12. _The Eutychians_. Granting there were not two Persons, we suppose that there were not two Natures. We hold that there was but one Nature _mono physite_ (_mono physis_)--originally two distinct natures, but, after union, only one: the human nature being transubstantiated into the divine.
13. _The Catholick Church_. This also is faulty. For (Council of Chalcedon 451) in Christ, two distinct natures are united in one person without any change, mixture, or confusion.
14. _Honorius Bishop of Rome and the Monothelites_. Then perhaps the human will of Christ was subservient to the Divine Will, so as always to move in unison with it.
15. _The Catholick Church_. (3rd Council of Constantinople 680--6th General Council.) No! You would destroy the truth of His humanity.
It is obvious that we are here returning to some part of the earlier errors, and that everything possible {123} had been suggested, and settled. Even orthodox people, who incline to hold that Christ"s human knowledge was divinely acquired, or His human temptations divinely resisted, are but repeating the errors of old days.
Thus the Controversies, however disfigured by excess of language and temper, &c. are the meditations of the Church on the Nature of Her Lord and Her G.o.d.
Some of them are perhaps too much of the disposition of S. Thomas, who must push his hands against the scars of the Lord"s Body; but the Lord has ever been patient towards the devout and warm-hearted men, who share with S. Thomas, not only his doubt, but that devotion which destroys intrusive impertinence.
The following interesting argument as to the date of this "Creed" is worthy of study.
The Athanasian Creed appears on the scene at the close of these loud meditations. It is unconscious of the theory that Eutyches started, because it uses phrases which he might have perverted, e.g.
One, not by conversion &c.
As the reasonable soul &c.
Thus its date is given by internal evidence as previous to 451.
The same sort of argument may apply to Nestorius, who was condemned 431. But this is more doubtful. It insists on "one Son, not three Sons"--but says nothing of "one Son, not two Sons" which was the Nestorian error.
{124}
These two points may be summarised.
_Monophysites_ (condemned 451 at Ephesus) insisted on _One Nature_, to defend One Person:
opposing
_Nestorians_ (condemned 431 at Chalcedon), who insisted on _Two Natures_ almost, if not quite, to the a.s.sertion of _Two Persons_.
[Transcriber"s note: refer to Footnote 1 on page 176 referring to an error in the above two paragraphs.]
The date is limited in lateness by the above. It must have been before the middle of 400-500, i.e. before the complete development of the controversy condemned in 451.
And it could not be earlier than 416, because it plainly condemns Apollinarians, who denied a human Soul to Christ, and said the G.o.dhead was in place of a human soul (360-373): and because several of S.
Augustine"s expressions appear in it, whose books on the Trinity appeared about 416, and later.
Moreover the "Filioque[1]" appears in it, and S. Augustine was the first to give this prominence.
Thus the date is fixed between 420 and 440.
And it is Latin, in the construction of its Sentences, not Greek; and Gallic, in its first reception, and chief, earliest, and most numerous, MSS and commentaries.
The Roman Church did not adopt it till 930, though Charlemagne presented it to the Pope in 722.
Thus Waterland dates it in France between 420 and 431. Within those dates the authors possible are, not Athanasius, for he died about 373, but
Hilary of Arles, Bp. 429-449.
Victricius of Rouen.
Vincentius of Lerins, 434.
{125}
These arguments apply, however, not to the Creed as it now stands, but to the doc.u.ments from which it was compounded, and to the language which it has retained.
This Psalm, or Creed, or discussion of the Creeds, appears to be formed by the union of two doc.u.ments, one of which was a discussion of the nature of G.o.d, and the other a discussion of the Person of Christ. An article by Professor Lumby in the S.P.C.K. Prayer Book will be accessible to all our readers. The former doc.u.ment occupies 28, and the latter, 14 verses.
The doctrine that there is a G.o.d, and particularly that there is but one G.o.d, may be called the Catholic Religion, in a very wide sense: for it is held by Jews, Turks, and many others who are not Christians.
The Christian Verity is the Truth that G.o.d was made man, that Jesus is G.o.d and Man, yet not two, but one Christ. This involves the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
The Catholic Faith includes both the Catholic Religion and the Christian Verity.
_vv._ 9 and 12: the word _incomprehensible_ is the Latin word _immensus_, elsewhere rendered _infinite_. (See Article I.) _vv._ 21-23 show that there are statements which can be made of each Person, which cannot be made of the other Persons of the G.o.dhead: 6-18 have been showing that there are statements which can be made of each Person, which can also be made of the other Persons--statements involving G.o.dhead. 24-27 state the inference which is to be drawn from the former verses, an inference previously stated in 3-5.
{126}
_v._ 31. The word Substance occurs frequently in the discussion of the G.o.dhead of our Lord, and also in the debates about the Holy Communion.
Substance is the Essential Existence: it has no necessary connection with ideas like "hard" and "soft," "heavy" and "light"; if we are thinking of a spirit there is no question of Matter, for the Substance, i.e. the Essential Being, of a spirit is not of the nature of Matter.
The phrase in the Nicene Creed _Being-of-one-substance-with_ (_the Father_) is a translation of the word Consubstantial.
The name _Quicunque Vult_, by which this psalm is sometimes mentioned is from the first words of the Latin original _Quicunque vult salvus esse_=Whosoever will be safe. This phrase "be safe" occurs again in verse 28, and again in the last verse of the psalm, where _quam nisi--salvus esse non poterit_ should be translated _which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly, he cannot be safe_. The subst.i.tution of another idea--"be saved,"--is of the nature of an addition to the meaning.
The addition is, however, independently stated in verse 2.
These verses are to be understood, like the Bible statements of similar character, as the warning which overhangs all our actions. They say nothing of what allowance G.o.d makes for involuntary ignorance, prejudice, difficult perplexities, and other infirmities. They declare our responsibility when we look up to G.o.d, and reflect on our own actions, or on G.o.d"s Being.
[1] It was used as a Psalm at Prime following cxix. 1-32. Nor did it disturb the use of the Apostles" Creed. Bishop Barry has suggested that until 1662 this use of both was continued. But Bishop Cosin, whose notes and suggestions and personal influence had so much to do with the Revision of 1662, had a note "though it be not here set down, yet I believe the meaning was that the Apostles" Creed should be omitted that day, when this of Athanasius was repeated." And words were inserted in the rubrics to make this quite clear.
[2] See Appendix E.
{127}
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SERVICE OF PRAYER.
If we have understood the Method of Praise which, in these Services, uses ancient forms in an ordered variety, we shall be prepared to find similar order, and similar use of variety, in the Prayers. The Map of the Services on p. 28 should be examined afresh, in order that we may grasp the unity of the Prayers, as well as the unity of the Praises.