ficiently provide for the distinct perfonality of the Father, Son, and Spirit; which, however, especially with refpect to the two former, they afferted. With respect to the latter, it is not eafy to collect their opinions; for, in general, they expreffed themselves as if the Spirit was only a divine power.

In order to fatisfy the advocates of the proper unity of God, those who then maintained the divinity of Christ, make, upon all occafions, the most folemn proteftations against the introduction of two Gods, for the deification of the Spirit was then not much objected to them. But they thought that they guarded fufficiently against the worship of two Gods, by strongly afferting the inferiority and fubordination of the Son to the Father; fome of them alleging one circumstance of this inferiority, and others another.

Tertullian cautions us not to destroy the monarchy when we admit a Trinity, fince it is to be restored from the Son to the Father*. Novatius lays the stress on Chrift's being begotten, and the Father not begotten. "If," fays het," the Son had not been begotten, he " and the Father, being upon a level, they would "both be unbegotten, and therefore there would

Ad Praxeam, cap. iv. p. 503. ↑ Cap, xxxi, p. 122.

"be

"be two Gods, &c." Again", he fays, " when "it is faid that Mofes was. appointed a God to "Pharoah, shall it be denied to Chrift, who is a "God not to Pharoah but to the whole uni"verfe?" But this kind of divinity would not fatisfy the moderns.

Eufebius's apology for this qualified divinity of Chrift (for the manner in which he writes is that of an apology, and fhews that this new doctrine was very offenfive to many in his time) turns upon the fame hinge with the former of these illustrations of Novatius. "If," fays het, "this makes them apprehensive lest we should "seem to introduce two Gods, let them know "that, though we indeed acknowledge the Son "to be God, yet there is abfolutely but one God, "even he who alone is without original, and

unbegotten, who has his divinity properly of "himself, and is the caufe even to the Son "himself both of his being, and of his being "fuch as he is; by whom the Son himself con"feffes that he lives, declaring exprefsly I live by "the Father, and whom he declares to be greater ❝ than himself, and to be even his God." This, indeed, is fuppofed to be written by an Arian, but it is the language of all the Trinitarians of his time: for then it had not occurred to any person to say that the one God was the Trinity,

Cap. xx. p. 77.

+Clarke on the Trinity, p. 307.

or

or the Father, Son, and Spirit in conjunction, but always the Father only. The diftinction between person and being, which is the falvo at present, was not then known. Some perfons in oppofing Sabellius, having made three Hypoftafes, which we now render persons, separate from each other, Dionyfius bishop of Rome, quoted with approbation by Athanafius himself, faid that it was making three Gods*.

I have obferved before, and may have occafion to repeat the obfervation hereafter, that in many cafes, the phraseology remains when the ideas which originally fuggefted it have disappeared; but that the phrafeology is an argument for the pre-existence of the corresponding ideas. Thus it had been the conftant language of the church, from the time of the apostles, and is found upon all occafions in their writings, that Chrift fuffered; meaning, no doubt, in his whole perfon, in every thing which really entered into his conftitution. This, however, was not easily reconcilable with the opinion of any portion of the divinity being a proper part of Chrift; and therefore the Docetæ, who firft afferted the divine origin of the Son of God, made no fcruple to deny, in exprefs words that Chrift fuffered. For they said that Jefus was one thing, and the Christ, or the heavenly inhabitant of

* De Synodo Nicæna, Opera, p. 275.

Jefus

Jefus another; and that when Jefus was going to be crucified, Chrift left him.

Irenæus, writing against this herefy, quotes the uniform language of the fcriptures as a sufficient refutation of it; maintaining that Chrift bimfelf in his whole nature, fuffered. "It was "no impaffible Christ," he fays*, "but Jefus "Chrift himfelf who fuffered for us." It is evident, however, that this writer, who was one of the first that adopted the idea of the divinity of Chrift (but on a principle different from that of the Docetæ, viz. the perfonification of the Logos of the Father) could not himself strictly maintain the paffibility of his whole nature; for then he must have held that fomething which was a proper part of the deity himself was capable of fuffering. He therefore, but in a very aukward and ineffectual manner, endeavours to make a cafe different from that of the Docetæ, by fuppofing a mixture of the two natures in Christ.

"For this reafon," he fays t, the word of "God became man, and the son of God became "the Son of man, being mixed with the word " of God, that receiving the adoption, he might "become the fon of God. For we could not re-. "ceive immortality, unless we were united to

• Lib. iii. cap. xx. p. 246, † Ib. cap. xxi. Opera, p. 249.

" immortality,"

"immortality," &c. Origen alfo, in his third book against Celfust, fpeaks of the mixture of the humanity with the divinity of Chrift. He even speaks of the mortal quality of the very body of Chrift as changed into a divine quality.

This confufion of ideas, and inconfiftency, appears to have been foon perceived. For we presently find that all those who are called orthodox ran into the very error of the Docetæ; maintaining, that it only was the human nature of Christ that fuffered, while another part of his nature, which was no less effential to his being Christ, was incapable of fuffering; and to this day all who maintain the proper divinity of Christ are in the fame dilemma. They must either flatly contradict the fcriptures, and fay, with the Docetæ, that Chrift did not fuffer, or that the divine nature itself may feel pain. This being deemed manifeft impiety, they generally adopt the former opinion, viz. that the human nature of Christ only suffered, and content themselves with afferting fome inexplicable mixture of the two natures; notwithstanding the idea of one part of the fame perfon (and of the intellectual part too) not feeling pain, while the other did, is evidently inconfiftent with any idea of proper union, or mixture.