A History of Oneness

Throughout the Centuries

(Baptism in Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)

By Harry A. Peyton


TABLE OF CONTENTS:
DEDICATION (3)
INTRODUCTION (3)

CHAPTER 1 THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT ONENESS
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS (5)
Praxeas History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Noetus History and One God Doctrine
Cleomenes Godhead Doctrine
Catholic Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine
Catholic Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine
Earlier Modalist Monarchians Believed Christ, as the Father,
Had A Soul and Spiritual Glorified Body in the Old Testament
Sabellius Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Commodians Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Marcellus Godhead Doctrine
Photinus One God Doctrine

CHAPTER 2 THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND THREE GODS:
THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE (14)
Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess That the Trinitarian Doctrine Is Obscure
in Its Present Form, and Cannot Be Found in the Old Or New Testaments
The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
107 AD Ignatius Doctrine, 150 AD, Justin Martyrs Doctrine, 160 AD Titians Doctrine, 170 AD Theophilus
Doctrine, 180 AD Irenaeus Doctrine, 200 AD Tertullians Doctrine, 215 AD, Origens Doctrine, 250 AD, Dionysius
Doctrine, 300 AD, Lactanius Doctrine, 312 AD Alexanders Doctrine
The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
3000 BC Zoroasters Teaching, Hermes Teaching, the Sibyls Teaching,
387 BC Platos Teaching, 57 AD Philos Teaching
The Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine of the Ministry
The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead (310 AD)
The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene Creed (325 AD)
The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 AD)

CHAPTER 3 THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
OF THE TRINITY (33)
Comparing the Trinity of Pagans With the Trinity of Catholicism
A Summary of the History and Development of the Trinity of the Babylonian Religion
What Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon
When and Where Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin
Who Started the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion
What Kind of Religion Was Mystery Babylon
How Did the Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod,
Change into A Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God
The Babylonian Mystery Religion Spreads Throughout The World
The Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized Before the End of the Fourth Century

CHAPTER 4 HISTORY REVEALS THAT GODS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCES
WERE IN THE VAST MAJORITY FROM 33-399 AD (42)
Catholic Cardinal Newmans Confession
Protestant Doctor James Hastings Confession
107 AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius Confession
150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyrs Confession
180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Confession
200 AD, Catholic Priest Tertullians Confession
225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus Confession
Protestant Doctors M'Clintock and Strongs Confession
Protestant Professor Adolf Harnacks Confession
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia Confession

CHALPTER 5 HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE OF GODS
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY (47)

CHAPTER 6 THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN
FORMULA FOR BAPTISM (78)
150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyr Changed the Mode and Formula for Baptism,
and the Catholic Church Adopted His Teaching
The Pagan Origin of Trine Immersion and the Use of the Triune Titles of God
in the Formula for Baptism
255 AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula for Baptism by Takings the Name
of the Lord Jesus Christ Out of Their Second Immersion, and Replacing It with the Title Son

BIBLIOGRAPHY (87)
ENDNOTES (91)

Copyright May 30, 1996 by Harry A. Peyton under the title of The Doctrines Of Christ.

A Note from the Author: Since Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, gives His Salvation
and His Word to all freely (Rev 22:17, Mt 10:7-8), this book, and all other books, written by
Harry A. Peyton are given without charge, and can be accessed through the Internet at the
following address: http://www.DoctrinesOfChrist.com. Therefore, fell free to copy it in digital or
written form, and share it with others. Since this book is copyrighted, the author forbids any
alteration of its contents, and the reproduction of it in any form for Marketing Purposes. This
book may be placed on anyones web page, as long as my website address is attached to it.

The author believes that the Word of God is infallible in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE it was
written in, and all translations of the Bible regardless of how good they may be are NOT. Since
the author has implicit faith in the infallibility of the Word of God, the author has formed his
beliefs firmly on the truth of the Bible. This author uses the ancient ANTIOCHIAN LITERAL-
2
HISTORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING THE BIBLE, which was used by early
Christian Prophets and Apostles of the Bible.

I definitely believe that the ancient Alexandrian Allegorical Method of spiritualizing
scripture, which was made popular by the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus (13 BC 50
AD) and later used by the Ante-Nicene Catholic Priests, especially Origen and his student
Clement of Alexandria (200 AD), is an abomination to our Lord. Therefore, all scriptures will be
interpreted in a literal exegetical fashion, unless the language used and the context demands a
spiritual interpretation.

All CAPITALIZATION and ITALICIZATION in QUOTES used in this book is always
MINE. All Biblical quotes used in this book will be in dark red, and from the New King James
version of the Bible, unless another version is stated as the reference. The vast majority of all
translations of the Bible, as well as Hebrew and Greek Lexical definitions and grammar, will
come from BibleWorks computer software program version 7.0. The author in most places will
quote verses from the Bible instead of commenting on a verse and giving a reference; for He
believes that the written Word of Gods has greater power to inspire and enlighten a heart to
understand and act upon truth, than the elegant oratory or writings of any man.

If this book has been a blessing to my beloved readers, and they would like to send an offering
to the author, feel free to do so. If anyone wishes to send any biblical or historical materials to
the author, my address is: 148 Little Creek Hills Rd.: Alto, NM 88312: Phone # 575-336-2800:
Email address: [email protected].

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to all the courageous men, women and children of the present and past
centuries, who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and believed His Truths. I would especially like to
acknowledge those who suffered social scorn, loss of income, loss of property, imprisonment, torture
and martyrdom for their faith in Christs New Birth message and their monotheistic belief in Jesus
Supreme Deity.

INTRODUCTION

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the world,
and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. And the Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
(Jn 1:1, 10, 14).

Napoleon Bonaparte speaking of the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the
conquering power of His Cross said: I know men; the life and death of Jesus Christ was not that of a man. If the
death of Socrates was that of a sage, the death of Jesus Christ was that of God. The gospel of Jesus Christ is no mere
book but a living creature with vigor, a power that conquers all that opposes it. Alexander, Charlemagne, and myself
have founded great empires, but upon what did the creation of our genius depend, upon force: but, this man Jesus
Christ has founded His empire upon love, and to this day millions would die for Him.
1


3
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different teachings or diversity of beliefs in
the religious world pertaining to the doctrine of godhead? Have you ever wondered how one God
can be three separate persons or beings? If so, let me assure you, that you are not alone. There
have been a host of others throughout all ages that have asked the same questions. There has
been in the history of the church basically five teachings on the godhead.

The Modalist Monarchian Doctrine: This is oldest teaching known in church history. It
declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles by which the one God has revealed
Himself to His children. They proclaim that Jesus is the Father incarnated in a human body.
They believe in one and only one person in the godhead and that is Christ. This teaching started
with the apostles in 33 AD and it can be found throughout church history.

The Doctrine of the Semi-Arians or the Belief in Two-Unequal-gods: The second
teaching on the godhead to arise, according to church history, was what history calls the Semi-
Arian belief. I call it the belief in two-unequal-gods. This was the teaching of a group that broke
from the monotheism of the Modalist Monarchians some time after 70 AD. These apostates called
themselves Catholics. The majority of them taught that the Father and Son were two separate
and distinct gods, beings or persons in the godhead. They did not teach an equality of persons.

They taught that the Father created another god or being or person before the world began,
which He called the Son. This meant that they considered Jesus to be homoiousios or of like
substance with the Father, which made Him a lesser God than the Father since He did not share
in the Fathers substance. They also believed that the Holy Ghost was an impersonal spirit and
another name for Christ.

The Arian Doctrine or the Denial of Jesus Deity: This was the third teaching on the
godhead to arise. It started in 310 AD with a Catholic Presbyter in Egypt by the name of Arius. In
a few years Arius had a large following that challenged the godhead doctrine of their fellow
Catholic ministers. This teaching stated that the Father was the one and only God, and Jesus was
not God in any sense, but was the highest or greatest angel in God's creation.

According to Professor Philip Schaff in work entitled History of the Christian Church: The Arians
made the Holy [Spirit] the first creature of the Son, and as subordinate to the Son as the Son to the Father. The Arian
trinity was therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal, but arising in time and in descending grades, consisting of
the uncreated God and two created demi-gods. The Semi-Arians here, as elsewhere, approached the orthodox
doctrine, but rejected the consubstantiality, and asserted the creation of the Spirit.
2


The Doctrine of the Binitarians or the Belief in Two-Equal-gods: The fourth
teaching on the godhead was a belief in two-equal-gods or persons. This doctrine started in 325
AD. The Catholic Church started this doctrine in an effort to combat the Arian doctrine of the
godhead. They put their doctrine into a written form and called it the Nicene Creed. They said
that Jesus was homoousios or of the same substance with the Father, thus making Him an equal
God with the Father, since He now shared in the Fathers own substance. Therefore, they change
their godhead doctrine and traded in their forefathers belief in two-unequal-gods for a belief in
two-equal-gods. This Creed speaks of the Holy Ghost, but does not tell us what they believed
about the Holy Ghost.

4
Catholic Bishops as a whole at this time did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a separate
person in the godhead. In fact most of them did not know what to believe about the Holy Ghost.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely informs us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicea believed
about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of the Trinity, the Catholic Church made a good and
honest confession about the development of their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated: In the last analysis,
the 2nd century theological achievement was limited. A Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The Apologists
spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve of
Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was still far from settled. It was the problem of
plurality within the single, undivided godhead.
3


Even as late as 375 AD, most Catholics Bishops still did not believe the Holy Spirit was a person
or even God. Gregory the Catholic Bishop of Nazianzus, who later became a Pope, said: Of the
wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence [meaning not a person], others a creature [meaning an
angel or a created spirit being], others God himself, and others know not which way to decide.
4


The Doctrine of the Trinity or the Belief in Three-Equal-gods: The fifth teaching to
arise on the godhead was the Trinitarian doctrine. In 381 AD Catholic Bishops dreamed up yet
another creed, which they called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was the same
as the Nicene Creed but it made the Holy Ghost a person in the godhead. But it did not spell out
his relationship to the Father and Son. Therefore, they change their godhead doctrine again;
they traded in their belief in two-equal-gods for a belief in three-equal-gods. The Father, Son and
Holy Ghost were now three separate and distinct persons (Greek - hypostases) or beings.

In 382 AD, Catholic Pope Damascus called a Roman Council in which he perfected their belief
in three-equal-gods. This council defined the Trinitarian doctrine as three persons who were
equal in power, glory, knowledge, and all other attributes of God. At last Lucifer finally had his
Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead in his Roman Catholic Church.

CHAPTER 1
THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT
ONENESS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS

This history is a sketch or an outline of this subject, and it is no way intended to be a complete
history. It is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of the great history of Jesus
name baptism and the godhead in Christ. The true history of the one God, Jesus Name
Pentecostal Church has been destroyed. All the writings of her great Apologists have been burned,
and if any survived, they are probably hid in a room in the Vatican Library that could withstand an
atomic blast.

The only history we have of Christs Bride is the one that was written by the Catholic Nicolaitan
priests who hated her. Therefore, it is hard to tell to what extent Catholicism twisted their
teachings. It is impossible to present a history of Gods people without giving a history of both their
belief in Jesus Name Baptism, the Supreme Deity of Christ and Speaking in Tongues, because
Catholic and Protestant histories distinguishes them from all other religions by these doctrines.

The greatest tragedy of history is not only the loss writings of Gods inspired preachers, but also
the assumption of historians that Catholicism was the original Church instead of a church setup by
apostates somewhere after 70 AD. Even though historians know right well, that the writings of these
5
early apostates and some of their disciples have been corrupted or altered, they still proclaim her as
the original church. Why? Because the only history they have to base theirs opinions on is Catholic
history. It is not hard to pervert history when you destroy the writings of all your competition.

It is obvious from the writings of the fathers of Catholicism that many books were written
against them by the Apologists of the Gods Apostolic Church, and the writers of various
denominations. Professor Charles Guignebert, in his book The Early History of Christianity,
confirmed this when he said: these people had written a great deal against her [Catholicism], or concerning her;
this literature has almost entirely disappeared and the little that remains is only enough to show us how great would be
the service it might render. Because it has no alternative but to use (a) polemical or exegetical writing mainly, badly
emended by accounts reputed to be historical, but written long after the events and at a time when they were scarcely
understood.... It is right and necessary that we should not forget that fact. For example, to try to exact from the
collection of [Catholic] Christian documents alone an exact idea of the early times of the Church was to give way to a
tantalizing delusion; whether the fact was realized or not, the undertaking [of it by historians] was inspired by prejudgments
of the faith.... They endeavored to preserve its old standing as an originality, and this desire was fed from more than one
root in the theological postulate of revelation.
5


Therefore anyone who reads and study the writings of the Catholic Ante, Nicene, and Post
Nicene Fathers should keep in mind the following facts, which Professor Guignebert and other
Church historians have boldly proclaimed: First, we know from the writings of the apostles and
disciples that false doctrines existed in their day, which later developed into a denominational
systems known as Gnosticism and Catholicism.

This is why Paul told the Bishops in the Church of Ephesus: I know this, that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-29), and Jude admonished the Church in his
day they should: earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). The
documents known as The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the Didache, that were
masquerade as the writings and teaching of the apostles are denounced by the majority of textual
scholars as fabrications that Catholic priests of the second or third century invented.

Second, Nicene and Post Nicene priests had a tendency to alter manuscripts that were written by
their Ante Nicene predecessors in the ministry. They did this by either adding to or takings out
certain lines that either confirmed or denied a certain doctrine; and because of their hatred of the
denominations that opposed them, they had a tendency to misrepresent or twist the teaching of
their antagonist, as Dr. Guignebert so competently pointed out. Third, because of the
denominational biases of some of the reformation leaders and modern day church historians, there
was a tendency to misinterpret the writings and beliefs of these ancient Catholic priests, in order
that, their denomination may have a historical foundation for some of their beliefs.

Before I begin my history of Gods Modalist Monarchian preachers, it would be to my readers
advantage for me to define their one God doctrine, as well as the two-god doctrine believed by the
early writers of Catholicism; for the Ante Nicene Catholic priests were not Trinitarians but believed
in two-unequal-gods, the Nicene priests were Binitarians or taught two-equal-gods, while the Post
Nicene priests were Trinitarians or believed in three-equal-gods. This way my readers can receive a
better understanding of the history they are about to read.

Modalist Monarchianism may be defined as a first century belief that God is one person as well
as one being, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The ancient preachers of oneness were anti-Trinitarians,
who believed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were titles, offices, modes of revelation, or
6
characters as in a play, that the one person of God has revealed Himself to His Children. As the
Father, the one God revealed Himself as the Creator of man and the cosmos. As the Son of God, the
Father revealed Himself as the Savior of all mankind by becoming a man, and as a man died for
their sins. As the Holy Spirit, the Father revealed Himself as the Regenerator of man, by comes in
and dwelling in him for the purpose of redeeming, empowering and transforming him into Christs
likeness.

Even though ancient oneness preachers proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was Father
manifested in the flesh, they all did not hold the same Christology views. They all believed that the
Logos pre-existed as the Father and was not a being separated from Father, but was His visible
form or body. They also believed that it was the Christ that became Jesus or the Son of God at
Bethlehem, and the Holy Spirit was another name for the Logos. The early Oneness believers held
two different Christology views on the Logos incarnation. One group of oneness preachers believed
that Gods entire Spirit and body substance was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other group of
preachers, such as Sabellius, believed that the only the visible portion or body of God the Fathers
own substance became incarnated. I understand this to mean that God the Fathers Holy Spirit
Nature stayed in heaven while His Spiritual Body Nature became incarnated and His Soul Nature
dwelt in it.

The early Catholics began their apostasy from the true believers over the godhead and
ministerial order in the local church. Since they were few in number, they organized and became
known as the Roman Catholic Church. These early apostate believed in two separate and distinct
persons in the godhead. They believed that God the Father created, begot, or generated before time
began a second god called the Logos. They taught that this Word was a pre-existing Son of God who
became Jesus at Bethlehem. They also believed that the Holy Spirit was another name for the
Logos.

Basically the one major difference between the earlier Oneness and the Catholic believers is their
belief concerning the identity of the Logos. Now this is a very important point that my beloved
readers should keep in mind. Who is the Logos? Is He the same person as the Father, or is He
someone different from the Father? Is He the Father the one and only God, or is He a second god
different from the Father. Is He someone less than God or is He equal to the Father? Is He an
eternal being or is He a created being? If He is God, did He retain His deity when He was born of
Mary as a man?

The entire godhead dispute was basically over these issues until 381 AD, when the Catholic
Church officially adopted the concept of the Trinity of Babylon. The Catholic Church in all their
creeds did not teach a Trinity of three separate persons in the godhead before this time. If it was not
for the pride of the apostates Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the early Catholic
apologists, and their love of Greek Philosophy, especially the writings of Plato and the corrupt
Jewish writings of Philo, their doctrine of two-gods, which later developed into a doctrine of three
gods, would have never came into being. In fact, their doctrine of two gods really originated in
Zoroastrianism. Let us examine three historical references that verify these points.

The Ancient Oneness Godhead Doctrine: The Catholic Encyclopedia gave a fair
explanation of the origin and differences of belief between the Modalist Monarchians and the early
Catholics. It revealed that the Jesus Name Monarchians: made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects
or modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with [the Father] the one God.... They spoke of the
Father as Spirit and the Son as flesh.
6

7

The Ancient Catholic Godhead Doctrine: This same encyclopedia went on to reveal that
the Jesus Name Modalist were against the Catholic adoption of Plato and Philo doctrine of two
gods, in others words: the learned philosophizing of the Christology of Catholicism. This godhead
doctrine: to the simplicity of the [Catholic] faithful looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The
Monarchians emphatically declared that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus Christ is God, wholly and
perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to see why the theologians like Tertullian
and Hippolytus opposed them for their protest was precisely against the Platonism which these theologians had inherited
from Justin and the Apologists.

The Alexandrians alone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son from all eternity; but thus the Unity of God was
even less manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it
hardly squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending the doctrine of the Logos at
the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed
to make the unity of the godhead split into two or even three, and to make Jesus Christ something less than the supreme
God the Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian.
7


Dr. James Hastings in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, speaking about this controversy
declared: Modalist Monarchianism was powerfully supported by the critico-historical school of exegesis which
grew up at Antioch in opposition to the speculative, allegorizing school of Alexandria. He went on to say that on
one side of this great battle was: Monarchianism, the Antiochene historical-critical school of interpretation, and
rationalism, which opposed Catholicism, with its allegorical interpretation, and its metaphysic of deity.
8


The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia speaking of the formulation of the doctrine of the
Trinity gave this summation: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The
influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the
intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected
Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks
upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and
space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether (Trinity, sec 22).

Praxeas History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Praxeas, A One God, Jesus Name Man of God: Quintus Septimius Florens, better
known as Tertullian, embraced Catholicism when he was about 30 years old. When he was 40, he
embraced some of the heresies of Montanus, and became one of their chief preachers. Around AD
200, he wrote a work entitled Against Praxeas, who was a holy Jesus Name Preacher of that day.
Tertullian, who lived in Carthage, which is in northern Africa, revealed that Praxeas came to Rome
during the time that Victor was Bishop (AD 189-199).

According to History of Dogma by professor Adolph Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in
Rome when Eleutherus was Bishop (AD 175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack
says: If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Eusebius H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in
succession who declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and
Callistus.
9
We do not know who among Gods people converted Pope Eleutherus and Victor to the
truth concerning the supreme deity in Christ Jesus, but we do know that Zephyrinus and Callistus
were converted by Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus.

Tertullian said Praxeas came to Rome after he had suffered imprisonment for his unwavering
faith in the almighty God in Christ Jesus. Praxeas, like the great apostles Peter and Paul, suffered
8
much for the Gospel sake. The angry Tertullian tried to belittle Praxeas suffering by called it: the
annoyance of a prison, and no doubt slandered him in an attempt to discredit him. Tertullian, the
Montanist, was angry with Praxeas because he had Eleutherus brand Montanus as a heretic.
10


Some historians, like Harnack, believed Montanus was a Modalist Monarchian in his godhead
belief. But, I find this hard to believe since Tertullian definitely had a two god or person belief, and
not only that, but according to John Blunt, in his work entitled Dictionary of Sects, Heresies,
Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought, Montanus used the Catholic formula for
baptism. He wrote: Montanus himself had retained the Catholic form. For this we have the evidence of Athanasius...
(cont. Arian. Or. ii, 43). He is writing of baptism, and the names are the names of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
11

Montanus was excommunicated for heresy. Some historians say that Montanus claimed to be the voice of
the Holy Ghost, while others say he claimed to be the embodiment of the Spirit. Even if Montanus had a
one God belief from the beginning, these accusations against him, if they are true, are enough to brand
him as a heretic.

Tertullian could have been angry with Praxeas for another reason. It is a historical fact that a
great number of the Montanist were converted to the truth and became Modalist Monarchians,
especially in Africa. In fact the main body of Apostolic Montanist broke away from Montanus and
Tertullians two-god group somewhere around c. 190. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirmed this
when it stated: A number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists. It also went on to confess that
Tertullian may have twisted the teachings of Praxeas, and Hippolytus may have done the same with
Noetus. It declared: It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions
of their opponents.
12
Tertullian and Hippolytus were both Bishops, and no Nicolaitan-Balaamite
pastor enjoys losing their people, who are their bread and butter. Also, these men did not like it
very much when the great mass of Christians in their day called them heretics.

For Eleutherus, the Bishop of Rome, to condemn Montanus, he must have had a lot of faith and
confidence in Praxeas as a man of God. So, it is obvious, Eleutherus had to be a Jesus Name
Preacher. Tertullian really does not say why Praxeas had Montanus condemned as a heretic.
Callistus excommunicate Sabellius supposedly for some heresy, so why should it be thought strange
for Eleutherus to excommunicate Montanus for some heresy. My readers should bear in mind that
Sabellius was a convert of Callistus. They both were Modalist Monarchians in their godhead belief.
So, it would appear that it was not because of Sabellius godhead belief that he was
excommunicated. Callistus no doubt was probably fearful and jealous of Sabellius for he was very
popular with the people as a teacher.

Many Earlier Modalist Monarchians, Such as Praxeas, Believed that Christ or
the Father Had A Body in the Old Testament: According to Tertullian, in 200 AD, oneness
preachers must have believed that Christ or the Logos, as God the Father, must have dwelt in a
bodily form in the Old Testament, even though they believed God is a Spirit Being, or Tertullian
following argument would make no sense! Tertullian speaking of Christ preexistence as the form of
God (Phil 2:6) declared: In what form of God? Of course he [Paul] means in some form of God. For who [among the Jesus
Name Preachers] will deny that God is a body, although God is a Spirit? For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in
its own form.... But you will not allow Him to be really a [different] substantive being by having a [separate body or] substance
of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a [separate] person, and so be able as being
constituted second to God the Father, to make two, the Father and the Son, God the Word.
13


Tertullian went on to say: Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the
Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of. They make selections from the
9
Scriptures in support of their opinion. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than,
I am God, and beside me there is no God; so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lords answer to Philip, I
and my Father are one; and, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in
me.
14


Therefore these early heroes of faith must have believed that Christ, as God the Father in the
Old Testament, must have had some kind of body! Most of Gods people in the earlier ages did not
allowed Gods substance to be divided. How can anyone divide Gods Spirit Nature from His Soul
or Human Nature and make two separate and distinct persons is beyond me? I will speak more of
Gods Spirit and Soul Nature later. According to Tertullian, Praxeas must not have believed God to
be an omnipresent Spirit Being in His true essence or substance. Omnipresence is one of Gods
many attributes but it is not His personal essence. He also implied that the Jesus Name Preachers
believed that God the Fathers essence or substance was contained in a personal body.

Praxeas One God Doctrine: Tertullian mocked Praxeas because he and his forefathers
believed the entire godhead dwells in one person. He said they taught: They distinguish two, Father and
Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is
Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same [person]. Such a monarchy as
this they learnt. The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest, whom they make
the Father. See, say they, it was announced by the angel: Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God. Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is
the Son of God.
15


Tertullian went on to say: Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in Christ namely, the
divine and the human it plainly follows that the Divine Nature is immortal, and that which is Human is mortal, it is
manifest in what sense he [Praxeas] declares Christ died even in the sense in which He was flesh and Man and the
Son of Man, NOT as being the Spirit and the Word. [These Oneness Pentecostals declared,] we do not maintain that He
died after the Divine Nature, but only after the Human.
16


All theologians and historians, who claimed oneness preachers taught that God died at
Calvary, should repent of that lie. Surely this passage was not hidden from their view. Even
though Jesus Christ is God the Father in the flesh, it was not the Divine nature that died, but it
was His human nature only that was subject to pain, death, and other human frailties. God
cannot die! Man cannot kill God! I have asked Trinitarian preachers who declare lie this question:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, or is He nothing more than a mere man? Every Protestant preacher I
have asked this question to has responded by saying: Jesus is God. I then declared to them: You
must either preach our position, or you must teach that God died on Calvarys cross, and God laid dead in a tomb for
three days before He came back to life again, also that mortal man had the power to kill God.

Noetus History and One God Doctrine

Noetus, A True Man of God: Hippolytus wrote a work entitled The Refutation Of All
Heresies around 225 AD. This man was a heretical Catholic bishop, whose church was in a suburb of
Rome. He was a contemporary of Tertullian and an older contemporary of Cyprian, and like them,
he belonged to the North African or Western School of Doctrine. Hippolytus wrote against Noetus
and his disciples. Noetus was from Smyrna. My beloved readers may recall what our Lord said
about the true believers who lived in the Smyrna Church Period; He said: I know the blasphemy of
them [the Catholic apologists], which say they are Jews [children of God], and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan
(Rev 2:8-11, also see Mt 7:15-23). Noetus, unlike Hippolytus, was a true man of God.

10
Noetus One God Doctrine: Hippolytus went on to say: Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are
the same [person], no one is ignorant. For he makes his statement thus: `When indeed then, the Father had not been born,
He yet was justly styled Father: and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself
became His own Son, not another's. He is styled by the name of Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times,
[or at different time periods]. He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made no secret to those
who could comprehend Him of being the Father.
17


Epigonus, Cleomenes, Zephyrinus, and Callistus were all men of God. Hippolytus wrote not only
against Noetus but also against Zephyrinus, who was a Bishops of Rome from c. 199-210, and
Callistus, who was a Bishop of Rome from c. 210-222. Hippolytus was furious because the people of
Rome branded him as a heretic and did not want him as one of their Bishops, so he set himself up as
a rival Bishop or as some historians prefer an anti-Pope. Therefore, he lied and slandered the
character of Noetus and all of the real Bishops of Rome.

Cleomenes Godhead Doctrine

Hippolytus informed us that Catholic Bishops or Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus were disciples
of Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus. According to Harnack,
Epigonus was in Rome during the time Zephyrinus was Bishop, or shortly before.
18
Hippolytus
says that Cleomenes started a Theology School in Rome. He wrote: the school of these [so-called] heretics
during the succession of such Bishops continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus
and Callistus helped them to prevail.
19


Harnack declared: Cleomenes and his party maintain that He who was nailed to the cross, who committed His
Spirit to Himself, who died and did not die, who raised Himself on the third day and rested in the grave, who was
pierced with the lance and fastened with nails, was the God and Father of all.
20
With the information I have at
this moment, it is hard for me to determine how many of the Bishops of Rome before the Council of
Nicene really believed and preached the truth. It is obvious from these statements that Zephyrinus
and Callistus must have had a One God, Jesus Name belief.

Catholic Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine

Hippolytus continued: Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy.... Now Callistus brought forward Zephyrinus
himself and induced him publicly to avow the following sentiments: I know that there is one God, Jesus Christ; nor
except Him do I know any other.
21
Zephyrinus also boldly declared: For the Father, who is in the Son, deified
the flesh, after He had assumed it, and united it with Himself, and established a unity of such a nature that now Father
and Son are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two.
22


Catholic Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine

According to Hippolytus, Callistus publicly reproached him and his very small band of rebels by
saying: Ye are Ditheists, which is a belief in two gods. Callistus then expounded the truth to the real
Christians of Rome. Hippolytus stated: Bishop Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself
is the Father; and though denominated by different titles, yet that in reality he is one indivisible Spirit. And he
maintains that the Father is NOT one person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same.... For that which
is seen, which is man, he considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father.
For says Callistus, I will NOT profess belief in two gods, Father and Son, but in one; for the Father subsisted in the Son
Himself. So that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this person being one, CANNOT be two persons.
23


11
Let my readers take note that these zealous Modalistic Monarchians accused Hippolytus
Catholic group of believing in two separate persons or gods in the godhead. They did not accuse
them of being Trinitarians, which is the belief in three separate and supreme persons or gods. The
early Catholic apostates and their deceive followers, as I have said before, did not believe the Holy
Ghost to be a person.

Sabellius Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Harnack stated that Cleomenes remained the head of the Oneness Theological School of Rome
until c. 215, when Sabellius succeeded him. Even though all oneness preachers believed in Gods
form or body in the Old Testament, they held two different ideas concerning the Logos
incarnation. One group of oneness preachers believed that Gods entire Spirit and bodily substance
was incarnated at Bethlehem. The other group preachers, such as the Sabellians, believed that the
only the visible portion or the humanity of God the Fathers own substance became incarnated.
Harnack speaking about Sabellius godhead belief says: The one being was always called by Sabellius
uiopatwr [son-father], an expression which was certainly chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to
suppose that two beings were in question.
24


Alexander (315 AD) declared that Sabellius taught that the Logos had a corporeal pre-existence.
Alexander believed that the Logos as the Son of God was begotten before time began. Speaking of
the Logos pre-existence, Alexander wrote, we believe: in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God; not begotten of things which are not, but of Him who is the Father; not in a CORPOREAL MANNER [i.e. tangible
body] by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus thought, but in a certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner.
25


Blunt speaking of Sabellius says, according to Hilary: In place of the Unity of Three distinct Persons we
have the entire coalescence of what are distinguished only in name, not in substance (Hilary de Trinity. vii. 5).... The only
Divine Sonship allowed by Sabellius doctrine being then that which took place in time at the Incarnation, there was also
at that time, a division of the Union.... If Hilary be a competent witness, that Sabellius did assert a separation of the
Protensio, which reaching usque ad Virginem, took the name of Son. This last step was taken to avoid the charge of
Patripassianism... by asserting that only a portion of the Divine Nature became incarnate.... Epiphanius... adds that this
conception was likening the Father to the body, the Son to the SOUL, the Holy Ghost to the spirit.
26


Socrates Scholasticus in his history spoke of the Creed of Sirmium, which was published in 352
AD in the Presence of the Emperor Constantius. In it the Catholic Church described some of the
Godhead teaching of Gods Jesus Name People of that day by pronouncing a large number of
anathema on them. The Creed stated: If any one shall dare to assert that the Unbegotten, or a part of him,
was born of Mary, let him be anathema. If any one should say that the Son was of Mary according to foreknowledge
[i.e. existed in prophesy only as God becoming a human being], and NOT that he was with God, begotten of the
Father before the ages let him be anathema If any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be God and
man, shall imply the unbegotten God himself, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was not the Son that was
seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was NOT the
Son that as man wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be anathema. If any one
should say that the Father, Son, and Holy? Spirit are one person, let him be anathema. If any one, speaking of the
Holy Spirit, the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be anathema.
27


It is very obvious that Catholicism was very unhappy with Gods people. The portion of the
Fathers own Nature that became born of Mary was His Glorified Spiritual Body, and His Soul
dwelt in it. Catholicism has always pronounced curses on Gods people in every century. They have
always been afraid that Gods people once again would prevail over all of Christendom. The
12
Catholic Encyclopedia stated: In the fourth century the Arians and Semiarians professed to be much afraid of it
[Sabellianism], and the alliance of Pope Julius and Athanasius... gave some color to accusations against the Nicene formulas
as opening the way to Sabellianism. This same encyclopedia also gave us some insights into Sabellius
beliefs. It says: Saint Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis
but two in name.
28


Commodians Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine

Commodian was another great man of God. He was a Bishop in a church in Africa around c. 250.
According to Harvard professor Harry A. Wolfson, in his work entitled The Philosophy Of The
Church Fathers, Commodian taught in verse 91 of his Carmen Apologeticum: the Father went into the
Son, at Bethlehem. This revealed that the Father was the God who was in the Lord Jesus Christ. He
also added: Commodian speaking for himself, says almost in the words quoted above [i.e. God is only one person] as
representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus.
29


Professor Schaff wrote: Commodian was a Patripassian in Christology and a Chiliast in eschatology. Schaff
also gave a brief description of Commodians book. He says: it discusses in 47 sections the doctrine of God,
of man, and of the Redeemer (verses 89-275); the meaning of the names of the Son and Father in the economy of
salvation (276-573); the obstacles to the progress of Christianity (574-611); it warns Jews and Gentiles to forsake their
religion (612-783); and gives a description of the last things (784-1053).
30
It is a shame that no one has
translated this great work into English. I have a copy of it, which is written in Latin, in my library.

