some sense, due; but they disputed about the manner in which this Being came into life. It was thought by Arius that Christ was produced out of nothing, by creation;* while Athanasius maintained that he sprang from the substance of God, by some kind of generation,† though not so as to imply (as indeed how could it?) equality with God. And on this nice question, so practically unimportant, the body of the Christian church, in the fourth century, divided itself into two great parties, opposing, denouncing, and rejecting each other. Nor was it certain at first which party would prevail, so keen was the contest, and so numerous and obstinate were the adherents on both sides. The council of Nice drew up the Creed which we have been considering, in favour of Athanasius, in A. D. 325; on which occasion Arius was condemned, and banished into Illyricum.‡ But ten years afterwards (A. D. 335), the fugitive was recalled, and admitted into communion by a council at Jerusalem, which agreed to accept his confession of faith as satisfactory. § On the other hand, Athanasius also was severely scrutinized by several ecclesiastical assemblies. He was five times expelled from his episcopal throne at Alexandria; twenty years he passed as an exile or a fugitive;¶ and his doctrine fluctuated between honour and disgrace, just as his party or that of Arius prevailed.** Victory at length decided for the adherents of Athanasius, towards the end of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth centuries. And in consequence of this triumph, and because the doctrine of the conqueror was a step nearer than that of his opponent to Trinitarianism as afterwards prevalent, the unfortunate Arius has been abandoned by posterity to the despised fate of an heretic, while honours have been heaped in succession upon Athanasius, and his name has been recorded among those of the choicest champions of orthodoxy, as well as of the most holy and revered saints of both eastern and western churches.

III. One remarkable consequence arose, in the sixth century, from the renown thus obtained by Athanasius. The compilation of the third, or Trinitarian Creed, at that time new to the world, was imputed to him, as to by far the most celebrated of the Nicene fathers. It was doubtless

* Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 193, et seq.

Ibid. p. 211, et seq.

Mosheim, vol. i. p. 414. Priestley, vol. viii. p. 300.
Priestley, vol. viii. p. 309.

|| Ibid. pp. 308, 337, &c. Jortin, vol. ii. pp. 43-45.

¶ Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. iii. p. et seq.

354,

** 'In the fourth century," says Dr Jortin, "were held thirteen councils against

Arius, fifteen for him, and seventeen for the semi-Arians, in all forty-five," vol. ii. p. 60.

expected that this singular composition, by being published as the work of so eminent a theologian, would acquire an influence, which otherwise, from its unreasonableness, it was ill calculated to secure and we know that this expectation has been realized. It would be superfluous in me to prove that Athanasius was not the author of the Creed which passes current in his name, since its genuineness has been abandoned by the ablest historians and divines. "I say called the Athanasian Creed," writes Dr Lardner, "for it is now generally allowed by learned men, that it is not the work of the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who flourished in the fourth century, but of some other person long after his time. Nor is it certainly known by whom it was composed."* Dr Waterland conjectured that it was written by Hilary, bishop of Arles in France, for the use of the Gallican clergy;† but it is much more likely that it was the work of Vigilius of Tapsa, who flourished between the middle and the end of the fifth century, and who was known to be the fabricator of various writings, which he published as the works of Athanasius. But whoever was its author, it was not much known till towards the end of the sixth century, when it began to be commented on by its admirers. § Several centuries afterwards, it was successively introduced into France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and England, where it still forms part of the public worship. But it has been disputed whether it was ever received among the Greek churches. I

This Creed, it will be allowed, is a perfect specimen of Trinitarian doctrine. I will add, that it is a fit representation of a system of faith, which was completed in a dark period of the church, when Christianity had been corrupted and obscured through ignorance and superstition. This Creed instructs us to worship 'ONE GOD IN TRINITY, and TRINITY IN UNITY, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.' It informs us that there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost, but' that the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.' It declares that the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty, and yet' that they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty; that the Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal, and yet' that they are not three eternals, but one eternal;' that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet' that they are not three

* Dr Lardner's Works, Ed. 1815, vol. v. p. 310. Encyclopædia Britannica, Art. Athanasian Creed.

Bingham's Antiquities, vol. iv. p. 119. Jortin, vol. ii. 437. Dr Cave's His

toria Literaria Script. Ecc. p. 146.

§ Ency. Brit. Art. Athanasian Creed.

|| Ibid.

6

Gods, but one God.' Nor is this all; for with remarkable ingenuity it states the following distinctions: that the Father is made of none, neither created, NOR begotten; that the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, BUT begotten; and that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proCEEDING; to accord with (contradict?) which doctrine, it is next declared that none of the persons' in this Trinity is AFORE or AFTER other,' that none is greater or less than another, but that in all things, as is aforesaid, the unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity is to be worshipped.' To sum up the whole, the Creed gravely warns us, that he that will be saved must THUS THINK of the Trinity,' and that except every one keep the same whole and undefiled, WITHOUT DOUBT HE SHALL PERISH EVERLAST

INGLY.

