phanius, bishop of Cypress; that of Basil, bishop of Cesarea; that of Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople; that of St. Augustine, bishop of Hipo in Africa, called the great ecclesiastical luminary of his age; that of John surnamed Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, famous for his eloquence and zeal; and many others; but it is unnecessary to state them at large. They all hold to one supreme God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was begotten of the Father, and was subordinate to him, and had his existence from him; and one Holy Ghost proceeding, either from the Father, or from the Father and Son, and of course inferior to both. They seemed to consider the Nicene Creed with its amendments, as a sort of common theological law, and they occasionally made some alterations to hit particular cases, and only for the purpose of condemning, deposing, and anathematizing some supposed heretics. They were not willing that the tares should "grow together with the wheat till the harvest." And I am inclined to believe, that in attempting to pull out the tares, they stopped the growth of the wheat, more than they destroyed the

tares.

The creed of the Arians, adopted in the second council of Antioch, A. D. 345, though condemned as heresy, does not appear to differ essentially from the Nicene, except in the omission of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, which we find is also omitted in all the creeds and writings of the fathers before this council, which must be con

sidered as virtually condemned, by the condemnation of Arius, at the Nicene council. One might think, therefore, that the Arian doctrine was not such a clear damnable heresy, as should necessarily have caused the pious, charitable bishops of this council to anathematize, depose, and banish the conscientious Arius, and afterwards to cause his death, as was probably the fact, from the circumstances of the case. I do not mean to express my approbation of the Arian Creed, in all parts of it. I think it not so unscriptural as some others. I will quote it in full, that all may judge for themselves.

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, from whom all paternity in the heavens and in the earth is named. And in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, whether visible or invisible, who is the word, and wisdom, and virtue, and life, and true light, who, in these last days, was made man for us, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified and dead. He rose from the dead the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the consummation of the age to judge the quick and the dead, and render to every man according to his works. Whose kingdom shall continue without end through infinite ages. For he sits at the right hand of the Father, not only in this age, but in that which is to come. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, that is, the

Comforter, whom, as he had promised the Apostles, he sent after his ascension into heaven, that he might teach and suggest all things to them, by whom the souls are sanctified which sincerely believe. But those who say that the Son is from nonexistence or from any other substance, and not from God, and that there was any time or age when he was not, all such the holy and catholic church holds. to be aliens. In like manner those who say that there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God, and that before the age he was neither Christ nor the Son of God, or that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that the Father did not beget the Son by his own will and pleasure, all these the holy and catholic Church hold an anathema."

From the fifth century, during most of the dark ages, I apprehend there was no great change in the Trinitarian doctrines or creeds. What had been invented was well adapted to the times, being more in alliance with darkness than light, more consistent with Monkish superstition and Platonized Christianity, than with the pure, plain doctrines of the Bible, reason, and common sense; and better calculated to bewilder the understanding, than to enlighten and direct the mind. Since then, the modern Trinitarian doctrine, after various twistings and turnings, seems to be settled down into a belief in one God in three equal persons or beings, each of them by himself the supreme, self-existent God, yet all three but one God, even numerically, absolutely, and not figurative

ly speaking. Or in other words more astounding, if possible, that the one Supreme Jehovah is or consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in technical language, that God is trinity in unity and unity in trinity! Though all Trinitarians hold to these three persons, or three somewhats in Deity, yet they differ very much concerning them. I will state some of their views.

The ancient and some of the modern Trinitarians have considered the Father as the fountain of divinity, whose existence alone is underived and selfexistent; and have regarded the Son and Spirit as receiving their existence from him, and being subordinate to him; but at the same time, as equally with the Father possessing, by communication from him, all divine attributes. Bishops Pearson, Bull, and others were of this opinion. Bishop Pearson says expressly, "The Son is subordinate to the Father, and so is the Holy Ghost to the Father and Son.' “The Father," saith Christ, "is greater than .I." "The Father," saith Bishop Pearson," is greater in respect to the communication of the Godhead. The divine essence, which Christ had as the Word before he was coceived by the virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one person originally of himself subsisting, in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons, so subsisting, would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Wherefore it followeth, that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person

subsisting in the Divine nature, originally, of himself." This is good reasoning, and the inference is just. But if Christ could not be a person subsisting in Deity originally, could the bishop, or can any one now living, show how it is possible for him now, or at any other time, to be or have been such person so subsisting? Has the divine nature been changed or enlarged, so as to be able to take in one or two more persons than it could originally have sustained? And if a plurality of persons, originally subsisting in the infinite Being, necessarily would infer a multiplicity of Gods, must not such plurality, at this time, and at all times, produce the same necessary inference? It certainly must. Therefore all who hold to three equal persons in Deity must also, according to Bishop Pearson, hold to a multiplicity of Gods, at least to the number of three.

Bishop Bull maintained, that "though the Son is equal to the Father in nature and every essential perfection, yet the Father is greater than the Son, even as regards his divinity; because the Father is the origin of the Son.". And yet strange as it may seem, he contends, that "the Son, as a real person distinct from the Father, is equally God, possessing equally all divine perfections, the only difference being, that the perfections as they exist in the Son are derived, and as they exist in the Father are underived."

Dr. Wm. Sherlock speaking of the persons remarks, that," to say that there are three divine persons, and not three distinct infinite minds, is both