things, and of course belonged to the Father, even with respect to Christ; and therefore Cyril of Alexandria, after observing that the Father is "an eternal principle to the Son," says, that "by agxn in the introduction to the Gospel of John, the blessed evangelist seems to signify the Father."*

That there was some kind of superiority in the Father in consequence of his being the original (ag) or cause (airios), was always acknowledged by the most orthodox. This is expressly asserted by Gregory Nazianzen, at the same time that he says, the Son is equal to the Father as to his nature. On this principle, he supposes that Christ meant to say that the Father was greater than he. "That God," he says, "should be greater than man, is true indeed, but no great matter: for what is there extraordinary in God being greater than a man?"+

I now proceed to recite other arguments in support of the Trinitarian doctrine, in the order of the books of scripture. from which they are derived. Theophilus says, that the three days which preceded the "light," (meaning the creation of the sun,) &c., " are types of the Trinity; of God, his logos, and his wisdom. The fourth," he says, "is the type of man, who wanted light, that there might be God, logos, wisdom, man; wherefore on the fourth day lights were produced." +

The plural number, in which God is represented as speaking, was soon laid hold of as a proof of the plurality of persons in the Trinity. Tertullian says, "Does this number of Trinity scandalize you, as if they were not connected in simple unity? I ask, how could one person only speak in the plural number, and say, Let us make man in our likeness?" § To this argument Austin adds, "Had not the three persons

been one, it would have been said, Let us make man in our

"Ita æternum ei principium Pater est.-Videtur igitur principii hic nomine, beatus evangelista Patrem significare." In Johan. i. Opera, I. p. 600. (P.) † Δηλον ότι το μείζον μεν εςι της αιτίας, το δε ίσον της φύσεως, και τεῖο ὑπὸ πολλής ευγνωμοσύνης ὁμολογέμεν ἡμεις. Το γαρ δε λεγειν, ότι το κατα τον ανθρωπον νοεμένο μείζων, αληθες μεν, ου μέγα δε τι γαρ θαυμαςον, ει μείζων ανθρωπο Θεος; Οr. xxxvi. p. 582. (P.)

† Ὡσαύτως και οι τρεις ἡμέραι των φωςήρων γεγονυίαι, τυποι εισιν της τριαδος, το Θεού, και το λόγο αυτό, και της σοφίας αυτς τελαρίη δε τυπος εσιν ανθρωπε ὁ προσδεης το φωτος, ἵνα η Θεός, λογος, σοφία, ανθρωπος δια τείο και τη τελαρτῃ ἡμέρᾳ εγεννήθησαν φωςήρες. L. ii. p. 106. (P.)

§ "Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis, quasi non connexæ in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo unicus et singularis pluraliter loquitur? Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram." Ad Praxeam, Sect. xii. p. 506. (P.)

images, not in our image.” * Basil of Seleucia has the same thought. †

Michael Glycas, with great ingenuity, discovers that all the three persons were employed in the creation of man. “Who," says he, "said, Let us make man? The Father. Who took the dust of the ground for that purpose? The Son. And who breathed into him the breath of life? The Holy Spirit." +

Austin's veneration for the number six was mentioned before. He considered the creation of the world in six days as a proof of the Trinity; for sir, says he, is twice three. § This will be thought sufficiently far-fetched; but what then shall we say to Cyril of Alexandria, who found a representation of the Trinity in the dimensions of the ark of Noah? ||

That it was Christ who spake to the patriarchs, was agreed by all the fathers from the time of Justin Martyr; and the proof of it lay in this circumstance, that the person who appeared is called God; but since the supreme God is invisible, there must have been another person entitled to that appellation; as we have seen in the extracts from Justin himself. I shall in this place add some passages to this purpose from other writers.

Tertullian, having observed that God the Father is invisible, and yet that God was in some sense visible to the patriarchs, infers that it must have been the Son who appeared to them. "He must, therefore," he says, "be another per

* "Si vero in illis tribius personis tres essent intelligendæ vel credendæ substantiæ, non diceretur ad imaginem nostram, sed ad imagines nostras." De Fide, Adv. Pel. C. i. Opera, III. p. 211. (P.)

