Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and
Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the
Father, as touching his Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the
Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one
Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the
third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God
Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall
give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they
that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholick Faith: which, except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.
I shall now give you the history and character of this Athanasian Creed
in the words of Waddington, one of the ablest Ecclesiastical Historians,
I might say the ablest, for Jortin did not pretend to write a History,
that the Church of England has produced. You will recollect that one of
the Lectures, to be delivered at Christ Church, announces “the
Athanasian Creed to be explained and defended.” Without wishing to
anticipate that Lecture, hear now, and recollect then, the opposing
voices of the Church.
“Before we take leave of this period, (from A.D. 600, to A.D. 800,) it
is proper to mention, that the first appearance of the Creed, commonly
called Athanasian, is ascribed to it with great probability. There can
be no doubt that this exposition of faith was composed in the West, and
in Latin; but the exact date of its composition has been the subject of
much difference. The very definite terms, in which it expresses the
Church doctrine of the Incarnation, are sufficient to prove it posterior
to the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, or later than the middle of
the fifth century.[505] Again, if we are to consider the doctrine of the
_double_ procession of the Holy Spirit, as being expressly declared in
it, since that mystery was scarcely made matter of public controversy
until the eighth century, it might seem difficult to refer a creed,
positively asserting the more recent doctrine, to an earlier age. But
the historical monuments of the Church do not quite support this
supposition; the Creed, such probably as it now exists, is mentioned by
the Council of Autun, in the year 670, and its faithful repetition by
the Clergy enjoined; and we find the same injunction repeated in the
beginning of the ninth age. Thus it gradually gained ground;
nevertheless there seems to be great reason for the opinion, that it was
not universally received even in the western church until nearly two
centuries afterwards.
“Considered as an exposition of doctrine, the Athanasian Creed contains
a faithful summary of the high mysteries of Christianity as interpreted
by the Church of Rome. Considered as a rule of necessary faith enforced
by the penalty of Eternal Condemnation, the same Creed again expresses
one of the most rigid principles of the same Church. The Unity of the
Church comprehended Unity of belief: there could be no salvation out of
it; nor any hope for those who deviated even from the most mysterious
among its tenets. And thus, by constant familiarity with the
declarations of an exclusive faith, the heart of many a Romish priest
may have been closed against the sufferings of the heretic, rescued (as
he might think) by the merciful chastisement of the Church from the
flames which are never quenched!
“It would be irrelevant in this work, and wholly unprofitable, to
inquire how far any temporary circumstances may have justified the
introduction of the Athanasian Creed into the Liturgy of our own
Church—constructed as that Church is on the very opposite principle of
Universal Charity. But we cannot forbear to offer one remark naturally
suggested by the character and history of this Creed, that if at any
future time, it should be judged expedient to expunge it, there is no
reason, there is scarcely any prejudice which could be offended by such
erasure.[506] The sublime truths which it contains are not expressed in
the language of Holy Scripture; nor could they possibly have been so
expressed, since the inspired writers were not studious minutely to
expound inscrutable mysteries, neither can it plead any sanction from
high antiquity, or even traditional authority; since it was composed
many centuries after the times of the Apostles, in a very corrupt age of
a corrupt Church, and composed in so much obscurity, that the very pen
from which it proceeded is not certainly known to us. The inventions of
men, when they have been associated for ages with the exercises of
religion, should indeed be touched with respect and discretion; but it
is a dangerous error to treat them as inviolable; and it is something
worse than error to confound them in holiness and reverence with the
words and things of God.”[507]
In reading these words the wish involuntarily arises that the temper, as
well as the sound learning and philosophical spirit, of the able writer
was shared by all his brethren. Yet it does sound strange to hear a
dignitary of the Church of England describe a Creed of his own Church,
as having its only use, during the days of Romish intolerance, in
shutting up, through familiarity with its persecuting spirit, the
avenues of relenting mercy in the hard hearts of priests; and now in the
milder Church of England, constructed, we are told, though we had not
discovered it, on the “principle of Universal Charity,” of absolutely no
use whatever, so that there hardly exists even a prejudice which its
erasure would offend. Yet this is the very Creed which, in the course of
this controversy is to be explained and defended. If the Church of
England is, indeed, founded in the principle of Universal Charity, some
of its Ministers are very heretical interpreters of its spirit, and yet
we must do them the justice of confessing that the Creeds and Articles
of the Church are equally unfortunate expounders of the spirit of
Universal Charity. Men of Christian and gentle temper interpret Articles
of Faith through their own gentle spirit; but fanatics read hard
formulas with different eyes. We can only wish that the religion of this
excellent historian was the religion of his Church, and that his Creed
was as Christian as his heart.
