FLATT'S DISSERTATION ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST. THE doctrine of the deity of Christ, as revealed in the word of God, is a mystery so high and transcendent in its nature, that we can scarcely wonder at the almost infinite diversity of sentiment existing in relation to it. But neither the abstruseness of the subjectin itself, nor the discrepancy of men's notions with respect to it, is sufficient to justify us in declining the investigation as desperate and useless, or in rashly setting down all hypothesis and theories as equally fallacious. Those who take the former course, and withhold their attention from the subject altogether, would do well to consider the presumption and ingratitude of wilfully remaining ignorant of that which God would have them know; and at the same time, to bear in mind, that, in propounding these obscure and mystic doctrines, one design of the Almighty, no doubt, was, to teach men experimentally the limits of their intellectual capacity, and the utter inadequacy of the human faculties, to grasp, in their whole extent, the invisible things of God. As to those, who are so bewildered in the mazes of conflicting and confused polemics, that they cannot, or dare not, choose any definite opinion from among the many which have been proposed, I shall only say, that they must either be extremely inexpert in measuring the relative force of difficulties and objections; or else so unreasonably rigorous in estimating evidence, as to reject all proof that is short of demonstration. Let such consider, that when called upon to form an opinion upon any doubtful and contested subject, they are not expected to produce a theory encumbered with no difficulties, but merely to give the preference to that which is encumbered with the least; and which harmonizes best, not with a few detached expressions of the word of God, but with the whole tenor and spirit of the scriptures. That no theory, which has ever been promulgated respecting the divinity of Christ, so well merits this description, as the doctrine of our church set forth in her confessions, it is my design to prove in the prosecution of which object my method shall be this; to show, in the first place, that the doctrine in question, has more evidence, positively in its favor, than all others--and secondly, that it is open to less serious objection. SECTION I. Containing an exposition and defence of the scriptural arguments for the divinity of Christ. An essential preliminary to my argument is a distinct exposition of the doctrine, which I undertake to prove. This of course, requires not merely an acquaintance with the form in which it is propounded, but an accurate idea of the genuine import of the expressions used. To this point, therefore, I shall first address myself. I would remark, then, that there are two phrases, which the church has borrowed from the Fathers, and employed for the purpose of expressing briefly the sum and substance of its doctrine with respect to the deity of Christ. The first is, that the Son of God is ousolos, or consubstantial with the Father; the second, that the Father and the Son are distinct vorrages or persons. As both the Greek terms here employed are somewhat ambiguous and obscure, it becomes a question of essential moment, what they do in themselves legitimately signify, and in what sense they are adopted by the church. As to the word oudios, the first question which presents itself is this does it, in its application to the Son of God, imply a numerical identity of essence, or does it merely intimate, that the Father and the Son are the same xar' soiav that is to say, are specifiically alike, having so far a common. nature as to be reducible to the same species? There can be no doubt, that the latter sense is fully authorized both by the classics and the Fathers. Dionysius Alexandrinus, for example, says, that Christ, considered as a man, is quis,t and the same expression is employed, in a sense evidently similar, in the formula prescribed by the council of Chalcedon. Nay, it might easily be proved, that the word was not understood as denoting numerical identity of essence by the Nicene Fathers themselves, who introduced the expression into the language of the church.‡. Be that as it may, the fact is certain, that in later times, the term has been understood by Catholics to mean, that the soia, of the Father and the Son is numerically identical, or one and the same; which opinion is adhered to by our own church, as appears expressly from the words of her confession. § We shall find as little difficulty in determining the sense attached to the word soα by the church, when used in application to the Father and the Son. It is very true, that it has also a variety of meanings, and is used, in more than one, by the Fathers themselves. But at the same time, it is very * See Doederlein's Instit. Theol. Christ. P. I. p, 376. not. c. † Ει μεν εν ΟΜΟΥΣΙΟΣ εστιν ο υιος, και την αυτήν ημιν έχει γενεσιν: εστω και κατα τ8το και ο υιος αλλοτριος κατ' εσιαν τ8 πατρος, (Aônvatis megi Alovudis.) See Bibl. der Kirchen. T. II. p. 380. I See Fuchs' Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. I. p. 386. August. Conf. Art. I. Art. Smalcald. P. I. &c. The same conclusion may be drawn from the profession of faith made by the sect condemned, in form. Concord. XII. p. 829, &c. (Ed. Rechenb.) See S. R. Doederlein. p, 373. obs. 3:-also, Fuchs' Bib. Kirch. I. p. 386. not. 33. |