they at once admitted its truth, and they undertook to shew that the procedure for which they were condemned was perfectly capable of vindication.* In the days of Justin Martyr there were certain professing Christians, probably the Ebionites, † who held the simple humanity of our Lord, but that writer represents the great body of the disciples as entertaining very different sentiments. "There are some of our race," says he, "who confess that He was the Christ, but affirm that He was a man born of human parents, with whom I do not agree, neither should I, even if very many, who entertain the same opinion as myself, were to say so; since we are commanded by Christ to attend, not to the doctrines of men, but to that which was proclaimed by the blessed prophets, and taught by Himself." +

When Justin here expresses his dissent from those who described our Lord as "a man born of human parents," he obviously means no more than that he is not a Humanitarian, for, in common with the early Church, he held the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The fathers who now flourished, when touching upon the question of the union of humanity and deity in the person of the Redeemer, do not, it is true, express themselves always with as much precision as writers who appeared after the Eutychian controversy in the fifth century; but they

* Thus Origen says-"We do not pay the highest worship to Him who appeared so lately, as to a person who had no previous existence, for we believe Him when He says himself—' Before Abraham was, I am.'”—Contra Celsum, viii. § 12.

+ The origin of this name has been much controverted. It is probable that it was derived from Ebion, the founder of the sect. See Period I. sect. ii. chap. iii. p. 206. Among other things the party seem to have inculcated voluntary poverty.

This passage, which is somewhat obscure as it stands in the original, has been misinterpreted by Unitarian writers from generation to generation. The rendering which they commonly give of it makes it quite inconsistent with the context, and with the statements of Justin elsewhere. See Kaye's "Justin," p. 51.

undoubtedly believed that our Lord was both God and man.* Even already the subject was pressed on their attention by various classes of errorists who were labouring with much assiduity to disseminate their principles. The Gnostics, who affirmed that the body of Jesus was a phantom, shut them up to the necessity of shewing that He really possessed all the attributes of a human being; whilst, in meeting objectors from a different quarter, they were compelled to demonstrate that He was also the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Ebionites were not the only sectaries who taught that Jesus was a mere man. The same doctrine was inculcated by Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, who settled at Rome about the end of the second century. This individual, though by trade a tanner, possessed no small amount of learning, and created some disturbance in the Church of the Western capital by the novelty and boldness of his speculations. In the end he is said to have been excommunicated by Victor, the Roman bishop. Some time afterwards, his sentiments were adopted by Artemon, whose disciples, named Artemonites, elected a bishop of their own,† and existed for some time at Rome as a distinct community.

But by far the most distinguished of these ancient impugners of the proper deity of the Messiah was the celebrated Paul of Samosata, who flourished shortly after the middle of the third century. Paul occupied the bishopric of Antioch, the second see in Christendom; and was undoubtedly a man of superior talent. According to his views, the Divine Logos is not a distinct Person, but the Reason of God; and Jesus was the greatest of the sons of men simply because the Logos dwelt in Him after a

*Thus Tertullian says, "The only man without sin is Christ, because Christ is also God."-De Anima, cap. xli. Justin Martyr complains that the Jews had expunged from the Septuagint many passages "wherein it might be clearly shewn that He who was crucified was both God and man.”— Dialogue with Trypho, § 71. + Euseb. v. 28.

higher manner, or more abundantly, than in any other of the posterity of Adam.* But though this prelate had great wealth, influence, and eloquence, his heterodoxy soon raised a storm of opposition which he could not withstand. The Christians of Antioch in the third century could not quietly tolerate the ministrations of a preacher who insinuated that the Word is not truly God. He appears to have possessed consummate address, and when first arraigned, his plausible equivocations and sophistries imposed upon his judges; but, at a subsequent council, held about A.D. 269 in the metropolis of Syria, he was so closely pressed by Malchion, one of his own presbyters, that he was obliged reluctantly to acknowledge his real sentiments. He was, in consequence, deposed from his office by a unanimous vote of the Synod. A circular letter † announcing the decision was transmitted to the leading pastors of the Church all over the Empire, and this ecclesiastical deliverance seems to have received their universal sanction. †

The theological term translated Trinity, § was in use as early as the second century; for, about A.D. 180, it is employed by Theophilus, who is supposed to have been one of the predecessors of Paul of Samosata in the Church of Antioch. || Speaking of the formation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day of creation, as described in the first chapter of Genesis, this writer observes—" The three days which preceded the luminaries are types of the Trinity, ¶ of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom." Here, as elsewhere in the works of the fathers of the early Church, the * Euseb. v. 27, 30. Epiphanius, "Hær.” 65, 1.

