Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers
Whether the earliest Church Fathers believed in the Trinity or not is a subject for debate. Some of the evidence used to support an early belief in the Trinity are triadic statements (referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) from the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The view that the Son was 'of the essence of the Father, God of God...very God of very God' was formally ratified at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The Holy Spirit was included at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), where the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis) was formally ratified.
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Second century
- 3 Third century: Theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism
- 4 References
Some Trinitarians state that the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed in New Testament times; others, that it was revealed in the Patristic period. Nontrinitarians, on the other hand, will generally state that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity did not exist until centuries after the end of the New Testament period. Some Trinitarians agree with this, seeing a development over time towards a true understanding of the Trinity. Trinitarians sometimes refer to Christian belief about God before the traditional statements on the Trinity as unsophisticated, 'naive', or 'incipient Trinitarianism', and that early Christians were 'proto-Trinitarian, partially Trinitarian', etc. Unitarians and some Trinitarians would state that this means that those early Christians were not actually Trinitarians.
Expressions which link together the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit occurred very early in the History of the Christian Church. These are sometimes taken as expressions about the Trinity. Other times, they are referred to more generally as 'triadic'. It is stated by some that 'These passages cannot immediately be taken as evidence of the belief in the co-substantial unity of God; names may be conjoined for any number of reasons (e.g. unity in greeting, unity of purpose, etc.) so even the use of a threefold formula cannot be conclusive'.
Two examples appear in the New Testament: 2 Corinthians 13:13 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14 (verse 13 in the Vulgate and the NRSV), which is the close of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula; while the context of Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission, shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. Unitarians hold that 'the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together [in the New Testament] in the same context, but not in any way that suggests they are all distinct persons who together comprise the totality of God'; a 'literary triad does not equate to an ontological triunity'.
This triadic pattern is even more marked in the glimpses available of the early Church's liturgy and day-to-day catechetical practice. Even so, some have said that the 'indications from the apostolic and sub-apostolic writers are that [their] triadic formulas...do not carry the same significance as post-Nicene triadic formulas'. The oldest extant work in which the word "Trinity" itself (Greek Trias, triados) is used is Theophilus of Antioch's 2nd-century To Autolycus. There it is used to refer to God, his word and his wisdom. The view that the Son was 'of the essence of the Father, God of God...very God of very God' was formally ratified at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The Holy Spirit was included at the First Council of Constantinople (381 CE), where the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis) was formally ratified.
Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD, wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church:
Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. —Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]
Unitarians would argue that Ignatius is not indicating that the Father, the Son and the Spirit 'are one substance anymore than he is saying flesh and spirit are one substance'.
First half of second century or late first century: Didache
This source uses the Gospel of Matthew only and no other known Gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-Gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the 2nd century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the a triadic formula as the baptismal formula:
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. —Didache 7:1
ca.151: Justin Martyr
Even though Justin Martyr does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, some argue that his First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity. Others, however, argue that Justin was a Unitarian. In his First Apology he describes God as being in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third:
We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein. —First Apology 13:5–6
Justin also wrote, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."  Concerning the relation of Father and Son he wrote:
...God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me...
ca. 155: Polycarp of Smyrna
Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna (where he was also Bishop) in the year 155. It is said by Irenaeus of Lyons that he was a pupil of the Apostle John. In his final prayer before his martyrdom, he "praises, glorifies, and blesses" the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:
For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now [and ever] and for the ages to come. Amen. —Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3
169-181: Theophilus of Antioch
Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3:
...the three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. —To Autolycus 2:15
It is maintained by some that 'Theophilus does not use τρίας to mean ‘three-in-one’, but rather simply uses it to indicate that there were three things before man, God and His Word and His Wisdom'; that he, like other second and third century authors, was referring to 'a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God'.
Third century: Theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism
In the early 3rd century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which are sometimes considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology. Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias), but the term was yet to have its Trinitarian meaning. They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the 3rd century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.
Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology. In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. —Against Praxeas 2
Others, however, argue that Tertullian was unitarian, claiming that Tertullian's use of the word "trinity" differs from later Trinitarian use: 'For Tertullian, the one God is not the Trinity; rather, the one God is a member of the trinity...'; '...Tertullian's trinity [was] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member'.
ca. 220: Hippolytus of Rome
In the early 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas (see above, in relation to Tertullian), claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross. Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views:
The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested. —Against Noetus
Some, referring to other parts of Against Noetus along with Hippolytus' The Refutation of All Heresies, view Hippolytus as nontrinitarian, saying that 'in his theology, the divine (but less divine than God) Logos came to exist from God a finite time ago, so that God could create the cosmos by means of him. On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian –- that the “persons” are neither co-equal nor equally divine'.
ca. 225: Origen
Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen's theology of the godhead is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches. However, it is argued that the word still did not have its later, Trinitarian meaning.
