It may be added, that, according to Jerom m, m. Tertullian wrote a work De Trinitate, which is now lost.

HIPPOLYTUS, A. D. 220.

The treatise of Hippolytus against Noetus is a suitable companion to that of Tertullian against Praxeas. The two heretics nearly agreed in their sentiments, and both of them were forerunners of Sabellius; but Noetus appears to have been a more decided maintainer of the Patripassian doctrines. Hippolytus confuted him in a special treatise; and the following extracts from it will shew his own. opinion concerning the second and third persons of the Godhead.

40. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 7. vol. II. p. 11.

“If Noetus remarks that our Saviour himself "said, I and the Father are one, (John x. 30.) let "him attend and observe, that he did not say, I and "the Father am one, but are one. For the word

66

are is not used with reference to one, but it points "to two persons and one essence "." The reader will observe, that Hippolytus here uses the Greek term рóσwπоv, as Tertullian the Latin term persona, to imply a person in the modern sense of the term. 41. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 8. vol. II. p. 12. "He is compelled even against his will to acknowledge the Father God Almighty, and Christ "Jesus, the Son of God, who is God and became "man, to whom the Father subjected every thing

66

m De Baptismo, c. 15. num. 106. and perhaps in Catal. Script. Eccles. where he calls Novatian's treatise de Trinitate an epitome of the work of Tertullian.

n Ἐὰν δὲ λέγει, αὐτὸς εἶπεν, Ἐγὼ

καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν, ἐπιστανέτω τὸν νοῦν καὶ μανθανέτω, ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν εἰμι, ἀλλὰ ἓν ἐσμεν. Τὸ γάρ ἐσμεν οὐκ ἐφ' ἑνὸς λέγεται, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ δύο πρόσωπα ἔδει ξεν, δύναμιν δὲ μίαν.

66

except himself and the Holy Ghost, and that these 66 are in this manner three o. But if he wishes to "know how God is proved to be one, let him under"stand that his essence is one, and as far as relates "to his essence, he is one God; but with respect to "the dispensation, his manifestation is threefold P."

42. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 12. p. 14.

The following passage is important from its mentioning the third person of the Trinity as an object of worship. "It is thus that we contemplate the "incarnate word: through him we form a concep"tion of the Father; we believe in the Son; we worship the Holy Ghost 9."

66

43. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 14. p. 15.

In order to understand the following passage, we must remember that Noetus accused the orthodox party of believing in two Gods. Hippolytus, after quoting the beginning of St. John's gospel, observes, "If then the Word is with God, being himself God,

66

why would any one say that this passage speaks "of two gods? I never speak of two gods, but one; yet I speak of two persons and a third dispensation", the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Fa

66

"ther is one; but there are two persons; because "there is also the Son; and the third is the Holy "Ghost. The Father commands, the Son performs; " and the Son is manifested as the means of our be

66

66

lieving in the Father. A dispensation of agree"ment is comprehended in one God, for God is one. "For it is the Father who commands, the Son who obeys, and the Holy Ghost who gives wisdom. "The Father is above all, the Son is through all, "and the Holy Ghost is in alls. We cannot form "a conception of one God in any other way, unless we really believe in the Father, and the Son, and "the Holy Ghost. For the Jews glorified the Fa

66

66

ther, but did not give thanks; (see Luke xvii. 14 "-18.) for they did not acknowledge the Son. "The disciples acknowledged the Son, but not in "the Holy Ghost: wherefore they also denied him. "The paternal Word therefore knowing the dispen"sation and the will of the Father, that the Father "wished to be glorified in no other way than this, "commanded his disciples after his resurrection in

these words, Go and teach all nations, baptizing "them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, "and of the Holy Ghost; (Matth. xxviii. 19.) shew

66

ing that whoever omits any one of these does not "perfectly glorify God. For the Father is glorified by this Trinity. For the Father executed, the Spirit manifested t."

