1 CONSUB STANTIA THE SON. statu. 2 specie. 96 3 status. 4 species. 202 Three Persons of One Substance and One Majesty. 4 5 6 ON THE distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order three [Persons], the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; LITY OF three, however, not in condition', but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect2°: YET OF ONE SUBSTANCE, and of one cONDITION 3, ANd of one powER; inasmuch as it is one God, from whom these degrees, and forms, and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Where, if I mistake not, by the word gradus (degree) he would have us understand that order, whereby the Father exists of Him5 prodeat. self, the Son goes forth immediately from the Father, and procedat. the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son; so that the Father is rightly designated the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third Person of the Godhead. And by the expressions formæ (forms) and species (aspects), he seems to have meant to indicate the different modes of subsistence', whereby the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost subsist in the same divine nature. that however as it may, it is manifest that in these words all the three Persons of the Godhead are laid down to be of one ὁμοουσίους substance and one dignity 8. And to this should be added another passage of the same treatise, chap. 13; where he says"; "We do indeed distinguish two, the Father and the Son, and again Three, with the Holy Ghost, according to the principle of the [divine] economy, which introduces 10 number, in order that the Father may not (as you perversely infer) be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it 11 traditum. hath not been so handed down". Still never do we utter from [265] our mouth [the words] two Gods, or two Lords, not as if it 7 diversos τρόπους ὑπάρξεως. et δμοτί μους. 9 defini mus. 10 facit. 9 Be were not true that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but forasmuch as in earlier times there were two Gods and two Lords [The word species is inadequately represented by "aspect;" see the use of it in the passages quoted above, from this Treatise, p. 194, note p, and p. 195, note q.] P Duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et jam tres cum Spiritu S. secundum rationem Economiæ, quæ facit numerum, ne (ut vestra perversitas infert) Pater ipse credatur natus et passus, quod non licet credi, quo niam non ita traditum est. Duos tamen Deos et duos Dominos nunquam ex ore nostro proferimus; non quasi non et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus S. Deus, et Deus unusquisque; sed quoniam retro et duo Dii et duo Domini prædicabantur, ut, ubi venisset Christus, et Deus agnosceretur, et Dominus vocaretur, quia Filius Dei et Domini.-[p. 507.] Sandius says that these doctrines were learnt from Montanus. 203 BOOK II. CHAP. VII. § 6, 7. spoken of, in order that, when Christ came, He might both be recognised as God, and be called Lord, being the Son of [Him who is] God and Lord." Where, by the way, you TERTULmay observe that Tertullian expressly pronounces the Holy LIAN. Ghost also to be God, equally with the Father and the Son. This I remark in opposition to an inconsiderate assertion of Erasmus, to the effect, that for a considerable time, that is, until the times of Hilary, the ancient writers never ventured to give the name of God to the Holy Ghost. I might, if that were now the question, refute this allegation of Erasmus at great length; but the reader, if he please, can consult Petavius on the Trinity, iii. 7. 1, &c. I return to my subject, only adding to the passages which have been already cited one quotation more from Tertullian, which may be found in his tract de Pudicitia, c. 21, where he expressly acknowledges "The Trinity of THE ONE GODHEAD, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." mentum. 7. Before, however, we pass from Tertullian to other ecclesiastical writers, we must detain the reader a short time, whilst we refute a strange notion 1 of Sandius. He says it is 1 complain that Tertullian, prior to his falling into the heresy of Montanus, entertained the same opinions as those of Arius, concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And then on this most idle assumption he argues thus; "Hence, if any thing is found in the writings of Tertullian in favour of the doctrine of consubstantiality, the Arians have much more right to detract from his authority by alleging his Montanism [as an objection to it]," (that is, he means to say, than the Catholics, who employ that argument for the purpose of correcting certain statements of Tertullian respecting the Son of God, which appear to them unsound), "as though he had only at last, on [266] adopting the views of Montanus, begun to believe in a consubstantial Trinity." But on this point this most frivolous person is convicted of error by the following very evident arguments. First, it is certain that the Catholic doctors who preceded both Montanus and Tertullian, whose writings have come down to us, did universally hold the consubstantiality of the Son, as also of the Holy Ghost,-it is certain, I say, In his preface to Hilary. T Trinitas UNIUS DIVINITATIS, Pa ter, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.