understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
godhead.” Yet the Universe reveals no Trinity. Reason knows and requires
no Trinity. Natural Religion is not Trinitarian. Scripture speaks of One
God the Father, and of One Lord Jesus Christ. Gentile Philosophy and
Ecclesiastical History _are_ Trinitarian. In _their_ pages we find this
subject. Ecclesiastical History has narrated the rise and progress of
these doctrines—and to Ecclesiastical History shall they finally be
referred,—when another chapter is added, a chapter that unhappily yet
remains to be written, the history of their decline and fall.
------------------------------------
Footnotes for Lecture VII.
Footnote 453:
Locke.
Footnote 454:
Mr. James’s Lecture, p. 410.
Footnote 455:
Spoken, not printed.
Footnote 456:
Milman’s Edition, vol. iii. p. 311.
Footnote 457:
“That this Trinity (Monad or Good, Wisdom, Spirit or Energy) was not
first of all a mere invention of Plato’s, but much ancienter than him,
is plainly affirmed by Plotinus in these words,—‘That these doctrines
are not new nor of yesterday, but have been very anciently delivered,
though obscurely (the discourses now extant being but Explications of
them) appears from PLATO’S own writings; PARMENIDES before having
insisted on them.’” _Cudworth. Intel. Syst._ p. 546.—See also Bishop
Berkeley’s Siris, sections 341-365.
Footnote 458:
“The principle of every thing is more simple than the thing itself.
Wherefore the sensible world was made from Intellect, or the
intelligible; and before this must there needs be something more
simple still. For many did not proceed from many, but this multiform
thing Intellect proceeded from that which is not multiform but simple;
as Number from Unity. If that which understands be many, or contain
multitude in it, then that which contains no multitude, does not
properly understand; and this is the first thing;—to understand is not
the First; neither in Essence nor in Dignity; but the Second; a thing
in order of nature, after the First Good, and springing up from
thence, as that which is moved with desire towards it.”—_Plotinus.
Cudworth_, p. 584.
Footnote 459:
“The FIRST is above all manner of action: neither is it fit to
attribute the architecture of the world to the First God, but rather
to account him the Father of that God, _who is the Artificer_. The
SECOND, to whom the energy of Intellection is attributed, is therefore
properly called the Demiurgus, as the contriving Architect, in whom
the Archetypal World is contained, and the First Pattern, or Paradigm
of the Whole Universe. The THIRD is that which moveth about Mind or
Intellect, the Light or Effulgency thereof, and its Print or
Signature, which always dependeth upon it, and acteth according to it.
This is that which reduces both the Fecundity of the First Simple
Good, and the Architectonick Contrivance of the Second into Act and
Energy. This is the Immediate and as it were _Manuary Opificer_ of the
whole world, that which actually Governs, Rules, and Presideth over
all.”—_Plotinus. ap. Cudw._ p. 583.
Footnote 460:
“Since the introduction of the Greek or Chaldean Philosophy, the Jews
were persuaded of the pre-existence, transmigration, and immortality
of souls; and Providence was justified by a supposition, that they
were confined in their earthly prisons to expiate the stains which
they had contracted in a former state. But the degrees of purity and
corruption are almost immeasurable. It might be fairly presumed that
the most sublime and virtuous of human spirits was infused into the
offspring of Mary and the Holy Ghost; that his abasement was the
result of his voluntary choice; and that the object of his mission was
to purify, not his own, but the sins of the world. On his return to
his native skies he received the immense reward of his obedience; the
everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which had been darkly foretold by
the prophets, under the carnal images of peace, of conquest, and of
dominion. Omnipotence could enlarge the human faculties of Christ to
the extent of his celestial office. In the language of antiquity, the
title of God has not been severely confined to the first parent; and
his incomparable minister, his only begotten son, might claim, without
presumption, the religious, though secondary worship of a subject
world.
