Page images
[ocr errors]

CUDWORTH, after remarking "that not a few of those ancient Fathers, who were therefore reputed Orthodox because they zealously opposed Arianism," namely, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, entertained the opinion that the three persons in the Trinity were three distinct individuals, "like three individual men, Thomas, Peter, and John," the divine nature being common to the former as the human nature is to the latter, observes that "some would think that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken with all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity." He then says: "But as this Trinity came afterwards to be decried for tritheistic, so in the room thereof started there 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."

This is the present Orthodox form of the doctrine of the Trinity. Cudworth refers to the fourth general Lateran Council, held in 1215, under Pope Innocent the Third. The same Council which, in the depth of the Dark Ages, established the modern doctrine of the Trinity, established, likewise, that of Transubstantiation;

Controversy between Dr. Priestley, Dr. Horsley, and others," in the General Repository and Review (Cambridge, 1812, 1813), Vols. I. - III.]

* Intellectual System, Ch. IV. § 36. pp. 602-604. [I. 791-793, Andover edit.]

enforced with the utmost rigor the persecution of heretics, whom it ordered to be sought out and exterminated; and prepared the way for the tribunals of the Inquisition, which were shortly after established.*

* See Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiastique, An. 1215.



Ir may throw some further light upon the human origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, briefly to notice the history of that of the Hypostatic Union.

By Trinitarians it is represented as a doctrine of fundamental importance, that Christ was at once God and man, the two natures being so united as to constitute but one person. It is this, indeed, which is supposed to give its chief interest to the doctrine of the Trinity; since only he who was at once God and man could, it is said, have made for men that infinite atonement which the justice of God, or rather the justice of the Father, required. But in the minds of most of those who profess the doctrine, it exists, I conceive, merely as a form of words, not significant of any conceptions, however dim or incongruous. They have not even formed an imagination, possible or impossible, of what is meant by the Hypostatic Union. It is a remarkable fact, that while new attempts to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, new hypotheses and illustrations of it, have been abundant, this other doctrine has, in modern times, been generally left in the nakedness of its verbal statement; that "the God

head and manhood being joined together in one person never to be divided, there is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried.”

It was in the fifth century that the doctrine assumed its present form. The Fathers of the second century believed in the incarnation of the Logos, or the Son of God; they believed that he became a man, that is, they believed that he manifested himself in a human body; but their conceptions concerning the particular nature of the relation between the divinity and humanity of Christ were obscure and unsettled. Their general notions respecting the Incarnation may more easily be ascertained, though they have not till of late been made the subject of much critical inquiry.

IN Justin Martyr there is, I think, but one passage concerning the mode and results of the connection between the two natures in Christ, which has been regarded as of much importance; and that has been differently explained, and, as the text now stands, is, I believe, unintelligible.* What,

* Justin (Apologia Sec. p. 123, ed. Thirlb.) [c. 10, p. 48, C. ed. Morel.] is speaking of the superiority of Christ to all other lawgivers. These, he admits, possessed a portion of the Logos, that is, were enlightened, in a certain degree, by the Wisdom of God; but Christ was the Logos himself; therefore the doctrines he taught and Christians believed (rà μéτepa) were far higher than all which had been taught before. The passage in question, by the insertion of a comma and a letter, may receive a certain meaning, but one which throws little light on the subject. - Μεγαλειότερα . . . . φαίνεται τὰ ἡμέτερα διὰ

however, is more important, it appears from the general tenor of his language on this subject, that Justin regarded the Logos alone as, properly speaking, Christ himself. His notions of the incarnation of the Logos were essentially those which we usually connect with that word as denoting the assumption of a body by a spiritual being, and not as implying any union or combination of a superior nature with the human. Though he uses the term "man" in reference to the animate body of Christ, yet the real agent and sufferer whom he seems always to have had in view is the Logos; for the conceptions of Justin concerning the Logos were not such as to exclude the idea of his suffering. Speaking of the agony of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane, he says it was recorded, "that we might know that it was the will of the Father that his Son should truly thus suffer for our sakes; and that we might not say that he being the Son of God had no feeling of what was done to him or what befell him." In later times, indeed, language was used, and its use has continued to our own day,-language not utterly intolerable only because it is utterly without meaning,- in

τοῦτο [,] λογικὸν τὸ [f. τὸν] ὅλον τὸν φανέντα δι' ἡμᾶς Χριστὸν γεγονέναι, καὶ σῶμα, καὶ λόγον, καὶ ψυχήν. "It appears that our doctrines are far superior, for this reason, that the whole Christ who appeared for us, body, Logos, and animal soul, pertained to the Logos (λογικὸν γεγονέναι).

Perhaps the use of such language may be illustrated by a passage of Origen (Cont. Cels. Lib. III. § 41, Opp. I. 474), which will be quoted hereafter. See also Lib. II. § 51. Opp. I. 426.

Dial. cum Tryph. pp. 361, 362. [al. c. 103, p. 331, D.]

« EelmineJätka »