The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia classified Commodians godhead beliefs with that of
Praxeas and Noetus. It stated: in the west they [the Modalist Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the
East they are called Sabellians. It went on to declare: Sabellius or at least his followers may have considerably
amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra
developed a Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much further by his disciple [Photinus]. Priscillian was an
extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian.
31


Marcellus Godhead Doctrine

Blunt speaking of the fourth century Sabellianism stated: Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and
his followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism; for this [so-called] heresy Marcellus was condemned by
several Arian Councils, particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336. Socrates states... that he held the Son of God to
have His beginning from His birth of the Virgin and the kingdom of God not to be without an end (H.E. ii. 33)....
Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that there was but one person in the Divine Nature.
32
Marcellus despised
the Catholic doctrine of two gods or persons in the godhead. He boldly proclaimed that the Father
became the Son and Holy Ghost in time, and at the end of time, these offices will ceased and He will
only be know as the Father. This was basically the doctrine of Sabellius. Edward Gibbon, in his
book entitled The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, declared: Athanasius defended above twenty
years the Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when al last he was compelled to withdraw himself from his
communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his respectable friend.
33


Photinus One God Doctrine

Blunt speaking of Photinus, who was a disciple of Marcellus, and those who followed him said:
Theodoret says that Photinus differs from Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an Antitrinitarian
Monarchian, and that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine
Substance, which he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man Jesus Christ; that on account of this
13
association of the Word with the human nature Jesus was called the Son of God, and even God Himself; that the Holy
Ghost was not a distinct Person, but a celestial virtue proceeding from the Deity (Epiph. Haer. Lxxi.; Hilary de Trin. vii.
3,7, viii. 40; Socr. H. E. i. 18, 19, 30; Sozom. iv. 6). These tenets are sufficiently stated in the article Samosatenes, and
other articles regarding the various Monarchian sects.

Blunt went on to say: Marius asserts that Photinus held the Divine element that acted in our Lords Person to be
substantivum or ousiwdes. Now Photinus denied the personality, and consequently the Sonship of the Word, but
allowed its eternity as existing in the one undistinguished God. We are therefore thrown back upon the tenet described
in Sabellians as the division of the Union, namely, that the Deus protensus, not being a distinct Person, is separable
from the Godhead, or that a certain portion of the Divine Substance added to the human nature formed Jesus Christ the
Son of God.
34
If my beloved readers desire to read a Biblical exegesis on the godhead, I would suggest
my book The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed.

CHAPTER 2
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF
OF TWO AND THREE GODS: THE OBSCURE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE

Gods people in the Old Testament went into apostasy several times. They keep going into
Lucifer's Mystery Babylonian Religion, or in other words, Lucifers Babylonian Trinity. This
trinity consisted of: Baal, Ashtaroth, and Tammuz. Baal represented god the father, the sun god;
Ashtaroth represented the mother god or the mother of the gods, the moon goddess; Tammuz
represented the son of god or god the son, who was also known as the sun god.

The Bible stated: They forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth (Jug 2:13). God told Ezekiel:
You will see greater abominations that they [the House of Israel] are doing. So He brought me to the door of the
north gate of the LORDs house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:13-14).
God told Jeremiah: The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to
make cakes for the Queen of Heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to
anger (Jer 7:18).

Gods people did not do this one time, but throughout their history. Israel forsook the LORD
and worshipped and served the Babylonian Trinity. Here are just two examples: The prophet
Samuel speaking to the house of Israel said: Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If you
return to the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and
prepare your hearts for the LORD, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines. So
the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and served the LORD only (1Sa 7:3-4). Years later,
the people of Israel went into Baal worship again. They cried unto the LORD and said: We have
sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and Ashtoreths; but now deliver us from the hand
of our enemies, and we will serve You (1Sa 12:10).

Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess
that the Trinitarian Doctrine Is Obscure in Its Present Form,
and Cannot Be Found in the Old or New Testaments

Doctor Hastings under the heading of the Trinity stated: The Old Testament could hardly be expected
to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity.... In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything
14
like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannie theology. Hastings continued: The story of the
Trinity in ecclesiastical history is the story of the transition from the Trinity of experience, in which God is self -
revealed as the Father or Creator and Legislator, the Son or Redeemer, and the Spirit or Sanctifier, to the Trinity of
dogma. To say that there are three separate personalities in the Godhead would be polytheism.
35


In The Encyclopedia of Religion, which is composed by many Trinitarian scholars, we read:
Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity....
Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the
Trinity.... Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary [meaning
based on ones preferences, notions, or whims]; while it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural
evidence alone.
36


The Encyclopedia Britannica speaking of the Trinity stated: In general we may say that the Trinity
takes on four differing aspects in the Christian church: in its more common and easily apprehended form as three
gods, in its ecclesiastical form as a mystery which is above reason to be accepted by faith.... To some Christians the
doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God which is emphasized in the Scriptures.
37


Trinitarian doctors John MClintock and James Strong, in their Cyclopedia of Biblical
Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature declared: Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost make one God, the scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of
its being explained to us.
38
What these scholars are saying is that the Babylonian Trinity is a
mystery. Now, have you not heard other Trinitarian Preachers say the very same thing?

German professor Harnack says: The doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church [meaning Roman
Catholic and Protestant Churches], is not contained in the New Testament. He continued by saying: At first the Christian
faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference [meaning in the beginning, or as it first existed]. It was not so in
the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in
the age of the [Catholic] Christian apologists.
39
What Dr. Harnack is saying is this, Catholic apostates of
the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, along with their deceived converts, did not believed in a
Trinity of three persons in the Godhead. None of these heretics considered the Holy Spirit to be a
separate person in any sense of the word; also none of these Catholic Priests considered the Son
equal to the Father in origin, power, and other attributes.

The renowned Catholic professor John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays
and Sketches, presented Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the
doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Mass were not found in the
Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they were true. He defends them
not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early Ante Nicene Catholic
Preachers.

He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic doctrines, since they have
accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof. In
volume one, he made the following statements: Where was your Church before Luther? The obvious
and historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying:
Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their [meaning the
Roman Catholic] religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism?
40
The obvious answer is no. He
then went on to prove that historically, by comparing the teachings of the Reformers with that of
the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.

After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let us hear this Priests
confession and see if He makes a good and true confession, before we grant him absolution. He
15
said: all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out in form upon the surface of
Scriptures. As I have said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere
peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight
their respective peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly,
and adequately, in Scripture. For take that single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of
the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity [for] it is not brought
out in form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of the
Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture?
41
The answer to Newmans question is very few.

Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying: He who admits the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its proof - who submits to the
indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular doctrine - has a right to be told those
other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession.
42
Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach
to the fallen away daughters of Catholicism by saying: not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the
Ante Nicene Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine. All Protestants who consider the Bible as the one
standard of faith, meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition, let no
one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox Protestant, [if] he will
admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic Succession. [For] this is an impossible position: it is
shutting one eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both.
43


What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the
Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith, that is without any real scriptural proof, they
then have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all other Catholic doctrines,
which are also not taught in the Bible, as Newman openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No
matter what people may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and
true confession, for which Gods people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him absolution.

Comparing the Trinity of Pagans with the Trinity of Catholicism: Trinitarian
minister and historian Alexander Hislop, in his great book The Two Babylons, compared the
Trinity of Roman Catholicism with that of the Trinity of the Babylonian and other Pagan
Religions. He writes: I have to notice, first the identity of the object of worship in Babylon and Rome. The
ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognized in words the unity of the godhead; and while
worshipping innumerable minor deities [demons], as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly
acknowledged that there was one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the
same.... In the unity of that one only god of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the
Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Roman Church
does at this day. The Papacy has in some of its churches, as for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of
Madrid, an image of the triune god, with three heads on one body. The Babylonians had something of the same.... In India, the
supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads, under the name of Eko
Deva Trimurtti, one god, three forms.
44


There can be no room for doubt that the Babylonian Trinity, of three separate persons or
beings in the godhead, was taught by all heathen nations long before Christianity can into being.
The devil has always imitated and perverted Gods plan in all ages. He took Gods triune
revelation of Himself to His children, and made three separate persons or beings out of the One
God. The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading of the Trinity, has this to say about this truth:
The idea of a Trinity, which, since the council of Nice, and especially through Basil the Great [370 AD], had become
the Catholic dogma, is of course regarded by Jews as antagonistic to their monotheistic faith and due to the
paganistic tendency of the [Roman Catholic] Church: God the Father and God the Son, together with the Holy Ghost...
have their parallels in all the heathen mythologies, as has been shown by many Christian scholars.
45


16
Just as Gods people in the Old Testament went into to apostasy, some of Gods people in New
Testament times also went into apostasy. It started with a group of so-called theologians known
in history as the Ante-Nicene Fathers or the Catholic Fathers. Most of these men were students
of Greek Philosophy. The churches these apostates started became known as the Roman Catholic
Church. The following brief history of how the Babylonian Trinity came into apostate Roman
Catholic Christianity, for the first four hundred years, should give my beloved readers, some
idea of the magnitude of the subject of the Godhead.

The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods

Somewhere after 70 AD, Ignatius, one of the bishops of Antioch, and other apostate bishops of
other cities, apostatized from Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church, and came together and formed
the Catholic Church. The apostle John spoke of it this way: Little children, it is the last hour; and as you
have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last
hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us;
but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1Jn 2:18-19). It was Ignatius
who invented the Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine, along with its Monarchial Bishop Doctrine,
which God and His Church hated (Rev 2:6, 15).

Professor Harnack in his book The Mission and Expansion of Christianity spoke of the apostasy
of Ignatius and other Bishops of that ilk when he declared: As early as the second century the [Catholic]
Church had conquered the people.... By the opening of the third century [200 AD], no layman ventured any longer to call
ecclesiastics, brethren. The layman is a layman because he has not been set apart from the people by ordination.
After the close of the second century [the Monarchical] bishops were the teachers, high priest, and judges of the church.
Ignatius already had compared their position [as bishop or pastor] in the individual church to that of God in the church
collective.
46


Harnack speaking of the enormity of their apostasy from God says: The most momentous result was
the gradual assimilation of the entire [Catholic] Christian worship to the nature of the ancient mysteries. By the third
century [200 AD] it could already rival the most imposing cultus in all paganism, with its solemn and exact ritual, its priest,
its sacrifices, and its holy ceremonies.
47
If my readers would like to read a history of the Nicolaitan
doctrine, I would suggest my book A Prophetic History of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church or The
Heresy of the Nicolaitans.

One of the greatest problems, Gods Churches had during the first four hundred years, was
with Satans Churches blaspheming God; they did this by christianizing pagan doctrines and
then calling themselves Christians or Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I stated before,
when these apostates first began, they did not believe in a Trinity of three separate persons, but
believed that there were only two-persons in the godhead. They believed that the Father was the
supreme God being uncreated or unbegotten, and the Son was a lesser or inferior God because
He was begotten by the Father. They believed the Father created Him from a homoiousios or a
like substance to God the Fathers own personal substance. Where did the godhead teaching of
these apostates originate? History reveals that these Catholic Ante Nicene Priests received they
pagan godhead from Philo, who received it from Plato, who received it from the Sibyls, who
received it from the Zoroastrian doctrine that was taught in the Babylonian Religion.

Who were the early Catholic Fathers who started the Catholic Church and what did they
teach about the godhead? According to history this godhead doctrine started with Ignatius (c. 70)
and Clement of Rome (c. 70), who were among the first apostates to teach this pagan heresy, and
17
they were the ones who formed the Catholic Nicolaitan Church in the first century. The main
Catholic Nicolaitan heretics of the second and third centuries, who taught this godhead doctrine
were: Justin Martyr (c. 150), Clemens of Alexandria (c. 200), Tertullian (c. 200), Hippolytus (c. 225),
Origen (c. 215), and Cyprian (c. 250). All of these heretics loved the writings of the Greek
philosophers, especially Plato, and the allegoric method of interpreting the scriptures that was used
by Philo.

My beloved readers should bear in mind, that none of the early fathers of Catholicism or their
heretical disciples, who are called apologist, believed in a Trinity of three separate and equal
persons in the godhead. In fact, the Trinity they believed in was composed of two persons or gods
each having a separate body and existence from the other, and one impersonal spirit which had no
body, which represented the power of Christ, or as some prefer, the Logos other self.

The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia gave a fair summation of the godhead doctrine of
the early Catholic Priests. Under the heading of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity we
read: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-
Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as
the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with
relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether.
48


Dr. Harnack included the Catholic apologists godhead doctrine in his list of the pagan teachings
of the Ante Nicene Fathers. He stated: It is not Judaeo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and
doctrines of the [Catholic] apologist, but Greek philosophy - Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic
and Stoic ethics - the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, ...particularly in that of Philo.
49


Wolfson boldly declared the above truths when he stated that Ignatius, and all the other apostate
Catholic fathers, who started Catholicism did not: believe in a preexistent Trinity.... Before His [Jesus] birth
there were only two preexistent beings, God and the Holy Spirit, the latter identified with the preexistent Christ, and, if
the term Logos is used, it is identified with the Holy Spirit. He continued by saying: like Philo, the [Catholic]
Fathers attributed to the Logos... two stages of existence prior to the creation of the world, which according to Philo
was the internal and external Logos that was also called by the title of the Holy Spirit.
50


107 AD, Ignatius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Ignatius of Antioch was the father
of all Catholic Nicolaitans. If there was someone before him who taught him these damnable
doctrines we have no written record of it. According to history, He was the first to write down his
beliefs on the godhead and the Nicolaitan doctrine of the ministry. Because of different opinions
of scholars concerning which are the true writings of Ignatius, i.e. the short version, the long
version, or the Syriac version, I will quote from all three versions for his godhead teachings can
be found in all of them. I personal believe the longer version is the one he wrote.

Ignatius in his epistles emphatically proclaimed, many times, that God the Father is uncreated
and the highest God or the only true God. He also declared that the Logos or Christ was created
by the Father before the universe was spoken into existence and is a lower or lesser god. He
definitely spoke of the Logos as a separate being or person from the Father and called Him the
begotten God. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he says: Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten
and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. He continued by saying
that the Son of God was begotten: before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the
virgin.

18
Ignatius encourage the Ephesians to keep the faith of: God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-
begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature.
51
Here Ignatius applied the Biblical term: the first-
born to the Logos being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time. Ignatius ended his
letter to the Ephesians with these words: Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the
inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.
52
Ignatius indisputably proclaimed that the Holy Ghost was
Jesus. He obviously did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius reaffirmed his belief in two-unequal gods by saying:
He [the Logos or Christ] being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten
Son, and remains the same for ever.
53
In this passage Ignatius connects the Logos with the Son, and
proclaimed that the Son is not an eternal being. In the Syriac Version of Ignatius epistles, we
find his so-called refutation of errors. In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he writes against the godhead
teachings of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church by saying: Jesus Himself is not God over all, and the
Father, but His Son. Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person]
to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].

Because Ignatius and other Catholic bishops demoted Jesus to a second rate position in the
godhead, he had to write to this church to admonish them to think of Jesus as God. He says: How
could such a one [Jesus] be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the
Word, and the only-begotten Son? For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. And in another place, The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works.
Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.
54
Let my beloved readers take
note, Ignatius uses the above passages of scriptures to verify His teaching that Christ was a
begotten God, and He was also the Holy Spirit. From this time on, all Catholic Priest will use
Ignatius teachings on the godhead in their writings, and some will even put their own religious
twist to it, but all will claim that the Father and Son are two separate beings or gods.

150 AD, Justin Martyrs Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Justinus, who is better
known as Justin Martyr, was the first to defend in writing the two-god system of Philo and
Ignatius. Justin was without a doubt the real theologian of this two-god system. Justin, like his
masters before him, definitely taught that the Father was the unbegotten and the highest God,
while the Logos or Christ was a begotten and lower or lesser god, and the Holy Spirit was
another name for the Logos. Dr. Paine in his book A Critical History of the Evolution of
Trinitarianism revealed: Justin Martyr refers to Platonic and stoic authorities for his Logos ideas. He was
himself a Platonist before he became a Christian, and he never laid aside his philosophers cloak.
55


Justin and all the other early Catholic heretics could not understand the Logos concept of the
John 1:1 and Rev 19:13. The reason for their ignorance was they all interpreted it by the works of
Plato, especially his work entitled Timaeus, Philos two-god system, and the pagan concept of a
lower separate god called the Son that dwelt with the Father. As a result they were blinded to the
truth that God changed a portion of His eternal Holy Spirit Nature into a Human Soul and
Glorified Spirit Body Natures, and dwelt in it. Dr. Wolfson speaking of Justins godhead
doctrine, as He wrote against Gods Oneness people wrote: Justin Martyr already describes the Logos as
one whom God begot from Himself.... Justin Martyr maintained that the Logos is distinct from the Father in
number and not in name only.
56


Justin in his First Apology called the Logos: the first-begotten of all creation. He then stated that
the Holy Spirit is the Logos. He says: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as
anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God.
57
Justin, like Ignatius, connected the term
19
first-born with the generation of the Son before time began. In Justins Second Apology we read:
But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. But these words, Father, and God, and
Creator, and Lord, and master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His
son, who along is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with him and was begotten before the works, when at
first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ. For next to God, we worship and love the Word
who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God.
58
No one can read the writing of the early Catholics and
believe they taught the eternal sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is part of teachings of the
Trinitarian doctrine.

Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho a Jew clearly defined his heresy of two-unequal-gods. He
says: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, said I, from the Scriptures, that God begat before all
creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself. He was begotten of the Father
by an act of will. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father. But this Offspring,
which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father
communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was
begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God.

Justin then quoted Proverbs, the eight chapter, to prove that the Logos was begotten by the
Father. He says: And it is written in the book of Wisdom The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for
His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth. He begets me
before all the hills. When I repeated these words, I added: You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that
the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which
is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit. I have discussed briefly in what has
gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but NOT by
abscission, as if the ESSENCE of the Father were DIVIDED; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the
same after as before they were divided.
59
It is a pity that this blind apologist understood these
scriptures through the eyes of Plato and Philo. For instead of seeing the Logos as the
embodiment of God or the Fathers visible Self with a human nature as Paul taught (Col 2:8-9;
1:15), he saw Him as a person existing outside of or next to God.

160 AD, Tatians Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Tatian was a disciple of Justin
Martyr. He, like his master, also believed that the Logos had a beginning, and the Holy Spirit
was just another name for the Logos. He wrote: For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary
ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone. The Logos Himself also, who was IN
Him, subsists. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the
first-begotten work of the Father. Him [the Logos] we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by
participation, not by abscission. The Logos coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, and He has not
divested the Logos-power of Him [the Father] who begot Him.... For the heavenly Logos, a Spirit emanating from the
Father and [is] a Logos from the Logos-power [of the Father], in imitation of the Father who begot Him, made man an
image of immortality.
60
No eternal Trinity can be found here.

170 AD, Theophilus Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Theophilus taught same
godhead doctrine as all the others. He wrote: God, then having His own Word internal within His own
bowels, begot Him,, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the
things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.... He [the Logos] then being the Spirit of God, and
governing principle, and Wisdom, and power of the Highest, came down upon the prophets and through them spake.
61
Here Theophilus clearly revealed that the Holy Spirit is the Logos, and Wisdom is another title
of the Logos. Many of the early Catholic Priests declared Wisdom was a title of the Logos, who
was the Holy Spirit.

Theophilus also declared: The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a
place, for there is no place of His rest. The Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before
20
anything came into being He [God the Father] had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when
God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself
being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. The
Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends
Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
62
According
to this Catholic Priest, God the Father is omnipresent and has no form, but Christ who was
begotten by the Father has form and a dwelling place.

Other Catholic Priest, such as Tertullian, will use Theophilus godhead teaching, and also
claim God the Father emitted His Son from His own bowels, by speaking Him into existence. No
one can accuse Theophilus of being a Trinitarian, even though he is the first Catholic to use the
word Trinity. Theophilus, being an allegorist like His Catholic predecessors in the ministry, in
his teaching on the sun and moon compares the godhead to them; he says: In like manner also the
three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity: of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.
63
Let
my beloved readers take note, Theophilus used the personal pronoun His to show that the Word
of God and the Wisdom of God belong to God the Father.

180 AD, Irenaeus Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Irenaeus, like his fellow Catholic
bishops, taught that the Logos was a being, whom the Father begot before time began. Irenaeus
declared: If any one, therefore, says to us, How then was the Son produced by the Father? We reply to him, that
no man understands that production or generation but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten.
64
He also declared: John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
65


From the Fragments of the Lost Writings of Irenaeus we read: Christ, who was called the Son of God
before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood. He
also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect
Intelligence, the Word of God who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe.
66

Irenaeus applied the title the only begotten God to the Son of God, i.e. the Logos, because He was
begotten by the Fathter before time began. He stated: His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the
benefit of those who beheld, did show the Fathers brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said:
The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].
67


Irenaeus called Christ the Holy Spirit of the Father. He wrote: For He [Jesus] is indeed Savior, as
being the Son and Word of God, but salutary [i.e. producing a beneficial effect] since (He is the) Spirit for he says: The
Spirit of our countenance Christ the Lord. But (for) salvation as being flesh: for the Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us.
68
He also declared: He [Jesus], who is the perfect bread of the Father, offered Himself to us.... He
did this when He appeared as a man. [We who] become accustomed to eat and drink the Word of God, may be able
also to contain in ourselves the Bread of immortality, which is the Spirit of the Father. Those upon whom the
apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food of Life (Eternal).
69
It is very obvious from the
above quotes that Irenaeus believed the Son of God was not an eternal being but a created being;
and the Holy Ghost is another name for the Logos. Therefore, he was not a Trinitarian, even
thou he speaks in mysterious tones in certain passages.

200 AD, Tertullians Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: It is in Tertullian that Trinitarians
make their boast. They probably surmise, surely someone who writes against Oneness Pentecostals,
uses the word Trinity in his writings, and speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be a
Trinitarian. Not so! According to Dr. Schaff: Tertullian cannot escape the charge of subordinationism. He
bluntly calls the Father the whole Divine Substance, and the Son a part of it.
70
Tertullian, like his predecessors in
the ministry, believed that God in His Spirit Essence was omnipresent. He declared: We know,
21
however, that God is in the bottomless depths, and exists everywhere; but then it is by power and authority. We are
also sure that the Son, being indivisible from Him, is everywhere with Him. Nevertheless, in the Economy or
Dispensation itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as on earth, and Himself in heaven.
71


Tertullians godhead teaching is definitely not the Trinitarian doctrine of Catholicism or
Protestantism. Tertullian declared: For before all things God was alone being in Himself and for Himself
universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself.
Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own
Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His
own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call lo> gov, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse.
For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and
included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was
afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason,
He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse.

I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the
universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He
made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set
forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Sofi> a, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of
Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the CHARACTER
of a Second Person: At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works,
before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me; that is
to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence.

Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had
planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdoms Reason and Word, He first put forth the
Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made
through Him. through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they
were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly
known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances.

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal
utterance, when God says, Let there be light. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from
God begotten to carry all into effect. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He
became His first begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten
of God, made a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart even as the Father Himself testifies: My
heart, says He, hath emitted my most excellent Word.
72
As my beloved readers can perceived by now,
Tertullian, like all the Catholic Priests before him, did not teach the Eternal Son of God doctrine
of Trinitarians, but a Begotten Son of God. I might also add, if the Word was the conscious mind
of God the Father as Tertullian declared, then the Father must have lost His mind when He
made the Word a separate person from Himself!

Tertullian concluded by saying: Whatever therefore was the substance of the Word that I designate a
Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the
Father. For the FATHER is the ENTIRE SUBSTANCE, but the SON is a derivation and PORTION of the
whole. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration
that they are distinct in personality?
73


What Philo, Tertullian, and all the other Catholic Anti Nicene Priests did not understand is
that God did not bring forth a separate person or being from His own Loins before time began,
but as some Rabbis declared a Spiritual or Heavenly Man or Humanity. Rabbis taught this truth
this way: Should one ask: Is it not written, Ye saw no manner of similitude? The answer would be: Truly we did
behold Him under a certain similitude, for is it not written, and the similitude of the LORD should he [Moses]
behold [Num 12:18].... Even that similitude was a likeness of the HOLY ONE, blessed be He.... For in the beginning...
22
when He created the FORM of SUPERNAL MAN to be known according to the style YHWH in order that He
might be known by His attributes and perceived in each attributes separately.
74


This humanity being God the Father had in its essence a Soul and Glorified Spiritual Body,
which was Gods the Fathers Visible Self, Form (Phi 2:6), or Image (Heb 1:3; Col 1:15). In other
word, the Father being an Invisible Spirit Being, and Omniscient, knew before the creation
began that men whom He loved and created would fall into sin and need redemption, therefore
He CLOTHED Himself with a Spiritual Humanity (His Visible, Tangible Self that sat on the One
Throne in Heaven), which at Bethlehem took on flesh, blood, and bones and became known as
the Son of God, who was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; also 1Pe
1:18-20).

According to Justin Martyr, the orthodox JEWS of his day, that is 150 AD, believed and
taught that God the Father had a Divine Human Nature in the Old Testament. In the Dialogue of
Justin with Trypho the Jew, Justin mocks Trypho by saying: Just as YOUR TEACHERS
suppose, fancying that the FATHER of all, the UNBEGOTTEN GOD, has HANDS and FEET,
and FINGERS, and a SOUL, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the
Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob.
75
There are over thirty scriptures in
the OT that speak of God the Fathers Soul in the present verb tense. (See my book The Mysteries
of the Godhead Revealed, which is given away on my website: DoctrinesOfChrist.com).

Justin mocks the Jews, just as all Ante Nicene Priests have done, because they all believed that
the Son appeared to Abraham, a separate being, person, or God from the Father. There is NOT
one scripture in the OT that uses the term or title Son or Son of God in reference to the
existence of Christ or Logos or Gods Spiritual Humanity, but there are at lease three scriptures
that speak of Gods Son in prophecy, as one who will be born one day in time (Psa 2:6-12; Isa 7:14;
9:6). Why can we not find one scripture that reveals the term Son of God was used by Christ in
the OT? Because according to Gods prophetic Word, God reserved this title to refer to the
Physical Humanity that God the Father would take on through the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem
one day.

Tertullian after declaring that God the Father is the Entire Essence of God then
contradicts himself by saying: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete,
produces three coherent [i.e. united] Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These THREE are, ONE
ESSENCE, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of Substance not singularity of
number.
76
In the above two declarations, Tertullian becomes trapped by his own deceitful tongue.
Since he declared that God the Father is the Entire Substance of God, the only way the Son or
the Paraclete can be God is by being part of the Father, i.e. they must be the Father! Therefore,
Tertullians three persons or Trinity is not real persons. In fact, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, which gives a history of a word declared the word person in the second and third
centuries meant an: actors mask, character in a play, later [i.e. 4
th
century] human being.

Tertullian taught the Spirit was Christ: The Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express
myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Spirit is the substance of the Word, and the Word is the operation of
the Spirit, and the Two are One (and the same). We declare, however, that the Son is God and the Word and
Spirit of God.
77
Now, where can anyone find the eternal Sonship doctrine, or that the Holy Spirit is a
separate person from the Logos in any of these passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian
doctrine. Now, where can anyone find the eternal sonship doctrine or that the Holy Spirit is a
23
separate person from the Logos in any of these passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian
doctrine.

215 AD, Origens Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Dr. Schaff speaking of Origen wrote: he
distinguishes the essence of the Son from that of the Father; speaks of a DIFFERENCE of SUBSTANCE; and makes the
Son decidedly INFERIOR to the Father.
78
Dr. Harnack says one of the names Origen gave to the Son was:
the second God.
79
Origen speaking of the origin of the Son of God wrote: We have to first ascertain what the
only begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of
individuals. He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: The Lord created me - the beginning of His
ways and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages.

In another place Origen revealed that Wisdom or the Holy Spirit was not a separate being from
Christ but was Christ. He wrote, Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal
when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a
living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise. It is once rightly
understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing.... The first-
born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.

Origen speaking of the Father being superior to the Son declared, But it is monstrous and unlawful to
compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man.
80

Origen definitely did not believe that the Father and Son were equal in power or authority or in
their godhood. He taught that the Son was inferior to the Father in these and other areas.

250 AD, Dionysius Doctrine of Two-unequal- gods: Dionysius of Rome also believed that the
Logos had a beginning. He says, There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father. Neither, indeed,
as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence
not from Himself, but from the Father.... For as I do not think that the Word was a thing made, so I do not say that God
was its maker, but its Father. The ungenerated God is the hypostasis the life and foundation of all things in the
universe.
81


Dionysius refused to say that the Son or the Logos was created or made by the Father, but was
begotten only. What he called begotten, all of his forefathers called created, made or generated.
What ever term fit your fancy, it all meant the same thing according to these Catholics: the Son of
God had a beginning before time began.

300 AD, Lactanius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: A Catholic Nicolaitan-Balaamite by the name
of Lactanius, who was a disciple of Arnobius, definitely cannot be classified as a Trinitarian, for to
him the Father was the only true God and the Son was the Holy Spirit whom the Father created. He
wrote that the Father commenced this excellent work of the world, [when He first] begat a pure and incorruptible
Spirit, who He called His Son. And although He had afterward created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we
call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He [the Father] considered worthy of being called by the
divine name....
82


312 AD, Alexanders Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Alexander of Alexandria followed the
Alexandrian school and taught the Logos was created a being. He wrote, We ought to preserve His [God
the Fathers] proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being, but to the Son must be allotted His fitting
honour, in assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation from the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone
belongs the property of being unbegotten.
83
He then went on to say that the Father is greater than the
Son.

24
From all the above quotes, my readers should be able to see that all these Nicolaitan Catholics
priests believed in two not three persons in the godhead; they all taught that the Father was
uncreated, and that the Son of God was a separate being from the Father and was created before
time began.

The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Because most Christians are not
aware of the pagan origin of the Trinity doctrine, lets briefly look at the affinity these men had
for the Greek philosophers and Mystery religion; so we can comprehend how they came up with
their Trinitarian godhead and baptismal beliefs.

3000 BC, Zoroasters Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: The two-god doctrine was not all that new
in the Greek, Roman, and all other pagan societies of their day. Professor Levi Paine in his book
entitled, The Ethnic Trinities, gave us some insights to the origin of this godhead doctrine. Paine
speaking of the earliest stages of Zoroastrian Trinitarian evolution, wrote, Mithra, or Mitra is
a creature of Ormuzd, the created light, that is, a sun god. As such he is a servant and organ of
Ormuzd, mediating between Him and man.
84


Hermes Teaching on Two-Unequal-gods: Around 300 AD Lactanius, who believed in the
doctrine of two-unequal-gods, wrote some of its history in his writings. He said this godhead
teaching could be found in Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. He went on to describe
Hermes as an ancient pagan god who served as a herald and messenger of the other gods, who was
called Mercury by the Romans; Hermes was also the god of science, eloquence, cunning, the
protector of boundaries and commerce, and the guide of departed souls to Hades.

Lets hear what Lactanius says Hermes taught. He says, Hermes, in the book which is entitled
The Perfect Word, made use of these words: The lord and creator of all things, whom we have
thought to call god, since He made the second god visible and sensible.... He hallowed him, and
altogether loved him as his own Son. Hermes could be a name for Nimrod, who started
Zoroastrianism.

