« PreviousContinue »
Clarke; and a tendency to Tritheism was imputed to William Sherlock, by Wallis and South, who, in turn, were charged with Sabellianism.]"
Insinuations were, nevertheless, thrown out against the reformers themselves, as if they countenanced Antitrinitarian errors. Thus, Calvin was at one time charged with Arianism by Caroli; see Henry, Leben Joh. Calvins, vol. i. p. 181. It is, however, remarkable, that the terms Trinity and per. son were avoided in the Confession of Geneva (Henry, p. 182). Melancthon, too, in the first edition of his Loci, pronounced the scholastic definitions respecting the nature of the Trinity foreign to Christian theology.* And Luther frankly confessed (Ueber die letzten Worte Davids, Wittenberg, edit. vol. v. p. 551): “It is not to be wondered at, that when a man reads this mysterious, incomprehensible article, strange thoughts should occur to him, of which one or another is sometimes little appropriate, and gives rise to dangerous expressions. Yet, the foundation of our faith remaining unshaken, such splinters, chips, and straws, will do us no harm. But the basis of the faith is our belief that there are three persons in one God, and each person is the one, perfect God; 80 that the three persons are not confounded, nor the divine substance divided, but the distinction of persons and unity of nature go together. This is the great mystery, which angels will never cease to contemplate and to admire, and the beholding of which constitutes their blessedness. If they could ever see the end of it, there would also be an end of their blessedness."t Calvin expresses himself in a more speculative way, e. 9, in bis Institutes, i. 13, and elsewhere (against Servetns). His exposition of the Trinity, says Gass (p. 105) " is undoubtedly the best, the most comprehensive and careful, which can be found in the writings of the reformers." The definitions of the schools, however, were not introduced into the Church Confessions of the Protestants. The Lutherans simply appealed to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, which, together with the Apostles' Creed, were prefixed to the Liber Concordiæ. Among the symbolical books of the Reformed Church, the First. Confession of Basle designates the first article (that concerning the Trinity) as a symbolum commane: der gemein Gloub. In several Confessions of Faith, the erroneous innovations of the times were rejected. Thus, in the Conf. Aug. Art. 1:......Nomine Personæ utuntur ea significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut significet non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit. Damnant omnes hæreses...... Samosatenos veteres et neotericos, qui cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de Verbo et de Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur, quod non sint personæ distinctæ, sed quod Verbum significet verbum vocale et Spiritus motum in rebus creatum. In the Apol. it is said ; Primum articuluni Con
* This is otherwise in the later editions: the doctrine is most fully unfolded by Melancthon in the third edition of his Loci (Corp. Reform. xxi., p. 614), but yet without any proper speculative construction,
+ There are also in Luther hints about a speculative treatment of the doctrine (800 Heppe, p. 285, Dieckhof, $ 214); but they have the air of reminiscences from the earlier scholastic mysticism.
fessionis nostræ probant nostri adversarii.... Hunc articulum semper docui. mus et defendimus, et sentimus eum babere certa et firma testimonia in Scripturis Sanctis, quæ labefactari non queunt. Comp. Conf. Helvet. II., Art. 3, where, in proof of this doctrine, the following passages are quoted from Scripture-viz., Luke i. 35; Matt. iii. 16, 17; John i. 32; Matt. xviii. 19; John xiv. 26, xv. 26.* Comp. Conf. Gall. 6; Belg. 8 and 9; Angl. 1 and 2 ; Scotica 1. On the doctrine of the Trinity as propounded in the Catech. Heidelberg. (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost), see Beckhaus in Illgen, l. c. p. 52.
: De Trinitatis Erroribus in 7 books, extracts from which are given in Trechsel, Antitrinitar.
