OF THE
U N I VER.S ITY
OF ILLINOIS
273.4-
N4Ca
1888
The person charging this material is re-
sponsible for its return on or before the
Latest Date stamped below.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books
are reasons for disciplinary action and may
result in dismissal from the University.
University of Illinois Library
L161— 0-1096
0<dr 7-0 2
THE
A R I A N S
OF
THE FOURTH CENTURY
BY
JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN
Fret not thyself because of the ungodly, neither be thou envious against the evil
doers. F or they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and be withered even as the
green herb. Put thou thy trust in the Lord, and be doing good ; dwell in the land,
and verily thou shalt be fed.— Psalm xxxvii. 1—3.
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16 th STREET
1888
S73.4
a
| ft$9
?
CC
10
o
V)
TO THE
REV. JOHN KEBLE,
FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE,
PROFESSOR OF POETRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
FROM
HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND AND SERVANT
J. H. N.
[October, 1833 .]
a a
ADVERTISEMENT.
The following work was written in the early part of last
year, for Messrs. Rivington’s “ Theological Library but as
it seemed, on its completion, little fitted for the objects with
which that publication has been undertaken, it makes its
appearance in an independent form. Some apology is due
to the reader for the length of the introductory chapter, but
it was intended as the opening of a more extensive under-
taking. It may be added, to prevent mistake, that the
theological works cited at the foot of the page, are referred
to for the facts, rather than the opinions they contain;
though some of them, as the “ Defensio Fidei Nicenae,”
evince gifts, moral and intellectual, of so high a cast, as to
render it a privilege to be allowed to sit at the feet of their
authors, and to receive the words, which they have been, as
it were, commissioned to deliver.
[October, 1833.]
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION.
A very few words will suffice for the purpose of explain-
ing in what respects the Third Edition of this Volume
differs from those which preceded it.
Its text has been relieved of some portion of the literary
imperfections necessarily incident to a historical sketch, its
author’s first work, and written against time.
Also, some additions have been made to the foot-notes.
These are enclosed in brackets, many of them being merely
references (under the abbreviation “ Ath. Tr.”) to his anno-
tations on those theological Treatises of Athanasius, which
he translated for the Oxford Library of the Fathers.
A few longer Notes, for the most part extracted from
other publications of his, form an Appendix.
The Table of Contents, and the Chronological Table
have both been enlarged.
No change has been made any where affecting the
opinions, sentiments, or speculations contained in the
original edition, — though they are sometimes expressed
with a boldness or decision which now displeases him ; —
except that two sentences, which needlessly reflected on the
modern Catholic Church, have, without hurting the context,
been relegated to a place by themselves at the end of the
Appendix. ^
April, 1871 .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. DOCTRINAL.
CHAPTER I.
SCHOOLS AND PARTIES IN AND ABOUT THE ANTE-NICENE
CHURCH, IN THEIR RELATION TO THE ARIAN HERESY.
PAGE
Section I . — The Church of Antioch ....
i
i.
Historical connexion of Arianism with the Anti-
ochene School : —
Paulus, Bishop of Antioch, deposed for heresy
3
The Martyr Lucian. ......
6
His disciples the first Arians .....
7
2.
Judaism of Antioch : —
Revival of the fortunes of the Jews ....
IO
Patronized by successive Emperors.
Their influence upon the populace and the Schools
IO
of Syria .... ...
ii
3 -
Quarto-decimans : —
Of the Proconsulate ......
13
Of Syria
15
Of central Asia Minor ......
16
Betraying or encouraging a Judaistic spirit .
18
4-
Judaizers indirectly leading to Arianism : —
Mosaic rites . . . .
19
Cerinthians and Ebionites
20
Nazarenes . ......
21
Corroborative facts
22
Table of Contents.
viii.
PAGE
Section II. — The Schools of the Sophists . . . . 25
1. Disputative skill of Arians : —
As of Paulus of Samosata 27
And of the disciples of Aristotle .... 29
2. Disputation cultivated in the Christian Schools : —
Axioms taken from logic and mathematics . . 33
School of Artemas. 34
3. Tradition losing force : —
Contempt of predecessors . . . . . 36
Symbol of faith indispensable ..... 36
Unwillingness of the Church to impose it . . 36
Section III . — The Church of Alexandria ... 39
1. Its missionary and political character : — . . 41
Its local position 41
Its exoteric teaching ...... 42
Catechetical system 44
Public preaching ....... 45
Relative influence of separate Gospel truths . . 46
Example of Scripture to guide us . . . .46
2. The Disciplina Arcani, or secret teaching : —
Scripture the storehouse, not the organ of teaching. 50
Nor Apologists an organ, as not authoritative . 51
The secret teaching consistent with the rudimental. 53
Not arbitrary, but an apostolical tradition . . 54
Not derogatory to the authority of Scripture . . 55
Terminating with the rise of the Councils . . 55
3. The Allegorical method : —
National with the Egyptians . . . . . 57
Adopted by Greek philosophy . . . . 57
Natural to the human mind . . . , . 57
Familiar to inspired writers 58
Scripture uses of it 59
Safeguards necessary, canons for its use. . . 60
Caution of Scripture as to it 61
Traditionary keys for it 62
Alexandrian use of it . . . . .62
4. The Economy : —
Used by Alexandrians in Scripture difficulties . 64
6 .
Table of Contents.
ix.
Sanctioned by St. Paul .....
PAGE
• 65
Exemplified by the Fathers ....
. 66
Theory and dangerousness of it f
. 72
As leading to deceit . .
• 73
Divine economies
• 74
Scripture economies .....
. 76
False economies ......
• 77
The Dispensation of Paganism : —
Paganism in one aspect divine
• 79
As found in Genesis and Job .
. 81
And so taught by the Fathers
• 83
Corollaries from this doctrine ....
. 84
As regards infidelity and apostasy .
• 85
And the cultivation of pagan literature .
. 86
Abuse of the doctrine
. 87
Platonism : —
Its influence on the language of theology
. 89
Pagan tradition of a Trinity ....
. 90
Platonic Trinity ......
. 90
How far adopted by the School of Philo.
. 92
By the Alexandrian Fathers ....
• 93
Instances .......
. 94
Apology for them ......
• 95
For Origen .......
• 97
Section IV . — The Eclectic Sect
1. Its characteristics : —
Its principle and origin .
Ammonius, its founder .
Its connexion with neologism .
Its contrast with it .
Later than Origen .
Though an excrescence of his school
2. Its uncongeniality with Arianism
As mystical
As not disputative ....
As not Judaic
As Platonistic . . . ...
IOI
IOI
103
104
107
108
109
no
no
in
X.
Table of Contents.
3 *
Its serviceableness to Arianism, as opposed to theo-
logical mysteries .....
And to formal dogmas, &c
No historical evidence of its aiding Arianism .
Its success in Syria. ......
PAGE
hi
113
1 14
115
Section V. — Sabellianism ....
1. Its history : —
Its characteristic doctrine
In Proconsular Asia : Noetus.
In Rome : Praxeas .....
In Africa : Sabellius .
In Phrygia : Montanists.
First form, Patripassian ....
Second form, Emanative
2. Its influence on the language of Catholics : —
Of Dionysius of Alexandria .
Of Gregory of Neocsesarea
On the use of the Homoiision .
Recapitulation of the whole Chapter . .
116
117
117
117
118
118
121
124
125
128
129
130
CHAPTER II.
THE TEACHING OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH IN ITS RELA-
TION TO THE ARIAN HERESY.
Section I . — On the principle of the formation and impo-
sition of Creeds . . . . . . 133
I. Knowledge of the Christian doctrine a privilege to
be sought after : —
As being not a subjective opinion, but the truth . 134
And reserved and concealed by the early Church . 135
From reverence . . . . . . .135
Unlike the present state of religion . . . . 137
2. Contrary temper of heresy : —
For instance, in the Gnostics ..... 138
And still more, in the Arians ..... 139
Examples ........ 140
Defenceless state of Catholics . . . . .141
Table of Contents.
xi.
PAGE
3. Text of Scripture not a sufficient protection to the
revealed dogma : —
Implicit faith 143
Action of the intellect upon it 144
The mind tranquillized thereby .... 146
Attempted comprehensions 147
Fail to secure the truth 148
And to make it a bond of fellowship . . . 149
Hence the necessity of Creeds, with what limitations 150
Section II . — The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity . . 151
The position of the matter of evidence : —
In the Old Testament commenced .... 153
Completed in the New . . . . 153
Inference to be made thence ..... 155
The word Person 155
Section III. — The Ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity . 156
1. Our Lord considered as the Son of God : —
The term “ Son” denotes His derivation. . . 158
And therefore His dissimilarity to all creatures . 159
Passages from the Fathers . . . . .160
He who is born of God is God . . . .161
In like manner He is “ Radiance from the Sun” . 162
Hence, on the other hand, a subordination of the
Son to the Father 163
As explained by Bull and Petavius. . * .164
Ministration of the Son and Spirit . . , .166
Abuse of the term “ Son” . 167
Leading to materiality and ditheism . . .167
2. Our Lord considered as the Word of God : —
The term “ Word” corrects the abuse of the term
“ Son,” as teaching His co-eternity with God . 169
And His office of mediation 169
Passages from the Fathers 170
Abuse of the term “Word” . . . . *171
3. Our Lord considered “of God” and “in God 171-2
Passages from the Fathers 173
The “in God” is the “co-inherence” . . *173
XJ1.
Table of Contents.
Passages.
The “of God” is the “ monarch ia”
Passages ,
Section IV. — Variations in the Ante-Nicene Theological
Statements. .......
1. The term “ Ingenerate: ” —
Applied to God ; whether to be predicated of the Son
The Anomoean controversy
2. The “ Unoriginate —
Whether to be predicated of the Son «
Passages from the Fathers in illustration
3. The “ Consubstantial :” —
The meaning of “ substance” or “ being”
Of “ Consubstantial ” .
Early use of the term ...»
Doctrine of Emanation ....
Imposed an heretical sense on the term .
The history of the term “offspring”
Rejection of the term “consubstantial” by the
Council against Paulus
The Alexandrians keep it
4. The “ voluntary generation :” —
Its relation to the doctrine of Emanation
How it was understood in relation to our Lord
5. The “Word Internal ” or “ External :” —
A term of the Stoics and Platonists.
Used by the Fathers
The Word’s change from Internal to External a
the creation .....
A kind of “ generation” ....
Five Fathers accused of a misconception
Passages from them in illustration .
Section V . — The Arian Heresy
I. Contrasted with other heterodox beliefs : —
As to its fundamental tenet
With that of the Five Fathers.
PAG*
174
175
'77
179
181
181
182
'83
185
186
187
189
189
190
192
193
194
195
197
197
198
199
199
199
201
202
203
f
Table of Contents.
Viz. with that of the Eclectics ....
Of Gnosticism ........
Of Paulianism. .......
And of Sabellianism ......
2. Its doctrine that : —
What has an origin has a beginning
What has a beginning is a creation
What God willed to be is a creation
What is not ingenerate is a creation
What is material is a creation. ....
“ -begotten ” means “immediately”
“Not one of the creatures” is “not like other
creatures”
“ Before all time ” is “ before all creation” .
All titles admit of a secondary sense
3. Its original documents : —
Arius to Eusebius .......
Arius to Alexander
Arius’s Thalia
Eusebius to Paulinus ......
Alexander to Alexander ......
Alexander’s Encyclical ......
4. Its characteristic qualities : — -
Unscriptural ........
Rationalistic
Versatile
Shallow . . . . ...
Evasive ..........
How met a£ Nicsea
xiii.
PAGE
203
203
203
204
205
207
208
209
209
210
210
210
2 1 1
21 1
213
215
216
217
218
219
221
222
230
231
234
xiv.
Table of Contents.
PART II. HISTORICAL.
CHAPTER III.
THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NIC.EA, IN THE REIGN OF
CONSTANTINE.
Section I . — History of the Nicene Council
1. History of Arius : —
Before his heresy
Upon it
2. Character and position of Constantine : —
His view of Christianity ....
His disappointment at its dissensions
His conduct towards the Donatists .
His wish for religious peace .
His letter to Athanasius and Arius.
He convokes the Nicene Council .
3. Transactions of the Council : —
Disputations ......
Its selection of the test, Homoiision .
Its creed
Dissentients
Brought over
Banishment of Arius ....
PAGE
2 37
238
242
244
245
246
247
249
251
253
254
255
256
256
Section II. — Consequences of the Nicene Council .
1. The Arians : —
Their political and party spirit .... 259
Ingratiate themselves with Constantine . . . 260
Their leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia . . . 260
And Eusebius of Caesarea ..... 261
Constantia, sister to Constantine .... 263
2. The Catholics : —
Successful at Nicaea 265
Yet their prospects clouded 266
Arius’s restoration attempted by Constantine. • 266
At Alexandria 267
At Constantinople 268
The prayers of Bishop Alexander • • • . 269
Death of Arius 270
Table of Contents .
xv.
CHAPTER I\ .
COUNCILS IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS.
PAGE
Section I . — The Eusebians .
i . Character of the Eusebian leaders
Acacius .......
* 275
George .......
• 275
Leontius
Eudoxius .......
. 277
Valens .......
Their proceedings : —
Against Eustathius, &c. ....
* 280
They join the Meletians of Egypt .
. 281
Against Athanasius ....
. 282
Hold Councils at Caesarea and Tyre
. 282
And depose him .....
. 284
Their Creeds : —
Athanasius and other exiles at Rome
. 285
Roman Council
. 285
Eusebian Council of the Dedication
. 286
Adopts the creed of Lucian
. 286
Its second, third, and fourth creeds.
to
00
Its fifth creed, the Macrostich.
. 287
Great Council of Sardica.
. 289
Eusebians leaving it for Philippopolis
. 289
Acquits and restores Athanasius
. 290
Recantation of Valens and Ursacius
. 291
Section II . — The Semi-Arians
1. Their doctrine : —
Its subtlety and indistinctness. .
Its symbol, the Homoeiision
It considered our Lord to be a true Son .
Its self-contradictions ,
2. Their leaders : —
Men of high character . . , ,
Basil of Ancyra .
Mark of Arethusa
Cyril of Jerusalem
297
297
298
299
299
300
301
302
XVI.
Table of Contents .
PAGE
Eusebius of Samosata
On the contrary, Macedonius, the Pneumato-
302
machist
303
3-
Their proceedings : —
They start out as a party after Sardica .
303
Opposed by the Acacians
304
Acacian device of only Scripture terms .
305
The Acacian Homoeon ......
306
Section III. — The Athanasians.
Persecutions.
i.
Paulus of Constantinople : —
Banished and Martyred
3ii
2 .
Lucius of Hadrianople : —
Martyred. ........
312
3-
Eusebian Council of Sirmium : —
Deposes Photinus .......
314
4*
Persecution of the West.
Eusebian Council of Arles
314
The orthodox Bishops excommunicate Athanasius .
315
Fall of Vincent .......
315
b-
Eusebian Council of Milan ; —
Condemns Athanasius . . . *,
31 b
Banishment of Dionysius
317
,, Eusebius of Vercellse
317
„ Hilary ......
318
6.
Proceedings against Pope Liberius : —
His noble conduct
319
His banishment . . ....
319
He is tempted. .......
321
A comprehension of parties ....
321
His fall
He renounces Athanasius and signs a Eusebian
322
creed
322
He afterwards recovers himself ....
323
7-
Proceedings against Hosius : —
Eusebian Creed offered for his acceptance .
323
His brave conduct .......
324
Scourged and racked
325
Table of Contents.
XVII.
PAGE
Signs the creed ....... 326
Refuses to condemn Athanasius .... 326
His repentance 326
8. Proceedings against Athanasius : —
The Alexandrians prepare themselves for the trial . 327
Recent sufferings 327
Encouraged by the Sardican Council . . . 328
George of Cappadocia* the Eusebian Bishop . . 329
Irruption of Syrianus into the Church . . . 329
Escape of Athanasius 33 1
Persecution of Egyptian Bishops and people . . 331
Manifesto of Constantius .... 332
Section IV. — The Anomoeans,
1. Rise of the heresy : —
Aetius 337
Eunomius . • 339
2. Its history : —
They join the Eusebians or Acacians against the
Semi-Arians .....
At Caesarea
And Antioch
Semi-Arian Council at Ancyra
Appeal of the two parties to Constantius.
The Emperor’s changes of mind
Preparation for an Ecumenical Council .
Acacian Council of Seleucia .
Acacian Council of Ariminum.
Triumph of Arianism throughout the world
Disgrace of Aetius . . .
Death of Constantius ....
341
34i
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
350
35 1
352
CHAPTER V.
COUNCILS AFTER THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS.
Section I. — The Council of Alexandria in the reign of
Julian .
I. The question of the Arianizing Bishops : —
Its difficulty 257
Its solution 359
A
xvm.
Table of Contents.
2. The question of the Succession at Antioch :
.
PAGE
Meletius .....
• •
# #
36l
His confession of orthodoxy .
• •
.
362
Lucifer’s interference
• •
, ,
363
Schism in consequence .
• •
•
364
3. The question of the hypostasis
The term Hypostasis or Persona
• •
•
36S
Whether three or one
• •
• .
366
Differences among Catholics .
• •
» .
367
Letter of the Council
.
370
Section II . — The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
in the reign of Theodosius .
I. Persecution under Valens : —
End of the Semi-Arian heresy
. .
• 9
377
The reconciliation of its Bishops
to the Church •
378
2. Revival of orthodoxy at Constantinople : —
Gregory Nazianzen.
• •
380
His proceeding there
.
381
The Arians conform under Theodosius .
, ,
382
His perplexities
• .
383
Opposition made to him .
• •
.
385
He resolves to retire
, ,
386
His enthronization .
.
387
His disgust with all parties
387
3. The Ecumenical Council : —
The business before it
0 0
388
Death of its President Meletius
0 •
389
Its proceedings
• 0
•
390
Resignation of Gregory .
•
39i
Its creed
392
Chronological Table . * •
• •
• •
397
Table of Contents.
APPENDIX.
Note i. The Syrian School of Theology .
2, The early doctrine of the divine gennesis
3, The Confessions at Sirmium
4, The early use of usia and hypostasis .
5, Orthodoxy of the faithful during Arianism
6, Chronology of the Councils.
7, Omissions in the text of the Third Edition
xix.
PAGE
• 403
. 4l6
• 423
• 432
• 445
• 469
• 474
CHAPTER I.
SCHOOLS AND PARTIES IN AND ABOUT THE ANTE-
NICENE CHURCH, CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELA-
TION TO THE ARIAN HERESY.
SECTION I.
THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH.
It is proposed in the following pages to trace the
outlines of the history of Arianism, between the first
and the second General Councils. These are its
natural chronological limits, whether by Arianism we
mean a heresy or a party in the Church. In the
Council held at Nicsea, in Bithynia, A.D. 325, it was
formally detected and condemned. In the subsequent
years it ran its course, through various modifications
of opinion, and with various success, till the date of
the second General Council, held A.D. 381, at Constan-
tinople, when the resources of heretical subtilty being
at length exhausted, the Arian party was ejected from
the Catholic body, and formed into a distinct sect,
exterior to it. It is during this period, while it still
maintained its hold upon the creeds and the govern-
2
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
ment of the Church, that it especially invites the
attention of the student in ecclesiastical history.
Afterwards, Arianism presents nothing new in its
doctrine, and is only remarkable as becoming the
animating principle of a second series of persecutions,
when the barbarians of the North, who were infected
with it, possessed themselves of the provinces of the
Roman Empire.
The line of history which is thus limited by the two
first Ecumenical Councils, will be found to pass
through a variety of others, provincial and patriarchal,
which form easy and intelligible breaks in it, and pre-
sent the heretical doctrine in the various stages of its
impiety. These, accordingly, shall be taken as car-
dinal points for our narrative to rest upon ; — and it
will matter little in the result, whether it be called a
history of the Councils, or of Arianism, between the
eras already marked out.
However, it is necessary to direct the readers atten-
tion in the first place, to the state of parties and
schools, in and about the Church, at the time of its
rise, and to the sacred doctrine which it assailed, in
order to obtain a due insight into the history of the
controversy ; and the discussions which these subjects
involve, will occupy a considerable portion of the
volume. I shall address myself without delay to this
work ; and, in this chapter, propose first to observe
upon the connexion of Arianism with the Church of
Antioch, and upon the state and genius of that Church
in primitive times. This shall be the subject of the
present section : in those which follow, I shall consider
its relation towards the heathen philosophies and
heresies then prevalent ; and towards the Church of
Alexandria, to which, though with very little show of
o
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch,
reasoning, it is often referred. The consideration of
the doctrine of the Trinity shall form the second
chapter.
I.
During the third century, the Church of Antioch
was more or less acknowledged as the metropolis of
Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Comagene, Osrhoene, and
Mesopotamia, in which provinces it afterwards held
patriarchal sway 1 . It had been the original centre of
Apostolical missions among the heathen 2 ; and claimed
St. Peter himself for its first bishop, who had been
succeeded by Ignatius, Theophilus, Babylas, and others
of sacred memory in the universal Church, as cham-
pions and martyrs of the faith 3 . The secular impor-
tance of the city added to the influence which accrued
to it from the religious associations thus connected
with its name, especially when the Emperors made
Syria the seat of their government. This ancient and
celebrated Church, however, is painfully conspicuous
in the middle of the century, as affording so open a
manifestation of the spirit of Antichrist, as to fulfil
almost literally the prophecy of the Apostle in his
second Epistle to the Thessalonians 4 . Paulus, of
Samosata, who was raised to the see of Antioch not
many years after the martyrdom of Babylas, after
holding the episcopate for ten years, was deposed by
a Council of eastern bishops, held in that city A.D.