The Ancient Sibyls Teaching on Two-Unequal-gods: Lactanius also quotes from the Sibylline
Books that were composed by women who were considered by the Babylonians, and Egyptians,
Romans, and Greeks as prophetesses. There were about ten Sibyls that are known in history.
Lactanius says, The Erythraean Sibyl, in the beginning of her poem, which she commenced with
the supreme god, proclaims the son of god as the leader and commander of all, in these verses: The
nourisher and creator of all things [God the Father], who placed the sweet breath in all, and made
god the leader of all. Speaking of the Son of God at the end of this poem she says: But whom god
gave for faithful men to honour. And another Sibyl enjoins that He ought to be known: Know him
as your god, who is the son of god.
85


387 BC, Platos Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Paine declared that Platos World Soul was not
an eternal divine being, but a created mediating being whom God made to be the connecting link
between things, or, in more philosophical language idea and phenomena.
86
Justin Martyr in his
First Apology speaking of Platos discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus, quotes
Plato as saying, the power [or second god] next to the first god was placed crosswise in the
universe. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was
placed crosswise in the universe.
87


25
57 AD, Philos Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Philo was a Jew who was born in Alexander,
Egypt in 27 BC, and died somewhere around 57 AD. He was an apostate Jewish Rabbi and
commentator, who interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures by the use of the Greek
philosophical allegorical method. He took Plato teaching of a dual god or two-unequal-gods, and
tried to bring it into Judaism.

Elgin Moyer, in his book entitled Who Was Who In Church History, revealed Philos role in the
development of the Catholic doctrine of a greater and lesser god. He says that Philo was a, Jewish
Hellenistic philosopher.... As a philosopher sought to reconcile Greek philosophy and the Old
Testament by means of allegorical interpretation.... Philos method of allegorical interpretation had
much influence on the allegorical method of interpretation followed by the [Catholic] Alexandrian
Church Fathers, especially Clement and Origen.
88
The Logos of Philo was not the Father, but
was a separate being or person from the Father; the Father being the supreme god, and the
Logos a lower or inferior god.

In his godhead teachings, he taught that the Father was so holy that He could not come into
contact with the world personally, so He created a second god called the Logos who could. Philo
taught that the Logos was not the Father, but was a separate being or person from the Father; the
Father being the highest or greatest god, and the Logos an inferior or lesser god, which mediated
between God and man.

According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Philo explained his doctrine of two-
unequal-personal-gods this way, The internal Logos is the firstborn, the second god, the mediator,
the ransom, the image of god.... The external Logos abides in man, is the prophet, shepherd,
ambassador, artist, elder, interpreter, the shadow of god.... The Logos mediates between god and
the world, but partakes of the divine nature only.
89


Philos external Logos or Holy Spirit was the impersonal Spirit of the internal Logos. Because of
this teaching, the early Catholic Fathers taught that the Holy Spirit was another name for Christ.
Philo, as well as these Catholics, did not teach a trinity. The internal Logos was a real being or
person, who existed outside of Gods being; therefore He was no abstract figure.

Dr Wolfson confirmed the above truths by stating, We have shown that Philos view, like
that of Justin Martyr, maintained that the antemundane [or before creation the] Logos had two
stages of existence and that, while during its first stage [the external Logos] it existed only as a
power in God, during the second stage [internal Logos] it existed as a real being outside of God.
90


Paine gave us some insights to the origin of Philos godhead doctrine. He says, On the whole, it
may be said that Philo is the historical founder of the Logos theology. He placed the Logos as the
great principle of divine mediation in the forefront of his philosophical system. He went on to say
that Philo received his Logos idea from Plato. He said Plato did not call his mediator Logos but the
World Soul.
91


It is obvious from the above historical references that Plato, Philo and many of the earlier Greek
Philosophers took the ancient doctrines of Mystery Babylonian and put their own religious twist to
them. From the time the priests of Babylon left their religious temple called the Tower of Babel, and
were scattered throughout the earth, they and their descendants have been placing their own
religious twist to the teachings of Babylon, in all the pagan religions they started. The Word of God
26
clearly revealed that Mystery Babylon is the mother of all false religious systems. Rev 17:1-6.
Between the Zoroastrians, Hermes, the Sibyls, Plato, and Philo, it is not hard to perceive were all of
the early Catholics Fathers received their inspiration and revelation of the godhead.

310 AD, The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead: A Catholic Presbyter by the name of Arius
started teaching that the Son of God was not only a created being, but that He was not God in
any sense, or in other words, he totally rejected the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to
Arius and his followers Jesus was nothing more than the first and highest ranking created angel
in heaven. These Catholics were the so-called Jehovahs Witnesses of their day. From 310
through 325 AD, Arius had won many Catholic Bishops over to his godhead belief. Since the
majority of the Catholic Bishops did not believe that Jesus was equal to God the Father in the
godhead, all Arius had to do is quote to them the scriptures declaring that their was only one
God and that is the Father. By means of this argument, he was able to persuade many of them to
deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

325 AD, The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene-Creed: Before we
examine the Nicene-Creed and the part Emperor Constantine played in formulating it, lets
briefly inspect Constantine motive for choosing Catholicism to be the his bride. Constantine, like
all other Emperors before him, desired a united empire. The empire Constantine inherited was a
divided empire with many different political and religious fractions. Mithraism, even though it
was the religion of the empire, never shows signs of having the power to become a universal
religion. Constantine greatly desired a religion whose doctrines could appeal to the masses and
unite them into one religion, and thereby unite the empire.

Guignebert speaking of Catholicism absorption of pagan doctrines, ceremonies and rituals says,
In the third century it [the Nicolaitan-Babylonian Church] could meet and overcome the entire pagan
syncretism, because it had itself become a syncretism in which all the fertile ideas and the essential
rites of pagan religiousness were blended. It combined and harmonized them in a way that enabled
it to stand alone, facing all the inchoate beliefs and practices of its adversaries without appearing
their inferior on any vital point. This extensive work of absorption, which helps us to understand,
that a moment came when [Catholic] Christianity was able to arouse favorable attention to itself on
the part of the manifold sympathies active in the Greco-Roman world.
92


The religion Constantine chose would have to be flexible enough to bend to his will whenever he
so desired; one that would allow him to maintain his position as the High Priest or the Supreme
Head. The entire world had witness the noble suffering of Gods people and through it became
attracted to Church. The Roman Emperors discovered that no amount of threats could get the
majority of Gods people to compromise their convictions. Even though Constantine knew that the
one God, Jesus Name Churches were in the vast majority, he also knew that he would never be
able to control them. In chapter three I will prove from history that Gods Apostolic Pentecostal
Churches were in the majority for the first 400 years.

When Constantine looked at Catholicism, he saw a religion that he knew he could control. He
knew that its entire history was one of compromise; one that had already adopted most of the
teachings of paganism; one who compromised with the state during the Roman persecutions; yes
one who had the potential of becoming a universal religion. It already went under the name of
Christianity, and with a little persuasion from him he could get the masses of pagans to join it.
Constantine could see in this Church of Satan, everything his heart desire; he could see all of his
dreams being fulfilled.
27

In The Cambridge Medieval History, we can read of Constantine dream for Catholicism. It says,
The [Catholic] Church was not quite what Constantine wanted it to be. He was not more attracted
to it by its [so-called] lofty monotheism than by the imposing unity, which promised new life to the
weary State. For six hundred years the world had been in quest of a universal religion.... If the
Church was divided against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could hardly be
divided against itself without being also divided against the Empire.
93


Guignebert speaking of Catholicisms political compromise with the state during Roman
persecutions says, Nicolaitan Christians no longer expected the end of the world form one day to
the next; they conformed to current customs and even to current prejudice. Christians joined the
army and served in the administration and the ecclesiastical authorities made no objection.
[Catholic] Christian ethics and Christian resignation to the worlds continuance had reaffirmed
allegiance to all social regulations. Above all a community of believers, united, disciplined and
directed by leaders whom they obeyed [as gods], presented to the State a cheering spectacle of
order, the product of a well administered government, which already shows signs of developing a
political consciousness.... It was time for both State and [Nicolaitan] Christianity to think of a
compromise.
94


By now my readers should be able to understand why Constantine chose Catholicism to be his
bride. Now, why did the Catholic Church want this marriage? According to The Cambridge
Medieval History Constantine choose Catholicism to be his bride in 313 AD when he gave the Edict
of Milan. It revealed that, he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church - not those of the sects
[meaning Gods Apostolic Church] - from the decurionate and other burdens, he gave them only
the privileges already enjoyed by some of the heathen priests and teachers. But the relief was great
enough to cause an ungodly rush for holy Orders into Balaamite Christianity.
95
Money and
power has always been the prime motivating factor behind all that Catholicism has done
throughout the centuries.

325 AD, The Nicene Creed: At the Nicene Council Constantine, and the Ante Nicene Catholic
Priests, declared that Jesus was begotten by the Father before time began, and He was
homoousios or was begotten out of the same substance as the Father, thus making Him an
equal God with the Father, since He now shared in the Fathers own substance. Therefore these
Catholic Priests change the godhead doctrine of their forefathers, who believed in two-unequal-
gods, for a belief in two-equal-gods.

Catholic Bishop and church historian Socrates, who attended this council, recorded the Creed as
stating, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and
in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the [same]
substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made,
consubstantial [of the same substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made. (We
believe) also in the Holy Spirit.

Socrates mentions Eusebius of Caesarea, who was also a Catholic Bishop and church historian,
as attending this Council; he says Eusebius wrote a letter to his church and explained the creed.
Eusebius speaking of the Son being begotten by the Father before time began wrote, On the same
grounds we admitted also the expression begotten, not made: for he is no creature like those
which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the
Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be
28
explained nor even conceived by any creature. That he is consubstantial [of the same
substance] with the Father who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but
of the Father.
96


Let my beloved readers take note, Constantine and these Catholic priests confessed that Christ
was not eternal but was begotten by the Father before time began. Therefore all Trinitarians who
claim that the Nicene Creed teaches that the Son of God is eternal and had no beginning are liars!
Also all Trinitarians who profess that this creed teaches that the Holy Spirit is a separate person
from the Father and Son are also liars, for this creed does not say what they believe about the Holy
Ghost!

Emperor Constantine Invented the Consubstantial or Homoousios Doctrine: At the Nicene
Council, the heretical Roman Catholics were divided into two camps: The Athanasian Catholic
group, which defended the doctrine of two-equal-gods; and the Arian Catholic group, which denied
the deity of Christ. Now, one should ask himself or herself, how did these so-called Bible scholars,
who attended the Council of Nicaea, come up with their doctrine of the godhead? Was it by fervent
prayer and fasting, or by diligent study of God's Holy Word? No! They did not need to do any of
that, because they had an apostle there to declare to them what they should believe and teach. Who
was this apostle? Was it the Apostle Paul or Peter reincarnated? No! It was the pagan Roman
Emperor Constantine.

Socrates in his history revealed that Constantine is the one who declared that the Father and Son
were consubstantial or have the same substance, which is called God. In a sense, Constantine was
acting as their first Pope. Lets look at the history of this meeting. Socrates stated, Constantine,
convoked a General Council, summoning all the [Catholic] bishops by letter to meet him at
Nicaea. The emperor arrived... and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his
place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated.
97


From the very beginning of Constantines Council, He was letting these Bishops know that he
was their High Priest. He was the one who called them together, and he was going to be the one who
was going to settle their religious dispute over the godhead. Edward Gibbon, in his classic work
entitled The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, spoke about this office. He wrote, The
Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the
advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government.... Constantine and his successors...
continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical order; and the sixteenth book of
the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of titles, the authority which they assumed in the
government of the Catholic Church.
98


Socrates revealed that the Emperor Constantine in his final speech to these Catholic priests
incited all to unanimity. At length he succeeded in bringing them into similarity of judgment and
conformity of opinion on all controversial points.... Exhorting, [with the influence and power of an
Emperor Pope], all present to give their assent and subscribe to these very articles; thus agreeing in
a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios
consubstantial, an expression which the Emperor himself explained. Let my readers take note that
Constantine, who was acting as their apostle and theologian, inserted the word consubstantial or
the Greek word homoousios into the Catholic Nicene Creed.

How did Pope Constantine define this word? Socrates says the Emperor defined it as not
indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist from the
29
Father either by division or abscission. For said he [the Emperor], a nature which is immaterial
and incorporeal cannot possible be subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such
things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such were the philosophical views of the subject
taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word homoousios
drew up this formula of faith.

Anyone with any common sense would ask himself or herself, why after many years of bickering
among these Catholic Bishops, would the Arian Catholics now agree with the two god Catholics?
Also, why would the two god Catholics agree to Constantines homoousios or consubstantial
doctrine that they or their forefathers never believed? One might say, well Constantine was a great
theologian. But the truth was, as the Emperor he was their Pagan High Priestly Pope, who
interpreted and make all doctrines pertaining to religion!

Socrates went on the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally
admitted that ousias of the essence or substance simple implied that the Son is of the [same
substance, which is called God, as the] Father indeed, but does not subsist as part of the Father. To
this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a
part of His [personal] substance.

Socrates continued, Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by Him, but is
of a substance the Divine oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as
cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature. Thus also the declaration that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be
understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is
neither by division of substance, not by abscission, not by any change of the Fathers substance and
power, since the underived nature [or substance] of the Father is inconsistent with all these things.
99


According to Constantines Creed, the Father, at some point in eternity past, begot or generated
the Son from a substance that must be called God. The Father begot the Son not from His portion
of Gods substance but from a different portion of Gods substance, or in other words, they both
had a different portion of the substance called God. This implies God divided Himself into two
separate beings or persons, which can only mean neither one is wholly God, but only a part or half
of God.

Since Constantine and these Catholic priests declared that the Father begot or generated the Son
from a different portion of Gods substance than His own, where did the Father get this other
portion? One would have to conclude that before the Son was begotten, there were two beings, one
called God and the other called the Father, and the Father had half of a substance called God.

Now, if the Son received Gods portion of the divine substance, than you have two beings that
share a portion of a substance that is called God. This can only mean that each one is a half of God,
since they both had equal portions of Gods substance. For example, if you cut an apple into two
equal portions, each portion is considered as a half of an apple. No one with any intelligence would
call a half of an apple the whole apple, even though it has all the characteristics, properties, and
nature of the whole apple. Unless they, like Constantine, profess the godhead is a mystery.

How can two different and separate divine beings or persons be one God? Also if there are two
beings called God, then why did they declare that the one God [was] the Father Almighty?
30
Therefore, when Catholic and Protestant theologians declare their allegiance to Pope Constantines
Nicene Creed and profess that it teaches three, not two, persons in the godhead, who are equal in
knowledge and power, they are not telling the truth.

According to Hastings, Constantine and his successors, and above all, the Emperor Justinian
(527-565 AD) saw themselves in their Roman capacity as the legitimate heirs of the ancient pagan
Caesars, but at the same time in their Christian capacity as equals to the apostles.... Contemporary
historians tell us that it was the Emperor Constantine, who came up with the formula one in being
(homoousios) with the Father, which resolved at the Council of Nicene in 325 [AD], the dispute over
the metaphysical relation between Christ and God.
100


Now the Emperor Constantine, who was acting as their first Pope, knew that neither party
believed that the Holy Ghost was a person, so he favored the theology of the two-equal-gods,
probably because it was closer to his and all the other pagans belief in three-equal-gods or the
Babylonian Trinity. Therefore he decided that Athanasius and his group were correct in their
theology and the Arians were heretics. I am sure Constantine must have thought to himself, surely
pagan worshippers will never believe in one person in godhead, so for the time being I settle for a
belief in two-equal-gods, and bring them into a belief in three-equal-gods later.

Is it not strange that Constantine, and no one else in any other age, has ever tried to explain or
even try to describe what is this essence called God? If one thinks the Trinitarian doctrine is a
mystery, let them try to find any writing, by anyone, explaining the essence of God. All they will
ever find is this indescribable something that fills the universe. Where did Constantine get his
teaching that the Son was homoousios or consubstantial with the Father? Lets not forget that
Constantine and all the emperors before him were the High Priests, who were over all pagan
religions with their two or three persons in the godhead doctrine.

As a pagan High Priest, Constantine was well aquatinted with Satans Babylonian Trinity
doctrine, which came into existence after Nimrods death shortly after the flood of Noah. This
demonic doctrine stated that, god the Father, god the Son, and the Mother of the gods made up one
united god. For these three separate and distinct persons or beings all shared in the one substance
called god. Under this and the Catholic Trinity doctrine, if there were a million persons in the
godhead, they could all be god if they all shared in this mysterious substance called god.

Now according to the Nicene Creed, (We believe) also in the Holy Spirit. Well what did they
believe about the Holy Ghost? Whatever they believed about the Holy Spirit, they did not believe he
was a third person in a Babylonian Trinity. History reveals that the vast majority of Catholic
Bishops at this time did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a separate person in the godhead. In
fact most of them did not know what to believe about the Holy Ghost.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely informs us what the Catholic Bishops at Nicaea
believed about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of the Trinity, the Catholic Church made a
good and honest confession about the development of their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated, In the
last analysis, the 2nd century theological achievement was limited. A Trinitarian solution was
still in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of
anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve of Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem
raised more than a century earlier was still far from settled. It was the problem of plurality
within the single, undivided godhead.
101


31
Schaff speaking about the Holy Spirit said, Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy,
an uncertainty still for a time prevailed, respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy
Trinity. Some held the [Holy] Spirit to be an impersonal power or attributes of God; others, at
farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Even as late as 375 AD, in the time
of Gregory of Nazianzus, most Catholics Bishops did not believe the Holy Spirit to be a personal
being. Gregory wrote, Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, other s a
creature [meaning an angel or a created spirit being], others God himself, and others know not
which way to decide.
102


381 AD, The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-Constantinople
Creed: It was not until the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, in 381 AD, that the Catholic
Church as a whole might have adapted the doctrine of the Trinity; it is hard to tell, for their
doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not very explicit. Therefore no one can say with any certainty that they
did! The only thing this creed says, which is different from the Nicene Creed is this, We believe in
the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored
together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets.

In 382 AD, Pope Damascus called a Council in Rome in which the Catholic Church drew up a
clear Babylonian Trinitarian godhead creed; there cannot be any doubt that this creed definitely
declared that the godhead is composed of three-equal-gods or persons. It also connected the formula
of baptism with the godhead for salvation. It stated, Therefore this is the salvation of Christians:
that believing in the Trinity, that is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and being baptized in the
Trinity.

This is the first Church Council in which the Catholic Church clearly defined the Holy Spirit as a
person instead of an impersonal Spirit. These pagan Babylonian Nicolaitan Bishops declared, (1)
We pronounce anathema against those who do not proclaim with complete freedom that He the
Holy Spirit is of one power and substance with the Father and the Son.... (10) If anyone denies that
the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic.... (16)
If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, and, like the Son, is of
the divine substance and is true God: he is heretic.

The Council of Rome continued by saying, (17) If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all
power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.... (18)
If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or was created by the Son: he is a heretic.... (20) If
anyone denies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have one divinity, authority, majesty, power,
one glory, dominion, one kingdom, and one will and truth: he is a heretic.... (21) If anyone denies
that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal, eternal,
containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, judge all things, give life to all
things, make all things, and conserve all things: he is a heretic.
103


Lucifers Babylonian Catholic Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see by now, the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind their new Babylonian
Trinitarian doctrine of three separate persons, instead of two-equal-gods or persons in the godhead.
Catholic Bishop Jerome (390 AD) confirmed this Councils decision when he said, it is the custom
at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the Trinity, do you believe in the Holy Church.
104


32
CHAPTER 3
THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
OF THE TRINITY

The origin of the Catholic Babylonian Trinity has been known by many readers of history for
centuries. In a book entitled The Works Of John Adams, Adams mentions a letter he wrote on June
28, 1813 to Thomas Jefferson. In it he wrote, Professors Priestley and Lindsey have both
denounced as idolaters and blasphemers all the Trinitarians and even the Arians.... Priestly barely
mentions Timaeus; but it does not appear that he had read him. Why has he not given us an
account of him and his book? He was before Plato, and gave him the idea of his Timaeus, and much
of his philosophy.... I wonder that Priestly has overlooked this, because it is the same philosophy
with Platos, and would have shown that the Pythagorean, as well as the Platonic philosophers,
probably concurred in the fabrication of the Christian Trinity.

On July 16, 1814, Adams wrote another letter to Jefferson in which he said, If the Christian
religion, as I understand it, or as you understand it, should maintain its ground, as I believe it will,
yet Platonic, Pythagoric, Hindoo, and Cabalistical Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and
which has prevailed for fifteen hundred years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster
must finally die, yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he
expires.
105


A Summary of the History and Development
of the Trinity of the Babylonian Religion

The Word of God speaking about some of the people that lived after the flood of Noah
declared, Although they knew God [referring to His godhead], they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Who
exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature [ktisis] rather
than the Creator (Rom 1:21-23, 25). Dr. James Strong in his work entitled Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance Of The Bible defines the Greek word ktisis to mean creation.
106


It is obvious from these scriptures that the godhead was not a mystery to these people, but as
many religious people of today they did not like this truth. Since the Bible plainly stated that
these people knew the truth about the godhead and changed it to nature worship or Pantheism,
what was the truth they knew? Who were these people that perverted this truth?

The truth concerning the godhead, the soul of man and the souls future destiny, was totally
perverted at the Tower of Babel. It was at this Tower where the first false religion began, which
was created by Nimrod. This Nimrod was the son of Cush, who was a son of Ham, who was a son
of Noah (Gen 10:1-8). This Nimrod became so perverted that he married his own mother.

In his rebellion against God, Nimrod started through Satan's tutoring a priesthood that
practiced witchcraft, magic, astrology, the worship of Lucifer as Baal the sun god and Lucifer's
demons as various planets, stars and constellations, or in other words nature worship, which
33
consisted of Pantheism, Animism and Polytheism. He also taught the Zoroastrian doctrine of
god. The good god to them was Lucifer, whom they claimed created all the good things in life;
and the evil god to them was the LORD, whom they declare created all the evil things.

It was under Lucifer or the Serpent's instructions that the doctrines of Immortality,
Reincarnation, and the Perfection of the Soul in this life began to be taught as the way to enter
back into paradise and godhood. Of course, the soul had to be purified in the fires of Hades after
each reincarnation, so it can enter into life perfect or without sin. These are just a few of
Nimrod's crimes against God and man.

If my readers desire to read a comprehensive historical exegesis of Nimrods doctrines of the
immortality of the soul, the torment and purification of the soul in Hades, and the eternal
torment of all souls who do not become perfected after a cycle of a thousand reincarnations, as
well as a Biblical exegesis against these doctrines of hell, I recommend my book, What Is Lost
Mans Destiny? (Immediate Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Torment For A Time And Then Universal Salvation, Or
Torment For A Time And Then Annihilation).

Semiramis after Nimrod's death had him defied. Nimrod then became Baal the sun god or god
the father (1Ki 18:21-40). Nimrod became the first defied man in history. She also had herself
deified as Ashtoreth (Hebrew) or Astarte (Greek), the Queen of Heaven or the mother of god and
the gods (Jer 44:17-25). Semiramis thus became the first deified woman in history. She also had
Tammuz, her illegitimate son defied, whom she claimed was Nimrods soul reincarnated or god
the son (Eze 8:14).

It is at this point, the Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or beings in the godhead
came into existence, and Lucifer's doctrines of Immortality, Transmigration, and Perfection of
the Soul that was taught by Nimrod was confirmed. These doctrines became know as the
Babylonian Mysteries, and thus Secrete Societies were born.

Thus Satan knowing the true doctrines of Christ, which should come into the world, imitated
and perverted them with his Mystery Religion. In time Semiramis Babylonian Trinitarian
doctrine of the godhead became more important than Nimrods Zoroastrian doctrine of the
godhead in the Babylonian Mysteries, because this father, son and mother were suppose to be the
first humans to become deified, which gave their followers hope of returning back to paradise
and also becoming deified. In other words, the Babylonian Trinity was connected to the doctrine
of mans deification. Now that I have given a brief synopsis of how the Babylonian Mysteries
began, let's see if I can authenticate the truthfulness of these statements by sound historical
documentation.

What Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon

John speaking about this false religious system says, "Upon her forehead was a name written,
Mystery Babylon, the great mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" (Jn 17:5). Since
the Bible called this religious system Mystery Babylon, or the Babylonian Mysteries, what does
the word mystery mean? The word mystery is the Greek word musterion which means a
secret i.e. through the idea of silence impose by initiation into a religious rite.
107


34
Since this is an occult mystery, lets see what the occult authorities have to say about it. The
Encyclopedia Of Occultism And Parapsychology, under the heading of Mysteries, says it was A
term for what is secret or concealed in a religious context.... The mysteries were secret cults, to
which only certain initiated people were admitted after a period of preliminary preparation....
But the mysteries appear to have circled around the semi-dramatic representation or
mystery-play of the life of a deity."
108
Let my readers take note, the religious doctrines of the
Mysteries centered around Semiramis Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead.

In the book entitled Secret Societies And Subversive Movements by Nesta Webster, under the
sub-title "The Mysteries" we read, "Now from the earliest times groups of initiates or wise men
have existed, claiming to be in possession of esoteric doctrines known as the Mysteries, incapable
of apprehension by the vulgar, and relating to the origin and end of man, the life of the soul after
death, and the nature of god or the gods. The Initiates believe that the sacred mysteries should
not be revealed to the profane but should remain exclusively in their own keeping."
109


Professor W. L. Bryan, in his work entitled The Republic Of Plato, made these statements
about mystery religions before and after Plato time, "Passages in the Greek poets seem to
indicate that the mysteries were intended to encourage belief in a future life, and in reward or
punishment there, as merited by the life on earth. Certain of the rites were supposed to be a
means of purification from sin, and reconciliation with the gods."

Bryan went on to quote Plato as saying, "And they [the gods] produce a host of books written
by Musaeus and Orpheus, who are children of the Moon [symbolism for Semiramis as
Ashtoreth]. They perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that
expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices. [These religious doctrines] they
call mysteries redeem us from the pains of hell."
110


When and Where Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin

All the major doctrines of the mysteries of all the heathen nations had their beginnings at the
Towel of Babel. The Encyclopedia Of Occultism And Parapsychology commenting on the Rev. G.
Oliver's book entitled, The History Of Initiation (1829 AD), has this to say about the subject. The
Reverend Oliver affirmed that the rites of the science, which is now received under the name of
Freemasonry, were practiced by man at the building of Babel. At the dispersion [it] spread
with every settlement.
111


Hislop gave a very clear, accurate and extremely well documented historical account of the
secret mysteries of the Babylonian Religion. He made a very striking comparison between the
doctrines of the ancient Babylonian Religion and the Roman Catholic Religion of today.
Speaking of the origin of the mysteries, Hislop stated, All who paid the least attention to the
literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the Mysteries
occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all
essential respects these Mysteries in the different countries were the same. Now, as the language
of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source from which all
these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians, on mere
historical grounds, have led to the same conclusion.
112


35
Who Started the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion

Now that it has been established when and where the mysteries began, who exactly can be
credited with starting this religious system? According to history, it all started with Nimrod.
Many historians seem to believe Nimrod was a black man, because all statues of him picture him
as such. The Bible reveals that Nimrod was a son of Cush, who was a son of Ham, who was a son
of Noah, (Gen 10:1-8). Nimrod was the first: king, tyrant, warmonger, idolater, and the first to
set up Nature Worship or the Babylonian Religion after the flood of Noah. Nimrod hated God
because He struck down his father with a lighting bolt for his apostasy.

Nimrods history can be found in a work entitled the Recognition of Clement, which some
believe was written by Clement of Rome in 100 AD. It revealed that it was Ham, [who]
unhappily discovered the magical act, and handed down the instruction of it to one of his sons
[i.e. Cush], who was called Mesraim, from whom the race of the Egyptians and Babylonians and
Persians are descended. Him the nations who then existed called Zoroaster, admiring him as the
first author of the magic art, [or in other words, Cush or Zoroaster wrote many books on
magic].

He therefore, being much and frequently intent upon the stars, and wishing to be esteemed a
god among them, began to draw forth, as it were, certain sparks from the stars [or lighting from
the sky], and to show them to men, in order that the rude and ignorant might be astonished, as
with a miracle; and desiring to increase this estimation of him, he attempted these things again
and again, until he was set on fire, and consumed by the demon himself, whom he accosted [or
approached] with too great an importunity or with too many request and demands. He
therefore was struck by lighting.

But the foolish men, who were then, [erected] a sepulcher to his [Cushs] honor, they went
so far as to adore him as a friend of God, and one who had been removed to heaven in a chariot
of lightning, and to worship him as if he were a living star. Hence also, his name was called
Zoroaster after his death, that is, a living star. Nimrod, no doubt, capitalized on their worship
of his father, and therefore started his own religion called Nature Worship.

The magic art having been handed down to him [Nimrod, the son of Cush] as by a flash,
whom the Greeks also called Ninus, and from whom the city of Nineveh took its name. Thus,
therefore, diverse and erratic superstitions took their beginning from the magic art. For, because
it was difficult to draw away the human race from the love of God, and attach them to deaf and
lifeless images, the magicians made use of higher efforts, that men might be turned to erratic
worship, by signs among the stars, and motions brought down as it were from heaven, and by the
will of God. And those who had been first deceived, collecting the ashes of Zoroaster [Cush],
who, as we have said, was burned up by the indignation of the demon, to whom he had been too
troublesome, brought them to the Persians, that they might be preserved by them with perpetual
watching, as divine fire fallen from heaven, and might be worshipped as a heavenly god.
113


John MacCulloch, in his book entitled The Mythology Of All Races said, "Nimrod, the mighty
hunter before Yaw, and son of Cush, is clearly Gilgamesh of Babylonian mythology; and
Nimrod, founder of cities in Sumer, and latterly builder of Nineveh and Calah in Assyria, is
surely Nimurta, the god of the spring Sun."
114


36
The prophet Micah called Assyria "the land of Nimrod" (Mica 5:6). Hislop speaking about
Nimrod as king Ninus, who built Nineveh, (Gen 10:10-11), said that the ancient history of Justin
claimed Ninus subdued his neighbors, when, by an accession of forces, being still further
strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and every new victory paved the way for
another, he subdued all the peoples of the east."
115
Nimrod thus became known in history not
only as the first idolater, king, tyrant, and warmonger but also the first type of the Antichrist.

What Kind of Religion Was Mystery Babylon

Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, who wrote his history of the Jewish race about 93 AD,
said it was "Nimrod who excited them [the people] to such an affront and contempt of God.... He
also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from
the fear of God but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his power.... Now the
multitude was ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and esteem it apiece of cowardice to
submit to God; and they built a tower.... The place wherein they built the tower is now called
Babylon.
116
This tower was the first religious temple built to worship Nature as god.

In The Jewish Encyclopedia we read, "Nimrod is the prototype of a rebellious people, his name
being interpreted as `he who made all the people rebellious against God....' The tower is called by
the rabbis `the house of Nimrod,' and is considered as a house of idolatry.... The punishment
visited on the builders of the tower, did not cause Nimrod to change his conduct, he remained an
idolater....
117


The religion that Nimrod first set up was a Luciferian Religion. It was an open worship of
Lucifer under the name of Baal the sun god. To Nimrod the sun probably represented his father
Cush. Hislop revealed, "Serpent-worship was a part of the primeval apostasy of Nimrod. The
fiery nature of the serpent...who when deified, was worshipped as the grand regenerator of the
souls of men.... Thus was the sun, the great fire-god, identified with the serpent."
118
Stephen
Jones, in his book entitled The Babylonian Connection, said, "Those who have studied the occult
know that witchcraft traces its origin to Mystery Babylon and its founder Nimrod."
119


Ed Mitchell and Jody Scharf, in their book entitled The Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, says it
was Nimrod who "built the great city of Babylon where all the occult practices originated:
astrology, tarot cards, witchcraft, divination and many others.... Satan creates his masterpiece of
false religion. Idolatry, devil worship and sexual immorality were practiced openly. And as
happens in pagan societies, sexual immorality led to the sacrifice of babies to Satan, probably
under the name of Baal.
120
The sacrificing of babies to Lucifer is still taking place today, even
here in America. The only difference is our immoral government calls it abortion.

