illustrations of it; for though it was spoken of as a greater mystery than ever, and we are cautioned not to expect to find any thing in nature to resemble it; yet every writer, who thought that he had hit upon any thing that would contribute to make the reception of it more easy, did not fail to enlarge upon his own conceit. Some writers have done this with a considerable degree of confidence; and by this means we may clearly perceive what it was that, in their opinion, constituted the relation of the three persons to each other. But in all their schemes, the nature of the subject restricted them to a choice of two insuperable difficulties, each of them fatal to the doctrine of any proper Trinity in Unity; for either the Trinity or the Unity was necessarily abandoned.

Photius very truly observes, that," to recite all the answers which the fathers have given to the question, why, when the Father, Son, and Spirit are each of them separately God, we should not say, that there are three Gods? would make a book, instead of an epistle." I shall not therefore attempt to give them all.

The following explications are such as are favourable to the Unity of the Divine nature, but unfavourable to a Trinity. "Fire," says a writer whose work has been ascribed to Athanasius, "is one, but has three hypostases: its burning power is one, and its shining power another; so that there are three hypostases in one fire, viz. the fire, its burning power, and its shining power; and yet the nature of the fire is one, and not three. So also with respect to God." This is only giving one being two properties, to which no Unitarian will object.

Basil says, "The greatest proof of the connexion between the Spirit and the Father and the Son, is, that it has the same relation to the Father that the spirit of a man has to the man." To this illustration also no Unitarian will have

Ερωίας, πως εςι λεγειν, Θεον τον πατέρα, Θεον τον ύιον, Θεον το πνεύμα, και μη εις ανάγκην περιϊςασθαι, τρεις, ανθ' ένος, θεους ανομολογειν. Εγω σοι σαφώς και συνομως ερω. Παραδειγμαία μεν γαρ πολλα και ποικίλα, τοις θείοις ἡμων πατρασιν, εις το διαλύσαι την απορίαν ταύτην ύπ' αυτης της αλήθειας, ύπερ ἧς εσπεδαζον, αφθόνως τε εχορηγήθη και εις δεον διατετακται· ὧν είτις επιμνησθηναι θελησειε, βιβλιον ὅλον αντ' επιςολης αν γραψειε. Epist. p. 214. (P.)

† Ιδου το πυρ εν εςι, αλλως και τρισυποςαίον αυτο γαρ έν εςι το υποκειμενον πυρ, το δε καυτικόν αυτό ἑτερον πρόσωπον, και το φωτιςικον αυτό άλλον προσωπον· ιδου λοιπον τρια πρόσωπα τε ένος πυρός, ήγεν το υποκειμενον πυρ, και το καυςικόν, και το φωτιςικόν, μια δὲ φυσις τε πυρος" και ου τρεις ὁμοίως και επι τε Θεού. Questiones aliæ, Opera, II. P. 440. (P.)

* Το δε μεγιςον τεκμηριον της προς τον πατέρα και διον το πνευματος συναφείας, ότι ὕτως ἔχειν λεγεται προς τον Θεον, ως προς έκασον έχει το πνεύμα το εν ημιν. De Spiritu Sancto, C. xvi. Opera, II. p. 329. (P.)

any objection; and still less to that of Marius Victorinus, who, in his hymn concerning the Trinity, says, "When thou restest, thou art the Father; when thou proceedest, the Son; as uniting all into one, thou art the Holy Spirit."* After this we cannot wonder that the Arians, as the author of a work ascribed to Athanasius complains, should charge the Trinitarians with Sabellianism, because they made God and the Son to be one. †

In the famous controversy with Rabbi Nachmanides, before the king of Arragon, in 1263, the Christian disputant made a Trinity of the wisdom, the will, and the intellect of God; and the king illustrated it by the properties of taste, colour, and smell in wine. But the Jew answered, that, upon this principle, he could prove God to be five-fold, because God had life, wisdom, will, power, and strength. ‡

On the other hand, the great mass of comparisons that were made between the Trinity and things in nature, shews that, in the opinion of the writers, the three persons, though nominally one God, were, in fact, considered as three parts of one whole, though some of them will be found to express three wholes, and to be only one by their possession of some common property. Indeed, the subject did not admit of any thing better.

