"But as it had been the opinion of many, " that angels were only temporary and unsubstantial forms-others of these philosophers thought, that what was called the man Jesus, was nothing more than one of these unsubstantial forms of men; so that the superangelic spirit or the Christ had no proper

66

body or soul at all. These were called Do"cetæ ; and this progress had been made in the " time of the apostles *."

Having been taught by the platonic philosophers that there were three great prin

ciples in nature, viz. the Supreme Being or "the Good, his Mind (Nous), and the Soul " of the world: and the Jewish philosophers " having already advanced, that the second of "these principles, which they denominated

Logos, was an emanation from the Supreme Being, and the cause of all the appearances "of God, recorded in the Old Testament,

66

some of which were in the form of men; " and having also taught that it was this Logos that, by order of the Supreme Being, " had made the visible world, that he was "the image of God, his only begotten Son, " and that he was even entitled to the appel"lation of God in an inferior sense of the

"word: these christian philosophers imagined "that it was this Logos that was united to

the man Jesus Christ, and that on this account he might be called God *.

"For some time, however, the more learned " Christians contented themselves with sup

66

66

66

posing, that the union between this divine Logos and the man Christ Jesus was only temporary. For they held this divine efflux,

which, like a beam of light from the sun, "went out from God, and was attached to "the person of Christ, to enable him to work " miracles while he was on earth, was drawn " into God again when he ascended into hea

66

ven, and had no more occasion to exert a " miraculous power †.

66

"It was afterwards maintained, and Justin Martyr, who had been a platonic philoso

pher, was perhaps the first who suggested "the idea, that this union of the Logos to "the person of Christ was not temporary, " but permanent †.

* Dr. Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 278,

† Ibid. p. 279.

‡ Ibid. p. 280.

F4

"The

"The philosophical Christians acknowledged, "that though Christ, on account of the di"vine Logos united to him, might be called

God, it was in an inferior sense; also that "the divinity, and even the being of the Son,

was derived from the Father *.

"As it had always been maintained by the platonizing Christians, that the Logos came " out of God, just before the creation of the "world, and consequently, that there had " been a time when God was alone, and the "Son was not; and as they had always held " that when the Son was produced, he was greatly inferior to the Father, there arose some who said, that he ought to be con"sidered as a mere creature, not derived from "the substance of God, but created out of "nothing, as other creatures were. These, " who were the Arians, considering the Logos

66

66

66

as being the intelligent principle in Christ, thought that there was no occasion to suppose that he had any other soul.

They "therefore said that Christ was a superangelic Being, united to a human body; that though " he himself was created, he was the Crea"tor of all things under God, and the in

* Dr. Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 281,

"strument

"strument of all the divine communications

" to the patriarchs *.

" In opposition to the Arians, the ortho"dox maintained the Logos must be of the

66

same substance with the Father, and co"eternal with him †.

"From this time, i. e. the time of the coun"cil of Nice, those who had distinguished "themselves the most by their defence of the "doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son "with the Father, did likewise maintain both "the proper personality of the Holy Spirit, " and also his consubstantiality with the Fa"ther and the Son. This doctrine of the con"substantiality of the three divine persons, "soon led to that of their perfect equality with

respect to all divine perfections; and this "completed the scheme. According to it, though "there is but one God, there are three divine

persons, each of which, separately taken, is "perfect God, though all together make no " more than one perfect God: a proposition "not only repugnant to the plainest principles

" of common sense, but altogether unknown be"fore the council of Nice, as is acknowledged

I shall add one paragraph more from Dr. Priestley's summary view of the evidence for the primitive Christians having held the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. "There is a

pretty easy gradation (says he) in the progress " of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ; as " he was first thought to be a God in some

qualified sense of the word, a distinguished " emanation from the supreme mind; and then "the logos, or the wisdom of God personified : "and this logos was first thought to be only. occasionally detached from the Deity, and " then drawn into his essence again, before it was imagined that it had a permanent personality, distinct from that of the source

" from whence it sprung, that it was not till the

fourth century, that this Logos, or Christ, was thought to be properly equal to the Father. Whereas, on the other hand, though it is now

pretended, that the apostles taught the doc"trine of the divinity of Christ; yet it can

“

not be denied, that in the very time of the

* Dr. Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 285,