TRINITY
50
TRINITY
answer of Saint Maximus (c. a. d. 250) to the command
of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I
offer no sacrifice save to the One true God" (Ruinart,
ed. 1713, p. 157), is typical of many such replies in
the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question
to suppose that men who were prepared to give their
lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in
point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it
that they were unaware whether their creed was
monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover,
we know that their instruction regarding the doc-
trines of their religion was solid. The writers of that
age bear witness that even the unlettered were
thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf.
Justin, "Apol.", I, 60, P. G., VI, 419; Irenaus,
"Adv. hsr.". Ill, iv, n. 2, P. G., VII, 856).
(1) We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has aheady been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matt., xxviii, 19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptized to the one true God (Tert., "De spect.", iv, P. L., I, 635; Justin, "Apol.", I, iv, P. G., VI, 432). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating them- selves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms; "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy, and confesses that Christ is God ... he re- turns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spu'it be glory and power, now and always, forever and ever. Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10, P. G., VI, 861).
(2) The witness of the doxologies is no less strik- ing. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost", so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist, cccl.", Ill, xiii, P. G., LXV, 502). It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, viz., "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit", had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, ex- presses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We Mve in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Gal., v, 25; Rom., viii, 9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Heb., xiii, 15). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit", was al.so in use. In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Mart. S. Polyc, n. 14; cf. n. 22). Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holv Spirit" (P;ed., Ill, xii. P. G., VIII, 680). St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holv Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet., n. 18, P! G., X, 830). Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with
the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever,
Amen" (in St. Basil, "DeSpiritu Sancto", xxix, n. 72,
P. G., XXXII, 202). St. Basil further tells us that
it was an immemorial custom among Christians
when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to
God with prayer: AlmOfxev Ilar^pa ko! Ti6v Kal "Aviok
TludJua Qeou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit of God", ibid., c. 205).
(3) The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol.", I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the S]5irit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity". It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine. Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irensus, "Adv. hser.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by sons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the con- substantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things. Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in " Psdag.", I, vi (P. G., VIII, 300), and somewhat later Gregory Thaumatur- gus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his creed (P. G., X, 986).
(4) Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects. The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclu- sively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trini- tarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, c. A. D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. a. d. 220, was excommunicated by St, Callistus. It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared — at SmjTna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt, On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum", claims Apostohc tradition for the doc- trine of the Cathohc Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary ... to save man." Somewhat later (c. a. d. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, F^ujihranor and Ammonius, In this, in order to enii)hasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son volrjim toC OeoO and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defence of his orthodoxy entitled 'EXe7xos Kal diroXov'a, in which he corrected" whate\'er had been erroneous in his expressions. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, ofwoiaios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicsea (P, G,, XXV, 505), The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church, It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confu- sion of the Person's and on the other hand anj- denial of their consiibstantiality.
The information we possess regarding another heresy— that of Montanus— supplies us with further