The most conspicuous of the emblems of the Trinity is that of the sun. Know," says the writer quoted above, whose work has been ascribed to Athanasius, "from this, that as the sun has three persons, so the one God has three persons: for the sun's disk is the type of the Father, the beam is the type of the Son, and the light is the type of the Holy Spirit. Say, therefore, thus: In the sun there is a disk, a beam, and light; but we do not say there are three suns, but only one. So likewise in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not three Gods, but one God."§ But it

* "Tu cum quiescis Pater es, cum procedis, Filius, In unum qui cuncta nectis, tu es Spiritus Sanctus.” Bib. Pat. V. p. 360. (P.) † Συ Σαβέλλιος ει. ΑΘ. Είπε, δια τι ειμι Σαβέλλιος; AP. Ειπον επειδη ειπας, ὁ παῖηρ nai ô vios Év esiv. Disp. contra Arium, Opera, I. p. 116. (P.)

"Postea consurrexit Frater Raymundus, de Trinitate verba faciens, aitque Judæis: Agnoscite tandem Trinitatem. Deus enim sapientia, voluntate ac intellectu constat.- -Cæterum, rex in hanc rem proponebat similitudinem, quam corrupti et corruptores magistri illum docuerant. Vino, inquiebat, tria hæc insunt: Sapor, color, et odor, atque tria ista res eadem sunt." R. Nachman. pp. 58, 59. (P.)

§ Και εκ τουτου γιγνωσκε, ότι ώσπερ ὁ ἥλιος εςι τριπρόσωπος, έτως, και εις Θεος τρισυ ποςαίος τύπος γαρ τε πατρός εςι ὁ δισκος ὁ ἡλιακος, τύπος το ύια εσιν ή ακίις, τύπος του ἅγιο πνευματος εςι το φως το ήλιο και είπε έτως, επι τε ήλιο, δίσκος, ακτις, και φως ου λέγομεν δε τρεις ἥλιος, αλλά ένα και μονον· ὁμοίως και επί Θεου, πατηρ, ύιος, καὶ ἅγιον πνευμα εις Θεός, και οι τρεις. Opera, II. p. 437. (Ρ.)

is obvious to remark, that neither the beam of light, nor the light itself, can be called a sun, as the Son and Holy Spirit are called God. Equally defective is Basil's comparison of the three persons in the Trinity to the rainbow and its colours, "The substance of which," he says, "is one, but their distinction manifest, though they run into one another."*

The pretended Dionysius Areopagita, with great ingenuity, compares the union and distinctness of the three persons in the Trinity to the perfect union and perfect distinctness of the light of a number of lamps in a room, none of which can be distinguished from that of the others; and yet that they are really distinct, appears by removing one of them, when it takes its own light only along with it, and leaves that which belonged to the rest. †

To pass from the sun to vision, I shall here observe, that Austin says, "We have an emblem of the Trinity in the thing that is seen, the impression that it makes upon the eye, and the sense of vision." But this is still more offensive than the preceding.

The greatest number of illustrations of the Trinity, by the ancients, is drawn from the consideration of the mind of man and its properties; and they were led to look for these illustrations here, rather than in other parts of nature; because man, being made after the image of God, they took it for granted that he must resemble the Trinity.

Gregory Nyssen says, that "God made such a creature as man, because he intended to publish the mystery of the Holy Trinity, that, being difficult to be understood, man might have in himself an image, likeness, and pattern of the Holy Trinity."§ Even the Platonists had gone before the

Ώσπερ γαρ εκείνο εν μεν εςι κατα την εσίαν το αέρος, πολλα δε εν αυτῷ χρώματα φαινονται, και φανερως τας διαφορας τουίων διαγιγνωσκομεν ου δυναίον δε τη αίσθησει καταλαβειν την διαςασιν το ἑτερο προς το έτερον. Μ. Caleca in Combefis, I. p. 243. (P.)

