THE

APOSTOLICITY

OF

TRINITARIANISM:

OR, THE

TESTIMONY OF HISTORY,

TO THE

POSITIVE ANTIQUITY, AND TO THE APOSTOLICAL INCULCATION,

OF THE

DOCTRINE

OF THE

HOLY TRINITY.

BY

GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.

MASTER OF SHERBURN HOSPITAL, DURHAM, AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY.

Opto, cum Melancthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem Antiquitatis deduci ad nos
dogmata fidei e fonte Sacræ Scripturæ derivata. Alioquin, quis futurus est novandi
finis?-CASAUB. Epist. 774.

1832.

LONDON:

GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,

ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

CONTENTS.

BOOK II.

NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY SUPPOSED

TO BE BORNE BY HISTORY TO THE FACT OF THE

POSITIVE ANTIQUITY AND THE APOSTOLICAL INCUL-

CATION OF THE doctrine of thE TRINITY. p. 1.

CHAPTER I.

A GENERAL INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE TES-

TIMONY SUPPOSED TO BE BORNE BY HISTORY TO THE APOSTOLIC

ANTIQUITY OF the doctrine of the trinity. p. 3.

A work, which professes to exhibit faithfully the testimony of

History to the apostolic antiquity and sanction of the doctrine

of the Trinity, would be defective, if it pretermitted antitrini-

tarian objections made on the very basis of History itself.

p. 3.

I. Statement of objections of this description. p. 3.

1. First objection. p. 4.

2. Second objection. p. 4.

3. Third objection. p. 4.

4. Fourth objection. p. 4.

5. Fifth objection. p. 6.

6. Sixth objection. p. 6.

7. Seventh objection. p. 6.

8. Eighth objection. p. 7.

II. With abstract objections to the doctrine of the Trinity,

the present Work, from the very nature of its argu-

ment, has no concern. p. 8.

RESPECTING

CHAPTER II.

CERTAIN PASSAGES IN ATHANASIUS

AND ORIGEN

AND TERTULLIAN, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDUCED AS ESTABLISH-

ING THE FACT OF THE HUMANITARIAN ANTITRINITARIANISM OF

THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS. p. 13.

After the adduction of such a mass of evidence, it may well seem

strange, that, down even to a comparatively late period, a

vast majority of acknowledged Catholics should, uninter-

ruptedly from the very beginning, have been strenuous Anti-

trinitarians who rejected with abhorrence the doctrine of

Christ's divinity. p. 13.

I. Yet such is the fact, which Dr. Priestley has undertaken

to establish on the basis of historical testimony. p. 13.

II. Hence an examination of the documents, on which he

would establish his alleged fact, is plainly rendered

necessary. p. 14.

III. The three authors, whom he adduces in support of his

fact, shall be considered, agreeably to the plan of the

present Work, in chronologically retrogressive order:

Athanasius; Origen; Tertullian. p. 16.

CHAPTER III.

RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ATHANASIUS. p. 18.

The testimony of Athanasius as given by Dr. Priestley. p. 18.

I. Athanasius attests no such fact, as that which he has

been adduced to establish. p. 19.

1. The doctrine of Paul of Samosata he pronounces to

be an innovation. p. 22.

2. Notices respecting the phraseology of Athanasius.

p. 23.

(1.) Notice of the true import of a verb employed by

him. p. 23.

(2.) Notice of an important phrase employed by him.

p. 24.

II. The Antitrinitarians, in the time of Athanasius, what-

ever might have been their number, were declared

apostates from their original faith in the Holy Trinity.

p. 26.

III. Dr. Priestley seems to have been aware, that this ob-

vious answer would be given to his pretended testi-

mony hence, in defiance of the very evidence af-

forded by his own freely selected author Athanasius,

he would intimate, that the antitrinitarian teachers of

that period did not make men converts to Uniperson-

alism, but that they found them Unipersonalists al-

ready. p. 28.

IV. It may be doubted, whether the multitude, in the days

of Athanasius, can be conceded to Dr. Priestley.

p. 29.

1. The prevalent aberration from the faith, in the days

of Athanasius, was not Samosatenian Humanita-

rianism, but the speculation denominated Arianism.

p. 30.

2. Real import of the expression the many, as used by

Athanasius. p. 30.

CHAPTER IV.

RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. p. 32.

The testimony of Origen is as little to the purpose as that of

Athanasius. p. 32.

I. Origen's supposed testimony is discovered in three

several concurring passages. p. 32.