Page images
PDF
EPUB

To ascertain in every case the exact meaning of words, in a writer who uses them so carelessly, (sometimes to appearance inconsistently,) as Origen does, would be a task difficult indeed to be performed. That he believed in the • doctrine of the eternal generation and divinity of the Son, can scarcely be doubted, when the various assertions which he has made, on this subject, are compared together. (See Bulli opp. pp. 105, &c.) That the three hypostases, which he predicates of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do not imply persons in the sense of the word, which is now common, may be inferred probably from what he says of the indivisibility of the divine nature. "God," he says "is altogether incorruptible, and simple, and composite, not divisible." (Lib. iv. cont. Cels. p. 169.) Again, "The only begotten, God our Saviour, the only begotten of the Father, is Son by nature, not by adoption. He is born of the mind of the Father, as the will of the mind. For the divine nature is not divisible, i. e. of the unbegotten Father, that we should think the Son is begotten by any division, or diminution of his substance. (Lib. 2, in Johan. as cited by Pamphilus in Apolog.)

While Origen, therefore, maintains the doctrine of three hypostases, or persons, he does it in such a sense, as consists with the indivisibility, i. e. the numerical unity of the Godhead. But to explain, or to justify all his speculations about the generation of the Son, is what I shall by no means attempt.

Cyprian, cotemporary with Origen, has little in his writings, which concerns the present question. In his letter to Jubaianus, however, after mentioning the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, he says, "These three are one;" and he afterwards speaks, of Christ's "commanding to baptize into the full and one (adunata) Trinity."

Lactantius, (about A. D. 300) speaking of the Father and Son, says, "To each belongs one mind, one spirit, one substance. (Lib. 4. c. 49.)

The testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers, to the eternity of the Son, may be seen in the works of bishop Bull, above referred to; but as they have not a determinate bearing upon the point in question, I pass them over.

Omitting the minor Fathers, let us come to the Nicene

Creed, the collected sense of the great body of the church at the beginning of the fourth Century. This declares the Son to be oμsoveros, consubstantial, with the Father. Does this exclude or imply numerical unity of substance?

The meaning of the word ouovios must be here investigated. Originally, it was applied to things, which belong to the same species, or have the same nature. Thus Aristotle calls the stars poovaia, consubstantial; and Chrysostom, (Hom. 16. in Gen.) says, that Eve was consubstantial, dusovios, with Adam. So the Pseudo-Justin, in opposing some of Aristotle's doctrines, says, "In respect to a rational nature, angels and demons are consubstantial."

This word, however, was so seldom used by ecclesiastical writers, before the Council of Nice, in relation to the distinction in the Godhead, that the introduction of it has, (though erroneously,) been ascribed to that Council. But Origen, (A. D. 230, Dial. cont. Marcion.) calls the Logos consubstantial; and Dionysius of Alexandria, (A. D. 250) repeatedly uses the same appellation in respect to Christ. (Suicer in όμοούσιος.)

Eusebius of Cesarea, one of the Nicene Fathers, in addressing his church about the Symbol of the Council of Nice, defends the use of the word consubstantial in their Creed, by saying, that "he knew of some ancient, learned, and renowned doctors in the churches, who used it." (Athanas. Epist. ad Afr. T. I. p. 987.)

It would seem, that before the Council of Nice, the word opisovris had already come, (as it certainly afterwards did,) to signify, as many used it, a numerical unity of substance. In such a sense, it compares with monargies of the same Father; imoysvos, of the same nation; povyos, under the same yoke. Those who held to the doctrines of Sabellius, however, and Paul of Samosata seem to have abused the word in order to perplex their opponents. 'It was on this ground, that the Council of Antioch, (A. D. 263,) rejected the application of it to the Son; not because they disbelieved, as the Reviewer would seem to intimate, the divine nature of Christ. The epistle, which six leading bishops of that Council addressed to Paul of Samosata, before his excommunication, says, that the Son is God not by foreknowledge, but in substance and hypostasis

[ocr errors]

we pro

fess and preach." (Biblioth. max. Pat. Tom. iii. p. 349.) Athanasius, stating the reason why this Council rejected the word ouoovies, says, that "Paul of Samosata affirmed, that if Christ were consubstantial with the Father, then it ne cessarily followed, that there were three substances; one prior, and two posterior, derived from it. To avoid this Sophism," adds Athanasius, "those Fathers very properly said that Christ was not consubstantial;" i.e. that the Father did not hold such a relation to the Son, as Paul supposed. (Athanas. Opp. T. I. p. 919.) A similar account of the rejection of consubstantial by this Council, is given by Basil. Opp. T. iii, Epist. ccc.