† Και γεν δρωμεν εν οικῳ πολλων ενονίων λαμπτηρων, προς ἐν τι φως ένεμενα τα πανίων φωνα, και μιαν αιγλην αδιακρίτον αναλαμπονία, και ουκ αν τις, ώς οιμαι, δύναιτο τεδε τα λαμπτήρα, το φως απο των άλλων, εκ τε πανία τα φωία περιεχοντος αέρος διακρίναι, και ιδείν ανευ πατερα θατερον, ὅλων εν όλοις αμιγώς συγκεκραμενων αλλα και ένα εἰ τις των πυρσων ὑπεξαγάγοι το δωματια συνεξελεύσεται και το οικείον άπαν φως, εδεν τι των έἹερων φωτων εν ἑαυτῷ συνεπισπωμενον, η τε ἑαυίε τοις ἑλεροις καταλειπον. De Divinis Nominibus, C. ii. p. 170. (P.)

"Itaque potissimum testimonio utamur oculorum. Is enim sensus corporis maxime excellit, et est visioni mentis pro sui generis diversitate vicinior. Cum igitur aliquod corpus videmus, hæc tria, quod facillimum est, consideranda sunt et dignoscenda. Primo ipsa res quam videmus, sive lapidem, sive aliquam flammam, sive quid aliud quod videri oculis potest, quod utique jam esse poterat, et antequam videretur. Deinde visio quæ non erat, priusquam rem illam objectam sensui sentiremus. Tertio quod in ea re quæ videtur, quamdiu, videtur sensum detinet oculorum, id est, animi intentio." De Trinitate, L. xi. C. ii. III. p. 379. (P.) § Δια γαρ ταυτην και μονην την αιτίαν, τοιεῖον ζωον ὁ Θεος κατεσκευασεν, επειδή εμελλεν

Orthodox in supposing that there was something in the constitution of the mind of man, corresponding to the three great principles in nature. This is strongly expressed by Plotinus.*

Of such illustrations as these, the writings of Austin particularly contain a great variety; but he was preceded in them by his master Ambrose, and also by another writer, whose work has been ascribed to Athanasius; who says, "Man, viz. the soul of man, is the image of God; but the soul of man, being one, has three hypostases, and three persons. How? Hear. The soul is one person, but the soul generates logos, that is, reason, and now the reason is another person. The soul emits the breath," (or spirit,) "and behold the spirit is another person. Behold, then, three persons, the soul, reason, and spirit."† On this very curious illustration, no particular remarks will be expected.

Ambrose makes the intellect, the will, and the memory, emblems of the Trinity; and says, "The intellect is the soul, the will is the soul, and the memory is the soul; and yet there are not three souls in one body, but one soul, having three dignities or attributes." He says farther, "As the Son is generated out of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, so the will is generated out of the intellect, as is easily understood by those who have knowledge." +

But Austin has discovered the most ingenuity in his illustrations of the Trinity, drawn from the consideration of the faculties of the mind. He says, that "memory, intellect, and love, are an image of the Trinity."§ But he acknowledges

εν κοσμῳ κηρυχθηναι το της άγιας τριαδος μυςηριον, ὡς δυσερμηνευίον τε και ακαΐαληπτον ένα ἔχῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ κατ' εικόνα καὶ ὁμοιωσιν Θεου, την εικόνα και όμοιωσιν και τες τυπος και Tа waρaderyμpala τns áɣias τpiados. In Gen. i. xxvi. Opera, Í. p. 863. (P.)

Ώσπερ δε εν τη φύσει τριτία εςι τα ειρημένα, όυτω χρη νομίζειν και παρ' ἡμιν ταυλα είναι λεγω δε εκ εν τοις αισθητοις. En. v. L. i. C. x. p. 491. (Ρ.)

† Ιδε λοιπον, ὁ ανθρωπος είκων εςι τ8 Θεού, ηγεν ή ψυχη τε ανθρωπε εςι δε ἡ ψυχη το ανθρωπε μια μεν, τρισυποςαίος δε· τρια προσωπα έχει ἡ ψυχή και πως, ακεσον εςιν ἡ ψυχη ἓν προσωπον· ἡ δε ψυχη γεννα τον λόγον, και ιδε ὁ λόγος αλλο προσωπον· ἡ ψυχή εκπορεύει και την πνοήν, και ιδε ἡ πνοη αλλο προσωπον ιδε πρόσωπα τρία, ψυχή, λόγος, na won. Opera, 11. p. 439. (P.)

"Ita et anima intellectus, anima voluntas, anima memoria: non tamen tres animæ in uno corpore, sed una anima tres habens dignitates. Nam sicut ex Patre generatur Filius, et ex Patre Filioque procedit Spiritus Sanctus: ita ex intellectu generatur voluntas, et ex his item ambobus procedit memoria, sicut facile à sapiente quolibet intelligi potest." De Dignitate, &c., Opera, I. p. 106. (P.)

