a Trinity of God, his word, and his wisdom. About the fame time Irenæus mentions the fame three members, though he has not the word Trinity. "There is always," fays he, "with God his "word, and wisdom, his Son, and Spirit, by "whom, and in whom, he made every thing freely." After this we find the word Trinity in common ufe, but long before it was imagined that the three perfons who constituted it were consubstantial, coeternal, and equal in power and glory.

Both the term and the doctrine of the Trinity occur in a piece entitled Expofitio Fidei, ascribed to Justin Martyr; but this is evidently spurious, and of a date much later than the time of Juftin. It is remarkable too that Clemens Alexandrinus, who was in the very centre of the Platonifm of those days, and who did not write till after Theophilus, never uses the term but once, and then it is to denote the bond of chriftian graces, faith, bope, and charity †.

We cannot wonder that this introduction of new objects of worship by christians, should not pafs unnoticed by the heathens; and as it was chiefly a wish to recommend their religion to others, that gave them their original bias towards exalting the perfon of Chrift, they were very

* Lib. iv. cap. xxxvii. p. 330.

+ Strom. lib. iv. p. 495. properly

properly punished by the advantage which the heathens took of this very circumstance.

The incarnation of the eternal word, appears to have been a fubject of ridicule to Celfus, who compares it to the fable of the transformations of Jupiter, in the history of Danae, &c. He also justifies the polytheism of the heathens by the example of the christians in this respect. "If chriftians," fays he *, "worshipped only one God, they might have some pretence for defpifing "all others; whereas they render these immense honours to a mere upstart." To this, Origen anfwers, by alleging the text, I and my Father are one, explaining it by all, the difciples being of one heart and one mind. But fo might the heathen gods have been one.

The emperor Julian did not overlook this obvious topic of reproach to chriftians. He particularly upbraided them with calling Mary the mother of God, and charges them with contradicting Mofes, who taught that there is but one God.

1

SECTION VIII.

The Hiftory of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Councils of Nice and Conftantinople, till after the Eutychian Controversy.

BEFORE I relate what was peculiar

to those who obtained the name of orthodox in this controverfy, I fhall just mention the divifions of the Arians, which contributed much to the prejudice of their cause, as they often proceeded to great violence against each other.

The original and proper Arians held fimply, that the Son was created out of nothing, fometime before the creation of the world, which they faid was made by him. But they did not immediately attend to the proper confequences of their doctrine, but generally supposed that the nature of Christ was something fimilar to that of God. Afterwards however, Aetius, and after him Eunomius, maintained that Chrift being a creature, must have a nature wholly different from that of God, and therefore unlike it. From this the proper Arians were termed Anomoans, Aetians, and Eunomians. The emperor Conftantius was of the original Arians, but Valens was of the latter class.

In 391, we find mention of another divifion among the Arians, viz. whether the Father could be properly fo called from all eternity, before he had a Son. On this frivolous question, of mere words, the Arians are faid to have divided with great bitterness, so as to have formed separate affemblies. But it must be confidered that the hiftory of these divifions is only given by their enemies. Before I give any account of more modern Arianifm, I fhall proceed with the state of Trinitarianifm after the council of Nice.

No fooner was the general outline of the doctrine of three perfons in one God fettled by the council of Nice, but the orthodox began to divide upon questions of great nicety; and human paffions and interefts always mixing with these debates, the different parties anathematized each other with great violence.

The first difpute was about the ufe of the word bypoftafis, which we now render perfon, but which had generally been confidered as very nearly fynonymous with essence (oa). In general the Greeks understood it in a different sense; and having in view the Sabellians, who were faid to affert the identity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, faid that there were three hypoftafes in the divine nature. On the other hand, the Latins, willing to oppofe the Arians, who made the Son to be of a different nature from the Father, ufually said that there H 2

was

was but one hypoftafis in the Trinity; and we have seen that the Fathers of the council of Sardica had decided in the fame manner.

This dispute terminated more happily than almost any other in the whole compafs of church history. For a council being held on the subject at Alexandria in 372, the Fathers found that they had been difputing about words, and therefore they exhorted chriftians not to quarrel upon the fubject. Ever after, however, the phraseology of the Greeks prevailed, and the orthodox always fay that there are three hypoftafes, or persons in the unity of the divine effence*.

By this happy device, and that of declaring the doctrine to be incomprehenfible, the Trinitarians imagine that they fufficiently screen themfelves from the charge of Polytheism, and Idolatry. Whereas if they did but pretend to affix any ideas to their words, they must fee that the device can avail them nothing. If by perfon, or any other term which they apply to each of the three members of the Trinity, they mean an intelligent principle, having a real consciousness, they must, to all intents and purposes, admit three Gods. This was thought to be unavoidable by the council of Sardica, which therefore afferted one hypoftafis, in agreement with the original idea of the Son being

* See Suicer's Thefaurus, under the word hypoftafis.

an