"the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the “ communion of the Father with the Son, [or, what "the Father communicates to the Son,] what is the

66

66

66

Spirit, what is the union of this number of per“ sons, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and in what way they who are united are divided-shall we "not have credit given us for being worshippers of "God m?"

66

8. Athenag. Legat. pro Christianis, c. 24. p. 302. The following passage is obscure, and requires the reader to be acquainted with the peculiar language of the fathers: but the general meaning of it cannot be mistaken. “We speak of God, and the Son his Word, and the Holy Ghost, which are united in “ their essence, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, be"cause the Son is the Mind, Reason, or Wisdom of “ the Father; and the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire"." If it be said, that the personality of the second and third persons in the Trinity could hardly have been believed by Athenagoras, when he speaks of the Son as the Mind of God, and of the Holy Ghost as an emanation, ἀπόῤῥοια, it may

66

m ̓́Ανθρωποι δὲ, τὸν μὲν ἐνταῦθα ὀλίγου καὶ μικροῦ τινος ἄξιον βίον λελογισμένοι, ὑπὸ μόνου δὲ παραπεμπόμενοι τοῦ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ Λόγον εἰδέναι, τίς ἡ τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἑνότης, τίς ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν κοινωνία, τί τὸ πνεῦμα, τίς ἡ τῶν τοσούτων ἕνωσις, καὶ διαίρεσις ἑνουμένων, τοῦ Πνεύμα τος, τοῦ παιδὸς, τοῦ Πατρὸς,—ἀπιστ τούμεθα θεοσεβεῖν ; I have adopted the Benedictine editor's emendation of τοῦ τὸν Θεὸν for τούτου δν ἴσως Θεόν.

η Θεὸν φαμέν, καὶ Υἱὸν, τὸν Λόγον αὐτοῦ, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα

μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, τὸν Πατέρα, τὸν Υἱὸν, τὸ Πνεῦμα, ὅτι νοῦς, Λόγος, σοφία Υἱὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ ἀπόῤῥοια, ὡς φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα. The Benedictine editor explains δύναμις in this passage to mean οὐσία, and so I have translated it. Ενούμενα μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν may remind us of τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν, as quoted from this same writer at p. 22. and there seem to be some words wanting here, such as διαιρούμενα δὲ κατὰ τάξιν but I suspect a longer la

cuna.

be answered, that these expressions were used by the fathers merely as illustrations. It seems probable that they borrowed the illustration from the Platonizing Jews of Alexandria, who had learned almost to personify the mind or reason of God, as may be seen in the works of Philo Judæus; and had taken to speak of wisdom, as the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from (anóppoia) the glory of the Almighty. (Wisd. vii. 25.) It may be demonstrated, that these Alexandrian Jews did not really mean to speak of Wisdom, or the Reason of God, as distinctly existing persons°: but the Christian fathers found their expressions so very applicable to an idea of personality, that they borrowed them, when speaking of the Son and the Holy Ghost: though they guard against the notion of these expressions being applied too literally, and say repeatedly, that the Father and the Son are numerically, i. e. personally, different. Still, however, the Mind or Reason of God, which is not the same as God, though inseparably united with him, furnished some analogy for the unity and the distinction of the Father and the Son: and the Holy Ghost was spoken of as an efflux or emanation, because such an expression conveys some idea of a being proceeding from God, while it excludes the notion of creation. Expressions such as these, if they stood alone in the writings of the fathers, though they demonstrate that the Son and the Holy Ghost could not have been looked upon as created beings, might yet seem to present an agreement with the Sabellian hypothesis: but other expressions, as

• I may refer the reader for a consideration of this subject to

the seventh of my Bampton Lectures.

I have already shewn, are directly opposed to this notion: and hence we conclude by comparing the fathers with themselves, and with each other, that they neither divided the substance, nor confounded the persons, in the Godhead.