272, on the ground of his heretical notions concerning
the nature of Christ. His original calling seems to
have been that of a sophist 3 ; how he obtained admit-
1 Bingham, Antiq. ix. 1. 2 Acts xi., xiii., xiv.
3 Vide Tillemont, Mem. vol. i. &c. 4 Vide Euseb. vii. 30.
5 Mosheim, de Reb. ante Constant, ssec. iii. § 35.
4
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
tance into the clerical order is unknown ; his elevation,
or at least his continuance in the see, he owed to the
celebrated Zenobia 6 , to whom his literary attainments,
and his political talents, may be supposed to have
recommended him. Whatever were the personal vir-
tues of the Queen of the East, who is said to have
been a Jewess by birth or creed, it is not surprising
that she was little solicitous for the credit or influence
of the Christian Church within her dominions. The
character of Paulus is consigned to history in the
Synodal Letter of the bishops, written at the time of
his condemnation 7 ; which, being circulated through
the Church, might fairly be trusted, even though the
high names of Gregory of Neocaesarea anc^ Firmilian
were not found in the number of his judges. He is
therein charged with a rapacity, an arrogance, a vulgar
ostentation and desire of popularity, an extraordinary
profaneness, and a profligacy, which cannot but reflect
seriously upon the Church and clergy which elected,
and so long endured him. As to his heresy, it is
difficult to determine what were his precise sentiments
concerning the Person of Christ, though they were
certainly derogatory of the doctrine of His absolute
divinity and eternal existence. Indeed, it is probable
that he had not any clear view on the solemn subject
on which he allowed himself to speculate ; nor had
any wish to make proselytes, and form a party in the
6 He was raised to the episcopate at the commencement of Odenatus’s
successes against Sapor (Tillemont, Mem. vol. iv. Chronol.). In the
years which followed, he held a civil magistracy with his ecclesiastical
dignity; in the temporalities of which, moreover, he was upheld by
Zenobia, some years after his formal deposition by the neighbouring
bishops. (Basnag. Annal. a.d. 269, § 6.)
7 Euseb. Hist. vii. 30.
5
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch .
Church 8 . Ancient writers inform us that his heresy
was a kind of Judaism in doctrine, adopted to please
his Jewish patroness 9 ; and, if originating in this
motive, it was not likely to< be very systematic or pro-
found. His habits, too, as a sophist, would dispose
him to employ himself in attacks upon the Catholic
doctrine, and in irregular discussion, rather than in the
sincere effort to obtain some definite conclusions, to
satisfy his own mind or convince others. And the
supercilious spirit, which the Synodal letter describes
as leading him to express contempt for the divines
who preceded him at Antioch, would naturally occa-
sion incaution in his theories, and a carelessness about
guarding them from inconsistencies, even where he
perceived them. Indeed, the Primate of Syria had
already obtained the highest post to which ambition
could aspire, and had nothing to labour for ; and
having, as we find, additional engagements as a civil
magistrate, he would still less be likely to covet the
barren honours of an heresiarch. A sect, it is true,
was formed upon his tenets, and called after his name,
and has a place in ecclesiastical history till the middle
of the fifth century ; but it never was a considerable
body, and even as early as the date of the Nicene
Council had split into parties, differing by various
shades of heresy from the orthodox faith 1 . We shall
have a more correct notion, then, of the heresy of
8 Mosbeim, de Reb. ante Const. § 35, n. 1. [For the opinions of
Paulus. vide Athan, Tr. p, 175.]
9 Athan. Epist. ad Monachos, § 71. Theod. Haer* ii. 8. Chrysost. in
Joann. Horn. 7, but Philastr. Haer. § 64, says that Paulus docuit Zeno-
biam judaizare.
1 Tillemont, Mem. vol. iv. p. 1 26. Athan. in Arianos, iv. 30.
6
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
Paulus, if we consider him as the founder of a school
rather than of a sect, as encouraging in the Church the
use of those disputations and sceptical inquiries, which
belonged to the Academy and other heathen philoso-
phies, and as scattering up and down the seeds of
errors, which sprang up and bore fruit in the genera-
tion after him. In confirmation of this view, which is
suggested by his original vocation, by the temporal
motives which are said to have influenced him, and by
his inconsistencies, it may be observed, that his inti-
mate friend and fellow-countryman, Lucian, who
schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposi-
tion, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite
nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi-
Arian, Paulus himself advocating a doctrine which
nearly resembled what is commonly called the Sa-
bellian.
More shall be said concerning Paulus of Samosata
presently ; but now let us advance to the history of
;his Lucian, a man of learning 2 , and at length a
martyr, but who may almost be considered the author
of Arianism. It is very common, though evidently
illogical, to attribute the actual rise of one school of
opinion to another, from some real or supposed simi-
larity in their respective tenets. It is thus, for
instance, Platonism, or again, Origenism, has been
assigned as the actual source from which Arianism
was derived. Now, Lucian’s doctrine is known to
have been precisely the same as that species of Ari-
2 He was distinguished in biblical literature, as being the author of a
third edition of the Septuagint. Vide Tillemont, Mem. vol. v. p. 202,
203. Du Pin, cent. iii.
7
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch.
anism afterwards called Semi-Arianism 3 ; but it is not
on that account that I here trace the rise of Arianism
to Lucian. There is an historical, and not merely a
doctrinal connexion between him and the Arian party.
In his school are found, in matter of fact, the names
of most of the original advocates of Arianism, and all
those who were the most influential in their respective
Churches throughout the East : — Arius himself, Euse-
bius of Nicomedia, Leontius, Eudoxius, Asterius, and
others, who will be familiar to us in the sequel ; and
these men actually appealed to him as their authority,
and adopted from him the party designation of Collu-
cianists 4 5 . In spite of this undoubted connexion
between Lucian and the Arians, we might be tempted
to believe, that the assertions of the latter concerning
his heterodoxy, originated in their wish to implicate
a man of high character in the censures which the
Church directed against themselves, were it not unde-
niable, that during the times of the three bishops who
successively followed Paulus, Lucian was under ex-
communication. The Catholics too, are silent in his
vindication, and some of them actually admit his
unsoundness in faith 3 . However, ten or fifteen years
before his martyrdom, he was reconciled to the
3 Bull, Baronius, and others, maintain his orthodoxy. The Semi-
Arians adopted his creed, which is extant. Though a friend, as it
appears, of Paulus, he opposed the Sabellians (by one of whom he was
at length betrayed to the heathen persecutors of the Church), and this
opposition would lead him to incautious statements of an Arian tendency.
Vide below, Section v. Epiphanius (Ancor. 33) tells us, that he con-
sidered the Word in the Person of Christ as the substitute for a human
soul.
4 Theod. Hist. i. 5. Epiph. Hser. lxix. 6. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. i.
p. 201.
5 Theod. Hist. i. 4.
8
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
Church ; and we may suppose that he then recanted
whatever was heretical in his creed : and his glorious
end was allowed to wipe out from the recollection of
Catholics of succeeding times those passages of his
history, which nevertheless were so miserable in their
results in the age succeeding his own. Chrysostom’s
panegyric on the festival of his martyrdom is still
extant, Ruffinus mentions him in honourable terms,
and Jerome praises his industry, erudition, and elo-
quence in writing 6 .
Such is the historical connexion at the very first
sight between the Arian party and the school of An-
tioch 7 : corroborative evidence will hereafter appear,
in the similarity of character which exists between the
two bodies. At present, let it be taken as a confir-
mation of a fact, which Lucian’s history directly
proves, that Eusebius the historian, who is suspected
of Arianism, and his friend Paulinus of Tyre, one of
its first and principal supporters, though not pupils of
Lucian, were more or less educated, and the latter
ordained at Antioch 8 ; while in addition to the Arian
bishops at Nicaea already mentioned, Theodotus of
Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, Narcissus of Neronias,
and two others, who were all supporters of Arianism
at the Council, were all situated within the ecclesias-
tical influence, and some of them in the vicinity of
Antioch 9 ; so that (besides Arius himself), of thirteen,
who according to Theodoret, arianized at the Council,
nine are referable to the Syrian patriarchate. If we
continue the history of the controversy, we have fresh
6 Vide Tillemont, Mem. vol. v. 7 [Vide Appendix, Syrian School.']
8 Vales, de Vit. Euseb. et ad Hist. x. i.
9 Tillemont, Mem. vol. vi. p. 276.
9
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch.
evidence of the connexion between Antioch and Ari-
anism. During the interval between the Nicene
Council and the death of Constantius (a.D. 325 — 361),
Antioch is the metropolis of the heretical, as Alexan-
dria of the orthodox party. At Antioch, the heresy
recommenced its attack upon the Church after the
decision at Nicaea. In a Council held at Antioch, it
first showed itself in the shape of Semi-Arianism,
when Lucian’s creed was produced. There, too, in
this and subsequent Councils, negotiations on the doc-
trine in dispute were conducted with the Western
Church. At Antioch, lastly, and at Tyre, a suffragan
see, the sentence of condemnation was pronounced
upon Athanasius.
2.
Hitherto I have spoken of individuals as the authors
of the apostasy which is to engage our attention in the
following chapters ; but there is reason to fear that
men like Paulus were but symptoms of a corrupted
state of the Church. The history of the times gives
us sufficient evidence of the luxuriousness of Antioch ;
and it need scarcely be said, that coldness in faith is
the sure consequence of relaxation of morals 1 . Here,
however, passing by this consideration, which is too
obvious to require dwelling upon, I would rather direct
the reader’s attention to the particular form which the
Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz.,
that of Judaism 2 ; which at that time, it must be
1 [Vide a remarkable passage in Origen, on the pomp of the Bishops
of his day, quoted by Neander, Hist. vol. ii. p. 330, Bohn.]
2 [Lengerke, de Ephraem. Syr. p, 64. traces the literal interpretation,
which was the characteristic of the school of Antioch, to the example of
the Jews.]
io The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
recollected, was the creed of an existing nation,
acting upon the Church, and not merely, as at this
day, a system of opinions more or less discoverable
among professing Christians.
The fortunes of the Jewish people had experienced
a favourable change since the reign of Hadrian. The
violence of Roman *persecution had been directed
against the Christian Church ; while the Jews,
gradually recovering their strength, and obtaining
permission to settle and make proselytes to their
creed, at length became an influential political body
in the neighbourhood of their ancient home, especially
in the Syrian provinces which were at that time the
chief residence of the court. Severus (A.D. 194) is
said to have been the first to extend to them the
imperial favour, though he afterwards withdrew it.
Heliogabalus, and Alexander, natives of Syria, gave
them new privileges ; and the latter went so far as to
place the image of Abraham in his private chapel,
among the objects of his ordinary worship. Philip
the Arabian continued towards them a countenance,
which was converted into an open patronage in the
reign of Zenobia. During the Decian persecution,
they had been sufficiently secure at Carthage, to
venture to take part in the popular ridicule which the
Christians excited ; and they are even said to have
stimulated Valerian to his cruelties towards the
Church 3 .
But this direct hostility was not the only, nor the
most formidable means of harassing their religious
enemies, which their improving fortunes opened upon
them. With their advancement in wealth and im-
3 Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. 12. Tillemont, Hist, des Emper. iii. iv.
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch. n
portance, their national character displayed itself
under a new exterior. The moroseness for which
they were previously notorious, in great measure dis-
appears with their dislodgment from the soil of their
ancestors ; and on their re-appearance as settlers in a
strange land, those festive, self-indulgent habits,
which, in earlier times, had but drawn on them the
animadversion of their Prophets, became their dis-
tinguishing mark in the eyes of external observers 4 5 .
Manifesting a rancorous malevolence towards the
zealous champions of the Church, they courted the
Christian populace by arts adapted to captivate and
corrupt the unstable and worldly-minded. Their pre-
tensions to magical power gained them credit with the
superstitious, to whom they sold amulets for the cure
of diseases ; their noisy spectacles attracted the
curiosity of the idle, who weakened their faith, while
they disgraced their profession, by attending the
worship of the Synagogue. Accordingly there was
formed around the Church a mixed multitude, who,
without relinquishing their dependence on Christi-
anity for the next world, sought in Judaism the
promise of temporal blessings, and a more accommo-
dating rule of life than the gospel revealed. Chrysos-
tom found this evil so urgent at Antioch in his day, as
to interrupt his course of homilies on the heresy of the
Anomoeans, in order to direct his preaching against
the seductions to which his hearers were then exposed,
by the return of the Jewish festivals^. In another
4 Vide Gibbon, Hist. ch. xvi. note 6. Chrysost. in Judseos, i. p. 386 —
388, &c.
5 Chrysost. in Judseos, i. p. 389, &c. [Jerome speaks of a law of
Valens : — “ ne quis vitulorum carnibus ve9ceretur, utilitati agriculturae
providens, et pessimam judaizantis vulgi emendans consuetudinem. ,,
Adv. Jovinian. ii. 7.]
12
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
part of the empire, the Council of Illiberis found it
necessary to forbid a superstitious custom, which had
been introduced among the country people, of having
recourse to the Jews for a blessing on their fields.
Afterwards, Constantine made a law against the inter-
marriage of Jews and Christians; and Constantius
confiscated the goods of Christians who lapsed to
Judaism 6 7 . These successive enactments may be
taken as evidence of the view entertained by the
Church of her own danger, from the artifices of the
Jews. Lastly, the attempt to rebuild the temple in
Julian’s reign, was but the renewal of a project on
their part, which Constantine had already frustrated,
for reinstating their religion in its ancient ritual and
country?.
Such was the position of the Jews towards the
primitive Church, especially in the patriarchate of
Antioch ; which, I have said, was their principal place
of settlement, and was at one time under the civil
government of a Judaizing princess, the most illus-
trious personage of her times, who possessed influence
enough over the Christian body to seduce the Metro-
politan himself from the orthodox faith.
3 -
But the evidence of the existence of Judaism, as a
system, in the portion of Christendom in question, is
6 Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 6. Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. 14.
7 Chrysost, in Judaeos, iii. p. 435. [Vide Chrysost. in Matth.H0m.43,
where he says that in Julian’s time, “they ranged themselves with the
heathen and courted their party.” He proceeds to say that “ in all their
other evil works they surpass their predecessors, in sorceries, magic arts,
impurities.” Oxford Transl.]
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch. 13
contained in a circumstance which deserves our par-
ticular attention ; the adoption, in those parts, of the
quarto-deciman rule of observing Easter, when it was
on the point of being discontinued in the Churches of
Proconsular Asia, where it had first prevailed.
It is well known that at the close of the second
century, a controversy arose between Victor, Bishop
of Rome, and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, con-
cerning the proper time for celebrating the Easter*
feast, or rather for terminating the ante-paschal fast.
At that time the whole of Christendom, with the
exception of Proconsular Asia (a district of about
two hundred miles by fifty), and its immediate neigh-
bourhood 8 , continued the fast on to the Sunday after
the Jewish Passover, which they kept as Easter Day
as we do now, in order that the weekly and yearly
commemorations of the Resurrection might coincide.
But the Christians of the Proconsulate, guided by
Jewish custom, ended the fast on the very day of
the paschal sacrifice, without regarding the actual
place held in the week by the feast, which imme-
diately followed ; and were accordingly called Quarto-
decimans 9 . Victor felt the inconvenience of this
want of uniformity in the celebration of the chief
Christian festival ; and was urgent, even far beyond
the bounds of charity, and the rights of his see, in his
endeavour to obtain the compliance of the Asiatics.
Polycrates, who was primate of the Quarto-deciman
Churches, defended their peculiar custom by a state-
ment which is plain and unexceptionable. They had
received their rule, he said, from St. John and St.
8 Euseb. Hist. v. 23 — 25, and Vales, ad loc.
9 Exod. xii. 6. Vide Tillemont, Mem. vol. iii. p. 629, &c.
14 The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
Philip the Apostles, Polycarp of Smyrna, Melito of
Sardis, and others ; and deemed it incumbent on
them to transmit as they had received. There was
nothing Judaistic in this conduct; for, though the
Apostles intended the Jewish discipline to cease with
those converts who were born under it, yet it was by
no means clear, that its calendar came under the
proscription of its rites. On the other hand, it was
natural that the Asian Churches should be affection-
ately attached to a custom which their first founders,
and they inspired teachers, had sanctioned.
But the case was very different, when Churches,
which had for centuries observed the Gentile rule,
adopted a custom which at the time had only exis-
tence among the Jews. The Quarto-decimans of the
Proconsulate had come to an end by A.D. 276 ; and,
up to that date, the Antiochene provinces kept their
Easter feast in conformity with the Catholic usage 1 ;
yet, at the time of the Nicene Council (fifty years
afterwards), we find the Antiochenes the especial and
solitary champions of the Jewish rule 2 . We can
scarcely doubt that they adopted it in imitation of the
Jews who were settled among them, who are known
to have influenced them, and who about that very
date, be it observed, had a patroness in Zenobia, and,
what was stranger, had almost a convert in the person
of the Christian Primate. There is evidence, more-
over, of the actual growth of the custom in the
Patriarchate at the end of the third century ; which
1 Tillemont, Mem. vol. iii. p. 48, who conjectures that Anatolius of
Laodicea was the author of the change. But changes require predispos-
ing causes.
2 Athan. ad Afros, § 2.
*5
sect. I.] The Church of Antioch.
well agrees with the hypothesis of its being an inno-
vation, and not founded on ancient usage. And again
(as was natural, supposing the change to begin at
Antioch); at the date of the Nicene Council, it was
established only in the Syrian Churches, and was but
making its way with incomplete success in the ex-
tremities of the Patriarchate. In Mesopotamia,
Audius began his schism with the characteristic of
the Ouarto-deciman rule, just at the date of the
Council 3 ; and about the same time, Cilicia was con-
tested between the two parties, as I gather from the
conflicting statements of Constantine and Athanasius,
that it did, and that it did not, conform to the Gentile
custom 4 5 . By the same time, the controversy had
reached Egyptalso. Epiphanius refers to a celebrated,
contest, now totally unknown, between one Crescentius
and Alexander, the first defender of the Catholic faith
against Arianism 3 .
It is true that there was a third Quarto-deciman
school, lying geographically between the Proconsulate
and Antioch, which at first sight might seem to have
been the medium by which the Jewish custom was
conveyed on from the former to the latter ; but there
is no evidence of its existence till the end of the fourth
century. In order to complete my account of the
Quarto-decimans, and show more fully their relation
to the Judaizers, I will here make mention of it;
though, in doing so, I must somewhat digress from
the main subject under consideration.
3 Epiph. Haer. lxx. § i.
4 Athan. ad Afros, supra. Socr. Hist. i. 9, where, by the bye, the
Proconsulate is spoken of as conforming to the general usage ; so as
clearly to distinguish between the two Quarto-deciman schools.
5 Epiph. ibid. § 9.
1 6 The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
The portion of Asia Minor, lying between the Pro-
consulate and the river Halys, may be regarded, in
the Ante-Nicene times, as one country, comprising
the provinces of Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and
Paphlagonia, afterwards included within the Exarchate
of Caesarea ; and was then marked by a religious
character of a peculiar cast. Socrates, speaking of
this district, informs us, that its inhabitants were dis-
tinguished above other nations by a strictness and
seriousness of manners, having neither the ferocity of
the Scythians and Thracians, nor the frivolity and
sensuality of the Orientals 6 . The excellent qualities,
however, implied in this description, were tarnished
by the love of singularity, the spirit of insubordination
and separatism, and the gloomy spiritual pride which
their history evidences. St. Paul’s Epistle furnishes us
with the first specimen of this unchristian temper, as
evinced in the conduct of the Galatians 7 , who, dis-
satisfied with the exact evangelical doctrine, aspired
to some higher and more availing system than the
Apostle preached to them. What the Galatians were
in the first century, Montanus and Novatian became
in the second and third ; both authors of a harsh and
arrogant discipline, both natives of the country in
question 8 , and both meeting with special success in
that country, although the schism of the latter was
organized at Rome, of which Church he was a pres-
byter. It was, moreover, the peculiarity, more or less,
of both Montanists and Novatians in those parts, to
differ from the general Church as to the time of
6 Socrat. Hist. iv. 28, cf, Epiph. Haer. xlviii. 14 [and xlvii. 1].
7 [Jerome calls the Galatians “ ad intelligentiam tardiores, vecordes,’*
and speaks of their “ stoliditas barbara,” in Galat. lib, ii. praef.]
8 Vales, ad loc. Socr. [Philostorg. viii. 15.]
i7
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch.
observing Easter 9 ; whereas, neither in Africa nor in
Rome did the two sects dissent from the received
rule 1 . What was the principle or origin of this
irregularity, does not clearly appear ; unless we may
consider as characteristic, what seems to be the fact,
that when their neighbours of the Proconsulate were
Quarto-decimans, they (in the words of Socrates)
‘‘shrank from feasting on the Jewish festival 2 ,” and
after the others had conformed to the Gentile rule,
they, on the contrary, openly judaized 3 This change
in their practice, which took place at the end of the
fourth century, was mainly effected by a Jew, of the
name of Sabbatius, who becoming a convert to Chris-
tianity, rose to the episcopate in theNovatian Church.
Sozomen, in giving an account of the transaction,
observes that it was a national custom with the
Galatians and Phrygians to judaize in their observance
of Easter. Coupling this remark with Eusebius’s
mention of Churches in the neighbourhood of the
Proconsulate, as included among the Quarto-decimans
whom Victor condemned 4 , we may suspect that the
perverse spirit which St. Paul reproves in his Epistle,
and which we have been tracing in its Montanistic
and Novatian varieties, still lurked in those parts in
its original judaizing form, till after a course of years
it was accidentally brought out by circumstances
upon the public scene of ecclesiastical history. If
further evidence of the connexion of the Quarto-
9 Socrat. Hist. v. 22. Sozom. Hist. vii. 18.
1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14. Vales, ad Sozom. vii. 18. Socrat. Hist. v. 21.
2 Valesius ad. loc. applies this differently.
3 Socrat. Hist. v. 21.
4 Eusb. Hist, ut supra.
C
1 8 The Church of Antioch, [chap. i.
deciman usage with Judaism be required, I may refer
to Constantine’s Nicene Edict, which forbids it, among
other reasons, on the ground of its being Jewish^.
4 -
The evidence, which has been adduced for the exis-
tence of Judaism in the Church of Antioch, is not
without its bearing upon the history of the rise of
Arianism. I will not say that the Arian doctrine is
the direct result of a judaizing practice ; but it
deserves consideration whether a tendency to dero-
gate from the honour due to Christ, was not created
by an observance of the Jewish rites, and much more,
by that carnal, self-indulgent religion, which seems at
that time to have prevailed in the rejected nation.