“The seeds of the faith, which had slowly arisen in the rocky and
ungrateful soil of Judea, were transplanted, in full maturity, to the
happier climes of the Gentiles; and the strangers of Rome or Asia, who
never beheld the manhood, were the more readily disposed to embrace
the divinity of Christ. The polytheist and the philosopher, the Greek
and the Barbarian, were alike accustomed to conceive a long
succession, an infinite chain of angels or dæmons, or deities, or
æons, or emanations, issuing from the throne of light. Nor could it
seem strange or incredible, that the first of these æons, the _Logos_,
or word of God, of the same substance with the Father, should descend
upon earth, to deliver the human race from vice and error, and to
conduct them in the path of life and immortality.”—_Gibbon_, vol.
viii. p. 271.
Footnote 461:
Philo de Abrahamo. Le Clerc’s Supplement to Hammond, p. 168.
Footnote 462:
Cudworth, p. 590.
Footnote 463:
“It was in this mode of apprehending the Divine Being that the
doctrine of the Trinity had its origin. The Logos of the first four
centuries was in the view of the Fathers both an attribute or
attributes of God, and a proper person. Their philosophy was, in
general, that of the later Platonists, and they transferred from it
into Christianity this mode of Conception. In treating of this fact,
so strange, and one which will be so new to many of my readers, I will
first quote a passage from Origen, the coincidence of which with the
conceptions of Philo and the later Platonists is apparent. ‘Nor must
we omit, that Christ is properly the Wisdom of God; and is therefore
so denominated. For the wisdom of the God and Father of All has not
its being in bare conceptions, analogous to the conceptions in human
minds. But if any one be capable of forming an idea of _an incorporeal
being of diverse forms of thought, which comprehend the_ LOGOI [the
archetypal forms] _of all things, a being indued with life, and having
as it were a soul_, he will know that the Wisdom of God, who is above
every creature, pronounced rightly concerning herself; The Lord
created me, the beginning, his way to his works.’”—_Origen, Opp._ iv.
39, 40,—quoted by Norton on the Trinity, p. 271-2.
Footnote 464:
Milman’s Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 313.
Footnote 465:
See Cudworth, p. 603, 4.
Footnote 466:
“The creed which was first adopted, and that perhaps in the very
earliest age, by the Church of Rome, was that which is now called the
Apostles’ Creed, and it was the general opinion, from the fourth
century downwards, that it was actually the production of those
blessed persons assembled for that purpose. Our evidence is not
sufficient to establish that fact, and some writers very confidently
reject it. But there is reasonable ground for our assurance that the
form of faith which we still repeat and inculcate was in use and
honour in the very early propagation of our religion.”—_Waddington’s
History of the Church_, p. 27.
Footnote 467:
“Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus make no mention of it, but they
occasionally repeat _some words_ contained in it, which is _held_ as
_proof_ that they knew it by heart.”—_Waddington._
Footnote 468:
Jortin, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 180.
Footnote 469:
Comment. in Johan. vol. ii. p. 5.
Footnote 470:
Hist. lib. iii. c. 24.
Footnote 471:
Chrys. Op. vol. vi. p. 171; viii. p. 2.
Footnote 472:
Comm. in Matt. sec. 161.
Footnote 473:
In Celsum. lib. ii. p. 56.
Footnote 474:
Professor Burton gives some instances of the use of the word God by
Ignatius, A. D. 107, in connection with Christ. Nothing can be more
slender and insufficient than his other evidences of the recognition
of these doctrines by the Apostolical Fathers.
Footnote 475:
Dial. cum Tryph. p. 252.
Footnote 476:
Lib. i. cap. 19; ii. cap. 3.
Footnote 477:
Strom. lib. vi. p. 644. Priestley’s Hist. Early Opinions.
Footnote 478:
Advers. Prax. c. 13.
Footnote 479:
Comment. vol. ii. p. 47.
Footnote 480:
Cap. ii. p. 84.
Footnote 481:
Lib. iv. sec. 14.
Footnote 482:
Orat. iii. con. Arian.
Footnote 483:
Cudworth. Intel. Sys. p. 599.
Footnote 484:
Inattention to this distinction vitiates the whole reasonings of Dr.
