Thomas Ridgley was an Independent divine. On the death of Isaac Chauncy he was elected (in 1712) divinity tutor to the Fund Academy in Tenter Alley, Moorfields, established by the London Congregational Fund board in 1696. He wrote A Body of Divinity Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion Are Explained and Defended, Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism. This post examines aspects of Ridgeley's (1687-1734) trinitarianism.
…the only-begotten Son of God, ‘Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father…The Holy Ghost….proceedeth from the Father and the Son….The Reformed, starting with Calvin, were concerned about the way in which phrases such as 'God of God’ had a tendency to diminish the fully divine character of the Son. Calvin settled for the view that the Son was begotten of the Father as regards his person, not his divine being. He went a stage further than Calvin in gently insisting on the underived deity of the person of the Son and the Spirit. Ridgeley was concerned about what the expression of the Son's eternal begottenness could possibly mean, and likewise the proceeding of the Spirit, sometimes referred to as ‘spiration’. He has this to say about the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit.
….so that the principal thing, in which I am obliged, till I receive farther conviction to differ from many others, is, whether the Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived Personality: this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient truth; for I cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the Father, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and underived, as the divine essence. (I. 263)
the divine perfections are communicated to, or predicated of, the Father, the Son and the Spirit….the other sense of communication viz. imparting, conveying or giving the divine essence, I shall be ready to fall in with, when the apparent difficulties, which, to me seem to lie in the way thereof, some of which have been already considered, are removed’ (I.262 )
I hope, it will appear, that we assert nothing but what tends to the glory of the Son and Spirit, establisheth the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, agrees with the commonly received faith, so far as it is founded on scripture, without being tenacious of those modes of speaking, which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and are supported by the reputation of those who have used them... (I.267)
Pearson's book there is much more of this sort of thing. Pearson is not an authority, but his exposition has been very influential. For him at least Nicaea does not guard against ontological subordination. But the Father’s coeternity with the Son can be secured on the grounds of their equal eternal divinity as taught in Scripture, without the issue of generation needing to arise.