When the spirit and morals of a people are materially
debased, varieties of doctrinal error spring up, as if
self-sown, and are rapidly propagated. While J udaism
inculcated a superstitious, or even idolatrous depen-
dence on the mere casualties of daily life, and gave
license to the grosser tastes of human nature, it
necessarily indisposed the mind for the severe and
unexciting mysteries, the large indefinite promises,
and the remote sanctions, of the Catholic faith; which
fell as cold and uninviting on the depraved imagina-
tion, as the doctrines of the Divine Unity and of
implicit trust in the unseen God, on the minds of the
early Israelites. Those who were not constrained
by the message of mercy, had time attentively to
consider the intellectual difficulties which were the
medium of its communication, and heard but “ a hard
saying” in what was sent from heaven as “ tidings of
6 Theod. Hist, i, io.
sect, i.] The Church of Antioch. 19
great joy.” “ The mind,” says Hooker, “ feeling
present joy, is always marvellously unwilling to admit
any other cogitation, and in that case, casteth off
those disputes whereunto the intellectual part at other
times easily draweth. „ . The people that are said in
the sixth of John to have gone after our Lord to
Capernaum . . leaving Him on the one side of the
sea of Tiberias, and finding Him again as soon as
they themselves by ship were arrived on the contrary
side . . as they wondered, so they asked also, ‘ Rabbi,
when earnest Thou hither ? ’ The Disciples, when
Christ appeared to them in a far more strange and
miraculous manner, moved no question, but rejoiced
greatly in what they saw . . The one, because they
enjoyed not, disputed; the other disputed not, because
they enjoyed 6 .”
It is also a question, whether the mere performance
of the rites of the Law, of which Christ came as anti-
type and repealer, has not a tendency to withdraw the
mind from the contemplation of the more glorious and
real images of the Gospel ; so that the Christians of
Antioch would diminish their reverence towards the
true Saviour of man, in proportion as they trusted to
the media of worship provided for a time by the
Mosaic ritual. It is this consideration which ac-
counts for the energy with which the great Apostle
combats the adoption of the Jewish ordinances by
the Christians of Galatia, and which might seem
excessive, till vindicated by events subsequent to his
own day 7 . In the Epistle addressed to them, the
6 Eccles. Pol. v. 67.
7 [Eusebius says, that St. Paul detected humanitarianism in the
Galatian Judaism. Contr. Marcell. i. i, p. 7.]
C 2
20
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
Judaizers are described as men labouring under an
irrational fascination, fallen from grace, and self-
excluded from the Christian privileges 8 ; when in
appearance they were but using, what on the one
hand might be called mere external forms, and on
the other, had actually been delivered to the Jews on
Divine authority. Some light is thrown upon the
subject by the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which it is
implied throughout, that the Jewish rites, after their
Antitype was come, did but conceal from the eye of
faith His divinity, sovereignty, and all-sufficiency. If
we turn to the history of the Church, we seem to see
the evils in actual existence, which the Apostle antici-
pated in prophecy; that is, we see, that in the obsolete
furniture of the Jewish ceremonial, there was in fact
retained the pestilence of Jewish unbelief, tending
(whether directly or not, at least eventually) to intro-
duce fundamental error respecting the Person of Christ.
Before the end of the first century, this result is
disclosed in the system of the Cerinthians and the
Ebionites. These sects, though more or less infected
with Gnosticism, were of Jewish origin, and observed
the Mosaic Law ; and whatever might be the minute
peculiarities of their doctrinal views, they also agreed
in entertaining Jewish rather than Gnostic conceptions
of the Person of Christ 9 . Ebion, especially, is charac-
terised by his Humanitarian creed; while on the other
hand, his Judaism was so notorious, that Tertullian
does not scruple to describe him as virtually the object
of the Apostle’s censure in his Epistle to the Gala-
tians 1 .
8 Socrat. Hist. v. 22.
9 Burton, Bamp. Lect, notes 74. 82.
1 Tertull.de Prescript. Heeret. c. 33, p. 243.
21
sect, i.^j The Church of Antioch .
The Nazarenes are next to be noticed not for the
influence they exercised on the belief of Christians,
but as evidencing - , with the sects just mentioned, the
latent connection between a judaizing discipline and
heresy in doctrine. Who they were, and what their
tenets, has been a subject of much controversy. It is
sufficient for my purpose — and so far is undoubted —
that they were at the same time “zealous of the Law”
and unsound in their theology 2 ; and this without
being related to the Gnostic families : a circumstance
which establishes them as a more cogent evidence
of the real connexion of ritual with doctrinal Judaism
than is furnished by the mixed theologies of Ebion
and Cerinthus 3 . It is worth observing that their
declension from orthodoxy appears to have been
gradual; Epiphanius is the first writer who includes
them by name in the number of heretical sects 4 .
2 Burton, Bampt. Lect., note 84.
3 For the curious in ecclesiastical antiquity, Mosheim has elicited the
following account of their name and sect (Mosheim de Reb. Christ, ante
Constant. Ssecul. ii. § 38, 39). The title of Nazarene he considers to
have originally belonged to the body of Jewish converts, taken by them
with a reference to Matt. ii. 23, while the Gentiles at Antioch assumed the
Greek appellation of Christians. As the Mosaic ordinances gradually fell
into disuse among the former, in process of time it became the peculiar
designation of the Church of Jerusalem ; and that Church in turn throw-
ing off its Jewish exterior in the reign of Hadrian, on being unfairly
subjected to the disabilities then laid upon the rebel nation, it finally
settled upon the scanty remnant, who considered their ancient ceremonial
to be an essential part of their present profession. These Judaizers, from
an over-attachment to the forms, proceeded in course of time, to imbibe
the spirit of the degenerate system ; and ended in doctrinal views not far
short of modern Socinianism.
4 Burton, Bampt. Lect., note 84. Considering the Judaism of the
Quarto-decimans after Victor’s age, is it impossible that he may have
suspected that the old leaven was infecting the Churches of Asia ? This
22
The Church of Antioch. [chap. i.
5 -
Such are the instances of the connexion between
Judaism and theological error, previously to the age of
Paulus, who still more strikingly exemplifies it. First,
we are in possession of his doctrinal opinions, which
are grossly humanitarian ; next we find, that in early
times they were acknowledged to be of Jewish origin ;
further, that his ceremonial Judaism also was so
notorious that one author even affirms that he
observed the rite of circumcision^ : and lastly, just
after his day we discover the rise of a Jewish usage,
the Quarto-deciman, in the provinces of Christendom,
immediately subjected to his influence.
It may be added that this view of the bearing of
Judaism upon the sceptical school afterwards called
Arian is countenanced by frequent passages in the
writings of the contemporary Fathers, on which no
stress, perhaps, could fairly be laid, were not their
will explain and partly excuse his earnestness in the controversy with
them. It must be recollected that he witnessed, in his own branch of the
Church, the rise of the first simply humanitarian school which Chris-
tianity had seen, that of Theodotus, Artemas, &c. (Euseb. Hist. v. 28),
the 'atter of whom is charged by Alexander with reviving the heresy of
the judaizing Ebion (Theod. Hist., i. 4) ; [while at the same time at
Rome Blastus was introducing the Quarto-deciman rule]. Again, Theo-
dotus, Montanus, and Praxeas, whose respective heresies he was engaged
in combating, all belonged to the neighbourhood of the Proconsulate,
where there seems to have been a school, from which Praxeas derived his
heresy (Theod. Haer. iii. 3) ; while Montanism, as its after history shows,
contained in it the seeds, both of the Quarto-deciman and Sabellian errors
(Tillemont, Mem. vol. ii. p. 199.205. Athan. in Arian. ii. 43). It may
be added that the younger Theodotus is suspected of Montanism (Tille-
mont. Mem. vol. iii. p. 277).
5 Philastr. Haer. § 64. [Epiphanius denies that the Paulianists circum-
cised. Haer. lxv. 2. It is remarkable that the Arian Whiston looked favour-
ably on the rite. Biograph. Brit. p. 4213.]
sect. i.J The Church of Antioch. 23
meaning interpreted by the above historical facts 6 .
Moreover, in the popular risings which took place in
Antioch and Alexandria in favour of Arianism, the
Jews sided with the heretical party 7 ; evincing thereby,
not indeed any definite interest in the subject of
dispute, but a sort of spontaneous feeling, that the
side of heresy was their natural position ; and further,
that its spirit, "and the character which it created,,
were congenial to their own. Or, again, if we con-
sider the subject from a different point of view, and
omitting dates and schools, take a general survey of
Christendom during the first centuries, we shall find
it divided into the same two parties, both on the Arian
and the Quarto-deciman questions ; Rome and Alex-
andria with their dependencies being the champions of
the Catholic tradition in either controversy, and
Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, being the strong-
holds of the opposition. And these are the two
questions which occasioned the deliberations of the
Nicene Fathers.
However, it is of far less consequence, as it is less
certain, whether Arianism be of Jewish origin, than
whether it arose at Antioch : which is the point prin-
cipally insisted on in the foregoing pages. For in
proportion as it is traced to Antioch, so is the charge
of originating it removed from the great Alexandrian
School, upon which various enemies of our Apostolical
Church have been eager to fasten it. In corroboration
of what has been said above on this subject, I here add
the words of Alexander, in his letter to the Church of
6 Athan. de Decret. 2. 27; Sentent. Dionys. 3, 4; ad Episc. zEg. 13; de
fug, 2 ; in Arian. iii. 27, and passim. Chrysost. Horn, in Anomceos and
in Judaeos. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Epiphan. Haer. lxix. 79.
7 Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. 41.
24
The Church of Antioch . [chap, l
Constantinople, at the beginning of the controversy ;
which are of themselves decisive in evidence of the
part, which Antioch had, in giving rise to the detest-
able blasphemy which he was combating.
“Ye are not ignorant,” he writes to the Constanti-
nopolitan Church concerning Arianism, “ that this
rebellious doctrine belongs to Ebion and Artemas,
and is in imitation of Paulus of Samosata, Bishop
of Antioch, who was excommunicated by the sentence
of the Bishops assembled in Council from all quarters.
Paulus was succeeded by Lucian, who remained in
separation for many years during the time of three
bishops. . . . Our present heretics have drunk up the
dregs of the impiety of these men, and are their
secret offspring ; Arius and Achillas, and their party
of evil-doers, incited as they are to greater excesses
by three Syrian prelates, who agree with them . . .
Accordingly, they have been expelled from the
Church, as enemies of the pious Catholic teaching ;
according to St. Paul’s sentence, ‘ If any man preach
any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be anathema 8 / ”
8 Theod. Hist, i.4, [Simeon, Bishop of Beth-Arsam, in Persia, a.d.
510 — 525, traces the genealogy of Paulianism and Nestorianism from
Judaism thus : — Caiaphas to Simon Magus ; Simon to Ebion ; Ebion to
Artemon ; Artemon to Paul of Somosata ; Paul to Diodorus ; Diodorus to
Theodore ; Theodore to Nestorius. Asseman. Bibl. Orient, t. i. p. 347.]
SECTION II.
THE SCHOOLS OF THE SOPHISTS.
As Antioch was the birth-place, so were the Schools
of the Sophists the place of education of the heretical
spirit which we are considering. In this section, I
propose to show its disputatious character, and to
refer it to these Schools as the source of it.
The vigour of the first movement of the heresy, and
the rapid extension of the controversy which it intro-
duced, are among the more remarkable circumstances
connected with its history. In the course of six years
it called for the interposition of a General Council ;
though of three hundred and eighteen bishops there
assembled, only twenty-two, on the largest calculation
and, as it really appears, only thirteen, were after all
found to be its supporters. Though thus condemned
by the whole Christian world, in a few years it broke
out again ; secured the patronage of the imperial
court, which had recently been converted to the
Christian faith ; made its way into the highest
dignities of the Church ; presided at her Councils,
and ^tyrannized over the majority of her member?
who were orthodox believers.
Now, doubtless, one chief cause of these successes is
found in the circumstance, that Lucian’s pupils were
26
The Schools of the Sophists . [chap, i .
brought together from so many different places, and
were promoted to posts of influence in so many parts
% of the Church. Thus Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis,
were bishops of the principal sees of Bithynia ; Meno-
phantes was exarch of Ephesus ; and Eudoxius was
one of the Bishops of Comagene. Other causes will
hereafter appear in the secular history of the day ; but
here I am to speak of their talent for disputation, to
which after all they were principally indebted for
their success.
It is obvious, that in every contest, the assailant, as
such, has the advantage of the party assailed ; and
that, not merely from the recommendation which
novelty gives to his cause in the eyes of bystanders,
but also from the greater facility in the nature of
things, of finding, than of solving objections, whatever
be the question in dispute. Accordingly, the skill of
a disputant mainly consists in securing an offensive
position, fastening on the weaker points of his adver-
sary’s case, and then not relaxing his hold till the
latter sinks under his impetuosity, without having the
opportunity to display the strength of his own cause,
and to bring it to bear upon his opponent ; or, to
make use of a familiar illustration, in causing a sudden
run upon his resources, which the circumstances of
time and place do not allow him to meet. This was
the artifice to which Arianism owed its first successes 1 .
It owed them to the circumstance of its being (in its
original form) a sceptical rather than a dogmatic
1 ava 7 rr)$S)cn yap a>s XvorcnjTrjpe s Kvves els e^Opwv apivvav.
Epiph. Haer lxix. 15. Vide the whole passage.
sect, ii.] The Schools of the Sophists .
27
teaching ; to its proposing to inquire into and reform
the received creed, rather than to hazard one of its
own. The heresies which preceded it, originating m
less subtle and dexterous talent, took up a false
position, professed a theory, and sunk under the obli-
gations which it involved. The monstrous dogmas of
the various Gnostic sects pass away from the scene of
history as fast as they enter it. Sabellianism, which
succeeded, also ventured on a creed ; and vacillating
between a similar wildness of doctrine, and a less
imposing ambiguity, soon vanished in its turn 2 . But
the Antiochene School, as represented by Paulus of
Samosata and Arius, took the ground of an assailant,
attacked the Catholic doctrine, and drew the attention
of men to its difficulties, without attempting to furnish
a theory of less perplexity or clearer evidence.
The arguments of Paulus (which it is not to our
purpose here to detail) seem fairly to have over-
powered the first of the Councils summoned against
him (a.D. 264), which dissolved without coming to a
decision 3 . A second, and (according to some writers)
a third, were successfully convoked, when at length
his subtleties were exposed and condemned ; not,
however, by the reasonings of the Fathers of the
Council themselves, but by the instrumentality of one
Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch, who, having been
by profession a Sophist, encountered his adversary
with his own arms 4 . Even in yielding, the arts of
2 Vide § 5, infra. [Gregory Naz. speaks of a yaXyjvrj after these
heresies, and before Arianism. Orat. xxv. 8.]
3 Euseb. Hist. vii. 28. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 1. p. 158.
4 [o'<j£)o8pa KaraTToXefxovvTaL oi TToXifjuoc , orav tois avrwr
IttXols xpa>/xe 0 a kclt ’ a vtCjv. Socr. iii. 16.]
28
The Schools of the Sophists . [chap. i.
Paulus secured from his judges an ill-advised conces-
sion, the abandonment of the celebrated word homoii-
fion ( consubstantial ), afterwards adopted as the test at
Nicaea ; which the orthodox had employed in the
controversy, and to which Paulus objected as open to
a misinterpretation^. Arius followed in the track
thus marked out by his predecessor. Turbulent by
character, he is known in history as an offender
against ecclesiastical order, before his agitation as-
sumed the shape which has made his name familiar to
posterity 5 6 . When he betook himself to the doctrinal
controversy, he chose for the first open avowal of his
heterodoxy the opportunity of an attack upon his
diocesan, who was discoursing on the mystery of the
Trinity to the clergy of Alexandria. Socrates, who is
far from being a partisan of the Catholics, informs us
that Arius being well skilled in dialectics sharply
replied to the bishop, accused him of Sabellianism,
and went on to argue that “if the Father begat the
Son, certain conclusions would follow/’ and so pro-
ceeded. His heresy, thus founded in a syllogism,
spread itself by instruments of a kindred character.
First, we read of the excitement which his reasonings
produced in Egypt and Lybia ; then of his letters
addressed to Eusebius and to Alexander, which display
a like pugnacious and almost satirical spirit ; and
then of his verses composed for the use of the populace
in ridicule of the orthodox doctrine 7 . But afterwards,
when the heresy was arraigned before the Nicene
5 Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. ii. i. § 9 — 14.
6 Epiph. Haer. lxix. 2.
7 Socr. i. 5, 6. Theod. Hist. i. 5. Epiphan. Haer. lxix. 7, 8. Philo-
storg. ii. 2. Athan. de Decret. 16.
29
sect, ii.] The Schools of the Sophists .
Council, and placed on the defensive, and later still,
when its successes reduced it to the necessity of occu-
pying the chairs of theology, it suffered the fate of the
other dogmatic heresies before it ; split, in spite of
court favour, into at least four different creeds, in less
than twenty years 8 ; and at length gave way to the
despised but indestructible truth which it had for a
time obscured.
Arianism had in fact a close connexion with the
existing Aristotelic school. This might have been
conjectured, even had there been no proof of the fact,
adapted as that philosopher’s logical system con-
fessedly is to baffle an adversary, or at most to detect
error, rather than to establish truth 9 . But we have
actually reason, in the circumstances of its history,
for considering it as the off-shoot of those schools of
inquiry and debate which acknowledged Aristotle as
their principal authority, and were conducted by
teachers who went by the name of Sophists. It was
in these schools that the leaders of the heretical body
were educated for the part assigned them in the
troubles of the Church. The oratory of Paulus of
Samosata is characterized by the distinguishing traits
of the scholastic eloquence in the descriptive letter of
the Council which condemned him ; in which, more-
over, he is stigmatized by the most disgraceful title to
which a Sophist was exposed by the degraded exercise
8 Petav. Dogm. Theol. t. ii. i. 9 and 10.
9 “ Omnem vim venenorum suorum in dialectica disputatione consti-
tuunt, quae philosophorum sententia definitur non adstruendi vim habere,
sed studium destruendi. Sed non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum
facere populum suum.” Ambros. de Fide, i. 5. [§ 42.]
3o The Schools of the Sophists . [chap. i.
of his profession 1 . The skill of Arius in the art of
disputation is well known. Asterius was a Sophist
by profession. Aetius came from the School of an
Aristotelian of Alexandria. Eunomius, his pupil,
who re-constructed the Arian doctrine on its original
basis, at the end of the reign of Constantius, is repre-
sented by Ruffinus as “ pre-eminent in dialectic
power 2 .” At a later period still, the like disputatious
spirit and spurious originality are indirectly ascribed
to the heterodox school, in the advice of Sisinnius to
Nectarius of Constantinople, when the Emperor
Theodosius required the latter to renew the contro-
versy with a view to its final settlement 3 . Well
versed in theological learning, and aware that adroit-
ness in debate was the very life and weapon of heresy,
Sisinnius proposed to the Patriarch, to drop the use of
dialectics, and merely challenge his opponents to utter
a general anathema against all such Ante-Nicene
Fathers as had taught what they themselves now
denounced as false doctrine. On the experiment
being tried, the heretics would neither consent to be
tried by the opinions of the ancients, nor yet dared
condemn those whom “all the people counted as
prophets.” “ Upon this,” say the historians who
record the story, “ the Emperor perceived that they
rested their cause on their dialectic skill, and not on
the testimony of the early Church 4 .”
Abundant evidence, were more required, could be
■'V
1 aocjno-Trj s kcll yorjs, a juggler. Vide Cressol. Theatr. Rhetor, i. 13.
iii. 17.
2 Petav. Theol. prolegom. iii. 3. Baltus, Defense des Peres, ii. 19.
Brucker. vol. iii. p. 288. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 1.
3 Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. Epilog. .
4 Socr. Hist. v. 10. Soz. Hist. vii. T2.
3 r
sect, ii.] The Schools of the Sophists .
added to the above, in proof of the connexion of the
Arians with the schools of heathen disputation. The
two Gregories, Basil, Ambrose, and Cyril, protest with
one voice against the dialectics of their opponents ;
and the sum of their declarations is briefly expressed
by a writer of the fourth century, who calls Aristotle
the Bishop of the Arians^
2 .
And while the science of argumentation provided
the means, their practice of disputing for the sake of
exercise or amusement supplied the temptation, of
assailing received opinions. This practice, which had
long prevailed in the Schools, was early introduced
into the Eastern Church 5 6 . It was there employed as
a means of preparing the Christian teacher for the
controversy with unbelievers. The discussion some-
times proceeded in the form of a lecture delivered by
the master of the school to his pupils ; sometimes in
that of an inquiry, to be submitted to the criticism
of his hearers ; sometimes by way of dialogue, in
which opposite sides were taken for argument-sake.
In some cases, it was taken down in notes by the
bystanders, at the time ; in others committed to
writing by the parties engaged in it 7 . Necessary
5 Petav. Dogm. Theol. supra. Brucker, vol. iii. pp. 324. 352, 353.
Epiph. Hser. lxix. 69. [Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. 2.]
6 The art was called ipicrTLKrj , and the actual discussion, yv/mvacria.
Cressol. Theatr. Rhet. ii. 3. [Vide also Athan. Tr. p. 44, e. Also a
remarkable instance in Ernesti from Origen, ap Lumper, t. 10, p. 148.
Contrasted with yv/mvacrriKOt Xoyoc were ayaiVLCTTiKOL, in earnest ,
according to Sextus Empiricus, vide Hypot. i. 33, p. 57, with Fabricius’s
note.]
7 Dodw. Diss. in Iren. v. 14. Socr. Hist. i. 5.
32
The Schools of the Sophists . [chap. i.
as these exercises would be for the purpose designed,
yet they were obviously open to abuse, though
moderated by ever so orthodox and strictly scriptural
a rule, in an age when no sufficient ecclesiastical
symbol existed, as a guide to the memory and judg-
ment of the eager disputant. It is evident, too, how
difficult it would be to secure opinions or arguments
from publicity, which were but hazarded in the
confidence of Christian friendship, and which, when
viewed apart from the circumstances of the case, lent
a seemingly deliberate sanction to heterodox novelties.
Athanasius implies 8 , that in the theological works of
Origen and Theognostus, while the orthodox faith
was explicitly maintained, nevertheless heretical tenets
were discussed, and in their place more or less de-
fended, by way of exercise in argument. The coun-
tenance thus accidentally given to the cause of error
is evidenced in his eagerness to give the explanation.
But far greater was the evil, when men destitute of
religious seriousness and earnestness engaged in the
like theological discussions, not with any definite
ecclesiastical object, but as a mere trial of skill, or as
a literary recreation ; regardless of the mischief thus
done to the simplicity of Christian morals, and the
evil encouragement given to fallacious reasonings and
sceptical views. The error of the ancient Sophists
had consisted in their indulging without restraint or
discrimination in the discussion of practical topics,
whether religious or political, instead of selecting
such as might exercise, without demoralizing, their
minds. The rhetoricians of Christian times intro-
8 Athan. de Decret. 25 and 27. [He says the same of Marcellus in
his defence, Apoi. contr. Ar. 47.]
