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 on this head. Bingham1 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 farther evidence, that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly

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. 11. 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.

1 Eccl. Antiq. Book xi. ch. II.

and fly maintained by the early Christian writers from the fret:

But though the Church was thus sound at heart, it had been declared by the Apostle that there must needs be Leresies, that the approved might be made manifest;' and we End that, even during the lifetimes and labours of the Apostles themselves, the mystery of iniquity did already work,' which woon 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' (yvwσis cucovunos), and the seeking justification by the Jewish Law, are the constant topics of the Apostle's warning. There are also two points deserving of particular notice; first, that these warnings are specially 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

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

2 St. John lived latterly at 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 Colossians.

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

Jesus Christ. As was most probable, the Eastern rather than the Western Church, and especially, in the first instance, the Churches of Asia Minor, 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 Ignatius3, and afterwards by the council of Laodicea1.

The earliest heretics of whom we read are Simon Magus, and the Nicolaitans, both mentioned in Scripture; who adopted, according to Ecclesiastical 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 ons, 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 (λnpwua), 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

2 Col. ii. 16.

1 See Newman's Arians, ch. 1. § 1. 3 Ignat. ad Magnes. XVIII. 4 Can. XXIX. See Suicer, Vol. I. p. 922. 5 Newman's Arians, ch. II. § IV.

p. 206.

6 See Mosheim, Cent. I. Pt. II. ch. v. § 16.

philosophic heretic. It is probable, 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 creed1. 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 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 2.

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 nature3.

1 Mosheim, Cent. II. Pt. 11. ch. v. §§ 2, 3. See also Burton's Bampton Lectures, p. 247.

2 Mosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. 5. § 21.

8 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 shew that Theodotus was a mere humanitarian.

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'.

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 peculiarity 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, who dwelt in Jesus and returned from Jesus to the Pleroma of God.

Beryllus, bishop of Bozrah, seems to have taken up this form of Sabellianism. He was converted by the arguments of Origen. But, not long after, Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, the most important see in Asia, a man supported by the influence of the famous Zenobia, professed a creed, which some have considered pure humanitarianism; but which was evidently, more or less, what has been called the emanative, in contradistinction to the Patripassian, form of Sabellianism.

เ

He

held that the Son and the Holy Ghost exist in God, in the same manner as the faculties of reason and activity do in man;

1 See Tertullian, adv. Praceam; 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.