A review of the three Creeds of the churches of Rome and England will form an introduction to this subject; for they distinctly indicate a gradual change of opinion from the simplicity of the gospel to the complex system of Trinitarianism. The first Creed is Unitarian; the second is partly so; the third and last contains Trinitarianism in its boldest and most complicated state. As two of these Creeds were originally drawn up to be public Confessions, and as the third, though at first it was private, was afterwards made common, they are worthy, on this account, to be attentively considered. In this chapter I intend to explain them, in the order in which they stand.
I. The Creed, bearing the name of the Apostles', was generally thought, from the fourth century downwards, for many hundred years, to have been composed by the twelve chosen followers of our Saviour. But for several reasons this opinion has been abandoned. Still, however, the great antiquity of the Creed cannot reasonably be doubted, or that it is a work of nearly apostolical importance. Irenaeus, one of the disciples, second in succession after John, has been justly thought to refer to it when he speaks of that Faith, or Rule of Truth, which the churches, though scattered over the earth, had received, and into which all believers were baptized, on acknowledging Christianity. The copy, indeed, which this father has quoted, differs considerably from that now generally known. But this has been explained by supposing that Irenaeus did not so much intend to give the form itself as a commentary on it, since in another part of his writings we find a different version of it, or rather a different commentary, on the same Creed.
It appears that this form of faith was not at first committed to paper, but was used orally in the churches before baptism. In consequence of this, it is probable that it varied, in different places, in words, though not in substance, and that some additions also have been made to it since its first employment. Afterwards, when copies in writing had been taken of it, they were read before congregations as a part of the public worship.
With these provisions, we may admit, I think, this Creed as a monument, in some measure, of the faith of the first era of Christianity.
“The Christian system,” says Dr Mosheim, “as it was hitherto taught, (referring to the primitive age), preserved its native and beautiful simplicity, and was comprehended in a small number of articles. The public teachers inculcated no other doctrines than those that are contained in what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed: and in the method of illustrating them, all vain subtleties, all mysterious researches, everything that was beyond the reach of common capacities, were carefully avoided. This will by no means appear surprising to those who consider, that, at this time, there was not the least controversy about those capital doctrines of Christianity which were afterwards so keenly debated in the church; and who reflect, that the bishops of those primitive times were, for the most part, plain and illiterate men, remarkable rather for their piety and zeal than for their learning and eloquence.” [Dr Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 183.]
What, then, are the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed? Are we recommended by it to believe in a three-one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? No: but in God the Father only: 'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.' What are we to acknowledge concerning Christ? that he was co-eternal with the Father? co-equal with him? like him, Almighty, and the Maker of heaven and earth? No: but we are instructed to believe 'in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell (the grave), the third day he arose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the FATHER ALMIGHTY, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.' Are we taught in this Creed the divinity of the Holy Ghost? No: for this portion of the Trinity is not even mentioned as a person, but only as a thing, being classed with a number of other things at the end of the Creed: 'I believe in the holy ghost (spirit), the holy catholic (general) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.'
This form of faith is entirely silent about a Trinity in unity, an incarnate deity, a union of opposite natures in Christ, or any of those phrases and doctrines of Trinitarian divinity so common and so fashionable in after times. It can only be regarded as an Unitarian compilation, the work of an Unitarian age, when men were yet ignorant of the mysteries and subtleties which afterwards appeared.
[The Unitarianism of the Apostles' Creed has sometimes been admitted and lamented by Trinitarians. The following curious specimen is given by Mr Lindsey, in his “Apology for resigning the Vicarage of Catterick in Yorkshire.” It forms part of the angry criticism which some English and Spanish Jesuits passed upon this Creed, and is translated from a Latin work by Alphonsus de Vargas, a Spaniard. “I believe in the Holy Ghost. This proposition is put with a bad design, and is deservedly suspected for its affected brevity; for it craftily passes over in silence the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding from the Father and the Son. Moreover, it smells grievously of Arian heresy, covertly favours the schisms of the Greeks, and destroys the undivided Trinity. And the whole of this exposition of the divine and undivided Trinity, contained in these eight articles, [viz., the Apostles' Creed so divided], is defective and dangerous; for it takes the faithful off from the worship and reverence undividedly and inseparably to be paid to the three Divine persons; and under a pretence of brevity, and making no unnecessary enlargement, it cunningly overthrows the whole mystery of the Trinity, whereof the perfect and explicit belief is an indispensable condition of salvation. So that this whole doctrine [viz., the Apostles’ creed], can hardly be looked upon as any other than a cheat, because it maketh no mention of the divinity of the Son, or Holy Ghost, or their eternity, but even intimates the contrary concerning the Son, in the third article, viz., who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” Lindsey's Apology, 4th edition, pp. 123–126.]