- HUS. II whose math works of 7 PST 15., as well ee the nerest of zos. y esta + SOSTANce, as all Trends auc as the * My evidence. Teme a Mon Barras boast, that he the povery of the holy deals of the Christian The I ll by the spirit of teen through the letter of of the Cordis expressly De -some bebe and view kute me Sin mi ne Buy Ghost. His te venut nine d is 7 st Praxeas le slæt ever believed, and KOOS KON LOW - wag veter mstructed by the Paraclete, # # TUE OF Lg vi tf -do we believe, that bars a scent one voir Sud bn ya mia this sensation, Wadie Walthe endomy, that of the one only God, there MLM, LA MA Ea Work, who came forth from Him,” &c. Ich having reated the rile of faith, he affirms that the Toury four substance is therein taught. Now that by the Paraclete, Tertullian meant the Paraclete of Montanus, (to whose guidance, after having deserted the Church, he had now surrendered himself,) the learned are agreed, and the thing speaks for itself. In conclusion I would have the reader at this place to turn again to what has been already wad concerning Montanus in the first chapter, § 15, of this book pp. 83, 84.] #fus vern et semper, et nunc magis, on actiest omnis veritatis, uni- tamen dispensatione, quam olkovoμíav dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius Sermo ejus, qui ex ipso processerit, &c.-[p. 501.] Sandius's strange mistakes about Tertullian's works. 205 BOOK II. CHAP. VII. § 7, 8. tano. 8. But the reader should observe the wonderful acquaintance of Sandius with the writings of the ancients, which he has undertaken to criticise. To prove his hypothesis he TERTULmakes use of this argument, that those doctrines which LIAN. savour of Arianism, are mainly to be discovered in those 97 works of Tertullian, "which Jerome does not enumerate amongst those which he wrote in defence of Montanus', 'pro Monyea, which he must necessarily have written before he lapsed into Montanism, such as are his treatises against Praxeas and Hermogenes." But, in the first place, we have shewn above that in his book against Praxeas the consubstantiality of the Son, which is opposed enough to the Arian heresy, is taught most frequently and most explicitly. Secondly, so far is it from being necessary, that it is manifestly untrue, that Tertullian wrote his treatise against Praxeas before he lapsed into Montanism. For Tertullian himself expressly professes, and that in this very treatise against Praxeas, that even at the time he was writing, he was already dissevered from "the carnal”,” as he called them, that is from the catholics, and had 2 psychijoined himself to the party of Montanus. For not far from the [268] opening of his treatise, he thus writes": "For when the bishop of Rome was on the point of acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and in consequence of that acknowledgment was introducing peace among the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, this very same man (Praxeas), by false representations about the prophets themselves and their assemblies, and by upholding the example of his predecessors as an authority, induced him both to recall the letter of peace43 præces To the very many testimonies of Tertullian which have already been quoted in this chapter from the treatise against Praxeas, in support of the consubstantiality of the Son, I add a passage, out of the same treatise, c. 25. [p. 515], concerning the Holy Trinity, which is especially worthy of attention: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, produces three [Persons] coherent one to another. These three [Persons] (tres) are one thing (unum), not one Person (unus); as it is said, I and My Father are one (unum); with respect to unity of substance, not singularity of number." (Ita connexus cis. sorum auctoritates. 4 literas Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, u Nam idem (Praxeas) tunc epi- 1 CONSUB STANTIA THE SON. rismatum. 206 Truths held in common by Montanus and the Church. ON THE which he had already issued, and to desist from his intention of recognising the gifts. Thus did Praxeas manage at LITY OF Rome two affairs of the devil; he thrust out prophecy, and brought in heresy; he put the Paraclete to flight, and crucirecipiendorum cha- fied the Father." Tertullian, you observe, was so incensed with Praxeas, as to say, that he had herein been managing the devil's business, in advising the bishop of Rome to repudiate Montanus with his followers, and their prophecies. Tertullian, then, was not only at that time a Montanist, but zealot for that sect. And in the same treatise you may read shortly after*; " And the recognition and defence of the Paraclete dissevered us also from the carnally-minded." As to the allegation that Jerome does not enumerate the treatise against Praxeas amongst the works which Tertullian wrote in depro Mon- fence of Montanus2, my answer is, that a clear distinction must be made between those works which Tertullian, when already a Montanist, wrote specifically in defence of Montanus against the Church, and those which he composed, as a Montanist indeed, yet not in defence of Montanus against the Church, but rather in defence of the common doctrines of the Church and of Montanus, in opposition to other heretics. In the former list Jerome puts the treatises de Pudicitia, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, de Ecstasi; we have given the clearest proofs, that the treatise against Praxeas belongs to the latter class. This, however, is enough for the present concerning Tertullian. 2 tano. 98 [269] CAIUS. CHAPTER VIII. THE NICENE CREED, ON THE ARTICLE OF THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE 1. I Now come to those ecclesiastical writers who lived nearest to the age of Tertullian. There was extant in the time of proposito recipiendorum charismatum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.-[p. 501.] Et nos quidem agnitio Paracleti atque defensio disjunxit a psychicis.[Ibid.] |