cene Creed represents the matter) in order to establish the union of the divine nature with the human, a twofold nature was assumed in the Godhead itself. And although such views as those of the Nicene Fathers, were professedly in strong opposition to Arius and to all those who deny or degrade the divine nature that is in Christ and in the Spirit, yet there is room still to inquire, whether the modes of representation employed do not exhibit something which at least is of a doubtful nature, yea something which must be necessarily and substantially altered, if we would preserve the true doctrine of the Trinity.

"Such an inquiry would probably result in the conviction, that we must not in any way represent the Most High as a mutable being; nor the exertion of his active powers (on which his union with the human nature depends), in any other way than as having respect to what is done in time; for causality in the Godhead may indeed be conceived of as eternal, so far as decree or design is concerned; but so far as the actual exertion of this power is concerned, we must always consider it as taking place in time.

"The second preparatory step would be this. If it should appear to be impossible to represent the relations of Father and Son as existing in the divine nature itself, without thereby introducing the idea of dependence and inequality, then should we inquire, whether it is correct to name the divine nature, as it is in itself in Christ, Son of God; inasmuch as the Scripture plainly calls the whole person of Christ only by this appellation, and makes use of Logos or Word to designate the divine nature in itself considered. And in cases where no specific appellation is employed, it describes the union of the two natures only as the indwelling of the fullness of the Godhead.

"Should the expression Son be used only in this scriptural way, then the signification of dependence necessarily connected with it would not designate the internal relation in the Godhead itself, but only the relation of the same to its union with the hu

man nature.

"In respect to the Holy Ghost, moreover, it must in like manner be investigated, whether there is any good ground for admitting any other relation of him to the Son, than that the Son, i. e. the whole Christ, sends him.

"It must also be investigated, in order to avoid the idea of dependence, how, when the Son is so designated, the Father is also admitted as a member of the Trinity.

"Only a full and protracted critical investigation of these points can afford the requisite light respecting them. This, however, belongs not to the present disquisition; and I have already proceeded as far as propriety will admit."

The deeply interesting investigations thus proposed, Dr. S. pursues in the Essay which is presented below. It is impossible that the intelligent and serious reader, after such an exhibition of critical power and analysis as the above remarks exhibit, should not feel a lively interest in pursuing the inquiries which are here proposed. To pursue them under the guidance of such a highly intelligent and learned leader, is indeed a rare privilege-one which has not often occurred in any country or at any time. Dr. S. himself states, near the commencement of his Essay, that while Arianism in all its details has been investigated and exhibited to the religious public, a comparison between the Athanasian views of the Trinity and those which have usually been denominated Sabellian, has not, to his knowledge, hitherto been fully and fairly made. Such a comparison he has undertaken; and whatever may be the opinion of the reader as to the results, or as to the correctness of the opinions of Sabellius or of Dr. S. himself, he will not fail at least to perceive, that much light is thrown, by the mighty power of acute and impartial criticism, on what was before dark and very imperfectly known, or at least very imperfectly represented. The reader, I take occasion expressly to say, is not obliged to follow Dr. S. or Sabellius in their views; but he will feel himself, as I think, obliged to say, that Sabellianism had not before been fully and fairly represented to the Christian public. What has been called Sabellianism hitherto, has been little more than the doctrine of the Patripassians, viz. the assumption that the Father himself is the same person that was united to Christ and who is developed in the operations of the Holy Spirit; and therefore that the distinction in the Godhead is nothing more than merely a name, without any corresponding reality. Such, it would appear, was after all not the opinion of Sabellius; but on the contrary, that he made a more definite, intelligible, and strenuous distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, than even his opponents; or at least than that

part of them who did not go over into a species of occult Tritheism.

At all events, Schleiermacher himself is a strenuous and uncompromising advocate for the distinction, and full equality in all essential respects, of Father, Son, and Spirit; while the Unity or Movas of the Godhead is no where and in no measure infringed by him. Of his view of the Trinity we may at least say, that it is intelligible. But who will venture to say, that any of the definitions heretofore given of personality in the Godhead in itself considered, I mean such definitions as have their basis in the Nicene or Athanasian creed, are intelligible and satisfactory to the mind? At least I can truly say that I have not been able to find them, if they do in fact exist. Nor, so far as I know, has any one been able by any commentary on them to render them clear and satisfactory.