II. It was soon found, when the leaders of the church began to advance towards Trinitarianism, that the Apostles' Creed was insufficient to express the new opinions which began to be entertained. Other forms, therefore, were afterwards drawn up, as more aptly expressive of the growing sentiments of the times. And though all of these were, ostensibly, only explanations" of the Symbol (as the Apostles' Creed was distinctively called), we know from history, that much less importance was attached to it than to them, they only being thought, as they successively appeared, to be adequate representations of theology. The chief of these instruments in the fourth century was the Creed now known as the Nicene; so called because the greater part of it was drawn up by a general council held at Nice, in Bithynia, A.D. 325. The part of it which explains the divinity of the Holy Ghost was added by a general council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 381, with the exception of the clause 'and the Son,' which the Latin church affixed to it in the ninth century. This last clause the Greek church never adopted: she separated from the Latin communion, among other reasons, on account of it, denouncing its inventors and supporters as heretics.
The Nicene Creed is semi-Trinitarian. It retains in part the spirit of Unitarianism; but in part it approaches the complex Athanasian system. Its first article is an expressive testimony to the supremacy of the Father; “I believe in ONE God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” Yet immediately after, the divine claims of another being are asserted, though not in such a way as to imply equality with the One God, the Father, just described: ‘and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God of (or from) God; Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) VERY GOD.” That is to say, we are recommended by this Creed to believe, after God the Father Almighty, in our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was God also in a secondary sense, as deriving his birth in a peculiar manner from the Father, being God by derivation from His substance, and light by participation of His light. Still, in these expressions, equality, on the part of Christ, with the Supreme Deity is not declared, either as to power or glory. On the contrary, such phrases indicate the decided inferiority of the Son of God to his Father, and his entire dependance on Him, as on the self-existent Deity, the great first cause of all things.
But perhaps it may be thought, that equality was meant to be included in the phrase, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ To this I answer, that many acute reasoners have otherwise understood this expression; allowing, indeed, that it implied a parity of nature, but not the possession, to the full extent, of the attributes of Deity. It has been frequently admitted, that the members of the Nicene council, in making use of this phrase, just signified their belief that Christ partook of the substance or nature of his Father, as any child partakes of the substance or nature of his parents. But do sons in general, because they partake of the substance of their fathers, possess, in consequence, the same stature, amount of health, degree of understanding, manners, and condition? If not, in what way is it certain that the members of the Nicene council thought that Christ, as a son, of the same substance with God, was therefore placed on a perfect equality with Him? That they held a contrary opinion would be manifest from an examination of their writings.
A profound silence was maintained in the council of Nice concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit; which probably arose from this circumstance, that the church was not then prepared, or even a considerable party in it, to decide what precise dignity this third person was entitled to. The Spirit, indeed, not long after the Son, had been mentioned by theologians as a divine person, making part of a Trinity. But a considerable variety of opinion seems to have been entertained on this subject, and certainly less importance was attached for a long time to the Spirit than to Christ. Afterwards, when the ecclesiastical authorities became more bold, they added at Constantinople (A. D. 381.) the clause which we find in the present copy of the Creed, characterizing the Holy Ghost as ‘the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets.