Η Τριαδα μεν εμφανει την πλατίεσαν, μιαν δε εικόνα της τριαδος ὑπαρχεσαν ει δε μια της τριάδος ή είκων, μια των τριων υποτασεων ή φυσις· το γαρ ταυλον της εσίας ή της εικόνος Evolng ungurla. Or. i. Opera, p. 5. (P.)

1 Και είπεν ὁ Θεός. Ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον· και λαβων ὁ Θεος χεν απο της γης έπλασε τον ανθρωπον τις ὁ ειπων ; ὁ παῖηρ· και τις ὁ λαβων; ὁ ὑιος· ἵνα γεν μη το πνεύμα το άγιον αλλοτριον φαινηναι της το ανθρωπο δημιεργίας, την, ενεφύσησε, λεξιν και πανυ θαυμασίως wapende. Annales, pars i. p. 69. (P.)

$ Quest. Ixv. Opera, IV. p. 684. (P.)

Aspice ergo quæso, quemadmodum in trecentis cubitis, quod arcæ longitudinem esse assignavimus, perfectio sanctæ Trinitatis consecratur. Quod autem, ut formula dixerim, deitas, quæ in unitate perspicitur, perfectio sit perfectionum ex latitudine arcæ, quæ ad quinquaginta se cubitos extendit, latissime patet. Quinquagenarius etenim numerus, septem septies diebus, unitate quoque conjuncta, conficitur. Quia unam quidem deitatis naturam esse adserimus. Altitudo etiam ipsius arcæ nil aliud profecto, quam mentem ipsam mirifice nobis suggerit. In decimum enim tertium cubitorum numerum perficitur. Triginta enim cubitorum, inquit, altitudinem ejus facies: et in cubitum unum consummabis eam. Sancta enim Trinitas in tres hypostases triumque personarum differentias quum extendatur, in unam deitatis naturam quodammodo contrahitur." In Gen, iii. Opera, I. p. 17. (P.)

¶ Supra, p. 250.

son who was seen; for he who was seen cannot be invisible. It therefore follows, that we suppose the Father to be invisible on account of the plenitude of his majesty, but the Son to be visible, as being derived from him. As, though we cannot see the sun himself, we can bear his beams, as a tempered portion of him, extending to the earth."*

Moses," says Novatian, "every where introduces God the Father as immense, and without end; not confined to place, but including all space; not one who is in place, but rather in whom all place is, comprehending and embracing all things; so that he can neither ascend nor descend. For he contains and fills all things; and yet he introduces a God descending to the tower which the sons of men built."†

Austin supposed, that the three men who appeared to Abraham either were, or represented the Trinity. "The two who went to Sodom must," he says, "have been the Son and the Spirit, because they are said to have been sent, which the Father is never said to be." As it might be objected that the Father could not become visible, he says, "Why may not the Father be understood to have appeared to Abraham and Moses, and to whom he pleased, and as he pleased, by means of a changeable and visible creature, when he in himself remained invisible and unchangeable?"§

He says, with respect to all these appearances, "They may either be those of the whole Trinity, which is God, or of each of the persons, according to the circumstances." ||

"Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri, qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem Patrem intelligamus, pro plenitudine majestatis; visibilem vero Filium agnoscamus, pro modulo derivationis: sicut nec solem nobis contemplari licet, quantum ad ipsam substantiæ summam quæ est in cœlis; radium autem ejus toleramus oculis pro temperatura portionis quæ in terram inde porrigitur." Ad Praxeam, Sect. xiv. p. 508. (P.)

↑ "Quid si idem Moyses ubique introducit Deum Patrem immensum atque sine fine, non qui loco cludatur, sed qui omnem locum cludat: nec eum qui in loco sit, sed potius in quo omnis locus sit: omnia continentem et cuncta complexum, ut merito nec descendat nec ascendat, quoniam ipse omnia et continet et implet; et tamen nihilominus introducit Deum descendentem ad turrim, quam ædificabant filii hominum." Cap. xvii. p. 62. (P.)

