"us that we believe two Gods, we must reply, that he who "is God of himself (autotheos) is the God (o theos) for which "reason our Savior says, in his prayer to the Father, that "they may know thee the only true God. But whatever is "God besides him who is so of himself, being God only by a communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be "called (o theos) the God, but rather (theos) God." The same observation had before been made by Clemens Alexandrinus, who also calls the son a creature, and the work of God. Origen also says, "According to our doctrine, the "God and Father of all is not alone great: for he has com"municated of his greatness to the first begotten of all the "creation," (prototoko pasees ktiseose.)

Novatus says, that "the Sabellians make too much of "the divinity of the Son, when they say it is that of the "Father, extending his honor beyond bounds. They dare "to make him not the Son, but God the Father himself. "And again, they acknowledge the divinity of Christ in too "boundless and unrestrained a manner." (effrenatius et effusius in Christo divinitatem confiteri.) The same writer also says, "The Son to whom the divinity is communica"ted is, indeed God; but God the Father of all is deserv"edly God of all, and the origin (principium) of his Son, "whom be begat Lord."

Arnobius says, "Christ, a God, under the form of a man, speaking by the order of the principal God. Again, then, "at length, did God Almighty, the only God, send Christ."

Such language as this was held till the time of the council of Nice. Alexander, who is very severe upon Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, who was charged with favoring Arianism, says in his circular letter to the bishops, "the Son "is of a middle nature between the first cause of all things, and the creatures, which were created out of nothing." Athanasius himself, as quoted by Dr Clarke, says, "the "nature of God is the cause both of the Son and of the "Holy Spirit, and of all creatures." He also says, "There "is but one God, because the Father is but one, yet is the son also God, having such a sameness as that of a Son "to a Father."

Lactantius says, "Christ taught that there is one God, "and that he alone ought to be worshipped; neither did he "ever call himself God, because he would not have been "true to his trust, if being sent to take away gods (that is,

"a multiplicity of gods) and to assert one, he had introdu"ced another besides that one. Because he assumed noth"ing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpetual "priest, the honor of sovereign king, the power of a judge, "and the name of God."

Hilary, who wrote twelve books on the doctrine of the Trinity, after the council of Nice, to prove that the Father himself is the only self existing God, and in a proper sense the only true God, (quod solus innascibilis, et quod solus verus sit) after alledging a passage from the prophet Isaiah, quotes in support of it the saying of our Savior. This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Much more might be alledged from this writer to the same purpose.

Lastly, Epiphanius says, "who is there who does not "assert that there is only one God, the Father Almighty, "from whom his only begotten Son truly proceeded."

Indeed, that the Fathers of the council of Nice could not mean that the Son was strictly speaking equal to the Father, is evident from their calling him God of God, which in that age was opposed to God of himself (autotheos) that is, self existent or independent; which was always understood to be the prerogative of the Father. It is remarkable that when the writers of that age spake of Christ as existing from eternity, they did not therefore suppose that he was properly self existent. Thus Alexander bishop of Alexandria says, we believe that the son was always from the Father; but let no one by the word always be led to imagine him self existent (agenneetos) for neither the term was, nor always, nor before all ages, mean the same thing "as self existent (agenneetos.")

66

On these principles the primitive Fathers had no difficulty in the interpretation of that saying of our Lord, My Father is greater than I. They never thought of saying, that he was equal to the Father with respect to his divinity, though inferior with respect to his humanity; which is the only sense of the passage that the doctrine of the Trinity in its present state admits of. For they thought that the son was in all respects, and in his whole person inferior to his father, as having derived his being from him.

Tertullian had this idea of the passage when he said, "the Father is all substance, but the Son is a derivation "from him, and a part, as he himself declares, the Father

6.6

"is greater than I." It is also remarkable, as Mr Whiston observes, that the ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin, never interpret Phil. ii. 6, to mean an equality of the Son to the Father. Novatus says, "he therefore, though he I was in the form of God, did not make himself equal to "God (non est rapinam arbitratus equalem se deo esse) for "though he remembered he was God, of God the Father, "he never compared himself to God the Father, being mind"ful that he was of his Father, and that he had this because "his Father gave it him."

It also deserves to be noticed, that notwithstanding the supposed derivation of the son from the Father, and therefore their being of the same substance, most of the early christian writers thought the text I and my Father are one, was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only. Thus Tertullian observes, that the expression is unum, one thing, not one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness, conjunction, and of the love that the Father bore to the Son. Origen says, let him consider that text, all that believed were of one heart and of one soul, and then he will understand this, I and my Father are one. Novatus says one thing (unum) being in the neuter gender, signifies an agreement of society, not an unity of person, and he explains it by this passage in Paul, he that planteth and he that watereth are both one. But the Fathers of the council of Sardica, held A. D. 347, reprobated the opinion that the union of the Father and Son consists in consent and concord only, apprehending it to be a strict unity of substance; so much farther was the doctrine of the Trinity advanced at that time.

SECTION IV.

OF THE DIFFICULTY WITH WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST WAS ESTABLISHED.

It is sufficiently evident from many circumstances, that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ did not establish itself without much opposition, especially from the unlearned

among the christians, who thought that it savored of polytheism, that it was introduced by those who had had a philosophical education, and was by degrees adopted by others, on account of its covering the great offence of the cross, by exalting the personal dignity of our Savior.

To make the new doctrine less exceptionable, the advocates for it invented a new term, viz. œconomy, or distribution, as it may be rendered; saying they were far from denying the unity of God; but that there was a certain œconomy, or distribution respecting the divine nature and attributes which did not interfere with it; for that according to this economy the Son might be God, without detracting from the supreme divinity of the Father. But this new term, it appears, was not well understood, or easily relished, by those who called themselves the advocates for the monarchy of the Father, a term much used in those days, to denote the supremacy and sole divinity of the Father, in opposition to that of the Son. All this is very clear from the following passage in Tertullian :

66

"trans

"The simple, the ignorant, and the unlearned, who are 'always the greater part of the body of christians, since "the rule of faith itself" (meaning perhaps the apostles' creed, or as much of it as was in use in his time) "fer their worship of many gods to the one true God, not "understanding that the unity of God is to be maintained, "but with the economy, dread this œconomy, imagining "that this number and disposition of a Trinity is a divis"ion of the unity. They therefore will have it, that we are worshippers of two, and even of three Gods; but that "they are the worshippers of one God only. We, they say, hold the monarchy. Even the Latins have learned to bawl out for monarchy, and the Greeks themselves will not understand the economy;" monarchy being a Greek term, and yet adopted by the Latins, and economy, though a Greek term, not being relished even by the Greek christians.

แ

On another occasion we see by this writer how offensive the word Trinity was to the generality of christians. Does the number of Trinity still shock you?" says he. For this reason, no doubt, Origen says, "that to the car"nal they taught the gospel in a literal way, preaching Jesus Christ, and him crucified, but to persons farther ad"vanced, and burning with love for divine celestial wis