"nothing about it; whereas it would be a con"tradiction to the fcripture to say there are three "Gods, because Mofes fays, Hear O Ifrael, the "Lord thy God is one Lord." As to a contradiction with respect to reafon and common fenfe, this writer seems to have made no difficulty of it, not having thought it worth his while to take it into confideration. I must mention another peculiarity of Peter Lombard, because it was the occafion of fome controversy. He made fome distinction between the divine effence and the three perfons in the Godbead. But on this he was attacked in a large work by Joachim, abbot of Flora, who denied that there was any effence, or any thing that belonged in common to the three persons, by which their fubftantial union was taken away, and nothing but a numerical or moral union was left. This explication was, therefore, condemned by Innocent the third, in 1215*. Though Thomas Aquinas writes very largely on the fubject of the Trinity, he has not much that is peculiar to himself. He defines a perfont to "be an individual fubftance of a rational nature," and pretends to demonftrate, a priori, that there must be more perfons than one in the • Mosheim, Vol. iii. p. 134. Summa, Part i. In. xxix. Art. i. p. 70. divine effence*, but not more than three †. And laftly, after afferting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, as well as from the Father, he fays, that the Father and Son are but one origin (unum principium) of the Holy Spirit. SECTION X. The Hiftory of the Doctrine of the Trinity after the Eutychian Controversy. THE doctrine of the Trinity, as it was ever held in the western part of the world, had now received its laft improvements; and indeed continued with little alteration from the time of Auftin. A few more fubtleties, however, were started upon the fubject, efpecially in the East, which require to be noticed. In 519, fome monks of Syria, at the head of whom was P. Fullo, having a difpute with one Victor, a deacon in Conftantinople, whom they Qu. xxxvi. p. 80. Summa, Qu. xxx. p. 72. + Ib. accufed accused of being a Neftorian, infifted upon his faying that one of the perfons in the Trinity was crucified for us, an expreffion which no Neftorian would use. They both appealed to the pope's legates, who were then at Conftantinople. But though these thought the words capable of a good fenfe, yet fince they might be fufpected of the Eutychian herefy, they thought it was better not to use them. The monks not satisfied with this decifion, appealed to pope Hormifdas, who condemned the expreffion, but his fucceffor John approved of it. Then, finding that the expression was not generally relifhed they proposed to change it, and to say that the Logos, or the word, bad fuffered for us; but this was alfo thought to favour too much of Eutychianifm*. Happily this controverfy ended without very ferious confequences, It has been observed that all the antient orthodox Fathers fuppofed that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that the Logos became a person immediately before the creation; having been originally nothing but an attribute of the divine nature. This opinion, it seems, was not quite extinct in the year 529. For we then find a decree of a fynod of Vaison in France, condemning it, and the preamble fhews that the opinion was pretty general. "Because," say they, "not only in the apoftolical fee, but also in the "East, and in all Africa and Italy, heretics blaf phemed, faying that the Son of God was not "always with the Father, but had a beginning "in time, they ordered it to be chanted in the " common fervice, Glory to the Father, and to "the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in "the beginning." A form which has continued to be in use ever fince *. The next controversy of which I shall give an account fhews, at the fame time, the fubtlety of the mind of man in devifing distinctions, and the impotence of power to restrain or guide it. In the feventh century the emperor Heraclius, confidering the detriment which his empire received from the migration of the perfecuted Neftorians, and their fettlement in Perfia, was very defirous of uniting the Monophyfites, and thought to prevent the diverfity of opinions among them. by inducing them to accede to the following propofition (suggested to him, it is faid, by Anaftafius, the chief of the Jacobites, and who pretended to renounce Eutychianism, in order to be made bishop of Antioch) "there was in Jesus "Chrift, after the union of the two natures, but "one will and one operation." Accordingly he published an edict in favour of this doctrine, which was called that of the Monothelites, in 630. Sueur. It was afterwards confirmed in a council, and for fome time feemed to have the intended effect. But foon after it was the occafion of new and violent animofities, in confequence of the oppofition made to it by Sophronius a monk of Pa leftine. He, being raised to the fee of Jerufalem,. was the occafion of a council being held at Conftantinople in 680, which was called the fixth general council, in which the doctrine of the Monothelites was condemned. Notwithstanding this condemnation, this doctrine was embraced by the Mardiates, a people who inhabited Mount Libanus, and were afterwards called Maronites, from Maro their first bishop; but in the thirteenth century they joined the church of Rome*. In the condemnation of this doctrine, it is re markable that it was not stated, nor any thing op pofite to it afferted; the writings only which contained it being condemned, as containing propofitions "impious, and hurtful to the foul;" and they were therefore ordered to be exterminated and burned. It is, indeed, no wonder that those who are called orthodox with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, fhould be embarraffed with two intelligent principles in one perfon, in what manner foever they may imagine them to be united. If there be but one intelligent principle, or nature, there can be but one will, but if there be two in * Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 37. Sueur, A. D. 629. and 680. telligent |