P. 67–98. Servetus instead of commencing his deduction with the Logos, i, e., in a speculative manner, adopted the analyticohistorical mode of procedure. He treats first of the person of Christ,t i. e., Christ in human manifestation. This is the Son of God; orthodox theologians, he says, incorrectly represent the Word (taken in the sense applied to it by the Apostle John) as the Son, and thus deny that the man Christ is the Son of God.—He expressed himself in decided terms against the separation of two natures. In his opinion, Christ is man filled with the divine nature, and wholly pervaded with the divine nature. He only denied that God is man, but not that Christ is God.—He regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine energy and breath in creation, and a moral principle working in man; in reference to the latter point he is called Holy Spirit.—But Servetus endeavored, in every way, to ridicule the ecclesiastical (post-Nicene) doctrine of the Trinity; he only admitted a triad in the sense of Sabellius: Quia tres sunt admirandæ Dei dispositiones, in quarem qualibet divinitas relacet, ex quo sanissime trinitatem intelligere posses : nam Pater est tota substantia et unus Deus, ex quo gradus isti et personatus descendunt. Et tres sunt, non aliqua rerum in Deo distinctione, sed per Dei olkovouíav variis Deitatis formis; nam eadem divinitas, quæ est in Patre, communicatur filio Jesu Christo et spiritui nostro, qui est templum Dei viventis; sunt enim filius et sanctificatus spiritus noster consortes substantiæ Patris, membra, pignora et instruments, licet varia sit in iis deitatis species ; et hoc est, quod distinctæ personæ dicuntur, i, e., multiformes deitatis aspectus, diverse facies et spe
i cies. Servetus asserted that the term Logos, in the writings of John, does not denote a person, but, according to its etymology, signifies oraculum, vox, sermo, eloquium Dei. In his argumentation, he returned to the ancient distinction between λόγος ενδιάθετος and προφορικός (f. 48, quoted by Trechsel, p. 79): Verbum in Deo proferente est ipsemet Deus loquens. Post prolationem est ipsa caro ; seu Verbum Dei, antequam caro illa fieret, intelligebatur ipsum Dei oraculum inter nubis caliginem nondum manifestatum (the hidden God), quia Deus erat ille sermo. Et postquam Verbum homo factum est, per Verbum intelligimus ipsum Christum, qui est Verbum
* It is remarkable that the well known passage, 1 John, v. 7, is nowhere quoted; Luther also omitted it in his translation. In the first Confession of Basle no scriptural proofs were adduced, but in a marginal note it was observed: "this is proved by the whole Scripture, by many passages in both the Old and the New Testaments."
| Hence we must here anticipate somewhat, treating of the christology in conu ection with theology.
Dei et vox Dei; nam quasi vox est ex ore Dei prolatus. Propterea dicitur ipse Sermo Patris, quia Patris mentem enunciat et ejus cognitionem facit. In his opinion there was no interval between the (hypostatical) generation of the Son, and the birth of Christ. The prolatio verbi and the generatio carnis are one and the same act. He also rejected what were commonly called the opera ad intra. Comp. Heberle : Michael Servets Trinitätslehre und Christologie (in the Tubingen Theologische Zeitschrift, 1840, 2. The chief refutation of Servetus was by Calvin, in his Defensio orthod. Fidei adversus prodigiosos Errores Serveti.
• This was the case, e. 9., with William Campanus, who, though refusing to admit the Arian phrase, ñ TOTÈ ÓTe oúk nv, nevertheless strongly asserted the subordination of the Son to the Father, and termed him “the steward and servant, the messenger and ambassador of God.” But the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was especially by Campanus impugned: "Nothing in the world can be more futile, and against nothing can more powerful arguments be adduced from Scripture." Accordingly, he supposed the existence of two Divine persons alone—viz., the Father and the Son; as matrimony too admits only two persons, and excludes every third. See Trechsel, p. 32 (after Schelhorn, Dissert. de Joh. Campano Antitrinitario, in his Amenitatt. Litt. T. xi. p. 32, s.) Adam Pastoris (Rodolph Martini) also appears to have propounded Arian errors rather than Sabellian ; see Trechsel, p. 32.