As my reader can now clearly see, Nimrod in his rebellion against God, joined forces with the
devil. He established Pantheism and Animism as his religion. He became the first idolater in
history after the flood. He led the people into apostasy against God, and set up pure Baal
worship, with Baal the Sun God or Lucifer as the main deity, and all the planets and stars or
Lucifer's Demons as lesser deities. Hastings speaking about the ancient Babylonian Religion said,
"The earliest religion of Babylonia was what may be termed a polytheistic Nature-worship, a
natural step forward from a still more primitive shamanism, or the belief that the government of
the world was in the hands of a great number of benevolent and malevolent gods or spirits,
whom it was necessary to placate by magic rites and spells."
121

37

In other words, Nimrod set up nature worship with its first trinity, Anu representing the
heavens or air, Ea representing water, and Bel representing the earth. Jones revealed, "Nimrod
combined Semitic monotheism with Accadian animism to produce pantheism. He taught that
god is nature itself, and each nature-spirit [even man] is part of god."
122
Thus creation itself was
worshipped as god or the universal soul. This is exactly what the Bible says happen in Roman
1:18-32. Nimrod and the people, who knew the truth about God's Godhead, changed it to nature
worship, thereby worshipping Lucifer and his demons as nature. Nimrod also taught the
doctrine of immortality and reincarnation of the soul. It was only through a cycle of rebirths, the
spirit and soul of man could reach a state of union with god or nature, and even godhood itself.

Nimrod even taught that there were two gods in the beginning who created all things; a good
god who created all the good things in world and an evil god who created all the evil things.
Later on in history, the good god was called Ahura Mazda or Ormazd, and the evil god was
called Anro Mainyus or Ahriman. The reader can guess who Nimrod taught was the good god.
You guessed it, Lucifer. Satan through Nimrod took many of God's truths and perverted them.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, speaking about the ancient Indian Aryans or
Persians, stated that "Ahura Mazda and his assistants promote life, fertility in man, beast and
plant, agriculture, increase; while Anro Mainyus and his creatures cause destruction and
death. The contest between Ormazd [Ahura Mazda] and Ahriman [Anro Mainyus], after
continuing for 9,000 years, is to be decided in favor of the former only through his possessing
foreknowledge and Ahriman's lacking it (Bund., I). Both came into existence independently in
limitless time."
123


How Did the Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod,
Change into A Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God

Because of all the atrocities, especially the sacrifice of babies that Nimrod had committed,
Mitchell and Scharf says "Nimrod's great uncle, Shem, one of Noah's sons, became so outraged
at this evil that he killed Nimrod and cut him in pieces and sent these throughout Babylon as a
warning to those in cult worship. Nimrod's followers were shattered, and they were afraid to sin
in public for fear the same thing would happen to them.

They continued, Satan changed his plan from open devil worship to a subtle, hidden way of
getting people to worship him. With Nimrod gone, Satan worked through Semiramis, [who was
Nimrod's wife and mother, as well as the High Priestess in his religion], to unleash the most
insidious, diabolical scheme ever. After Nimrod's death, Semiramis announced that Nimrod was
a god - the sun god, Baal.... Semiramis declared herself a goddess and called herself queen of
heaven, whose symbol was the moon. She set up an underground religion.... This was the
beginning of secret societies."
124
This was the beginning of not only Secret Societies, but of all
mystery religions.

How did Semiramis manage to deceive the people concerning Nimrods deification? Hislop
gives us the answer, he says, "In life her husband had been honored as a hero; in death she will
have him worshipped as a god, yea as the woman's promise seed, Zero-Ashta, who was destined
to bruise the serpent's head, and in doing so, was to have his own heel bruised. The patriarchs,
and the ancient world in general, were perfectly acquainted with the grand primeval promise of
38
Eden, and they knew right well that the bruising of the heal of the promise seed implied his
death, and that the curse could be removed from the world only by the death of the grand
deliverer. Hence Zero-Ashta, the seed of the woman became Zoroaster, the well-known name
of the head of the Fire-Worshippers.

Hislop continued, The scheme, thus skillfully formed, took effect. Semiramis gained glory
from her dead and deified husband. The licentious and dissolute life of Semiramis gave her
many children, for whom no ostensible father on earth would be alleged. All that was needful
was just to teach that Ninus [Nimrod] had reappeared in the person of a posthumous son, of a
fair complexion, supernaturally borne by his widowed wife after the father had gone to glory....
It was from her son that she derived all her glory and claims to deification. [Semiramis] was
worshipped by the Babylonians and other eastern nations under the name of Rhea, the great
goddess mother."
125


Since Nimrod already taught them the doctrines of the good and evil creator gods, man
becoming god, the immortality and reincarnation of the soul, all Semiramis had to do was to
claim that Nimrod was the first man to reach godhood. She claimed his Spirit was now united
with Lucifer the sun god, thus making Nimrod Baal. She also claimed that Nimrod in the spirit
impregnated her and produced Tammuz her illegitimate son. This made Tammuz the first living
god man to live among men. She had herself deified as the mother of the gods, referring to
Nimrod and Tammuz, thus forming the first human godhead in history of three separate and
distinct human persons, Nimrod the Father, Tammuz the Son, and Semiramis the Mother.

In Scripture, Nimrod as a god is known as Baal the sun god, as in Jud 6:25-32, 1Ki 16:31-32,
2Ki 10:18-28 and Jer 11:13-17. Tammuz is known as Tammuz as in Eze 8:14. Semiramis is
known as Ashtaroth as in Jud 2:13 and 1Sa 7:3-4. The Bible also refers to her as the Queen of
Heaven in Jer 7:18 and 44:17-25. These five doctrines not only became a major part of the
Babylonian Mystery Religion, but also all of her daughters, which includes all Mystery Religions.
In the Bible she is known Mystery Babylon, and her daughters as harlots.

The Babylonian Mystery Religion Spreads throughout the World

When God destroyed this religious temple or the Tower Of Babel and divided the people's
language, into seventy different languages, the people scattered throughout the earth starting
their own religion, base on the Babylonian Mysteries, with a few changes such as the names of
their gods and ritualistic rites. All these heathen religions keep and practice the basic doctrines
of Mystery Babylon. Webster claimed that, in the occult and Masonic circles, certain ideas were
common to all the more important Mysteries, thus forming a continuous tradition handed down
through succeeding groups of initiates of different ages and countries."
126


Peter L. Renouf, in his book The Origin And Growth Of Religion As Illustrated By The Religion
Of Ancient Egypt, gives the Egyptian version of the Babylonian Trinity that Semiramis started.
He stated, "What follows is textually applied to Horus, but it is to Horus considered as Osiris
born again, and as the son of the widowed [virgin] Isis. The gods recognize the universal
Lord. He judges the world."
127
There can be no doubt, that Osiris is the defied name that the
Egyptians gave to Nimrod, and Isis to Semiramis, and Horus to Tammuz. Ralph Woodrow
reveals in his book entitled, Babylon Mystery Religion, that the Romans worshipped Janus the
39
sun-god in the religion of Mithraism. Janus "was represented with two faces - one young, the
other old, a later version of Nimrod incarnated in Tammuz."
128


Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz were called by many different names in the religions of the
world. Here are just a few of the names they were called in different countries: in the Bible and
in ancient Assyria and Phoenicia they were known as Baal, Ashtoreth and Tammuz. In Rome
they were known as Jupiter, Fortuna and Jupiter the Boy; in Greece as Zeus or Bacchus, Ceres
or Irene and Plutus; in Asia and Asia Minor as Kronos or Saturn, Cybele or Diana and Deoius;
in Egypt as Osiris, Serapis or Isis and Horus.

In India they were known as Eko, Deva or Isi and Iswara or Trimurtti; in Japan as San, Pao
and Fuh; in China as Buddha, Shing Moo and Tomos; the Hindus worship them as Brahma,
Devaki and Krishna; and the list go on. By now my readers should have a clear picture of what
the Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or being in one god is, and how it got started.
As you can see, the Babylonian Mysteries, such as the good and evil god, the trinity, the godhood
of man, the immortality and transmigration of the soul became the teachings of Mystery
Religions of every country.

My readers by now, should be able to see that Lucifer must have know some of the doctrines
God would bring into Judaism and later into Christianity, for he started his own counterfeit
religion. He changed YHWH'S plan to reveal His Godhead, as God the Father in creation, as the
Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in regeneration, to a perverted belief in one god in a
trinity of three separate persons, which is verbal theological garbage, to disguise his doctrine of
three gods. Lucifer imitated the virgin birth of Christ by having his harlot High Priestess claim
Nimrod's soul entered into her, and produced a son, who was Nimrod reincarnated.

Lucifer perverted God's promise to His faithful children of future immortality or Eternal
Life, to an immortal pre-existing soul that all humanity is born in this life with. If the doctrine of
immortality of soul, was not taught and believed by the Babylonians before Nimrod's death,
Semiramis would not have been able to convince them of Nimrod's suppose deification and later
reincarnation.

The Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized
Before the End of the Fourth Century

Because God had turned the Nicolaitan-Balaamite Bishops over to a reprobate mind, many of
them, if not all, believed that the Babylonian Mysteries were God's true doctrines in disguise. As a
result, they began to incorporate them into their religious beliefs. They hoped by doing this, they
could win pagans over to their religion. So, somewhere in the second century, they started
Christianizing pagan beliefs. The following paragraphs name a few of these beliefs.

According to Guignebert, Toward the end of Constantines reign [337 AD], the union of
Church and the State, the absorption of paganism by Christianity, and its total destruction with the
connivance and, if necessary, the help of the State, could have been foreseen. This achievement...was
accomplished in the course of the four century.
129


Arkon Daraul in his book entitled Secret Societies compared the old pagan religions such as
Mithraism with that of Roman Catholicism, and has this to say, It is claimed by those who still
40
believe in its Mysteries and celebrate them, that [Roman Catholic] Christianity did not so much
supplant Mithraism as absorb it.
130
Guignebert informs us that Mithra is a solar deity, and his
birth occurs upon the 25th of December, i.e. the winter solstice.
131
Jones boldly told the truth and
did not try to water it down. He stated that Roman Catholicism began to be paganized or, as some
prefer, paganism was Christianized.
132


Ronald Holmes in his book Witchcraft In History revealed some of the pagan doctrines Roman
Catholicism adopted when she joined hands with Religious or Mystery Babylon and her harlot
daughters in marriage. He stated, "The early [Catholic] Christians had tried to be as flexible as
possible in their spreading of the gospel in order to provide further links for potential converts
between Christian and non-Christian beliefs. But what was perhaps the master-stroke in this
approach, Holmes says, was when the [Catholic] Church Fathers declared the birth day of Christ
to be December 25.... By this stratagem Christ was made identifiable in the minds of many pagans
with the particular sun-god [Baal] they worshipped, and a connection was supplied which serve as a
strong bridge to [pagan Catholic] Christianity."
133


Let my readers make a deep mental note of the doctrine of hell which became the master link
that united pagans of all countries with Pagan Roman Catholicism, it was by transforming the
birthday of Baal the sun-god into the birthday of Christ. The Winter Solstice falls on the 21st day of
December, which is the shortest day of the year. On the 25th of December the days begin to
lengthen again, therefore what you have is a type of the sun dying on the twenty first day and
resurrecting or becoming Born Again New Birth on the 25
th
.

In a sense, it was Nimrod the Father, as the sun god Baal, dying on the twenty first day of
December and his soul becoming reborn or reincarnated in Tammuz the Son on the 25th. The
Catholics took Lucifers holy day, the 25 of December, which witches and pagans of all religious
societies in every age cherished, and desecrated Christ by claiming He was born on that day. It is
obvious to me that the pagans thought Jesus Christ was just another name for Baal, because this
sun god was called by many different names in every country.

In Charles Heckethorns book The Secret Societies, we can find some of the other pagan
doctrines the Catholic Church adopted from Mystery Babylon and all of her harlot pagan
daughters. Heckethorn says, The festival of the 25th of December was celebrated...to announce the
birth-day of the god Sol.... This festival indeed was kept not only by the Druids, but throughout the
ancient world. The early [Nicolaitan] Christians judiciously adopted not only the festival days of
the pagans, but the mode of keeping them.

Heckethorn, commenting about the pagan origin of the Trinity and other doctrines of Roman
Catholicism, compared them to the teaching of the Druids, which is an ancient Babylonian
Witchcraft Priesthood that originated at the Tower of Babel. He wrote, "The doctrine of the
unity and trinity was inculcated in all the mysteries. In the most ancient religious creeds we meet
with the prototype of the [Roman Catholic and Protestant] Christian dogma.... The Druids
taught the doctrine of one supreme being, a future state of rewards and punishments, the
immortality of the soul, and metempsychosis [reincarnation].
134


Heckethorn went on to revealed that the main two deities that the Druids worshipped were,
"the great father and mother, Hu and Ceridwen, distinguished by the same characteristics as
belonged to Osiris and Isis [Egyptian deities], Bacchus and Ceres [Grecian deities], or any other
supreme god or goddess."
135
Remember all the so-called deities of the nations that spoke of a
41
Trinity of a father, mother and a son represented Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. The Word
of God gives their deified names as Baal, Ashtaroth and Tammuz (Jud 2:13 and Eze 8:14).

Lucifers Babylonian Catholic Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see by now, the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind their new Trinity doctrine of
three separate persons instead of two persons in the godhead. Catholic Bishop Jerome (c. 390)
confirmed this Councils decision when he said, it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the
confession of faith in the Trinity, do you believe in the Holy Church.
136


CHAPTER 4
HISTORY REVEALS THAT GODS APOSTOLIC
PENTECOSTAL CHURCES WERE IN THE VAST
MAJORITY FROM 33-399 AD

Catholic Cardinal Newmans Confession

Catholic Cardinal Newman confessed that Gods Modalist Monarchian Churches were in the
vast majority for the first 400 years. The well known Catholic professor John Henry Cardinal
Newman, in his work entitled Essays And Sketches, presented Catholicism as the original Church.
But even he had to admit that the doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and
the Mass are not found in the Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they
were true. He defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early
Catholic Fathers. He most definitely believed that the Bible must be interpreted by their writings,
and only by their writings. He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic
doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity by faith without any real
scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the following statements:

Newman asked Protestants, "Where was your Church before Luther? The obvious and
historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying, Take
a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their
[meaning the Roman Catholic] religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism?"
137
The
obvious answer is no. He then went on to prove that historically, by comparing the teachings of the
Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.

After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let's hear this Priest's confession
and see if He makes a good and true confession before we grant him absolution. He said, all parties
must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out in form upon the surface of
Scriptures.

As I have said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof
are mere peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if all Protestants
were to agree to put out of sight their respective peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they
would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture; for take that
single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to
be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity [for] it is not brought out in
form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of
42
the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture?"
138
The answer to Newmans question
is very few.

Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying, "He who admits the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its proof - who
submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular
doctrine - has a right to be told those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession."
139


Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters of
Catholicism by saying, "not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene
Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine. All Protestants who consider the Bible as the
one standard of faith, meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition,
let no one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox
Protestant, [if] he will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic
Succession; [for] this is an impossible position: it is shutting one eye, and looking with the other,
shut both or open both."
140


What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the
Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof, they then
have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all other Catholic doctrines which
are also not directly taught in the Bible, as he openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No
matter what people may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and
true confession, for which God's people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him absolution.
Now, with the above truths in mind, lets proceed with the history of Gods True Church.

Newman made his greatest and boldest confession when he was scolding the Protestants about
Luther's protest. He referred them to the protest that was made by the one God Jesus Name
Apostolic Christians, who believed all the godhead, i.e. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, dwelt
totally in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Newman said, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the
third century protested against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.... Noetus
was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read...their doctrine
prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and the
true faith [Catholicism] was hardly preached in the churches.
141


This is the greatest confession of truth, I have ever read from any Protestant or Catholic
minister. Newman clearly stated that the Catholic Churches, in the Roman Empire, were in the vast
minority for over three hundred years, and the Modalist Monarchian Pentecostal Churches were in
the majority. The truth is they were in the majority for almost four hundred years. Now, were did
Newman read this about the true believers? He did not say. I will shortly show that he read this in
the writings of Tertullian and Hippolytus.

Protestant Doctor James Hastings Confession

Doctor James Hastings declared that the One God, Jesus Name Churches were in every part of
the Roman Empire. According to Hastings, Tertullian sums up his case against the Latin and Greek
Modalist Monarchians by saying, the Latins take pains to pronounce monarchia, the Greeks
refuse to understand aeconomia... For extolling the monarchia at the expense of the aeconomia, they
contend for the identity of Father, Son, and Spirit.
142

43

107 AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius Confession

Nicolaitan Catholic Bishop Ignatius wrote against Gods Apostolic Church: In his Epistle to the
Trallians, he tried to defame Gods people by saying, the Oneness Pentecostals teach that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.
143
Satan used this apostate to start the
Catholic Church.

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philippians stated: There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons,
or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth
the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three
possessed of equal honor. For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the
Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but in reality.
144


In the Syriac Version of Ignatius epistles, we find his so-called refutation of errors. In his
Epistle to the Tarsians, he writes, Jesus Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His
Son. Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another
[Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes
subject [to the former].
145


In his Epistle to the Antiochians, he again writes against Gods Monotheistic, Jesus Name
Church. He told them to reject every Jewish and Gentile error, and neither introduce a
multiplicity of gods, nor yet deny Christ under the pretense of [maintaining] the unity of God.
146


150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyrs Confession

Justin Martyr wrote against Gods Pentecostal Church. In his First Apology he says, For they
who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the
Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.
147


180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Confession

Irenaeus speaking against Gods Apostolic Church and Gnostics wrote, But there are some
who say that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father and the Father of Christ.
148


200 AD, Catholic Priest Tertullians Confession

Tertullian confessed that Praxeas and the One God, Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians
Churches were in the vast majority in the third and earlier centuries. He wrote, The older [so-
called] heretics much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday...[who preaches] this heresy,
which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in the one only
God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very
selfsame person.... The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always
constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation of the three in one, on the
ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one
only God.


149

44

Tertullian continued, The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they [the Apostolic
believers] assume to be a division of the unity.... They are constantly throwing out against us that we
are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of
being worshippers of the one God.
150
Let my readers make a mental note of this truth, Tertullian
clearly stated beyond all argumentation that the One God, Jesus Name people were in existence
long before Praxeas began to preach against him and the heretics of that day. Tertullian also openly
admitted that Gods people constituted the majority of Christians in his day.

225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus Confession

This Catholic Priest confessed that Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Churches vastly outnumbered
the Catholic Churches in his day. He also confessed that some, if not many, of the Catholic
Churches were converted to the One God, Jesus Name message; he even confessed that several
Bishops or Popes of Rome believed and taught that Christ was the God the Father manifested in
flesh.

Hippolytus declared that Catholic Bishop Callistus of Rome taught that there is one Father and
God, namely, the Creator. In substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, he says, is not
any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person,
according to Callistus, is divided nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to
be God, and affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed to
maintain, that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is the Son, but that the Father it is
who dwells in Him. All [Catholic] consented to his hypocrisy, we [two-god Catholics] however did
not do so and [they] called us worshippers of two gods.... This Callistus became a martyr at the
period when Fuscianus was Prefect of Rome.
151


Let my readers notice, that the true believers greatly out numbered Hippolytus and his small
band of Catholic followers. Not only this, but this proves that their were in the Roman Empire two
opposing churches, Gods Modalistic Monarchian Church and Satans two god Catholic Church.
Gods People did not accuse Catholic Hippolytus of believing in three gods but two gods.

According to Harnack, Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance, succeed in getting
their form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they taught was
viewed as an unknown God. Their Logos doctrine implied that the Logos was an inferior
divine being, or rather at once inferior and not inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with
tradition as embodied in worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ.

He went on to say, It was only from the second half of the fourth century [350 AD] that the
West was invaded by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had
cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough success. Some of its results were accepted, but
the theology itself was not.... Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand, as we are taught by
Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and
the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a
philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question of time
when the departure should take place.
152


45
Protestant Doctors M'Clintock and Strongs Confession

Doctors M'Clintock and Strong declared there were Oneness Preachers in the first and second
century. They said, Modalist Monarchianism is generally supposed to have originated about the
end of the second century. It seems to us, however, that this [so-called] heresy may be traced to the
very earliest times of Christianity. Justin Martyr [c. 150] expressly denounces it, and his notice
guides us to its source, for he finds the heresy to exist both among the [Christian] Jews and [gentile]
Christians. He condemns the [Christian] Jews for thinking that, when God was said to have
appeared to the patriarchs, it was God the Father who appeared.

In the Dialogue with Trypho, he handles the same topic, and extends the charge to the [gentile]
Christians. I am aware that there are some [Gods Preachers] who wish to meet this by saying that
the power which appeared from the Father of the universe to Moses, or Abraham or Jacob... is
unseparated and undivided from the Father...' (Cc. 1227, 128).
153


Drs. Roberts and Donaldson translated this passage this way, I know that some wish to
anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to
Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they
say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the
heavens.
154
This is positive proof that Justin is writing against Gods People who taught the
almighty dwells in Christ.

Drs M'Clintock and Strong also declared that A resemblance has been noticed between the
tenets of Valentinus and those of Sabellius (Peturius, Dogma Theology, 2, i, 6; Wormius, History
Of Sabellius, ii, 3), and Neander is inclined to think that Marcion may have adopted some of the
Patripassian doctrines in Asia Minor (Church History, i, 796; Burton, Bamptons Lectures, note
103).
155


Valentinus and Marcion, like the Catholic apologists, were heretics. Many of earlier heretics
adopted some of the teachings of the Gods true Bride, for example, most of the early heretics, if
not all, baptized in Jesus Name until c. 325. The two main opponents against the truth in the
third century were Tertullian and Hippolytus. It is mainly through the writing of these two
Catholic apologists that we know as much as we do about the true Bride of Christ.

Protestant Professor Adolf Harnacks Confession

Protestant Professor Harnack also confessed that Gods Pentecostal Churches were in the vast
majority before the Nicene Council. Harnack says, The real dangerous opponent of the Logos
Christology in the period between AD 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which
saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the
Father becoming flesh.... Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that at that time the
Monarchian controversy agitated the whole [Catholic] Church, and Tertullian and Origen testified,
that in their day the economic trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the Logos
to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion. Modalism, as we now know from
the Philosophumena, was the official theory in Rome... The Modalistic doctrine which sought to
exclude every other... was embraced by the great majority of all Christians before and after the
Nicene Council.
156


46
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedias Confession

The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia also declared that Gods Apostolic Church was in
the majority in the 3rd And 4th centuries. It stated, Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son,
and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in
the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities
came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine
of the church at large. In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition
to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism.
157


CHAPTER 5
HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE
OF GODS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH
IN EACH CENTURY

33-96 AD: This history is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of the great history
of the One God, Jesus Name, Apostolic Pentecostal Church and the preachers who proclaimed it.
The apostles of the Lamb started this Church on the day of Pentecost. The last apostle to live was
John, who wrote the book of Revelation somewhere around c. 96. In the second and third chapter of
this great prophetic book, our holy Savior reveals that His Church never ceased to exist in any
Church Age. This history is a sketch or an outline of this subject, and it is no way intended to be a
complete history.

According to the Bible, the apostles and disciples of the Lamb taught and believed that the
Lord Jesus Christ is and was the only person in the godhead, and they all baptized their converts
in Jesus name and only in His name in a single immersion, and they also taught that one will
speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives them the words to speak when they are born of the
Spirit. Gods people were always in every century identified by these three teachings.

John Sherrill, in his book entitled They Speak In Other Tongues wrote, "tongues continued to
play a part in Christian experience down through the centuries.
158
Not only tongues played a
key part in Gods Church in every century, but also baptism in Jesus Name and entire godhead
dwelling in one person that is Christ Jesus. I challenge any preacher to show me just one place in
the Bible, where the apostles or any of the disciples, baptized anyone using the words Father, Son
and Holy Ghost. This preacher will give $10,000 to anyone who can. Lets remember that no one
was baptized in Matthew 28:19.

The Jerusalem Bible, A Catholic Bible, Declared that the Early Church Baptized in Jesus
Name: In a footnote on Matthew 28:19 it stated, It may be that this formula...is a reflection of
the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts
speaks of baptizing in the name of Jesus.

Professor Neander Declared that the Primitive Church Baptized in Jesus Name: In his work
The Primitive Church, which appeared in The Biblical Repository in April of 1834, Neander said,
Baptism, therefore, in accordance with its characteristic feature, was to be a baptism into
47
Christ, into the name of Christ: and it can well be, that originally in the formula of baptism this
alone was made prominent.
159


Doctor Hastings Declared that the Early Church Baptized in Jesus Name: Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible revealed that "The primitive church baptized in or into the name of Jesus
or Jesus Christ.... Thus the spoken formula in the name of Jesus effected the presence of the
risen Lord and gave the baptized into His possession and protection."
160


The Illustrated Bible Dictionary speaking of baptism in Jesus Name stated, It is clear then that
from the first, baptism in the name of Jesus functioned as the rite of entry or initiation into the new
sect [called Christians].... Most [historians and theologians] would hold that the phrase baptized
into Christ refers directly to baptism (Rom. 6:3; 1Co. 10:2; 12:13; Gal. 3:27). A strongly held view
here is that into Christ is an abbreviation of in/into the name of Christ.
161


The New Catholic Encyclopedia speaking of the formula for baptism also confirmed this truth
when it declared, "Although Matthew 28:19 speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used,
the Acts of the Apostles 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 and Paul 1Cor 1:13; 6:11; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3 speaks
only of Baptism in the name of Jesus.... After all, the validity of Baptism in the name of Jesus was
still accepted in the age of scholasticism.... An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of
Baptism cannot be found in the first centuries. The Didache, for instance merely repeats Mt 28:19.
162


100 AD, Catholic History Revealed that the One God, Jesus Name, Tongue Talking Churches
Existed Before and During The Time of the Catholic Apostolic Fathers and Apologist: Professor
Wolfson of Harvard speaking of this wrote, at the beginning of the age of the apologist there
appeared in Christianity a conception of the Trinity [meaning the godhead] which later
crystallized into the [so-called] heresies of Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius.
163


Catholic Cardinal Newman revealed that the one God doctrine existed from the earliest times of
Christianity. He wrote, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third century protested against the
Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.... Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in
Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read...their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then
and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and the true faith [Catholicism] was hardly preached
in the churches.
164


Tertullian confessed that One God doctrine of the godhead existed much more before Praxeas.
He said, The older [so-called] heretics much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday...[who
preaches] that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person. Who always
constitute the majority of believers.


165


A Jesus Name Baptismal Ceremony in Rome: In an article entitled The Old Time Religion,
Time Magazine referred to a baptismal ceremony that took place in c. 100 in the city of Rome. It
stated, "The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistery door.
Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius
waded into the pool beside him. Credis...? he asked. Credo, responded Publius. I believe that
my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I
die that with Him I may have Eternal Life. Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let
himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear I baptize you in the
name of the Lord Jesus, as the cold water closed over him. (Dec.1955, pg 66).
48

107 AD, Ignatius Wrote Against Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church: In his Epistle to the
Trallians he confessed that their were people in his day that believe and taught that the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.
166


110 AD, The Early Catholic Writing Hermas Preached Baptism in Jesus Name: In A
History Of Christianity In The Apostolic Age, Professor Arthur McGiffert declared that the early
church baptized in Jesus Name. He also mentioned that Matthew 28:19 was never the formula
of baptism used by the primitive church. He wrote, The Trinitarian formula...which later
became universal in the [Catholic] church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in the
single passage, Matt 28:19....

When and how such a formula arose, we do not know.... It is difficult to suppose that it was
employed in the early days...for it involves a conception of the nature of the rite, which was
entirely foreign to the thought of these primitive Christians. The early disciples, and Paul as
well, baptized into the name of Christ alone. Hermas (Vis. iii. 7, 3) speaks only of baptism into
the name of the Lord.
167


Hermas in his book entitled The Shepherd wrote of baptism in the name of the Lord and in
the name of the Son of God, and If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in
vain that you bear His name.
168


Catholic and Secular Encyclopedias Declared that the Catholic Church Changed the Formula
for Baptism: The Encyclopaedia Britannica boldly declared that "The baptism formula was
changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the
Catholic Church."
169
The Catholic Encyclopedia also revealed this same truth.
170
The Acts of
Paul and Thecla, written in the second century, speaks of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
171


150 AD, Justin Martyr Wrote Against Gods Oneness Jesus Name People: Justin, who started
the first Catholic school of theology at Rome, in his First Apology wrote, For they who affirm
that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to
know that the Father of the universe has a Son.
172


Justin Martyr Invented the Trinitarian Formula for Baptism, and He Used the Name of Jesus
in It: The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia declared, Baptism was always in the
name of the Lord Jesus [alone] until the time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was
used.
173
The early church always baptized in Jesus Name, and never used these titles in their
formula for baptism. Scribner's Dictionary Of The Bible confirmed this truth by saying, "The
original form of words was into the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into the Trinity
was a later development."
174


Hastings in his Dictionary Of The Bible openly admitted that The original form of words was
'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a
later development. After the one mention of it, Mt. 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin
Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel.
175
Justin was not only the first
heretic to change the formula for baptism, but also was the first to change the mode of baptism.
Instead of using the Biblical mode of one immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he
changed it to three separate immersions.
49

Justin, who wrote around c. 150, did not use the three titles of the godhead mention in
Matthew 28:19, but one name and two titles. Justin gives his baptismal formula right after he
finished his discourse on Plato's teachings of "the cross of the second god," who was the "power
next to first god." Justin declared that a convert should be baptized or immersed one time "in
the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and [a second time in the name] of our
savior Jesus Christ, and [a third time in the name] of the Holy Ghost."
176


This is the first Trinitarian formula for baptism that can be found in history. Justins trine
mode and formula for baptism was adopted and used by the Roman Catholic Churches from
that time on until 325 AD. At the Council of Nicaea, the Catholic Church changed their formula
for baptism to one that used all three titles of the godhead. The first immersion was done in the
title of Father, the second in the title of Son, and the third in the title of the Holy Ghost. In
chapter 6 of this book, the history of the Catholic Trinitarian formula for baptism is given.

165-? AD, Praxeas A One God Preacher: According to Tertullian, Praxeas taught that the
Father and the Son are the same... [They] understand the Son to be the flesh that is man that is
Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit that is God that is Christ.... The Word of God or the Spirit of God
is also called the power of the Highest, whom they make the Father....
177


175-189 AD, Eleutherus A Catholic of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably by Praxeas:
According to Prof. Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in Rome when Eleutherus was Bishop
(AD 175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack says, If this Bishop was Eleutherus,
and that is probable from Euseb. H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who
declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus,
and Callistus.
178


180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Wrote Against Gods Apostolic Church: He wrote, But
there are some who say that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father.
179


185-? AD, Noetus A One God Preacher in Smyrna: Hippolytus declared that Noetus affirms
that the Son and Father are the same [person], no one is ignorant. For he makes his statement thus:
`When indeed then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father: and when it
pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not
another's. He is styled by the name of Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times, [or at
different time periods]. He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made
no secret to those who could comprehend Him of being the Father.
180


189-199 AD, Victor A Catholic Bishop of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably by
Eleutherus: According to professor Harnack bishop Victor believed in the Modalist Monarchian
one God doctrine.
181


190-? AD, Epigonus A Disciple of Noetus: Harnack say Epigonus came to Rome in the time of
Zephyrinus, or shortly before c. 200.
182


192-? AD, Cleomenes A Disciple of Epigonus: Hippolytus stated that Cleomenes started a
Theology school in Rome. He wrote, the school of these heretics during the succession of such
Bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus and
50
Callistus helped them to prevail.
183
Harnack declared that Cleomenes remained the head of this
school until c. 215, when Sabellius succeeded him.

