In a recent debate with Dale Tuggy (Unitarian), Michael Brown tried to argue that the earliest patristic authors were “proto-Trinitarians.” The reality, however, is the opposite.
For instance, Justin Martyr believed in the ontological (not just functional) subordination of the Son to the Father in his writings. In his Dialogue with Trypho, we read the following:
And they said they had understood them, but that the passages adduced brought forward no proof that there is any other God or Lord, or that the Holy Spirit says so, besides the Maker of all things.
Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them." And quoting once more the previous passage, I asked Trypho, "Do you think that God appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre, as the Scripture asserts?"
He said, "Assuredly." (Dialogue with Trypho 56 [ANF 1:223])
Elsewhere, Justin spoke of this "second God" being of "second place" to the Father:
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. (First Apology 13 [ANF 1:166-67])
In the Greek of his work, Justin is pretty explicit about this. Here is his ΠΡΟΣ ΤΡΥΦΩΝΑ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΝ ΔΙΑΛΟΓΟΣ 56, in Patrologia Graeca 6:597:
The highlighted portion translates as "another [i.e., a second] God and Lord," one that was numerically distinct, not just from the person of the Father, but also from "God."
Another witness of a clearly non-Trinitarian perspective in early Christianity is that of Origen. Note the following in his work, “Dialogue with Heraclides”:
Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?
Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.
Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: He was God before.
Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: Yes, he was.
Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?
Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.
Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?
Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.
Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?
Heracl.: Assuredly.
Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?
Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?
Heracl.: He himself is also God.
Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?
Heracl.: Yes.
Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?
Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.
Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are "no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are "one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying, "I and my Father are one."
If one reads the other extant works of Origen, they will also come across many other teachings inconsistent with the Trinity, such as the following:
What about the early use of the term “Trinitas” where the term “Trinity” was derived, and one of its earliest users, Tertullian? While most scholars, even those from “Orthodox” denominations, will readily admit that the Trinity is a doctrine that developed slowly over time, many apologists for the doctrine point to alleged biblical and patristic texts in favour of the belief. Some point to Tertullian, an early writer who was rather prodigious in his literary output. Indeed, one of the evidences of his being a “Trinitarian” (to use a then-anachronistic term) is that he used the term trinitas, where we get the term “Trinity.” Of course, this is to commit the root or etymological fallacy (see here for a discussion of this common exegetical fallacy).
He [Christ] is the image of His goodness, and
a ray, not of God, but of His glory, and of his eternal light, and a breath,
not of the Father, but of His power, an unsullied emanation of his almighty
glory, and an untarnished mirror of his activity, the mirror through which Paul
and Peter and their like see God. (Commentary on John, 13.25.153)
God the Father holding all things together,
extends to everything in existence, granting to each in its kind to be the
thing that it is, but the Son doing less in comparison with the Father, since
he is second to the Father, extends only to the rational, while the Holy Spirit
does still less, as he goes only so far as the saints. (First Principles,
1.3.5)
Did Tertullian hold the modern definition of the Trinity? The answer is “no.”
One can access Tertullian’s writings here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included). However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:
That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)
That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])
That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)
That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)
The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)
One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.
