Justin Martyr, A.D. 150, is the first early Christian writer, of whom we have any considerable remains. If he does not state the doctrine of the Trinity in the form of the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds; he yet clearly and constantly asserts, that the Son is God, of one substance and nature with the Father, and yet numerically distinct from Him.' The word Trinity occurs in a treatise attributed to Justin Martyr (De Expositione Fidei); but this work is generally allowed to be spurious. The first use of this term is therefore commonly ascribed to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 181, who speaks of the three days of creation, which preceded the creation of the sun and moon, as types of the Trinity, viz. of God, His Word, and His wisdom.' 2

92

Irenæus, A.D. 185, gives something like regular forms of creeds, greatly resembling the Apostles' Creed (See 1. 9, iv. 33). His statements of the Deity of Christ are singularly clear, and he expressly tells us that the Scriptures would never have given to

other Apostolical fathers, writes: "For this cause the Lord was content to suffer for our souls, although He be the Lord of the whole earth; to whom God said before the beginning of the world, "Let us make man in our image.' (Barnab. c. v.) Again, 'You have in this also the glory of Jesus, that by Him and for Him are all things.' ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ els Auror (c. XII. See Bull, F. D. 1. 2, 2.)

Hermas, who is reckoned an Apostolical father, and was certainly a writer not later than the middle of the second century, has the following: The Son is indeed more ancient than any creature, inasmuch as He was in council with the Father at the creation of all things.' (Simil. IX. 12.) The Name of the Son of God is great, and without bounds, and the whole world is supported by it.' (Simil. IX. 14.)

Concerning the genuineness of the seven shorter Epistles of Ignatius, see Pearson's Vindicia Ignat. in the second Volume of Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. A Synopsis of his Arguments is given in Dupin's Eccles. Hist.; in the Life of Ignatius. See also Bp. Horsley's Works, Vol. IV. p. 133. Dr. Burton (Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 14) enumerates the following, as great names to be ranked on the same side with Bp. Pearson in holding that the genuineness of these Epistles has been fully proved: I. Vossius, Ussher, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, Bul, Cave, Wake, Cotelerius, Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc,

Lardner, Horsley, &c. On the opposite side he reckons Salmasius, Blondel, Dallæus, Priestley.

Since the discovery of the Syriac Ver sion of the Epistles of Ignatius, and their publication by Mr. Cureton, a new controversy has arisen: viz. whether the three epistles in the Syriac be the only genuine, and the seven shorter Greek Epistles deserving of acceptance, only so far as they agree with the Syriac. Whatever may be the uitimate fate of this controversy, it is most satisfactory to know, that even the three Syric Epistles contain some of the strongest of those pas sages, in the seven Greek Epistles, which prove the writer's belief in the true Deity of Christ.

1 An example of his mode of speaking may be seen in the following short passage from Apol. 1. c. 63: 'They, who say that the Son is the Father, are convicted of neither knowing the Father, nor of understanding, that the God of the universe has a Son, who being the Firstborn Word of God, is also God.' Of Justin's sentiments on the Logos and the Trinity, see Bull, F.D. II. 4; Waterland III. pp. 157, 246; Burton's Testimonies of AnteNicene Fathers, p. 30; Bp. Kaye's Just. Mart. ch, II, where also, in the Appendix, is an account of the opinions of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch.

2 Ad Autolychum, Lib. II. p. 106. τύποι Τρίαδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς Σοφίας αὐτοῦ, On his doctrine, consult Bull, F. D. II. 4, 10.

any one absolutely the name of God, unless he were truly God.'

There is a well-known passage in a heathen author, somewhat earlier than Irenæus (the Philopatris of Lucian), which shows the received doctrine of the Church, at which he sneers, more plainly perhaps than if the words had been those of a Christian. There is a doubt, whether the work is Lucian's or not; but its genuineness is not of much consequence, if, as is generally admitted, it was either his writing, or that of some contemporary of his.

Tertullian, A.D. 200, both distinctly propounds the doctrine of the Trinity, and is the first Latin who used the term Trinitas.3

We might trace the chain onwards through Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius, and so down to the Council of Nice. Some may see in the bold speculations of Origen the germ of heresy even on the important doctrine of the Trinity; and Dionysius of Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, appears to have been led into some heedless expressions. There is, however, little doubt that Origen was a firm believer in the Trinity; and the expressions of Dionysius, which called forth the censure of his brethren, were afterwards fully and satisfactorily explained. Thus all the early fathers, who continued in the communion of the Catholic Church, are unanimous in their testimony to the faith of that Church in one God and Three Persons in the Godhead.