33
sect. II.] The Schools of the Sophists .
duced the same error into their treatment of the
highest and most sacred subjects of theology. We
are told, that Julian commenced his opposition to the
true faith by defending the heathen side of religious
questions, in disputing with his brother Gallus 9 ; and
probably he would not have been able himself to
assign the point of time at which he ceased merely to
take a part, and became earnest in his unbelief. But
it is unnecessary to have recourse to particular
instances, in order to prove the consequences of a
practice so evidently destructive of a reverential and
sober spirit.
Moreover, in these theological discussions, the dis-
putants were in danger of being misled by the un-
soundness of the positions which they assumed, as
elementary truths or axioms in the argument. As
logic and rhetoric made them expert in proof and
refutation, so there was much in other sciences, which
formed a liberal education, in geometry and arith-
metic, to confine the mind to the contemplation of
material objects, as if these could supply suitable
tests and standards for examining those of a moral
and spiritual nature ; whereas there are truths foreign
to the province of the most exercised intellect, some
of them the peculiar discoveries of the improved moral
sense (or what Scripture terms “ the Spirit ”), and
others still less on a level with our reason, and
received on the sole authority of Revelation. Then,
however, as now; the minds of speculative men were
impatient of ignorance, and loth to confess that the
laws of .truth and falsehood, which their experience of
this world furnished, could not at once be applied to
9 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. iii. 27. 31. [iv. 30.]
- X>
34
The Schools of the Sophists, [chap. i.
measure and determine the facts of another. Accord-
ingly, nothing was left for those who would not
believe the incomprehensibility of the Divine Essence,
but to conceive of it by the analogy of sense ; and
using the figurative terms of theology in their literal
meaning as if landmarks in their inquiries, to suppose
that then, and then only, they steered in a safe course,
when they avoided every contradiction of a mathe-
matical and material nature. Hence, canons grounded
on physics were made the basis of discussions about
possibilities and impossibilities in a spiritual sub-
stance, as confidently and as fallaciously, as those
which in modern times have been derived from the
same false analogies against the existence of moral
self-action or free-will. Thus the argument by which
Paulus of Samosata baffled the Antiochene Council,
was drawn from a sophistical use of the very word
substance , which the orthodox had employed in ex-
pressing the scriptural notion of the unity subsisting
between the Father and the Son 1 . Such too was the
mode of reasoning adopted at Rome by the Artemas
or Artemon, already mentioned, and his followers, at
the end of the second century. A contemporary
writer, after saying that they supported their “ God-
denying apostasy ” by syllogistic forms of argument,
proceeds, “ Abandoning the inspired writings, they
devote themselves to geometry, as becomes those
who are of the earth, and speak of the earth, and
are ignorant of Him who is from above. Euclid’s
treatises, for instance, are zealously studied by
some of them ; Aristotle and Theophrastus are
objects of their admiration ; while Galen may be
1 Bull, Defens. F. N. ii. i. § io.
sect, ii.] The Schools of the Sophists .
35
said even to be adored by others. It is needless to
declare that such perverters of the sciences of un-
believers to the purposes of their own heresy, such
diluters of the simple Scripture faith with heathen
subtleties, have no claim whatever to be called be-
lievers . 2 ” And such is Epiphanius’s description of the
Anomoeans, the genuine offspring of the original
Arian stock. “ Aiming,” he says, “ to exhibit the
Divine Nature by means of Aristotelic syllogisms and
geometrical data, they are thence led on to declare
that Christ cannot be derived from God 3 .”
3 -
Lastly, the absence of an adequate symbol of doc-
trine increased the evils thus existing, by affording an
excuse and sometimes a reason for investigations, the
necessity of which had not yet been superseded by the
authority of an ecclesiastical decision. The tradition-
ary system, received from the first age of the Church,
had been as yet but partially set forth in authoritative
forms ; and by the time of the Nicene Council, the
voices of the Apostles were but faintly heard through-
out Christendom, and might be plausibly disregarded
by those who were unwilling to hear. Even at the
beginning of the third century, the disciples of
Artemas boldly pronounced their heresy to be apos-
tolical, and maintained that all the bishops of Rome
had held it till Victor inclusive 4 , whose episcopate
was but a few years before their own time. The
progress of unbelief naturally led them on to
disparage, rather than to appeal to their prede-
cessors ; and to trust their cause to their own
2 Euseb. Hist. v. 28. 3 Epiph. Haer. p. 809. 4 Euseb. ibid.
D 2
36 The Schools of the Sophists . [chap. i.
ingenuity, instead of defending an inconvenient fiction
concerning the opinions of a former age. It ended in
teaching them to regard the ecclesiastical authorities
of former times as on a level with the uneducated and
unenlightened of their own days. Paulus did not
scruple to express contempt for the received exposi-
tors of Scripture at Antioch ; and it is one of the first
accusations brought by Alexander against Arius and
his party, that “ they put themselves above the
ancients, and the teachers of our youth, and the
prelates of the day ; considering themselves alone
to be wise, and to have discovered truths, which had
never been revealed to man before them 5.”
On the other hand, while the line of tradition,
drawn out as it was to the distance of two centuries
from the Apostles, had at length become of too frail
a texture, to resist the touch of subtle and ill-directed
reason, the Church was naturally unwilling to have
recourse to the novel, though necessary measure, of
imposing an authoritative creed upon those whom it
invested with the office of teaching. If I avow my
belief, that freedom from symbols and articles is
abstractedly the highest state of Christian communion,
and the peculiar privilege of the primitive Church 6 ,
it is not from any tenderness towards that proud
impatience of control in which many exult, as in a
virtue : but first, because technicality and formalism
5 Theod. Hist. i. 4. [“ Solae in contemptu sunt divinae literae, quae nec
suam scholam nec magistros habeant, et de quibus peritissime disputare
se credat, qui nunquam didicit.’ 5 6 Facund. p. 581. ed. Sirm. ; vide also,
p- 565-3
6 [“Non eguistis litera, qui spiritu abundabatis, etc. Ubi sensus
conscientiae periclitatur, illic litera postulatur.” Hilar, de Syn. 63. Vide
the Benedictine note.]
37
sect, ii.] The Schools of the Sophists .
are, in their degree, inevitable results of public con-
fessions of faith ; and next, because when confessions
do not exist, the mysteries of divine truth, instead of
being exposed to the gaze of the profane and unin-
structed, are kept hidden in the bosom of the Church,
far more faithfully than is otherwise possible ; and
reserved by a private teaching, through the channel
of her ministers, as rewards in due measure and
season, for those who are prepared to profit by them ;
for those, that is, who are diligently passing through
the successive stages of faith and obedience. And
thus, while the Church is not committed to declara-
tions, which, most true as they are, still are daily
wrested by infidels to their ruin ; on the other hand,
much of that mischievous fanaticism is avoided, which
at present abounds from the vanity of men, who think
that they can explain the sublime doctrines and
exuberant promises of the Gospel, before they have
yet learned to know themselves and to discern the
holiness of God, under the preparatory discipline of
the Law and of Natural Religion. Influenced, as we
may suppose, by these various considerations, from
reverence for the free spirit of Christian faith, and
still more for the sacred truths which are the objects
of it, and again from tenderness both for the heathen
and the neophyte, who were unequal to the reception
of the strong meat of the full Gospel, the rulers of
the Church were dilatory in applying a remedy, which
nevertheless the circumstances of the times impera-
tively required. They were loth to confess, that the
Church had grown too old to enjoy the free, unsus-
picious teaching with which her childhood was blest ;
and that her disciples must, for the future, calculate
and reason before they spoke and acted. So much
38 The Schools of the Sophists . [chap. i.
was this the case, that in the Council of Antioch (as
has been said), on the objection of Paulus, they
actually withdrew a test which was eventually adopted
by the more experienced Fathers at Nicsea ; and
which, if then sanctioned, might, as far as the Church
was concerned, have extinguished the heretical spirit
in the very place of its birth. — Meanwhile, the adop-
tion of Christianity, as the religion of the empire,
augmented the evil consequences of this omission,
excommunication becoming more difficult, while
entrance into the Church was less restricted than
before.
SECTION HI.
THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA.
As the Church of Antioch was exposed to the
influence of Judaism, so was the Alexandrian Church
characterized in primitive times by its attachment to
that comprehensive philosophy, which was reduced to
system about the beginning of the third century, and
then went by the name of the New Platonic, or
Eclectic. A supposed resemblance between the
Arian and the Eclectic doctrine concerning the Holy
Trinity, has led to a common notion that the Alex-
andrian Fathers were the medium by which a philo-
sophical error was introduced into the Church ; and
this hypothetical cause of a disputable resemblance
has been apparently evidenced by the solitary fact,
which cannot be denied, that Arius himself was a
presbyter of Alexandria. We have already seen,
however, that Arius was educated at Antioch ; and
we shall see hereafter that, so far from being favour-
ably heard at Alexandria, he was, on the first promul-
gation of his heresy, expelled the Church in that city,
and obliged to' seek refuge among his Collucianists
of Syria. And it is manifestly the opinion of
Athanasius, that he was but the pupil or the tool
of deeper men 1 , probably of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
1 Athan. oc Deer. Nic. 8. 20; ad Monach. 66 ; de Synod. 22.
40 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
who in no sense belongs to Alexandria. But various
motives have led theological writers to implicate this
celebrated Church in the charge of heresy. Infidels
have felt a satisfaction, and heretics have had an
interest, in representing that the most learned Chris-
tian community did not submit implicitly to the
theology taught in Scripture and by the Church ; a
conclusion, which, even if substantiated, would little
disturb the enlightened defender of Christianity, who
may safely admit that learning, though a powerful
instrument of the truth in right hands, is no unerring
guide into it. The Romanists 2 , on the other hand,
have thought by the same line of policy to exalt the
Apostolical purity of their own Church, by the
contrast of unfaithfulness in its early rival ; and
(what is of greater importance) to insinuate both the
necessity of an infallible authority, by exaggerating
the errors and contrarieties of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, and the fact of its existence, by throwing us,
for exactness of doctrinal statement, upon the de-
cisions of the subsequent Councils. In the following
pages, I hope to clear the illustrious Church in ques-
tion of the grave imputation thus directed against her
from opposite quarters : the imputation of considering
the Son of God by nature inferior to the Father, that
is, of platonizing or arianizing. But I have no need
to profess myself her disciple, though, as regards the
doctrine in debate, I might well do so ; and, instead
of setting about any formal defence, I will merely
place before the reader the general principles of her
2 [As to the charges made against Petavius, vide Bull, Defens. N. F.
prooem. ; Budd. Isagog. p. 580; Bayle, Diet. (Petau.) ; Brucker, Phil. t.
«*• P- 345*]
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 41
teaching, and leave it to him to apply them, as far as
he judges they will go, in explanation of the language,
which has been the ground of the suspicions against
her.
I.
St. Mark, the founder of the Alexandrian Church,
may be numbered among the personal friends and
associates of that Apostle, who held it to be his
especial office to convert the heathen ; an office, which
was impressed upon the community formed by the
Evangelist, with a strength and permanence unknown
in the other primitive Churches. The Alexandrian
may peculiarly be called the Missionary and Polemical
Church of Antiquity. Situated in the centre of the
accessible world, and on the extremity of Christendom,
in a city which was at once the chief mart of com-
merce, and a celebrated seat of both Jewish and
Greek philosophy, it was supplied in especial abun-
dance, both with materials and instruments prompting
to the exercise of Christian zeal. Its catechetical
school, founded (it is said) by the Evangelist himself,
was a pattern to other Churches in its diligent and
systematic preparation of candidates for baptism ;
while other institutions were added of a controversial
character, for the purpose of carefully examining
into the doctrines revealed in Scripture, and of culti-
vating the habit of argument and disputation 3 . While
the internal affairs of the community were adminis-
tered by its bishops, on these academical bodies, as
subsidiary to the divinely-sanctioned system, devolved
the defence and propagation of the faith, under the
3 Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. i. p. 80.
42 The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
presidency of laymen or inferior ecclesiastics. Athen-
agoras, the first recorded master of the catechetical
school, is known by his defence of the Christians, still
extant, addressed to the Emperor Marcus. Pantsenus,
who succeeded him, was sent by Demetrius, at that
time bishop, as missionary to the Indians or Arabians.
Origen, who was soon after appointed catechist at the
early age of eighteen, had already given the earnest of
his future celebrity, by his persuasive disputations with
the unbelievers of Alexandria. Afterwards he ap-
peared in the character of a Christian apologist before
an Arabian prince, and Mammaea, the mother of
Alexander Severus, and addressed letters on the
subject of religion to the Emperor Philip and his wife
Severa ; and he was known far and wide in his day,
for his indefatigable zeal and ready services in the
confutation of heretics, for his various controversial
and critical writings, and for the number and dignity
of his converts 4 .
Proselytism, then, in all its branches, the apologetic,
the polemical, and the didactic, being the peculiar
function of the Alexandrian Church, it is manifest
that the writings of its theologians would partake
largely of an exoteric character. I mean, that such
men would write, not with the openness ot Christian
familiarity, but with the tenderness or the reserve with
which we are accustomed to address those who do not
sympathize with us, or whom we fear to mislead or to
prejudice against the truth, by precipitate disclosures
of its details. The example of the inspired writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews was their authority for
making a broad distinction between the doctrines
4 Philipp. Sidet. fragm. apud Dodw. in Iren. Huet. Origen.
sect, in.] The Church of Alexandria. 43
suitable to the state of the weak and ignorant, and
those which are the peculiar property of a baptized
and regenerate Christian. The Apostle in that
Epistle, when speaking of the most sacred Christian
verities, as hidden under the allegories of the Old
Testament, seems suddenly to check himself, from
the apprehension that he was* divulging mysteries
beyond the understanding of his brethren ; who,
instead of being masters in Scripture doctrine, were
not yet versed even in its elements, needed the
nourishment of children rather than of grown
men, nay, perchance, having quenched the illu-
mination of baptism, had forfeited the capacity of
comprehending even the first elements of the truth.
In the same place he enumerates these elements, or
foundation of Christian teaching^, in contrast with the
esoteric doctrines which the “ long-exercised habit of
moral discernment ” can alone appropriate and enjoy,
as follows ; — repentance, faith in God, the doctrinal
meaning of the right of baptism, confirmation as the
channel of miraculous gifts, the future resurrection,
and the final separation of good and bad. His first
Epistle to the Corinthians contains the same distinc-
tion between the carnal or imperfect and the estab-
lished Christian, which is laid down in that addressed
to the Hebrews. While maintaining that in Christi-
anity is contained a largeness of wisdom, or (to use
human language) a profound philosophy, fulfilling
those vague conceptions of greatness, which had led
the aspiring intellect of the heathen sages to shadow
forth their unreal systems, he at the same time insists
0 Hebr. v. n ; vi. 6. ra crTot^eia ttjs T ^ )V A,oytW rod Oeov.
6 rijs T0 ^ Xptcrroi) A,oyos.
44 The Church of Alexandria, ["chap. i.
upon the impossibility of man’s arriving at this hidden
treasure all at once, and warns his brethren, instead of
attempting to cross by a short path from the false to
the true knowledge, to humble themselves to the low
and narrow portal of the heavenly temple, and to
become fools, that they might at length be really wise.
As before, he speaks of the difference of doctrine
suited respectively to neophytes and confirmed Chris-
tians, under the analogy of the difference of food
proper for the old and young ; a difference which lies,
not in the arbitrary will of the dispenser, but in the
necessity of the case, the more sublime truths of
Revelation affording no nourishment to the souls of
the unbelieving or unstable.
Accordingly, in the system of the early catechetical
schools, the perfect , or men in Christ, were such as had
deliberately taken upon them the profession of be-
lievers ; had made the vows, and received the grace of
baptism ; and were admitted to all the privileges and
the revelations of which the Church had been consti-
tuted the dispenser. But before reception into this
full discipleship, a previous season of preparation,
from two to three years, was enjoined, in order to try
their obedience, and instruct them in the principles of
revealed truth. During this introductory discipline,
they were called Catechume7is , and the teaching itself
Catechetical \ from the careful and systematic exami-
nation by which their grounding in the faith was
effected. The matter of the instruction thus commu-
nicated to them, varied with the time of their disci-
pleship, advancing from the most simple principle of
Natural Religion to the peculiar doctrines of the
Gospel, from moral truths to the Christian mysteries.
On their first admission they were denominated hearers.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 45
from the leave granted them to attend the reading of
the Scriptures and sermons in the Church. After-
wards, being allowed to stay during the prayers, and
receiving the imposition of hands as the sign of their
progress in spiritual knowledge, they were called
worshippers . Lastly, some short time before their
baptism, they were taught the Lord’s Prayer (the
peculiar privilege of the regenerate), were entrusted
with the knowledge of the Creed, and, as destined for
incorporation into the body of believers, received the
titles of competent or elect 6 . Even to the last, they
were granted nothing beyond a formal and general
account of the articles of the Christian faith ; the
exact and fully developed doctrines of the Trinity
and the Incarnation, and still more, the doctrine of
the Atonement, as once made upon the cross, and
commemorated and appropriated in the Eucharist,
being the exclusive possession of the serious and
practised Christian. On the other hand, the chief
subjects of catechisings, as we learn from Cyril 7, were
the doctrines of repentance and pardon, of the neces-
sity of good works, of the nature and use of baptism,
and the immortality of the soul ; — as the Apostle had
determined them.
The exoteric teaching, thus observed in the Cate-
chetical Schools, was still more appropriate, when the
Christian teacher addressed himself, not to the instruc-
tion of willing hearers, but to controversy or public
preaching. At the present day, there are very many
sincere Christians, who consider that the evangelical
6 reXeioif 6,KpO(ofi€i/OL 9 or audientes; yoyvKXivovTcg, or ^v\6fX€VOL)
competentes, electi, or (/xorL^OfieyoL. Bingham, Antiq. book x. Suicer.
Thes. in verb, Karrjxe o>. 7 Bingham, ibid.
46
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
doctrines are the appointed instruments of conversion,
and, as such, exclusively attended with the Divine
blessing. In proof of this position, with an inconsis-
tency remarkable in those who profess a jealous
adherence to the inspired text, and are not slow to
accuse others of ignorance of its contents, they appeal,
not to Scripture, but to the stirring effects of this
(so-called) Gospel preaching, and to the inefficiency,
on the other hand, of mere exhortations respecting
the benevolence and mercy of God, the necessity of
repentance, the rights of conscience, and the obligation
of obedience. But it is scarcely the attribute of a
generous faith, to be anxiously inquiring into the con-
sequences of this or that system, with a view to decide
its admissibility, instead of turning at once to the
revealed word, and inquiring into the rule there ex-
hibited to us. God can defend and vindicate His own
command, whatever it turn out to be ; weak though it
seem to our vain wisdom, and unworthy of the Giver ;
and that His course in this instance is really that which
the hasty religionist condemns as if the theory of
unenlightened formalists, is evident to careful students
of Scripture, and is confirmed . by the practice of the
Primitive Church.
As to Scripture, I shall but observe, in addition to
the remarks already made on the passages in the
Epistles to the Corinthians and Hebrews, that no one
sanction can be adduced thence, whether of precept or
of example, in behalf of the practice of stimulating the
affections, such as gratitude or remorse, by means of
the doctrine of the Atonement, in order to the con-
version of the hearers ; — that, on the contrary, it is its
uniform method to connect the Gospel with Natural
Religion, and to mark out obedience to the moral law
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
47
as the ordinary means of attaining to a Christian faith,
the higher evangelical truths, as well as the Eucharist,
which is the visible emblem of them, being received as
the reward and confirmation of habitual piety ; —
that, in the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists
in the Book of Acts, the sacred mysteries are revealed
to individuals in proportion to their actual religious
proficiency ; that the first principles of righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come, are urged upon
Felix ; while the elders of Ephesus are reminded of
the divinity and vicarious sacrifice of Christ, and the
presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the Church;
— lastly, that among those converts, who were made
the chief instruments of the first propagation of the
Gospel, or who are honoured with especial favour in
Scripture, none are found who had not been faithful
to the light already given them, and were not distin-
guished, previously to their conversion, by a strictly
conscientious deportment. Such are the divine notices
given to those who desire an apostolical rule for dis-
pensing the word of life ; and as such, the ancient
Fathers received them. They received them as the
fulfilment of our Lord’s command, not to give that
which is holy to dogs, nor to cast pearls before swine ;
a text cited by Clement and Tertullian 8 , among others,
in justification of their cautious distribution of sacred
truth. They also considered this caution as the result
of the most truly charitable consideration for those
whom they addressed, who were likely to be per-
plexed, not converted, by the sudden exhibition of
the whole evangelical scheme. This is the doctrine
of Theodoret, Chrysostom, and others, in their com-
Ceillier, Apol. des Peres, ch. ii. Ringh. Antiq. x. 5,
4 § The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
ments upon the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews 9 .
“ Should a catechumen ask thee what the teachers
have determined, (says Cyril of Jerusalem) tell nothing
to one who is without. For we impart to thee a secret
and a promise of the world to come. Keep safe the
secret for Him who gives the reward. Listen not to
one who asks, ‘What harm is there in my knowing
also ? ’ Even the sick ask for wine, which, unseason-
ably given, brings on delirium ; and so there come
two ills, the death of the patient and the disrepute of
the physician.” In another place he says, “ All may
hear the Gospel, but the glory of the Gospel is set
apart for the true disciples of Christ. To all who
could hear, the Lord spake, but in parables ; to His
disciples He privately explained them. What is the
blaze of Divine glory to the enlightened, is the blind-
ing of unbelievers. These are the secrets which the
Church unfolds to him who passes on from the cate-
chumens, and not to the heathen. For we do not
unfold to a heathen the truths concerning Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit; nay, not even in the case of catechu-
mens, do we clearly explain the mysteries, but we
frequently say many things indirectly, so that believers
who have been taught may understand, and the others
may not be injured 1 .”