§ "Ego per omnia tria illa memini, ego intelligo, ego diligo, qui nec memoria sum, nec intelligentia, nec dilectio, sed hæc habeo. Ista ergo dici possunt ab una persona, quæ habet hæc tria, non ipsa est hæc tria. In illius vero summæ simplicitate naturæ quæ Deus est, quamvis unus sit Deus, tres tamen personæ sunt, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, Aliud est itaque Trinitas res ipsa, aliud imago

that this is not a perfect resemblance, as all images are imperfect. He compares "the joint operation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, to the joint exertion of the intellect, memory, and will of man, each of them being employed in the acts of each." So he says, "The whole Trinity operates in the voice from the Father, the flesh of the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, though they are separately referred to each of them."* He also compares "the Trinity to the mind, its knowledge, and its love."† Again, he says, "To be, to know, and to will, are properties that mutually involve each other; and yet belong to one soul;" and this he gives as an illustration of the Trinity. ‡

Manuel Caleca says it would be more proper to denominate the three persons from the nature of the soul, mind, reason, and love, than from the body, by the names of Father, Son, and Spirit." §

Gregory Nazianzen thought that "the soul, its intellect, and its desire, were an emblem of the Trinity, as not being divided from each other." He also compares the Trinity || to the vous, intellect, oy, reason, and vuμa, spirit, of man; but acknowledges that it is imperfect."¶

According to Methodius, quoted by Gregory Nyssen, "The soul, the mind, and the spirit of a man, are emblems of the Trinity: the soul, which is unbegotten, representing the Father; the mind, or logos, which is generated, the Son; and the spirit, or breath, which proceedeth, the Holy

Trinitatis in re alia, propter quam imaginem simul et illud in quo sunt hæc tria, imago dicitur: sicut imago dicitur simul et tabula et quod in ea pictum est; sed propter picturam quæ in ea est, simul et tabula nomine imaginis appellatur." De Trinitate, L. xv. C. xxii. Opera, III. p. 469. (P.)

• "Et quemadmodum cum memoriam meam et intellectum et voluntatem nomino, singula quidem nomina ad res singulas referunt, sed tamen ab omnibus tribus singulis facta sunt: nullum enim horum trium nominum est, quod non et memoria et intellectus et voluntas mea simul operata sint: Ita Trinitas simul operata est et vocem Patris, et caruem Filii, et columbam Spiritûs Sancti, cum ad singulas personas hæc singula referant." Ibid. L. iv. C. xx. Opera, III, p. 314. (P.)

↑ Ibid. L. ix. C. iii. p. 360. (P.)

"Dico autem hæc tria, esse, nosse, velle." Confess. L. xiii. C. xi. Opera, 1. p. 219. (P.)

§ Ωςε απο της ψυχης την εικονα λαμβανονίες, οικειοτέρως προσέρεμεν τον θείον νεν, και λόγον, και αγαπην, η απο το σωματος πατέρα, και ύιον, και πνευμα, αυτον ονομαζονίες. De Principiis, in Combefis, II. p. 233. (P.)

Η Ουτω μοι νοει και τον ύιον το πατρος μη χωρισθεντα πώποτε, και τels δε παλιν το πνευμα το άγιον, ὁμοιως εν τῷ νῷ την ενθυμησιν· ὡς γαρ ουκ εςι μεταξυ νου και ενθυμήσεως και ψυχης διαιρεσιν επινοηθήναι τινα και τομην, όντως εδε το άγιο πνεύματος και το σωτήρος και το πατρος, εν μέσῳ τομήν η διαίρεσιν επινοηθήναι ποτε. Οr. xlv. p. 719. (Ρ.) - Αυτοί δε μιαν και την αυτην ειδεναι φυσιν θεοτητος, αναρχῷ, και γεννήσει, και προοδε γνωριζομενην· ὡς νῳ τῳ ἐν ἡμιν, και λόγῳ και πνευματι, ὅσον είκασαι τοις αισθητοις τα νοηία, και τους μικροις τα μέγιςα. Or. xiii. p. 211. (P.)