Burton’s learned work on the Anti-Nicene Fathers. There is no doubt
that the deity of the Son and even of the Holy Ghost is spoken of
before the Council of Nice, but always in the Platonic or derived
sense, never in the present orthodox sense of _co-equal_ and
_independent_. The word con-substantial proves nothing to the
contrary, for a Platonist would not have objected to the application
of the word to the second and third persons in his Trinity, as
partaking of, or derived from the Essence of the one Supreme. See
Cudworth’s argument to this effect (Intel. Sys. p. 597), who contends
that by _co-essential and consubstantial_, the Nicene Council meant
nothing more than that the Son was _generically_ God, of the same
nature, but _numerically_ different, having his own distinct Essence.
See also Dr. Burton on a passage similar to one from Tertullian
already quoted, where he is misled by not attending to this
distinction.—_Theol. Works_, vol. ii. p. 89.
Footnote 485:
Cudworth. Intell. Sys. p. 595.
Footnote 486:
“It had been the vice of the Christians of the third century, to
involve themselves, ‘in certain metaphysical questions which if
considered in one light, are too sublime to become the subject of
human wit; if in another too trifling to gain the attention of
reasonable men.’ (Warburton.) The rage for such disputations had been
communicated to religion by the contagion of philosophy; but the
manner in which it operated on the one and on the other was
essentially different. With the philosopher such questions were
objects of the understanding only, subjects of comparatively
dispassionate speculation, whereon the versatile ingenuity of a minute
mind might employ or waste itself. But with the Christian they were
matters of truth or falsehood, of belief or disbelief. Hence arose an
intense anxiety respecting the result, and thus the passions were
awakened, and presently broke loose and proceeded to every excess.
From the moment that the solution of these questions was attempted by
any other method than the fair interpretation of the words of
Scripture; as soon as the copious language of Greece was eagerly
applied to the definition of spiritual things, and the explanation of
heavenly mysteries, the field of contention seemed to be removed from
earth to air—where the foot found nothing stable to rest upon; where
arguments were easily eluded, and where the space to fly and to rally
was infinite; so that the contest grew more noisy as it was less
decisive, and more angry as it became more prolonged and complicated.
Add to this the nature and genius of the disputants: for the origin of
these disputes may be traced without any exception to the restless
imaginations of the East.” * * *
“We must also mention the loose and unsettled principles of that age,
which had prevailed before the appearance of Christianity, and had
been to a certain extent adopted by its professors—_those, for
instance, which justified the means by the end, and admitted fraud and
forgery into the service of religion_.”—_Waddington, Church Hist._ p.
89.
Footnote 487:
ὑπὲρ μικρῶν καὶ λίαν ἐλαχίστων.
Footnote 488:
“Let us imagine, then, a council called by a Christian Emperor, by a
Constantine, a Constantius, a Theodosius, a Justinian, and three, or
four, or five hundred prelates, assembled from all quarters, to decide
a theological debate.”
“Let us consider a little by what various motives these various men
may be influenced, as by reverence to the emperor, or to his
councillors and favourites, his slaves and eunuchs; by fear of
offending some great prelate, as a Bishop of Rome or of Alexandria,
who had it in his power to insult, vex, and plague all the bishops
within and without his jurisdiction; by the dread of passing for
heretics, and of being calumniated, reviled, hated, anathematized,
excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if
they refused to submit; by compliance with some active, leading, and
imperious spirits, by a deference to a majority, by a love dictating
and domineering, of applause and respect, by vanity and ambition, by a
total ignorance of the question in debate, or a total indifference
about it, by private friendships, by enmity and resentment, by old
prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an indolent disposition, by good
nature, by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home, by
the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred of contention, &c.
“Whosoever takes these things into due consideration, will not be
disposed to pay a blind deference to the authority of general
Councils, and will rather be inclined to judge that ‘the Council held
by the Apostles was the first and the last in which the Holy Spirit
may be affirmed to have presided.’
“Thus far we may safely go, and submit to an Apostolical Synod; but if
once we proceed one step beyond this, we go we know not whither. If we
admit the infallibility of one General Council, why not of another?