I ought, perhaps, in this place to introduce the testimony of a heathen writer, who was a contemporary of Athenagoras: and the passage which has often been adduced from the Philopatris of Lucian, must certainly be considered as confirming in a remarkable manner the belief of a Trinity in Unity. The speakers in this dialogue are Critias and Triephon; the former an heathen, the latter a Christian; and when Critias has offered to swear by different heathen deities, each of which is objected to by Triephon, he asks, " By whom then shall I swear?" to which Triephon makes the following reply, the first words of which are a quotation from Homer, great God, immortal, in the heavens; "The Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from "the Father, one out of three, and three out of one, "Consider these thy Jove, be this thy God."

By the

Critias then ridicules this" arithmetical oath,” and says, "I cannot tell what you mean by saying that "one is three, and three are one"."

There can be no doubt, that when this dialogue was written, it was commonly known to the heathen, that the Christians believed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though in one sense three, in another sense to be one: and if the dialogue was writ

P Trieph. Υψιμέδοντα θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα, Υἱὸν Πατρὸς, Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἓν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία,

Ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ ̓ ἡγοῦ Θεόν. Crit. οὐκ οἶδα γὰρ τί λέγεις, εν τρία, τρία ἕν. c. 12. p. 596.

ten by Lucian, who lived in the latter part of the second century, it would be one of the strongest testimonies remaining to the doctrine of the Trinity. This was acknowledged by Socinus, who says in one of his works," that he had never read any thing which gave greater proof of a worship of "the Trinity being then received among Chris"tians, than the passage which is brought from the

66

66

dialogue entitled Philopatris, and which is reck"oned among the works of Lucian 9." He then observes, that the dialogue is generally supposed by the learned to be falsely ascribed to Lucian; and he adds some arguments which might make the passage of less weight, in proving that all Christians of that day believed a Trinity in Unity. I have no inclination to notice these arguments: but Socinus was correct in saying, that the learned had generally decided against the genuineness of this dialogue as a work of Lucian. Bishop Bull believed it to be genuine, and Fabriciuss was inclined to do the same. Some have ascribed it to a writer older than the time of Lucian; others, to one of the same age; and others, to much later periods. I need only refer the reader to discussions of the subject by Dodwellt, Blondell", Lardner*, &c.: but J. M. Gesner has considered the question in a long and able Disserta

r

r Def. Fid. Nic. II. 4, II. Jud. Eccl. Cath. IV. 4.

s Bibl. Gr. vol. III. p. 504. Lux. Evang. p. 153.

t De Jure Laicorum Sacerdotali, p. 284.

ris,

u De Episcopis et Presbytep. 228.

x Credibility, Art. Lucian. vol. VII. p. 285, &c.

tion, the object of which is to prove that the Philopatris was written in the reign of Julian the apotate. His arguments appear to me to deserve much attention; and though the learned do not seem in general to have adopted his conclusion, I feel so far convinced by them, that I cannot bring forward this remarkable passage, as the testimony of a writer of the second century.

THEOPHILUS, A. D. 180.

In my former work I gave no account of this father, (though his writings were incidentally quoted,) because the passages, which I wish to adduce, not only support the doctrine of Christ's divinity, but of the Trinity, and may therefore be more suitably introduced in this place.

Some doubts have been raised concerning the identity and the date of Theophilus: but it seems to be generally agreed, that the person whose works have come down to us was the sixth bishop of Antioch, and was appointed to that see about the year 168. He tells us himself, that he had been bred up in heathenism, and it is plain that his language and thoughts retained a lasting impression from the Platonic philosophy. None of his genuine works have come down to us, except three books addressed to Autolycus, who was a friend of Theophilus, and a man of profound learning, but strongly opposed to Christianity. Theophilus is supposed to have written this work at the beginning of the reign of Commodus, and to have died soon after, about the year 181.

y Published in Vol. III. of the edition of Lucian by Reitzius, 1743.

D