The work of St. Clement, of Alexandria, called
Stromateis, or Tapestry- work, from the variety of its
contents, well illustrates the Primitive Church’s method
of instruction, as far as regards the educated portion
of the community. It had the distinct object of inte-
resting and conciliating the learned heathen who
9 Suicer. Thes. in verb, crroix^ov,
1 Cyril. Hieros. ed. Milles, prsef: § 7 catech. vi. 16.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 49
perused it ; but it also exemplifies the peculiar caution
then adopted by Christians in teaching the truth, —
their desire to rouse the moral powers to internal
voluntary action, and their dread of loading or formal-
izing the mind. In the opening of his work, Clement
speaks of his miscellaneous discussions as mingling
truth with philosophy ; “ or rather,” he continues,
“ involving and concealing it, as the shell hides the
edible fruit of the nut.” In another place he compares
them, not to a fancy garden, but to some thickly-
wooded mountain, where vegetation of every sort,
growing promiscuously, by its very abundance con-
ceals from the plunderer the fruit trees, which are
intended for the rightful owner. u We must hide,” he
says, “ that wisdom, spoken in mystery, which the
Son of God has taught us. Thus the Prophet Esaias
has his tongue cleansed with fire, that he may be able
to declare the vision ; and our ears must be sanctified
as well as our tongues, if we aim at being recipients of
the truth. This was a hindrance to my writing; and
still I have anxiety, since Scripture says, ‘ Cast not
your pearls before swine for those pure and bright
truths, which are so marvellous and full of God to
goodly natures, do but provoke laughter, when spoken
in the hearing of the many 2 .” The Fathers considered
that they had the pattern as well as the recommen-
dation of this method of teaching in Scripture itself 3.
2.
This self-restraint and abstinence, practised at least
2 Strom, i. i. 12 ; v. 3 ; vi. 1 ; vii, 18.
3 “ Bonae sunt in Scripturis sacris mysteriorum profunditates, quae ob
hoc teguntur, ne vilescant; ob hoc quaeruntur, ut exerceant; ob hoc
autem aperiuntur, ut pascant.” August, in Petav. praef. in Trin. i. 5.
E
50
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
partially, by the Primitive Church in the publication
of the most sacred doctrines of our religion, is termed,
in theological language, the Disciplina Arcani ; con-
cerning which a few remarks may here be added, not
so much in recommendation of it (which is beside my
purpose), as to prevent misconception of its principle
and limits.
Now, first, it may be asked, How was any secrecy
practicable, seeing that the Scriptures were open to
every one who chose to consult them? It may startle
those who are but acquainted with the popular writ-
ings of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate
consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce
in the statement, as a general truth, that the doctrines
in question have never been learned merely from
Scripture. Surely the Sacred Volume was never
intended, and is not adapted, to teach us our creed ;
however certain it is that we can prove our creed from
it, when it has once been taught us 4 , and in spite of
individual producible exceptions to the general rule.
From the very first, that* rule has been, as a matter of
fact, that the Church should teach the truth, and
then should appeal to Scripture in vindication of its
own teaching. And from the first, it has been the
error of heretics to neglect the information thus pro-
vided for them, and to attempt of themselves a work
to which they are unequal, the eliciting a systematic
doctrine from the scattered notices of the truth which
Scripture contains. Such men act, in the solemn con-
cerns of religion, the part of the self-sufficient natural
4 Vide Dr. Hawkins’s original and most conclusive work on Unautho-
ritative Tradition, which contains in it the key to a number of difficulties
which are apt to perplex the theological student.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria, 51
philosopher, who should obstinately reject Newton’s
theory of gravitation, and endeavour, with talents in-
adequate to the task, to strike out some theory of
motion by himself. The insufficiency of the mere
private study of Holy Scripture for arriving at the
exact and entire truth which Scripture really contains,
is shown by the fact, that creeds and teachers have
ever been divinely provided, and by the discordance
of opinions which exists wherever those aids are
thrown aside ; as it is also shown by the very struc-
ture of the Bible itself. And if this be so, it follows
that, while inquirers and neophytes in the first
centuries lawfully used the inspired writings for the
purposes of morals and for instruction in the rudi-
ments of the faith, they still might need the teaching
of the Church as a key to the collection of passages
which related to the mysteries of the Gospel, passages
which are obscure from the necessity of combining
and receiving them all.
A more plausible objection to the existence of this
rule of secrecy in the Early .Church arises from the
circumstance, that the Christian Apologists openly
mention to the whole world the sacred tenets which
have been above represented as the peculiar possession
of the confirmed believer. But it must be observed,
that the writers of these were frequently laymen, and
so did not commit the Church as a body, nor even in
its separate authorities, to formal statement or to
theological discussion. The great duty of the Chris-
tian teacher was to unfold the sacred truths in due
order, and not prematurely to insist on the difficulties,
or to apply the promises of the Gospel ; and if others
erred in this respect, still it remained a duty to him.
E 2
52 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
And further, these disclosures are not so conclusive as
they seem to be at first sight ; the approximations of
philosophy, and the corruptions of heresy, being so
considerable, as to create a confusion concerning the
precise character of the ecclesiastical doctrine. Besides,
in matter of fact, some of the early apologists them-
selves, as Tatian, were tainted with heretical opinions.
But in truth, it is not the actual practice of the
Primitive Church, which I am concerned with, so
much as its principle. Men often break through the
rules, which they set themselves for the conduct of life,
with or without good reason. If it was the professed
principle of the early teachers, to speak exoterically to
those who were without the Church, instances of a
contrary practice but prove their inconsistency ;
whereas the fact of the existence of the principle
answers the purpose which is the ultimate aim of
these remarks, viz. it accounts for those instances in
the teaching of the Alexandrians, whether many or
few, and whether extant or not in writing, in which
they were silent as regards the mysterious doctrines
of Christianity. Indeed it is evident, that anyhow
the Disciplina Arcani could not be observed for any
long time in the Church. Apostates would reveal its
doctrines, even if these escaped in no other way.
Perhaps it was almost abandoned, as far as men of
letters were concerned, after the date of Ammonius ;
indeed there are various reasons for limiting its strict
enforcement to the end of the second century. And
it is plain, that during the time when the sacred
doctrines were passing into the stock of public know-
ledge, Christian controversialists would be in a
difficulty how to conduct themselves, what to deny,
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 53
explain or complete, in the popular notions of their
creed ; and they would consequently be betrayed
into inconsistencies of statement, and vary in their
method of disputing.
The Disciplina Arcani being supposed, with these
limitations, to have had a real existence, I observe
further, in explanation of its principle, that the
elementary information given to the heathen or
catechumen was in no sense undone by the sub-
sequent secret teaching, which was in fact but the
filling up of a bare but correct outline. The contrary
theory was maintained by the Manichees, who repre-
sented the initiatory discipline as founded on a fiction
or hypothesis, which was to be forgotten by the
learner as he made progress in the real doctrine of
the gospel 5 ; somewhat after the manner of a school
in the present day, which supposes conversion to be
effected by an exhibition of free promises and threats,
and an appeal to our moral capabilities, which after
conversion are discovered to have no foundation in
fact. But “ Far be it from so great an Apostle/’ says
Augustine, speaking of St. Paul, “a vessel elect of God,
an organ of the Holy Ghost, to be one man when he
preached, another when he wrote, one man in private,
another in public. He was made all to all men, not
by the craft of a deceiver, but from the affection of a
sympathizer, succouring the diverse diseases of souls
with the diverse emotions of compassion ; to the little
ones dispensing the lesser doctrines, not false ones,
but the higher mysteries to the perfect, all of them,
however, true, harmonious, and divine 6 .”
0 August, in Advers. Leg. et Proph. lib. ii.
6 Mosheim, de Caus. Supp. Libror. § 17. I do not find it in this exact
form in Augustine’s treatise; vide in Advers. Leg. et Proph. lib. ii. 4. 6.&c.
54 The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
Next, the truths reserved for the baptized Christian
were not put forward as the arbitrary determinations
of individuals, as the word of man, but rather as an
apostolical legacy, preserved and dispensed by the
Church. Thus Irenaeus when engaged in refuting the
heretics of his age, who appealed from the text of
Scripture to a sense independent of it, as the test
between truth and falsehood in its contents, says,
“ We know the doctrine of our salvation through none
but those who have transmitted to us the gospel, first
proclaiming it, then (by God’s will) delivering it to
us in the Scriptures, as a basis and pillar of our faith.
Nor dare we affirm that their announcements were made
previously to their attaining perfect knowledge, as
some presume to say, boasting that they set right the
Apostles 7 .” He then proceeds to speak of the clear-
ness and cogency of the traditions preserved in the
Church, as containing that true wisdom of the perfect,
of which St. Paul speaks, and to which the Gnostics
pretended. And, indeed, without formal proofs of
the existence and the authority in primitive times of
an Apostolical Tradition, it is plain that there must
have been such tradition, granting that the Apostles
conversed, and their friends had memories, like other
men. It is quite inconceivable that they should not
have been led to arrange the series of revealed doctrines
more systematically than they record them in Scrip-
ture, as soon as their converts became exposed to the
attacks and misrepresentations of heretics ; unless they
were forbidden so to do, a supposition which cannot
be maintained. Their statements thus occasioned
would be preserved, as a matter of course ; together
7 Iren. iii. i. Vide also Tertull. de Praescr. Haeret. 22.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
55
with those other secret but less important truths, to
which St. Paul seems to allude, and which the early
writers more or less acknowledge, whether concerning
the types of the Jewish Church, or the prospective
fortunes of the Christian 8 . And such recollections of
apostolical teaching would evidently be binding on
the faith of those who were instructed in them ; unless
it can be supposed, that, though coming from inspired
teachers, they were not of divine origin.
However, it must not be supposed, that this appeal
to Tradition in the slightest degree disparages the
sovereign authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture,
as a record of the truth. In the passage from Irenseus
above cited, Apostolical Tradition is brought forward,
not to supersede Scripture, but in conjunction with
Scripture, to refute the self-authorized, arbitrary
doctrines of the heretics. We must cautiously dis-
tinguish, with That Father, between a tradition sup-
planting or perverting the inspired records, and a
corroborating, illustrating, and altogether subordinate
tradition. It is of the latter that he speaks, classing
the traditionary and the written doctrine together, as
substantially one and the same, and as each equally
opposed to the profane inventions of Valentinus and
Marcion.
Lastly, the secret tradition soon ceased to exist even
in theory. It was authoritatively divulged, and per-
petuated in the form of symbols according as the
successive innovations of heretics called for its publi-
cation. In the creeds of the early Councils, it may be
considered as having come to light, and so ended ; so
that whatever has not been thus authenticated, whether
8 Mosheim, Je Reb. ante Const, saec. ii. § 34.
56 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
it was prophetical information, or comment on the past
dispensations 9 , is, from the circumstances of the case,
lost to the Church. What, however, was then (by
God’s good providence) seasonably preserved, is in
some sense of apostolical authority still ; and at least
serves the chief office of the early traditions, viz. that
of interpreting and harmonizing the statements of
Scripture.
3 -
In the passages lately quoted from Clement and
Cyril, mention was made by those writers of a mode
of speaking, which was intelligible to the well-in-
structed, but conveyed no definite meaning to ordinary
hearers. This was the Allegorical Method ; which
well deserves our attention before we leave the subject
of the Disciplina Arcani } as being one chief means by
which it was observed. The word allegorizing must
here be understood in a wide signification ; as in-
cluding in its meaning, not only the representation of
truths, under a foreign, though analogous exterior,
after the manner of our Lord’s parables, but the
practice of generalizing facts into principles, of adum-
brating greater truths under the image of lesser, of
implying the consequences or the basis of doctrines in
their correlatives, and altogether those instances of
thinking, reasoning, and teaching, which depend upon
the use of propositions which are abstruse, and of con-
nexions which are obscure, and which, in the' case of
uninspired authors, we consider profound, or poetical,
or enthusiastic, or illogical, according to our opinion
of those by whom they are exhibited.
9 2 Thes. ii. 5. 15. Heb. v. 11.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
57
This method of writing was the national peculiarity
of that literature in which the Alexandrian Church
was educated. The hieroglyphics of the ancient
Egyptians mark the antiquity of a practice, which, in
a later age, being enriched and diversified by the
genius of their Greek conquerors, was applied as a key
both to mythological legends, and to the sacred truths
of Scripture. The Stoics were the first to avail them-
selves of an expedient which smoothed the deformities
of the Pagan creed. The Jews, and then the Chris-
tians, of Alexandria, employed it in the interpretation
of the inspired writings. Those writings themselves
have certainly an allegorical structure, and seem to
countenance and invite an allegorical interpretation ;
and in consequence, they have been referred by some
critics to one and the same heathen origin, as if Moses
first, and then St. Paul, borrowed their symbolical
system respectively from the Egyptian and the Alex-
andrian philosophy.
But it is more natural to consider that the Divine
Wisdom used on the sublimest of all subjects, media,
which we spontaneously select for the expression of
solemn thought and elevated emotion ; and had no
especial regard to the practice in any particular
country, which afforded but one instance of the oper-
ation of a general principle of our nature. When the
mind is occupied by some vast and awful subject of
contemplation, it is prompted to give utterance to its
. feelings in a figurative style ; for ordinary words will
not convey the admiration, nor literal words the
reverence which possesses it ; and when, dazzled at
length with the great sight, it turns away for relief, it
still catches in every new object which it encounters,
5 8 The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
glimpses of its former vision, and colours its whole
range of thought with this one abiding association.
If, however, others have preceded it in the privilege
of such contemplations, a well-disciplined piety will
lead it to adopt the images which they have invented,
both from affection for what is familiar to it, and from
a fear of using unsanctioned language on a sacred
subject. Such are the feelings under which a deeply
impressed mind addresses itself to the task of disclos-
ing even its human thoughts ; and this account of it,
if we may dare to conjecture, in its measure applies
to the case of a mind under the immediate influence
of inspiration. Certainly, the matter of Revelation
suggests some such hypothetical explanation of the
structure of the books which are its vehicle ; in which
the divinely-instructed imagination of the writers is
ever glancing to and fro, connecting past things with
future, illuminating God’s lower providences and
man’s humblest services by allusions to the relations of
the evangelical covenant, and then in turn suddenly
leaving the latter to dwell upon those past dealings of
God with man, which must not be forgotten merely
because they have been excelled. No prophet ends
his subject : his brethren after him renew, enlarge,
transfigure, or reconstruct it ; so that the Bible, though
various in its parts, forms a whole, grounded on a few
distinct doctrinal principles discernible throughout it;
and is in consequence intelligible indeed in its general
drift, but obscure in its text ; and even tempts the
student, if I may so speak, to a lax and disrespectful
interpretation of it. History is made the external
garb of prophecy, and persons and facts become the
figures of heavenly things. I need only refer, by way
sect, in.] The Church of Alexandria .
59
of instance, to the delineation of Abraham as the type
of the accepted worshipper of God ; to the history of
the brazen serpent ; to the prophetical bearing of the
“ call of Israel out of Egypt ; ” to the personification
of the Church in the Apostolic Epistles as the reflected
image of Christ ; and, further, to the mystical import,
interpreted by our Lord Himself, of the title of God
as the God of the Patriarchs. Above all other
subjects, it need scarcely be said, the likeness of the
promised Mediator is conspicuous thoughout the
sacred volume as in a picture : moving along the
line of the history, in one or other of His destined
offices, the dispenser of blessings in Joseph, the
inspired interpreter of truth in Moses, the conqueror
in Joshua, the active preacher in Samuel, the suffering
combatant in David, and in Solomon the triumphant
and glorious king.
Moreover, Scripture assigns the same uses to this
allegorical style, which were contemplated by the
Fathers when they made it subservient to the Disciplina
Arcani ; viz. those of trying the earnestness and
patience of inquirers, discriminating between the
proud and the humble, and conveying instruction to
believers, and that in the most permanently impressive
manner, without the world’s sharing in the knowledge.
Our Lord’s remarks on the design of his own parables,
is a sufficient evidence of this intention.
Thus there seemed every encouragement, from the
structure of Scripture, from the apparent causes
which led to that structure, and from the purposes to
which it was actually applied by its Divine Author, to
induce the Alexandrians to consider its text as
primarily and directly the instrument of an allegorical
60 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
teaching. And since it sanctions the principle of
allegorizing by its own example, they would not
consider themselves confined within the limits of the
very instances which it supplies, because of the evident
spiritual drift of various passages which, nevertheless,
it does not interpret spiritually ; thus to the narrative
contained in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis,
few people will deny an evangelical import, though the
New Testament itself nowhere assigns it. Yet, on the
other hand, granting that a certain liberty of interpre-
tation, beyond the precedent, but according to the
spirit of Scripture, be allowable in the Christian
teacher, still few people will deny, that some rule
is necessary as a safeguard against its abuse, in order
to secure the sacred text from being explained away
by the heretic, and misquoted and perverted by weak
or fanatical minds. Such a safeguard we shall find
in bearing cautiously in mind this consideration : viz.
that (as a general rule), every passage of Scripture
has some one definite and sufficient sense, which was
prominently before the mind of the writer, or in the
intention of the Blessed Spirit, and to which all other
ideas, though they might arise, or be implied, still
were subordinate. It is this true meaning of the text,
which it is the business of the expositor to unfold.
This it is, which every diligent student will think it a
great gain to discover ; and, though he will not shut
his eyes to the indirect and instructive applications of
which the text is capable, he never will so reason as to
forget that there is one sense peculiarly its own.
Sometimes it is easily ascertained, sometimes it can
be scarcely conjectured ; sometimes it is contained in
the literal sense of the words employed, as in the
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria . 61
historical parts ; sometimes it is the allegorical, as in
our Lord’s parables ; or sometimes the secondary
sense may be more important in after ages than the
original, as in the instance of the Jewish ritual ; still
in all cases (to speak generally) there is but one main
primary sense, whether literal or figurative ; a regard
for which must ever keep us sober and reverent in
the employment of those allegorisms, which, neverthe-
less, our Christian liberty does not altogether forbid.
The protest of Scripture against all careless exposi-
tions of its meaning, is strikingly implied in the
extreme reserve and caution, with which it unfolds its
own typical signification ; for instance, in the Mosaic
ritual no hint was given of its undoubted prophetical
character, lest an excuse should be furnished to the
Israelitish worshipper for undervaluing its actual
commands. So, again, the secondary and distinct
meaning of prophecy, is commonly hidden from view
by the veil of the literal text, lest its immediate scope
should be overlooked ; when that is once fulfilled, the
recesses of the sacred language seem to open, and
give up the further truths deposited in them. Our
Lord, probably, in the prophecy recorded in the
Gospels, was not careful (if I may so express myself)
that His disciples should distinguish between His
final and immediate coming ; thinking it a less error
that they should consider the last day approaching,
than that they should forget their own duties in the
contemplation of the future fortunes of the Church.
Nay, even types fulfilled, if they be historical, seem
sometimes purposely to be left without the sanction of
an interpretation, lest we should neglect the instruc-
tion still conveyed in a literal narrative. This accounts
62
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
for the silence observed concerning the evangelical
import, to which I have already referred, of the
sacrifice of Isaac, which contains a definite and per-
manent moral lesson, as a matter of fact, however
clear may be its further meaning as emblematical of
our Lord’s sufferings on the cross. In corroboration of
this remark, let it be observed, that there seems to
have been in the Church a traditionary explanation of
these historical types, derived from the Apostles, but
kept among the secret doctrines, as being dangerous
to the majority of hearers 1 ; and certainly St. Paul,
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, affords us an instance
of such a tradition, both as existing and as secret
(even though it be shown to be of Jewish origin),
when, first checking himself and questioning his
brethren’s faith, he communicates, not without hesi-
tation, the evangelical scope of the account of Mel-
chisedec, as introduced into the book of Genesis.
As to the Christian writers of Alexandria, if they
erred in their use of the Allegory, their error did not
^ lie in the mere adoption of an instrument which Philo
or the Egyptian hierophants had employed (though
this is sometimes made the ground of objection), for
Scripture itself had taken it out of the hands of such
authorities. Nor did their error lie in the mere
circumstance of their allegorizing Scripture, where
Scripture gave no direct countenance ; as if we might
not interpret the sacred word for ourselves, as we
interpret the events of life, by the principles which
/ itself supplies. But they erred, whenever and as far
as they carried their favourite rule of exposition
1 Vide Mosheim, de Reb. Ant. Const, saec. ii. § 34. Rosenmuller,
Hist. Interpr. iii. 2. § 1.
•sect, in.] The Church of A lexcindria. 63
beyond the spirit of the canon above laid down, so as
to obscure the primary meaning of Scripture, and to
weaken the force of historical facts and doctrinal
declarations ; and much more, if at any time they
degraded the inspired text to the office of conveying
the thoughts of uninspired teachers on subjects not
sacred.
And, as it is impossible to draw a precise line
between the use and abuse of allegorizing, so it is
impossible also to ascertain the exact degree of blame
incurred by individual teachers who familiarly indulge
in it. They may be faulty as commentators, yet
instructive as devotional writers ; and their liberty in
interpretation is to be regulated by the state of mind
in which they address themselves to th$ work, and by
their proficiency in the knowledge and practice of
Christian duty. So far as men use the language of
the Bible (as is often done in poems and works of
fiction) as the mere instrument of a cultivated fancy,
to make their style attractive or impressive, so far, it
is needless to say, they are guilty of a great irreverence
towards its Divine Author. On the other hand, it is
surely no extravagance to assert that there are minds
so gifted and disciplined as to approach the position
occupied by the inspired writers, and therefore able to
apply their words with a fitness, and entitled to do so
with a freedom, which is unintelligible to the dull or
heartless criticism of inferior understandings. So far
then as the Alexandrian Fathers partook of such a
singular gift of grace (and Origen surely bears on him
the tokens of some exalted moral dignity), not incited
by a capricious and presumptuous imagination, but
burning with that vigorous faith, which, seeing God in
64
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
all things, does and suffers all for His sake, and, while
filled with the contemplation of His supreme glory,
still discharges each command in the exactness of its
real meaning, in the same degree they stand not
merely excused, but are placed immeasurably above
the multitude of those who find it so easy to censure
them. — And so much on the Allegory, as the means
of observing the Disciplina Arcani.
4 -
The same method of interpretation was used for
another purpose, which is more open to censure.