I "Sed quas duas personas hic intelligimus, an Patris et Filii, an Patris et Spiritus Sancti, an Filii et Spiritus Sancti? Hoc forte congruentius quod ultimum dixi; missos enim se dixerunt, quod de Filio et Spiritu Sancto dicimus. Nam Patrem missum nusquam scripturæ nobis notitia occurrit. De Trinitate, L. ii. C. x. Opera, III. p. 272. (P.)

S "Si ergo Deus Pater locutus est ad primum hominem; cur non jam ipse intelligatur apparuisse Abrahamæ et Moysi et quibus voluit, et quemadmodum voluit per subjectam sibi commutabilem atque visibilem creaturam, cum ipse in seipso atque in substantia sua qua est, incommutabilis atque invisibilis maneat?" Ibid. p. 269. (P.)

Jam enim quæsitum atque tractatum est, in illis antiquis corporalibus formis et visis non tantummodo Patrem, nec tantummodo Filium, nec tantummodo Spiri

Glycas says, that the Trinity was received by Abraham, and cheerfully partook of the entertainment provided for them. * He adds, that, according to the opinion of Cyril, it was the Father that remained with Abraham, because he judges no man; and, that they were the Son and Spirit that were sent to Sodom, was the opinion of the great Athanasius, because no others could have been assessors with him.

Justin Martyr imagined that Christ was signified by the serpent in the Wilderness; and even thought that Plato had got a hint of the same thing from the Scriptures, but did not rightly understand it. †

Chrysostom finds a proof of the Trinity in the blessing pronounced by Moses: [Numb. vi. 24—26:] “The Lord bless thee and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. "Here," says he, "is the Holy Trinity, clearly celebrated." The foundation of this argument could only be, that God is mentioned three times in this form of benediction.

Eusebius says, that " when Jacob is called the Lord's portion, Christ is intended."§

If any one text be decisive in proof of there being only one God, it is that of Moses, [Deut. vi. 4,]" Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;" and yet because the word Lord or God occurs three times in it, this also has been pressed into the service of the Trinity. Austin, after repeating the text, says, "In this we are not to understand the Father only, but the Father, Son, and Spirit.” ||

tum Sanctum apparuisse, sed autem indifferenter Dominum Deum qui Trinitas ipsa intelligitur, aut quamlibet ex Trinitate personam, quam lectionis textus indiciis circumstantibus significaret." De Trinitate, L. iii. C. i. III. p. 281. (P.)

* Και τοσείον απλως φιλοξενος ην, ώς και αυτην την άγιαν τριαδα κατελθειν επι της σκηνης αυτε, και των παρατιθενίων αυτή περιχαρώς εμφορηθήναι. Δυο δε τοις Σοδόμοις επεφοίζησαν εδε yap πατηρ κρινει εδενα· πασαν δε την κρισιν δέδωκε τῷ ὑιῳ, κατα την φωνην αυτε το κύριο συνοντος φυσικώς, και το άγιο πνευμαῖος. Ότι δε ὁ ύιος και το πνευμα επι Σόδομα επορεύοντο, και ἡ τε Αβρααμ ξενια σαφως παρίςα, καθαπερ ὁ μέγας φησιν Αθανασιος· ει μη γαρ ὁ ύιος και το πνευμα ήσαν, ουκ αν τῷ Θεῷ και πατρι συνεκαπηνίο· ότι δε συνεκαθηΰίο, δηλον εκ τε περι τείων, έτω λεγειν. Annales, pars ii. p. 182. (Ρ.)

† Οντως παρεδωκεν αναγνες Πλατων, και μη ακριβως επιςαμεν, μηδε νοήσας τύπον είναι ςαυρό, αλλα χιασμα νοήσας, την μετά τον πρωτον Θεον δυναμιν κεχιασθαι εν τῷ παντι είπε. Apol. i. p. 87. (P.)

Η Ευλογήσει σε κύριος, και φυλάξει σε, επιφανει κυριος το πρόσωπον αυτό επι σε και ευλογήσει σε επάρει κύριος το πρόσωπον αυτό επί σε, και δῴη σοι ειρηνην. Ορα την άγιαν τριαδα διαρρήδην ανυμνεμενην. Ser. v. Opera, VI. p. 73. (Ρ.)