192-197 AD, The Start of the One God, Jesus Name Montanists Churches: Around this time
many of the people who were called Montanists became one God, Jesus Name believers. Hastings
says By the end of the 2nd century there were two parties of Montanists who took different sides in
the [Modalist] Monarchian controversy.
184
The two god Montanists, who did not believe in
oneness, split from the main body. This small group was led by Tertullian. Blunt speaking of this
says, The author of Praedestinatus infers that the Tertullianists had...separated themselves from
the main body.... Augustine relates that in his time the remnant of the Tertullianists in Cartage
returned to the Catholic Church.
185


Some Catholics Fought Against Gods Pentecostal Churches: The Catholic Encyclopedia also
speaking of this split revealed that the most of the main body of Montanist went with Aeschines and
some with Alogi and others with different ones. It says, A number of Montanists led by Aeschines
became Modalists.... The Alogi [Montanist] have sometimes been classed with the [Modalists]
Monarchians. It also revealed that there were a number of Catholics who wrote against them, such
as, an anonymous bishop of Asia Minor who composed an influential three-volume work on the
subject c. 192-193, ...Apollonius c. 197 and others.
186


Hastings says the Montanists first attracted attention [to themselves] by speaking in
tongues."
187
According to Jesse Hurlbut in his history entitled The Story of the Christian Church,
the Montanists "were Puritans...[whom] believed in the priesthood of all believers. [They] held to
prophetic gifts as the privilege of disciples."
188


All Jesus Name people strongly denounced the Catholic Nicolaitan concept of the ministry and
other Catholic doctrines. In fact, Hastings says they used scathing words about the [Catholic]
ecclesiastical rulers, and stigmatized them as slayers of the prophets. Hastings went on to say that
Montanists put forth treatises in which the arguments of their opponents were answered.... The
early Montanists were prolific writers. The Apostolic Montanists and all the other Apostolic
Pentecostals Movements were found in many parts of the Roman Empire. Hastings said Montanists
were found in every part of Asia Minor, in Egypt...and even in Constantinople, though they were
always most numerous in Phrygia.
189


199-210 AD, Zephyrinus A Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness: Zephyrinus
publicly declared that the Father and Son are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible
that this single person can be divided into two.
190


200 AD, The One God Montanists also Had A Theology School in Rome: According to Harnack,
Aeschines was the head teacher of this school. Harnack says, Among the Montanists at Rome there
were, about AD 200, a Modalistic party and one that taught like Hippolytus; at the head of the
former stood Aeschines, Hippolytus says (Philo. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Noetus.
191


Tertullian Wrote Against Praxeas and other One God Believers: He wrote they taught that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person....
192
Tertullian, like Justin and
all others of that ilk, definitely connected his belief in the godhead to trine immersion in water
baptism. He taught against the singular immersion of Praxeas in Name of Jesus. Tertullian says,
Not once, but thrice, for the several names, into several persons, are we dipped.
193


51
These Catholic heretics hated Gods people and complained that Praxeas and other Jesus
Name Pentecostal Movements, who vastly out numbered them, called them heretics. Tertullian
wrote, The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the
majority of believers, are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods
and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of
the one God.
194


210-222 AD, Callistus A Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness: Callistus
proclaimed that the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself is the Father; and though denominated
by different titles, yet that in reality he is one indivisible Spirit.
195


210-?, Sabellius A One God Preacher: According to Blunt The only Divine Sonship allowed by
Sabellian doctrine being then that which took place in time at the Incarnation.
196
The Catholic
Encyclopedia stated, Saint Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the
Father, one in hypostasis, but two in name.
197


The writers of the above encyclopedia also declared, in the west they [the Modalist
Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are called Sabellians. It went on
to say, Sabellius or at least his followers may have considerably amplified the original
Noetianism.
198


215 AD, Catholic Priest Origen Wrote against Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Churches in His
Day: Origen, who was a teacher in the Alexandrian school, became very upset with those who
believed the godhead dwelt in Christ. According to Harnack, Origen ridiculed Gods Modalist
Preachers and poured out his vile by saying, there are always people who deny that the Father
and Son are two Hypostases. They fuse together the Father and Son, and admit distinctions in
God only in conception and name, and not in number.
199
Origen was not writing against an
imaginary opponent who did not exist, or one who merely existed in the past, but against the Jesus
Name people of his day, who had the fire of evangelism burning in their souls. I presume he did not
appreciate them rebuking him for his two-god belief.

225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus Wrote against the One God Jesus Name Tongue Talking
Churches: He declared that the one God people of his day taught that there is one Father and God,
namely, the Creator. In substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity is not any being
different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity. He who was seen in the flesh and was
crucified is the Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him.
200


History clearly reveals that the majority of all Christians in the Roman Empire, for the first
four centuries, belonged to the Tongue Talking Jesus Name Pentecostal Churches. Professor
Harnack says, The real dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology, meaning the Catholic
two god doctrine, was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate
in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh....
Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that...the Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude
every other...was embraced by the great majority of all Christians before and during his day.
201


250-?, Commodian A One God Pentecostal Bishop in Africa: According to Wolfson, Commodian
taught in verse 91 of his Carmen Apologeticum that, the Father went into the Son [at Bethlehem]
representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus.
202
Schaff says, Commodian was a Patripassian in
Christology and a Chiliast in eschatology.
203

52

250 AD, Catholic Priests Origen and Clement of Alexandria Wrote Against Gods Apostolic
Pentecostal Churches: The New Catholic Encyclopedia names several Catholic Bishops who
condemned Gods Pentecostal people and the gifts of the Spirit that were working in them. Two
of these Bishops were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
204


Origen wrote against Celsus; he revealed that the heathen Celsus described the powerful and
anointed preaching of the one God Jesus Name prophets of his day, as if God was speaking
through them, and closing their words with "strange, fanatical and quite unintelligible words, of
which no rational person can fine the meaning."
205
Obviously Celsus knew of these people even
though Origen did not name them.

Origen, Clement of Alexandria and others of his ilk were terrified of the gifts of the Spirit,
because they were afraid that God would publicly reprove them for their false doctrines.
Therefore, they claimed only heretics speak in tongues. As a result of this kind of teaching, the
Spirit of God departed from the Catholic Churches. So, natural they branded all Jesus Name
Pentecostal People as heretics. According to Blunt, Clement said that the Catholic Fathers gave
it [speaking in tongues] as the mark of the false prophets that they spoke in an ecstasy.
206


Origen declared that the gifts of the Spirit in the Catholic Churches had just about
disappeared. According to Blunt, Origen notes that the prophetic power had all but ceased.
The gifts of the Spirit were still very much alive in Gods Jesus Name Churches in Origens day.
Blunt says, the Pentecostal movement could hardly fail to take place at a time when the
miraculous powers and gifts which marked the introduction of the Gospel were ceasing in
Catholicism.
207


254 AD, Gods Jesus Name Preachers Converted Many Catholic Bishops to the Truth: Harnack
also confessed that the Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians in the Pentapolis, Upper Libya, had
won a great following even among the [Catholic] Bishops, so that the Son of God was no longer
preached, in these Catholic Churches.
208


If my readers wonder what is meant by the phrase the Son of God was no longer preached in
the churches, permit me to explain. It simply means that these Catholic Bishops no longer believed
the Catholic doctrine that the Father created a separate person or being from Himself called the
Son before time began, but now believed that the sonship program of God began at Bethlehem, or
in other words, they did not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ.

255-257 AD, Catholic Pope Stephen Defended Water Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus
Christ Even though He Believed in Ignatius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: The Encyclopedia
Britannica declared, "In the third century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread
that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
209


Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was so popular during the first four centuries
that not only Gods Oneness Churches baptized that way, but the majority of the Catholic and
other heretical denominations. Historians have done their best to totally ignore the real issue in
this conflict, which is the name of Jesus in the formula for baptism. The only thing they mention
is that it was over the baptism of heretics, whether or not they should be re-baptized. The
following is only a brief synopsis of this conflict.

53
Stephen, who was the Catholic Bishop of Rome from c. 255-257, bitterly opposed the African
churches headed by Cyprian, who was the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, because they changed
Justins Trinitarian formula of baptism. Cyprian and his African group of rebels are the first to
baptize anyone by invoking all the titles of the godhead, which are Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Even though they kept trine immersion, Stephen was angry because they took the name of Jesus
out of their Trinitarian formula and replaced it with the title Son. Stephen realized that
remission of sins was in the invoke name of Jesus in water baptism, therefore to take it out of the
formula for baptism is to make the New Birth unattainable.

In the Ante Nicene Fathers, there is a writing entitled A Treatise On Re-baptism, written
somewhere around c. 255, by an anonymous writer. There is no doubt in this author's mind
that it was one of Bishop Stephen's Epistles, which he sent to the Catholic Churches that were
scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Lets hear what this Roman Bishop has to say against
some of his fellow Catholic bishops: I observe that it has been asked among the [Catholic]
brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although
baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pope Stephen continued, The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and
ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after baptism which they have received outside the
[Catholic] Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should
be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands
would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether, a repetition of baptism
afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
210


Pope Stephen went on to say, The power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by
baptism, might afford to him who should be baptized, no slight advantage for the attainment of
salvation as Peter related in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: ` for there is none other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.' As also the apostle Paul unfolds, showing
that...invocation should be made in the name of Jesus.... Therefore ought this invocation of the
name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and
to all others [meaning other denominations].
211


Catholic Priest Cyprian Denounced His Pope For Defending Jesus Name Baptism: Cyprian
said, Why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to
contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover of Valentinus and
Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is
granted in the name of Jesus Christ.
212


Roman Catholicism Excommunicated African Catholicism for Taking the Name of Jesus Out
of their Trinitarian Baptism Formula: In c. 255, Cyprian called a Council at Carthage in which
31 bishops denounced baptism in the name of Jesus. This is the first council in history, where
baptism in the name of Jesus was formally denounced. After this Council, Pope Stephen's called
a Roman Council, in which he and other Catholic Bishops excommunicate Cyprian and all those
in the African Synod for their stand on baptism. Schaff says it this way, He [Stephen] broke off
all intercourse with the African Church, as he had already done with the Asiatic Churches
213


256 AD, Gods Apostolic Churches, Catholic Churches and All Denominations Baptized in
Jesus Name: Cyprian wrote to Jubaian in c. 256, defending the African Catholic Churches
stand on the formula for baptism. In it he revealed that Stephen and all the other Catholic
54
Bishops claimed that those who join their churches from other denominations "ought not to be
baptized because they seem already to have been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ....

If the Patripassians, the Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the
Marcionites, and others, pests of heretics, and swords and poisons for overthrowing the truth,
confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same church, it can be that
their baptism is one.... How, therefore do some say that a Gentile baptized without, outside the
Church, nay rather, and against the [Catholic] Church, provided it be in the Name of Jesus
Christ, wherever it be and whatever it be, can obtain the remission of sins."
214


This is also absolute proof that not only the one God, Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians, or
in this case, the Patripassians baptized in the name of Jesus, but many, if not all, of the heretics
did also. Some of the heretics that Cyprian mentioned were Pope Stephen and other Catholics
Bishops, the Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites. This
can only mean that name of the Lord Jesus Christ was the baptismal formula, or used in the
formula of most of the religious denominations of the first, second and third centuries.

Catholic Bishop Firmilian also Denounced His Pope for Defending Baptism in Jesus Name:
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian in c. 256 saying, If the baptism
of heretics can have the regeneration of the second birth, they who are baptized among them
must not be considered heretics but sons of God, because the second birth which is baptism
generates sons of God.... He [Stephen] says, the Name of Christ accomplishes very much for the
faith and sanctification of baptism, that whoever anywhere has been baptized in the name of
Christ, immediately gains the grace of Christ."
215


Cyprians basic argument against Pope Stephen and the traditional Catholic formula for
baptism in Jesus name was basically this: If the second immersion in the Catholic formula had
to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is true baptism, then heretics could also
receive the Holy Ghost outside of the Catholic Church simply by denominational Bishops laying
their hands on them and invoking the name of Jesus over them. This would mean that these
people are not heretics but true born-again Christians. Therefore, Cyprian argued that baptism
in Jesus name cannot be true baptism.

Cyprian argument went like this: If they [meaning Pope Stephen and the majority of other
Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire] attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the
name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ are
judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands
laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?
216


Stephens argument against Cyprian was basically this: Even though heretics baptize in the
name of Jesus, which is true baptism, they cannot receive or be born of the Holy Spirit unless a
Catholic Bishop lays his hands on them. An extensive history of this Catholic dispute is given in
chapter six of this book, under the title of, The History Of The Catholic Trinitarian Formula For
Baptism.

260 AD, Many Catholic Churches in the East Were Converted to One God Jesus Name
Modalism: In a history book entitled The Early Christian Church, Professor John Davies gave in
interesting account of Dionysius fight to win these bishops and their people back to the two god
doctrine of Catholicism. Davies says, Modalism continued to be a powerful force, and c. 260
55
Dionysius of Alexandria sought to refute it in a number of letters in which he emphasized the
distinction of Father, Son and Spirit to such extent that his opponents considered him to be
purveying tritheism.
217


299 AD, Schaff-Herzogs Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Declared that Jesus Name
Baptism Prevailed through the Centuries: It says, "The New Testament knows only baptism in
the name of Jesus...which still occurred even in the second and third centuries."
218


250-300 AD, Professor Harnack Declared that Catholic Churches Violently Opposed Gods
Apostolic Churches: He says, The fight against Monarchianism in the second half of the third
century was a violent one, and even the development of the Logos Christology - of Origen - was
directly and lastingly influenced by this opposition.
219


Pagans Opposed Baptism in Jesus Name: Not only was Catholicism against Gods People, but
even the heathens were against them. Porphyry, who was a Neo-Platonic philosopher, wrote
fifteen books. Around c. 300, in his book Macarius Magnes (iv. 19), he wrote against the One God
people of his day. He detested the idea that they believed and preached water baptism in Jesus
Name was for the remission of sins. He proclaimed that this doctrine would give men excuse to
live wickedly, and at the end of their life they would get baptized so they could have their sins
remitted.

Harnack quoted Porphyry as saying, We must feel amazed and concerned about our souls, if
a man thus shamed and polluted is to stand out clean after a single immersion, if a man whose
life is stained by so much debauchery, by adultery, fornication, drunkenness, theft, sodomy,
murder by poisoning, and many other shameful and detestable vice - if such a creature, I say, is
lightly set free from it all, throwing off the whole guilt as a snake sheds its old scales, merely
because he has been baptized and has invoked the name of Christ.
220
Obviously this pagan
believed in a doctrine of works for salvation.

300-399 AD, The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia stated, There was still Sabellianism to be
found in the fourth century.
221


315-325 AD, Many Catholic Priest Wrote against Oneness Pentecostal Montanists: Blunt
reveals that many Catholic writers branded the Montanists as one God Jesus Name people. He
says, Socrates (I, 23 - 315 AD), Sozomenus (ii, 18 - 325 AD)... attribute Sabellianism to them.
222


324 AD, Catholic Councils Denounced Modalist Monarchian Churches: Blunt revealed that the
Alexandrian Councils held against Arianism involved determinations against the conflicting [so-
called] heresy of Sabellianism; particularly that of AD 324.
223


325 AD, The Catholic Church Denounced Baptism in Jesus Name and Adopted Matthew
28:19 as their Baptismal Formula: Canneys Encyclopedia Of Religion says, The early church
always baptized in the name of Jesus until the development of the Trinity.
224
Professor
Williston Walker boldly confirmed this truth when he declared in his book History Of The
Christian Church that, Trinitarianism was replacing one-God-ism, this appears in the
Trinitarian baptismal formula, which was displacing the older Baptism in the name of Christ.
225


56
Thomas Weisser, a One God Jesus Name theologian and historian, produced a great work
entitled Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries. In it he quoted Robert Robinsons book
entitled Ecclesiastical Researches as saying the following about the Council of Nice, "All the classes,
who did not hold the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God, whether called Aretemonites,
Paulianists, Arians, Monarchians, Patripassians, Sabellians, or by any other name, [whom]
administered baptism in the name of Christ, with a single immersion, these were the people
whom the council of Nice required to be rebaptized."
226


My readers can see from this quote that many of the Catholic Churches had by this time
accepted the new Trinitarian formula of baptism that the African Catholic Churches started.
Many of the Catholic Popes from this time on condemned baptism in Jesus, and demanded all
those who came to the Catholic Church to be baptized in the titles of the Trinity. There were a
few Popes after this time that defended baptism in Jesus name. Is it not strange, what one Pope
condemned, another defended? The true believers were Modalist Monarchians, who were the
Patripassians and the Sabellians.

326-? AD, Marcellus the Catholic Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia Was Converted to Sabellianism:
Before Marcellus was converted to Oneness, he with Athanasius defended the Catholic two-god
doctrine at the Council Of Nice. Gibbon declared Athanasius defended above twenty years the
Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when at last he was compelled to withdraw himself from
his communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his
respectable friend.
227


327-? AD, Photinus, Who Was A Disciple of Marcellus, Was A One God Preacher: Blunt
speaking of Photinus and those who followed him said, Theodoret says that Photinus differs from
Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an Antitrinitarian Monarchia, and that
Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine
Substance, which he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man Jesus Christ;
that on account of this association of the Word with the human nature Jesus was called the Son of
God, and even God Himself; that the Holy Ghost was not a distinct Person, but a celestial virtue
proceeding from the Deity.
228


336-368 AD, Catholic Councils again Denounced Gods Modalist Monarchian Churches: Blunt
speaking of the fourth century Sebellianism says, Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and his
followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism. For this [so-called] heresy Marcellus was
condemned by several Arian Councils, particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336.
Photinians were also condemned at this council (Sulpic. Sever. ii. 36).
229


Catholic heretics condemn Sabellianism many times in the fourth century in their Councils and
Creeds. Socrates revealed that in c. 340, the Eastern bishops again assembled a Synod. [They
stated] the holy and Catholic Church likewise anathematizes... those who say that the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit are the same person.... Such are those denominated Patripassians among the
Romans, and by us Sabellians.
230
One thing can be said of the Catholic Church throughout the
centuries, it freely and abundantly gave away it demonic curses to Gods Churches.

The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia were held around c. 341. Both of these councils
condemned Modalist Monarchian preachers. In it we read, But those who say that the Father and
Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the three names of one and the same reality
and person, we justly proscribe from the Church because they suppose the illimitable and
57
impassible Father to be limitable withal and passible [meaning capable of feeling or suffering]
through His becoming man: for such are they whom Roman call Patripassians, and we Sabellians.

These councils continued with their Satanic blessings, We abhor besides, and anathematize
those who make a pretense of saying that he is but the mere word of God and unexisting, having His
being in another, - now as if pronounced, as some speak, now as mental, - holding that he was not
Christ or Son of God or mediator...before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God,
when He took our flesh from the Virgin.... Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus
[Photinus] of Galatian Ancyra.
231


Photinus and his followers were condemned at the Semi-Arian Council, the second of Antioch -
AD 344 (Socr. ii. 19), the Council of Sardica - AD 347... (Sulpic. Sever. ii. 36, Epiph. Haer. lxxi.),
a Council at Milan in in the same year, a Council at Rome - AD 349... (Hilar. Frag. Hist. ii. 21)
and the second Synod of Sirmium - AD 351... (Socr. ii. 29, Sozoin. iv. 6).
232


According to Socrates church history, the Catholic Church assembled a Synod about three
years after the last one. Schaff say the last one was the Council of Sardica. So about c. 350, a creed
was published, which Schaff entitled the Lengthy Creed. Socrates revealed that in this creed the
Catholic Church anathematizes all Oneness preachers but especially named Marcellus, Photinus
and all the Galatians of Ancyra. The Creed stated, The holy and Catholic Church likewise
anathematizes those who say...the same person is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or that the Son was
not begotten, or that the Father begot not the Son by his own will or desire in eternity past.
233


Socrates also mentioned a Creed published at Sirmium in c. 351. In it we find many Satanic
curses hurled against Gods Apostolic People of that day. It say, If any one should affirm that the
Father said not to the Son, Let us make man, but that God spoke to Himself, let him be anathema.
If any one say that it was not the Son that was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part
of Him, let him be anathema. If any one say that it was not the Son that as man wrestled with Jacob,
but the unbegotten God or a part of Him, let him be anathema.... For if any one should say that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, let him be anathema.

If nay one, speaking of the Holy Spirit the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten God, let
him be anathema.... If any one affirm that the Spirit is part of the Father and of the Son, let him be
anathema.... For we [the Catholic Church] do not co-ordinate the Son with the Father, but conceive
Him to be subordinate to the Father.
234
By the term subordinate, these heretics mean that the
Son is an inferior deity or less than the Father in power, glory and godhood.

The Encyclopedia Biblica speaking of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ says, This was the
formula of the followers of Eunomius, It then went on to quote the Catholic historian Socrates
(5.24) as saying, for they baptize not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. They
accordingly used single immersion only.

Blunt revealed that the seventh Canon of Laodicea of 366 AD, condemned Gods Jesus
name people especially the Photinians.
235
There was a Oneness Church in Rome before and
after c. 367. Harnack say, Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in
his time.
236
Around c. 368, there were Synods held in Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places,
which Socrates did not name. In them the Catholic hierarchy again condemned Gods holy
Pentecostal people. We condemn says these Catholic Bishops, the doctrines of Sabellius, the
Patripassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the Marcellians, that of Paul of Samosata, [and]
58
those who countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies which are opposed to the aforesaid
sacred [Nicene] Creed.
237


According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His followers were Modalist Monarchians, even
though they have been reported to hold strange beliefs about the humanity of Christ. Wolfson
writes concerning him, it is said that he believed that God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are one God, that is to say, one person. He went on to say, Gods Logos and his Holy
Spirit are eternally in God the Father, just as mans own reason - Logos - is in his heart; the Son
of God has no subsistence of His own; it subsists in God the Father.
238


Blunt revealed that the seventh Canon of Laodicea of 366 AD, condemned Gods Jesus Name
People especially the Photinians.
239
There was a Oneness Church in Rome before and after c.
367. Harnack say, Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in his time.
240

Around c. 368, there were Synods held in Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places, which Socrates
did not name. In it they again condemned Gods Churches. We condemn says these Catholic
Bishops, the doctrines of Sabellius, the Patripassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the
Marcellians, that of Paul of Samosata, those who countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies
which are opposed to the aforesaid sacred [Nicene] Creed.
241


According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His followers were Modalist Monarchians, even
though they have been reported to hold strange beliefs about the humanity of Christ. Wolfson
writes concerning him, it is said that he believed that God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are one God, that is to say, one person. He went on to say, Gods Logos and his Holy
Spirit are eternally in God the Father, just as mans own reason - Logos - is in his heart; the Son of
God has no subsistence of His own; it subsists in God the Father.
242


370 AD, Catholic Bishop Ambrose Defended Baptism In Jesus Name: Ambrose, who was the
Catholic Bishop of Milan, wrote against the Catholic Trinitarian formula and mode of baptism
in his day. Even though he held the Catholic view of the godhead, he definitely believed in
baptism in Jesus Name with a single immersion.

In his work entitled The Holy Spirit he wrote, The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
have one name.... In the name, He [Jesus] said, not `in the names.' So there is not one name for
the Father, another name for the Son, another name for the Holy Spirit, because there is one
God.... When it is said, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [referring to water baptism in Act
19:1-6], the mystery is completed by the unity of the name. The sacrament of baptism is full in
the name of Christ."
243


Ambrose claimed that the title LORD represented YHWH, which is the name of the Father in
the Old Testament. He said Jesus is the name of the Son, and Christ represented the name of the
Holy Spirit, because Christ means the Anointing. Thus you have the one name of God in water
baptism, the Lord Jesus Christ. Ambrose believed in one immersion and in one name only. Since
this was the One God, Jesus Name belief, Ambrose could not have been very popular with some
his fellow Catholic Bishops. According to a letter Ambrose wrote to Musonius, he was not
exempt from the fearless preaching of Modalist Monarchians in his day.

370 AD, Catholic Bishops Gregory and Basil Hated the One God, Jesus Name Churches of their
Day: Harnack says, Gregory of Nyssa [c. 370] was always in a fighting attitude toward
Sabellianism. The doctrine of the one God is to him Jewish. Harnack also mentions Basil, the
59
bishop of Caesarea in c. 370, and his indignation of some of his fellow Catholic Bishops, who,
according to Basil, were too friendly with Sabellians.
244


Basil was elected to the See of Caesarea after the death of Eusebius. Basil writing to Catholic
Churches under his dominion reproved the notables of Neocaeesarea by saying, There is going on
among you a movement ruinous to the faith, disloyal to the apostolical and evangelical
dogmas. For those men, who, from fear of confutation, are forging figments against me, are
endeavoring to renew the old mischief of Sabellius, started long ago.

Sabellianism is Judaism [calling the] Father Son and Holy Ghost one thing of many faces,
and makes the hypostasis of the three one. Those of the foolish Sabellius are now ventured on
among you. And because it is said, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is obvious, they urge, that the name is one,
for it is not in the names, but in the name.
245


375 AD, Gods Jesus Name Preachers Converted Many Catholic Bishops to the Truth: Basil
wrote a letter to certain men, whom were called the Western Bishops, warning them about great
threat of Sabellianism in the eastern Catholic Churches. He names Paulinus, who was the Bishop of
Ancyra in Galatia, as one of the many Bishops who left Catholicism and became a Sabellian in his
teaching on the godhead. Paulinus, says Basil, has been devoted to the teachings of Marcellus
and has admitted his followers without investigation into his own communion. You know, most
honorable brethren, that the teaching of Marcellus contains a rejection of all our hope, since it
neither admits the Son in His own Person, but as brought forth and having again return to Him
whence He came forth, nor concedes that the Paraclete subsists in His own Person.

Basil continued, if you should consent to write to all the churches in the East, that, if those
[Bishops] who are falsifying these things would correct themselves, they are in communion, but, if
they should wish contentiously to maintain the innovations, you are to separated from them.
246

Basil considered the preaching of Sabellianism by those Catholic Bishops to be lies or falsification,
and he commanded these western bishops to break all communion with these eastern bishops if they
did not repent. It sure seems to me that the Catholic Church had a hard time keeping their bishops
from believing and preaching the true doctrines of Christ.

So, what was the result of these letters written by the western bishops to the eastern bishops? Did
these eastern bishops repent of their Sabellianism? Did they come back to the two-god doctrine of
Catholicism? The old heresy of Sabellius, the enemy of the [Catholic] Church, Basil writes, has
infiltrated our churches, for the brothers have announced to us that the [godhead] statements
made are of the same nature [as that of Sabellius]. The churches of God which are now grieved
unbearably and harshly at what has been done and what has been reported.
247


373-382 AD, Catholic Councils again Condemned Gods Oneness Churches: Blunt says, Of the
Post-Nicene councils, one at Rome - AD 373 - held under Damascus, condemned this heresy,
describing it in the simple terms that the Father and the Son are one and the same (Theod. Hist.
Eccl. v. 11). In the one held at Constantinople - AD 381-2 - the heresy is condemned as well as that
of the Marcellians and Photinians; and Sabellian baptism is disallowed (canons i, vii).... Sabellians
are ordered to be baptized, and all other heresies, especially such as come from the country of the
Galatians.
248
Blunt also wrote, The Marcellians are condemned in the first Canon of
Constantinople AD 381. They are named after the Sabellians, and are followed by the
Photinians.
249

60

Schaff speaking of the above council said they recognized the baptism of the Arians, the
Sabbatians...the Quartodecimanians, the Apollinarians, but rejected the baptism of the Eunomians,
who baptize with only one immersion, the Sabellians, who teach the Son-Father [and] the
Montanists.
250
The Montanists mention here are the descendants and converts of the large group
of Montanist who were converted to One God Modalism in c. 190. Blunt revealed that many
Catholic writers branded the Montanists as one God Jesus Name people. He says, Socrates (I, 23 -
AD 315 AD), Sozomenus (ii, 18 - AD 325)... attribute Sabellianism to them.
251
Montanists were not
only used in the gifts of the Spirit, but also baptized in Jesus Name.

The Jesuit Fathers of Saint Mary's College revealed that Pope Damascus at another Council of
Rome in c. 382 said, we anathematize those who follow the error of Sabellius, saying that the
Father is the same person as the Son.
252


390 AD, Audentinus A Powerful Catholic Bishop in Spain Wrote against the Various One God,
Jesus Name Groups in that Country: In his book, entitled On Faith Against Heretics, he wrote
against the Sabellians and especially against the Photinians who are now called Bonosiacians.
253


Catholic Bishop Jerome Condemned Gods Apostolic Churches In His Day: According to the
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Jerome [c. 390] in describing Montanism, lists the errors already
mentioned and says that members of the sect were infected with Sabellianism.
254
Blunt revealed
that Jerome said Montanists following the opinion of Sabellius bring the Trinity to the narrow
restraints of one Person.
255


395 AD, Catholic Bishop Augustine Hated the One God Modalist Monarchian Churches of His
Day: In a letter written after c. 395, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, mention some of the Jesus
Name people in North Africa, who were preaching the Almighty God in Christ. They were
probably some of Commodian And Sabellius followers. Augustine writes, Let us not heed those
who say there is only the Father, who has no Son and with whom there is no Holy Spirit; but that
the same Father is sometimes called the Son, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit.
256


400 AD, Gods Jesus Name Triscilidae: Blunt mentions an unusual group of Sabellians that
existed around c. 400. He stated, the Triscilidae: A sect of Sabellian heretics mentioned by
Philaster (Haer. xciii), Augustine (Haer. lxxiv.), and Praedestinatus (Har. lxxiv.), as maintaining the
opinion that the Divine Nature is compose of three parts, one of which is named the Father, the
second part the Son, and the third the Holy Ghost.
257
It appears to me they taught that Gods
substance or essence is composed of three natures, one called the Spirit, another called the Soul and
the third called the Body.

401-417 AD, Catholic Pope Innocent I and Emperor Honorius Violently Opposed the One
God Tongue Talking Churches of their Day: Gods Pentecostal Churches are no strangers to
Catholic persecution. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, The importance of the sect
[Montanism] during the early centuries may be judge by the attention it received from ancient
[Catholic] Christian writers.... The energetic opposition of Pope Innocent 1 (401-417) and the
laws of the Emperor Honorius 1 against [the so-called] heresy (Feb. 22, 407).
258


404 AD, Even though Pope Innocent I Hated Gods Oneness Churches, He Accepted Baptism
in Jesus Name as True Baptism: Weisser in his great work Jesus Name Baptism Through The
61
Centuries, quoting from Denzingers book entitled The Sources Of Catholic Dogma, revealed that
this Pope wrote an Epistle to Vitricus, Bishop of Rouen on February 15, 404. According to
Denzinger, this Pope wrote, "those who come from the Novatians or the Montanists should be
received by the imposition of the hand only, because they baptized in the name of Christ."
259
Let
my readers take note, this Pope defended baptism in Jesus name. He also informs us that the
Novatians and the one God Tongue Talking Montanists of his day baptized in the name of Jesus.

409-? AD, The Catholic Church Wrote Many Books against the Different Groups of Modalist
Monarchians that Were in Spain: Robert Robinsons in his book entitled Ecclesiastical
Researches, speaking of the fifth through the eight centuries wrote, their were in Spain
Christians of all descriptions, as well as Jews and pagans. This appears by the books published
by the Catholic faction against Manicheans, Priscillianist, Acephali, Sabellians, Photinians,
Arians, and others, whom they insolently named heretics.

451 AD, The Council of Chalcedon and Catholic Pope Leo I Condemned Gods Modalist
Monarchian Churches of their Day: Blunt declared that The Allocution of the Council of
Chalcedon AD 451 to the Emperor Marcian (Harduin, Council, ii. col. 645) describes the
Monarchianism of Photinus and Marcellus.
260
Pope Leo 1 in the very same year took his turn
at persecuting Gods Pentecostal People. They were the one God Jesus Name Priscillians. These
were the people who broke away from some of the doctrines of Priscillian and became Modalist
Monarchians. According to Harnack, the Priscillians and Sabellians are classed together... [by]
Leo 1.
261


Schaff says, In the fourth and fifth centuries, the [Catholic] Fathers used the term
Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however,
tended in the one direction, viz., toward the denial of any personal distinction in the godhead,
and hence the identification of Father and Son.
262


507 AD, King Clovis and His Entire Army Was Baptized in Jesus Name: Reverend Marvin
Arnold is also a One God Jesus Name theologian and historian. In his great work entitled the
History Of The Christian Church, he revealed that King Clovis of the Franks, "promised God if
He help him defeat them [the Visigoths], he and his army would be immersed in Jesus name.
The Visigoths were defeated at Vouille in AD 507, and Clovis was baptized in Christ's Name."
263

It is obvious from this passage, Clovis personal minister, whether he was a Catholic or
Pentecostal, must have preached to him the New Birth message which included baptism in the
name of Jesus. Arnold went on to reveal that Oneness Christianity was wide spread in the six
century.

529-557 AD, Catholic Emperor Justinian I Brutally Persecuted Gods Tongue Talking
Montanist Churches: This Catholic Emperor did his best to stop all preaching of oneness,
rebaptism movements that baptized in Jesus Name, speaking in tongues and the prophesying of
Gods people. This demonic Emperor in 529 AD created the Justinian Code, which demanded
the death penalty for all who believed and taught these doctrines. According to the New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Justinian wrote severe anti-Montanist legislation. He murdered many thousands
of Gods holy, innocent, harmless Children. But, as he found out, there was no way he could stop
the move of Gods Spirit. This history continued by saying, Montanism spread rapidly and
widely through the East and West.
264


62
Hastings speaking of the persecution of the One God, Jesus Name, Tongue Talking Churches
in the Roman Empire declared that they survived the stringent edicts of various emperors.
265
There is no way the gates of Catholic hell will ever prevail against Gods Church. God will
never leave Himself without a witness. For history declared, Montanism was a manifestation of
a recurring phenomenon, referring to speaking in tongues through the Holy Ghost.