When Christian controversialists were urged by objec-
tions to various passages in the history of the Old
Testament, as derogatory to the Divine Perfections or
to the Jewish saints, they had recourse to an allegori-
cal explanation by way of answer. Thus Origen
spiritualizes the account of Abraham’s denying his
wife, the polygamy of the Patriarchs, and Noah’s
intoxication 2 . It is impossible to defend such a mode
of interpretation, which seems to imply a want of
faith in those who had recourse to it. Doubtless this
earnestness to exculpate the saints of the elder cove-
nant is partly to be attributed to a noble jealousy for
the honour of God, and a reverence for the memory of
those who, on the whole, rise in their moral attain-
ments far above their fellows, and well deserve the
confidence in their virtue which the Alexandrians
manifest. Yet God has given us rules of right and
wrong, which we must not be afraid to apply in
estimating the conduct of even the best of mere men ;
2 Heut. Origen. p. 171, Rosenmuller supra. [On this subject, vide a
striking passage in Facundus, Def. Tr. Cap. xii. 1, pp. 568-9.]
65
sect, in.] The Church of Alexandria .
though errors are thereby detected, the scandal of
which we ourselves have to bear in our own day. So
far must be granted in fairness ; but some have gone
on to censure the principle itself which this procedure
involved : viz. that of representing religion, for the
purpose of conciliating the heathen, in the form most
attractive to their prejudices : and, as it was generally
received in the Primitive Church, and the considerations
which it involves are not without their bearings upon
the doctrinal question in which we shall be presently
engaged, I will devote some space here to the exam-
ination of it.
The mode of arguing and teaching in question
which is called economical 3 by the ancients, can
scarcely be disconnected from the Disciplina A rcani ,
as will appear by some of the instances which follow,
though it is convenient to consider it by itself. If it
is necessary to contrast the two with each other, the
one may be considered as withholding the truth, and
the other as setting it out to advantage. The
Economy is certainly sanctioned by St. Paul in
his own conduct. To the Jews he became as a Jew,
and as without the Law to the heathen 3 4 . His
behaviour at Athens is the most remarkable instance
in his history of this method of acting. Instead of
uttering any invective against their Polytheism, he
began a discourse upon the Unity of the Divine
Nature ; and then proceeded to claim the altar 5 ,
3 /car’ oiKovofJLiCLVt
4 [On the economies of St. Peter and St. Paul, vide Lardner’s Heathen
Test. ch. xxxvii. 7.
5 [Vide this argument in the mouth of Dionysius (in Euseb. Hist. vii.
11, ou 7 ra vt€$ 7 rdvras, &c.) as his plea for liberty of worship, with the
neat retoit of the Prefect.]
F
66 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
consecrated in the neighbourhood to the unknown
God, as the property of Him whom he preached to
them, and to enforce his doctrine of the Divine
Immateriality, not by miracles, but by argument,
and that founded on the words of a heathen poet.
This was the example which the Alexandrians set
before them in their intercourse with the heathen, as
may be shown by the following instances.
Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria (a.D. 282 — 300),
has left his directions for the behaviour of Christians
who were in the service of the imperial court. The
utmost caution is enjoined them, not to give offence
to the heathen emperor. If a Christian was appointed
librarian, he was to take good care not to show any
contempt for secular knowledge and the ancient
writers. He was advised to make himself familiar
with the poets, philosophers, orators, and historians,
of classical literature ; and, while discussing their
writings, to take incidental opportunities of recom-
mending the Scriptures, introducing mention of Christ,
and by degrees revealing the real dignity of His
nature 6 .
The conversion of Gregory of Neocsesarea, (A.D. 231)
affords an exemplification of this procedure in an
individual case. He had originally attached himself
to the study of rhetoric and the law, but was persuaded
by Origen, whose lectures he attended, to exchange
these pursuits, first for science, then for philosophy,
then for theology, so far as right notions concerning
religion could be extracted from the promiscuous
6 Rose’s Neander, Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 145. “ Insurgere poterit
Christi mentio, explicabitur paullatim ejus sola divinitas.” Tillem.
Mem. vol. iv. p. 240, 241.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria .
6 7
writings of the various philosophical sects. Thus,
while professedly teaching him Pagan philosophy, his
skilful master insensibly enlightened him in the
knowledge of the Christian faith. Then leading him
to Scripture, he explained to him its difficulties as
they arose ; till Gregory, overcome by the force of
truth, announced to his instructor his intention of
exchanging the pursuits of this world for the service
of God 7.
Clement’s Stromateis (A.D. 200), a work which has
already furnished us with illustrations of the Alexan-
drian method of teaching, was written with the design
of converting the learned heathen, and pursues the
same plan which Origen adopted towards Gregory.
The author therein professes his wish to blend together
philosophy and religion, refutes those who censure the
former, shows the advantage of it, and how it is to be
applied. This leading at once to an inquiry concern-
ing what particular school of philosophy is to be held
of divine origin, he answers in a celebrated passage,
that all are to be referred thither as far as they
respectively inculcate the principles of piety and
morality, and none, except as containing the portions
and foreshadowings of the truth. “ By philosophy,”
he says, “ I do not mean the Stoic, nor the Platonic,
nor the Epicurean and Aristotelic, but all good
doctrine in every one of the schools, all precepts of
holiness combined with religious knowledge. All this,
taken together, or the Eclectic , , I call philosophy :
whereas the rest are mere forgeries of the human
7 This was Origen’s usual method, vide Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vi. t 8.
He has signified it himself in these words : yvfxvacnov [Jiiv (pa/mev Hvcu
Trjs ttjv av8pu)7TLvr)v crocf) Cav, reXos Se tyjv Oeiav* Contr.
Cels. vi. 13.
68
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
intellect, and in no respect to be accounted divine 8 .”
At the same time, to mark out the peculiar divinity
of Revealed Religion, he traces all the philosophy of
the heathen to the teaching of the Hebrew sages,
earnestly maintaining its entire subserviency to Chris-
tianity, as but the love of that truth which the
Scriptures really impart.
The same general purpose of conciliating the
heathen, and (as far as might be,) indulging the
existing fashions to which their literature was sub-
jected, may be traced in the slighter compositions 9
which the Christians published in defence of their
religion 1 , being what in this day might be called
pamphlets, written in imitation of speeches after
the manner of Isocrates, and adorned with those
graces of language which the schools taught, and
the inspired Apostle has exhibited in his Epistle to
the Hebrews. Clement’s Exhortation to the Gentiles
is a specimen of this style of writing ; as also those of
Athenagoras and Tatian, and that ascribed to Justin
Martyr.
Again : — the last-mentioned Father supplies us
with an instance of an economical relinquishment
of a sacred doctrine. When Justin Martyr, in his
argument with the Jew Trypho, (A.D. 150.) finds
himself unable to convince him from the Old Testa-
ment of the divinity of Christ, he falls back upon the
doctrine of His divine Mission, as if this were a point
8 Clem. Strom, i. 7.
9 Xoyoi. [Such are those (Pagan) of Maximus Tyrius. Three
sacred narratives of Eusebius Emesenus are to be found at Vienna.
Augusti has published one of them : Bonn, 1820. Vide Lambec. Bibl.
Vind. iv. p. 286.]
1 Dodwell in Iren. Diss. vi. § 14. 16.
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 69
indisputable on the one hand, and on the other,
affording a sufficient ground, from which to advance,
when expedient, to the proof of the full evangelical
truth 2 . In the same passage, moreover, as arguing
with an unbeliever, he permits himself to speak with-
out an anathema of those (the Ebionites) who pro-
fessed Christianity, and yet denied Christ’s divinity.
Athanasius himself fully recognizes the propriety of
this concealment of the doctrine on a fitting occasion,
and thus accounts for the silence of the Apostles
concerning it, in their speeches recorded in the book
of Acts, viz. that they were unwilling^Jp^ a di$closure
of it, to prejudice the Jews against those Miracles, the
acknowledgment of which was a first step towards
their receiving it 3 .
Gregory of Neocaesarea (a.D. 240—270), whose con-
version by Origen has already been adduced in illus-
tration, furnishes us in his own conduct with a similar
but stronger instance of an economical concealment
of the full truth. It seems that certain heretical
teachers, in the time of Basil, ascribed to Gregory,
whether by way of censure or in self-defence, the
Sabellian view of the Trinity ; and, moreover, the
belief that Christ was a creature. The occasion of
these statements, as imputed to him, was a viva voce
controversy with a heathen, which had been taken
down in writing by the bystanders. The charge of
Sabellianism is refuted by Gregory’s extant writings ;
both imputations, however, are answered by St. Basil,
2 Vide Bull, Judic. Eccl. vi. 7.
3 Athan.de Sent. Dionys. 8. Theodoret, Chrysostom, and others say
the same. Vide Suicer. Thesaurus, verb crrot^eiov, and Whitby on
Heb. v. 12.
7 o The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
and that, on the principle of controversy which I have
above attempted to describe. “When Gregory,” he
says, “ declared that the Father and Son were two in
our conception of them, one in hypostasis , he spoke
not as teaching doctrine, but as arguing with an
unbeliever, viz. in his disputation with TElianus ; but
this distinction our heretical opponents could not
enter into, much as they pride themselves on the
subtlety of their intellect. Even granting there were
no mistakes in taking the notes (which, please God, it
is my intention to prove from the text as it now
stands), it is to be supposed, that he did not think it
necessary to be very exact in his doctrinal terms,
when employed in converting a heathen ; but in some
things, even to concede to his feelings, that he might
gain him over to the cardinal points. Accordingly,
you may find many expressions there, of which
heretics now take great advantage, such as ‘ creature,’
‘ made,’ and the like. So again, many statements
which he has made concerning the Incarnation, are
referred to the Divine Nature of the Son by those
who do not skilfully enter into his meaning ; as,
indeed, is the very expression in question which they
have circulated 4 .”
I will here again instance a parallel use of the
Economy on the part of Athanasius himself, and will
avail myself of the words of the learned Petavius
“ Even Athanasius,” he says, “ whose very gift it was,
above all other Fathers, to possess a clear and
accurate knowledge of the Catholic doctrine con-
cerning the Trinity, so that all succeeding antagonists
of Arianism may be truly said to have derived their
4 Basil. Epist. ccx. § 5.
7i
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
powers and their arguments from him, even this keen
and vigilant champion of orthodoxy, in arguing with
the Gentiles for the Divinity and incarnation of the
Word, urges them with considerations drawn from
their own philosophical notions concerning Him.
Not that he was ignorant how unlike orthodoxy, and
how like Arianism, such notions were, but he bore
in mind the necessity of favourably disposing the
minds of the Gentiles to listen to his teaching ; and
he was aware that it was one thing to lay the rudi-
ments of the faith in an ignorant or heathen mind,
and another to defend the faith against heretics, or to
teach it dogmatically. For instance, in answering
their objection to the Divine Word having taken flesh,
which especially offended them, he bids them consider
whether they are not inconsistent in dwelling upon
this, while they themselves believe that there is a
Divine Word, the presiding principle and soul of the
world, through the movements of which He is visibly
displayed ; 1 for what (he asks) does Christianity say
more than that the Word has presented Himself to
the inspection of our senses by the instrumentality of
a body ? ’ And yet it is certain that the Father and
the pervading Word of the Platonists, differed
materially from the Sacred Persons of the Trinity,
as we hold the doctrine, and Athanasius too, in every
page of his writings 5.”
There are instances in various ways of the econo-
mical method, that is, of accommodation to the feelings
and prejudices of the hearer, in leading him to the
Petav. de Trin. ii. praef. 3, § 5. [abridged and re-arranged. Vide
ibid. iii. 1, § 6. Vide also Euseb. contr. Marcell. ii. 22, p. 140; iii. 3. pp..
161,2].
72 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
reception of a novel or unacceptable doctrine. It
professes to be founded in the actual necessity of the
case ; because those who are strangers to the tone of
thought and principles of the speaker, cannot at once
be initiated into his system, and because they must
begin with imperfect views ; and therefore, if he is to
teach them at all, he must put before them large pro-
positions, which he has afterwards to modify, or make
assertions which are but parallel or analogous to the
truth, rather than coincident with it. And it cannot
be denied that those who attempt to speak at all
times the naked truth, or rather the commonly-
received expression of it, are certain, more than other
men, to convey wrong impressions of their meaning
to those who happen to be below them, or to differ
widely from them, in intelligence and cast of mind.
On the other hand, the abuse of the Economy in the
hands of unscrupulous reasoners, is obvious. Even
the honest controversialist or teacher will find it very
difficult to represent without misrepresenting, what it
is yet his duty to present to his hearers with caution
or reserve. Here the obvious rule to guide our
practice is, to be careful ever to maintain substantial
truth in our use of the economical method. It is thus
we lead forward children by degrees, influencing and
impressing their minds by means of their own confined
conceptions of things, before we attempt to introduce
them to our own ; yet at the same time modelling
their thoughts according to the analogy of those to
which we mean ultimately to bring them. Again, the
information given to the blind man, that scarlet was
like the sound of a trumpet, is an instance of an unex-
ceptionable economy, since it was as true as it could
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
73
be under the circumstances of the case, conveying a
substantially correct impression as far as it went.
In applying this rule to the instances above given,
it is plain that Justin, Gregory, or Athanasius, were
justifiable or not in their Economy, according as they
did or did not practically mislead their opponents.
Merely to leave a man in errors which he had inde-
pendently of us, or to abstain from removing them,
cannot be blamed as a fault, and may be a duty ;
though it is so difficult to hit the mark in these per-
plexing cases, that it is not wonderful, should these
or other Fathers have failed at times, and said more or
less than was proper. Again, in the instances of
St. Paul, Theonas, Origen, and Clement, the doctrine
which their conduct implies, is the Divinity of Pagan-
ism ; a true doctrine, though the heathen whom they
addressed would not at first rightly apprehend it.
But I am aware that some persons will differ from me
here, and others will be perplexed about my meaning.
So let this be a reserved point, to be considered when
we have finished the present subject.
The Alexandrian Father who has already been
quoted, accurately describes the rules which should
guide the Christian in speaking and acting econo-
mically. “ Being fully persuaded of the omnipresence
of God,” says Clement, “ and ashamed to come short
of the truth, he is satisfied with the approval of God,
and of his own conscience. Whatever is in his mind, is
also on his tongue ; towards those who are fit
recipients, both in speaking and living, he har-
monizes his profession with his thoughts. He both
thinks and speaks the truth ; except when careful
treatment is necessary, and then, as a physician for the
74 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
good of his patients, he will lie, or rather utter a lie,
as the Sophists say. For instance, the noble Apostle
circumcised Timothy, while he cried out and wrote
down, 4 Circumcision availeth not.’ . . Nothing, how-
ever, but his neighbour’s good will lead him to do
this. . . He gives himself up for the Church, for the
friends whom he hath begotten in the faith for an
ensample to those who have the ability to undertake
the high office (economy) of a religious and charitable
teacher, for an exhibition of truth in his words, and
for the exercise of love towards the Lord 6 .”
Further light will be thrown upon the doctrine of
the Economy, by considering it as exemplified in the
dealings of Providence towards man. The word
occurs in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, where it
is used for that series of Divine appointments viewed
as a whole, by which the Gospel is introduced and
realized among mankind, being translated in our
version “ dispensation .” It will evidently bear a wider
sense, embracing the Jewish and patriarchal dispensa-
tions, or any Divine procedure, greater or less, which
consists of means and an end. Thus it is applied by
the Fathers, to the history of Christ’s humiliation, as
exhibited in the doctrines of His incarnation, ministry,
atonement, exaltation, and mediatorial sovereignty,
and, as such distinguished from the “ theologia” or
the collection of truths relative to His personal in-
dwelling in the bosom of God. Again, it might with
equal fitness be used for the general system of provi-
6 Clem. Strom, vii. 8, 9 (abridged). [Vide Plat. Leg. ii. 8, oWotc
if/evSeraL, Kav if/evSos Xey rj. Sext.Empir.adv. Log. p. 378 , withnotesT
and U. Op this whole subject, vide the Author’s “ Apologia,” notes
F and G, pp. 343 ~ 3 6 3-]
75
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexatidria.
dence by which the world’s course is carried on ; or,
again, for the work of creation itself, as opposed to
the absolute perfection of the Eternal God, that
internal concentration of His Attributes in self-con-
templation, which took place on the seventh day,
when He rested from all the work which He had
made. And since this everlasting and unchangeable
quiescence is the simplest and truest notion we can
obtain of the Deity, it seems to follow, that strictly
speaking, all those so-called Economies or dispensa-
tions, which display His character in action, are but
condescensions to the infirmity and peculiarity of
our minds, shadowy representations of realities which
are incomprehensible to creatures such as ourselves,
who estimate everything by the rule of associa-
tion and arrangement, by the notion of a purpose
and plan, object and means, parts and whole. What,
for instance, is the revelation of general moral laws,
their infringement, their tedious victory, the en-
durance of the wicked, and the “ winking at the
times of ignorance,” but an “ Economia ” of greater
truths untold, the best practical communication of
them which our minds in their present state will
admit ? What are the phenomena of the external
world, but a divine mode of conveying to the
mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the
influence of being on being, the best possible, though
beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless
but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the
impressions on their senses ? This at least is the
opinion of some philosophers, and whether the par-
ticular theory be right or wrong, it serves as an illus-
tration here of the great truth which we are consider-
76 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
ing. Or what, again, as others hold, is the popular
argument from final causes but an “Economic suited
to the practical wants of the multitude, as teaching
them in the simplest way the active presence of Him,
who after all dwells intelligibly, prior to argument, in
their heart and conscience ? And though on the
mind’s first mastering this general principle, it seems
to itself at the moment to have cut all the ties which
bind it to the universe, and to be floated off upon the
ocean of interminable scepticism ; yet a true sense of
its own weakness brings it back, the instinctive per-
suasion that it must be intended to rely on something,
and therefore that the information given, though
philosophically inaccurate, must be practically certain ;
a sure confidence in the love of Him who cannot
deceive, and who has impressed the image and
thought of Himself and of His will upon our original
nature. Here then we may lay down with certainty
as a consolatory truth, what was but a rule of .duty
when we were reviewing the Economies of man ; viz.
that whatever is told us from heaven, is true in so full
and substantial a sense, that no possible mistake can
arise practically from following it. And it may be
added, on the other hand, that the greatest risk will
result from attempting to be wiser than God has
made us, and to outstep in the least degree the circle
which is prescribed as the limit of our range. This is
but the duty of implicit faith in Him who knows what
is good for us, and who has ordained that in our prac-
tical concerns intellectual ability should do no more
than enlighten us in the difficulties of our situation,
not in the solutions of them. Accordingly, we may
safely admit the first chapter of the book of Job, the
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
11
twenty-second of the first book of Kings, and other
passages of Scripture, to be Economies , that is, repre-
sentations conveying substantial truth in the form in
which we are best able to receive it ; and to be
accepted by us and used in their literal sense, as our
highest wisdom, because we have no powers of mind
equal to the more philosophical determination of
them. Again, the Mosaic Dispensation was an
Economy, simulating (so to say) unchangeableness,
when from the first it was destined to be abolished.
And our Blessed Lord’s conduct on earth abounds
with the like gracious and considerate condescension
to the weakness of His creatures, who would have
been driven either to a terrified inaction or to presump-
tion, had they known then as afterwards the secret of
His Divine Nature.
I will add two or three instances, in which this doc-
trine of the Divine Economies has been wrongly ap-
plied ; and I do so from necessity, lest the foregoing
remarks should seem to countenance errors, which I
am most desirous at all times and every where to pro-
test against.
For instance, the Economy has been employed to
the disparagement of the Old Testament Saints ; as
if the praise bestowed on them by Almighty God were
but economically given, that is, with reference to their
times and circumstances ; their real insight into moral
truth being possibly below the average standard of
knowledge in matters of faith and practice received
among nations rescued from the rude and semi-savage
state in which they are considered to have lived. And
again, it has been even supposed, that injunctions, as
well as praise, have been thus given them, which an
7 §
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
enlightened age is at liberty to criticize ; for instance,
the command to slay Isaac has sometimes been viewed
as an economy, based upon certain received ideas in
Abraham’s day, concerning the innocence and merit
of human sacrifice. It is enough to have thus dis-
claimed participation in these theories, which of course
are no objection to the general doctrine of the Econ-
omy, unless indeed it could be shown, that those who
hold a principle are answerable for all the applica-
tions arbitrarily made of it by the licentious ingenuity
of others.
Again, the principle of the Economy has sometimes
been applied to the interpretation of the New Testa-
ment. It has been said, for instance, that the Epistle
to the Hebrews does not state the simple truth in the
sense in which the Apostles themselves believed it,
but merely as it would be palatable to the Jews. The
advocates of this hypothesis have proceeded to main-
tain, that the doctrine of the Atonement is no part of
the essential and permanent evangelical system. To
a conscientious reasoner, however, it is evident, that
the structure of the Epistle in question is so intimately
connected with the reality of the expiatory scheme,
that to suppose the latter imaginary, would be to im-
pute to the writer, not an economy (which always pre-
serves substantial truth), but a gross and audacious
deceit.
A parallel theory to this has been put forward by
men of piety among the Predestinarians, with a view
of reconciling the inconsistency between their faith and
practice. They have suggested, that the promises and
threats of Scripture are founded on an economy, which
is needful to effect the conversion of the elect, but
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
79
clears up and vanishes under the light of the true
spiritual perception, to which the converted at length
attain. This has been noticed in another connexion,
and will here serve as one among many illustrations
which might be given, of the fallacious application of
a true principle. And so much upon the Economia.
5 -
A question was just now reserved, as interfering
with the subject then before us. In what sense can it
be said, that there is any connection between Pagan-
ism and Christianity so real, as to warrant the
preacher of the latter to conciliate idolaters by
allusion to it ? St. Paul evidently connects the true
religion with the existing systems which he laboured
to supplant, in his speech to the Athenians in the
Acts, and his example is a sufficient guide to mission-
aries now, and a full justification of the line of
conduct pursued by the Alexandrians, in the instances
similar to it ; but are we able to account for his
conduct, and ascertain the principle by which it was
regulated ? I think we can ; and the exhibition of it
will set before the reader another doctrine of the
Alexandrian school, which it is as much to our
purpose to understand, and which I shall call the
divinity of Traditionary Religion.
We know well enough for practical purposes what
is meant by Revealed Religion ; viz. that it is the
doctrine taught in the Mosaic and Christian dispensa-
tions, and contained in the Holy Scriptures, and is
from God in a sense in which no other doctrine can
be said to be from Him. Yet if we would speak
correctly, we must confess, on the authority of the
Bible itself, that all knowledge of religion is from
So The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
Him, and not only that which the Bible has trans-
mitted to us. There never was a time when God had
not spoken to man, and told him to a certain extent
his duty. His injunctions to Noah, the common
father of all mankind, is the first recorded fact of the
sacred history after the deluge. Accordingly, we are
expressly told in the New Testament, that at no time
He left Himself without witness in the world, and that
in every nation He accepts those who fear and obey
Him. It would seem, then, that there is something
true and divinely revealed, in every religion all over
the earth, overloaded, as it may be, and at times even
stifled by the impieties which the corrupt will and
understanding of man have incorporated with it.
