Very few of the older theologians, in modern times, have called it in question, that the Nicene Creed implies numerical unity; and these have always been contradicted. Not only so, but some of the great masters of ecclesiastical lore have very recently avouched the opinion in question. Schroeckh, that consummate master of church-history and patristical learning says, in reference to the meaning of ouoovoios in the Nicene Creed, "It cannot be doubted that by this word no specific unity is meant, but a numerical unity in respect to being." So Walch, in his celebrated History of Heresies, has decided; and Stark, in his History of Arianism, has given the same opinion. I will not say there is no appeal from men of such distinguished learning as these; but I may say, that what they pronounce in an unqualified manner to be true, in a case which they have fully examined, when confirmed by general opinion, in all ages, and by very express and (as it seems to me) satisfactory evidence in ancient times, may at least be asserted by me without any special rashness; and may be said to be plain from church-history.

The bearing of this investigation about numerical unity, as implied or excluded by oμoovoros, upon the question how the fathers used the word person, is very evident. A numerical unity being acknowledged, person can be used in reference to the Godhead, by no considerate man, in the same sense in which it is applied to men. It designates a distinction in the Godheada distinction, of course, in opposition to those who maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are in

* Kirchen Greschich. v. 344.

Berlin, 1786, 1. Th. s. 306, 307.

+2 Th. s. 24.

And

all respects identical, so far as they are divine. when the fathers use person, can they use it but in

66

opposition to Sabellians and others of similar sentiments?" Most certainly the Arians did not deny that Father and Son were two hypostases. They maintained it in such a high sense as to exclude numerical unity of substance. When the Council of Constantinople affirm, therefore, that "God exists in three most perfect hypostases or perfect persons," they evidently mean to oppose Sabellius, as they proceed to say, "So that the pest of Sabellius shall have no place, which 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 co-eternal Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, of a different substance, and created." The latter clause here is as if they had said, The Arians, &c. make two substances, natures, &c. of Christ and the Father, and the Macedonians explain away the being of the Spirit; but we maintain numerical unity (μav ovolar) of substance or being, in opposition to these.

Such an explanation, by these fathers, of what the Nicene Council meant to oppose, seems to me to indicate that the Reviewer is not correct when he intimates that the Nicene fathers had not any particular reference to the errors of Sabellius. Το oppose Arius was, no doubt, the special object of the Council. But then, in forming a creed, they naturally had reference to the disputes of the times in general. Dr. Münscher admits this. "The Nicene Council," says he, "recognized (vorfand) as decided, the doctrine of the Church, that

the Son of God is called God, and is entitled to divine honours. They recognized also the decision, established in opposition to the Noetians and Sabellians, that the Son or Logos is a proper hypostasis." "Certainly," says Bishop Bull, † “it is most clearly evident (liquidissimo constat) that the Nicene fathers, in their creed, meant to impugn other heresies besides the Arian." He proceeds to say, what is very evident to be sure, that many things are contained in the Creed which the Arians did not deny at all, and which must therefore refer to other sects.

I have proceeded as far in this examination as my present limits will allow. If I have justified the shape of the paragraph which the Reviewer has animadverted upon, given in the present edition, my special object is answered by this investigation.

Be this, however, as it may; as the great body of Trinitarians, since the Council of Constantinople, to say the least, have maintained the numerical unity of the Godhead, and as Mr. Channing cannot be supposed to have attacked the Trinitarianism of the fathers, but of the present day, so the substance of all that was aimed at in the paragraph of the Letters under consideration, stands unimpeached. Trinitarians of modern times, maintaining the numerical unity of the Godhead, cannot, unless Mr. Channing supposes them to be most unreasonably self-contradictory, maintain that person does apply or can apply to the Godhead, in the latitude in which he understands it. The real question, therefore, as to the justice of his attack upon their opinions, is not affected by the sense in which

• Untersuch, &c.

† Op. p. 114.

the fathers used the word person.

The investigation

of this question, however, may not be without some use. It may at least provoke a more diligent examination of the subject than has hitherto taken place among

us.

Should this be the case, the interests of truth may be promoted by it.

L

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III.

AFTER finishing the above Letter, your "Note for the second edition" came to hand. But as it seemed to me that most which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think it of importance to change the shape of the Letter, and adapt it to your Note as well as Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject all controversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. I have not the most distant design of saying anything with a view to wound your personal sensibility; but I do feel, and I ought to feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason of a man who, by his weight of character, sobriety of mind, and eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in society as you have. And, in order to do this with propriety, I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to throw the whole subject into the shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that form of writing which too commonly involves personal reflection.