Page images

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 scheines, 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

Ερωτας, πως εςι λεγειν, Θεον τον πατερα, Θεον τον υιον, Θεον το πνευμα, και μη εις αναγκην περιϊςασθαι, τρεις, ανθ' ενος, θεους ανομολογειν. Εγω σοι σαφως και συνομως ερω. Παραδειγματα μεν γαρ πολλα και ποικιλα, τοις θειους ημων πατρασιν, εις το διαλυσαι την αποριαν ταυλην υπ' αυτης της αληθειας, υπερ ης εσπεδαζον, αφθονως τε εχορηγηθη και εις δεον διατετακται» ών ειλις επιμνησθηναι θελησειε, βιβλιον όλον αντ' επιςολης αν γραψειε. Epist. p. 214. (P.)

* Ιδου το πυρ εν εςι, αλλως και τρισυποςαίον αυθο γαρ εν εςι το υποκειμενον συρ, το δε καυσικον αυτο έτερον προσωπον, και το φωτιστικον αυτο αλλον π προσωπον προσωπα το ενος συρος, ηγον το υποκειμενον πυρ, και το καυςικον, και το φωτιςικον, μια δε φυσις το συρος και οι τρεις ομοιως και επι τε Θεου. Questiones alice, Opera, Π. p. 440. (P.)

1 To δε μεγιςον τεκμηριον της προς τον πατερα και υιον τα πνευμαίος συναφείας, ότι έτως εχεις λεγεται προς τον Θεόν, ας προς έκαςον εχει το πνευμα το εν ημιν. De Spiritu Sancto, C. xvi. Opera, II. p. 329. (P.)

ιδου λοιπον τρια

any objection; and still less to that of Marius Victorinus, who, in bis 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. I

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 Σαβελλιος ει. ΑΘ. Ειπε, δια τι ειμι Σαβελλιος; ΑΡ. Ειπον επειδη ειπας, ο παληρ nas ó úros &Y E514. Disp. contra Ariun, Opera, I. p. 116. (P.)

1. Postea consurrexit Frater Raymundus, de Trinitate verba faciens, aitque Judæis : Agnoscite tandern Trinitatem. Deus enim sapientia, voluntate ac intel

-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.)

5 Και εκ τουλου γιγνωσκε, ότι ώσπερ ο ήλιος εςι τριπροσωπος, έτως, και εις Θεος τρισυποςαίος τυπος γαρ τα πατρος εςι ο δισκος ο ηλιακος, τυπος τα υιε εσιν ή ακλις, τυπος του αγια πνευμαλος εςι το φως του ήλια και ειπε έτως, επι τα ήλιε, δισκος, ακίες, και φως ου λεγομεν δε τρεις ήλιες, αλλα ένα και μονον ομοιως και επι Θεου, πατηρ, υιος, και αγιον

lectu constat.


Onera. Il n. 487.


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 distinciness 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


“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

* Ωσπερ γαρ εκεινο εν μεν εςι κατα την εσιαν τα αερος, πολλα δε εν αυτω χρωματα φαινονlαι, και φανερως τας διαφορας τουλων διαγιγνωσκομεν ου δυνατον δε τη αισθησει καταλαβειν την διαςασιν το έτερο προς το έτερον. M. Caleca in Combefs, H. p. 243. (P.)

+ Και γεν δρωμεν εν οικω πολλων ενoνίων λαμπτηρων, προς έν τι φως ενεμενα τα σανίων φωλα, και μιαν αιγλην αδιακριθον αναλαμπονία, και ουκ αν τις, ως οιμαι, δυναλλο ταδε τα λαμπτηρων το φως από των αλλων, εκ τε σανlα τα φωτα περιεχονloς αερος διακριναι, και ιδειν ανευ θαλερα θαλερον, όλων εν όλους αμιγώς συγκεκραμενων αλλα και ένα ει τις των συρσων υπεξαγαγοι το δωμαλια συνεξελευσειαι και το οικειον άπαν φως, εδεν τι των έτερων φωτων εν εαυτό συνεπισπωμενον, η τε εαυίa τοις έθεροις καλαλειπον. 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 quee videtur, quamdiu, videtur sensum detinet oculorum, id est, animi intentio. De Trinitate, L. xi. C.ji. III. p. 379. (P.)


6 Mer om wavulau Yanvia.newler

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." I

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.”Ş But he acknowledges εν κοσμο κηρυχθηναι το της αγιας τριαδος μυςηριον, ως δυσερμηνευθον τε και ακαταληπτον ένα εχη εν εαυτο και κατ' εικόνα και ομοιωσιν Θεου, την εικόνα και ομοιωσιν και της τυπες και τα παραδειγματα της αγιας τριαδος. Ιn Gen. i. xxvi. Opera, I. 863. (P.)

Ωσπερ δε εν τη φυσει τριτία εςι τα ειρημενα, ουτω χρη νομιζειν και παρ' ημιν ταυλα ειναι λεγω δε θκ εν τοις αισθητoις. Εν. V. L. 1. C. x. p. 491. (Ρ.)

* Ιδε λοιπον, ο ανθρωπος εικων εςι τα Θεου, ηγεν η ψυχη τα ανθρωπά' εςι δε η ψυχη το ανθρωπε μια μεν, τρισυποςαλος δε τρια προσωπα εχει η ψυχη και σως, ακεσον εςιν η ψυχη εν προσωπον ή δε ψυχη γεννα τον λογον, και ιδε ο λογος αλλο προσωπιν' η ψυχη εκπορεύει και την ανοην, και ιδε η πνοη αλλο προσωπον ιδε προσωπα τρια, ψυχη, λογος, xat ayon. Opera, II. p. 439. (P.)

1 " Ita et anima intellectus, anima voluntas, anima memoria: non tamen tres animæ in uno corpore, sed una anima tres habens dignitates. Namn sicut ex Patre generatur Filius, et ex Patre Filioque procedit Spiritus Sanctus: ita ex intellecta 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 nataræ quæ Deus est, quamvis unus sit Deus, tres tamen personæ sunt, Paler 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. I

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 froin each other.” He also compares the Trinity to the vous, intellect, 2006, reason, and oveuua, 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, jurago 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 noininum est, quod non et memoria et intellectus et voluntas mea simul operata sint: Ita Trinitas simul operata est et vocein Patris, et carnem 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. jii. p. 360. (P.)

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

και “Ωςε απο της ψυχης την εικονα λαμβανονίες, οικειοθερως προσερομεν τον θειον νεν, και λογον, και αγαπην, η απο τα σωματος πατερα, και υιον, και πνευμα, αυτον ονομαζονίες. De Principiis, in Combefis, II. p. 233. (P.)

Η Ουτω μοι νοει και τον υιον τα πατρος μη χωρισθεντα πωποτε, και τελe δε παλιν το πνευμα το άγιον, ομοιως εν τω να την ενθυμησιν ως γαρ ουκ εςι μεταξυ νου και ενθυμήσεως και ψυχης διαιρεσιν επινοηθηναι τινα και τομην, ουτως εδε τα αγια πνευματος και τα σωτηρος και τα πατρος, εν μεσω τoμην η διαιρεσιν επινοηθηναι ποτε. Οr. xlv. p. 719. (Ρ.)

Η Αυτοι δε μιαν και την αυλην ειδεναι φυσιν θεοληλος, αναρχο, και γεννησει, και προοδω γνωριζομενην ως να το εν ημιν, και λογο και πνευμαίι, οσον εικασαι τους αισθητοις τα νοημα, και τους μικροις τα μεγισα. Οr. xiii. p. 211. (Ρ.)

« PreviousContinue »