ponderancy. The council of Constantinople A.D. 381, condemned the Arians and Macedonians, confirmed the Nicene creed, and made some additions to it, the most important of which respected the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit.

[Πιςεύομεν εις το πνευμα το άγιον] το κύριον, το ζοωποιον, το ἐκ του πατρος ἐκπορευομενον, το συν πατρι και διῳ συμπροσκύνημονον, και συνδοξαζομεμον, το λαλησαν δια των προφητών.

The principal writers concerning the Son: Athanas. Expos. fidei, contra Arianos Oratt. IV. Hilary of Poictiers, de Trinit. Lib. X. Basil the Great, contra Eunomium, Lib. III. Gregory of Nyssa, contra Eunom. Lib. XII. Gregory of Nazianz. Orationes V. de Theologia. Ambrose, de Fide, ad Gratianum, Lib. V.

Concerning the Holy Ghost. Athanas. IV. Epp, ad Serapio. Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, ad Amphilochium Li

nem.

ber. Didymus, de. Sp. S. Ambrose, de Sp. S.

SEC. 76. Fuller statement of the doctrine of the Trinity.

In accordance with the Athanasian doctrine, the unity of essence, and the trinity of persons, in the Godhead, were maintained; and in relation to which, the words audia and rosadis were sometimes used as synonymous, and sometimes as differing in import. Appropriate attributes (idiones) were ascribed to each Person; to the Father, his being unbegotten (ayɛvvndia); to the Son, a being begotten (yevndia); to the Holy Ghost, procession (ixTopEUdis, Exes). Respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, there was a difference of opinion, between the Greeks and the Latins: and in the Council of Toledo, A.D. 589, the words et filio were added to the Constantinopolitan Creed.

Reference. J. G. Walch, Historia controversiae Graecorum et Latinorum de processione Spiritus S. Jenae, 1751. 8vo. Historia succincta controversiae de processione Spir. Sancti; authore Christ. Matth. Pfaff. Tub, 1749. 4to,

SEC. 77. Subsequent statements.

The subsequent writers held strongly, to this system of doctrine. Yet Augustine had something peculiar; for he effaced the traces of unlikeness and subordination, which had existed from before the times of the Nicene Council; and he insisted on the numerical unity of the three Persons. In accordance with his views, the relations of the three Persons were more distinctly set forth, in what is called, the Athanasian Creed. The charge of tritheism, brought against certain Monophysites, as John Askuanages and John Philiponus, arose from philosophical speculations, and rested on mere inferences. Reference. Augustine, de Trinitate Libri XV.

Athanasian Creed. Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut teneat catholicam fidem, Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est, ut unum Deum in trinitate et trinitatem in unitate veneremur, neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia enim est persona patris, alia filii, alia spiritus sancti; sed patris et filii et spiritus sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria et aequalis majestas. Qualis pater, talis filius, talis et spiritus sanctus. Increatus pater, increatus filius, increatus spiritus sanctus. Immensus pater, immensus filius, immensus et spiritus sanctus. Aeternus pater, aeternus filius, aeternus et spiritus sanctus; et tamen non tres aeterni sed unus aeternus, sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens pater, omnipotens filius, omnipotens et spiritus sanctus; et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus pater, Deus filius, deus et spiritus sanctus; et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita dominus pater, dominus filius, dominus et spiritus sanctus; et tamen non tres sunt domini, sed unus dominus. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque personam et deum et dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur, ita tres deos aut dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus. Filius a patre solo est, non factus, non creatus sed genitus. Spiritus sanctus a

patre et filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus est, sed procedens. Unus ergo pater, nec tres patres, unus filius, non tres filii, unus spiritus sanctus, non tres spiritus sancti. Et in hac trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in trinitate et trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de trinitate sentiat.

CHAPTER VI.

DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

SEC. 78. First germs of it.