• F. Socinus agreed with Servetus in rejecting the idea of persons in the Divine nature; but he considered Christ as pinds å vOpwToS, not, like Servetus, as a man filled and pervaded with the Divine nature, or, as it were, God appearing in the world, manifesting himself in the filesh. He differed from the Ebionites only in this, that he (like the Nazarenes) supposed the birth of Christ to be supernatural. He substituted a man who became, as it were, God, for God becoming man; for he ascribed a kind of divine worship to that Christ who after his resurrection, was elevated to heaven (a species of worship resembling that which Roman Catholics render to their saints, though of a higher order). Comp. Catech. Racov., p. 32: Vox Deus duobus potissimum modis in Scripturis usurpatur: prior est, cum designat illum, qui in cælis et in terra omnibus ita dominatur et præest, ut neminem superiorem agnoscat, atque in hac significatione Scriptura unum esse Deum asserit. Posterior modus est, cum eum denotat, qui potestatem aliquam sablimem ab uno illo Deo habet aut deitatis unius illius Dei aliqua ratione particeps est. Ete. nim in Scripturis propterea Deus ille unus Deus deorum vocatur (Ps. 1. 1.) Et hac quidem posteriore ratione filius Dei vocatur Deus in quibusdam Scripturæ locis.—That Christ was es essentia patris genitus, is most strongly denied in the Catech. Racov., p. 56. Other passages are quoted by Winer, p. 42. (Compare below on Christology.)–Concerning the Holy Spirit, So. cinus said, in his Breviss. Institt. p. 652: Quid de Spir. S. dicis? Nempe illum non esse personam aliquam a Deo, cujus est spiritus, distinctam, sed tantummodo (ut nomen ipsum Spiritus, quod flatum et afilationem, ut sic loquar, significat, docere potest) ipsius Dei vim et efficaciam quandam, i. e. eam, quæ secum sanctitatem aliquam afferat, etc. Comp. Bibl. Fratr. Pol ii., p. 445, b. : Spiritum Sanctum virtutem Dei atque efficaciain, qua aliquo
modo res ab ipso Deo sanctificantur, esse credimus. Personam vero ipsum Spiritum Sanctum, proprie et in potiorem significatum acceptum, et ab ipso Deo, cujus est spiritus, distinctum esse, negamus. Sanctam motionem, creatam a Deo in anima hominis metonymice auctorem rei pro re ipsa nominando, Spiritum Sanctum appellari posse, dubitari nequit. Sed aliud est appellari posse, aliud vero re ipsa esse. According to the Socinians, the doctrine of the Trinity is equally opposed to Scripture* and to reason; they combated it on both grounds: see Fock, Socinianismus, p. 454 sq.
* The Confess. Remonstr., c. 3, was indeed silent on the subject of sabor dination, but Episcopius expressed himself as follows, Inst. Theol., 4, 2, 32, p. 33 : Sed addo, certum esse ex Scripturis, personis his tribus divinitatem divinasque perfectiones tribui non collateraliter aut coordinate, sed subordinate, ita ut pater solus naturam istam divinam et perfectiones istas divinas a se habeat sive a nullo alio, filius autem et Spir. S. a patre: ac proinde pater divinitatis omnis, quæ in filio et spiritu sancto est, fons ac principium sit. Limborch Theol. Christ., ii, 17, 8 25: Colligimus, essentiam divinam ot filio et spiritui sancto esse communem. Sed et non minus constat, inter tres hasce personas subordinationem esse quandam, quatenus pater naturam divinam a se habet, filius et spir. S. a patre, qui proinde divinitatis in filio et spiritu sancto fons est et principium. Communis christianorum consensus ordinis ratione prærogativam hanc agnoscit, patri semper tribnens primum locum, secundum filio, tertium spiritui sancto. Sed et est quædam supereminentia, patris respectu filii, et patris ac filii respectu spiritus sancti, ratione dignitatis ac potestatis. Dignius siquidem est generare, quam generari, spirare quam spirari, etc.