The Nicene Creed has sometimes been called Arian, even though expressly written in opposition to Arius at the instigation of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, prompted by his secretary, the celebrated Athanasius. Yet this impropriety of language may be excused, if we consider how little the Nicene Creed differs from the opinions which Arius entertained. In truth, Arius and his opponent Athanasius had not much reason to quarrel, for their tenets were not so at variance as is commonly supposed. Both had departed far enough from primitive simplicity of doctrine. Both, at the same time, were yet at a considerable distance from Trinitarianism in its finished state. What was the subject of contention between them? Arius and Athanasius agreed that Christ was a powerful Divine Being, to whom the honours and title of God were, in
some sense, due; but they disputed about the manner in which this Being came into life. It was thought by Arius that Christ was produced out of nothing, by creation; while Athanasius maintained that he sprang from the substance of God, by some kind of generation, though not so as to imply (as indeed how could it?) equality with God. And on this nice question, so practically unimportant, the body of the Christian church, in the fourth century, divided itself into two great parties, opposing, denouncing, and rejecting each other. Nor was it certain at first which party would prevail, so keen was the contest, and so numerous and obstinate were the adherents on both sides. The council of Nice drew up the Creed which we have been considering, in favour of Athanasius, in A. D. 325; on which occasion Arius was condemned, and banished into Illyricum. But ten years afterwards (A. D. 335), the fugitive was recalled, and admitted into communion by a council at Jerusalem, which agreed to accept his confession of faith as satisfactory. On the other hand, Athanasius also was severely scrutinized by several ecclesiastical assemblies. He was five times expelled from his episcopal throne at Alexandria; twenty years he passed as an exile or a fugitive; and his doctrine fluctuated between honour and disgrace, just as his party or that of Arius prevailed. [“In the fourth century,” says Dr Jortin, “were held thirteen councils against Arius, fifteen for him, and seventeen for the semi-Arians, in all forty-five,” vol. ii. p. 60.] Victory at length decided for the adherents of Athanasius, towards the end of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth centuries. And in consequence of this triumph, and because the doctrine of the conqueror was a step nearer than that of his opponent to Trinitarianism as afterwards prevalent, the unfortunate Arius has been abandoned by posterity to the despised fate of an heretic, while honours have been heaped in succession upon Athanasius, and his name has been recorded among those of the choicest champions of orthodoxy, as well as of the most holy and revered saints of both eastern and western churches.
III. One remarkable consequence arose, in the sixth century, from the renown thus obtained by Athanasius. The compilation of the third, or Trinitarian Creed, at that time new to the world, was imputed to him, as to by far the most celebrated of the Nicene fathers. It was doubtless expected that this singular composition, by being published as the work of so eminent a theologian, would acquire an influence, which otherwise, from its unreasonableness, it was ill calculated to secure; and we know that this expectation has been realized. It would be superfluous in me to prove that Athanasius was not the author of the Creed which passes current in his name, since its genuineness has been abandoned by the ablest historians and divines. “I say called the Athanasian Creed,” writes Dr Lardner, “for it is now generally allowed by learned men, that it is not the work of the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished in the fourth century, but of some other person long after his time. Nor is it certainly known by whom it was composed.” Dr Waterland conjectured that it was written by Hilary, bishop of Arles in France, for the use of the Gallican clergy; but it is much more likely that it was the work of Vigilius of Tapsa, who flourished between the middle and the end of the fifth century, and who was known to be the fabricator of various writings, which he published as the works of Athanasius. But whoever was its author, it was not much known till towards the end of the sixth century, when it began to be commented on by its admirers. Several centuries afterwards, it was successively introduced into France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and England, where it still forms part of the public worship. But it has been disputed whether it was ever received among the Greek churches.
This Creed, it will be allowed, is a perfect specimen of Trinitarian doctrine. I will add, that it is a fit representation of a system of faith, which was completed in a dark period of the church, when Christianity had been corrupted and obscured through ignorance and superstition. This Creed instructs us to worship 'ONE GOD IN TRINITY, and TRINITY IN UNITY, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.' It informs us that ‘there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost, but’ that ‘the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.’ It declares that ‘the Father is, Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty, and yet' that ‘they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty;' that ‘the Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal, and yet' that ‘they are not three eternals, but one eternal;’ that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet' that 'they are not three Gods, but one God.' Nor is this all; for with remarkable ingenuity it states the following distinctions: that “the Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten; that ‘the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten;' and that 'the Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding' to accord with (contradict?) which doctrine, it is next declared that 'none of the persons' in this Trinity 'is AFORE or AFTER other,' that 'none is greater or less than another, but' that 'in all things, as is aforesaid, the unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity is to be worshipped.’ To sum up the whole, the Creed gravely warns us, that 'he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity,' and that 'except every one keep the same whole and undefiled, Without Doubt He Shall Perish EverlAstingly.'
