SECTION VIII. THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY FROM THE COUNCILS OF NICE AND CONSTANTINOPLE, TILL AFTER THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. BEFORE I relate what was peculiar to those who obtained the name of orthodox in this controversy, I shall just mention the divisions of the Arians, which contributed much to the prejudice of their cause, as they often proceeded to great violence against each other. The original and proper Arians held simply, that the Son was created out of nothing, some time before the creation of the world, which they said was made by him. But presently after, there arose among them a sect that were called Semi-Arians, the chief of whom were George, of Laodicea, and Basilius, of Ancyra, who held that, though Christ was a creature, yet he was, by special privilege, made of the same nature with the Father, whereas the proper Arians maintained that he was wholly of a different nature. In 391 we find mention of another division among the Arians, viz. whether the Father could be properly so called from all eternity, before he had a Son. On this frivolous question, of mere words, the Arians are said to have divided with great bitterness, so as to have formed separate assemblies. But it must be considered that the history of these divisions is only given by their enemies. Before I give any account of more modern Arianism, I shall proceed with the state of Trinitarianism after the council of Nice. No sooner was the general outline of the doctrine of three persons in one God settled, but the orthodox began to divide upon questions of great nicety; and human passions and interests always mixing with these debates, the different parties anathematized each other with great violence. The first dispute was about the use of the word hypostasis, which we now render person, but which had generally been considered as very nearly synonymous with essence, (ovoia). In general, the Greeks understood it in a different sense; and having in view the Sabellians, who were said to assert the identity of the Father, Son and Spirit, said that there were three hypostases in the divine nature. On the other hand, the Latins, willing to oppose the Arians, who made the Son to be of a different nature from the Father, usually said that there was but one hypostasis in the Trinity; and we have seen that the fathers of the council of Sardica had decided in the same manner. This dispute terminated more happily than almost any other in the whole compass of church history. For a council being held on the subject, at Alexandria, in 372, the fathers found that they had been disputing about words, and therefore they exhorted Christians not to quarrel upon the subject. Ever after, however, the phraseology of the Greeks prevailed, and the orthodox always say that there are three hypostases, or persons, in the unity of the divine essence.1 By this happy device, and that of declaring the doctrine to be incomprehensible, the Trinitarians imagine that they sufficiently screen themselves from the charge of Polytheism and Idolatry. Whereas, if they did but pretend to affix any ideas to their words, they must see that the device can avail them nothing. If by person, or any other term which they apply to each of the three members of the Trinity, they mean an intelligent principle, having a real consciousness, they must, to all intents and purposes, admit three Gods. This was thought to be unavoidable by the council of Sardica, which therefore asserted one hypostasis, in agreement with the original idea of the Son being an emanation from the Father, but not separated from his essence. Whereas, now, the original idea, on which the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was formed, is entirely abandoned, and in reality 1 See Suicer's Thesaurus, under the word postasis. (P.) another doctrine is received; a doctrine perial authority, at length it became which all the Ante-Nicene fathers, who extinct. had no idea of any distinction between hypostasis and essence, would have reprobated, as downright Polytheism. The Arians, in a council held at Constantinople in 360, rejected the use of the word hypostasis, as applied to the Divine Being. There seems to have been no reason why Christ should have been supposed to have had any more than one intelligent principle, and yet we have seen that some of the Ante-Nicene fathers thought there was in Christ a proper human soul, besides the logos, which constituted his divinity. But perhaps they might have been reconciled to this opinion by the popular notion of demons possessing men, who yet had souls of their own. Or by anima, which is the word that Tertullian uses, they might mean the sensitive principle in man, as distinct from the animus, or rational principle, a distinction which we find made by Cicero and others. However, after the council of Nice, and about the year 370, Apollinaris the younger, bishop of Laodicea, who had distinguished himself by taking an active part against the Arians, being at tached to the principles of the Platonic philosophy, (according to which there are three principles in man, viz. his body, together with the rational and sensitive soul, but not more than these three,) thought that the body, the sensitive principle, and the logos, were sufficient to constitute Christ, and therefore he asserted that Christ had no proper human soul. In consequence of this, he was charged with maintaining that the Deity suffered on the cross, but whether he himself avowed this opinion, does not appear. This doctrine, which was so far analogous to that of the Arians, that it supposed only one intelligent principle in Christ, was well received by great numbers of Christians in all the eastern provinces of the Roman empire; but it was condemned in a synod at Rome, and being likewise borne down by im Whiston, who was certainly well read in Christian antiquity, asserts, that Athanasius seems never to have heard of the opinion of Christ having any other soul than his divinity, and that the idea of a human and rational soul in Christ was one of the last branches of this heresy.' This writer also asserts, that there does not appear in Athanasius's Treatise on the