things. God, as thus manifested in the world, Philo called not only Aoyos, but also utos, etKwv, vlo's fj.ovoyevq';, 7rpoT6yovo<;, aKia, TrapaSety- /xa, Sofa, eTTLa-Trjfxr}, Oeov, and Seurcpos ©eo's. In the application of this philosophy to the doctrine of Christ, it was easy to make him the Aoyos ■n-pocjiopLKO';, to assume and assert his personality, and to repre- sent him as specially manifested or incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. This attempt was made by Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Theophilus. It succeeded so far as it exalted Christ above all creatures ; it made him the creator and preserver of all things, the light and life of the world. It did not satisfy the consciousness of the Church, because it represented the. divinity of Christ as essentially subordinate ; it made his generation antemundane, but not eternal ; and especially because the philosophy, from which this theory of the Logos was borrowed, was utterly opposed to the Christian system. The Logos of Plato and Philo was only a collective term for the ideal world, the tSe'a Twi/ ISewv ; and therefore the real distinction between God and the Logos, was that between God as hidden and God as re- vealed. God in himself was 6 ^eo? ; God in nature was the Logos. This is, after all, the old heathen, pantheistic doctrine, Avhich makes the universe the manifestation, or existence form of God.
07'igen^s Doctrine. Origen presented the Platonic doctrine of the generation and nature of the Logos in a higher form than that in which it had been exhibited in the speculations of others among the fathers. He not only insisted, in opposition to the Monarchians or Unita- rians, upon the distinct personality of the Son, but also upon his eternal, as opposed to his antemundane, generation. Nevertheless, he referred this generation to the will of the Father. The Son was thus reduced to the category of creatures, for according to Origen, creation is from eternity. Another unsatisfactory feature of all these speculations on the Logos-theory was, that it made no provision for the Holy Spirit. The Logos was the Word, or Son of God, begotten before creation in order to create, or, according to Origen, begotten from eternity ; but what was the Holy Spirit ? He appears in the baptismal service and in the apostolic benedic- tion as a distinct person, but the Logos-theory provided only for a- Dyad, and not a Triad. Hence the greatest confusion appears in the utterances of this class of writers concerning the Holy Ghost. Sometimes, He is identified with the Logos ; sometimes. He is rep- resented as the substance common to the Father and the Son ; sometimes, as the mere power or efficiency of God ; sometimes, as a distinct person subordinate to the Logos, and a creature.
462 PART I. — THEOLOGY. [Ch. VI. — The Trinity.
The Sabellian Theory. Another method of solving tliis great problem and of satisfy- ing the religious convictions of the Church, was that adopted by the Monarchians, Patripassians, or Unitarians, as they were in- differently called. They admitted a modal trinity. They acknowl- edged the true divinity of Christ, but denied any personal distinc- tions in the Godhead. The same person is at once Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; these terms expressing the different rehitions in which God reveals Himself in the world and in the Church. Praxeas, of Asia Minor, who taught this docti'ine in Rome, a. d. 200 ; Noetus, of Smyrna, a. d. 230 ; Beryll, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, a. d. 250 ; and especially Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptole- mais, A. D, 250, after whom this doctrine was called Sabellianism, were the principal advocates of this theory. The only point as to which this doctrine satisfied the religious convictions of Christians, was the true divinity of our Lord. But as it denied the distinct personality of the Father and of the Spirit, to whom every believer felt himself to stand in a personal relation, to whom worship and prayers were addressed, it could not be received by the people of God. Its opposition to Scripture was apparent. In the Bible the Father is represented as constantly addressing the Son as " Thou," as loving Him, as sending Him, as rewarding and exalting Him ; and the Son as constantly addresses the Father and refers every- thing to his will, so that their distinct personality is one of the most clearly revealed doctrines of the Word of God. Sabellianism was, therefore, soon almost universally rejected.
Arianism. Although Origen had insisted on the distinct personality of the Son, and upon his eternal generation, and although he freely called him God, nevertheless he would not admit his equality with God. The Father, alone, according to him was 6 ^eos, the Son was sim- ply ^eo's. The Son was ^€os Ik B€ov and not a.vro-6f.6<i. And this subordination was not simply as to the mode of subsistence and operation, but as to nature ; for Origen taught that the Son was of a different essence from the Father, Irepos kclt ovo-mv, and owed his existence to the will of the Father. His disciples carried out his doctrine and avowedly made Christ a creature. This was done by Dionysius of Alexandria, a scholar of Origen, who spoke of the Son as iroLrjfia and Kria-fxa^ a mode of representation, however, which he subsequently retracted or explained away. It is plain, however,