Christ when one could be said to exist, in any sense, its opposite might be said to exist in the same sense. However, I look upon the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ to have come to maturity before that of the Trinity, as seems to appear from the Nicene Creed; which dwells most particularly on the Son of God. We may reason thus: the establishment of a doctrine must depend, not only on its being discussed in controversy, but on the extent of that controversy. Though we suppose Tertullian and Praxeas to have discussed the Doctrine of the Trinity ever so accurately, yet, if the dispute was known to but few Christians, and was not noticed by the main body of the Church, it might not produce a Doctrine, in the common sense of the word. Now, the extent of the controversy concerning the Son of God was very great, so that whatever opinion was fixed by that, might properly be called a Doctrine; an established Doctrine of the main body of Christians; who would, of course, call themselves the Catholic Church a. If we wished to see particularly the nature of the progress, which our Doctrine made, we need only put ourselves in the place of the early Christians, and think what they might naturally do. They might at first use warm and lofty expressions of Scripture, addressing themselves to the Father or the Son, as the occasion dictated. Then they might vary or paraphrase these expressions a little, so as to make them suit their own circumstances, without intending to introduce any new meaning: when variations were used, different people would use different variations or phrases; according to their views • Bp. Burnet talks of the Trinity being universally received, &c. on the Articles, p. 48, octavo; near close of first Article. This is mentioned Art. i. Sect. 4. views and dispositions: this would produce mutual remarks; and remarks would produce controversy. What began in sentiment, would end in speculation, and so religion would be transferred from the Heart to the Head. 3. But I will not dwell longer on the History of the orthodox Doctrine:-I will now endeavour to look so far into the history of other opinions, or fancies, as may suffice to give us the same views which the compilers of our Article had, while their attention was confined to the business of forming it. It seems probable to me, that all the notions, ancient and modern, respecting the Son of God, have arisen from a desire and hope of solving the difficulties naturally arising from the scriptural accounts of his Person and character:-these diffi culties are no doubt very great; nay, the only way to conquer them is to allow them to be insuperable; yet, as allowing that might be the effect of carelessness and indolence; attempts to clear them up cannot be universally blameable. It is not easy to determine what method to pursue in reducing to order accounts so heterogeneous, so distant in time and situation, as those relating to Christ; but it seems as if we had best first mention what are the Points, on which difference can arise; and what are the Sects and persons, who have held any opinions with regard to those points. The points on which men have differed, when they thought on the subject of the nature and character of Christ, have been these. 1. His Consubstantiality Could it be said, that there is no one of the solutions of Heretics, which we should not be desirous to adopt, while we only considered the arguments for it, and for it alone? before we came to see what difficulties arose out of it, from its inconsistency with some parts of Scripture? b stantiality with the Father. 2. His pre-existence, before his nativity. 3. The manner of his Incarnation; or the manner in which the Word was made Flesh. 4. What is called the Hypostatic Union, or the conjunction of the Divine and human natures, (púσes) in one Person (vπóσтασis) or agent, called Christ; Ένωσις καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν d We The sects, or persons, who have differed on these different points, I should reckon as eleven; dividing all the early Christian Heresies into two classes, and reckoning them only as two. should notice then, 1. The Oriental. 2. The Jewish Heretics of the two or three first centuries. 3. The Arians. 4. The followers of Photinus. 5. Nestorians. 6. Eutychians. 7. The Monothelites. 8. The Adoptionarii. 9 The Socinians. 10. The Anabaptists. And lastly, some particular persons, who may not have given a name to a sect.