In saying all this, however, I must not by any means be understood as subscribing to all of Dr. S.'s views. I shall take occasion at the close of his Essay, to present some of the difficulties that force themselves upon my mind, in respect to his opinions concerning the Trinity. I say only, at present, that his views are, in most respects, palpable and intelligible. I can go with him, in most cases, as far as he goes; but I do not find an ultimate resting-place where he does. I feel obliged, by Scripture and the nature of the case, to go further, and to approximate somewhat nearer to that which I suppose to have been the real opinion of the Nicene Fathers and the advocates of the Athanasian Creed; although I cannot possibly subscribe to all the formulas of expression which they have employed, nor probably to all the views which they really entertained. If I understand their views, they do, in an occult manner indeed, but yet really and effectually, interfere with the true. equality in substance, power, and glory, of the three persons or distinctions in the Godhead. This seems to be taking away with the left hand, what we have given with the right. If I say in words, that Christ and the Spirit are God, and very God; and say this ever so strongly and ever so often; and yet assign to them attributes or a condition which after all makes them dependent and represents them as derived and originated; then I am in fact no real believer in the doctrine of true equality among the persons of the Godhead; or else I use expressions out of their lawful and accustomed sense, and lose myself amid

the sound of words, while things are not examined and defined with scrupulous care and accuracy.

It is not my present object to examine in full detail and in an ample manner, the diction and sentiments of the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. But something should be said respecting the nature and import of this Symbol, in order to prepare the reader fully to appreciate the comparison of Dr. S. which is to follow.

Athanasius was himself a member of the Nicene Council, being then a deacon in the church of Alexandria in Egypt. This Council was assembled at Nice in A. D. 325, by order of the emperor Constantine, who had sought in vain to heal by other means the divisions in the church occasioned by the Arian disputes. Two hundred and fifty bishops are said by Eusebius to have been present; Socrates states them at 318; of whom the Arian party constituted but a small number. Athanasius and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, appear to have been the two principal speakers in behalf of the orthodox party, and to have been the agents on whom most of the doings of the Council depended.

The subsequent life of Athanasius was almost entirely devoted to a defence of the principles avowed by the Council of Nice; in which avowal he had himself been a leading if not the principal agent.

The Nicene Creed, so far as pertains to our present design, runs thus: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογε νῆ, τουτέστιν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φως εκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, by whom all things were made in heaven and earth. . . . And in the Holy Spirit. Kai rovs de λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσ κοντας εἶναι, ἤ κτιστόν, ἢ τρεπτόν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θε οῦ, ἀναθεματίζει, κ. τ. λ; i. e. and those who say that there was [a time] when he [Christ] was not, that before he was born he was not, and that he came into existence from nothing [was made from nothing], or affirm that he is of a different substance or essence [different from that of the Father], or that the Son of God was created, or is mutable, or susceptible of change; them the whole church anathematizes,. etc."

Such is the famous Creed of the Nicene Council. The creed

or formula of faith, long supposed to have been drawn up by Athanasius, and sometimes specifically called the Athanasian Creed, is now generally allowed not to have been his, but to have been deduced from his works. Dr. Waterland in his Critical History of it, ascribes it to Hilary, bishop of Arles. It is not to this, then, but to the principles of the Nicene Creed, as avowed and defended by Athanasius in a peculiarly zealous and earnest manner, that Schleiermacher is to be considered as referring, in the title of the Essay which is given at the head of this article. The views set forth in the Nicene Creed, I suppose to be more usually styled Athanasian, because Athanasius was the great champion, if not the peculiar author of them. Be this as it may in respect to Dr. S., it makes no difference of any consequence in the present instance, inasmuch as the views called in question are the same in both cases.

By reverting to the Nicene Creed, as exhibited above, the careful reader will perceive, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not developed in such a manner as to satisfy the demands of the rule which Schleiermacher lays down as required by the pious feelings of Christians, or the demands made by strict principles respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, such as are now more generally held.

The Westminster Confession of Faith declares the persons of the Godhead to be "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory." I understand by this, a NUMERICAL UNITY of substance to be asserted; while in respect to persons or distinctions in the Godhead, an equality of power and glory is assigned to each.

...

So Turretin also. He puts the question: An non sit unus numero Deus, quoad essentiam? To which he answers: Quod . . tuemur. I. p. 199. So again, p. 282, Unica numero essentia; and elsewhere often. And thus, as it doubtless will be conceded, the greater part of modern intelligent and orthodox divines have held and do still hold.

Short of this, the Movás or divine Unity on the one side, and the Οικονομία or divine Πρόσωπα as revealed in the Gospel on the other, must be infringed upon. Not that design of infringing on the Unity or the Trinity, is to be charged on all the representations that have been made, which seem to present a view that differs from this. To affirm this, would be to affirm more than can be proved, or than can be rationally supposed to be true. But still, whatever may have been the design of