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

ὁμοούσιος.

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 Sin der Nic. Glaub.) 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, (Kirchen Geschich. v. 335) says, in reference to the meaning of us, 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 (2 Th. s. 24) and Stark, in his History of Arianism, (Berlin. 1786, 1 Th. s. 306, 307,) 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 evi

:

dence 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 is, 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 Godhead a distinction, of course in opposition to those, who maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are, in all respects, identical, so far as they are divine. And when the Fathers use person, can they use it, but in "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 hypostasis 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 coeternal 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 (ar var) 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 Father had not any particular reference to the errors of Sabellius. To 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 hypos tasis." (Untursuch, &c.) "Certainly," says Bishop Bull, (opp. p. 114.) "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 that 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 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.

POSTSCRIPT.

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 any thing, 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.

Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested

to me?

I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with another, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say; "We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal him in this character." In the latter you say; According to this doctrine, (i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity,) there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends

the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed."

But how can Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the "same Being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that there is a distinction between him and the Father? You yourself represent them, as holding this distinction to be equal to that, which exists between two different men. This indeed is incorrect; but it is equally so, to represent them as holding that Jesus Christ is the same Being as the Father," if you mean by this, in all respects the same.

we

Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if Christ were "the same being as the Father, . . should expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God." For first; are we to receive the book of God as it is; or are we at liberty to insist, that it must be conformed to our expectations? and secondly; if Christ was truly man, (a point as certain, as that Christ ever existed,) and was conversant in the human nature with men; how, in a book which gives us the history of what he said and did during his incarnation, should we expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God? The reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be, at least very questionable.

In truth, the Sacred writers do not appear to me to write as controversialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the way with men, who have extravagant views of the importance of any particular subject, to be ever dwelling upon it, and taking occasion to introduce it as often as possible. Thus I have heard some preachers, who will not utter a single public discourse, or offer a single prayer, without letting it be known of all men, that they are champions for the doctrine of the Trinity. I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers know that they are emancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages; and have thrown off the shackles of Creeds and Confessions, and Forms imposed