Incarnation the least sign of the hypostatical union, or communication of properties, which he says the orthodox have been since forced to devise in support of their notions.2 This business, however, was finally settled on the occasion of what is called the heresy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, which, though small in its origin, has had great consequences, the effects of it remaining to this day. This being an age in which great compliments were paid to the Virgin came customary to call her the mother Mary, among other appellations, it beof God, and this was a favourite term with the followers of Apollinaris. This phraseology Nestorius, who had distinguished himself by his opposition to the Apollinarians, declared to be imher the mother of Christ. To justify proper, and said it was sufficient to call this, he was led to assert that there are two distinct natures in Christ, the divine and the human, and that Mary was the mother of the latter only. and even the monks of Egypt were 1 Collection of Records, p. 74. (P.) Nestorius, not being moved by this, excommunicated Cyril in his turn. But at length Theodosius the younger called a general council at Ephesus, in 431, in which Cyril, though a party concerned, presided; and without hearing Nestorius, and during the absence of many bishops who had a right to sit in that council, he was condemned, and sent into banishment, where he ended his days. In this factious manner was the great doctrine of the hypostatical union of the two natures in Christ (which has ever since been the doctrine of what is called the catholic church) established. The opinion of Nestorius, however, was zealously maintained by Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis; and from this place it was spread over the East, where it continues to be the prevailing doctrine to this day. The opinion of Nestorius was also received in the famous school of Edessa, which contributed greatly to the same event. This controversy was, in fact, of considerable consequence, there being some analogy between the doctrine of Nestorius and that of the ancient Unitarians, or modern Socinians; as they both maintained that Christ was a mere man. But, whereas the Socinians say that the divinity of the Father resided in Christ, the Nestorians say that it was the Logos, or the second person of the Trinity, that resided in him. But "the union between the Son of God and the son of man," they said, 66 was not an union of nature, or of person, but only of will and affection; that Christ was therefore to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in him, as in his temple." In this manner did the Nestorians, who had had several disputes among themselves, settle the matter, "in several councils, held at Seleucia." The opposition that was made to the heresy of Nestorius produced another, formed by Eutyches, abbot of a convent of monks at Constantinople, who 1 Mosheim, I. pp. 411, 412. (P.) Cent. v. Pt. ii. Ch. v. Sect. xii. had had a great hand in the condemnation of Nestorius. Eutyches was so far from being of the opinion of Nestorius, that he asserted that there was but one nature in Christ, and that was the divine, or the incarnate word. Hence he was thought to deny the human nature of Christ; but he was generally supposed to mean that the human nature was absorbed in the divine, as a drop of honey would be absorbed, and no more distinguished, if it should fall into the sea. There were other explanations and distinctions occasioned by this doctrine, which I think it not worth while to recite. It may be proper, however, to observe, that the minds of many persons, especially in Egypt, were prepared for this opinion by another which had obtained there, and which I have observed to have been maintained by Hilary, viz. that the body of Christ was incorrupti ble, and not subject to any natural infirmity. Theodosius the Great2 fell into this opinion in his old age. According to this doctrine, the human nature of Christ, being of so exalted a kind, might easily be supposed to have become so in consequence of its being absorbed, as it were, in the divine, so as to partake of its properties. It was, therefore, no wonder that they should express themselves as if they considered Christ to have, in fact, but one nature.3 Eutyches was condemned by a council held at Constantinople, probably in 448, and in consequence of it was excommunicated and deposed. But he was acquitted by another council held at Ephesus, in 449. However, in a general council, called the fourth, held at Chalcedon, in 451, he was condemned finally, and from that time it has been the doctrine of what is called the catholic church, that, "in Christ there are two distinct natures, united in one person, but without any change, mixture, or confusion." [2 This is evidently an error. The author means the emperor Justinian.] 3 Sueur, A.D. 563. (P.) The doctrine of Eutyches continued to be professed by many, notwithstanding the decrees of the council. It was almost universally received in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, and it is found in the East to this day. In 535 the Eutychians divided, some of them maintaining that there were some things which Christ did not know, while others asserted that he knew everything, even the time of the day of judgment.1 By the decision of the council of Chalcedon, the modern doctrine of the Trinity was nearly completed, the union of the two natures in Christ corresponding to that of the three persons in the Deity; and it was thought to answer many objections to the divinity of Christ from the language of the Scriptures, in a better manner than the Ante-Nicene fathers had been able to do. These frankly acknowledged a real superiority in the Father with respect to the whole nature of Christ; but the later Trinitarians, by means of this convenient distinction of two natures in one person, could suppose Christ to be fully equal to the Father as God, at the same time that he was inferior to him as man; to know the day of judgment as God, no less than the Father himself, though, at the same time, he was entirely ignorant of it considered as man. It might seem, however, to be some objection to this scheme, that, according