being the intelligent principle in Chrift, thought that there was no occafion to fuppofe that he had any other foul. They, therefore, faid that Chrift was a super-angelic being, united to a human body; that though he was himself created, he was the creator of all other things under God, and the inftrument of all the divine communications to the patriarchs, which had before been fuppofed to be the province of the uncreated logos. In opposition to the Arians, those who, from the final prevalence of their doctrine, obtained the name of orthodox and catholics, confidering that the logos had never before been represented as a creature, but as the proper reafon or wisdom of the Father, maintained that he must have always been in the Father, and therefore (correcting their former language, and carrying their principle to its proper extent, which a respect for the unitarians, now greatly diminished in number, had hitherto prevented) they maintained that he must be of the fame fubftance with the Father, and have been been co-eternal with him. In the course of the controverfy they were likewife led to advance upon their former doctrine, fo as to fay, that that act of the Father, to which they gave the name of generation, had taken place from eternity, and was not fomething that had paffed just before the creation of the world; fo that the Son had always exifted as a fon, and the Father as a father; and that there was no difference between them, but that of Father and Son, and the different offices that belonged to each of them refpectively, as the Father, or the Son. This was the state of things foon after the council of Nice, when there arofe a controverfy concerning the Holy Spirit, which was faid in the fcriptures to proceed from God, or to be fent by God, or by Chrift. On this fubject it is remarkable, that there had been no controverly among chriftians before that council, though there had been a difference of opinion among them. Some of the Antenicene Fathers defcribed the Spirit as if they had conceived it to be nothing but a power communicated communicated by God, though others of them fuppofed it to be a perfon, inferior to God, and even to Chrift. For it was generally afferted, that the Spirit was one of the beings that had been made by Chrift, without whom, they faid, nothing was made that was made. Such doctrine as this did certainly pafs without cenfure before the council of Nice, and it is the lefs to be wondered at, as the third perfon in the Platonic trinity, viz. the 4x, had never been defcribed as having been any part of the Supreme Being, or neceffarily belonging to him, which the nous, or logos, had been. There were fome who, while they held the permanent perfonality of the Son, thought that the Holy Spirit was only an occafional efflux from the deity, refembling a beam of light from the fun. This opinion also was not deemed to be heretical. From this time, however, those who had diftinguished themselves the most by their defence of the doctrine of the confubftantiality of the Son with the Father, did like per wife maintain both the proper perfonality of the Spirit, and alfo his confubftantiality with the Father and the Son. This doctrine of the confubftantiality of the three divine perfons foon led to that of their fect equality with refpect to all divine perfections; and this completed the whole scheme. According to it, though there is but one God, there are three divine perfons, each of which feparately taken, is perfect God, though all together make no more than one perfect God; a propofition not only repugnant to the plaineft principles of common sense, but altogether unknown before the council of Nice, as is acknowledged by many learned trinitarians. Among others, the famous Mr. Jurieu faid, that" the fun"damental articles of chriftianity were not "understood by the Fathers of the three "first centuries, that the true fyftem began "to be modelled into fome fhape by the "Nicene bishops, and was afterwards im proved by the following fynods and coun"cils." Jortin's Remarks, vol. 3. p. 50. A little A little reflection, however, one would think, might fatisfy any person, that a doctrine which was unknown in the chriftian church till the fourth century could be no genuine doctrine of chriftianity. Leaft of all can it be fuppofed, that any novel and late doctrine can be of fo much confequence as that of the trinity has always been conceived to be by those who have maintained it. For effectual measures would, no doubt, have been taken by divine providence, that every doctrine of real importance to chriftianity fhould be fo clearly expreffed, and fo well explained in the fcriptures, as that it would not have remained undiscovered, or ill understood, till fo late a period as the fourth century. SEC |