Such are the doctrines of the power and presence of
an invisible God, of His moral law and governance, of
the obligation of duty, and the certainty of a just
judgment, and of reward and punishment, as eventually
dispensed to individuals ; so that Revelation, properly
speaking, is an universal, not a local gift ; and the
distinction between the state of Israelites formerly and
Christians now, and that of the heathen, is, not that
we can, and they cannot attain to future blessedness,
but that the Church of God ever has had, and the rest
of mankind never have had, authoritative documents of
truth, and appointed channels of communication with
Him. The word and the Sacraments are the charac-
teristic of the elect people of God ; but all men have
had more or less the guidance of Tradition, in addition
to those internal notions of right and wrong which the
Spirit has put into the heart of each individual.
This vague and uncertain family of religious truths,
originally from God, but sojourning without the sane-
sect , hi .] The Church of Alexandria. 81
tion of miracle, or a definite home, as pilgrims up and
down the world, and discernible and separable from
the corrupt legends with which they are mixed, by the
spiritual mind alone, may be called the Dispensation of
Paganism, after the example of the learned Father
already quoted 7 . And further, Scripture gives us
reason to believe that the traditions, thus originally
delivered to mankind at large, have been secretly
re-animated and enforced by new communications
from the unseen world ; though these were not of
such a nature as to be produced as evidence, or used
as criteria and tests, and roused the attention rather
than informed the understandings of the heathen.
The book of Genesis contains a record of the Dispen-
sation of Natural Religion, or Paganism, as well as of
the patriarchal. The dreams of Pharaoh and Abime-
lech, as of Nebuchadnezzar afterwards, are instances
of the dealings of God with those to whom He did not
vouchsafe a written revelation. Or should it be said,
that these particular cases merely come within the
range of the Divine supernatural Governance which
was in their neighbourhood, — an assertion which
requires proof, — let the book of Job be taken as a less
suspicious instance of the dealings of God with the
heathen. Job was a pagan in the same sense in which
the Eastern nations are Pagans in the present day.
He lived among idolaters 8 , yet he and his friends had
cleared themselves from the superstitions with which
the true creed was beset ; and while one of them was
7 Clement says, T rjv cjuXcaoc^cav XXtjo-lv olov SiaOrjKrjv otKa'av
SeSocrOac, virofiaOpav ovcrai/ rrjs Kara Xpioroi/ </>tAocro</>tas. Strom
vi. p. 648.
8 Job xxxi. 26 — 28.
G
82 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
divinely instructed by dreams 9 , he himself at length
heard the voice of God out of the whirlwind, in recom-
pense for his long trial and his faithfulness under it 1 .
Why should not the book of Job be accepted by us,
as a gracious intimation given us, who are God’s sons,
for our comfort, when we are anxious about our
brethren who are still “ scattered abroad ” in an evil
world ; an intimation that the Sacrifice, which is the
hope of Christians, has its power and its success,
wherever men seek God with their whole heart ? — If it
be objected that Job lived in a less corrupted age than
the times of ignorance which followed, Scripture, as if
for our full satisfaction, draws back the curtain farther
still in the history of Balaam. There a bad man and
a heathen is made the oracle of true divine messages
about doing justly, and loving mercy, and walking
humbly ; nay, even among the altars of superstition,
the Spirit of God vouchsafes to utter prophecy 2 . And
so in the cave of Endor, even a saint was sent from
the dead to join the company of an apostate king, and
of the sorceress whose aid he was seeking 3 . Accord-
ingly, there is nothing unreasonable in the notion, that
there may have been heathen poets and sages, or
sibyls again, in a certain extent divinely illumina-
ted, and organs through whom religious and moral
truth was conveyed to their countrymen ; though their
knowledge of the Power from whom the gift came,
nay, and their perception of the gift as existing in
themselves, may have been very faint or defective.
9 Ibid. iv. 1 3, &c.
1 Job xxxviii. j ; xlii. to, &c. [Vide also Gen. xli. 45. Exod. iii. 1.
Jon. i. 5 — 16.]
2 Numb. xxii. — xxiv. Mic. vi. 5^8.
;i 1 Sam. xxviii. 14.
sect, iii.] The Church of Alexandria. 83
This doctrine, thus imperfectly sketched, shall now
be presented to the reader in the words of St. Clement.
“ To the Word of God,” he says, “ all the host of
angels and heavenly powers is subject, revealing, as He
does, His holy office ( economy ), for Him who has put
all things under Him. Wherefore, His are all men ;
some actually knowing Him, others not as yet : some
as friends ” (Christians), “ others as faithful servants ”
(Jews), “others as simply servants” (heathen). “He is
the Teacher, who instructs the enlightened Christian
by mysteries, and the faithful labourer by cheerful
hopes, and the hard of heart with His keen corrective
discipline ; so that His providence is particular,
public, and universal. . He it is who gives to the
Greeks their philosophy by His ministering Angels . .
for He is the Saviour not of these or those, but of all.
. . His precepts, both the former and the latter, are
drawn forth from one fount ; those who were before
the Law, not suffered to be without law, those who do
not hear the Jewish philosophy, not surrendered to an
unbridled course. Dispensing in former times to some
His precepts, to others philosophy, now at length, by
His own personal coming, He has closed the course
of unbelief, which is henceforth inexcusable ; Greek
and barbarian ” (that is, Jew) “ being led forward by a
separate process to that perfection which is through
faith 4 .”
If this doctrine be scriptural, it is not difficult to
determine the line of conduct which is to be observed
by the Christian apologist and missionary. Believing
God’s hand to be in every system, so far forth as it is
true (though Scripture alone is the depositary of His
4 Clem. Strom, vii. 2.
8a
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
unadulterated and complete revelation), he will, after
St. Paul’s manner, seek some points in the existing
superstitions as the basis of his own instructions,
instead of indiscriminately condemning and discard-
ing the whole assemblage of heathen opinions and
practices ; and he will address his hearers, not as men
in a state of actual perdition, but as being in imminent
danger of “ the wrath to come,” because they are in
bondage and ignorance, and probably under God’s
displeasure, that is, the vast majority of them are so in
fact ; but not necessarily so, from the very circum-
stance of their being heathen. And while he stren-
uously opposes all that is idolatrous, immoral, and
profane, in their creed, he will profess to be leading
them on to perfection, and to be recovering and
purifying, rather than reversing the essential principles
of their belief.
A number of corollaries may be drawn from this
view of the relation of Christianity to Paganism, by
way of solving difficulties which often perplex the
mind. For example, we thus perceive the utter
impropriety of ridicule and satire as a means of pre-
paring a heathen population for the reception of the
truth. Of course it is right, soberly and temperately,
to expose the absurdities of idol-worship ; but some-
times it is maintained that a writer, such as the
infamous Lucian, who scoffs at an established religion
altogether, is the suitable preparation for the Christian
preacher, — as if ii|fidelity were a middle state between
superstition and truth. This view derives its plausi-
bility from the circumstance that in drawing out
systems in writing, to erase a false doctrine is the first
step towards inserting the true. Accordingly, the
35
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria:
mind is often compared to a tablet or paper : a state
of it is contemplated of absolute freedom from all
prepossessions and likings for one system or another,
as a first step towards arriving at the truth ; and infi-
delity represented as that candid and dispassionate
frame of mind, which is the desideratum. For
instance, at the present day, men are to be found of
high religious profession, who, to the surprise and
grief of sober minds, exult in the overthrow just now
of religion in France, as if an unbeliever were in a
more hopeful state than a bigot, for advancement in
real spiritual knowledge. But in truth, the mind
never can resemble a blank paper, in its freedom from
impressions and prejudices. Infidelity is a positive,
not a negative state ; it is a state of profaneness,
pride, and selfishness ; and he who believes a little,
but encompasses that little with the inventions of men,
is undeniably in a better condition than he who blots
out from his mind both the human inventions, and
that portion of truth which was concealed in them.
Again : it is plain that the tenderness of dealing,
which it is our duty to adopt towards a heathen un-
believer, is not to be used towards an apostate. No
economy can be employed towards those who have
been once enlightened, and have fallen away. I wish
to speak explicitly on this subject, because there is a
great deal of that spurious charity among us which
would cultivate the friendship of those who, in a
Christian country, speak against the Church or its
creeds. Origen and others were not unwilling to be on
a footing of intercourse with the heathen philosophers
of their day, in order, if it were possible, to lead them
into the truth ; but deliberate heretics and apostates,
86 The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
those who had known the truth, and rejected it, were
objects of their abhorrence, and were avoided from
the truest charity to them. For what can be said to
those who already know all we have to say ? And
how can we show our fear for their souls, nay, and for
our own steadfastness, except by a strong action ?
Thus Origen, when a youth, could not be induced to
attend the prayers of a heretic of Antioch whom his
patroness had adopted, from a loathing^, as he says,
of heresy. And St. Austin himself tells us, that while
he was a Manichee, his own mother would not eat
at the same table with him in her house, from her
strong aversion to the blasphemies which were the
characteristic of his sect 6 . And Scripture fully sanc-
tions this mode of acting, by the severity with whicl
such unhappy men are spoken of, on the different
occasions when mention is made of them 7.
Further : the foregoing remarks may serve to show
us, with what view the early Church cultivated and
employed heathen literature in its missionary labours;
viz. not with the notion that the cultivation, which
literature gives, was any substantial improvement of
our moral nature, but as thereby opening the mind,
and rendering it susceptible of an appeal ; nor as if
the heathen literature itself had any direct connexion
with the matter of Christianity, but because it contained
in it the scattered fragments of those original traditions
which might be made the means of introducing a
student to the Christian system, being the ore in which
the true metal was found. The account above given
of the conversion of Gregory is a proof of this.
5 /^ScXurroftei/os. Eus. Hist. vi. 2 [vii. 7, Eulog. ap. Phot. p. 861]
fi Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 2, § 11.
7 Rom. xvi. 17. 2 Thess. iii. 14. 2 John 10, 11, &c.
87
sect, iii] The Church of Alexandria,
The only danger to which the Alexandrian doctrine
is exposed, is that of its confusing the Scripture Dis-
pensations with that of Natural Religion, as if they
were of equal authority ; as if the Gospel had not a
claim of acceptance on the conscience of all who heard
it, nor became a touchstone of their moral condition ;
and as if the Bible, as the Pagan system, were but
partially true, and had not been attested by the dis-
criminating evidence of miracles. This is the heresy
of the Neologians in this day, as it was of the Eclectics
in primitive times ; as will be shown in the next
section. The foregoing extract from Clement shows
his entire freedom from so grievous an error ; but in
order to satisfy any suspicion which may exist of his
using language which may have led to a more decided
corruption after his day, I will quote a passage from
the sixth book of his Stromateis, in which he main-
tains the supremacy of Revealed Religion, as being in
fact the source and test of all other religions ; the
extreme imperfection of the latter ; the derivation of
whatever is true in these from Revelation ; the secret
presence of God in them, by that Word of Life which
is directly and bodily revealed in Christianity ; and
the corruption and yet forced imitation of the truth by
the evil spirit in such of them, as he wishes to make
pass current among mankind.
“ Should it be said that the Greeks discovered philo-
sophy by human wisdom,” he says, “I reply, that I find
the Scriptures declare all wisdom to be a divine gift :
for instance, the Psalmist considers wisdom to be the
greatest of gifts, and offers this petition, * I am thy
servant, make me wise.’ And does not David ask for
illumination in its diverse functions, when he says
88 The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
‘Teach me goodness, discipline, and knowledge, for I
have believed Thy precepts’? Here he confesses that
the Covenants of God are of supreme authority, and
vouchsafed to the choice portion of mankind. Again,
there is a Psalm which says of God, ‘ He hath not acted
thus with any other nation, and His judgments He hath
not revealed to them ; ’ where the words, ‘ He hath not
done thus / imply that He hath indeed done somewhat,
but not thus. By using thus he contrasts their state
with our superiority ; else the Prophet might simply
have said, ‘ He hath not acted with other nations,’
without adding thus. The prophetical figure, ‘ The
Lord is over many waters,’ refers to the same truth ;
that is, a Lord not only of the different covenants, but
also of the various methods of teaching, which lead to
righteousness, whether among the Gentiles or the Jews.
David also bears his testimony to this truth, when he
says in the Psalm, ‘ Let the sinners be turned into hell,
all the nations which forget God ; that is, they forget
whom they formerly remembered, they put aside
Him whom they knew before they forgot. It seems
then there was some dim knowledge of God even
among the Gentiles. . They who say that philosophy
originates with the devil, would do well to consider
what Scripture says about the devil’s being trans-
formed into an Angel of light. For what will he
do then ? it is plain he will prophesy. Now if he
prophesies as an Angel of light, of course he will speak
what is true. If he shall prophesy angelic and en-
lightened doctrine, he will prophesy what is profitable
also ; that is, at the time when he is thus changed in
his apparent actions, far different as he is at bottom in
his real apostasy. For how would he deceive except
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria, 89
by craftily leading on the inquirer by means of truth, , to
an intimacy with himself, and so at length seducing
him into error ? . . Therefore philosophy is not false,
though he who is thief and liar speaks truth by a
change in his manner of acting. . . The philosophy of
the Greeks, limited and particular as it is, contains the
rudiments of that really perfect knowledge which is
beyond this world, which is engaged in intellectual
objects, and upon those more spiritual, which eye hath
not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived,
before they were made clear to us by our Great
Teacher, who reveals the holy of holies, and still
holier truths in an ascending scale, to those who are
genuine heirs of the Lord’s adoption 8 .”
6 .
What I have said about the method of teaching
adopted by the Alexandrian, and more or less by the
other primitive Churches, amounts to this ; that they
on principle refrained from telling unbelievers all they
believed themselves, and further, that they endeavoured
to connect their own doctrine with theirs, whether
Jewish or pagan, adopting their sentiments and even
their language, as far as they lawfully could. Some
instances of this have been given ; more will follow, in
the remarks which I shall now make upon the
influence of Platonism on their theological language.
The reasons, which induced the early Fathers to
avail themselves of the language of Platonism, were
various. They did so, partly as an argumentum ad
hominem; as if the Christian were not professing in
the doctrine of the Trinity a more mysterious tenet,
Strom, vi. 8.
go
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
than that which had been propounded by a great
heathen authority ; partly to conciliate their philo-
sophical opponents ; partly to save themselves the
arduousness of inventing terms, where the Church had
not yet authoritatively supplied them ; and partly with
the hope, or even belief, that the Platonic school had
been guided in portions of its system by a more than
human wisdom, of which Moses was the unknown but
real source. As far as these reasons depend upon
the rule of the Economy, they have already been con-
sidered ; and an instance of their operation given in
the exoteric conduct of Athanasius himself, whose
orthodoxy no one questions. But the last reason
given, their suspicion of the divine origin of the Pla-
tonic doctrine, requires some explanation.
It is unquestionable that, from very early times,
traditions have been afloat through the world, at-
taching the notion of a Trinity, in some sense or
other, to the First Cause. Not to mention the traces
of this doctrine in the classical and the Indian mytho-
logies, we detect it in the Magian hypothesis of a
supreme and two subordinate antagonist deities in
Plutarch’s Trinity of God, matter, and the evil spirit,
and in certain heresies in the first age of the Church,
which, to the Divine Being and the Demiurgus, added
a third original principle, sometimes the evil spirit, and
sometimes matter 9 . Plato has adopted the same gen-
eral notion ; and with no closer or more definite ap-
proach to the true doctrine. On the whole, it seems
reasonable to infer, that the heathen world possessed
traditions too ancient to be rejected, and too sacred to
9 Cudworth, In tell. Syst. i. 4 , § 13, 16. Beausobre, Hist, de Manich.
iv. 6, § 8, &c .
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. 91
be used in popular theology. If Plato’s doctrine
bears a greater apparent resemblance to the revealed
truth than that of others, this is owing merely to his
reserve in speaking on the subject. His obscurity
allows room for an ingenious fancy to impose a mean-
ing upon him. Whether he includes in his Trinity
the notion of a First Cause, its active energy, and the
influence resulting from it ; or again, the divine sub-
stance as the source of all spiritual beings from
eternity, the divine power and wisdom as exerted in
time in the formation of the material world, and
thirdly, the innumerable derivative spirits by whom
the world is immediately governed, is altogether
doubtful. Nay, even the writers who revived his
philosophy in the third and fourth ’ centuries after
Christ, and embellished the doctrine with additions
from Scripture, discover a like extraordinary variation
in their mode of expounding it. The Maker of the
world, the Demiurge , considered by Plato sometimes
as the first, sometimes as the second principle, is by
Julian placed as the second, by Plotinus as the third,
and by Proclus as the fourth, that is, the last of three
subordinate powers, all dependent on a First, or the
One Supreme Deity k In truth, speculations, vague
and unpractical as these, made no impression on the
minds of the heathen philosophers, perhaps as never
being considered by them as matters of fact, but as
allegories and metaphysical notions, and accordingly,
caused in them no solicitude or diligence to maintain
consistency in their expression of them.
But very different was the influence of the ancient
theory of Plato, however originated, when it came in
1 Petav. Theol. Dogm, tom. ii. i. i, § 5.
92
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
contact with believers in the inspired records, who at
once discerned in it that mysterious Doctrine, brought
out as if into bodily shape and almost practical per-
suasiveness, which lay hid under the angelic mani-
festations of the Law and the visions of the Prophets.
Difficult as it is to determine the precise place in the
sacred writings, where the Divine Logos or Word was
first revealed, and how far He is intended in each
particular passage, the idea of Him is doubtless seated
very deeply in their teaching. Appearing first as if a
mere created minister of God’s will, He is found to be
invested with an ever-brightening glory, till at length
we are bid fall down as before the personal Presence
and consubstantial Representative of the one God.
Those then, who were acquainted with the Sacred
Volume, possessed in it a key, more or less exact
according to their degree of knowledge, for that
aboriginal tradition which the heathen ignorantly but
piously venerated, and were prompt in appropriating
the language of philosophers, with a changed meaning,
to the rightful service of that spiritual kingdom, of
which a divine personal mediation was the great
characteristic. In the books of Wisdom and Ecclesi-
asticus, and much more, in the writings of Philo, the
Logos of Plato, which had denoted the divine energy
in forming the world, or the Demiurge, and the pre-
vious all-perfect incommunicable design of it, or the
Only-begotten, was arrayed in the attributes of per-
sonality, made the instrument of creation, and the
revealed Image of the incomprehensible God. Amid
such bold and impatient anticipations of the future, it
is not wonderful that the Alexandrian Jews outstepped
the truth which they hoped to appropriate ; and that
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria.
93
intruding into things not seen as yet, with the confi-
dence of prophets rather than of disciples of Revela-
tion, they eventually obscured the doctrine when
disclosed, which we may well believe they loved in
prospect and desired to honour. This remark par-
ticularly applies to Philo, who associating it with
Platonic notions as well as words, developed its
lineaments with so rude and hasty a hand, as to
separate the idea of the Divine Word from that of the
Eternal God ; and so perhaps to prepare the way for
Arianism 2
Even after this Alexandrino-Judaic doctrine had
been corrected and completed by the inspired Apostles
St. Paul and St. John, it did not lose its hold upon
the Fathers of the Christian Church, who could not
but discern in the old Scriptures, even more clearly
than their predecessors, those rudiments of the perfect
truth which God’s former revelations concealed ; and
who in consequence called others, (as it were,) to gaze
upon these both as a prophetical witness in confu-
tation of unbelief, and in gratitude to Him who had
wrought so marvellously with His Church. But it
followed from the nature of the case, that, while they
thus traced with watchful eyes, under the veil of the
literal text, the first and gathering tokens of that
Divine Agent who in fulness of time became their
Redeemer, they were led to speak of Him in terms
2 This may be illustrated by the theological language of the Paradise
Lost, which, as far as the very words go, is conformable both to Scrip-
ture and the writings of the early Fathers, but becomes offensive as being
dwelt upon as if it were literal, not figurative. It is scriptural to say that
the Son went forth from the Father to create the worlds ; but when this is
made the basis of a scene or pageant, it borders on Arianism. Milton
has made Allegory, or the Economy, real. Vide infra, ch. ii. § 4, fin.
94
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
short of that full confession of His divine greatness,
which the Gospel reveals, and which they themselves
elsewhere unequivocally expressed, especially as living
in times before the history of heresy had taught them
the necessity of caution in their phraseology. Thus,
for instance, from a text in the book of Proverbs 3 ,
which they understood to refer to Christ, Origen and
others speak of Him as “ created by the Lord in the
beginning, before His works of old ; ” meaning no
more than that it was He, the true Light of man, who
was secretly intended by the Spirit, and mystically
(though incompletely) described, when Solomon spoke
of the Divine Wisdom as the instrument of Gods
providence and moral governance. In like manner,
when Justin speaks of the Son as the minister of God,
it is with direct reference to those numerous passages
of the Old Testament, in which a ministering angelic
presence is more or less characterized by the titles and
attributes of Divine Perfection 4 5 . And, in the use of
this emblematical diction they were countenanced (not
to mention the Apocalypse) by the almost sacred
authority of the platonizing books of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus ; works so highly revered by the Alex-
andrian Church as to be put into the hands of Cate-
chumens as a preparation for inspired Scripture,
contrary to the discipline observed in the neighbouring
Church of Jerusalem 3 .
The following are additional instances of Platonic
language in the early Fathers ; though the reader will
scarcely perceive at first sight what is the fault in
3 Prov. viii. 22, K vpio% eKTicrev. Septuag .
4 Justin. Apol. i. 63. Tryph. 56, &c.
5 Bingh. Antiq. x. 1. § 7.
95
sect , hi .] The Church of Alexandria.
them, unless he happens to know the defective or
perverse sense in which philosophy or heresy used
them 6 7 . For instance, Justin speaks of the Word as
“ fulfilling the Father’s will.” Clement calls Him?