The early catholic fathers had to contend, against the Ebionites, and against the Gnostics. The former held Christ, to be a mere man; the latter regarded him, as having no part in humanity, but as being an exalted Spirit, who either assumed the mere appearance of a bo dy, or brought with him from heaven a more refined body. According to the catholic doctrine, both these opinions were to be rejected; and yet the Alexandrians so far leaned towards Gnosticism, as to deny that Christ's body was homogeneous with ours. As to the manner,

in which the divine nature was united with the human in Christ, very indistinct ideas prevailed. The earliest fathers(1) maintained only, that the divine Logos assumed a human body. A human soul of Christ, was first obscurely mentioned, by Tertullian (2); afterwards, a rational soul was expressly maintained, by Origen(3): and he first attempted, to set forth a theory respecting the incarnation; namely, that the Logos united himself with a rational soul, selected on account of its pre-eminent purity; and then, by means of this soul, joined himself to a human body.

(1) Münscher's Manual of dogm. history, vol. II. p. 167, &c.

(2) de carne Christi. c. 11, 13, and adv. Prax. c. 16. (3) contra Cels. II. Sec. 9. and IV. Sec. 15-19, &c. passim. de Princip. II. c. 6.

Reference. G. J. Planck, Observationes quaedam in primam doctrinae de naturis Christi historiam. Got. 1787—— 89. also, in the Commentatt, theol. published by Velthusen, Kuinöl and Rupert. vol. I. p. 141 &c.

SEC. 79. Developement of it.

Such indefinite conceptions continued, down to the fourth century, when the Arian controversy directed attention to the subject; for the Arians, who attributed no human soul to Christ, drew arguments from the incarnation of Jesus, against the doctrine of the catholics. The catholic fathers, at first, were fluctuating in their explanations. Appollinaris bishop of Laodicea, taught that, the Logos assumed only two of the three parts of man, namely a body, and a sensitive soul; while the Logos supplied the place of the third part, or human reason. Athanasius maintained, at least in his later writings, and at the Council of Alexandria A. D. 362, that Christ possessed a rational, human soul. The opinion of Apollinaris, was combatted by Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa; and was condemned by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by the general council at Constantinople, A. D. 381.

References. Athanasius, Ep. ad Epictetum. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus contra Apollinarem. Gregory of Naz. Epp. ad Cledonium, sive Orátt. LI. LII.

SEC. 80. The natures of Christ.

It was generally acknowledged, that there was but one Christ, to whom belonged both divine and human properties. Their care to maintain the unity of Christ, induced some fathers, to ascribe to him, a divine nature which became man; and this phraseology, which was used by Athanasius and Apollinaris, became prevalent in Egypt. Other fathers, following the example of the two Gregories, of Nazianzum and Nyssa, spoke of two natures

in Christ; and the Antiochian divines, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, made the distinction of the two natures very prominent, in order to avoid the idea of their being mixed and confounded.

SEC. 81. Nestorius and Cyril.

After a contest on this subject, had been terminated in the West, by the recall of Leporius; a more fearful contest broke out, between the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius of Constantinople, having given offence by asserting, that Mary ought not to be called (soroxos) the mother of God; Cyril took occasion, to charge him with dividing Christ, into two persons; and incurred the accusation against himself, of confounding or of changing the natures of Christ. The Roman Bishop, Coelestine, took the side of Cyril; the Eastern Bishops were for Nestorius. Reciprocated execrations produced the highest degree of bitterness.

References. Cyrilli Anathematismi, cum reprehensionibus Andreae et Theodoreti, et Apologia Cyrilli :—in Mansi Collect. Concil. T. V. p. 1. and Nestorii Anathematismi ; ibid. T. IV. p. 1099. T. V. p. 703, 748.

SEC. 82. Council of Ephesus.

The Emperor Theodosius, attempted to end the strife, by a general council, which he assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431; but it only exasperated the parties, and separated the Oriental Bishops from the Egyptian party. At last, Cyril resolved, to purchase the assent of the Antiochian party to the condemnation of Nestorius, by subscribing a formula, in which he admitted two natures in Christ. On these terms, the peace of the church was restored d; yet the Persian christians became a separate community; and dissatisfaction remained on both sides.

SEC. 83. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In the attempt to force the Egyptian form of the doctrine upon the whole church, Dioscurus labored, in the