he was therefore a creature: and from this step he arrived at a further conclusion, that the Son was not of the essence of the Father, but created out of nothing by the Father's will.

The Nicene Council, A. C. 325, issued a symbol of faith, by which the ancient, but unauthentic, Apostles' Creed, was corrected and improved; and Christ, instead of "only Son," was styled "God of God, and " very God of very God."

This was merely re-stating the opinion of the earlier Fathers (for in fact no further progress in the Trinity had yet been made), and left the matter nearly as it was. The Father was still the fountain of Deity. The affirming the Son to be of "the same substance," instead of "the like substance" of Arius, did not establish his equality; of which, indeed, they had no conception. "Begotten, not made, was meant to impugn the doctrine that he was created out of nothing; but the being generated "before all worlds" merely denied that he was produced in time; and as there was still a time when he was generated, there was still a time when he was not: he must then have been created; consequently he was a creature. The wisdom, while a proper inherent attribute of God, must be admitted to be uncreate; but its investment with distinct personality was a creation, unless it be supposed that the reason of God could project itself without his volition: and the proposition of Arius remained unshaken, that the Son did not exist as the Son before he was produced. From this unfortunate dilemma an escape was in process of time provided, by the hypothesis of an eternal generation of the Son; which had indeed been affirmed by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, but had not superseded the received opinions, and was not adopted by the Nicene council. If there never was a time when the Son was not issuing from the Father, the inference was

thought secure that he was uncreate; but the proper conclusion is only that his creation was an eternal process. To this the orthodox would have felt no objection, were it not for a dread of the conclusion of Arius, that if a creature at all, the Son was not co-essential with his Creator. The early Fathers had no intention of raising their preexistent Christ into an independent and co-equal intelligence they still thought of him as an attribute clothed with personality, and derived from and dependent on the self-existing God.

The Nicene Fathers do not venture on the term Trinity, or anything equivalent to it; they apparently consider the Holy Spirit as of subordinate rank. The clauses respecting its procession (though at first derived from the Father only), and its being worshipped together with the Father and Son, were added at the Council of Constantinople, A. C. 381. The procession "from the Son" also was inserted by Pope Nicholas after the Council of Ephesus, A. C. 431, and occasioned the schism between the Greek and Latin Churches. At this Council it was decreed that the two natures of Christ made one person.

A further progress in the Trinity was made in a Synod convened at Alexandria about the middle of the fourth century, by Eusebius and Athanasius; when the Spirit, as well as the Son, was declared to be "of the same substance" with the Father; but it was finally adjusted, and carried to its present height, by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzum; in whose writings also we first meet with the unscriptural use of the term mystery, not in the original and proper sense of something above human knowledge, or unknown till revealed; but in that of something contradictory to human reason. Hence we hear of the mystery 4 of the sacrament; the mystery of baptism, in the popish magical sense of instant spiritual regeneration; the

mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity of Basil and Gregory received the sanction of the Council of Constantinople, A. C. 381, which decreed that the Father, Son, and Spirit, were co-equal in power, glory, and eternity.

The full equality of the Father, Son, and Spirit, did not bound the discoveries of the Catholic church. Nestorius had asserted that the Virgin was "the Mother of Christ." The zeal of those who worshipped Christ as GoD, was alarmed for the honour of Mary. The Council of Ephesus, A. C. 431, condemned Nestorius as a heretic, and confirmed the title of the Virgin as the "Mother of GOD." When once a departure was made from the worship of " God, even the Father," the progress was easy to the deified virgin, the deified bread, the deified sepulchre, the deified souls, and bones, and images of men.

The Council of Chalcedon, A. C. 451, decided that the divine and human natures in Christ were distinct, though united. The definitions of these successive councils were finally embodied and reduced to system in the forged "creed of Athanasius," 5 composed some time at the close of the fifth century, after Athanasius had been dead nearly a hundred years: and not even exhibiting his doctrine; for Athanasius affirmed the consubstantiality, but not the co-equality, of the Son. Its author is thought to have been Vigilius of Thapsus, who published other works under the name of Athanasius, and who is supposed to be the author of the spurious text in John, relative to the three heavenly witnesses.

He who finds his creed and articles in the Gospels may possibly perceive in these nice theological subtleties, on which the salvation of men is made 'exclusively to depend, a nearer resemblance to the "genealogies" of the Gnostic philosophy than to the simple teachings of Scripture. As to the

nature of the TRINITY, notwithstanding the dogmas and anathemas of councils, Trinitarians themselves differ; some, with Dr. Sherlock, holding that the three persons are three distinct infinite minds 6 or intelligences; others, with Dr. South, that there is only one infinite mind, with three MODES, or attributes, or offices, manifested under the different states or relations of Father, Son, and Spirit. The former scheme retains the Trinity, but loses the Unity; as it makes distinctly three Gods, 7 which indeed the Catechism of the Church EXPRESSLY AFFIRMS. The latter retains the Unity, and loses the Trinity; but it is now generally considered the orthodox doctrine. It certainly avoids Tritheism; but falls upon Sabellianism, or the Patripassian

heresy.

EXAMINATION

OF THE

Passages adduced to prove the modern Doctrine of the Supreme Divinity of Christ, and the Economy of a Trinity in the Godhead.

ISAIAH ix. 6. His name shall be called Wonderful, Coun sellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

It is not declared that Christ shall be the mighty God, but that he shall be called so, consistent with Jeremiah xxiii. 6: "And his name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness." Though this passage is also quoted in favour of Christ being Jehovah; yet the same figure is used of Jerusalem: Jer. xxxiii. 16: "Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name wherewith she shall be called: THE LORD our righteousness.

Luke uses the some phraseology, as to the sonship of the Messiah: i. 32. "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest."

The above passage of Isaiah varies in different copies. Some ancient versions read, "the Angel of mighty Counsel," or of the great design. The words have been translated," Wonderful, Counsellor of God;" and this with exquisite absurdity has been turned against the advocates for the supremacy of Jehovah, as if they supposed that Christ was a counsellor to God, instead of from him; but they neither have invented the reading, nor do they so interpret it. The Alexandrine copy reads, "the Mighty," and omits God. But even according to the present text, the literal version would be "Wonderful, Counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, FATHER of the age to COME, Prince of Peace."