Doctrine of two Natures in Christ.

Ir is one objection to the doctrine of the Trinity,

that it ascribes two natures to Jesus Christ; that not content with representing God as existing in three distinct persons, it divides one of those persons, by assigning to him a divine and a human nature. This extraordinary doctrine is a necessary consequence of the trinity, and is, we think, one of the greatest incumbrances with which it is loaded. If the former be overthrown, the latter falls with it. We consider it peculiarly unfortunate for the advocates of the trinity, that their hypothesis involves a supposition, which is attended with all the formidable difficulties with which the doctrine of two natures in Christ is surrounded.

We shall proceed to state more explicitly, what is understood by this doctrine at the present day, and bring into view some of the most important objections to it, after offering a few observations upon its origin and growth in the earlier ages of the church.

The simple doctrines of Christianity became disfigured by a mixture of human falsehood and error, in

times not very remote from the days of the apostles. The followers of Jesus soon ceased to honour their master as the favoured messenger, through whom the Father had spoken and made displays of power to men, and employed themselves in abstruse speculations about his rank and person. In their attempts to exalt his nature, they forgot the gratitude and respect, which were due to him as a teacher of the will of God, their duty, and their prospects, as a guide and example to direct them on their way, encourage their virtue, and confirm their faith and hopes by submitting to the cross, and rising from the dead. He was revered by those of his disciples who attended him, or occasionally listened to his instructions, as one invested with miraculous power and wisdom; but no sooner had he left the earth, than the imagination or philosophy of the new converts began to throw around his person various disguises, which weakened the effect of those simple and grand virtues which marked his character. The prophet of Nazareth was viewed as God, having only the appearance of a man, by the heretical Docetœ; and regarded as a man, with whom one of the cons or divine intelligences became united at baptism, and whom he forsook immediately before his sufferings, by the no less heretical Cerinthians.

A doctrine somewhat resembling the trinity of later ages was at length struck out, and gradually obtained currency. On the subject of this doctrine, however, the opinions of the fathers of the three first centuries appear to have been somewhat indefinite and fluctuating. Different individuals entertained views, variously modified by their former habits of thinking, conceptions and prejudices. These views were stated by each one in his

own way, and often loosely or carelessly expressed; or if, in a few instances, forms of expression in general use were adhered to, they had never been fully explained, or accurately investigated, and therefore were far from being always understood, or having at all times the same force.*

Arius, having early in the fourth century published opinions, which were deemed false and dangerous by the predominant party, the council of Nice was assembled, A. D. 325, to suppress the growing heresy, and settle the faith of future ages. The labours of this council resulted in the production of the well known document, called the Nicene Creed, in which the Son is declared to be "of one substance with the Father,t very God of very God," "who came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made flesh."

The Deity of the Son being acknowledged, it next became an inquiry, in what manner the divine and

* The want of uniformity and precision in the sentiments of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on the subject of the Trinity, is acknowledged by the learned Jesuit Petavius, who was not deficient in tenderness and respect for the Fathers of his church. Dogmata Theologica, tom. ii. lib. i. cap. iii, et iv.

† Ὁμούσιον τω Πατρί. The expression in the original is not wholly free from ambiguity. Oμosov, the term used to express be consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, appears to have been employed by the Platonics and Platonizing Fathers, to express, not a numerical, but only a specific identity-not that one thing was nunierically of the same substance with another, but partook of the same In this sense it seems to have been employed by the Fathers of the Nicene Council. Succeeding ages, while they have retained the language, have departed from the sentiments of these Fathers. Petavius, in his Dog. Theol. tom. ii. lib. iv. cap. v. has brought ogether a great mass of learning, on the origin and use of the term Sμosov. See also Eusebii Cœs. Epistola, extant in Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap, viii. and Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. xii.

nature.