I have now only to mention the more modern and final form of the
doctrine of the Trinity. It arose out of the still unsettled meaning of
the long used word _Consubstantial_, which, as I have before stated, was
used by many of the later Fathers, and those considered pre-eminently
orthodox, as Cyril, to signify not a numerical sameness, but merely a
sameness of species or nature, and so the Trinity virtually taught the
doctrine of three Gods. And this conception was prevalent not only after
the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, but after the later Councils of
Constantinople, A.D. 381, and of Ephesus, A.D. 431. I give the history
of the last transformation of the Trinity in the words, and with the
authority of Cudworth:—
“It is certain that not a few of those Ancient Fathers, who were
therefore reputed orthodox, because they zealously opposed Arianism, did
entertain this opinion, that the three hypostases or Persons of the
Trinity had not only one _General and Universal Essence of the Godhead_,
belonging to them all, they being all God; but were also _Three
Individuals_, under one and the same ultimate species, or specific
essence and substance of the Godhead; just as three individual men,
(Thomas, Peter, and John,) under that ultimate species of _Man_, or that
specific essence of _Humanity_, which have only a numerical difference
from one another.” ... “And because it seems plainly to follow from
hence, that therefore they must needs be as much _three Gods_ as there
are Three Men, these learned Fathers endeavoured with their logic to
prove, that _Three Men_ are but abusively and improperly so called
_Three_; they being really and truly but One, because there is but _one
and the same Specific Essence or Substance of human nature_ in them all;
and seriously persuaded men to lay aside all that kind of language. By
which same logic of theirs, they might as well prove also, that all the
men in the world are but _One Man_, and that all Epicurus’s Gods were
but one God neither. But not to urge here that, according to this
hypothesis, there cannot possibly be any reason given why there should
be as many as _Three_ such individuals in the _species of God_ which
differ only numerically from one another, they being but the very same
thing thrice repeated; and yet that there should be no more than Three
such neither, and not Three Hundred, or Three Thousand, or as many as
there are individuals in the species of Man; we say not to urge this, it
seems plain that this _Trinity_, is no other than a kind of _Tritheism_,
and that of _Gods independent_ and _co-ordinate_ too. And, therefore,
some would think that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken
with all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity of St.
Cyril, and St. Gregory Nyssen, and several other reputed orthodox
Fathers; and more agreeable to the principles both of _Christianity_ and
of _Reason_. However, it is evident from hence, that these reputed
orthodox Fathers, who were not a few, were far from thinking the three
hypostases of the Trinity to have _the same singular existent essence_;
they supposing them to have no otherwise, one and the same essence of
the Godhead in them, nor to be one God, than three individual Men, have
one common _specifical essence of Manhood_ in them, and are all One Man.
But as this _Trinity_ came afterwards to be decried for _Tritheistic_,
so, in the room thereof, started up that other Trinity of Persons
_numerically the same_, or having all one and the same singular existent
essence; _a doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any public
authority in the Christian Church, save that of the Lateran Council
only_.”[508]
Such is the close of the Ecclesiastical History of the doctrine of the
Trinity. The fourth general Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, which
established the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the growth of the dark
ages, passed also out of the hands of theological artists, in its
perfected and orthodox form, this singular evidence of the fixed and
primitive faith of those who taunt Unitarianism with its want of
fixedness, and describe their own creeds as the “unimproved and
unimprovable revelation.” It is this workmanship of Councils which is so
confidently referred to the inspiration of Apostles. No wonder that they
who preach orthodoxy as saving Faith, revealed from the first by God in
a perfect form, say so little to their hearers of the history of their
creeds. There is good reason why Ecclesiastical History should be little
encouraged by the divines of the English, or of any other dogmatical
Church. It is with good reason that the Universities show about the same
degree of favour to Ecclesiastical History and to Moral Philosophy. They
have an instinct that tells them of their enemies.
Let me now summarily restate the obligations of the doctrine of the
Trinity to the _human_ and _erring_ sources of OPINION.
I. Oriental philosophy led the Jews of Alexandria, before the time of
Christ, to _allegorize_ the Old Testament Scriptures.
II. The Jews of Alexandria formed the connecting link between
Christianity and Grecian Philosophy.
III. Platonic Theology put its own mythological meanings on the
expressions _Logos_, and _Son of God_.[509]
IV. At the beginning of the fourth century this mythological conception
had gained such ground that, with a severe struggle, and a controversy
that shook the world, a general Council decreed that Christ in his
divine nature belonged _to the same class_ of Beings with God.
