losophizing Christians substituted another theory oil the subject of the Trinity, which, however, was none the less formed rather from their philosophical ideas than from the instructions of the Bible. Among the writers of this class was Praxeas. of the 2d century, who contended that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not distinguished from each other as individual subjects; but that God was called Father, so far as he was crea- tor and governor of the world ; Son ( Aoyoc), so far as he had endowed the man Jesus with extraordinary powers, etc. He, in accordance with this view, denied any higher, pre-existing nature in Christ; and with him agreed Artemon, Noetus, and Beryllus of Bostra. Sa- bellius regarded the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as merely describing different divine works, and various modes of divine revelation.
In the following table the writers of the first three centuries on the subject of the Trinity are ranged ac- cording to their opinions:
Catholic.
MoNAKCHIANS.
Justin Martyr.
Theophilus of Antioch.
Athenagoras.
Ireiiasns.
Clemens Alexandriuus.
TertuUian.
Origen.
Dionysius Alexandriuus.
Cyprian.
Novatian.
Dionysius Romanus.
Unitarians.
Theodotus.
Artemon.
Paul of Samosata.
Patripassians.
Praxeas.
Noetus.
Beryllus of Bostra
Sabellius.
Among the terms introduced in the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity during tliis period the following are the most common, viz. (1.) Tpiag, introduced bv Theophilus of Antioch in the 2d century, and often used by Origen in the 3d century. TertuUian translated it into Latin by the word trinifas, of which the English word is an exact rendering. (2.) Ovaia, hnonTaaiQ. These terms were not sufticiently distinguished from each other by the Greek fathers of the 2d and 3d cen- turies, and were often used by them as entirely synony- mous. By the word vTroarafnc;, the older Greek fathers understood onl\' a really existing subject, in opposition to a nonentity, or to a merely ideal existence; in which sense they also not unfrequently used the word oixy'ui. (3.) Feisona. This word was first employed by Tertul- lian, and by it he means an individual, a single being, distinguished from others by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and relations; and so he calls Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, tres personte (three persons), at the same time that he ascribes to them unitas siibstantice (unity of substance), because they belong to the divine nature (ovaia) existing from eternity.
We call attention to the following as shedding light upon the jyractice of the Church during this period. Pliny, a judge under Trajan, in the beginning of the 2(1 century took the confe.ssions of some accused Chris- tians, and says, " The}' declared that they were used to meet on a certain day before it was light, and, among other parts of their worship, sing a hymn to Christ as their God." Polycarp (Fp. ad Philip, n. 12) joins God the Father and the Son together in his prayers for grace and benediction upon men. Justin Martyr answering, in his Second Apologg, the charge of atheism brought against them by the heathen, answers, " That they wor- shipped and adored still the (iod of righteousness and his Son, as also the Holy Spirit of prophecy." Athe- nagoras answers the charge of atheism after the same manner. Similar testimony is afforded by the writings of Ltician the heathen, Theophilus of Antioch. Clemens Alexandrinu.s, Origen. Novatian, and others, illustrating the practice of the Church in paying divine honors to the Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The Trinity as Held in the Ath Century. — It had al- ready been settled, by many councils held during the 3d century, and in the symbols which they had adopted in opposition to Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that
TRINITY
554
TRINITY
the Father must be regarded as rcdlh/ distinguished from the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinguished from both. The relation, however, of the three ])ersons of the I'rinity, and the (incstion in what the distinction between them properly consists, not liaving been dis- cussed, these subjects were left undetermined by the de- cisions of councils and symbols. Different <>[)inions pre- vailed, and learned men were left to express themselves according to their convictions.
Urigen and his followers maintained, against the Sa- bellians, that there were in (iod Tpti(; inrorrTCKTHr (three persons), but ftiii oi'iaia (one substance) common to the three. Few had as yet taught the entire equalitij of these three persons, l)nt had allowed, in accordance with their Platonic princijjles, that the Son, though belong- ing to the divine nature, was yet subordinate to the Father. In the beginning of the 4th century, Alex- ander of Alexandria, and Athanasins, his successor, at- tempted to unite the hypotheses of Origen and Sabel- lius, thinking iliat the truth lay between the two ex- tremes. Athanasius stated the personal distinction of the Father and the Son to be that the former was icith- out he(jimdni) and unberjotten, while the latter was efej-- TKilly begotten by the Father, and equally eternal with the Father and the Spirit.
Arius, about 320, disputed the doctrine taught by Al- exander, viz. iv Tpu'iCi /.wi'cioa fii'ai. and so favored the Sabellian theory. As the controversy proceeded, Arius declared, in opposition to Sabellius, that there were not only three persons in God, but that these were unequal in glorj' {CoEaig oi'x iJ/ioira); that the Father alone was supreme God (ayevinjTog), and (iod in a higher sense than the Son; that the Son derived his divinity from the Father before the creation of the world, and that he owed his existence to the divine will; and that the Holy Spirit was likewise divine in a sense inferior to that in which the Father is so. In op- position to all the Arian, and various other theories, Athanasius and his followers zealously contended. They succeeded, at a general council at Nice in 325, in hav- ing a symbol adopted which was designed to be thence- forward the only standard of orthodoxy. This symbol was confirmed by the council held at Constantinople in .S81, under Theodosius the Great. The distinctions es- tablished at Nice and Constantinople were often re- enacted at various succeeding councils. Many urged, in opposition, that tritheism (q. v.) was the inevitable consequence of the admission of these distinctions, but they, nevertheless, remained in force. The council adopted the word of^toovaioq (consubstantiality), explain- ing themselves thus : The Son was not created, but eter- nally generated from the nature of the Father, and is therefore in all respects equal to him, and no more dif- ferent, as to nature, from God than a human son is from his father, and so cannot be separated from the Father. All that they meant to teach by the use of this word was that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the di- vine nature and divine perfections so in common that one did not possess more and another less; without as- serting, however, that there were three Gods: in short, that in the (Jodhead there were tres distincti. imitate es- sevtice conjnticti. See Ckeeo, Nicene.