the RomanChurch, seeks a middle course between theSabellianism which confounded the Persons, audthe Tritheism, attributed to the Alexandrians,which divided the substance ; he declines specu-lation in the practical Roman fashion. TheLogos (he says) is not made nor created, but isthe inseparable offspring of the essence of theFather (Ahoy ri )s toO narpta ovaias ytvvryxaaBiatperov). We must not divide the divineMonad into three Godheads (ov Kasrafxepi^eiv xpfy€ts t pets fleoT^ras rrjv . . . Qtiav fxovab a), butmaintain in our doctrine both the divine Triadand the holy Monarchia. The Alexandrian de-nied that he had used the expressions attributedto him, which he represented as false inferencesfrom what he had said; but it is at any rateevident that the controversy between the twoDionysii is the beginning of that which was toset the Church on fire for some generations.

13. Orujen’s Successors .—The successors ofOrigen in the school of Alexandria maintainedhis teaching, for the most part unmolested.Photius testifies (Codex 119, in Routh, Dell. iii.429) of one of them, Pierius [Vol. IV. 396],that he taught that the Father and the Souwere two Essences and two Natures (ouatas 5 voKa\ <pv<T€i$ 5 vo), an expression of which he says,that it is evident from the context, that Pierius,writing in the fashion of an earlier time, meantno more than is implied by the later viroardcrets.The successor of Pierius was Tiieognostus (1) (fl.c. 283), who taught, as Origen had done, thatthe Son was an effluence ( airoppoia ) from theFather, without division or diminution of theFather’s substance (Athan. De Deer. Syn. Nic .c. 25 ; Routh’s Hell . iii. 411). His teachingwon the approval of Athanasius ; yet, accordingto Gregory of Nyssa (in Routh’s Hell. iii. 412),he maintained that the Father created the Son,first of created beings, as a kind of pattern orstandard of His work (olov riva Kavova rijs Syfu-ovpyias'). And, according to Photius (cod. 106,in Routh u.s. 413), he declared the Son to be acreature ( Krl(T/xa ) and to preside over the reason-able portion of creation only. He maintainedthe substantial existence (u7rapj-iv) of the HolySpirit (Photius u.s.), and that the Spirit abideswith, and is the seal of, them that are perfectedor initiated (rcov TeXetovfxe vwp)', hence theenormity of the sin against the Holy Spirit(Athanas. ad Scrap. Epist. 4, in Routh, 409).

But the greatest and most influential of thepupils of Origen was Gregory the Wonder-worker (f 270) [Vol. II. 733 f.], who maintained,in essentials, his master’s view of the trinity. Inhis Exposition of the Faith, if it be his (Hahn,Bibliotkck der Symbole, § 114, p. 183), aftersetting forth the offices of the several Persons,he concludes with an emphatic assertion ot theeternity of the Hcly Trinity, there is, he says,a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity andsovereignty not divided nor alienated, i’heie is,therefore, nothing created nor suboidinate