After all, however, it would seem that the ancient and modern writers, in their discussion of this subject, have mistaken the meaning of the Council of Antioch; and that they merely denied that Christ xara σagna, as to his human nature, was consubstantial with the Father. (See Doed. Inst. Vol. i. §. 115. c. and J. W. Feverlein, de Concil. Antioc. there cited.)

Neither Athanasius, nor Basil, two of the most zealous and able defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity among all the ancient Fathers, intimate, so far as I have been able to learn, the least suspicion, that the Council at Antioch were Unitarians. It is very clear, from the passage above cited, that this Council believed in the divinity of Christ. And since these Fathers lived so near the time, when the Council in question was held, and were so jealous as well as earnest, on the subject of Christ's divinity, it scarcely admits of a doubt, that the conclusion of the Reviewer, in regard to the sentiments of this Council, is erroneous.

Thus much for μooveros, before the Council of Nice. In the Symbol, which they drew up, the word was inserted, after much discussion and consideration. Many members of the Council were afraid, that the same use might be made of it, which Paul of Samosata had made. It was not until "after many questions and answers, and accurate investigation of the meaning of the term," says Eusebius, in writing an account of the Nicene Creed to his Church, "that it was admitted. Those who defended it," he goes on to say, "averred that it signified, that the Son was of the substance of the Father, but not a part, (or division)

of the Father. To this sense," continues he, "it seemed proper we should assent." (Soc. Ecc. Hist. L. 1. c. 8.)

In the same Epistle, Eusebius says, that Constantine the Emperor, who was president of the Nicene Council, replied to some of the Bishops, who made enquiry respecting the meaning of μovies, that "by it, he did not mean that the Son was of the Father, by any corporeal affections, nor by any division, or separation, (axoroun;) for it was impossible, that an incorporeal, intellectual, immaterial nature should admit of corporeal affections (i. e. division or separation ;)but the thing was to be understood of a divine and incomprehensible manner," i. e. manner of relation between the Father and Son.

It seems to me quite plain, that the explanations of Eusebius and Constantine, serve to shew what they did not mean by oμoovios: viz. that they did not mean to impugn the numerical unity of the divine substance, as they object to all idea of separation or division. Specific unity however not only admits, but demands a separation, which destroys numerical unity.

The presumption, then, from these explanations, against the doctrine of mere specific unity being taught in the Nicene Creed, is pretty strong. It is very greatly increased however, by the explanations which this Creed receiv ed, fifty six years afterwards, by the second ecumenical, or general Council, assembled at Constantinople, by order of Theodosius the Great, in order to restore peace to the churches, which were rent by the Arian dispute, & specially to settle and establish the Nicene Symbol of faith. After meeting, and agreeing to receive and recommend the Nicene faith, with some small additions, made to oppose some new heresies which had arisen; they sent a synodic Epistle to the Western Synod of churches, who were to meet at Rome, in which they state, that in accordance with the Nicene Creed, and "the most ancient faith, and agreeable to baptism, they believe in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so namely, that there is one divinity, power, and substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; who possess equal dignity, and coeternal dominion; who exist in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons; so that the pest of Sabellius shall have no place, which

[ocr errors]

confounds the persons, and takes away their appropriate qualities; nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and opposers of the Holy Spirit prevail, which destroys the substance, and nature, and divinity of the uncreated, consubstantial, and coeternal Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, of a different substance, and created." (Theodoreti. Ecc. Hist. L. v. c. 9.)

What, in the Creed, is expressed by consubstantial, they have here called "one (as) divinity, power and substance, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" which is a direct, and (as it appears to me) unequivocal assertion of numerical unity, and has so been understood, so far as I have learned, in all succeeding ages of the church. It cannot admit of a doubt, I think, that they aimed to express the poovetov of the Nicene Fathers, by the mas ovias of their Epistle, and if so, then it is clear, that they interpret the Nicene Creed, as teaching numerical unity of substance, divinity, and power, i. e. substance and attributes, in the Godhead.

In this ecumenical Council, were 150 orthodox bishops assembled, besides a number, who were attached to the sentiments of Macedonius. It is generally conceded, that their decision gave an establishment, and a uniformity to the Christian faith, about the doctrine of the Trinity, which remains even to the present time, among the generality of Christians. This decision was so short a period after the Nicene Council, that some bishops present at Nice, might be, and probably were, still living, and not improbably, present at Constantinople. At any rate, the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople can hardly be supposed to be ignorant, of what the Nicene Council meant to express, by έμπουσιος.

That the great body of Catholics and Protestants have maintained the numerical unity of the Godhead, will not, I suppose, be called in question. As little can it be called in question, that the great body of them have supposed, that the Council of Nice meant to assert it. This Dr. Münscher concedes, in his very able attempt to shew, that the Nicene Fathers, meant to assert nothing more than a specific unity of the Godhead. (Untersuch. über den Sinn der Nic. Glaub.) Very few of the older Theologians, in

« PreviousContinue »