Some even, who were charged with schism or heresy, as Montanus and Novatian, were yet clear and decided in their language

1 Iren. III. c. VI. § I; Burton, AnteNicene Fathers, p. 68; where see the testimony of Irenæus at length; also in Bull, F.D. II. 5, and Beaven's Account of Irenæus, ch, IV.

2 The passage is : Κρὶ Καὶ τινα έπωμόσωμαί γε; ‘Τρι. Υψιμέδοντα Θεόν, μέσ γαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα, υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἔν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία.

3 e.g. adv. Praream, c. III. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius Dei cultores præsumunt, quasi non et unitas inrationabiliter collecta hæresin faciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat.

Dr. Hey, in his Lectures on the First Article, observes that the charge, which the heretics made against the Catholics of holding three Gods, is

to him the strongest evidence, that the Catholics held the doctrine of the Trinity.

Tertullian distinctly illustrates the consubstantiality of the Persons in the Godhead, by introducing the comparison of the sun, and a ray from the sun, or light kindled from light. As the substance of the light remains the same, though a ray has been sent forth, or another light kindled, 'so what proceeds from God is both God and the Son of God, and both are one,' Apol. c. XXI. See Bull, F. D. II. 7; Burton, p. 162; and Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 553, where the ambiguity of some of Tertullian's language is fully considered.

·

The use of the word Trinity, first to be found in Greek in Theophilus, and in Latin in Tertullian, received synodical authority in the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 317.

on this head. Bingham' has collected abundant proof, that the devotions of the ancient Church were paid to every Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Bishop Bull, in his Fidei Nicænæ Defensio, and Dr. Burton, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, have given fully the testimonies of the fathers to the Godhead of Christ before the Council of Nice. To their works the student may refer for further evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly and fully maintained by the early Christian writers from the first.'

But, though the Church was thus sound at heart, it had been declared by the Apostle, that'there must needs be heresies, that the approved might be made manifest;' and we find, that, even during the lifetimes and labours of the Apostles themselves, 'the mystery of iniquity did already work,' which soon after was revealed in the monstrous forms of Gnosticism and other Antichristian heresies.

It is plain from St. Paul's Epistles, that there were two evil elements, even then, at work, to corrupt the faith and divide the Church. Those elements were Judaism and Eastern Philosophy. The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, and the writings of St. John, abound with allusions to these dangers. The Philosophy falsely so called' (yvwoiç ¥ævdúrvμoc), and the seeking justification by the Jewish Law, are the constant topics of the Apostle's warnings. There are also two points deserving of particular notice; first, that these warnings are especially given to the Churches of Proconsular Asia; secondly, that St. Paul evidently connects with his warnings against both these errors earnest enforcement of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity.*

Accordingly, in the early history of the Church, we find two classes of false opinions; the one derived from a mixture of the Gospel with Judaism, the other from a like mixture with Oriental or Platonic philosophy, and both tending to a denial of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ. As was most probable, the Eastern rather than the Western Church, and especially, in the first instance, the Churches of Asia Minor,

1 Eccl. Antiq. Book XIII. ch. ii.

2 See also Bull's Primitiva Traditio, Waterland, On the Trinity; Faber's Apostolicity of Trinitarianism.

3 St. John lived latterly in Ephesus, and especially addresses the Churches of Asia. Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus,

and St. Paul's most marked allusions to philosophical heresy are in the Epistles to Timothy, the Ephesians, and the Colos

sians.

This may be especially seen in suci passages as Eph. i. 23; Col. i. 15, 19: ii. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 16, compared with iv. 1, 2, 3.

and afterwards the Church of Antioch, were the birth-places of

the heresiarchs and of their heresies. These Churches exhibited, independently of distinct heresy, a considerable tendency to Judaism. The celebrated controversy about Easter first arose from the Churches of Proconsular Asia adopting the Jewish computation, in which they were followed by the Church of Antioch.' Again, in the East it was, that the Judaical observance of the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, prevailed; which is first condemned by St. Paul, then by Ignatius,' and afterwards by the Council of Laodicea."