553 AD, The Council of Constantinople: In this year, another council was convened in which
these heretical Catholic priests again condemned baptism in Jesus Name of the Sabellians.

556-561 AD, Catholic Pope Pelagius Condemned the One God, Jesus Name Churches of His
Day: According to Weisser, Denzinger also quoted Catholic Pope Pelagius (556-561 AD) as
saying, "there are many who assert that they are baptized in the name of Christ alone with only
one immersion. Pope Pelagius continued by giving his imperial edict. He commanded, give
each one holy baptism in the name of the Trinity and with a triple immersion."
266


Pope Pelagius openly confessed that there were many true Christians who baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ with only one immersion in the six century. He also acknowledged
that the Roman Catholic Church in his time, not only baptized in the name of the Trinity, but
also continued to use trine immersion. Let my readers remember, what this Catholic Pope
condemned, others Popes before him defended.

Hasting wrote, By the time of the provincial Council of Braga 561 we see how these
Monarchia principles have verged into Priscillianism....
267
J. F. Bethune-Baker, in his book
entitled An Introduction To The Early History Of Christian Doctrine, mentioned that Martin
Damiun, the Bishop of Braga, condemned the baptism of the Sabellians for retaining single
immersion under a single name
268


600-699 AD, Popes of the Seventh Century Excommunicated the Entire Catholic Celtic
Churches that Baptized in Jesus Name: Dr. F. C. Conybeare, in his Hibbert Journal, speaking of
the Celtic Catholic Churches baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and not the Trinity
wrote, In the middle of that century [the third century] Cyprian could insist on the use of the
triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the [so-called] orthodox. The pope Stephen
answered him that the baptism, even of heretics was valid, if the name of Jesus alone was
invoked.

However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from
excommunicating the entire [Catholic] Celtic Church for it adhesion to the old use of invoking
the one name. The Celtic Churches consisted of Indo-Europeans from France, Great Britain,
Ireland, and Scotland. It is evident that the One God, Jesus Name, Pentecostals, who were in
those countries, converted many of the Celtic Catholics to the truth.

601 AD, Catholic Pope Gregory I Condemned the Modalist Monarchian Churches of His Day:
This Pope wrote a letter to Bishop Quiricus on June 22, 601, in which he instructed Quiricus to
baptize all those "who are not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosiacians
[Photinians] and... many others."
269
Obviously their were many One God Jesus Name groups,
such as the Bonosiacians, who were also known as the Photinians, in Pope Gregorys day that did
not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but did baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here is another Catholic Pope that condemned baptism in Jesus Name.

63
649-692 AD, Catholic Councils again Curse Gods Holy Apostolic Churches: Hastings
revealed that the One God Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians doctrines continued to exist
throughout the centuries. He declared that Catholic Popes and Catholic Councils were always
condemning them. He says this "can be seen by the frequent condemnations of them in the shape
of Sabellianism.... The same comprehensive condemnation was repeated in the Lateran Council
of 649, (canon 18)."
270


The Catholic bishops at Eleventh Council of Toledo in c. 675 took their turn at condemning
Gods holy, living and anointed Church. According to The Church Teaches this council cursed
all of Gods People who deny the Trinity doctrine which teaches, "The Son is not the same
person as Father, nor the Father the same person as the Son, nor is either the Father or Son the
same person as the Holy Spirit."
271


Blunt declared that the Council of Trulo - A. D. 683, canon 95 condemned Jesus Name
Baptism and the Modalistic Monarchian.
272
According to Schaff the Trullan Council of 692, in
its 95th canon also joined the long list of Catholic Councils that condemned Modalist
Monarchians. It especially named the one immersion of Sabellian baptism.
273


As my readers can now see, Gods Jesus Name Churches were still preaching Acts 2:38 and
Almighty God in Christ in the seventh century, and as usual Catholicism hated it. Is it not
strange that Catholic Councils in the seventh century are condemning and cursing Gods
Churches, who were suppose to have died in the third or at the latest the fourth century. There is
no way the devil and his people will ever be able to destroy Gods Church, For the gates of hell
will never prevail against her.

700-713 AD, The Catholic Church Wrote Many Books against the Different Groups of
Modalist Monarchians that Were in Spain: Weisser, referring to Robert Robinsons book
entitled Ecclesiastical Researches, said Robinsons third period runs from 409-713 AD. Under
this period he says; their were in Spain Christians of all descriptions, as well as Jews and
pagans. This appears by the books published by the Catholic faction against Manicheans,
Priscillianist, Acephali, Sabellians, Photinians, Arians, and others, whom they insolently named
heretics. Gods children had many great revivals in Spain during this time.

700-899 AD, Gods Great Jesus Name Modalist Monarchian Revivals Broke out All Over
Europe: Arnold revealed that Bede the Venerable, an Anglo-Saxon historian, in the eight
century, found Celtic and Saxony cultures abounding in manifestations of tongues and gifts."
274
Gods Oneness Celtic Pentecostal Churches, as I said before, consisted of those in the
countries of France, Great Britain, Ireland, and Scotland; the Saxony Churches were those that
were located in East Germany!!!

Arnold, referring to F. H. Little work entitled Reformation Studies, Essays in Honor of R. H.
Bainton, said, Bernhard Rothmann [1525 AD], researched Apostolic doctrine and history of the
9th century, which was everywhere in Europe.... It had Spirit infilling, the tongues, and
miracles. He refuted both Catholicism and Lutheranism, and tirelessly researched until he
found ninth century Oneness Pentecostalism and continued in it.
275


According to The Encyclopaedia Britannica, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was still so
wide spread throughout the Roman Empire in 9th century that Catholic Pope Nicholas I in
November of 866, in a response to the decrees of the Bulgars, was forced to declared "baptism to
64
be valid tantum in nomine Christi, [or in the name of Christ], as in the Acts of the Apostles."
276

Nicholas quoted Ambrose as his authority. This same encyclopedia also declared that, "Baptism
into the death of Christ is often specified by the Armenian Fathers as that which alone was
essential."

900-1198 AD, Gods Apostolic Churches Multiply Throughout Spain and Many of Them
Were Called Anabaptist: Weisser spoke of Robinsons fourth period that covered eight
hundred years or from 714-1514 AD. Weisser mentions Oneness Movements that were deemed
heretical by the Catholics. Robinson speaking of these Oneness Churches wrote, they were
called in general Anabaptists. In a council held at Lerida, in the archbishopric of Tarragon, it
was decreed...that such as came from Antitrinitarians, who had been baptized in the name of
Christ, should be rebaptized.
277


1198-1698 AD, Catholic Pope Innocent III Formed the Demonic Inquisition for the
Extermination of Gods Apostolic Churches: This heartless, cruel, inhuman Catholic institution,
which was sardonically called the Holy Office, brutally tortured and burned alive millions of
innocent, God fearing and Christ loving men, women and children. It did this contemptuously in
the name of Christ for 500 years. Of all the Catholic Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition was the
worst. Satans Son Pope Innocent III and every Catholic Pope after him gladly encourage and
gave their divine blessings to the Inquisitors who were doing their Satanic gods will. In fact, the
Inquisition that gave the Pope power over the kings of Europe. This is the main reason why these
demonic popes, during this time, promoted and supported it.

1215 AD, The Fourth Catholic Lateran Council Condemned Gods Apostolic Churches: Blunt
wrote, Antitrinitarianism then appears to be, not the genuine product of the Reformation, but
the offspring of a school [of belief] which had existed in the Church for centuries before the
Reformation was dreamt of.... The Antitrinitarian principle in early times expended itself in
producing the Sabellian and Arian heresies.... But the former class, such as the heresies of
Gilbert de la Porree, and Joachim, abbot of Flora, which were met in the fourth Lateran Council
AD 1215.
278
Obviously these Catholics priests were converted to the apostolic Jesus Name
message, and as usual, the Catholic Councils of their day cursed them for it.

1284 AD, Catholic Monk Ursinus Defended Baptism in Jesus Name: According to the
Encyclopedia Britannica, Ursinus at the Synod of Nemours in c. 1284, boldly declared that
"baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid."
279
Schaff quoted a letter that stated, "Ursinus
the monk wrote against those who say that heretics should be rebaptized, teaching that it is not
legitimate nor honoring God, that those should be rebaptized who have been baptized... in the
name of Christ alone."
280


According to Arnold, Ursinus was a very learned scholar and clergyman, and he entered into
true Christianity in 1284 AD, "his doctrine was monotheism, Christ's baptism, infilling of the
Spirit, and speaking in tongues."
281


1341 AD, Some Or Many of the Armenian Churches Were Converted to the One God, Jesus
Name Modalist Monarchian Doctrine: Blunt declared that the Catholic Councils were still
condemning Sabellianism in the fourteenth century. He said a charge of the heresy was
brought against a portion of the Armenian Church by [Pope] Benedict XII, see Raynald
(Contin. of Baron.) AD 1341.
282


65
1357-1419 AD, Arnold declared that as Vincent Ferrer, "passed through Greek, German,
Sardinian, Hungarian, and other people, he found effusions of Pentecostal phenomena - tongues,
miracles, healing."
283


1441-1442 AD, Catholic Pope Eugenius IV and the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council
Condemned the Jesus Name Churches of their Day: Hastings informs us that Pope "Eugenius
IV found it necessary to remind the Jacobites, in his decree dated 4th Feb. 1441 that the Church
condemns Sabellius for confusing the Persons and for thus altogether doing away with the real
distinction between them."
284


The Council of Florence or the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council held in 1442 AD, also
condemned the Jacobites. According to The Church Teaches, this council declared, "the Father is
not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not
the Father or the Son.... Therefore, the holy Roman Church condemns, disapproves,
anathematizes, and declares to be separated from the body of Christ, which is the Church, all
who hold any contrary opinions. Consequently, she condemns Sabellius."
285


Even in the fifteenth century the Catholic Church is still pronouncing their Satanic blessing
on Gods indestructible Church. Catholic Popes and Church Councils condemned and
persecuted Gods holy Church. Surely by now my readers must realize that that the One God,
Jesus Name, Apostolic, Modalist Monarchian Church never ceased to exist. It would be stupid,
as I said before, for the Roman Catholic Church to continually condemn a Church Movement
century after century that was suppose to have died in the fourth century.

1529 AD, The Persecution of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church by Martin Luther and the
Monarchs Who Married Lutheranism: Arnold mentioned that Andreas Karlstadt (1529 AD), a
professor of theology at the university of Wittenberg, and the well know Greek scholar Erasmus
(1529 AD), had a lengthy scriptural discussion with Luther on restoring Gods true New Birth
and monotheistic godhead message. They tried to persuade Luther to inject monotheistic
Christian Pentecostalism into his Lutheranism! They pleaded, Restore the pattern and even the
constitution of the Primitive Church....

Luther accused Carlstadt of misunderstanding the expression speaking with tongues....
Almost at that moment the Christ of our New Testament let a Holy Ghost reviving spectacular
break out at Zollikon, with speaking with tongues, miracles, and the whole Pentecostal allotment,
right under his nose! He was also knowledgeable of the Zwickau Prophets.
286


Luther Knew about Baptism in Jesus Name But Denied It: Vinson Synan, in his book Aspects
Of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, quotes David Reed as saying, "The practice of baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ is no new phenomenon in the history of the Church. Martin Luther
encountered a dispute over the formula in his day."
287


Luther rejected the truth and became Gods enemy. As a result, he persecuted Gods
Apostolic Pentecostal Anabaptist Churches. The Encyclopedia Americana speaking of the
Luthers Inquisition says, The Reformation provided the [Catholic] Inquisition with new
opportunity for the extirpation of heresy, and the Protestants paid it tribute by adopting many of
its attitudes and procedures. Luther was much concerned with the suppression of witchcraft and
was as severe as any Inquisitor in his attitude toward religious radicals, such as the Anabaptist.
288

66

Luther and his followers set up a Lutheran Inquisition to exterminate Gods holy and
innocent Children. Professor Roland H. Bainton in his great work Hunted Heretic stated, The
dissemination of Anabaptism was so broad that both Catholics and Lutherans feared the
established churches would be displaced.... At the Diet of Speyer in 1529 both Catholics and
Lutherans agreed to subject them to the death penalty throughout the Holy Roman Empire....
They did not burn Catholics, but they drowned [Trinitarian] Anabaptist and they beheaded and
burned Anti-Trinitarians [Anabaptist] whose beliefs were repugnant to most Protestants as well
as to Catholics.
289


Why would Catholics and Lutherans, who hated each other as heretics, join together and
form a union to burn Gods Children? It is evident they were not only be scared of Gods people
evangelistic revival spirit, but they must have hated them more then they hated each other. I
challenge anyone to show me anywhere in history, in any age, where Gods Apostolic Pentecostal
Church ever persecuted or killed anyone for their religious beliefs.

1525- 1532 AD, The Persecution of Bernhard Rothmann, A One God Jesus Name Preacher,
by Luthers Inquisition: According to professor Earle Cairns, in his Christianity Through The
Centuries, The Anabaptist in Germany faced extinction from the state. Bernhard Rothmann,
one of the canons of the cathedral of Munster, began an effort to win Munster to the evangelical
faith. In 1532... the Emperor ordered the bishop of Munster to drive out Rothmann and his
followers, who were...proposing to sell property to aid the poor. Cairns continued by saying that
the Anabaptist denied the ideas of Luther and Zwingli.
290


Arnold, referring to F. H. Little work entitled Reformation Studies, Essays in Honor of R. H.
Bainton, spoke of Rothmann as a Jesus Name Anabaptist. He says, "the great preachers,
writers, scholars - Bernhard Rothmann and Jan van Leyden [in c. 1525] - burst into the medieval
theistic scene. They were monotheistic and pious partakers of the Holy Ghost, and knew
Pentecostal glossolalia....

Rothmann preached, True baptism is the entrance to the Church and there is no other gate
to Eternal Life.... Let yourself be baptized in Christs Name. [He] was one of the greatest
medieval Protestant preachers, and learned writer: Bekentnisse, and Restitution. He definitely
used Peters Acts 2:1-4; 2:38 in baptismal services.... He refuted both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, and tirelessly researched until he found ninth century Oneness Pentecostalism and
continued in it.
291


1541AD, The Persecution of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church by John Calvin and the
Monarchs Who Married Calvinism: The Encyclopedia Americana speaking of the Calvins
Inquisition says, Calvin introduced inquisitorial procedures into Geneva [in] 1541. There
were many victims, the most notable being Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake in
1553.
292
Lets briefly look at Servetus accomplishments, beliefs and martyrdom.

AD 1531-1553 AD, The Persecution of Miguel Servetus, A One God Jesus Name Preacher, by
Calvins Inquisition: The greatest Antitrinitarian, Anabaptist, One God, Jesus Name Preacher
in the sixteenth century was without a doubt Miguel Servetus. This man was a Reformer,
Theologian, Author, and an outstanding Medical Doctor. He was in his theology a Modalist
Monarchian who held a slightly different view then most on the Logos before Bethlehem.

67
Moyer speaking about him as a Medical Scientist says that he was the real discoverer of the
pulmonary circulation of the blood.
293
Professor Roland Bainton, in his book entitled Hunted
Heretic, which gave the life of Servetus, spoke of him as a man who was wanted by both the
Catholic and Protestant Inquisition dead or alive. Because he was branded as a heretics he did
not received the credit he deserved for his discovery at that time. In fact, it was not until this
century, that medical science given him the credit he so justly deserved.

Blunt speaking of him as an Author and Reformer stated, In 1531 his book De Erroribus
Trinitatis was printed, and in the next year also, at Hagenau, Dialogorum De Trinitate Libri Duo.
These books raised a great tumult among the German divines, and, circulating in Italy, were
much approved by many who had thoughts of leaving the Church of Rome. In 1553, the year of
his execution, he published at Vienna another book entitled Christianismi Restitutio.
294
The
titles of Servetus books are On The Errors Of The Trinity, Dialogues On The Trinity In Two
Treatises, and The Restitution Of Christianity.

In the Antitrinitarian Biography, Robert Wallace, speaking about Servetus last book and his
role as a Reformer said, His avowed object in the composition of this book was to bring back
the Christian world to what he conceived to be the primitive standard of faith; and it was for this
reason that he entitled it The Restoration Of Christianity. Wallace went on to say Walchius
regarded him as a favourer of Sabellianism. Servetus infers that neither the Logos nor the
Holy Spirit is a person really distinct from the Father, but only a kind of revelation of the divine
nature.
295


Professor Roland Bainton, in his Early And Medieval Christianity, spoke of Servetus role as a
Theologian. He said, Servetus examined the New Testament and was perfectly amazed to
discover that this tenet [the Trinity], so rigorously required and so obstinately refused, was
actually not formulated in the Sacred Scriptures.... The word Trinity does not occur. The key
word, homoousios, that is to say that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, is likewise
absent.... Servetus was convinced that nothing should be deemed essential to the Christian faith,
which is not in the Scriptures.
296
Servetus was a fine Greek and Hebrew Scholar, who using the
literal method of interpreting scriptures.

Bainton quoted Servetus as saying, I do not separate Christ from God any more than a voice
from the speaker.... Christ is in the Father as a voice from the speaker. He and the Father are
one.... An amazing mystery it is that God can thus be conjoined with man and man with God. A
great wonder that God has taken to Himself the body of Christ.... Because His [Jesus] Spirit was
wholly God He is called God, just as from His flesh he is called man. Do not marvel that what
you call humanity I adore as God.
297


MClintock and Strong gave an accurate view of his godhead belief. There is no way anyone
can read the following description of the godhead and say that Servetus was not a Modalist
Monarchian Preacher. They wrote, The attitude of the author towards the dogma of God, the
Father, Son, and Spirit, as held by the [Catholic and Protestant] Church, is that of
uncompromising hostility. He regards it as of necessity involving tritheism and polytheism, and
even atheism.... But, while rejecting a trinity of essence in the Godhead, he insists on a trinity of
manifestation.

They continued Servetus description of the godhead by saying, for it pleased God,
consequently, to dispose Himself to a twofold manifestation, the one a mode of revelation by the
68
Word [Logos], the other a mode of impartation by the Spirit. The Word, however, was not
merely an empty articulate sound, but, in harmony with [or part of] the nature of God, an
uncreated light. The Logos is the Eternal Thought, the Eternal Reason, the Ideal World, the
Archetype of the world in which the original types of all things are contained. In this Divine
Light was already manifested the form of the future Christ, not ideally alone, but actually and
visibly; and from this original type and mode of divine revelation proceed all the modifications of
the Deity.

They went on to say, God Himself, attained to a full manifestation and revelation for the first
time in the man Jesus, in whom the Eternal Word became incarnate in time.... He was such
[God] while in the embryo, and continues to bear the substantial form of the godhead when in
the grave. The Word, accordingly, did not assume flesh, but became flesh. By virtue of this
nature [of man], Christ is the Son of God - the only Son....

Who first became the actual Son of God, however, when he appeared in time and in the
nature of man.... His human spirit was wholly absorbed into the Spirit of God, and the resultant
combination forms the true Holy Spirit, the principle of all regeneration, which proceeds from
the mouth of Christ. In this way the real Trinity is constituted - a Trinity not of things or so-
called persons in the divine essence, but a threefold manifestation of Himself by the one and
indivisible God.
298


Servetus in his book On The Errors Of The Trinity wrote, Christ Jesus is really the Father.
He Himself is the face of the Father, nor is there any other person of God but Christ; there is no
other hypostasis of God but Him. They [the Trinitarians] say that one portion [of God], I say
that the whole nature of God is in Him. In Him is the whole deity of the Father. He is God and
the Lord of the world. The Father is in the Son.
299


Servetus commenting on Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 in his Dialogues On The Trinity In Two
Treatises wrote, the whole fullness of God, the whole of God the Father together with all the
fullness of his properties, whatever God has, this dwells fully in this man.
300


Servetus died as a true martyr for the Lord Jesus Christ. As Servetus was fleeing from those
who were seeking to kill him, he stopped in Geneva where he was recognized and arrested.
Calvin not only had him arrested, but he personally had him brought to trial and acted as the
prosecuting attorney against him. Because of his hatred against the truth, Calvin had him
convicted and sentence to be burnt alive as an Antitrinitarian.

According to Wallace, while he was in prison, a minister by the name of Farel visited him.
Farel strenuously urged him to recant: but Servetus, in reply to Farels repeated solicitations,
implored him to produce one solitary passage of Scripture, in which it is stated, Christ was called
the Son of God, before His birth of the Virgin Mary; and though he was fully alive to the awful
situation in which he stood, and knew that he would be shortly summoned into the presence of
his final Judge, neither threats not enticements could prevail upon him to retract.

Wallace went on to say, When he [Servetus] was led to the place of execution, he repeatedly
cried out, O God! Save my soul.... As soon as he came in sight of the Lieu de Champel, he
prostrated himself on the earth, and continued for some time in fervent prayer to God....
Servetus now rose from the earth, and Farel urged him to address the assembled multitude,
probably in the delusive hope that he might be induced at the last moment to retract. But
69
Servetus still continued to invoke the name of the Almighty; and when Farel persisted in urging
him to speak, he asked him, what he could say different from what he had already said?

Wallace describing his death wrote, Servetus was fastened to the trunk of a tree fixed in the
earth, his feet reaching to the ground; and a crown of straw and leaves, sprinkled over with
brimstone, was placed upon his head. His body was bound to the stake with an iron chain, and a
coarse twisted rope was loosely thrown round his neck. His books were then fastened to his
thigh; and he requested the executioner to put him out of his misery as speedily as possible. The
pile was then lighted, and he cried out in so piteous a tone, as to excite the deep and earnest
sympathy of the spectators. When he had suffered for some time, a few of them, from feelings of
compassion, and with a view to put an end to his misery, supplied the fire with a quantity of
fresh fuel.

Wallace also said, Minus Celsus related that the constancy of Servetus in the midst of the
fire, induced many to go over to his opinion; and Calvin makes it an express subject of
complaint, that there were many persons in Italy, who cherished, and revered his memory.
301

One of Servetus biographers stated that many copies of his books were piled around his feet and
used as fuel to burn him. Servetus died a victorious martyrs death on October 27, 1553. Truly,
this was a great man of God.

1547-1564 AD, Renowned Catholic and Later Protestant Professor Bernardino Ochino Joined
Gods Persecuted One God, Jesus Name Church: Blunt speaking of the persecution of the one
God Jesus Name Churches in Europe wrote, The followers of Servetus were principally to be
found in Lombardy, the best known of them being Bernardino Ochino. They were driven from
Lombardy by the Inquisition, and also from Switzerland, eventually finding a home in Poland.
302


Ochino, before he became saved, was the vice-general of a Catholic order of monks. He was a
man of great piety and sanctity. The Catholic people of Italy loved his fiery powerful preaching.
Gods grace reached out to this man and he came out of Catholicism and became a Protestant
Reformer. In 1547 he became an Oxford professor, and was appointed canon of Canterbury in
England.

In 1553 he became a devoted follower of Servetus, and from that time on he was hated by both
the Catholic and Protestant Church hierarchy. He fled Geneva and became a Pastor in Zurich.
After awhile, the Zurich council denied him the privilege of preaching and he took refuge
among Italian friends in Poland. Through Catholic influence he was soon forced to leave country
again and became a fugitive. Found asylum among the Hutterian Anabaptist, died in Austerlitz
in 1564.
303
In 1563, Ochino published his book entitled Thirty Dialogues, which also contained
his one God or one-person belief in the Jesus godhead.

1569-1573 AD, Gods Anabaptist Apostolic Churches in Poland: Wallace speaking of Gods
Oneness Anabaptists in Poland wrote, they first formed themselves into Churches in the year
1569. In the autumn of that year, when their affairs were in a very discouraging state,
Ronemberg went with Jerome Philipovious, George Schomann, and some others, into Moravia,
for the purpose of holding a conference with the Brethren in Moravia. But to their surprise
these Brethren believed in the doctrine of the Trinity.

70
Schomann, who was one of their ministers, stated in his book The Will, On the last day of
August, 1572, I, being in the forty-second year of my age, was baptized in the name of Christ at
Chmielnik; and in the year 1573, I was sent to the ministry of the Minor Church at Cracow.
304
Schomann wrote in the preface of his book, to the little and afflicted flock in Poland, which
was baptized in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, to all those who thirst after eternal salvation."
305


Another sixteenth century Anabaptist leader was a man named David Joris. According to
Harnack, David Joris subjected the Trinity to a Sabellian treatment, representing it as a
threefold revelation of God.
306
According to Bainton, Joris wrote a strong letter to Calvin and
his band of murderers to spare the good pious Servetus who was delivered into their hands
through no kindness and love, but rather through envy and hate, as will be made manifest at the
last judgment to those whose eyes are darkened by base cunning, and to whom the truth is
unknown.
307


1645-1800 AD, Gods One God, Jesus Name Churches In England: Saltmarsh wrote a book
entitled The Smoke In The Temple, which was published in England in 1645. According to
Weisser, Saltmarsh revealed that there were people in his day who preached "the Baptism of
Jesus Christ by water, was only in the Name of Jesus Christ. They believed the form by which
they [the Roman Catholic] baptize, viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, is a form of man's devising, a tradition of man, a mere consequence drawn from
supposition and probability, and not a form left by Christ."
308


1646 AD, According to Wallace, Thomas Edwards of England wrote about some so-called
heretics, who taught and wrote that baptism in the name of the Trinity was a man-made
tradition and that Christian baptism was only in the name of Jesus Christ.
309


1660 AD, William Penn and the Early Quakers Were One God, Tongue Talking, Jesus Name
Modalist Monarchians: The greatest Antitrinitarian, Anabaptist and Modalist Monarchian of
the seventeenth century was William Penn. Wallace say Penn attacked the notion of three
persons in one God, and came out at last with a species of Sabellianism. Around 1660 Penn
became a Quakers. The early Quakers according to Wallace did not believe in the Athanasian
doctrine of the Trinity. Penn was one of their most fearless and outspoken preachers. In 1668
Penn wrote a book entitled The Sandy Foundation. Throughout his book he denounced the
Trinity. Pen wrote, If there be three distinct and separate persons... there must be three distinct
substances, and consequently three distinct gods.

As a result of his book denouncing the Trinity, he was thrown into prison. In prison Penn
defended his book by declaring, I do not believe Christ to be the eternal Son of God... I
expressed nothing that divested Christ of His Divinity.... I deny a Trinity of separate persons in
the godhead. Does thou in good earnest think they [Catholicism] were one in judgment with
Sabellius, who only rejected the imaginary personality of those times; who at the same instant
owned and confessed to the Eternity and godhead of Christ Jesus our Lord. It is manifest, then
that though I may deny the Trinity of separate persons in one godhead, yet I do not
consequentially deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Penn went on to say, Thou mayest tell my father, who I know will ask thee, these words; that
my prison shall be my grave, before I will budge a jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal
man; I have no need to fear. God will make amends for all. The truth is says Wallace, Penn
and the early Quakers, professed to acknowledge Christ, in what they called his double
71
appearance, or, as they more commonly expressed it, in the flesh, and in the Spirit, He was
God over all. He went on to say that early Quakers held the doctrine of Sabellius but
expressed it in the peculiar phraseology of Quakerism.
310


Synan revealed that the early Quakers definitely experienced the phenomenon of
speaking in tongues.
311
M'Clintock and Strong revealed that speaking in tongues played a big
part in the the disciples of George Fox [of the 17th century] [and] those of a later date in
Sweden, America, and Ireland, have in like manner, been fruitful in ecstatic phenomena."
312


1687-1695 AD, Gods Had Many One God, Jesus Name Children in England: According to
Wallace, in 1687 there were in England many who did not want to embrace Unitarianism in its
naked simplicity, yet agreed with Penn in discarding the Athanasian Creed, and contented
themselves with a belief in a Modal Trinity.
313
In the seventeenth century, a book appeared in
England entitled Gangraena, which was written by Thomas Edwards. Wallace says this man
compiled a list of a 180 errors that were in the churches of England during his time. Edwards
declared that even in the best Independent Churches and Congregation are mixed assemblies
of people with many different beliefs. One of the so-called errors Edwards names, which some
or many of these people believed was that the baptism of Christ by water was only in the name
of Jesus Christ, not of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
314


Wallace also mention a Collection of Tracts that appeared in England in 1695, which were
entitled A Discourse Concerning The Nominal And Real Trinitarians. Its object was to shew
that there was a clear line of demarcation between these two classes of Trinitarian believers;
that the Nominalists, who are properly the Church since they form the large majority of it
members. After this, says Wallace, the author of the tracts explained in a separate section, the
doctrine of the ancient Nominalists, or the Noetians and Sabellians; and, after a brief
recapitulation, proceeds, in the five following sections, to substantiate the charge of Tritheism
against the Realists.
315


1727-1790 AD, One-God Modalist Monarchian Montanists Had Churches in England: Some
of the one God Montanists survived through the centuries. Arnold, referring to M. P. Hamilton
work The Charismatic Movement, says the Apostolic doctrine of the Jesus Name Montanists
was found to exist in Britain in 1727.
316


According to Weisser, Robert Robinson (1735-1790 AD), in his book entitled History Of
Baptism, claimed that many Christians in England in his day believed and practiced baptism in
Jesus' name. Robinson says, "many Christians taking it for granted, that the apostles thoroughly
understood the words of the Lord Jesus [in Mt. 28:19], and supposing the form of words of local
and temporary use, administer baptism in the name of Christ, and think themselves justified by
the book of the Acts of the Apostles."
317


1809 AD, Gods Jesus Name Revival in England Continued: Elias Smith, a clergyman, was
the author and editor of the first religious newspaper in the United States. This newspaper was
called the Herald Of The Gospel. This man of God denounced the doctrine of the Trinity and
rejected Calvins predestination teachings. Smith reported on various religious meetings that
took place in New England. In June of 1809 AD, Smith reported in his newspaper that three
hundred people lived in Portsmouth, NH. According to Weisser, Smith wrote in his newspaper,
It was not possible for me to describe this glorious scene. Those who communed, had named the
name of Christ; had been baptized in His name; were blest with a comfortable evidence of being
72
born again; were united in love; and each in a good degree were determined to press towards the
mark."

In July of 1809, Smith reported of a revival that took place in Strafford at the Universalist's
Meeting House, in which a large number people from the surrounding areas attended. He
wrote, one brother and his wife were baptized. The brother baptized had the command of a
company [of men] there, and was Grand Master of Masons, a man much respected in the town.
When the people saw him submitting to be baptized in the name of Jesus, with his companions; it
carried an evidence they had found something superior to all this world affords."
318


David Campbell, a one God Jesus Name Preacher, in his book on the godhead entitled All
The Fullness, spoke about an English Modalistic Monarchian Preacher by the name of John
Clowes. This man was the pastor of St. Johns Church in Manchester, England around the
beginning of the nineteenth century. He wrote a book in 1828 that contained his sermons.

Clowes says this about his belief on the godhead, For if one truth be more to be depended on
than another, it is that God is One, and that thus it is impossible that there can be more Gods
than one. If Jesus Christ be acknowledged to be God, He must in such case of necessity be
acknowledged to be the only God, and approached and worshipped according, otherwise His
divinity is as completely denied and rejected, as if He were not approached and worshipped at
all.... Multitudes at this day, who still call themselves Christians-acknowledge indeed the divinity
of this Saviour, but then they acknowledge it partially, and thus, for want of seeing that He is the
only God, since there can be but one God, they do not worship Him as the only God.