For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages....
It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son. —
But, it is also argued in contradistinction that the word Trinity is utilized with a very similar meaning to its fourth century use.
This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father.
Some see Origen as holding what many scholars refer to as a "subordinist" Christology: in Origen, 'the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father':
The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3])
From this, it is argued that Origen was in fact unitarian. Others, however, see Origen as teaching the ineffable begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit as the unity of power and operation. In this view the Son and Spirit have no less power than the Father, by virtue of literally being His power. Both the Nicene and Athanasian  Creeds affirm the Son is begotten of, and the Spirit proceeding from, the Father, co-equally and co-eternally. Some passages (by no means exhaustive) from Origen's On First Principles important to this view are:
Whatever, therefore, is a property of bodies, cannot be predicated either of the Father or of the Son; but what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son.... Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.... John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, "And God was the Word?[sic] and this was in the beginning with God." Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.
...so that those who were unable to behold the one [statue] of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter [smaller statue], acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be altogether undistinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person: so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that marvellous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead, may, by His being made to us brightness, obtain the means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness. This comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, "He who sees Me, sees the Father also;" and, "I and the Father are one." And to these belong also the similar expression, "The Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
For through Wisdom, which is Christ, God has power over all things, not only by the authority of a ruler, but also by the voluntary obedience of subjects. And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent. For in this way will that saying be true which He utters to the Father, "All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine, and I am glorified in them." Now, if all things which are the Father's are also Christ's, certainly among those things which exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the only-begotten Son ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all things which the Father possesses. "And I am glorified in them," He declares. For "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father." Therefore He is the efflux of the glory of God in this respect, that He is omnipotent--the pure and limpid Wisdom herself--glorified as the efflux of omnipotence or of glory.
As therefore the Son in no respect differs from the Father in the power of His works, and the work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father, but one and the same movement, so to speak, is in all things, He therefore named Him a stainless mirror, that by such an expression it might be understood that them [sic] is no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the Father. How, indeed, can those things which are said by some to be done after the manner in which a disciple resembles or imitates his master, or according to the view that those things are made by the Son in bodily material which were first formed by the Father in their spiritual essence, agree with the declarations of Scripture, seeing in the Gospel the Son is said to do not similar things, but the same things in a similar manner?
We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son's revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate[sic] to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.
ca. 256: Novatian
Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity. It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence".
For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. —Treatise on the Trinity, 11
Some, referring to chapter 31 of On the Trinity, maintain that when Novatian referred to Christ as 'God' he was still excluding him from being 'the one true God'.
262: Pope Dionysius
According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-3rd century Pope Dionysius wrote a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. He quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea . In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together....Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity...Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved. —'De decretis Nic. syn.26
265: Gregory the Wonderworker
There is one God.... There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever. —Declaration of Faith.
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black 1965 (1965) p.88
- D. Tuggy, 'History of Trinitarian Doctrines' (2013) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Jeff Rath, An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians: Historical Background of the Trinity, online (accessed 24/12/2013)
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 5th edn (London: A&C Black, 1977), p. 87-88,90
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 5th edn (London: A&C Black, 1977), p. 90
- M. Turner and G. McFarlane, 'Trinity' in I. H. Marshall (ed.), et al., New Bible Dictionary (3rd edn), electronic edition
- Dale Tuggy, The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christian Theology, paper delivered at CoGGC Theological Conference, Atlanta [May, 2013], 4:43-56
- Charles Morgridge, The true believer's defence against charges preferred by Trinitarians (1837), p. 162
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 5th edn (London: A&C Black, 1977), p. 88-89
- Thomas Gaston (2007), Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries. MPhil(b). Thesis. University of Birmingham, UK. p. 69
- David Burke, 'The Great Trinity Debate: Week 5: Father, Son and Holy Spirit' available online here and here (accessed 24/12/2013)
- David Burke, 'The Great Trinity Debate: Week 5: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Rebuttal' online (accessed 24/12/2013)
- Thomas Gaston (2007), Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries. MPhil(b). Thesis. University of Birmingham, UK. p. 72
- Thomas Gaston (2007), Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries. MPhil(b). Thesis. University of Birmingham, UK. p. 74
- '...the three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom'. To Autolycus 2:15
- Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History iii.36
- St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Shorter Recension), Roberts-Donaldson translation.