§ Τουλο μυςήριον το μέγισον, πρωτος θεολογων Μωσης εν απορρήτοις Εβραιες τις παλαι εμυςαγωγει λεγων,ότε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὑψιςος έθνη — και εγεννήθη μερις κυριο λαος αυτε Ιακωβ δια τελων γεν ύψισον μεν τον ανωλαίω, και επι πασι, Θεον των όλων ονομάζει. Κύριον δε τον τελε λόγον, τον δε και δευτερως ἡμιν μετα των όλων τον Θεόν κυριαλογόμενον. Demonst. L. iv. C. vii. P. 156. (P.)

Η « Toto corde retine Patrem Deum, Filium Deum, et Spiritum Sanctum Deum,

I find no more arguments or illustrations of the doctrine. of the Trinity from the Old Testament, till we come to the Book of Psalms; but here I find a great number. Jerome says, that "the tree planted by the river of water in the first Psalm, is wisdom, and that wisdom is Christ." brose says, that "Christ is the giant to run a race.” †

Am

Some of these interpretations may be supposed to be nothing more than an allegorizing of scripture, and a play of imagination; but when the fathers argue from those texts in which the logos is mentioned, they were certainly very serious. The logos must be Christ. Thus Eusebius makes Christ to be the maker of the world, in Psalm xxxiii. 6: By the word of the Lord were the heavens made."‡

66

On the same principle, Psalm xlv. 1, My heart is throwing out a good word, (logos,) was, by almost all the fathers, interpreted of the eternal Father generating the Son from himself. But there is an exception in Basil, who says, that "it refers to the prophet." §

Eusebius also was of opinion, that it was not the Father, in Psalm xlv. 1, who was speaking of his heart throwing out the logos, but that it was the prophetic person who was speaking, because what follows does not seem to agree to the Father. ||

In Psalm li. 10, 11, we read, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy spirit from me. "In this," say Origen, "we have the Father, Son, and Spirit; the Father being the principal spirit," (as the

id est sanctam atque ineffabilem Trinitatem unum esse naturaliter Deum, de quo in Deuteronomio dicit: Audi Israel; Deus, Deus tuus, Deus unus est. Et, Deum, Deum tuum, adorabis, et illi soli servies." De Fide ad Pat. Opera, III. p. 210. (P.) Lignum autem, cui vir beatus comparatur, sapientiam puto: de qua et Salomon loquitur: Lignum vitæ est his qui sequuntur eam. Sapientia autem per apostolum Christus Dei Filius declaratur." In Ps. i. Opera, VII. p. 1. (P.)

"Christus est Dei Filius, et sempiternus ex Patre, et natus ex virgine. Quem quasi gigantem sanctus David propheta describit, eo quod biformis geminæque naturæ unus sit consors divinitatis et corporis, qui tanquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo, exultavit tanquam gigas ad currendum viam." In Ps. xix. De Incarnatione, C. v. Opera, IV. p. 290. (P.)

† Και ὁ Δαβιδ δε που εν ψαλμωδίαις ἑτέρῳ προσειπων την σοφίαν ονόματι, φησι· Τῳ λογῳ κυριε δι ερανοι εςερεώθησαν, τον των ἁπανίων δημιεργικον λόγον Θεού, τείον ενευφη MATAS TOY TROTTON. Preparatio, p. 320. (P.)

§ Εξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδια μου λόγον αγαθόν ηδη μεν τινες ρηθησαν εκ προσωπο το πατρος λέγεσθαι ταυία, περι το εν αρχῇ οντος προς αυτόν λόγου, ὃν εκ της διανει καρδιας και αυίων των σπλαγχνων, φασι, προηγαγε, και από αγάπης καρδίας αγαθος λογος προήλθεν εμοι δε δοκει ταυία επι το προφητικον αναφέρεσθαι προσωπον. In Ps. xliv. Opera, 1. p. I. 216. (P.)

Η Εμοι δε δοκεί ταυία επι το προφητικον αναφέρεσθαι προσωπον τα γαρ εφεξής ῥητε εκετι ὁμοιως εξομαλίζει ήμιν την περι τα πατρος εξηγησιν. Montfauconi's Collectio Patrum, I. p. 186. (P.)