Clowes still speaking of the deity of Christ says, Let us then again imagine that we hear Jesus
Christ ask: Do you see that all the fullness of the Everlasting Father dwells bodily in Me, so that
I and My Father are one.... Do you see therefore, that it is in vain for you to think of finding rest
unto your souls until you come unto Me, your manifested, visible, and approachable God, in
Whom the unmanifested, invisible, and unapproachable is made known and brought nigh unto
you; for he that seeth Me seeth the Father, and therefore by Me, if any man enter in, he shall go
in and out and fine pasture.
319


In the nineteenth century many of the Plymouth Brethren, as well as some other English
groups, taught on the authority of Acts 2:38 that baptism should be in the name of Jesus only
320


1762-1828 AD, In France God Had Many Apostolic Pentecostal Churches, their Catholic
Enemies Called them Convulsionaries: Arnold speaking of them said, they had the Jesus Name
baptism, tongues, the Holy Spirit, power, boldness, and miracles upon miracles, which
appeared thaumaturgy, meaning effusion of miracles. The historian Gregoire wrote about the
French government being so upset that Parliament, in 1762, forbid working of miracles on some
French grounds.... It lasted until the date of 1828, where the records indicate the shaking
Convulsionist revival began to wan.
321


1800 AD to this Present Time, God Has Sent A Great One God, Jesus Name Revival to
America: Vinson Synan, in his book entitled The Holiness Pentecostal Movement in the United
States, revealed that the 19
th
century saw many great revivals where God poured out His Spirit
with the biblical evidence of speaking in tongues. He stated "in the revival that hit the University
of Georgia in 1800-1801, students visited nearby campgrounds and were themselves smitten with
73
the jerks and talking in unknown tongues.... Scenes similar to Cane-Ridge were seen in
England...in Massachusetts...in New York City, Boston, and Richmond.
322


Around 1810, Dr. Nathaniel Emmons, a Congregational Pastor, received a revelation from
His God and became a Sabellian. According to Professor Levi Paine, in his book entitled A
Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Emmons taught that the Father and Son are
names assumed to set forth certain activities of the one Absolute God. This says Paine is
essential Sabellianism at the start. But Emmons goes farther. He had cast aside the doctrine of
the eternal generation of the Son, but now he suggests that the names Son and Word had no
existence before the incarnation. They were probably unknown in heaven until the purposes of
grace were there revealed.
323
Dr. Emmons was a man well-know in the theological circles of his
day for his scholarship and even in this day.

Around 1820, Professor Moses Stuart received his revelation of the Almighty God in Christ.
Paine says, I have styled the doctrine of the Stuart-Bushnell school a modified Sabellianism.
He continued, Stuart and Bushnell both, following [German professor] Schleiermacher,
declared that God is not eternally tripersonal, but unipersonal. The Trinity is not fully developed
until the incarnation.

Paine say Stuarts persons are not real any more than Sabellian persons are; they are modes
of personal existence of the One Divine Being.... One great merit, however, must be accorded to
Stuart. He was a Greek scholar, and comprehend the true character of the Nicene
Trinitarianism, allowing that homoousios in the Nicene Creed did not mean numerical unity, and
that its doctrine was essential subordinationism, and on this ground rejected it. Because it
made the Son a derived and dependent being, and so broke down, as he declared, His true
Deity.... Stuart on the other hand made Christ the incarnation of the Absolute God.
324


Moyer in his biography of Stuart says, In 1810 called to the professorship of sacred literature
at Andover Theological Seminary, where he remained until retirement in 1848. At once began a
serious study of Hebrew, and in 1821 printed a large Hebrew grammar, the first to appear in
America.... He also wrote Hebrew Chrestomathy; Grammar of the New Testament Dialect; Hints
on the Prophecies, and Critical History and Defense of the Old Testament Canon. Altogether
produced more than forty works.... A gifted teacher and lecturer, exerted a remarkable influence
upon students. In the course of labors taught more than fifteen hundred ministers, seventy men
who became professors and presidents of colleges, a hundred foreign missionaries, and about
thirty translators of the Bible into foreign languages.
325


Also around the year of 1820, Friedrich Schleiermacher a professor at the University in
Berlin, joined hands with Stuart and became a Sabellian. Dr. Schleiermacher is considered as the
founder of modern Protestant theology. Professor Schleiermacher a treatise on the godhead
defending Sabellianism. Paine spoke of it with disdain as he whined over the fact that Professor
Stuart had no sympathy with, or just appreciation of the Nicene doctrine of the generation of the
Son. He continued by saying this can be seen by the welcome Stuart gave to the Sabellianism of
Schleiermacher.... Stuart translated with extensive notes an essay of Schleiermacher in which
Schleiermacher had defended Sabellius.... No two names are more historically incongruous than
those of Schleiermacher and Emmons.
326
Schleiermacher was well-know in theological centers
around the world.

74
In the Biblical Repository, the April 1835 issue, Stuart in his introductory remarks to
Schleiermachers godhead treatise wrote, I can truly say that I have met with scarcely any
writer, ancient or modern, who appears to have a deeper conviction of, or more hardy belief in,
the doctrine of the real godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the basis, on which the
whole superstructure of his Christian system rests. No where can be found a writer more entirely
alien from the views and speculations of Arians and Socinians; no where one who appears to
contend more with his whole heart and soul for the proper, true supreme Divinity of his Lord
and Saviour. God manifest in the flesh seems to be inscribed, in his view, on every great truth of
the gospel.
327


Around 1833, Horace Bushnell laid down his Trinitarian doctrine and picked up Oneness.
This preacher of the Gospel wrote a book entitled, God In Christ. Paine says, Its Christology
is borrowed from Schleiermacher and Stuart. Yet Stuart sat secure in his chair at Andover, in all
the odor of orthodoxy, while the theological air was hot with accusations against his eloquent
disciple. In fact the doctrine of both was thoroughly Sabellian.
328
Paine concludes his remarks
on Emmons and Stuart by saying, The Sabellian leaven of Emmons and Stuart did it work
thoroughly, and New England Trinitarianism through all its veins became inoculated with it
virus.
329


Somewhere after 1850, Henry Ward Beecher, one of the most noted preachers in America,
became a One God Modalist Monarchian preacher. Mr. Beechers own language, says Paine in
a scolding tone reveals clearly the thorough Patripassian character of the new Trinitarianism.
Christ is no longer the incarnation of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, that was
the old Trinitarianism, but the very incarnation of God, the Father Almighty, the Absolute One.
Paine quoted Beechers doctrine in the following extract: Could Theodore Parker worship my
God? Jesus Christ is his name. All that there is of God to me is bound up in that name.

Paine also gave an extract of Beechers address to the London ministers: Do I believe in the
divinity of Christ? I do not believe in anything else. There is nothing else to me when I think of
God.
330
According to Moyer, Beecher was one of the most popular and widely-known
preachers in America.

In 1860 AD or shortly after, Dr. Lyman Abbott a Congregational Pastor and Dr. A. H.
Bradford received their revelation of the Almighty God in Christ. According to Paine, Dr.
Bradford declared, The problem of the Trinity is simply this: Are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
three names for one being, or do they denote three distinct persons? And the answer is squarely
given. The Trinity does not mean three distinct persons, but three distinctions in one person.
Paine continued, Dr. Abbot proclaimed, Jesus Christ is God living a human life...the incarnate
God.... In Jesus Christ in propria persona God has entered human life in order that He might
show us who He is.

Paine went on to say, Drs. Lyman Abbott and A. H. Bradford and others followed in the
same general path of the Patripassian position.... According to these thinkers, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost are but different names and manifestations of one and the same personal Being. This
Being has His completest manifestation in Jesus Christ. Thus the Deity of Christ is made the
central and most vital doctrine in their theology....

He is the manifested God or God manifest in the flesh is now being constantly employed by
defenders of the dogma of Christs true Deity and has become a sort of watchword and
75
shibboleth of [the so-called Trinitarian] orthodoxy. The persistency with which they employ it
shows how easily it suits their Sabellianizing and Patripassianizing type of thinking.... Thus
Christ is all the Father there is, as well as Son and Holy Ghost. All divinity is centered and
summed up in Him. It is hardly needful to say to any historical scholar that this new
Trinitarianism is no Trinitarianism at all.
331


In 1876 a book appeared in America entitled Is God A Trinity. It was written by an ex-
Presbyterian Pastor by the name of John Miller. God by His miraculous grace gave this man a
real revelation of the Almighty God in Christ. Miller speaks of his conversion from
Trinitarianism to Oneness this way, Suppose the Trinity was a mistake; suppose it had
enveloped the gospel in its earlier planting. Suppose it were a Platonic set, grafted by the Jews,
and inarched from them into the faith of Christians. Suppose that John opposed it, and that his
first strong text was meant to fence it out - John 1:1.

Miller, a Greek and Hebrew scholar, described what happen to him as he was studying the
scriptures on the Trinity. He says, In the midst of all theses studies, I found one great central
object disappearing out of the firmament of my confession.... In reading the Word of God, the
Trinity suddenly deserted me....

Stirred, as I naturally would be, where my very church was slipping away from me, I awoke
to the full seriousness of the case. I gave up everything. For three months I did nothing but
inspect the Trinity. A library happened to be near, uncommonly rich in all that literature....
There broke upon me with dismay the panic-driven discovery that there was no Trinity. It was
all a figment...absent from the Word of God; and I searched and searched, and the discovery
almost was that the Bible was colorless of such a dogma, and, by any reasonable mode, could not
be made to teach those hypostatic differences.

Miller continued by telling his readers of the glorious revelation God had given him because
of the honest and sincere study he made. He says, Now for the result. I do not believe in the
Trinity. It may be said, You are a Sabellian. You believe in a modality.... I would have no
objection to that. That is, I hold that these names [Father, Son and Holy Ghost] are all different,
for that these offices all exist.

Miller went on to say, All that Dr. Alexander and Francis Turretin would impute of deity to
Christ, I do, and perhaps more. That is I put the whole Godhead in Him. It would have been
infinitely better never to load the faith with the Platonic Trinity. Miller went on to say that he
was a high Calvinist and that he wrote this book so the officials of his church could better
inspect his belief on the godhead.
332


Joseph Cook was another well-known preacher of the nineteenth century. Paine writes,
When Mr. Cook delivered his three lectures on the Trinity in 1887, there had been a long lull in
public discussion, and the supporters of orthodoxy were quietly waiting for the next moving of
the waters. For Mr. Cook himself the time was opportune. He was at the zenith of his peculiar
reputation. Boston had installed him in Moses seat. The orthodox elite of Massachusetts sat at
his feet and hung upon his lips.

This Trinitarian professor bemoaned the fact that this One God Jesus Name Preachers
lectures on the Trinity were designed especially for the purpose to exorcise the paganism, as
he [Cook] called it, of three Gods. Paine continued by saying, Mr. Cooks doctrine is essential
76
Modalism, going beyond Sabellius himself, and coming close to the Patripassianism out of which
Sabellianism sprang.... The Holy Ghost, as Joseph Cook says, is only Christs continued life.

Paine being painfully jealous of the reception Cook received after he exorcised the devils out
of the pagan Babylonian Trinity of three gods says, Perhaps the most remarkable thing about
this is the unstinted applause with which it was received by his audience, made up largely of
Massachusetts ministers. Surely there could be no clearer evidence of the chaos that had befallen
theological thought in New England than that such a bold Sabellianism was enthusiastically
endorsed by such an assembly, and that from that day to this, no note of criticism or dissent has
been heard, that I am aware of, in Trinitarian circles.
333


The twentieth century has been privileged to witness one of the greatest one God, Jesus name,
tongue talking revivals the world has even seen. According to historians, the modern day
Pentecostal movement began with Charles Parham on January 1, 1901. Oneness historian Fred
Foster in his history entitled Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals revealed that Parham taught
speaking in tongues and Jesus name baptism.
334


Pentecostal evangelist and missionary Andrew Urshan, in his autobiography entitled The Life
Of Andrew Bar David Urshan, revealed that he received the revelation of Jesus name baptized in
1910, and from that time on began to baptize all of his converts that way.
335
In 1915 Urshan
preached a great Pentecostal revival in Russia. According to Urshan, God had given some of his
converts the revelation of Jesus name baptism before he even came to Russia. This revival
marked the beginning of a great Jesus name Pentecostal movement, which is still alive in Russia
today.

In 1917 AD, God in His mercy began to give open the hearts of hungry Chinese people to the
truth of the New Birth. This miracle began with people simply reading the Bible and praying
that God would reveal the truth to them. In fact, when they received this great truth from God,
they did not know at that time that anyone else in the world believed that way! In the same year,
these Chinese Christians started a great movement in China, which they called the True Jesus
Church. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, this movement exists in Communist
China and Taiwan even today.
336


A great one God, Jesus name revival began in America in the year of 1913 in which many
ministers and saints received the revelation of these great truths. From 1913 until now, the one
God, Jesus' name movement in the United States has been growing by leaps. According to
Arnold, in 1979, the World of Apostolic Christian Fellowship, found over fifty-three Oneness
Christian organizations on earth.... The United Pentecostal Church is no longer the largest, Dr.
Wong stated in 1965 that Taiwan had 120 assemblies alone, and as of 1979, the True Jesus
Church of China numbers around eight million.
337


It has now been reported that there are over a 100 different one God, Jesus Name, Apostolic
Pentecostal organizations in the world, which believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father in
creation, the Son in salvation, and the Holy Spirit living in the believer in regeneration. They also
hold to baptism by single immersion in the precious and holy name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as
well as to the biblical doctrine of speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of being born of the
Holy Spirit.

77
Friend, what more proof do you need to see that the New Birth of water and Spirit consist of
these two doctrines? Do not put off water baptism in Jesus Name another day! Do not put off
receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost another day, for God is still pouring it out on all races
even today.

According to The Encyclopaedia Britannica, "in modern times glossolalia has been found
chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups.... In the 1960s by an upsurge of the phenomenon
among some members of the more established churches, such as Episcopal, Presbyterian, and
Lutheran."
338
It also stated that speaking in tongues "recurred in Christian revivals in every
age."
339


Yes, friend, the sweet, precious gift of the Holy Ghost is for you. Millions of hungry, honest
believers have received it. God in his great love for you, wants you to receive it today, if you are
willing to believe and obey the truth; for the God said, "to day if you will hear His voice, harden
not your hearts" (Heb 3:7-8). God also said, for now is the accepted time, now is the day of
salvation (2Co 6:2).

Please do not let preachers confuse you any longer, for the gifts of the Spirit can only come
after one has been born of the Holy Spirit. Do not accept Satans imitation! My prayer for you is
that you would receive your personal Pentecost today, for the Word of the Living God teaches,
today is the day of salvation. Therefore do not wait another day, be baptized in the holy
precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ and receive His Spirit today!

If my readers would like some additional information on baptism in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, they can read the books, encyclopedias, commentaries, dictionaries and Bible
translations that can be found in this endnote.
340


The author believes that the preceding references are more than enough evidence to prove
that Gods Apostolic Jesus Name, Tongue Talking Pentecostal Church was not only the original
Church that was started by the apostles on the Day of Pentecostal, but also that it never cease to
exist in any century. Surely the gates of hell, never has and never will prevail against it!

If my readers desire to read a thorough biblical study of the godhead or the New Birth, I
would recommend my books entitled The Mysteries Of The Godhead Revealed, or Preacher, What
Must I Do To Receive Eternal Life. If my readers wish to read a historical study of speaking in
tongues, I would recommend my book A Historical Record Of Speaking In Tongues.

CHAPTER 6
THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC
TRINITARIAN FORMULA FOR BAPTISM

From 33-150 AD, all one God Modalist Monarchians, Catholics and other denominations
baptized in Jesus name. According to Catholic and Protestant historians, Justin Martyr was the
first one in the written history of the Catholic Church to use a Trinitarian formula for baptism.
The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia stated, Baptism was always in the name of
the Lord Jesus [alone] until the time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used.
341


78
150 AD, Catholic Priest Justin Martyr
Changes the Mode and Formula for Baptism,
and the Catholic Church Adopted His Teaching

Justin Martyr and his rebellious Catholic cohorts hated the Apostolic Pentecostal one God
doctrine of the Almighty God or the Father dwelling in the one person of Christ. Col 2:8-9; Isa
9:6. He did not like them very much because most of Christendom was of their faith, and they
were always, no doubt, reproving him for his heresy. He expressly denounced these Modalist
Monarchians when he said that they were justly convicted of knowing neither the Father nor
the Son; for they who say that the Son is the Father.
342


Justin hatred against the truth led him to change the formula of baptism around 150 AD. He
probably did not like the idea that Gods people were using the Biblical formula of baptism in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to prove that the entire godhead dwells in the one person of
Christ. So, what did he do about it? He perverted and converted the Biblical formula to a
Trinitarian one, so he could teach his two-god doctrine.

Justin not only changed the formula for baptism, but also the mode. Instead of using the
Biblical mode of one immersion in the name of Jesus, he changed it to three separate immersions.
He did not use the three titles of the godhead mention in Matthew 28:19, but one name and two
titles. The first immersion was done in the title of Father. The second in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ. The third in the title of Holy Ghost. In fact, it was right after He finished his
discourse on Plato's teaching of "the cross of the second god," who was the "power next to first
god," that he gave his own Trinitarian formula for baptism. His exact words were, a convert is
baptized or immersed one time "in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and [a
second time in the name] of our savior Jesus Christ, and [a third time in the name] of the Holy
Ghost."
343


Justins formula for baptism became the standard formula for baptism used by all Catholic
Churches from that time on until 250 AD, when the African Catholic Churches took out the
name of Jesus and started using all the titles in their baptismal formula. Even after that, most of
the Catholic Churches continued to use Justins formula until 325 AD. After the Council of
Nicea, most Catholics baptized in the formula of Matthew 28:19.

Tertullian (200 AD), like Justin and all others of that ilk, definitely connected his belief in the
Trinity to trine immersion in water baptism. He wrote against the singular immersion of
Praxeas, a Jesus Name preacher, stating, Not once, but thrice, for the several names, into
several persons, are we dipped.
344
By the time of Tertullian, trine immersion in the name of the
Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost was in established law of the Catholic Churches.

Schaff revealed that the early Catholic Church made their converts strip themselves of their
clothing so they can be baptized naked. He stated, The immersion consisted in thrice dipping
the head of the candidate who stood nude in the water.
345
Schaff speaking of Jerome's
baptismal formula of 390 AD stated, "triple immersion, that is, thrice dipping the head while
standing in the water, was the all but universal rule of the [Catholic] Church in early times.
There is proof of its existence in Africa, Palestine, Egypt, at Antioch and Constantinople, in
Cappadocia and Rome."
346

79

The Pagan Origin of Trine Immersion and the Use of
the Triune Titles of God in the Formula for Baptism

Where did Justin get his idea for trine immersions and connecting it to the godhead? Could it
be from the pagans who practiced trine immersions, invoking the names of their gods in the
Babylonian Trinity, which was composed of father, son and mother, who were called by different
names in various countries. The Encyclopaedia Britannica commenting on the antiquity of trine
immersions stated, Trine immersion then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his
ignorance.

It then went on to give its origin, For pagan lustrations [or baptismal ceremony for
purification] were normally threefold...Virgil...Ovid...and Horace (Ep. i. I.37) similarly speak of
trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast Acro remarks: He uses the
words thrice purely, because people in expiating their sins, plunge themselves in thrice. Such
examples of the ancient usage encounter us everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity.
347
There
can be no doubt that Justin received his inspiration for his trine immersion doctrine from
Mystery Babylon or one of her pagan daughters.

Professor Guignebert speaking of the pagan element in Catholic baptism stated, Baptism
itself has now become a complicated ceremonial embracing at least a course of special
instructions and exorcisms, a threefold immersion, the laying on hands, accompanied by an
anointing with holy oil and the first communion. It is not difficult to recognize echoes of the
spirit of the Hellenistic Mysteries in these progressive stages of initiation of these all-powerful
rites. The converts won from the tenets of Orphism or the Mysteries do not willing renounce
these in becoming Christians. On the contrary, they seek and desire to find them in [Catholic]
Christianity, and even unconsciously - though irresistibly - they introduce them into it.
348


255 AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula
for Baptism by Takings the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ
Out of their Second Immersion and Replacing It with the Title Son

As we can see from the preceding paragraphs, the pagan mode of trine immersion and the
threefold name of god used in water baptism was copied by Justin Martyr and introduce into
Nicolaitan Christianity by him. This was done to confirm and teach his deceived converts his
form of the Trinitarian doctrine. All of his Catholic pagan buddies imitated him and started
doing the same. Now this is an important point for my readers to remember, if they wish to
understand the following historical quotes concerning the horrendous battle that took place
between the Roman Catholic Churches and the African Catholic Churches over the name of
Jesus used in the baptismal formula.

Both parties in this conflict knew that the book of Acts and history taught baptism by single
immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as we have said before, this did not agree
with their two-god doctrine. The conflict started when the African Nicolaitan Churches decided
they could best teach their godhead doctrine, by taking the name of Jesus out of their Trinitarian
formula of baptism, and substituting in its place the title son, exactly the way it is stated in
Matthew 28:19. This act violated the baptismal tradition Justin started. For one hundred and
80
five years or from 150-255 AD, all Catholic Churches baptized in a trine immersion using the
formula in the name of God the Father, the Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. With these
things in mind, lets examine the history of this battle.

Around 255 AD, Cyprian and the many of the African Catholics bishops, rebelled against the
standard formula for baptism and change it. This is the first place in history where not only
baptism in all the titles of the godhead was used, but also where Jesus Name baptism was
formally denounced. As a result, Bishop Stephen of Rome (254-257 AD) reproved them for this.
The African Catholics were probably angry with Gods Jesus Name Churches because they re-
baptized all their Catholic and other heretical converts with one immersion in the name of Jesus.
As a result, they retaliated by taking the name of Jesus out of their baptismal formula.

The Encyclopedia Britannica speaking about this conflict stated, "In the third century,
baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to
Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
349
In fact, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ was so popular up to 255 AD, that all the heretical Catholic Bishops in the Roman
Empire, and heretics of other denominations, used the name of Jesus in their baptismal formula,
either with one immersion or three. They all continued to baptize this way, excluding the African
and a few others, until 325 AD. Bishop Stephen was obviously a strong believer in baptism in the
name of Jesus Christ, and violently opposed the new African formula.

Historians have done their best to totally ignore the real issue in this conflict, which is the
name of Jesus in the formula for baptism. The only thing they mention is that it was over the
baptism of heretics, whether or not they should be re-baptized. So, there is absolutely no need to
quote any of these bias historians on this particular issue. The best way to discover the real truth
about the conflict is to read the writings of those who were involved in it.

In the Ante Nicene Fathers, there is a writing entitled A Treatise On Re-baptism, written
somewhere between 255 AD, by an anonymous writer. There is no doubt in this author's mind
that it was one of Bishop Stephen's Epistles, which he sent to the Catholic Churches that were
scattered throughout the Roman Empire. No Protestant or Catholic historian has ever tried to
explain how or why all the epistles Pope Stephen wrote in this conflict were mysteriously lost.
Not only this, but how or why all the letters written to him by other Catholic Bishops, who
agreed with him, were mysteriously lost. Not to mention the mysterious disappearance of all the
records of the Council of Rome that Stephen called in 255 AD, whereby all the Catholic Bishops
throughout the Roman Empire excommunicated all of the African Catholic Churches .

Lets hear what this Catholic Pope has to say against some of the rebellious Catholic Bishops
in Africa: I observe that it has been asked among the [Catholic] brethren what course ought
specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet
been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.... The point is whether, according to the
most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after baptism which they have
received outside the [Catholic] Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,
that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and
this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether,
a repetition of baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Bishop Stephen went on to say, no controversy or discussion could have arisen at all if each
one of us had been content with the venerable authority of all the churches, and with becoming
81
humility had desired to innovate nothing [meaning to introduce a new formula for baptism], as
observing no kind of room for contradiction.
350
He went on to explain the importance of the
name of Jesus in water baptism. He says, The Lord said in the Gospel: `except a man be born
again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Whence it
manifestly appears that baptism alone is profitable wherein also the Holy Spirit can dwell...the
apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized
in the name of Christ Jesus.

Pope Stephen went on exalting the name of Jesus by saying, the power of the name of Jesus
invoked upon any man by baptism, might afford to him who should be baptized, no slight
advantage for the attainment of salvation as Peter related in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: `
for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.' As also
the apostle Paul unfolds, showing that...invocation should be made in the name of Jesus....
Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the
mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others [meaning other denominations].
351


Bishop Stephen continued his discourse by rebuking the African Catholic Bishops for
changing the formula for water baptism. He said, You esteem what our Lord said as being
contrary to this treatment: go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed
by all means in the Church, and moreover has been observed, yet it behooves us to consider that
the invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile, or done away. He continued
by saying, with the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops;
even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother [the Catholic]
Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel against former decisions
after so long a series of so many ages.... The invocation of the name of Jesus which cannot be
done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting.
352


Pope Stephen concluded his Epistle to the African Catholic Churches by giving his decision on
the subject. He said, Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be considered, that it may be
made clearer. For the invocation of the name of Jesus can only be an advantage if it shall be
subsequently properly supplemented, because both prophets and apostles have so declared. For
James says in the Acts of the Apostles: `men and brethren, hearken: Simon hath declared how
God at the first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name.' [Therefore]
heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized
with the Holy Spirit.
353


Lets examine this Epistle to see what we can learn about the author and his Faith. First, the
writer of this Epistle is Catholic because he calls the Church our most holy mother. This is a
standard term that Catholic Bishops have used many times in their writings. Secondly, the
author defended baptism in Jesus Name, and connected it to salvation. In fact, he even believed
heretics can receive remission of sins as long as they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Third,
he claimed that baptism in Jesus Name is the most ancient custom, and has been around for
many ages. He also claimed that it had the support of the apostles and bishops, and many
churches.

Fourth, he rebuked certain ones for changing the formula for baptism by taking the name of
Jesus out. He claim that this was the first time in the history of their church, that anyone in
their organization has rebelled against the venerable authority of all the churches concerning
82
the formula for baptism. He even accused them of not understanding Matthew 28:19, as though
our Lord was teaching something contrary to what they were teaching. He reminds them that
Matthew 28:19 has been observed in their churches, no doubt through Justins Trinitarian
formula. He then told them that the invocation of the name of Jesus must not be done away
with in the baptismal formula.

My fifth and last comment, the author claimed that heretics cannot receive the Holy Ghost
outside the Catholic Church. They needed a Catholic Bishop to lay hands on them to receive it.
The author definitely speaks as though he is a man who has authority. At the end of his Epistle,
He gave these instructions, Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus
Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Cyprian wrote many letters to the Catholic Bishops in Africa vehemently condemning Pope
Stephen and all the other Catholic Bishops who were opposed to the new African Trinitarian
formula for baptism. In one letter he wrote, "The apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens,
they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles ` in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.' How, then do some say that a gentile baptized without, outside the [Catholic]
Church, yea, and in opposition to the church, so that it [water baptism] be only in the name of
Jesus Christ, everywhere and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ
Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and unite Trinity.
354


Cyprian, like all other Catholic apologists, believed that water baptism was essential to
salvation, therefore, he condemned Stephen for claiming that so-called heretics were children of
God because they baptized in Jesus name. This is exactly why the African Catholic Church took
the name of Jesus out of Justins Trinitarian baptismal formula. They hated the Jesus Name
people so much that they did not want to have anything in common with them.

Lets read Cyprians condemnation of Stephen. He said, Why has the bitter obstinacy of our
brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the
baptism of Marcion; moreover of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against
God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ.
355
Let
my readers notice that Pope Stephen like the author of Re-baptism, affirmed that baptism in the
name of Jesus alone is sufficient to remove sins.

In 255 AD, Cyprian called a Council at Carthage in which 31 bishops denounced baptism in
the name of Jesus. This is the first council in history, where baptism in the name of Jesus was
formally denounced. After this Council, Catholic Pope Stephen called a Roman Council, in
which he and other Catholic Bishops excommunicate Cyprian and all those in the African Synod
for their stand on baptism.

Cyprian wrote to Jubaian in 256 AD, defending the African Catholic Churches stand on the
formula for baptism. In it he revealed that Stephen and all the other Catholic Bishops claimed
that those who join their churches from other denominations "ought not to be baptized because
they seem already to have been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. We ought to consider,
likewise, the faith of those who believe without as to whether they can gain any grace according
to that same faith. For if there is one faith for both us and the heretics, there can also be we one
grace.

83
Cyprian continued, If the Patripassians [the one God, Jesus' Name believers], the
Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites, and others, pests of
heretics, and swords and poisons for overthrowing the truth, confess the same Father, the same
Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same church, it can be that their baptism is one, if faith is also
one. There cannot be any hope of salvation except in the knowledge of these two not three
persons or gods in the godhead. Notice, he connected the formula of water baptism with his
godhead teachings.

Cyprian went on to say, God the Father has not been known, nay rather, has been
blasphemed.... How, therefore do some say that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church,
nay rather, and against the [Catholic] Church, provided it be in the Name of Jesus Christ,
wherever it be and whatever it be, can obtain the remission of sins, when Christ Himself ordered
the Gentiles to be baptized in the complete and united Trinity."
356
Here is another proof that
Pope Stephen wrote the Epistle on Re-baptism, for he contended that so-called heretics who
baptized in name of Jesus, do not need to be re-baptized.

This is also absolute proof that not only the one God, Jesus Name Modalist Monarchians, or
in this case, the Patripassians baptized in the name of Jesus, but many, if not all of the heretics
did also. Some of the heretics Cyprian mentions were Pope Stephen and other Catholics Bishops,
the Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites and the Marcionites. This can
only mean that name of the Lord Jesus Christ was the baptismal formula, or used in the formula
of most of the religious denominations of the first, second and third centuries.

If this is not true, then Cyprian's argument would be a lie. For his argument was basically
this, if water baptism in the name of Jesus is correct, then all so-called heretics who baptize that
way are saved and have their sins remitted. Even though, according to him, they blaspheme the
Father by their teachings on the godhead and were always standing against them, they would
still be considered Children of God. His conclusion was, since these things can not be, baptism in
the name of Jesus can not be correct, but baptism in all the titles of the Trinity must alone be
true baptism.

Bishop Firmilian wrote to Cyprian in 256 AD stating that, "Stephen and those who agree with
him contend that the remission of sins and a second birth can proceed from the baptism of
heretics, among whom even they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not, let them consider
and know that there cannot be spiritual birth without the Spirit.... [It] is also absurd for them to
think it is not necessary to inquire who it is [the minister] who has baptized, because he who has
been baptized may have received grace by the invocation of the Trinity of the names.
357


The above statement is another proof that Catholic Pope Stephen wrote the Epistle on Re-
baptism, for he also contended that none of these religious groups were born of Gods Spirit. Let
my readers also notice that this letter clearly revealed that their were many other Catholic
Bishops who agreed with Stephen that the name of Jesus should be used in Justins Trinitarian
formula for baptism.

Firmilian continued by saying, If the baptism of heretics can have the regeneration of the
second birth, they who are baptized among them must not be considered heretics but sons of
God, because the second birth which is baptism generates sons of God. But, if the spouse of
Christ, which is the Catholic Church, is one, it is she herself alone who generates sons to God.
Let my readers take note of his argument against Jesus Name baptism. He basically argues, this
84
proposition, if baptism in the name of Jesus is correct, than all heretics must be considered
children of God, for they have received the new birth. Since this can not be true, then baptism in
the all the titles of the godhead must be true baptism.

Firmilian went on to say, I am justly indignant in this respect at this so open and manifest
stupidity of Stephen that he who so glories in the place of his episcopate [meaning the City of
Rome] and contends [claims] that he has the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of
the Church were established, should introduce many other rocks and constitute new buildings of
many churches while he maintains by his authority that baptism is there. For...he says, the
Name of Christ accomplishes very much for the faith and sanctification of baptism, that whoever
anywhere has been baptized in the name of Christ, immediately gains the grace of Christ."
358


Let my readers take a minute to reflect on this last statement, for it contains the true feelings
of Pope Stephen and the majority of other Catholic Bishops concerning the importance of the
name of Jesus in the baptismal formula. Even though these men baptized in a triune formula and
by trine immersions, it must have been the second immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ they believed brought salvation, the remission of sins or the grace of God to the one being
baptized. If they truly believed that the first immersion in the name of the Father, or the third
immersion in the name of the Holy Ghost, was also needed to bring salvation, they would have
never claimed that the Patripassians and some of the other religious groups, who practiced single
immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, were truly baptized or saved.

Even though Pope Stephen and these other Catholic Bishops knew that single immersion in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone was sufficient for the remission of sins, they had to add
the other two immersions to confirm their form of Trinitarianism to their members and
converts. Lets not forget, it was their distorted view of the Logos doctrine that cause the early
apostates to depart from the truth. They just could not believe the oneness of the godhead
because it was contrary to the two god teaching of their heroes - Plato and Philo.

