66

Marcion, and the notion of Christ being a creature, he continues, “We must therefore neither divide "the wonderful and divine unity into three God"heads; nor destroy the dignity and exceeding greatness of the Lord by making him a creature : "but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, "and in Christ Jesus his Son, and in the Holy "Ghost; and that the Word is united with the "God of the universe: for I, he says, and the Fa"“ther are one: (John x. 30.) and I am in the Father, and the Father in me: (xiv. 10.) for thus "both the divine Trinity, and the holy doctrine of "the unity, will be preserved k."

66

This remarkable passage may illustrate the different meanings, which were affixed to the word ὑπόστασις by ecclesiastical writers: and some persons have attempted to prove, that Dionysius of Rome differed from his namesake of Alexandria in this particular, and consequently in his notion of the Trinity. But no attempt could be more unsuccessful. Dionysius of Alexandria certainly maintained that there were three ὑποστάσεις in the Godhead, by which, as I have already explained, he meant that there were three persons, i. e. three distinct individualities, in the Godhead: and he maintained this against the Sabellians. Dionysius of Rome was

συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Athanas. de Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 26. p. 231. et apud Routh Reliq. Sacr. vol. III. p. 179:

* Οὔτ ̓ οὖν καταμερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς θεότητας τὴν θαυμαστὴν καὶ θείαν μονάδα· οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν τὸ ἀξίωμα καὶ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος τοῦ Κυρίου· ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι,

εἰς Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰς τὸ ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα. ἡνῶσθαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν Λόγον Ἐγὼ γάρ, φησι, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία Τριὰς, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγμα τῆς μοναρχίας διασώζοιτο. Ib. p. 182.

K

equally opposed to the doctrine of Sabellius, who denied the personality of the Son and Holy Ghost: but he also opposed the notion of there being three distinct, independent ToσTάoes in the Godhead: and in this he would have had the full concurrence of his namesake of Alexandria; as may be seen in all the passages, which I have adduced from his writings. It is sometimes said, that Dionysius of Alexandria used the term nóσTaois for person, while Dionysius of Rome used it for substance or essence, in which sense it was undoubtedly used by later writers; but in the age of these two bishops the term was always used for substantial or individual existence, in other words, for personality; and I conceive, that Dionysius of Rome meant to employ it in this sense. He only wished to guard against the notion of these three Toσтáσes, or persons, being separate from, and independent of, each other. In order to convey his idea of the intimate union between the three persons, he makes use of the remarkable word upλoxwpeiv, which it is almost impossible to translate, but which I have attempted to express by reciprocally passing into. In the fourth century, this doctrine of mutual inhabitation or permeation was expressed by the Greek term περιχώρη σs, and by the Latin circumincessio or circuminsessio; (for it is written both ways:) and Bellarmin has explained the meaning of it in a few words, “illam intimam et perfectam inhabitationem unius personæ in alia1." A fuller definition of it is given by Genebrardus, who says, "Пepixwpnois et circum"incessio illa dici potest unio, qua unum existit in

66

66

1 De Christo II. 5. Op. vol. I. p. 383.

66

alio, non tantum per naturæ participationem, sed “etiam per plenam et intimam præsentiam. Hoc “inexistentiæ, ut sic dicam, genus nostri circumin"cessionem appellant; quia per illud aliqua, quan"tumvis a se invicem absque separatione distin"guantur, in se absque confusione insunt, seque "veluti immeant m."

I am not concerned with attempting to explain this mystery any farther: and the concluding words of bishop Bull, in his immortal Defence of the Nicene Faith, are well worthy of our consideration; "Denique illud imprimis considerandum est, hanc

66

n

divinarum personarum περιχώρησιν revera maxi"mum esse mysterium, quod religiose adorare potius, quam curiosius rimari debemus "" It will perhaps be found, that the Anti-Trinitarians have been the principal offenders against this salutary caution: and though they scoff at those, who believe in a mystery which they cannot explain, they seem to forget, that there is no less difficulty in explaining how such a mystery could have obtained general belief, if it had not been revealed, or at least if it had not been handed down, from the beginning. It is the particular object of the present work to shew that it was so handed down. That these two bishops in the third century believed and maintained the mutual indwelling of the three persons of the Trinity, can hardly be denied: and I may now refer the reader back to the first quotation in the present work, where he will find Ignatius, the

m De Trinitate, II. p. 103. " Def. Fid. Nic. IV. 4, 14. He has illustrated this doctrine in II. 4, 9; II. 9, 11; II. 9,

.

23; IV. 4, 9; IV. 4, 10; IV. 4. 12; IV. 4, 13. Animadv. in G. Clerke, §. 4.

companion of the apostles, at the beginning of the second century, expressing ideas equally mysterious and equally inexplicable concerning the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. So utterly unfounded is the notion, that the doctrine of the Trinity was the offspring of the fourth, or, as it is sometimes called in disparagement, the Athanasian age.

I have only to add to these extracts from the works of the two Dionysii, that the bishop of Alexandria expressly uses the term ópooúcios, as applied to the relation of the Father and the Son. The reader will find some remarks upon this subject in my former work, No. 305, which might perhaps have been more properly introduced in this place. It will also be remembered, as was stated in the same work, that Dionysius of Rome convened a council of his clergy, to consider the tenets of Sabellius: and the result of their deliberation was, that the bishop wrote the treatise, from which the preceding extract was made: so that the opposition to Sabellianism was not the act of one individual only, but of the whole Roman clergy assembled in council.

72. CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A. D. 269. This council was held about the year 269 on account of the heresy of Paul, bishop of Samosata: and at the end of the letter which was addressed to him by the assembled bishops, there is the following sentence, which may perhaps admit of different grammatical constructions, but there can be no doubt as to its maintaining the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. "But if Christ be the "Power of God, and the Wisdom of God, he is

before the worlds: so is he also, inasmuch as he " is Christ, being one and the same in substance °." This is perhaps almost the earliest instance of the word voía being used for substance or essence.

THE OGNOSTUS, A. D. 283.

The testimony from Theognostus was quoted incidentally in my former work?: and the following account of him is taken principally from Cave.

He was unquestionably a pupil of Origen, and one of his successors in the catechetical school of Alexandria: but it is uncertain, whether he followed him immediately, or whether Pierius intervened, as president of the school. Athanasius speaks of him as a man of learning; and we know that he composed a work in seven books, entitled Hypotyposes, which is now lost. In the three first books he treated of the three persons of the Trinity; and Photius, who has preserved an account of them, represents him as lowering the Son and the Holy Ghost to the rank of creatures r. There is however good reason to conclude, that Photius was led to make this charge by his abhorrence of Origen, of whom Theognostus is acknowledged to have been a follower. Photius himself allows, that toward the end of the work he expressed himself in a more

• Εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς Θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία, πρὸ αἰώνων ἐστιν· οὕτω καὶ καθὸ Χριστὸς, ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὢν Tỹ ovoíg. Rel. Sacr. vol. II. P. 474.

P No. 305. note 9, p. 393. ed. 2.

9 De Decret. Syn. Nic. 25.

vol. I. p. 230. ἀνὴρ λόγιος.

r Photius, Cod. CVI. He is followed by Sandius, Enucl. Hist. Eccl. I. p. 109. and Huetius, Origenian. p. 134. He is defended by Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. II. 10, 7. &c.