The superscription of this epistle is a sufficient refutation of much of the reasoning of Mr Shepherd against the genuineness of the Cyprianic correspondence, as here the names of a crowd of bishops are given without any mention whatever of their sees.

Euseb. vii. 30.

§ τριὰς or trinitas.

|| This is, however, by no means clear, as there is nothing in his works to indicate that he held such a position.

* “Ad Autolycum, ii. c. 15. τύποι εἰσιν τῆς Τριάδος.

66

third person of the Godhead is named under the designation of Wisdom.* Though this is the first mention of the word Trinity to be found in any ecclesiastical document now extant, it is plain that the doctrine is of far higher antiquity. Justin Martyr repeatedly refers to it, and Athenagoras, who flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, treats of it with much clearness. We speak," says he, "of the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost, shewing at the same time their power in unity, and their distinction in order." + "We who look upon this present life as worth little or nothing, and are conducted through it by the sole principle of knowing God and the Word proceeding from Him, of knowing what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what the Father communicates to the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the union of this number of Persons, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and in what way they who are united are divided-shall we not have credit given us for being worshippers of God?"+

The attempts made in the latter half of the second century to pervert the doctrine of Scripture relative to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, probably led to the appearance of the word Trinity in the ecclesiastical nomenclature; for, when controversy commenced, some such symbol was required to prevent the necessity of constant and tedious circumlocution. One of the most noted of the parties dissatisfied with the ordinary mode of speaking respecting the Three Divine Persons, and desirous of changing the current creed, was Praxeas, a native of Asia Minor. After having acquired much credit by his fortitude and courage in a time

* Thus Irenæus says "There is ever present with Him (the Father) the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit."-Contra Hæreses, iv. 20, § 1. It may here be proper to add that the early Christians worshipped the third Person of the Trinity. Thus, Hippolytus says "Through Him (the Incarnate Word) we form a conception of the Father; we believe in the Son; we worship the Holy Ghost."—Contra Noetum, c. 12. "Legat. pro. Christ." c. 12.

+ "Legat. pro. Christianis," c. 10.

of persecution, he had also signalised himself by his zeal against the Montanists. He now taught that the Son and Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but simply modes or energies of the Father; and as those who adopted his sentiments imagined that they thus held more strictly than others the doctrine of the existence of a single Ruler of the universe, they styled themselves Monarchians.* According to their views the first and second Persons of the Godhead are identical; and, as it apparently followed from this theory, that the Father suffered on the cross, they received the name of Patripassians. † Praxeas travelled from Asia Minor to Rome, and afterwards passed over into Africa, where he was strenuously opposed by the famous Tertullian. Another individual, named Noetus, attracted some notice about the close of the second century by the peculiarity of his speculations in reference to the Godhead. "Noetus," says a contemporary, "calls the same both Son and Father, for he speaks thus-When the Father had not been born, He was rightly called Father, but when it pleased Him to undergo birth, then by birth He became the Son of Himself, and not of another.' Thus he professes to establish the principle of Monarchianism." But, perhaps, the attempts of Sabellius to modify the established doctrine made the deepest impression. This man, who was an ecclesiastic connected with Ptolemais in Africa, § maintained that there is no foundation for the ordinary distinction of the Persons of the Trinity, and that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, merely indicate different manifestations of the Supreme Being, or different phases under which the one God reveals Himself. From him the doctrine of those who

"Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus."-Tertullian, Adv. Praxean, c. 3. + "Athanas. de Synodis," c. 7.

Hippolytus, "Philosophumena," book ix.

§ He flourished about A.D. 220, and was contemporary with Hippolytus See Bunsen, i. 131.