- Date according to Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament. 1997
- Thomas Gaston (2007), Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries. MPhil(b). Thesis. University of Birmingham, UK. p. 70
- Briggman, Anthony. "Measuring Justin's Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and Binitarian Orientation". jstor.org. Brill. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
- '...the one true God for Justin is the God of the Jews and is one and the same as the father of Jesus. Justin is a unitarian' (Dale Tuggy, The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christian Theology, paper delivered at CoGGC Theological Conference, Atlanta [May, 2013], 7:24-32)
- First Apology
- First Apology, 61 LXI
- Martyr, Justin. "Dialogue with Trypho". EarlyChristianWritings. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
- Martyrdom of Polycarp, Lightfoot trans.
- To Autolycus
- D. Tuggy, 'History of Trinitarian Doctrines' (2013) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'The terms we translate as “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas, Greek: trias) seem to have come into use only in the last two decades of the second century; but such usage doesn't reflect trinitarian belief. These late second and third century authors use such terms not to refer to the one God, but rather to refer to the plurality of the one God, together with his Son (on Word) and his Spirit. They profess a “trinity”, triad or threesome, but not a triune or tripersonal God'.
- Kerry D. McRoberts, 'The Holy Trinity' in Stanley M. Horton (ed.), Systematic Thelolgy (Revised edn), (Springfield, MO: Logion, 2012), p. 157
- D. Tuggy (referring specifically to Tertullian) says, 'The word 'Trinity' has come to mean the tri-personal God, consisting of the eternal, equally divine Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is now used as a singular referring term for the one God, assumed to be tri-personal. But, both now and then [i.e., in the 2nd century], the word 'trinity' can simply refer to "these three", Father, son and Holy Spirit -- that is, it can be used as a plural referring term, and that usage of it does not imply the items mentioned are parts of a whole, or that they are in anyway equal, or that they even belong to the same kind or category. It refers simply to a triad, a triple, a group of three....Tertullian uses the word in this latter way. For him, the trinity is a triad, a group, a plurality, consisting of those three selves. This plurality is not God' (Dale Tuggy, 'Tertullian the unitarian' [4:03-4:13], paper delivered on September 20, 2013 at the conference Analytical Theology: Faith, Knowledge and the Trinity [Prague, Czech Republic]).
- Against Praxeas
- '...he believes the son to have been caused to exist by God a finite time ago. He tells us that God was not always a father, for there was a time when the son did not exist [Against Hermogenes, ch. 3]' (Dale Tuggy, 'Tertullian the unitarian' [10:54-11:04], paper delivered on September 20, 2013 at the conference Analytical Theology: Faith, Knowledge and the Trinity [Prague, Czech Republic]).
- Dale Tuggy, The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christian Theology, paper delivered at CoGGC Theological Conference, Atlanta (May, 2013), 18:44-55
- Against Noetus Ch. 1
- Bio for Hippolytus of Rome - Jason Labonte noted: "Hippolytus himself may not have believed in the Trinity in the same way as we currently do, but it is hard to determine exactly what he believed. In any case, he believed that Jesus was a separate person from God the Father and yet still divine."
- Against Noetus Ch. 14.
- Dale Tuggy, 'trinitarian or unitarian? 10 – Hippolytus on the identity of the one God' (29/03/2012) on trinities.org (accessed 24/12/2013). Also see posts from 27/03/2013 and 03/04/2013.
- De Principiis, book 1, chapter 3
The Trinity according to Origen
- Ramelli, Llaria. "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line". jstor.org. Brill. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
- Admantius, Origen. "De Principiis, Book 1". EarlyChristianWritings. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
- Nicene, Creed. "Nicene Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
- Athanasian, Creed. "Athanasian Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
- Jerome, On Illustrious Men Ch. 70
- J.E. Oulton, Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History Vol 2; (Cambridge, 1980 reprint; p. 143, n. 1).
- Fathers/Volume V/Novatian/A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity/Part 11|Treatise on the Trinity, part 11
- Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2, Utrecht, 1964, p. 239-241.
- Athanasius De decretis Nic. syn. 26.
- Jerome, On Illustrious Men Ch. 65
- Basil of Caesarea discusses the occasion for Gregory writing this Declaration of Faith in Letter 205
- Declaration of Faith