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. 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."+ It would seem, that before the Council of Nice, the word ouoovoios 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 oμorarpios, of the same Father; oμoyɛvos, of the same nation; oμolvyos, 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. we profess and preach. Athanasius, stating the reason • Suicer in ὁμοούσιος, † Athanas. Epist. ad Afr. tom. i. p. 987. Biblioth. Max. Pat. tom. iii. p. 349. .... why this Council rejected the word oμoovotos, says, that "Paul of Samosata affirmed, that if Christ were consubstantial with the Father, then it necessarily 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.* A similar account of the rejection of consubstantial by this Council is given by Basil.+ 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 κατα σαρκα, as to his human nature, was consubstantial with the Father. + 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 of 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 oμoovoios, before the Council of Nice. In the Symbol which they drew up, the word was in * Athanas. Op. tom. i. p. 919. Op. tom. iii. Epist. ccc. See Doed. Inst. vol. i. § 115. c. and J. W. Feverlein de Concil. Antioc. there cited. serted 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."* 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 inquiry respecting the meaning of ouoovotos, that " by it he did. not mean that the Son was of the Father by any corporeal affections, nor by any division or separation (arоroun); 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 show what they did not mean by oμoovσios,—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. *Soc. Eccl. Hist. lib. i. c. 8. 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 received 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, and 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 co-eternal dominion; who exist in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons ;—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."* What in the Creed is expressed by consubstantial, they have here called "one (as) divinity, power, and * Theodoreti Eccl. Hist. lib. v. c. 9. 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, as 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 oμoovσiov of the Nicene fathers, by the as ovoias 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 one hundred and fifty 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 όμοούσιος. 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 show that the Nicene fathers meant to assert nothing more than a specific unity of the Godhead.* * Untersuch, über den Sinn der Nic. Glaub. |