I shall briefly mention the final steps which were taken to bring the doctrine of the Trinity to this perfect state. I have already explained what the members of the Nicene council understood by the expression, ‘of one substance with the Father,' which they applied to Christ. It was their object by it to declare, that our Lord derived his substance or nature from the substance or nature of the Supreme Deity, without its being supposed that, on this account, he should be considered as on complete equality with Him. In process of time, however, the phrase, ‘of one substance,’ &c., underwent an important alteration. In the course of half a century or more, it was interpreted to signify, that Christ and the Holy Ghost (to whom also it was applied), were, without reserve, equal in power and glory to the Father Almighty; a conclusion which was established in this way. It was contended, that in the substance of God were necessarily implied all the attributes of Deity in their infinite fulness, and that it (the substance) could not be communicated without also conferring the possession of those attributes in the same fulness. Whence it followed, as it was thought, supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost to have partaken of the Divine substance, that they partook in consequence of all the properties of Divinity in a state of as great completeness as did the Supreme Father himself; so that no distinction of rank or power could be supposed to exist between the persons of the Trinity. This was the doctrine of many able men, both among the Greeks and Latins, who laboured to propagate their sentiments with unwearied zeal and alacrity; till, aided by popular ignorance, and supported by a considerable share of imperial patronage, they succeeded in establishing the doctrine of a proper equality among the persons of the Trinity.
Still the system of the Trinity was not quite completed, for nothing had hitherto been determined concerning the manner in which the second person was united to the man Jesus Christ. It appears indeed strange, that this part of Trinitarianism, so important in modern times, should not have been explained till so late a period as the fifth century. Yet Dr Mosheim informs us that this was the case; that, up till that time, the connexion of Christ's natures was not even a subject of inquiry: and that the Christian doctors expressed themselves differently on it as they thought proper. The first determination of the church, on this subject, was made by a council held at Ephesus, A.D. 431; which council was succeeded by another at Chalcedon, on the same matter, twenty years afterwards (A.D. 451). It was declared at these assemblies, and more fully at the latter, that Christ was one divine person, in whom two natures were most closely and intimately united, but without being mired or conjounded together.
In the first of these councils, Nestorius was condemned for teaching that Christ's natures were only connected, in sympathy and will, without any personal or hypostatic union. In the second council an opposite opinion, maintained by Eutyches, viz., that Christ had but one nature, a compound of divinity and humanity, was also censured as heretical.
But neither of these doctrines, though condemned, were vanquished by the ecclesiastical decrees. They were zealously supported by multitudes of Christians, and struggled with orthodoxy for a long time; and, indeed, have continued to flourish till this day in many eastern churches.
I shall conclude this chapter with one observation. The council of Ephesus, which, with that of Chalcedon, completed Trinitarianism, decreed that the Virgin Mary should be received and honoured as a supplement to the Trinity, under the title of Theotokos, or Mother of God. This was done, as it was alleged, as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, which this council had determined. It was maintained that the divine nature of Christ was so closely, connected with his humanity, even from the time of his conception, that Mary, in giving birth to him, was entitled to be called, not merely the mother of Christ, but the mother of God. All persons who held a contrary opinion were denounced as heretics by the prevailing party.
Thus this council of Ephesus, which, with that of Chalcedon, completed Trinitarianism, did, by giving to Mary the profane title of Mother of God, pave the way for her future idolatrous worship, and in some degree sanctioned the many servile invocations which ignorance and superstition have since addressed to her, as the Queen of Heaven.
But, indeed, superstition and idolatry had already commenced. As early as the fourth century the images of saints and martyrs were erected in the churches, and particular virtues were ascribed to their presence; water was consecrated; idle shows were multiplied; dust and earth from Palestine were sold as remedies against evil spirits: celibacy was encouraged among the priests as giving superior sanctity; and I know not what train of silly observances was begun, the result of ignorance, and of a crooked ecclesiastical policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment