was combined with the emination system, as it was taught at Alexandria, and as Philo had before exhibited it,) led them to discover all this, in the Old Testament. (1) ad Autol. p. 265, 355, 360.

SEC. 66. Irenaeus and Tertullian.

With those early fathers, Irenaeus (1) agreed, in separating the Son and the Spirit from the Father, and in considering the two former, as inferior to the latter; but he differed from them, in making the Son co-eternal with the Father, and rejecting all further inquiries respecting his origin. Tertullian(2) agreed more closely with those fathers; yet was led by his confutation of Praxeas, to carry out their system more perfectly. He taught a Trinity, in which the members or persons, were indeed equal, in substance, yet so subsecutive to each other, that the second depended on the first, and the third on the second. Against the objection, that the unity of God was thus impaired, he believed that he guarded sufficiently, by representing the Father, to be the sole original source of all things, and even of the Son and the Holy Ghost. The subsequent Latin Fathers, Cyprian (3) and Novatian (4), have nothing peculiar, on this doctrine: and Lactantius (5) explains the origination of the Son, in a very sensual

manner.

(1) adv. Haeres. I. c. 10, 26. II. 13, 25, 28, 30. III. 6, 18, 19, IV. 6, 7,20. V. 1, 18.

(2) adv. Praxeam.

Testim. adv. Jud. II. c. 1-8. Ep. 73, ad Jubai. p. 202, 203. Ep. 74. ad Pompei. p. 213.

(4) de Trinitate.

(5) Instit. divin. II. 8. and IV. 6, 8, 29.

SEC. 67. Clement and Origen.

Clement(1) of Alexandria, describes the Son as a being who, in perfection, comes near the Father, and is the very image of him; and who is not confined to place, but om

nipresent. Origen (2) defended the pre-existence of the Son, against Beryllus of Bostra; and he subjoined to the views of his preceptor, the idea of an eternal generation. Yet he did not reject the subordination of the Son to the Father; which he indicated, by applying to them the titles, ô ɛos and 80s (God and a God;) by discriminating the part of each in creation, in the use of iro and dia (by. and through;) and by directing to pray unto (pos) the one, by or through (da) the other. The Holy Spirit, he held to be a distinct person, produced by the Son, and inferior to him.

(1) Cohort. ad Gr. p. 78, 82, 86. Paedag. I. c. 6. p. 123. Strom. IV. p. 635. V. p. 654, 699, 710. VI. p. 769. VII. p. 831, 832.

(2) Opp. ed. de la Rue. Tom.I. p. 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 62, 579, 750. II. p. 1. III, 50 &c. 60, 235.

SEC. 68. Dionysius Alex. and Dionys. Rom.

The disciples of Origen, appear to have adhered to his views respecting the Logos, except only in regard to the eternal generation. One of them, Dionysius(1) Bishop of Alexandria, wished to express strongly, that the Son was distinct from the Father, in opposition to Sabellius ; and without intending to introduce any new doctrine, he stated the Son, to be a creature, and not to possess the same essence with the Father, and to have had a beginning of existence. But such assertions now awakened attention, and gave offence. Dionysius (2) Bishop of Rome, thought it his duty, to oppose these opinions; and he insisted, that the Son was not created, but begotten; that his existence had no commencement; and that he was one with the Father. This induced the Bishop of Alexandria, to explain himself. He said that he wished to discriminate the Son from the Father, but not to sunder them; that the Son did always exist; that he declined using the word oudios, because it did not occur in the scriptures, but the meaning of it he did not reject.

(1) See Athanasius, de Sententia Dionys. contra Arianos; in Athanas. Opp. T. I. p. 551 &c. ed. Col.

(2) See Athanasius, de Decret. Syn. Nicaenae, p. 275,

276.

SEC. 69. Rise of the Arian controversy.

The discussions at Alexandria, respecting the nature of the Son of God, produced in the beginning of the fourth century a violent contest. Arius was dissatisfied with the old views, that the Son was from eternity, in the Father; and that before the creation he proceeded forth from the Father; because such an emanation implied that, God was corporeal and divisible into parts. He therefore taught, that the Son had a beginning of his existence, and was created by the Father, out of nothing, according to his free choice. His Bishop, Alexander, opposed him; in order to maintain the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, and divest him of the appellation of a creature.

SEC. 70. The council of Nice. The contest between the two men, in its progress, became obstinate; and as each of them found adherents, it spread over the whole Roman empire. In vain the Emperor Constantine attempted to calm the storm; and therefore, he at last called the general council, which met at Nice, A.D. 325. There the doctrine of Arius was rejected; and a Confession of Faith was drawn up, which asserted that the Son was ouooudios (of the same essence) with the Father, and begotten of the essence of the Father. By the emperor's command, all Bishops were obliged to subscribe to this creed.

The Nicene Creed. Πιςεύομεν εις ένα Θεον πατέρα παντοκράτορα, παντων ὁρατων τε και αορατων ποιητην. Και εις ένα κύριον Ιησούν Χρισον, τον ύιον του θεου, γεννηθεντα ἐκ του πατρος μονογενη, τους ̓ ἐςιν, ἐκ της ουσίας του πατρος, Θεον εκ Θέου, Φως ἐκ Φωλος, Θεον ἀληθινον εκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινου, γεννηθέντα ου ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρι, δι ου τα παντα ἐγενετο, τα σε ἐν τῷ ουρανῳ και τα εν τη γη, τον δι ήμας τους

άνθρωπους, και δια την ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθοντα, και σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρώπησαντα, παθοντα και ανασταντα τη τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθοντα εις τους ουρανους, και ἐρχομενον κρίναι ζώντας και νεκρούς. Και εις το ἅγιον πνευμα. Τους δε λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ότε ουκ ήν, και πριν γεννηθηναι ουκ ήν, και ότι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἡ ἐξ ἑτερας υποςάσεως ή ουσίας φασκοντας είναι, ή κτιστὸν τρεπτον ἢ ἀλλοιῶτον τον ύιον του Θεου, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικη εκκλησια.

Reference. W. Münscher's Examination of the sense of the Nicene Creed; (in German,) in Henke's neuem Magazin für Religionsphilosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte, vol. VII. P. II.

SEC. 71. Consequences of the council.

Most of the Asiatic bishops were dissatisfied with the Nicene decisions, and particularly with the likeness of essence (oooudios) there established. Even Constantine, the emperor, in the later years of his life, would not insist upon those decisions; and his son Constantius, openly favored the opposers. Council after council was held, and one creed after another drawn up. The immoveable firmness of Athanasius only, could prevent the Nicene doctrine from sinking, under its overpowering enemies and their reiterated assaults.

Notices. The Antoichean confession was formed A.D. 341. The long (axposixos) formula, A. D. 343. The Council of Sardica and Philippopolis, A. D. 347. The two Creeds of Sirmium, A. D. 351, 357. The Council of Ancyra, A.D. 358. The third Sirmian Creed, and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, À. D. 359.

SEC. 72. Arian parties.

The opposers of the Nicene creed, were themselves divided in opinion. The pure Arians, at the head of whom were Aëtius and Eunomius, considered the Son, as the most exalted creature of God; and in essence, unlike to the Father. The Semi-Arians, as they were denominated, acknowledged the Son to be, of like essence (dos) with the Father. Others, as Cyril of Jerusa

lem-either rejected the word uosσios; or explained it, as Eusebius of Caesarea, according to their own views.

SEC. 73. Marcellus and Photinus.

A very different course was taken by Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and his disciple Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; for they, like Paul of Samosata, distinguished the Logos from the Son of God; and explained the generation of the latter, as being nothing but his assumption of human nature. Marcellus hereby incurred a doubtful reputation; and Photinus drew on himself the united condemnation of both Arians and Catholics.

References. Eusebius, contra Marcellum, Lib. II. and de Theologia ecclesiastica Lib. III. Marcelliana; edidit et animadvers. instruxit, Chr. Hen. G. Rettberg, Gotting. 1794. 8vo.

SEC. 74. Athanasian system.

Athanasius not only held firmly to the Nicene creed, as the foundation of orthodoxy, but he attributed to it more, than it properly contained. He described the generation of the Son, as being an eternal, mysterious, operation of the Father; proceeding, not from the will, but from the nature of the Father; and whereby, the son possessed the same essence with the Father. He it was also, that felt the necessity of maintaining the equality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, (concerning which, the church had hitherto defined nothing,) and of requiring the profession of it, as a mark of orthodoxy; after the year 362, when the controversy with Macedonius directed attention to the subject.

SEC. 75. Triumph of this doctrine.

By the activity and prudence of Athanasius, and the zeal and influence of his co-workers, (Basil, the two Gregories, Hilary, and Ambrose,) and the disagreement among the Arians, and the powerful support of some of the emperors; this doctrine acquired an increasing pre