to it, the evangelists must have intended to speak of one part of Christ only, and to affirm concerning that, what was by no means true of his whole person, at the same time that their language cannot be interpreted but so as to include his whole pesson. For, certainly, it is not natural to suppose that by the word Christ they meant anything less than his whole person: much less can we suppose that our Saviour, speaking concerning himself, could mean only a part of himself. By means of this distinction, modern Trinitarians are able to say that the 1 See Rutt's Priestley, Vol. II. p. 397. Note. human nature of Christ only suffered; and yet its union with the divine nature (though it was so imperfect an union as to communicate no sensation to it) was sufficient to give it the same merit and efficacy as if it had been divine. To such wretched expedients, which do not deserve a serious consideration, are the advocates for this Christian polytheism reduced. Thus, to bring the whole into a short compass, the first general council gave the Son the same nature with the Father, the second admitted the Holy Spirit into the Trinity, the third assigned to Christ a human soul in conjunction with the eternal Logos, the fourth settled the hypostatical union of the divine and human nature of Christ, and the fifth affirmed, that, in consequence of this union, the two natures constituted only one person. It requires a pretty good memory to retain these distinctions, it being a business of words only, and ideas not concerned in it. Before I proceed any farther, it may not be amiss to give a brief account of some other particulars relating to the Eutychian doctrine, though they were hardly heard of in this part of the world; and the opinions that were then entertained in the East are not worth reciting, except to show into what absurdities men may fall, when they get out of the road of plain truth and common sense. The decisions of the council of Chalcedon were condemned by those who called themselves Monophysites, a sect which sprung from the Eutychians. They maintained that the divinity and humanity of Christ were so united, as to constitute only one nature, yet, without any change, confusion, or mixture of the two natures; saying, that in Christ there is one nature, but that nature is twofold and compounded. In the sixth century, the Monophysites acquired new vigour by the labours of a monk, whose name was Jacob, surnamed Baradeus, or Zanzales, and who died bishop of Edessa. From him the sect of Monophysites now go by the name of Jacobites in the East. Monophysites were afterwards divided into a variety of other sects; and the Armenians, who are of that denomination, are governed by a bishop of their own, and are distinguished by various rites and opinions from the other Monophysites. It was long debated among the Monophysites whether the body of Christ was created or uncreated, and whether it was corruptible or not; and some of them maintained that though it was corruptible, it was never actually corrupted, but was preserved from corruption by the energy of the divine nature. The Monophysites had also many controversies concerning the sufferings of Christ; and among them Xenias of Hierapolis maintained that Christ suffered pain not in his nature, but by a submissive act of his will. Some of them also affirmed, that all things were known to the divine nature of Christ, but not to his human nature. "From the controversies with the Monophysites, arose the sect of the Tritheists, whose chief was John Ascusnage, a Syrian philosopher," who, "imagined in the Deity three natures or substances, joined together by no common essence. ." The great defender of this opinion was "John Philoponus, an Alexandrian philosopher." A third sect was "that of the Damianists, who were so called from Damian, bishop of Alexandria..... They distinguished the divine essence from the three persons," and "denied that each person was God, when considered in itself, and abstractedly from the other two. But they affirmed,.... that there was a common divinity, by the joint participation of which each person was God.' Had these subtle distinctions occurred while the Roman empire was united under one head, councils would probably have been called to decide concerning them, solemn decrees, with the usual tremendous anathemas an 1 Mosheim, I. pp. 473, 474. (P.) Cent. vi. Pt. ii. Ch. v. Sect. x. nexed to them, would have been made, and the Athanasian Creed would not then, perhaps, have been the most perplexed and absurd thing imposed upon the consciences of Christians. SECTION IX. THE STATE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN THE LATIN CHURCH. FROM the time of the complete separation of the eastern and western empires, the Greek and Latin churches had but little connexion, and their writings being in different languages, were very little known to each other few of the Latins being able to read Greek, or the Greeks Latin. Though, therefore, the members of both churches were much addicted to theological discussions, they took a quite different turn, and except upon very particular occasions, did not interfere with each other. With respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, there was this difference between the eastern and western churches, that as the eastern empire was under one head, and the emperor resided at Constantinople, which was the centre of all the Grecian literature, he frequently interfered with the disputes of the ecclesiastics; in consequence of which councils were called, decrees were made, and the orthodox articles of faith immediately enforced by imperial authority. Whereas the western empire being broken into many parts, and the studious theologians dispersed in different convents all over Europe, their speculations were more free; and though the authority of the Pope preserved a kind of union among them, yet the popes of the middle ages being sovereign princes, seldom interfered with religious tenets, unless they had some apparent influence with respect to their spiritual or temporal power. This was perhaps the reason why nc new councils were called, and no new decrees were made respecting the doc trine of the Trinity. |