-Though these may seem numerous, there is no doubt but the compilers of our Articles had them all in view; indeed their views were much more extensive than This does not mean pre-existence as mere man, a thing which the Jews were inclined to believe; see Macknight on John ix. 2. Whoever denies the second point must deny the first;-whoever grants the first must grant the second. YnóσTασis is used for a Divine Person of the Holy Trinity, see Nicholls, Fol. on the 1st Art. p. 27. Yet what is here said must, I think, be right in Doctrine: it must be the evwos of two natures in unâ vnóσrare, though not of the Trinity.-I see, in Nicholls, Nestorius was blamed for holding two vπóστaσeis or two Persons; two Christs: p. 40. col. 2. ÚTÓσтασis in Suicer, signifies this same thing called Person (as in Heb. i. 3.)—and, in one quotation, it is said, that one person of the Trinity took man's nature, united it with the Divine Nature (without confusion) and yet still was but one Person.--Under evwois, there are mentioned several unions: ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν, ἕνωσις κατ' οὐσίαν; and the hypostatic union is called ἕνωσις καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν. See Title to Doctrina, &c. Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, and the title of the Articles in that Collection: or Sect. 4. of the Introd. to this Book iv. than ours will be merely for having considered these. 4. We are to consider, or recollect, what the Oriental early Heretics held concerning our present subject; concerning Christ.-Here I would wish to have it seen, that men do not in general pay respect enough to their adversaries: instead of declaiming against those who oppose us, we should endeavour to find out what misled them, supposing their intention good: we should put ourselves in their place, and endeavour to see with their eyes. This is difficult with regard to Eastern Christians, we have such different habits and prejudices from theirs and I suppose that even Travel would not put us in their place, because most of their notions have taken their rise in remote antiquity.All that we can now do is only to refer to the account of early Heretics given in the Appendix to our first Book, and select what is to our present purpose. The Oriental sects were strongly tinctured with notions of a number of Eons: some of them from being accustomed to the worshipping of the Sun, let their fancies run to the heavenly Luminaries: most of them, if not all, had some abhorrence of matter: these notions subsisted, in some degree, before the coming of Christ; and those, who were unwilling to relinquish them, endeavoured to incorporate them with Christianity. The consequence was, that they had doctrines, which seem to us strange, concerning the creation of the world, the nature nf Christ's Body, and of his residence after his ascension.-They held, that the material world was framed by ons, or Spirits, amongst whom they reckoned Logos, Monogenes, Þes, and many others; or that some inferior artificer Lord King mentions three principles; from Origen. King on the Creed, p. 93. ficer or Demiurgus in particular, was employed in that imperfect work: not any being so perfect as Christ. They maintained, that Christ had not a real body, but only an apparent one; and they were, on that account, called Docete, or Phantasiasta: this was denying our Saviour's humanity: and they were obliged, in order to be consistent, to carry on their notions, by saying, that the accounts of the crucifixion, &c. were allegorical, or mystical;—this was of course to deny a proper nativity. Lastly, endeavouring to connect their notions of Christ with their notions of the luminaries, some of them held, that Christ was taken from the Sun", or Stars, and was to return to them; in which case, Christ was only supposed to pass through the Womb of the blessed Virgin, as through a tube. This was an old notion; see Lord King on the Creed, p. 116. 157.-See Div. Leg. Index," Soul." -Mani made the second person of the Trinity to reside in the Sun, and made him correspond to the Persian Mithras. Some conceived Christ to come not from Heaven, but from the four Elements; and to be resolved into them again. Valentinus is also said to have supposed Christ, as the Son of God, to be cut off, as it were, or separated from the Father; so that a part of the Father was (or must be) taken away. 5. As the Oriental early Heretics denied the humanity of Christ, the Jewish denied his divinity. e Valentinus; Lard. Works, vol. IX. p. 444. * See Lord King on Creed, bottom of p. 133. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 3. 27. calls Ebionites and Nazarenes two sorts of Ebionites; see Lardner's Works, vol. VII. p. 20. The former thought Christ merely human, though they had an high opinion of him as a man: the latter held Christ to be born supernaturally, but did not allow his pre-existence.Lardner says, that there were few of the former sort, and that their notion is not maintained in any Christian writing. |