And where shall we stop? At the first Nicene Council, A. D. 325, or at
the second Nicene Council, A. D. 787? They who disclaim private
judgment, and believe the infallibility of the Church, act
consistently in holding the infallibility of Councils; but they who
take their faith from the Scriptures, and not from the Church, should
be careful not to require nor to yield too much regard to such
assemblies, how numerous soever. Numbers, in this case, go for little,
and to them the old Proverb may be applied;—
‘Est turba _semper_ argumentum pessimi.’
“If such Councils make righteous decrees, it must have been by strange
good luck.”—_Jortin, Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 183-4.
Footnote 489:
Milman’s Ed. vol. iii. p. 331.
Footnote 490:
Waddington, Church Hist. p. 93.
Footnote 491:
Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 210.
Footnote 492:
“The Christian Religion, which in itself is plain and simple, _he_
(Constantius) confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of
reconciling the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished
and propagated, by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain
curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of
bishops, galloping from every side to the Assemblies, which they call
synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their own
particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost
ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.”—_Ammianus, as quoted by
Gibbon_, vol. iii. p. 347.
Footnote 493:
“Constantine’s conduct was variable afterwards, _for he certainly
understood not_ this perplexed and obscure controversy, and he
acted as he was influenced at different times by the ecclesiastics
of each party, who accused one another, not only of heterodoxy,
but of being enemies to the Emperor, and of other faults and
misdemeanors.”—_Jortin._
Footnote 494:
“Notwithstanding all which it must be granted, that though this
co-essentiality of the three persons in the Trinity does imply them to
be all God, yet does it not follow from thence of necessity that they
are therefore _One God_.”—_Cudworth_, p. 596.
Footnote 495:
“That little is said concerning the separate divinity of the Spirit of
God in the Scripture is evident to every body; but the reason that
Epiphanius gives for it, will not be easily imagined. In order to
account for the Apostles saying so little concerning the divinity of
the Holy Spirit, and omitting the mention of him after that of the
Father and the Son, (as when Paul says, ‘there is one God and Father
of all, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things,’) he says that ‘the Apostles writing by the inspiration of
the Spirit, He did not choose to introduce much commendation of
Himself, lest it should give us an example of commending
ourselves.’”—_Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of Christianity_,
p. 60.
Footnote 496:
“The Holy Spirit, if he be God, as the objection is stated by Basil,
must either be begotten or unbegotten. If he be unbegotten, he is the
Father; if begotten, the Son; and if he is neither begotten nor
unbegotten, he is a creature.”—_Priestley’s Hist. Early Opinions_,
vol. ii. 331.
This is the least offensive specimen I could find of the common
objections made to the separate deity of the Holy Ghost at the time
the doctrine was first proposed. The plainer and coarser forms of the
objection, unhesitatingly handled by the Fathers, I withhold from
reverence. But let the reader consult the Ecclesiastical History of
the Period. The difficulty stated by Athanasius, Basil, and others,
was overcome by establishing a certain mysterious or rather no-meaning
difference between _begotten_ and _proceeding_. Such is always the
easy refuge of mystics. The line is a faint one between unintelligible
ideas and no ideas at all. “The _nativity_ of the Son,” says Austin,
“differs from the _procession_ of the Spirit, otherwise they would be
brothers.” I doubt whether it is right to disclose to all eyes the
morbid anatomy of Theology; but I assure my readers that I am
reverentially forbearing.
Footnote 497:
“In the age of religious freedom, which was determined by the Council
of Nice, the dignity of Christ was measured by private judgment,
according to the indefinite rule of Scripture, or reason, or
tradition. But when his pure and proper divinity had been established
on the ruins of Arianism, the faith of the Catholics trembled on the
edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to
stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of this creed
were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They
hesitated to pronounce; _that_ God himself, the second person of an
equal and consubstantial Trinity, was manifested in the flesh; _that_
a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of
Mary; _that_ his eternal duration had been marked by the days, and
months, and years of human existence; _that_ the Almighty had been
scourged and crucified; _that_ his impassible essence had felt pain
and anguish; _that_ his omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and
_that_ the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Calvary.