V. In a _second_ general Council, the third Person in the Platonic
Trinity found, by public authority, a parallel in the Christian Trinity,
and became, for the first time, the faith of the Church.
VI. A _third_ general Council, A.D. 431, distinguished, for theological
purposes, the deity from the humanity of Christ.
VII. A _fourth_ general Council, A.D. 451, found it necessary, for
theological purposes, to unite the deity and humanity in _one person_.
VIII. The fourth general Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, consummated the
Trinity and prepared the way for the Inquisition. Having established
such a faith, it became necessary to take means to enforce it.
Persecution is the first-born of Dogmatism. In the phrase of Robert
Hall, quoted with approbation in Christ Church as a felicitous
expression, orthodoxy is “_necessitated_” to be a Persecutor, to treat
as a Dæmon and Enemy of Souls every form of Christianity but her own. It
is a necessity of her nature, she pleads,—a simple consistency with her
own principles. True,—the reasoning is without a flaw;—but then a
question arises, does a Nature of which these are the “_necessities_”
breathe the spirit of Jesus? Who can think of Jesus as being
_necessitated_ to condemn any thing but _sin_?
Having shown how much the doctrine of the Trinity has to do with
Ecclesiastical History, I have now to show how little it has to do with
Scripture.
II. It is admitted by all, Trinitarian and Unitarian alike, that a
belief in ONE GOD is the first principle of a pure religion. The
slightest departure from this truth involves polytheism and idolatry.
One Creator, one Father, one object for our worship and our love, is the
plain and broad distinction between an idolatrous religion, and the
Supreme Veneration of that spiritual God who claims an undivided empire
throughout the vastness of creation. A perception of this truth does not
require an advanced state of Society or Mind: nor can it be proved that
even in the thickness of pagan darkness it was ever doubted. Heathen
Philosophy, though it might associate with the One Spirit, too pure and
immoveably serene to come in contact with matter, subordinate agents of
creation (which does not differ much from the Trinitarian
conception[510]), yet could read the glory of one Mind upon the outward
universe, and see one Intelligence, one Power, one Will of love diffused
through Nature: Judaism had this idea for its soul: and the Gospel has
republished it in such distinct and resplendent light, that it is the
universal faith of Christendom. So overpowering is the evidence, so
clear is Nature’s testimony to the existence of one God, so
conspicuously has Revelation set it forth in the centre of her
splendours, that Trinitarianism, with what consistency we shall
presently inquire, claims to be received as a believer in the Unity of
Deity. It is a most triumphant acknowledgment of the brightness with
which the great truth, that _God is One_, shines out from his Works[511]
and from his Word, that even the Trinitarian perceives the necessity of
reconciling his views with this fundamental principle; and rather than
depart from it, he prefers to maintain that three may be one, and one
may be three;—though the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have
each separately all that constitute an infinite and all-perfect God, and
have distinct offices, and appear in distinct, if not directly opposed
characters, yet that there may be a mysterious unity in the essence of a
tri-personal Deity.
I am relieved then from the necessity of proving that God is One. It is
a truth which no one explicitly denies; which the Trinitarian professes
to hold as firmly as the Unitarian; and therefore as the undisputed
doctrine of the Bible we take it as the admitted groundwork of our
argument. We might call upon Nature to multiply proofs of the Unity of
the designing Mind, which the universe reveals; we might appeal to the
regularity of her silent movements and to the sublime order that reigns
throughout her gliding worlds, to attest the Oneness of that
Intelligence whose volitions she obeys: we might ask Philosophy whether
ONE INFINITE CAUSE was not _sufficient_ for the finite or infinite
wonders of creation; whether in all her discoveries she has ever
perceived a single evidence of a divided government; and whether eternal
Laws holding immutable dominion throughout all worlds that Science has
explored, are not sublimest proofs of the fidelity of the one presiding
SPIRIT who trifles not with the feeble intellect of man, but reveals
himself consistently to the seeking minds of His children: we might go
to our own _hearts_, and feel the pressure of one divine hand upon its
tumultuous affections, and ask whether in our sorrows or our joys, our
wants or our aspirations, we resorted to more than one God, or needed
other shelter than that of one all-sufficing Father and Friend; and,
finally, we might open the volume of Revelation, and read to you the
testimony of Prophets from Moses to Christ, that the Lord our God is one
Lord, and there is none other but He:—but it appears it would be a
needless task to prove a doctrine which no one doubts, or to treat as a
question of controversy the universal faith of the Christian world.
