"none of the earliest writers have given us a complete and coherent system of those tenets which were really held by him, and his followers." We are left to conjecture what those sentiments were; and from their ideas respecting the character of Christ, we may suppose they denied the atonement in the sense which makes salvation the effect of free Grace.

If he, who was manifested for our salvation, were God, as well as man, he was, in all respects, competent to perform this great work. Being above the law, as it respects the divine nature, and becoming voluntarily subject to the law, he was qualified to make satisfaction for others; and therefore, in this character, he is a proper object of faith. If he were not God, as well as man, it is of small consequence whether he were a man, or an angel, or the highest created being. As to his competency to make atonement, the difference cannot be essential. If a man be in duty bound to love and serve God to the extent of his powers, so also is an angel, or a creature above angels. It will make no difference, that the latter has greater powers than the former; for as they are derived, he owes the exercise of them to him who furnished him with such capacities. If a creature have done no more than his personal duty, when he has loved God with all the heart, and served him with all his ability, it is evident, that he has made no atonement for other creatures..

Between the Creator, and a creature, the distance is immense and inconceivable; but

among creatures, there is a difference, only in degree. They all stand in a similar relation to the Creator, as dependent and accountable beings; and all have duties to the extent of the ability given them; and therefore the discharge of these duties is inconsistent with the idea of their paying a ransom for others. We may, from these, considerations, conclude, that the sentiments of the Arians, which differed from other Christians, and, which the historian has not specified, were at least a virtual denial of those doctrines of Grace, which result from a perfect atonement. Their sentiments respecting the character of Christ, would naturally lead them to such conclusions.

Let us here make a pause, and inquire, whether this scheme, when carried into its consequences, (consequences which naturally follow their opinions of the Savior) be calculated to beget that humility which results from a deep sense of sin, and entire dependence on the mercy of God for pardon and life? Must not those, who adopt this doctrine, either believe that they are not sinners, or if they are, must they not relinquish forever the hope of seeing life? Both these consequences are equally unfavorable to the practice of virtue. In one case, they are exposed to become a prey to pride and self-sufficiency; and in the other, to absolute despair: and neither pride nor despair have a tendency to promote purity of life.

Can an Arian, on his own scheme, feel that lively gratitude, or effectual inducement to

holy obedience, with him who hopes that he has been delivered from the condition of a child of wrath, and an heir of misery, and restored to the divine favor through the kind interposition and meritorious satisfaction of the Son of God? He may talk of the beauty and excellence of virtue : yet he cannot recommend it effectually to others: for, he takes away its most powerful enforcem ents.We are to consider,

2. How the Arian scheme was viewed and treated, at the time when it first appeared.

At the first view of the history of those simes, some might suppose there was a certain period when Arians had become more numerous than the orthodox. But there is no evidence of this.; or that they were ever nearly equal in number. It is true there was a

time when the civil power was on their side. This gave to them a temporary importance; and under such powerful protection, they threw many embarrassments in the way of those who adhered to the orthodox creed. But that importance, to which they rose, was of short duration. It was no longer than the time in which they were upheld by the arm of imperial authority.

When the doctrines of Arius were first published, it appears evident, that they excited a general abhorrence in the Church. Some men of learning and of genius, however, became attached to his opinions. Two coun

cils, it appears, were assembled at Alexandria, in consequence of these new opinions. In these, Arius was accused of impiety, and expelled from the communion of the Church. This did not bring the dispute to a termination. Arius retired into Palestine, from whence he wrote letters, and caused much disturbance to the Church.

At length the Emperor Constantine summoned the council of Nice. This was the most celebrated council that has ever been convened; and it was the most general. It is said, that three hundred and eighteen Bishops complied with the Imperial summons, and attended this famous council: and the whole number of attending Ecclesiastics has been computed at two thousand and fortyeight persons. These were assembled from all parts of the Christian world; and therefore the history of this assembly, and the decrees which were then passed, represent the belief of the Church, at that time, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

*

The council was called on account of the opinions of Arius. The Emperor appeared in person, and declared that the object was to settle the disputes which had arisen in the Church. Dr. Priestley, in his history of the Church, admits that the opinions of Arius were the chief subject for which this council was convened.

I

Gregory's Christian Church, Vol. I. page 170.

The opinions of Arius were condemned, almost unanimously; and Jesus Christ was declared to be of the same essence with the Father. The following is translated from the Nicene creed, as it stands in the Epistle of Eusebius to the Cæsarians, and that of Athanasius to Jovian.

"We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty; in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, of the same substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, things in Heaven, and things on earth, who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnatę, and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended into Heaven, and comes judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost.

to

"And the Catholic and Apostolic Church doth anathematise those persons, who say that there was a time when he, the Son of God, was not; that he was not before he was born; that he was made of another substance; or that he is created, or changeable, or convertible."

Dr. Gregory informs us, that this faith was accepted by all the members of the Synod, except one, Eusebius of Cæsaria, who yielded a reluctant and ambiguous compliance. The