These alarming consequences were affirmed with unblushing simplicity
by Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, and one of the luminaries of the
church. The son of a learned grammarian, he was skilled in all the
sciences of Greece; eloquence, erudition, and philosophy, conspicuous
in the volumes of Apollinaris, were humbly devoted to the service of
religion. The worthy friend of Athanasius, the worthy antagonist of
Julian, he bravely wrestled with the Arians and Polytheists, and
though he affected the rigour of geometrical demonstration, his
Commentaries revealed the literal and allegorical sense of the
Scriptures. A mystery which had long floated in the looseness of
popular belief, was defined by his perverse diligence in a technical
form; and he first proclaimed the memorable words, “One incarnate
nature of Christ,” which are still re-echoed with hostile clamours in
the churches of Asia, Egypt, and Æthiopia. He taught that the Godhead
was united or mingled with the body of a man; and that the _Logos_,
the eternal wisdom, supplied in the flesh the place and office of a
human soul.”—_Gibbon_, vol. viii. p. 279.
Footnote 498:
Waddington, Hist. of the Church, p. 182.
Footnote 499:
Jortin, vol. iii. p. 116.
Footnote 500:
Norton on the Trinity.
Footnote 501:
“Hence many questions arose, which gave rise to as many controversies.
For example, it was debated, Whether the two natures in Christ were so
united as to become one; or whether they remained distinct? Whether,
since Christ was born, and died, and rose again, it could be said that
_God_ was born and died, and rose again?
“Whether the Virgin Mary, who was the Mother of Christ, could be
called the Mother of _God_?
“Whether Christ were two persons, or only one?
“Whether Christ was everywhere present, in his human, as in his divine
nature?
“Whether one person of the Trinity could be said to suffer for us?
“Whether the whole Trinity could be said to suffer for us?
“Whether in Christ there were three substances, or only two?
“These questions produced altercation and strife, and then
anathematisms, and then fightings and murders.”—_Jortin_, vol. iii. p.
117.
To these might be added the question proposed by the Emperor
Heraclius, A.D. 629, to his Bishops—“Whether Christ, of one person but
two natures, was actuated by a single or a double will?” This gave
rise to what was called the _Monothelite_ (one will) Controversy, as
that respecting the single nature was called the Monophysite (one
nature) Controversy.
Footnote 502:
Jortin, vol. iii. p. 124.
Footnote 503:
Milman’s Edit. vol. viii. p. 312.
Footnote 504:
Norton on the Trinity, p. 78.
Footnote 505:
“Vigilius Tapsensis hath been supposed, by many, to have been the
Maker of the Athanasian Creed about this time (the close of the fifth
century). Others are of a different opinion. But it matters little by
whom, or where, or when it was composed.”—_Jortin, Eccles. Hist._ vol.
iii. p. 131.
Footnote 506:
“The opinions of some of our own Churchmen on this subject are
collected by Clarke in his book on the Trinity. The expression of
Bishop Tomline cannot be too generally known. ‘We know,’ he says,
‘that different persons have deduced different, and even opposite
doctrines from the words of Scripture, and consequently there must be
many errors among Christians; but since the Gospel no where informs us
what degree of error will exclude from eternal happiness, I am ready
to acknowledge that in my judgment, notwithstanding the authority of
former times, our church would have acted more wisely and more
consistently with its general principles of mildness and toleration,
if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed.
Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed
are all founded in Scripture, I cannot but conceive it both
unnecessary and presumptuous to say, that except every one do keep
them whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish
everlastingly.’”—_Exposition_, part iii. art. viii.
Footnote 507:
Church History, p. 220.
Footnote 508:
Intel. Sys. p. 602, 4.
Footnote 509:
“It must be acknowledged that the first converts from the Platonic
school took advantage of the resemblance between Evangelic and
Platonic doctrine on the subject of the Godhead, to apply the
principles of their old philosophy to the explication and confirmation
of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn
from Platonic principles, and even propounded it in Platonic
language.”—_Bishop Horsley._
Footnote 510:
See the Rev. D. James’s acknowledgment of the Subordination of the Son
and the Holy Spirit to the Father—of their _official_ inferiority: and
_the illustrations_ of the King and the Duke of Wellington, which
Trinitarian Theology thinks apposite.
Footnote 511: