Holy Spirit as a cord."* Here is Trinity in unity. His comparing the Holy Ghost to a cord, was a mere figure. But it does not indicate his belief, that the work of sanctification, in the hearts of Christians, which places them in God's temple, is wrought without the personal agency of the Holy Ghost. It must be a lame cause, that would suggest such a thing. Ignatius knew that Christians are "raised up together, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." And he well knew, that this resurrection was produced by an almighty Agent; and not by a thing. His figure of the cord must have related to the stipulated part of the Holy Spirit, in the scheme of grace, sanctifying God's chosen. Let the writers of the martyrdom of Ignatius, who must have known and approved of his sentiments of the Trinity, as well as those of the apostles, testify. They close their narrative thus; "Christ Jesus, our Lord; by whom, and with whom all glory and power be to the Father, with the blessed Spirit forever. Amen." Here, at so early a period, is a complete Doxology of equal and undivided praise to each person in the triune God. There can be no fair evasion of such testimony as this.

Justin Martyr, of the second century, in his book against Trypho the Jew, asserted the Divinity of Christ. And Trypho replied; "That Christ should be God, before the world began, and afterward be born, though * Milner, vol. i. page 159,

not as other men, seemed to him, not only a paradox, but foolish."* In the View of Heresies, we are informed again of Justin Martyr, that he acknowledged the Christians of his day worshipped three Persons, (in God,) but asserted that this was the common faith, and had been so from the apostles' days. He said also, that a belief of the Trinity was required of the most rude and illiterate, in order to their admission into the Church." Justin Martyr (Bishop Horsley informs)" expressly alludes to the Unitari. ans, as blasphemers of Christ:" And he speaks of Christ as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Clement, bishop of Alexandria, says, "He, (the Word,) is both God and mau." And speaking of God and the Word, he says, "They are both one, that is to say, one God." Here he seems to distinguish between their being one Person, and one God. They are two Persons; but one God.

Du Pin informs, that Irenæus, of the second century, wrote against heresies; in which work, almost as often as he speaks of the Word, he establishes his divinity, eternity, and equality with the Father." Irenæus exhibited a creed, of the general belief of the Christians of that age; in which the doctrine of the Trinity is as fully contained, as in the Nicene creed. In it Christ is called "our God." And much more is said in this creed upon the personality of the * View of Heresies, p. 69. † Ibid. + Ibid, p. 70.

Holy Ghost, than is said in the Nicene creed.* Irenæus again says; "Man was formed in the beginning by the hands of God, i. e. of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." With him then, the Son was God; and the Holy Ghost was God; who with the Father make three Persons in one God.

Doctor Priestley himself acknowledges, that from the time of Justin, in the second century, to Athanasias in the fourth, all the authors, one only excepted, were what he was pleased to style, "Platonizing TrinitaA testimony fully in our favor.†

rians."

See the creed in View of Heresies, p. 76.

Doctor Priestley and others have often insinuated, that the primitive Christians derived their views, concerning a Trinity in the Godhead, from the philosophy of Plato. It is indeed worthy of remark, that while those Christians derived their sentiments of the divine Trinity from the sacred oracles, the ancient schools of heathen philosophy held something, which resembled this doctrine. But this is so far from being to the discredit of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; that, rightly considered, it is much in its favor. The highest pro bability is, that the above idea in those heathen schools was derived and transmitted from ancient revelation made to the patriarchs; that it was a tradition corrupted, and more or less combined with idolatry; but originating from heaven, in early days, while men had the true knowledge of God.

The three divine principles, held in the schools of Plato, before the Christian era, did not originate with that philosopher. The Platonists held themselves to be only expounders of ancient doctrines. Their triad, or doctrine of three, (T’agathon, Goodness, Nous, Intelligence, and Pseuche, Vitality,) was traced from Plato to Parmedides; from him to the masters of the Pythegorean sect; from them to Orpheus, the first of the Grecian mystagogues; and from him to the Egyptian: priests, where was the foundation of the Orphic Theology. In the Theology of ancient Persia and Chaldea were similar ideas of a triple principle; as were also, in after date, among the Romans. This sentiment was transmitted to Rome

Bishop Harsley's Tracts, p. 43.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, says, "We are worshippers of one God, who is before all, and in all in his Christ, who is truly God, the eternal Word."

Athenagoras against the charge of the pagans, A. D. 177, says, "Who is not filled

from their Trojan ancestors. It was brought into Italy from Phrygia. Into the latter place it had been introduced by Dardanus, about nine centuries after the flood. Dardanus received it from Samothrace. There the persons, constituting the three to be worshipped, were known by the Hebrew word Cabirim, Mighty Ones; from the very root of the word used in the Hebrew Bible for God, in Gen. xlix. 24; and Ps. cxxxii. 2. This old tradition therefore, it is most highly probable, was derived from divine revelation made to the patriarchs, in most ancient times.

The Latin Penates was of similar import, or probably from the same origin ;-an idolatrous corruption of ancient glorious truth, relative to the divine Persons in the Godhead.-As also the worship paid in Rome to the triad, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. This sentiment probably had its origin from that of the primitive three Mighty Ones, in Samothrace; the worship of whom was, according to Eusebius, established in that island, before the days of Abraham.

Bishop Horsley has shown, that some traces of the notion of a Trinity did indeed appear in all the ancient schools of phylosophy; and in many of the abominable rites of paganism. The Platonists called this sentiment Theoparadotos Theologia; a Theology given from God. Now, how came such a notion (relative to an original Three to be worshipped) to be entertained so extensively, among ancient heathen? The most probable conjecture is, that they received it by tradition from Noah, and his sons, (relative to the divine Trinity) who received it from God. A considerable part of the heathen mythology may be traced back, through the bewildered imaginations of idolaters, to doctrines, rites, and events, divinely directed; and afterward corrupted by wicked men. The triad principle running, through so great a part of the ancient pagan theologies, is an indication of no inconsiderable moment, that the doctrine of the Trinity in God was taught in express revelation from heaven, previous to the writings of Moses. This is not to be

viewed (as too many heretical writers have laboured to represent it) to the discredit of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Christians never learned the doctrine of the Trinity from pagans. But pagans learned it from ancient divine revelation

with admiration, that we, who declare God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, showing both the power of their unity, and the distinction of their order, should be called perverse atheists." This remark is found in an apology for the Christians. It therefore must be viewed as containing the sense of the Christians of that day. And what more, than is contained in this sentence, do present Trinitarians wish to say? Again: This author, speaking of the contemplations of the people of God, at that age, says, they contemplated "What union the Son hath with the Father; what communion the Father hath with the Son; what the Spirit is; and what the union and distinction are of such so united, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father." Is it not here evident, that the Christians of the second century viewed the three in the Godhead as Persons, divine and equal? Those Christians studied, what was the union in the Godhead? what their communion? and what was the distinction of such so united? Surely then, the Holy Ghost, in their view, as well as each of the others, was a Person. And their queries were the very same, which Trinitarian sentiments do occasion. But had the sentiments of those Christians been such concerning the Three in one God, as some now call on us to believe, they would have occasioned no such researches. For these Christians might have comprehended the ideas of one God the Father, of his natural dependent Son, and of