We stand at once then upon the undisputed truth of the _Oneness_ of
Deity, and taking this as our uncontested vantage ground, we proceed to
inquire how much is involved in the admission. What are we to understand
by this sublime and unquestioned, and apparently simple truth, that God
is One? There are two answers to this question, and the statement of
each of them will introduce us to the Controversy. The _Unitarian_
answers, that the words are human words, and of course used in a human
sense; that the revelation was to man, and that no caution was given to
him that he was not to attach human ideas to the language in which it is
conveyed; that God is too tender and too faithful to sport with the
understandings of His children, to involve their frail intelligence in
inextricable perplexities; and that, therefore, when He publishes to the
World, _without explanation_, the Unity of his own nature, he intends
men to affix to the words the ideas always associated with them; he does
not use language to mislead, but asserts the simplest and most
intelligible of truths, that God is one Mind, one Person, one undivided
and indivisible Spirit, to whom alone belong underived existence, and
infinite perfections, and unshared dominion. These are the only ideas
our minds ordinarily attach to such language,—this is the only
experience we have of Unity; and if the words, when applied to God, bear
a different meaning, and so have a tendency to deceive us, some caution,
we think, would have been given by a God who was delivering a
_Revelation_ to his Children. The Unitarian believes that a revelation
from God is a revelation of _light_; and without any temptation to
pervert the meaning of words, he receives, in the simple and ordinary
import of the language, the plain and reiterated announcement that “God
is one.” If God used human words, he surely used them for the purpose of
conveying ideas to human minds; for language is not necessary to Him,
much less would human language be the vehicle of His infinite thought.
If, then, He used the words in a sense not human, and therefore unknown
to us, instead of instructing, it would betray and mislead.
The _Trinitarian_ answers, that though he believes in the Unity of God,
yet that Unity is totally different from the unity of all other beings.
He believes that in the One God there are _three_ distinct and infinite
persons, presenting themselves to human contemplation in different
characters, and as the objects of different affections; the first
reigning in Heaven, the second in intimate and inseparable connection
with a dying man upon the Earth; the first immutable in his immensity,
the other _coming_ down from his eternal throne to wrap his infinite
essence in a covering of human flesh; the Father sending the Son, and
the Son satisfying the demands of the Father; the Father the cause and
origin of all things, but holding himself loftily apart, whilst the Holy
Spirit takes the office of communion with men, and becomes the
Comforter, Teacher, and spiritual Friend of the human souls, whom the
Father’s creative energies, acting through the Son, have called into
existence. This, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity: three equal
Persons, each Supreme, each a perfect and infinite Deity, and yet so
united as to constitute but one undivided God.
We are tauntingly told of the vague statements of Unitarian Doctrine.
Now nothing can be more unjust than this, or farther from the facts.
“Controversially described,” Unitarianism is the most definite thing
imaginable. It simply says, _No_, to every one of the allegations of
Trinitarianism. There are, at the very least, five different forms in
which the doctrine of the Trinity has been explained and defended; and
to every one of these five shifting modifications, we repeat our
definite _negative_. There is the widest difference among Trinitarian
Theologians as to their method of stating and explaining the influence
of Atonement and of Original Sin; and to every one of these varieties we
equally repeat our simple negative. Where, then, is the superior
definiteness of Trinitarian statements? We affirm, of all its
characteristic doctrines, that they are untenable in _any form
whatever_. This, surely, is definite enough.
I am not aware that I have stated the doctrine of the Trinity in a way
which any Trinitarian could disown; and the first observation I make
upon it is this, that in this view of the oneness of God, in connecting
the deity of the Father, and the deity of the Son, and the deity of the
Holy Spirit, with a strict _unity_ in the godhead, the Trinitarian has
at least departed from the ordinary acceptation of language. We will not
assert the absolute impossibility of his retaining a belief in the Unity
of God, because we have no right to question his own solemn assertion of
the fact, or to set limits to the powers of another’s faith; but he will
not deny that he believes God to be one, in a sense totally different
from that in which he believes himself to be one; that it is a unity of
three minds, each a perfect God, and capable of acting separately,—in so
much that it is a warning of the Creeds,—not to confound the Persons. It
is not a unity of Mind, nor a unity of Will, nor a unity of Agency, nor
a unity of Person, which the Trinitarian regards as constituting the
Unity of God, but _three_ Minds, _three_ Wills, _three_ Agents, _three_
Persons, mysteriously making one Deity. I ask, were it not for the
overpowering brightness with which the Bible reveals the doctrine of one
God, would the Trinitarian encumber himself with the difficulty of
combining it with his other views; would he not rather simply confess
that three persons made three beings, and not one being; and represent
the world as under the threefold, but harmonious, government of a
Creator, a Saviour, and a sanctifying Spirit?