There is an aspect then, under which, according to the universal suffrage of the Fathers, the Three Persons are co-equal, and an aspect also under which there is gradation and order amongst them.

In essential Perfections, it is determined that the Father is not greater than the Son or the Holy Ghost. For it was shewn before (when treating upon the substance of the Persons) that there is no essential Perfection in one Person that is not in the other, but that the Three Persons are consubstantial, co-eternal, and co-equal.

In the "Economy of Persons," however, it is determined that there is gradation and order; for, from what has been now lately stated, the Father ranks Supreme, the Son as Second in order, and the Holy Ghost as Third in order. For the doctrine of the "Economy" asserts, that the Father is unoriginate; the Son has His origin in the Father; and the Spirit has His origin both in the Father and in

in Patre sit, et non Filio: sed auctoritate sola, hoc est origine : quonium a Patre est Filius, non a Filio Pater."-Ib. cap. 2.

"Doctrinam de subordinatione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad sui originem ac principium, ideo cognitu credituque perutilem ac plane necessariam esse antiqui Doctores existimarunt: quod hac imprimis ratione ita Filii Divinitas asseratur, ut nihilominus Dei unitas et Monarchia Divina sarta tecta conservetur. Scilicet quamvis duobus, nempe Patre et Filio Dei nomen et natura communis sit; tamen quoniam alter alterius est principium, a quo propagatur idque interiori productione, non externa; fit ut Deus esse unicus mento dicatur. Quam rationem pariter ad Spiritus Sancti Divinitatem pertinere prisci illi crediderunt.”—Ib.

cap. 4.

the Son; and that the office of the Father is superior to that of the Son, and that of the Son superior to that of the Holy Ghost.

From what has been now stated, it must appear conclusive, that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity which is set forth in the Articles, Creeds, &c. of the Established Church of England, claims for itself the universal suffrage of antiquity, and is perfectly consistent in all its parts."1

An important question, however, still remains to be decided, namely, whether it is absolutely requisite that men should embrace the Catholic faith of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Necessary to salvation. The Postnicenes assert, that "except a man keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” It is important therefore to know, whether these sentiments are peculiar to the Postnicene Church, or whether the Antenicenes also held the same sentiments. If the

'I have dwelt the longer upon this branch of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it has been urged by Dr. Priestley and others, that "the Trinity of the present day differs essentially from the Trinity of the early ages; inasmuch as the modern Trinity contains Three Persons in all respects equal, no one of which is supreme; while the ancient Trinity contained Three wholly unequal Persons, among whom supremacy was ascribed to the Father.". Vide Faber's Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, vol. ii. p. 251.

Others also have asserted that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is now held by the Established Church of England, contradicts itself, and is, therefore, with good cause, to be rejected.

Athanas. Creed.

latter were indifferent as to the importance of the doctrine, the Postnicenes may be justly censured with practising an unprecedented severity towards the members of the Church. But if the Antenicenes were as rigorous as the Postnicenes in enforcing faith in this Doctrine, the Necessity of the Doctrine, and the present decision of the Church, can be no longer called in question.

The readiest means of ascertaining the sentiments of the Antenicene Church concerning the Necessity of Faith in the Holy Trinity, is to consider, First, the manner in which the Church treated those persons who rejected the Catholic faith of the Trinity in Unity.

That the Church fulminated her anathema upon the several ringleaders of the Gnostic school is notorious. But as those persons would not now be called Christians in any sense of the term, I shall dismiss their history, and direct my inquiry exclusively to such as would be called heretics, in the modern acceptation of the term "heretic," i. e., “men who professed to receive the whole of Christianity, who appealed to the same Scriptures as the standard of their faith; but who held opinions which have been pronounced by the Church to be erroneous."1

"I have already," says Dr. Burton, "said enough concerning the definition of the term 'Heresy,' and have shewn [vide p. 8-12] that it is not restricted by the Fathers to the sense which it bears now. According to the modern signification of the term

Theodotus of Byzantium is the earliest instance that we have of an individual who can be called an heretic, in this acceptation of the term. He lived towards the close of the second century, or, as some historians relate, in the year of our Lord 190. And when the sword of persecution was raised against him, he apostatised from the true faith, and introduced the modern Unitarian doctrine, that Jesus Christ was a mere man.

The novelty, as well as the particular nature of his doctrines, is noticed in the following words by Tertullian :

"Besides these there was one Theodotus of Byzantium, who being apprehended as a Christian,

there was no heretic in the time of the Apostles; for the Gnostics, who, whether they believed Jesus to be a phantom or no, all agreed in believing that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, would not now be spoken of as Christians in any sense of the term. The Fathers have expressly stated that they were not Christians, and yet they called them heretics, which shews very plainly in what sense the term heretic was then used. But if we mean by an heretic a man who professes to receive the whole of Christianity; who appeals to the same Scriptures as the standard of his faith; but who holds opinions which have been pronounced by the Church to be erroneous; in this sense there was no heretic in the time of the Apostles; at least, there was none to whom allusion is made in the Apostolic writings."

"The heresies of the first century were introduced by men who did not acknowledge the Apostles; they took as much of Christianity as suited their purpose, and engrafted it upon a philosophy which had already been compounded out of several different systems."-Bampt. Lect. p. 227.

denied his profession, and ever after blasphemed Christ; for he INTRODUCED the doctrine of His being purely man, and denied His Divinity. He held indeed that he was born of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, but, being only and barely man, was in nothing superior to other men but only in justice."1 For this denial of the Catholic faith, we are informed by Caius, that sentence of excommunication was passed upon him by Victor, then Bishop of

2

"Accedit his Theodotus hæreticus Byzantius; qui posteaquam Christi pro nomine comprehensus negavit, in Christum blasphemare non destitit: doctrinam enim introduxit, qua Christum hominem tantummodo diceret, Deum autem illum negaret. Ex Spiritu quidem Sancto natum ex Virgine, sed hominem solitarium atque nudum, nulla alia præ cæteris, nisi sola justitiæ auctoritate." -Tertull. de Præscript. Hæret. p. 223.

Commentators have observed that Cerinthus and Ebion had done "But this," says Dr. Burton, "is by no means the same before. true. Those heretics did not deny Christ, but Jesus, to be divine; and Theodotus appears to have been the first who, without separating Jesus from Christ, asserted that Jesus Christ was a mere human being. Many heretics had denied Jesus to be God, and many Christians had gone over to the same creed; but Theodotus was the first Christian who openly taught that Christ was a mere man, and he did not live till the end of the second century."-Bampt. Lect. p. 247.

doubtful whether Theodotus went so far as to Indeed, it is very maintain what is now called the simple humanity of Christ, or that any evidence can be produced of the proper Unitarian doctrines being held in the three first centuries.-See the Appendix, p. 83, note (0).

2 Vide Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 28, and Valesius's note, in loc.