The earliest heretics, of whom we read, are Simon Magus, and the Nicolaitans, both mentioned in Scripture; who adopted, according to Eccesiastical history, the Gnostic philosophy, and endeavoured to combine it with the Gospel. Gnosticism, in its more developed form, seems to have taught, that the one Supreme Intelligence, dwelling in darkness unapproachable, gave existence to a line of Æons, or heavenly spirits, who were all, more or less, partakers of His nature (i.e. of a nature specifically the same), and included in His glory (λúpwμa), though individually separate from the Sovereign Deity. Of these Eons, Christ or the Logos was the chief,-an emanation from God therefore, but not God Himself; although dwelling in the Pleroma, the special habitation and probably the Bosom of God. Here then we see, that the philosophic sects were likely to make our Lord but an emanation from God, not one with Him.

Cerinthus, a heretic of the first century, is by some considered more as a Judaizer, by others more as a Gnostic or philosophic heretic. It is probable that he combined both errors in one. But early in the second century, we meet with the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who undoubtedly owed their origin to Judaism, although, like others, they may have introduced some admixture of philosophy into their creed. All these held low opinions of the Person and nature of Christ. The Cerinthians are said to have held the common Gnostic doctrine, that Jesus was a mere man, with whom the Eon Christ was united at baptism. The Nazarenes are supposed to have held the birth of a Virgin, and to have admitted, that Jesus was in a certain manner united to the Divine

1 See Newman's Arians, ch. 1. § I. Col. ii. 16.

Ignat. ad Magnes. XVIII.

4 Can. XXIX. See Suicer, Vol. II. p. 922. 5 Newman's Arians, ch. II. § 4, 1. 206.

§ 16.

6 See Mosheim, Cent. I. Pt. II. ch. v.

7 Mosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. v. S$ 2, 3. See also Burton's Bampton

Lectures, p. 247.

Nature. The Ebionites, on the other hand, are accused of esteeming Christ, the son of Joseph and Mary, though with a heavenly mission and some portion of Divinity.'

Here we have almost, if not quite, in Apostolic times, the germ at least of all false doctrine on the subject of the Trinity. Such heretics, indeed, as have been mentioned, were at once looked on as enemies to, not professors of, the Gospel; and were esteemed according to the strong language of St. John, not Christians, but Antichrists.

In the latter part of the second century, the Church of Rome, which had been peculiarly free from heresy, was troubled by the errors of Theodotus and Artemon. They are generally looked on as mere humanitarians; but they probably held, that Christ was a man endued with a certain Divine energy, or some portion of the Divine nature.*

The end of the same century witnessed the rise of another heresy of no small consequence. Praxeas, of whose opinions we can form a more definite notion from Tertullian's treatise against him, asserted the doctrine, that there was but one Person in the Godhead. That one Person he considered to be both Father and Son; and was therefore charged with holding, that the Father suffered, whence his followers were called Patripassians.3

Noetus (A.D. 220) of Smyrna, and after him Sabellius of Pentapolis in Africa (A.D. 255), held a similar doctrine; which has since acquired the name of Sabellianism. Its characteristic pecularity is a denial of the three Persons in the Trinity, and the belief that the Person of the Father, who is one with the Son, was incarnate in Christ. But a more heretical and dangerous form of the doctrine made, not the Godhead, but an emanation only from the Godhead, to have dwelt in Jesus; and thus what we may call the low Sabellians bordered on mere humanitarians, and also nearly symbolized on this important subject with Valentinus and other Gnostics, who looked on the supreme Eon, Christ or the Logos, as an emanation from God, which dwelt in Jesus, and returned from Jesus to the Pleroma or God.

$21.

Mosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. v.

Theodotus, having denied his faith in persecution, excused himself by saying, that he had not denied God, but man; he, according to Eusebius, being the first who asserted that Jesus Christ was a mere man; for all former heretics had admitted at least some Divinity in Jesus. (See

Burton's Bampton Lectures, p. 247.) This should seem to show that Theodotus was a mere humanitarian.

3 See Tertullian, adv. Praxeam; also Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 526; Mosheim, Cent. II, Pt. II. ch. v. § 20. Praxeas is placed A.D, 200. He propagated his opinions at Rome,