6

I shall briefly mention the final steps which were taken to bring the doctrine of the Trinity to this perfect state. I have already explained what the members of the Nicene council understood by the expression, ' of one substance with the Father,' which they applied to Christ. It was their object by it to declare, that our Lord derived his substance or nature from the substance or nature of the Supreme Deity, without its being supposed that, on this account, he should be considered as on complete equality with Him. In process of time, however, the phrase, 'of one substance,' &c., underwent an important alteration. In the course of half a century or more, it was interpreted to signify, that Christ and the Holy Ghost (to whom also it was applied), were, without reserve, equal in power and glory to the Father Almighty ;* a conclusion which was established in this way. It was contended, that in the substance of God were necessarily implied all the attributes of Deity in their infinite fulness, and that it (the substance) could not be communicated without also conferring the possession of those attributes in the same fulness. Whence it followed, as it was thought, supposing Christ and the Holy Ghost to have partaken of the Divine substance, that they partook in consequence of all the properties of Divinity in a state of as great completeness as did the Supreme Father himself; so that no distinction of rank or power could be supposed to exist between the persons of the Trinity. This was the doctrine of many able men, both among the Greeks and Latins, who laboured to propagate their sentiments with unwearied zeal and alacrity; till, aided by popular ignorance, and supported by a considerable share of imperial patronage, they succeeded in establishing the doctrine of a proper equality among the persons of the Trinity.

Still the system of the Trinity was not quite completed, for nothing had hitherto been determined concerning the manner in which the second

* Ben Mordecai's Apology. Letter I. p. 33.

person was united to the man Jesus Christ. It appears indeed strange, that this part of Trinitarianism, so important in modern times, should not have been explained till so late a period as the fifth century. Yet Dr Mosheim informs us that this was the case; that, up till that time, the connexion of Christ's natures was not even a subject of inquiry: and that the Christian doctors expressed themselves differently on it as they thought proper.* The first determination of the church, on this subject, was made by a council held at Ephesus, A. D. 431;† which council was succeeded by another at Chalcedon, on the same matter, twenty years afterwards (A. D. 451). It was declared at these assemblies, and more fully at the latter, that Christ was one divine person, in whom two natures were most closely and intimately united, but without being mixed or confounded together. §

In the first of these councils, Nestorius was condemned for teaching that Christ's natures were only connected, in sympathy and will, without any personal or hypostatic union. In the second council an opposite opinion, maintained by Eutyches, viz., that Christ had but one nature, a compound of divinity and humanity, was also censured as heretical.|| But neither of these doctrines, though condemned, were vanquished by the ecclesiastical decrees. They were zealously supported by multitudes of Christians, and struggled with orthodoxy for a long time; and, indeed, have continued to flourish till this day in many eastern churches.¶

I shall conclude this chapter with one observation. The council of Ephesus, which, with that of Chalcedon, completed Trinitarianism, decreed that the Virgin Mary should be received and honoured as a supplement to the Trinity, under the title of Theotokos, or Mother of God.** This was done, as it was alleged, as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, which this council had determined. It was maintained that the divine nature of Christ was so closely connected with his humanity, even from the time of his conception, that Mary, in giving birth to him, was entitled to be called, not merely the mother of Christ, but the mother of God. All persons who held a contrary opinion were denounced as heretics by the prevailing party.

Thus this council of Ephesus, which, with that of Chalcedon, completed Trinitarianism, did, by giving to Mary the profane title of Mother of God, pave the for her future idolatrous worship, and in some degree sanctioned the many servile invocations which ignorance and superstition have since addressed to her, as the Queen of Heaven.

way

* Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 65.

Ibid. ii. p. 77.

+ Ibid. p. 68. § Ibid. pp. 69,

|| Ibid. See Century V. part ii. ch. v. in vol. ii.

¶ Priestley, vol. viii. p. 553. Mosheim, vol. vi. p. 18.
** Priestley's Works, vol. v. p. 196.

78.

But, indeed, superstition and idolatry had already commenced. As early as the fourth century the images of saints and martyrs were erected in the churches, and particular virtues were ascribed to their presence; water was consecrated; idle shows were multiplied; dust and earth from Palestine were sold as remedies against evil spirits; celibacy was encouraged among the priests as giving superior sanctity; and I know not what train of silly observances was begun, the result of ignorance, and of a crooked ecclesiastical policy.*

CHAPTER II.

The same subject confirmed by quotations from the works of the theological writers of antiquity.

An examination of the works of the theologians who flourished in the early Christian centuries, will render still more evident the progressive change from Unitarianism to Trinitarianism, which has been traced, in some measure, in the preceding chapter. We shall find that the language employed by the writers of the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, is distinctly such as might be expected from men who believed in One God, the Father, and who did not consider Jesus Christ to be more than a man. Then follow, in the works of the next age, viz., from the middle of the second century till about the end of the fourth, statements and reasonings, in great number and variety, representing Christ and the Holy Spirit as divine persons, but inferior to the Father. While in the works of the third period, which includes all the centuries after the fourth, the doctrine of a proper equality among the persons of the Trinity will be found to be a settled and leading article of theology. Without more preface, I shall undertake to produce passages from the works belonging to each of these periods, in illustration of this view.

I. FIRST, OR UNITARIAN PERIOD.

Clement of Rome and Polycarp are the only two men on whose writings I can place reliance, in forming an opinion concerning the doctrine of the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles; for the genuineness of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that of the Shepherd of Hermas, have long been disputed by divines; and to say the least of these productions, it is exceedingly doubtful whether they were composed before the middle of the second century, and have a right to rank higher in authority than the works of that period. And regarding the epistles of Ignatius, though

*Mosheim, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.