66

66

s An allusion to Eph. iv. 6. Πνεύματος. See No. 16.

t dè ó * Εἰ δὲ οὖν ὁ Λόγος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, Θεὸς ὢν, τί οὖν φήσειεν ἄν τις δύο λέγειν Θεούς; Δύο μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ Θεοὺς ἀλλ ̓ ἡ ἕνα, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονοàλλ'ĥ dè μίαν δὲ τρίτην, τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου

willed, the Son There

There may be

Πατήρ μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱὸς, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Πατὴρ ἐντέλλεται, Λόγος ἀποτελεῖ, υἱὸς δὲ δείκνυται, δι ̓ οὗ Πατὴρ πιστεύεται. Οικονομία συμφωνίας συνάγεται εἰς ἕνα Θεόν· εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. Ὁ

expressions in this passage, which might seem at first sight to support the notion of the Son and the Holy Ghost being operations of the Father; but since Hippolytus wrote this treatise purposely to confute such a notion, it is plain, that this could not have been his meaning; and Hippolytus undoubtedly believed the Son and the Holy Ghost to be distinct persons. Concerning the other expressions, in which he speaks of the second and third persons being subordinate to the first, I would refer to bishop Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith, sect. IV. The doxology with which Hippolytus concludes this treatise has been given at p. 9.

ORIGENES, A. D. 240.

44. Origenis de Principiis, 1. I. c. 6. p. 55. I mentioned in my former work, that Origen's treatise De Principiis only existed in a Latin translation made by Rufinus, and that the translator had been strongly suspected of making several alterations. On this account we cannot place much dependance upon the arguments or expressions of Origen which are taken from this book. But though Rufinus may have altered certain phrases, and introduced passages of his own, he would hardly have

γὰρ κελεύων Πατὴρ, ὁ δὲ ὑπακούων Υἱὸς, τὸ δὲ συνετίζον ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Ὁ ὢν Πατὴρ ἐπὶ πάντων, ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς διὰ πάντων, τὸ δὲ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐν πᾶσιν. "Αλλως τε ἕνα Θεὸν νομίσαι μὴ δυνάμεθα, ἐὰν μὴ ὄντως Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι πιστεύσωμεν. Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γὰρ ἐδόξασαν Πατέρα, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ηὐχαρίστησαν, Υἱὸν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν. Μαθηταὶ ἐπέγνωσαν Υἱὸν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, δι ̓ ὁ καὶ ἠρνήσαντο. Γινώσκων

οὖν ὁ πατρῷος Λόγος τὴν οἰκονομίαν καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὅτι οὐκ ἄλλως βούλεται δοξάζεσθαι ὁ Πατὴρ ἢ οὕτως, ἀναστὰς παρέδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς λέγων, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύ σατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα κ. τ. λ. δεικνύων, ὅτι πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἕν τι τούτων ἐκλίπῃ, τελείως Θεὸν οὐκ ἐδόξασεν. Διὰ γὰρ τῆς τριάδος ταύτης Πατὴρ δοξάζεται. Πατὴρ γὰρ ἠθέλησεν, Υἱὸς ἐποίησεν, Πνεῦμα ἐφανέρωσεν.

given a new character to the whole tenor of any argument; and we must suppose Origen to have spoken of the nature of the Son in some such terms as those which occur in the passage now before us.

66

66

I have often alluded to the favourite illustration of the Fathers, by which they compare the generation of the Son to the effulgence proceeding from light. Origen makes use of it very frequently, as I have shewn in my former work: but in the present instance he proves how utterly inadequate every such analogy really was. "It is impossible," he says, "to compare God the Father in the gene“ration of his only begotten Son, and in his mode "of existence, to any man or other animal who begets but there must necessarily be something special and suited to God, for which no compa"rison of any kind can be found, not only in existing things, but not even in thought and idea, so as "for human thought to comprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of an only begot"ten Son. For the generation is eternal and everlasting, in the same manner as effulgence is gene"rated from light. For he does not become a Son "from without by spiritual adoption, but is Son by "nature"." Origen then confirms this by passages of scripture, such as Heb. i. 3: but he dwells particularly on Col. i. 15, where the Son is called the image of the invisible God. He considers in what sense the term image can be applied to the Son of

66

66

66

u

sed ne in cogitatione quidem vel sensu inveniri potest, ut humana cogitatio possit apprehendere quomodo ingenitus Deus Pater efficitur unigeniti Filii. Est namque ita

æterna ac sempiterna generatio, sicut splendor generatur ex luce. Non enim per adoptionem spiritus Filius fit extrinsecus, sed natura Filius est. c. 4.