• Compare above, $ 234, Notes 10 and 11, p. 213. Bishop Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicen., 1680, was intended to restore the authority of the early fathers of the church, which had been abandoned by some of the orthodox. Petavius even had endeavoured to show that little dependence could be placed upon them. The Defensio is partly in opposition to him, and also to Zwicker and Sandius. Bossuet claimed that Bull held to the infallibility of the Council of Nice (Hist. de Variat., liv. xv., & 103), but without adequate grounds. Bull's Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, 1694, had more direct reference to the lax views of Episcopius and Curcellæus. His last chief work, Primitive and Apostolical Tradition, was against Zwicker who represented tho divinity of Christ, and the Incarnation, as inventions of the early heretics. Bull's mode of discussion is historical rather than metaphysical. He held to a subordination of the Son in the divine essence, while opposing Tritheism, Arianism, and Sabellianism.—The controversy was carried over into the metaphysical question by Dr. Wm. Sherlock, in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 1690, in reply to two anonymous books, viz., Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius, and a Brief View of the Unitarians and Socinians. Dr. Sherlock proposed an “easy and intelligible” mode of ex
. plaining the Trinity. But he was opposed as tritheistic by Dr. Wallis, Savilian Prof. of Geometry (in 7 Letters to a friend, 1690-1), and by Robert South, Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's book, 1693. The two latter were
* 1 John, v. 7, is not genuine, but oven if so, it asserts only the agreement in testimony and not the unity ot'essence.
accused of Sabellianism. The parties were termed tritheists and nominalists. In this controversy Bull took no direct part, but some of the points are discussed in his posthumous work, Discourse on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in the first three centuries, etc., drawn up for Lord Arundell. Cud. worth's Intellectual System, and Stilling fleet's Vindication of the Trinity, 1697, appeared about the same time. The latter says : " whether an infinite nature can communicate itself to three different substances without such division as is among created beings, must not be determined by bare num. bers, but by the absolute properties of the Divine nature, which must be owned to be above our comprehension." Dr. Sherlock, besides his Vindication, also wrote a Defence of his Notice of a Trinity in Unity; the Present State of the Socinian Controversy ; Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians, etc. The discussion was continued between Samuel Clarke and Waterland, (see p. 213 above), turning upon the possibility of a kind of second, and inferior deity, which was maintained by Clarke, who appealed from the fathers to the Scriptures. His position was substantially that of the high Arians. Dr. Waterland replied, vindicating the eternity and consubstantiality of the Son, and exploding the distinction between absolute and relative deity. Other works called out in the progress of the discussion were, Waterland's Sermons at Lady Moyer's Lectures, 1720; Whitby's Modest Disquisition, 1715, with Waterland's replies (turning on the meaning of essence, person, personality, hypostasis); Waterland says, that Whitby here changes the state of the question : " With Bishop Bull, the question was, whether the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed the Son to be an eternal, uncreated, and strictly divine substance : with you (Whitby) it is, whether they believed him to be the same numerical, intellectual essence, (i. e. person), with the Father.” Works of Calamy (Sermons on Trinity), Glocester Ridley (Divinity of Holy Ghost, reprinted, Oxf., 1802), Whiston (Council of Nice, 1713), Thos. Randolph (Vind. of Christ's Divinity), Arthur Collier (Treatise on the Logos, 1732), continued the controversy to the close of the period. Compare also, John Howe's Calm Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead; and John Owen's reply to Sherlock, and Brief Vind. of Trinity (works, vol. x.); Stilling fleet's Scripture Mysteries, and Trinity and Transubstantiation compared (republ. in Bp. Randolph's Enchiridion Theologicum, vols. 2 and 3); Berriman on the Trinity, 1732; Sherlock on the Socinian Controversy, 1698; Edwards' Preservative against Socinianism, 1703. See Van Mildert's Life of Waterland.]
THE SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING GOD,
TOGETHER WITH ITS MYSTICAL AND SPECULATIVE ASPECT.
Faith in the Trinity served as a basis for the further development of theology in the Protestant Church. Among the arguments for the existence of God, the ontological proof was revived by Des Cartes." Most doctrinal writers of this period, however, made