Firmilian also mentioned that Stephen and all the other Catholic Bishops objected to their
African formula for baptism in respect to the refutation of custom, which they seem to oppose
to the truth.... And this is observed among us, that whosoever is dipped by them and come to us
are baptized among us as strangers, and have obtained nothing without the only and true
baptism of the [African] Catholic Church."
359
This is just another proof that Pope Stephen
wrote the previous mention document on Re-baptism, for the author of this work defended
baptism in the name of Christ as the ancient custom of the Catholic Church for so many
ages.

In September of 258 AD, Cyprian and about 87 African bishops, presbyters and deacons met
at Carthage to denounce their Catholic brethren and the thousands of so-called heretical
ministers who baptized in the precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Lets hear what the these
heretics had to say against the truth. He told his small band of rebels that all one God, Jesus'
Name believers, along with the false religious denominations, who baptized in the name of Jesus,
"must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the [African Catholic] Church.
360
What he
meant by the term the baptism of the church is obviously baptism in all the titles of the
Trinity.

Munnulus of Girba proclaimed, the truth of our mother the Catholic Church ...in the Trinity
of baptism ...[is] in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
361
The writer of
85
Re-baptism also called the Catholic Church our mother. Eucharatius of Thenae told his fellow
African Catholic heretics, the false and wicked baptism [meaning in the name of Jesus] of
heretics must be rejected by us [as] blasphemy of the Trinity.
362
Notice, Munnulus and
Eucharatius connected the formula of baptism with the godhead. Januarius of Muzzuli said, If
heretics have baptism, we have it not, but if we have it, heretics cannot have it."
363


Polycarp from Adrumetum said that the Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire, who
approve the baptism of heretics makes void our baptism.
364
It must of grieved Polycarp that
the majority of his fellow Catholic Bishops, defended baptism in Jesus Name, even if they did
use the titles of Father and Holy Ghost in their Trinitarian formula. The truth is that baptism by
singular immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, done by the true believers, not only
make void the African Catholic Churches baptism but the Roman Catholic Churches baptism
as well.

Weisser in his great work entitled, Jesus' Name Baptism Through The Centuries, revealed that
the Catholic Church held a General Council at Arles in Gaul in 314 AD. At this council they
declared that Cyprian and his band of renegades were right to baptize so-called heretics who did
not believe in the Trinity. Nothing was mention of the formula for baptism. Canon eight stated,
Concerning the Africans, because they used their own law so as to rebaptize, it has been decided
that, if anyone from a heretical sect come to the [Catholic] Church, he should be asked his
[godhead] creed.... But if, upon being questioned, he does not answer the Trinity, let him be
baptized."
365


Weisser quoted Robert Robinson book entitled Ecclesiastical Researches as saying the
following about the Council of Nice in 325 AD, "All the classes, who did not hold the doctrine of
a Trinity of persons in God, whether called Aretemonites, Paulianists, Arians, Monarchians,
Patripassians, Sabellians, or by any other name, administered baptism in the name of Christ:
and these were the people, whom the council of Nice required to be rebaptized."
366
As my
readers by now should know, the Modalist Monarchians or Patripassians and Sabellians were
the true believers of their day.

Catholic Bishop Basil (370 AD) commenting on the titles used in the three immersions of
baptism says, Whoever, therefore, is worthy to be baptized in the Name of the Holy Spirit and
who has been born anew, undergoes a change of abode, habits and associates, so that, walking by
the Spirit we may merit to be baptized in the Name of the Son and to put on Christ.... Then,
having put on the Son of God who gives us power to become children of God, we are baptized in
the Name of the Father and are called sons of God.
367


From all of the above quotes, one should realize by now that most of the Catholic Churches
had by 325 AD accepted the new Trinitarian formula. Many of the Catholic Popes from this time
on condemned baptism in Jesus Name, and demanded all those who came to the Catholic
Church to be baptized in the all the titles of the Trinity. When the Roman Catholic Bishops
accepted the African Catholics Trinitarian formula, they had to bow their knee to the African
Bishops. If it was not for this conflict, the Trinitarian doctrine of three separate persons in the
godhead may have never became a doctrine in the Catholic Church or even in the Protestant
Churches that it is today.

Books Written by the Author and Given Away on His Website:
A Biblical, Medical, and Psychological Account of the Sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ
86
The Heresy of the Nicolaitans
Biblical Creationism vs Pantheistic Theories of Evolution (Nature Worship)
A Prophetic History of Gods Apostolic Pentecostal Church (The Seven Prophetic Periods of the Church Age)
The Mysteries of Prophecy Revealed
What Do You Mean I Must Be Born Again?
Preacher, What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?
A Historical Record of Speaking in Tongues
The Mysteries of the Godhead Revealed
A History of Oneness Throughout the Centuries (Baptism in Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)
What Happens to Mans Spirit, Soul and Body Immediately after Death?
What Is Lost Mans Eternal Destiny? (Immediate Annihilation, Eternal Torment, Torment for a Time
and Then Universal Salvation, or Torment for a Time and Then Annihilation)
The Mysteries of the Spirit and Soul of Man Revealed
(What Are They? Does Each Nature of Man Have Mind, Will, and Emotions?)
Holiness: Gods Beauty College
What Is Gods Rest for the Believer: the Sabbath Day or Gods Sabbath Spirit
How to Study the Bible
A Calendar of Biblical and Historical Dates and Events Beginning with the Creation of Adam
The Heresies of the Pharisaical Jewish Ebionites
William Marion Branham: His Life, Teachings, and Demonic Spirit-Guide
Nutrition and Nutritional Charts
Law vs Grace or Works vs Faith
Water Baptism: the Essentiality, the Mode, and the Formula
Glossolalia: Ten Steps of Faith to Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost
Glossolalia and the New Birth
Benefits of Salvation and the False Doctrines that Hinder It
Eternal Life vs Eternal Death

Christs Loving Servant,

Harry A. Peyton
148 Little Creek Hills Rd.
Alto, NM 88312
Telephone # 575-336-2800
Internet Address: [email protected]
Website: DoctrinesOfChrist.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism [And Its Outcome In The New
Christology], 1900, Levi Paine: Houghton, Mifflin & Company: Boston, MA and NY, NY:
Riverside Press: Cambridge, MA

A Dictionary Of The Bible, 1909 (13th edition), James Hastings: Charles Scribners Sons: NY,
NY

A History Of Christianity In The Apostolic Age, 1897, Arthur C. McGiffert: T. & T. Clark:
Edinburgh,

All The Fullness, 1975, David Campbell: Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood, MO

An Introduction To The Early History Of Christian Doctrine, 1933, J.F. Bethune-Baker:
Methuen & Co.: London
87

Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1977 & 1979, Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, ed.: William B.
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI

Antitrinitarian Biography, 1850, Robert Wallace: E. T. Whitfield: London, England:
Microfiche: Sketches Of The Lives And Writings Of Distinguished Antitrinitarians

Aspects Of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, 1975, Vinson Synan, ed.: Logos International:
Plainfield, NJ

BibleWorks For Windows, 95/NT Release V 3.5 Copyright 1996, Michael S. Bushell,
Hermeneutika Computer Bible Research Software: P.O. Box 2200, Big Fork, MT 59911-2200

Biblical Repository, Edward Robinson, ed.: Gould & Newman Pub.: NY, NY, (a quarterly
periodical published from 1830-1850 AD)

Christianity Through The Centuries, 1975, Earle Cairns: Zondervan Pub. House: Grand
Rapids, MI

Comptons Encyclopedia, 1974, F. E. Compton, ed.: F. E. Compton: Chicago, IL

Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological, And Ecclesiastical Literature, 1969, John MClintock &
James Strong: Arno Press: NY, NY

Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, And Schools Of Religious Thought, 1971,
John H. Blunt: Gryphon Books: Ann Arbor, MI

Early And Medieval Christianity, 1962, Roland Bainton: Beacon Press: Boston, MA

Encyclopedia Biblica, 1903, Thomas K. Cheyne: Macmillian: NY, NY

Essays And Sketches, 1948, John H. Newman: Longmans, Green & Co.: NY, NY

Fragments Of A Faith Forgotten, 1960, George R. Mead: University Books: New Hyde Park:
NY

God In Christ, 1849, Horace Bushnell: Brown and Parsons: Hartford, CN

Here I Stand, 1978, Roland Bainton: Abingdon: Nashville, TN

History Of Dogma, 1897, Adolph Harnack: Roberts Brothers: Boston, MA

History Of Dogma, 1961, Adolph Harnack: Dover Publications, Inc.: NY, NY

History Of The Christian Church, 1979, Marvin M. Arnold: Apostolic Publishing House:
Memphis, TN

History Of The Christian Church, 1970, 1980, Philip Schaff: William B. Eerdmans: Grand
Rapids, MI
88

History Of The Christian Church, 1950, Williston Walker: Charles Scribners Sons: NY, NY

Hunted Heretic, 1978, Roland H. Bainton: Peter Smith: Gloucester, MA, (The Life And Death
Of Michael Servetus)

Is God A Trinity, 1975, John Miller: Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood MO

Jesus' Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Thomas Weisser:

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, The Catholic University Of America: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.: NY

Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers [Of The Christian Church], Philip Schaff & Henry Wace,
ed.: William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI

Priscillian Of Avila, 1976, Henry Chadwick: Clarendon Press: Oxford, England

Sage Digital Library, Version 2.0 1996, Sage Software: Albany, OR: (Ante-Nicene Fathers,
1977 & 1979, editors Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson; Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers,
editors Philip Schaff & Henry Wace: William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI)

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge, Funk & Wagnalls: NY

Scribners Dictionary Of The Bible,

Secret Societies, 1965, Akron Daraul: Tandem Books: London

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, 1980, James Strong: World Bible Pub.: Iowa
Falls, IA

The Babylonian Connection, 1978, Stephen E. Jones: Americas Promise: Phoenix, AZ

The Babylonian Talmud, 1935, I. Epstein, ed.: The Soncino Press: London

The Cambridge Medieval History, 1967, H. G. Watkins & J. Whitney, ed.: University Press:
Cambridge, MA

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, C. Herbermann, E. Pace, C. Pallen, T. Shahan & J. Wynne,
ed.: The Gilmary Society: NY, NY

The Charismatic Movement, 1977, Michael Hamilton: Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, IL

The Church Teaches, 1973, translators J. Clarkson, J. Edwards, W. Kelly, J. Welch: Tan
Books & Pub. Inc.: Rockford, IL

The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 1968, Edward Gibbon: Washington Square
Press, Inc.: NY, NY

89
The Early Christian Church, 1976, John G. Davies: Greenwood Press Pub.: Westport, CN

The Early History Of Christianity, 1927, Charles Guignebert: Twayne Pub.: NY, NY

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, 1972, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: NY, NY

The Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, 1928 & 1951, James Hastings, ed.: Charles
Scribners Sons: NY, NY

The Encyclopedia Of The Jewish Religion, 1965, R. J. Werblowsky & Geoffrey Wigoder:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, ed.: NY, NY

The Encyclopedia Of Religion, 1987, Mircea Eliade, ed.: Macmillan Pub. Co.: NY, NY

The Ethnic Trinities [And Their Relations To The Christian Trinity], 1901, Levi L. Paine:
Houghton, Mifflin & Co.: NY, NY

The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1974, W. R. Nicolli, ed.: William. B. Eerdmans: Grand
Rapids, MI

The Fathers Of The Church, 1964, Roy J. Deferrari, ed.: The Catholic University Of America
Press: Washington, DC

The Holiness Pentecostal Movement In The United States, 1971, Vinson Synan: Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, IL

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1980, James D. Douglas: Tyndale House Pub.: Wheaton, IL

The Interpretor's Dictionary Of The Bible, 1962: Emory S. Bucke, ed.: Abingdon Press:
Nashville, TN

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1960, James Orr, ed.: William. B. Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids: 5 vols.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1905, Isidore Singer, ed.: Funk & Wagnalls Co.: NY, NY

The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan, Andrew Urshan: Stockton, CA: Apostolic Press, 1967.

The Mission And Expansion Of Christianity, 1962, Adolph Harnack: Harper & Brothers: NY,
NY

The Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, 1980, Mitchell & Jody Scharf, ed.: Victory Press: Palm
Springs, CA

The Mythology Of All Races, 1930, John A. MacCulloch: Archaeological Institute Of
America: Boston, MA

Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals, 1981, Fred Foster: Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood,
MO
90

The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, 1964, Harry A. Wolfson: Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA

The Primitive Church, 1964, Maurice Goguel: The Macmillan Co.: NY, NY

The Roots Of Witchcraft, 1974, Michael Harrison: Citadel Press: Secaucus, NJ

The Secret Societies, 1875, Charles W. Heckethorn: R. Bentley & Son: London

The Story of the Christian Church, 1962, Jesse Hurlbut: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: NY

The Two Babylons, 1959, Alexander Hislop: Loizeaux Brothers: Neptune, NJ

The Two Treatises Of Servetus On The Trinity, ed James H. Ropes and Kirsop Lake, trans.
Earl Morse Wilbur (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932)

The Works Of Flavius Josephus, Flavius Josephus: tr. William Whiston: Associated Pub. &
Authors Inc.: Grand Rapid, MI

The Works Of John Adams, John Adams,

They Speak In Other Tongues, 1976, John L. Sherrill: McGraw Hill: NY, NY

Think It Not Strange, 1965, Fred J. Foster: Pentecostal Pub. House: St. Louis, MO

Witchcraft In History, 1977, Ronald Holmes: Citadel: Secaucus, NJ

Who Is Who In Church History, 1974, Elgin S. Moyer: Keats Publishing, Inc.: New Canaan,
CN

World Christian Encyclopedia, edited by David Barrett: New York: Oxford University Press,
1982.

Zoroastrian Theology, Maneck J. N. Dhalla

ENDNOTES


1
Life Of Christ, Jones, pg i [the foreword]
2
History of the Christian Church, Schaff, vol. III, pp. 663-664).
3
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 14, pp 296-297.
4
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol. 3, pg 664.
5
The Early History Of Christianity, Guignebert, pp 12, 13.
6
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 450.
7
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 450.
8
Encyclopedia Of Religion and Ethics, Hastings, vol 6, pp 617, 616.
9
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 60.
10
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pg 597.
11
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 340.
91

12
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 449.
13
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pg 602.
14
Ib., vol 3, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chps 19-20, pg 1153
15
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 27, pg 1169.
16
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 29, pg 1174
17
Ib., vol 5, pg 125.
18
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 57
19
Ante Nicene Fathers, Hippolytus, vol 5, bk 9, chp 2, pg 259.
20
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 64.
21
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pg 127.
22
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 68
23
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pp 130-131.
24
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 85.
25
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 6, Epistle on Arian Heresy and Deposition of Arius, chp 1, sec 12, pg 589.
26
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pp 512,513.
27
N&PNF, series 2, vol 2, Socrates, bk 1, chp 30, pp 155-156.
28
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pp 451, 450.
29
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Wolfson, pp 583-584.
30
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 2, pp 854, 855.
31
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 449.
32
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pp 294, 295.
33
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Gibbon, vol 1, pp 393-394.
34
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pp 426, 427.
35
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, vol. 12, pp 458-460.
36
The Encyclopedia Of Religion, Heading Trinity, vol 15, pg 54.
37
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910 ed., vol. 2, pg 285.
38
Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, Heading of Trinity, vol. 10, pg. 553.
39
History Of Dogma, 1910 ed., vol. 4, appendix i; vol. 2, pg. 209.
40
Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 142.
41
Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pp 218, 232.
42
Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 205.
43
Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pp 209, 232.
44
The Two Babylons, Hislop, pp. 14-18.
45
The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 4, pg. 54.
46
The Mission And Expansion Of Christianity, Harnack, pg 439.
47
The Mission And Expansion Of Christianity, pg 293.
48
I.S.B.E., heading Trinity section 22.
49
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 2, pp 228, 175.
50
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, pg 191.
51
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, Ignatius, Ep to Smyraeans, chp 7, pp 110-111,
& chp 20, pp 122, 120, also chp 1, pg 175, long ver., Sage Digital Library.
52
Ib., vol 1, chp 15, pg 136, short ver., & pg 137, long ver., Sage.
53
Ib., vol 1, chp 6, pg 129, also chp 11, pg 134, long ver., Sage.
54
Ib., vol 1, chp 5, pg 212, chp 6, pg 213, Sage.
55
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Paine, pg 29.
56
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, pp 582, 292.
57
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, Justin, First Apology, chp 33, pg 326, Sage
58
Ib., vol 1, Justin, Second Apology, chp 6, pg 364, & chp 13, pg 370, Sage.
59
Ib., vol 1, Dialogue with Trypho a Jew, chp 61, pp 453, 454; chp 62, pg 455; chp 130, pg 540; chp 128, pg 539.
60
Ib., vol 2, Tatian, Address to the Greeks, chp 5, pg 133, Sage & vol 2, pg 67 bk.
61
Ib., vol. 2, Theophilus, To Autolycus, bk 2, chp 10, pg 195.
62
Ib., vol 2, Theophilus, to Autolycus, bk 2, chp 22, pg 207.
63
Ib., vol 2, Theophilus, To Autolycus, bk 2, chp 15, pg 201
64
Ib., vol 1, Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk 2, chp 27, pg 830.
65
Ib., vol 1, Irenaeus Against Heresies, bk 3, chp 11, pg 886.
66
Ib., vol 1, Irenaeus Frag. 39, pg 1191; Frag. 53, pg 1195.
67
Ib., vol 1, Irenaeus, bk4, chp 20, sec 11, pp 1013.
92

68
Ib., vol 1, Irenaeus, bk 3, chp 10, pg 878.
69
Ib., vol. 1, Irenaeus, bk 4, chp 38,pg 1075, sec 1, &2.
70
History of the Christian Church, Schaff, vol. 2, pg. 555.
71
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 23, pg 1161
72
Ib., vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, bk 7, chps. 5-6, pp 1124-1127, Sage
73
Ib., vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian: Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 7, pp 1128-1129, chp 9, pp 1131-1132.
74
The Zohar, vol. 3, 42a, pg. 130; even though the majority of the Jewish Zohar is allegorical trash,
and the Babylonian Talmud also, every now and then you can find some truth.
75
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Dialogue of Justin with Trypho a Jew, chp 114, pg 520.
76
Ib., vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian: Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 25, pg 1165.
77
Ib., vol 3, pt 2, Tertullian: Against Praxeas, bk 7, chp 8, pg 1129, chp 26, pg 1167, chp 14, pg 1142.
78
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol. 2, pg. 552.
79
History Of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 354.
80
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pg. 246.
81
Ib., vol. 6, pg. 92, 93.
82
Ib., vol. 7, pg. 105.
83
Ib., vol. 6, pg. 296.
84
The Ethnic Trinities, pp 80, 81.
85
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 105.
86
The Ethnic Trinities, Paine, pp 131, 130.
87
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, pg 183, chp 60.
88
Who Was Who In Church History, Moyer, pp 331-332.
89
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol 4, pg 2382
90
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, pp 582, 292.
91
The Ethnic Trinities, Paine, pp 131, 130.
92
The Early History Of Christianity, pg 116
93
The Cambridge Medieval History, pg 11.
94
The Early History Of Christianity, pp 167, 168.
95
The Cambridge Medieval History, pg 10.
96
Ib., vol 2, ser 2, Socrates Scholasticus, bk 1, chp 8, pp56-58.
97
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 8, 9.
98
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, vol. 1, pp 17, 375.
99
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 9, 11.
100
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, vol. 2, pg 350.
101
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 14, pp 296-297.
102
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol. 3, pg 664.
103
The Church Teaches, pp. 125-127.
104
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, pg 326.
105
The Works Of John Adams, Adams, vol 10, pp 44, 84, 100.
106
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, #2937.
107
Ib., #3466.
108
Encyclopedia Of Occultism And Parapsychology, vol. 2, pg. 920.
109
Secret Societies And Subversive Movements, Webster, pg. 4 .
110
The Republic Of Plato, Bryan, pp. 315, 110-111.
111
Encyclopedia Of Occultism And Parapsychology, vol. 3, pg. 1198.
112
The Two Babylons, Hislop, pp 12-13.
113
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 8, Recognition of Clement, bk 4, chps 27-29, pp 269-270.
114
The Mythology Of All Races, MacCulloch, pg. 55.
115
The Two Babylons, pp 12-13.
116
The Works Of Flavius Josephus, pg. 30.
117
The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 9, pp. 309-310.
118
The Two Babylons, pg. 228.
119
The Babylonian Connection, Jones, pg. 141.
120
The Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, Mitchell & Scharf, pg. 20.
121
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol. 6, pg. 250.
122
The Babylonian Connection, pg. 2.
123
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, pg. 2333.
93

124
The Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, pp. 20-21.
125
The Two Babylons, pp. 58-59, 69, 21.
126
Secret Societies, Webster, pg. 4.
127
The Origin And Growth Of Religion As Illustrated By The Religion Of Ancient Egypt, Renouf, pg. 228.
128
Babylon Mystery Religion, Woodrow, pp. 82-83.
129
The Early History Of Christianity, pg 170.
130
Secret Societies, Daraul, pg 80.
131
The Early History Of Christianity, pg 68.
132
The Babylonian Connection, Jones, pg 48.
133
Witchcraft In History, Holmes, pg 34.
134
The Secret Societies, Heckethorn, vol 1, pg 75.
135
Ib., vol. 1, pp 14, 75, 74.
136
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, vol 6, pg 326.
137
Essays And Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 142.
138
Ib., vol 1, pp 218, 232
139
Ib., vol 1, pg 205.
140
Ib., vol 1, pp 209, 232.
141
Ib., vol 1, pg 152.
142
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 780.
143
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, chp 6, pg 143, long ver., Sage.
144
Ib., vol 1, Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians, chps 2-3, pg 230.
145
Ib., vol 1, chp 5, pg 212, Sage
146
Ib., vol 1, chp 1, pg 216, Sage.
147
Ib., vol 1, chp 63, pg 352, Sage.
148
Ib., vol 1, bk 3, chp 16, pg 909, sec 1, Sage.
149
Ib., vol 3, pp 598-599.
150
Ib., vol 3, pp 598-599.
151
Ib., vol 5, pp 148, 127-128.
152
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 71, 72, 79.
153
Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 6, pp 448-449.
154
Ante Nicene Fathers, Dialogues with Trypho, vol 1, chp 128, pg 538, Sage.
155
Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 6,
pp 448-449; op. cit. Ante Nicene Fathers, Justin Martyr, First Apol., chp 63.
156
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 51- 54.
157
I.S.B.E., Heading Trinity section 22.
158
They Speak In Other Tongues, Sherrill, pg 82.
159
The Biblical Repository, April 1834, pg 272.
160
Dictionary of the Bible, vol 1, pg 88.
161
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp 173-174.
162
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, pg 59.
163
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Wolfson, pg 310
164
Essays And Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 152.
165
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pp 598-599.
166
Ib., vol 1, chp 6, pg 143, long ver., Sage.
167
A History Of The Christian Church In The Apostolic Age, McGiffert, pg 61.
168
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 2, Hermas, The Shepherd, vol 1, chp 3, pg 7; 3.9.16 (11, 13, 15, 48, 49).
169
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th ed., vol 3, pp 365-366.
170
The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, pg 263; also ` the change ' pg 33.
171
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 8, Acts of Paul and Thecla, pg 490.
172
Ib., vol 1, chp 63, pg 352, Sage.
173
New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol 2, pp 377-378, 389.
174
Scribner's Dictionary Of The Bible, vol 1, pg 241.
175
Dictionary Of The Bible, Hastings, article Baptism, vol 1, pg 241.
176
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, pg 183.
177
Ib., vol 3, pp 623, 626
178
Ib., vol 3, pg 60.
179
Ib., vol 1, bk 3, chp 16, pg 909, sec 1, Sage.
94

180
Ib., vol 5, pg 125.
181
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 60.
182
Ib., vol 3, pg 57
183
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pg 125.
184
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 830.
185
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pp 340, 341.
186
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 449; vol 8, pg 1079.
187
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 10, pg 81.
188
The Story of the Christian Church, Hurlbut, pg 66;
op. cit. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
189
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pp 828, 830.
190
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 68
191
Ib., vol 3, pg 53.
192
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pp 598-599.
193
Ib., vol 3, Against Praxeas chp. 26.
194
Ib., vol 3, pp 598-599.
195
Ib., vol 5, pp 130-131.
196
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious
Though, Blunt, pp 512,513.
197
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pp 451, 450.
198
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 449.
199
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 2, pg 373, vol 3, pg 84.
200
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pp 148, 127-128.
201
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 51- 54.
202
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Wolfson, pp 583-584.
203
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 2, pp 854, 855.
204
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
205
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 4, pg 614.
206
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 338.
207
Ib., pg 337.
208
History Of Dogma, Harnack., vol 3, pp 88, 89.
209
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, vol 3, pg 365;
op. cit. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol 4, pg 876.
210
Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 5, pg 667.
211
Ib., vol 5, pg 670
212
Ib., vol 5, pg 388
213
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 2, pg 264.
214
The Fathers Of The Church, vol 51, pp 271, 272, 278, 279.
215
Ib., vol 51, pp 304, 306, 307.
216
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, Cyprian, 73.5, pg 387.
217
The Early Christian Church, Davies, pg 138.
218
Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge, vol 1, pg 435.
219
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 82.
220
The Mission And Expansion Of Christianity, Harnack, vol 1, pg 484.
221
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, vol 10, pg 449.
222
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 338.
223
Ib., pg 514.
224
Canneys Encyclopedia Of Religion, under the heading of Baptism, pg 53.
225
History Of The Christian Church, Walker, pg 55.
226
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pg 7.
227
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Gibbon, vol 1, pp 393-394.
228
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Thought, Blunt, pp 426, 427.
229
Ib., pp 295, 427
230
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 2, pp 44 -46.
231
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 4, pg 463.
232
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Thought, Blunt, pg 427.
233
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 2, pg 45.
95

234
Ib., vol 2, pg 57.
235
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Thought, Blunt, pg 428.
236
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 80.
237
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 2, pg 101.
238
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Wolfson, pp 583, 584, 585.
239
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Thought, Blunt, pg 428.
240
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pg 80.
241
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 2, pg 101.
242
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, Wolfson, pp 583, 584, 585.
243
The Fathers Of The Church, vol 44, pp 83, 50, 89.
244
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 4, pg 86.
245
The Fathers Of The Church, Basil, Letter 210, vol 8, Sec 3, pp 580-581.
246
Ib., vol 28, pg 242.
247
Ib., vol 13, pg 262.
248
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 514, 428.
249
Ib., pg 295.
250
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 3, pg 485.
251
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 338.
252
The Church Teaches, pg 125.
253
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 3, 388.
254
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
255
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 340.
256
The Fathers Of The Church, vol 2, pg 332.
257
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 599.
258
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
259
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pg 8.
260
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, pg 295.
261
History Of Dogma, vol 3, pg 80.
262
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, vol 1, pg 295.
263
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pg 236; op. cit. Comptons Encyclopedia, 1974, vol 6, pg 410.
264
New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
265
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 830.
266
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pg 8.
267
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 780.
268
An Introduction To The Early History Of Christian Doctrine, pg 25 n. 1.
269
Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 13, pg 83.
270
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 780.
271
The Church Teaches, pg 130.
272
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 514, 428.
273
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 3, pg 485.
274
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pg 263.
275
Ib., Arnold, pp 243, 264-265.
276
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, vol 3, pg 366.
277
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pp 18-20.
278
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 36.
279
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910, vol. 3, p 366.
280
The Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, vol 3, pg 391.
281
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pg 263.
282
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 514.
283
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pg 262; op. cit. M P. Hamilton, The Charismatic Movement, pg 71.
284
Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 780.
285
The Church Teaches, pp 135-136.
286
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pp 226-227, 266.
287
Aspects Of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, Synan, pg 158.
288
Encyclopedia Americana, vol 15, pg 192.
289
Hunted Heretic, Bainton, Bainton, pp 278- 279, 298.
290
Christianity Through The Centuries, Cairns, pp 332, 333.
96

291
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold, pp 264, 238, 264, 265.
292
Encyclopedia Americana, vol 15, pg 192.
293
Who Was Who In Church History, Moyer, pp 370, 371.
294
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 37.
295
Antitrinitarian Biography, Wallace, vol 1, pp 432, 450, 449.
296
Early And Medieval Christianity, Bainton, pg 136.
297
Hunted Heretic, Bainton, pg 49
298
Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 9, pg 590.
299
The Two Treatises Of Servetus On The Trinity, tr by Earl Wilbur, pp 173-174
300
Ib., pp 196-197
301
Antitrinitarian Biography, Wallace, vol 1, pp 442-444.
302
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools Of Religious Though, Blunt, pg 557.
303
Who Was Who In Church History, Moyer, pp 311-312.
304
Antitrinitarian Biography, Wallace, vol 2, pp 349, 350.
305
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, pg 29.
306
History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 7, pg 132.
307
Hunted Heretic, Bainton, pg 206.
308
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pg 31.
309
Antitrinitarian Biography, Wallace, vol 1, pg 90.
310
Ib., vol 1, pp 161, 164-165, 167-169.
311
Aspects Of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, Synan, pg 126.
312
Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 10, pp 485-486;
op. cit. History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 1, pg 237.
313
Antitrinitarian Biography, Wallace, vol 1, pg 184.
314
Ib., vol 1, pg 90.
315
Ib., vol 1, pp 340, 341.
316
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold pp 241, 268-269; op. The Charismatic Movement, pg 77.
317
Jesus Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Weisser, pg 17.
318
Ib., pp 39, 40.
319
All The Fullness, Campbell, pp 169, 172-173, (also see pp 63,64,460)
320
The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed., Nicolli, vol 5, pg 330.
321
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold pp 241, 268-269; op. M. P. Hamilton, The Charismatic Movement, pg 77.
322
The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States, Synan, pg 25; op. cit. Enc. Of Religion, vol 3, pg 370.
323
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Paine, pg 106.
324
Ib., pg 112, 113.
325
Who Was Who In Church History, Moyer, pg 392
326
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Paine, pg 109-111.
327
Biblical Repository, April 1835, pg 268.
328
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Paine, pg 111.
329
Ib., pg 109.
330
Ib., pp 145, 144.
331
Ib., pp 125-127, 142-143, 146.
332
Is God A Trinity, Miller, pp 22, 15-21, 82-83, 66.
333
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism, Paine, pp 119-122, 147.
334
Their Story: 20th Century Pentecostals, Foster, pp. 120-21,
quoting Parham, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, pp. 23-24.
335
The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan, Urshan, pg 141.
336
World Christian Encyclopedia, editor Barrett, pg 234.
337
History Of The Christian Church, Arnold pp 221, 291.
338
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1972, vol. 22 pg 75.
339
Ib., 1910., vol 27, pg 10, under glossolalia.
340
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1980, J D Douglas, pg 173; The Westminster
Study Edition Of The Holy Bible, pg 72; The Interpretor's Dictionary Of The Bible, vol l, pg 351; The
Interpretor's Bible, 1951, vol 7, pg 624; A Commentary on the Bible, 1919, Dr. Peake and Dr. Grieve, pg 723;
Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1961, pg 60; Encyclopedia Biblica, 1903, vol. 1, pg 473. The reader also may want to
read the footnote on Matthew 28:19 in the following Bible translations: The Clarified New Testament, E. C.
97

Kraeling; The Jerusalem Bible published by Catholic Church; A Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert
Young; The Greek Testament, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
341
New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 2, pp 377-378, 389.
342
Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 6, pg 448.
343
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 1, pg 183.
344
Ib., vol 3, Against Praxeas chp 26.
345
History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 2, pg 248.
346
Ib., footnote on pg 324.
347
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, vol 3, pg 366.
348
The Early History Of Christianity, pp 150, 151.
349
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, vol 3, pg 365; op. cit. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol 4, pg 876.
350
Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 5, pg 667.
351
Ib., vol 5, pg 670
352
Ib., vol 5, pp 671-672
353
Ib., vol 5, pp 673-674.
354
Ib., vol 5, pg 383.
355
Ib., vol 5, pg 388
356
The Fathers Of The Church, vol 51, pp 271, 272, 278, 279.
357
Ib., vol 51, pp 300-301.
358
Ib., vol 51, pp 304, 306, 307.
359
Ib., vol 51, pp 302, 305.
360
Ante Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pg 565.
361
Ib., vol 5, pg 567.
362
Ib., vol 5, pg 568.
363
Ib., vol 5, pg 569.
364
Ib., vol 5, pg 566.
365
Jesus' Name Baptism Through The Centuries, pg 6.
366
Ib., pg 7.
367
The Fathers Of The Church, vol 9, pg 385.
98