“ the Thought or Reflection of God ; ” and in another
place, “ the Second Principle of all things,” the Father
Himself being the First. Elsewhere he speaks of the
Son as an “ all-perfect, all-holy, all-sovereign, all-
authoritative, supreme, and all-searching nature, reach-
ing close upon the sole Almighty.” In like manner
Origen speaks of the Son as being “the immediate
Creator, and as it were, Artificer of the world ; ” and
the Father, “ the Origin of it, as having committed to
His Son its creation.” A bolder theology than this of
Origen and Clement is adopted by five early writers
connected with very various schools of Christian
teaching ; none of whom, however, are of especial
authority in the Church 8 . They explained the Scrip-
ture doctrine of the generation of the Word to mean,
His manifestation at the beginning of the world as
distinct from God ; a statement, which, by weakening
the force of a dogmatic formula which implies our
Lord’s Divine Nature, might perhaps lend some acci-
dental countenance after their day to the Arian denial
of it. These subjects will come before us in the next
chapter.
I have now, perhaps, sufficiently accounted for the
apparent liberality of the Alexandrian School ; which,
6 Petav. Theol. Dogm. tom.ii. i. 3, 4.
7 ZvvorjfjLa •
8 Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 168) ; Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr
(a.d. 169) ; Athenagoras of Alexandria (a.d. 177) ; Hippolytus, the disciple
96
The Church of Alexandria, [chap. i.
notwithstanding, was strict and uncompromising, when
its system is fairly viewed as a whole, and with re-
ference to its objects, and as distinct from that rival
and imitative philosophy, to be mentioned in the next
section, which rose out of it at the beginning of the
third century, and with which it is by some writers
improperly confounded. That its principles were
always accurately laid, or the conduct of its masters
nicely adjusted to them, need not be contended ; or
that they opposed themselves with an exact impar-
tiality to every form of error which assailed the
Church ; or that they duly entered into and soundly
applied the Jewish Scriptures ; or that in conducting
the Economy they were altogether free from an
ambitious imitation of the Apostles, nobly conceived
indeed, but little becoming uninspired teachers. It
may unreluctantly be confessed, wherever it can be
proved, that their exoteric professions at times affected
the purity of their esoteric doctrine, though this re-
mark scarcely applies to their statements on the sub-
ject of the Trinity ; and that they indulged a boldness
of inquiry, such as innocence prompts, rashness and
irreverence corrupt, and experience of its mischievous
consequences is alone able to repress. Still all this,
and much more than this, were it to be found, weighs
as nothing against the mass of testimonies producible
from extant documents in favour of the real orthodoxy
of their creed. Against a multitude of the very
strongest and most explicit declarations of the divinity
of Christ, some of. which will be cited in their proper
cflrenseus and triend of Origen (a.d. 222): and the Author who goes
under the name of Novatian (a. d. 250). [This is Bull’s view; for that
maturely adopted by the author, vide his “Theological Tracts.”]
97
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria. ■
place, but a very few apparent exceptions to the
strictest language of technical theology can be
gathered from their writings, and these are suf-
ficiently explained by the above considerations. And
further, such is the high religious temper which their
works exhibit, as to be sufficient of itself to convince
the Christian inquirer, that they would have shrunk
from the deliberate blasphemy with which Arius in
the succeeding century assailed and scoffed at the
awful majesty of his Redeemer.
Origen, in particular, that man of strong heart, who
has paid for the unbridled freedom of his speculations
on other subjects of theology, by the multitude of
grievous and unfair charges which burden his name
with posterity, protests, by the forcible argument of
a life devoted to God’s service, against his alleged con-
nexion with the cold disputatious spirit, and the
unprincipled domineering ambition, which are the
historical badges of the heretical party. Nay, it is a
remarkable fact that it was he who discerned the
heresy 9 outside the Church on its first rise, and
actually gave the alarm, sixty years before Arius’s day.
9 “The Word,” says Origen, “ being the Image of the Invisible God,
must Himself be invisible. Nay, I will maintain further, that as being
the Image He is eternal, as the God whose Image He is. For when was
that God, whom St. John calls the Light, destitute of the Radiance of His
incommunicable glory, so that a man may dare to ascribe a beginning of
existence to the Son ? . . . Let a man, who dares to say that the Son is not
from eternity, consider well, that this is all one with saying, Divine Wis-
dom had a beginning, or Reason, or Life.” Athan. de Deer. Nic. § 27.
Vide also his 7 repi apywv (if Ruffinus may be trusted), for his denounce-
ment of the still more characteristic Arianisms of the rjv ore ovk vv and
the ovk ovtojv. [On Origen’s disadvantages, vide Lumper Hist. t. x.
p. 406, &c.]
LI
9 8
- The Church of Alexandria . [chap. i.
Here let it suffice to set down in his vindication the
following facts, which may be left to the consideration
of the reader ; — first, that his habitual hatred of heresy
and concern for heretics were such, as to lead him,
even when left an orphan in a stranger’s house, to
withdraw from the praying and teaching of one of
them, celebrated for his eloquence, who was in favour
with his patroness and other Christians of Alexandria ;
that all through his long life he was known through-
out Christendom as the especial opponent of false
doctrine, in its various shapes ; and that his pupils,
Gregory, Athenodorus, and Dionysius, were principal
actors in the arraignment of Paulus, the historical
forerunner of AriuS ; — next, that his speculations,
extravagant as they often were, related to points not
yet determined by the Church, and, consequently, were
really, what he frequently professed them to be,
inquiries ; — further, that these speculations were for the
most part ventured in matters of inferior importance,
certainly not upon the sacred doctrines which Arius
afterwards impugned, and in regard to which even his
enemy Jerome allows him to be orthodox ; — that the
opinions which brought him into disrepute in his life-
time concerned the creation of the world, the nature
of the human soul, and the like ; — that his opinions,
or rather speculations, on these subjects, were im-
prudently made public by his friends ; — that his
writings were incorrectly transcribed even in his life-
time, according to his own testimony ; — that after his
death, Arian interpolations appear to have been made
in some of his works now lost, upon which the sub-
sequent Catholic testimony of his heterodoxy is
grounded; — that, on the other hand, in his extant
99
sect, hi.] The Church of Alexandria .
works, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly avowed,
and in particular, our Lord’s Divinity energetically
and variously enforced ; — and lastly, that in matter
of fact, the Arian party does not seem to have claimed
him, or appealed to him in self-defence, till thirty
years after the first rise of the heresy, when the
originators of it were already dead, although they
had showed their inclination to shelter themselves
behind celebrated names, by the stress they laid on
their connexion with the martyr Lucian 1 . But if so
much can be adduced in exculpation of Origen from
any grave charge of heterodoxy, what accusation can
be successfully maintained against his less suspected
fellow-labourers in the polemical school ? so that, in
concluding this part of the subject, we may with full
satisfaction adopt the judgment of Jerome : — “ It may
be that they erred in simplicity, or that they wrote in
another sense, or that their writings were gradually
corrupted by unskilful transcribers ; or certainly,
before Arius, like ‘ the sickness that destroyeth in the
noon-day,’ was born in Alexandria, they made state-
ments innocently and incautiously, which are open to
the misinterpretation of the perverse 2 .”
1 Huet. Origen. lib. i. lib.ii. 4. § i. Bull, Defens. F. N. ii. 9.
Waterland’s Works, vol. iii. p. 322. Baltus, Defense des Ss. Peres, ii. 20
Tillemont, Mem. vol. iii. p. 259. Socrat. Hist. iv. 26. Athanasius
notices the change in the Arian polemics, from mere disputation to an
appeal to authority, in his De Sent. Dionys. § 1, written about a . d . 354.
ovSev ovt evXoyov ovre 7 rpos d 7 rdScifu/ Ik rijs 6e tas ypacfrrjs prjTov
rrjs atpecrews a vtCjv, act pXv 7 rpo<£dcr€is dvatcr^vvTOv^
hropL^ovTo Kal <jocf>L(Tp,aTa 7n0avd * vvv Se Kal SiafidWtiv rous
7 roTepas T£To\par)Kacn.
2 Apolog. adv. Ruffin, ii. Oper. vol. ii. p. 149.
H 2
IOO
SECTION IV.
THE ECLECTIC SECT.
The words of St. Jerome, with which the last section
closed, may perhaps suggest the suspicion, that the
Alexandrians, though orthodox themselves, yet in-
cautiously prepared the way for Arianism by the
countenance they gave to the use of the Platonic
theological language. But, before speculating on the
medium of connexion between Platonism and Arian-
ism, it would be well to ascertain the existence of the
connexion itself, which is very doubtful, whether we
look for it in history, or in the respective characters
of the parties professing the two doctrines ; though it
is certain that Platonism, and Origenism also, became
the excuse and refuge of the heresy when it was con-
demned by the Church. I proceed to give an account
of the rise and genius of Eclecticism, with the view of
throwing light upon this question ; that is, of showing
its relation both to the Alexandrian Church and to
Arianism.
I.
The Eclectic philosophy is so called from its pro-
fessing to select the better parts of the systems
sect, iv.] The Eclectic Sect .
ioi
invented before it, and to digest these into one con-
sistent doctrine. It is doubtful where the principle of
it originated, but it is probably to be ascribed to the
Alexandrian Jews. Certain it is, that the true faith
never could come into contact with the heathen
philosophies, without exercising its right to arbitrate
between them, to protest against their vicious or
erroneous dogmas, and to extend its countenance to
whatever bore an exalted or a practical character.
A cultivated taste would be likely to produce among
the heathen the same critical spirit which was created
by real religious knowledge ; and accordingly we
find in the philosophers of the Augustan and the suc-
ceeding age, an approximation to an eclectic or syn-
cretistic system, similar to that which is found in the
writings of Philo. Some authors have even supposed,
that Potamo, the original projector of the school based
on this principle, flourished in the reign of Augustus ;
but this notion is untenable, and we must refer him to
the age of Severus, at the end of the second century 1 .
In the mean time, the Christians had continued to act
upon the discriminative view of heathen philosophy
which the Philonists had opened ; and, as we have
already seen, Clement, yet without allusion to partic-
ular sect or theory, which did not exist till after his
day, declares himself the patron of the Eclectic prin-
ciple. Thus we are introduced to the history of the
School which embodied it.
Ammonius, the contemporary of Potamo, and
virtually the founder of the Eclectic sect, was born of
1 Brucker, Hist. Phil. per. ii. part i. 2 t § 4. [Vide Fabric. Bibl. Grsec.
}. v. p. 680, ed. Harles.]
102
The Eclectic Sect . [chap. i.
Christian parents, and educated as a Christian in the
catechetical institutions of Alexandria, under the
superintendence of Clement or Pantsenus. After a
time he renounced, at least secretly, his belief in
Christianity ; and opening a school of morals and
theology on the stock of principles, esoteric and
exoteric, which he had learned in the Church, he
became the founder of a system really his own, but
which by a dexterous artifice he attributed to Plato.
The philosophy thus introduced into the world was
forthwith patronized by the imperial court, both at
Rome and in the East, and spread itself in the course
of years throughout the empire, with bitter hostility
and serious detriment to the interests of true religion ;
till at length, obtaining in the person of Julian a
second apostate for its advocate, it became the author-
ized interpretation and apology for the state poly-
theism. It is a controverted point whether or not
Ammonius actually separated from the Church. His
disciples affirm it; Eusebius, though not without some
immaterial confusion of statement, denies it 2 . On
the whole, it is probable that he began his teaching
as a Christian, and but gradually disclosed the
systematic infidelity on which it was grounded. We
are told expressly that he bound his disciples to
secrecy, which was not broken till they in turn became
lecturers in Rome, and were led one by one to divulge
the real doctrines of their master 3 ; nor can we other-
wise account for the fact of Origen having attended
him for a time, since he who refused to hear Paulus of
Antioch, even when dependent on the patroness of
2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 19.
3 Brucker, ibid.
sect, iv.] The Eclectic Sect.
103
that heretic, would scarcely have extended a voluntary
countenance to a professed deserter from the Chris-
tian faith and name.
This conclusion is confirmed by a consideration of
the nature of the error substituted by Ammonius for
the orthodox belief ; which was in substance what in
these times would be called Neologism , a heresy which,
even more than others, has shown itself desirous and
able to conceal itself under the garb of sound religion,
and to keep the form, while it destroys the spirit, of
Christianity. So close, indeed, was the outward re-
semblance between Eclecticism and the Divine system
of which it was the deadly enemy, that St. Austin
remarks, in more than one passage, that the difference
between the two professions lay only in the varied
acceptation of a few words and propositions 4 . This
peculiar character of the Eclectic philosophy must be
carefully noticed, for it exculpates the Catholic
Fathers from being really implicated in proceedings,
of which at first they did not discern the drift ; while
it explains that apparent connexion which, at the
distance of centuries, exists between them and the
real originator of it.
The essential mark of Neologism is the denial of
the exclusive divine mission and peculiar inspiration
of the Scripture Prophets ; accompanied the while
with a profession of general respect for them as bene-
factors of mankind, as really instruments in Gods
hand, and as in some sense the organs of His revela-
tions ; nay, in a fuller measure such, than other
religious and moral teachers. In its most specious
4
\
Mosheim, Diss. de Turb. per recent. Plat. Eccl. § 12.
104 Eclectic Sect . [chap. i.
form, it holds whatever is good and true in the various
religions in the world, to have actually come from
God : in its most degraded, it accounts them all
equally to be the result of mere human benevolence
and skill. In all its shapes, it differs from the ortho-
dox belief, primarily, in denying the miracles of
Scripture to have taken place, in the peculiar way
therein represented, as distinctive marks of God’s
presence accrediting the teaching of those who
wrought them ; next, as a consequence, in denying
this teaching, as preserved in Scripture, to be in such
sense the sole record of religious truth, that all who
hear it are bound to profess themselves disciples of
it. Its apparent connexion with Christianity lies
(as St. Austin remarks) in the ambiguous use of
certain terms, such as divine , revelation , inspiration ,
and the like ; which may with equal ease be made
to refer either to ordinary and merely providential,
or to miraculous appointments in the counsels of
Almighty Wisdom. And these words would be even
more ambiguous than at the present day, in an age,
when Christians were ready to grant, that the heathen
were in some sense under a supernatural Dispensation,
as was explained in the foregoing section.
The rationalism of the Eclectics, though equally
opposed with the modern to the doctrine of the
peculiar divinity of the Scripture revelations, was
circumstantially different from it. The Neologists of
the present day deny that the miracles took place in
the manner related in the sacred record ; the Eclectics
denied their cogency as an evidence of the extraor-
dinary presence of God. Instead of viewing them as
events of very rare occurrence, and permitted for
sect, iv.] The Eclectic Sect .
105
important objects in the course of Goa's providence,
they considered them to be common to every age and
country, beyond the knowledge rather than the
power of ordinary men, attainable by submitting to
the discipline of certain mysterious rules, and the
immediate work of beings far inferior to the Supreme
Governor of the world. It followed that, a display of
miraculous agency having no connexion with the
truth of the religious system which it accompanied, at
least not more than any gift merely human was con-
nected with it, such as learning or talent, the inquirer
was at once thrown upon the examination of the
doctrines for the evidence of the divinity of Chris-
tianity ; and there being no place left for a claim on
his allegiance to it as a whole, and for what is strictly
termed faith, he admitted or rejected as he chose,
compared and combined it with whatever was valuable
elsewhere, and was at liberty to propose to himself
that philosopher for a presiding authority, whom the
Christians did but condescend to praise for his approx-
imation towards some of the truths which Revelation
had unfolded. The chapel of Alexander Severus was
a fit emblem of that system, which placed on a level
Abraham, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and the Sacred Name
by which Christians are called. The zeal, the bro-
therly love, the beneficence, and the wise discipline of
the Church, are applauded, and held up for imitation
in the letters of the Emperor Julian ; who at another
time calls the Almighty Guardian of the Israelites a
"great God 5,” while in common with his sect he pro-
fessed to restore the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
6 Gibbon, Hist. ch. xxiii.
106 The Eclectic Sect . [chap. i.
to its ancient and pure Platonic basis. It followed as
a natural consequence, that the claims of religion
being no longer combined, defined, and embodied in a
personal Mediator between God and man, its various
precepts were dissipated back again and confused in
the mass of human knowledge, as before Christ came ;
and in its stead a mere intellectual literature arose in
the Eclectic School, and usurped the theological chair
as an interpreter of sacred duties, and the instructor of
the inquiring mind. “In the religion which he (Julian)
had adopted,” says Gibbon, “ piety and learning were
almost synonymous ; and a crowd of poets, of rhetori-
cians, and of philosophers, hastened to the Imperial
Court, to occupy the vacant places of the bishops, who
had seduced the credulity of Constantius 6 .” Who
does not recognize in this old philosophy the chief
features of that recent school of liberalism and false
illumination, political and moral, which is now Satan’s
instrument in deluding the nations, but which is worse
and more earthly than it, inasmuch as his former
artifice, affecting a religious ceremonial, could not but
leave so much of substantial truth mixed in the
system as to impress its disciples with somewhat of a
lofty and serious character, utterly foreign to the cold,
scoffing spirit of modern rationalism ?
The freedom of the Alexandrian Christians from
the Eclectic error was shown above, when I was ex-
plaining the principles of their teaching ; a passage of
Clement being cited, which clearly distinguished
between the ordinary and the miraculous appoint-
ments of Providence. An examination of the dates
6 Ibid.
sect, iv.] The Eclectic Sect . 107
of the history will show that they could not do more
than bear this indirect testimony against it by anticipa-
tion. Clement himself was prior to the rise of Eclec-
ticism ; Origen, prior to its public establishment as a
sect. Ammonius opened his school at the end of the
second century, and continued to preside in it at least
till A.D. 243 7 ; during which period, and probably for
some years after his death, the real character of his
doctrines was carefully hidden from the world. He
committed nothing to writing, whether of his exoteric
or esoteric philosophy, and when Origen, who was
scarcely his junior, attended him in his first years,
probably had not yet decidedly settled the form of
his system. Plotinus, the first promulgator and chief
luminary of Eclecticism, began his public lectures
A.D. 244 ; and for some time held himself bound by
the promise of secrecy made to his master. Moreover,
he selected Rome as the seat of his labours, and there
is even proof that Origen and he never met. In
. Alexandria, on the contrary, the infant philosophy
languished ; no teacher of note succeeded to Ammo-
nius ; and even had it been otherwise, Origen had
left the city for ever, ten years previous to that
philosopher’s death. It is clear, then, that he had no
means of detecting the secret infidelity of the Eclectics ;
and the proof of this is still stronger, if, as Brucker
calculates 7 8 , Plotinus did not divulge his master’s
secret till A.D. 255, since Origen died A.D. 253. Yet,
even in this ignorance of the purpose of the Eclectics,
we find Origen, in his letter to Gregory expressing
7 Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. Harles. iv. 29.
8 Brucker, ibid.
io8 The Eclectic Sect. [chap. i.
dissatisfaction at the actual effects which had resulted
to the Church from that literature in which he himself
was so eminently accomplished. “ For my part,” he
says to Gregory, “ taught by experience, I will own to
you, that rare is the man, who, having accepted the
precious things of Egypt, leaves the country, and uses
them in decorating the worship of God. Most men
who descend thither are brothers of Hadad (Jeroboam),
inventing heretical theories with heathen dexterity,
and establishing (so to say) calves of gold in Bethel,
the house of God 9 .” So much concerning Origen’s
ignorance of the Eclectic philosophy. As to his
pupils, Gregory and Dionysius, the latter, who was
Bishop of Alexandria, died A.D. 264 ; Gregory, on the
other hand, pronounced his panegyrical oration upon
Origen, in which his own attachment to heathen liter-
ature is avowed, as early as A.D. 239 ; and besides, he
had no connexion whatever with Alexandria, having
met with Origen at Caesarea 1 . Moreover, just at this
time there were heresies actually spreading in the
Church of an opposite theological character, such as
Paulianism ; which withdrew their attention from the
prospect or actual rise of a Platonic pseudo-theology ;
as will hereafter be shown.
Such, then, were the origin and principles of the
Eclectic sect. It was an excrescence of the school of
Alexandria, but not attributable to it, except as other
heresies may be ascribed to other Churches, which give
them birth indeed, but cast them out and condemn them
when they become manifest. It went out from the
9 Orig. Ep. ad Gregor. § 2 .
1 Tillemont, vol. iv. Chronolog.
sect. iv. ] The Eclectic Sect . 109
Christians, but it was not of them : — whether it re-
sembled the Arians, on the other hand, and what use
its tenets were to them, are the next points to con-
sider.
2 .
The Arian school has already been attributed to
Antioch as its birth-place, and its character determined
to be what we may call Aristotelico-Judaic. Now, at
very first sight, there are striking points of difference
between it and the Eclectics. On its Aristotelic side,
its disputatious temper was altogether uncongenial to
the new Platonists. These philosophers were com-
monly distinguished by their melancholy tempera-
ment, which disposed them to mysticism, and often
urged them to eccentricities bordering on insanity 2 .
Far from cultivating the talents requisite for success
in life, they placed the sublimer virtues in an abstrac-
tion from sense, and an indifference to ordinary duties.
They believed that an intercourse with the intelli-
gences of the spiritual world could only be effected by
divesting themselves of their humanity ; and that the
acquisition of miraculous gifts would compensate for
their neglect of rules necessary for the well-being of
common mortals. In pursuit of this hidden talent,
Plotinus meditated a journey into India, after the
pattern of Apollonius ; while bodily privations and
magical rites were methods prescribed in their philo-
sophy for rising in the scale of being. As might be
expected from the professors of such a creed, the
science of argumentation was disdained, as beneath the
regard of those who were walking by an internal vision
2 Brucker, supra.
no The Eclectic Sect. [chap. i.
of the truth, not by the calculations of a tedious and
progressive reason ; and was only employed in conde-
scending regard for such as were unable to rise to their
own level. When Iamblichus was foiled in argument
by a dialectician, he observed that the syllogisms of
his sect were not weapons which could be set before
the many, being the energy of those inward virtues
which are the peculiar ornament of the philosopher.
Notions such as these, which have their measure of
truth, if we substitute for the unreal and almost
passive illumination of the mystics, that instinctive
moral perception which the practice of virtue ensures,
found no sympathy in the shrewd secular policy and
the intriguing spirit of the Arians ; nor again, in their
sharp-witted unimaginative cleverness, their precise
and technical disputations, their verbal distinctions,
and their eager appeals to the judgment of the popu-
lace, which is ever destitute of refinement and delicacy,
and has just enough acuteness of apprehension to be
susceptible of sophistical reasonings.
On the other hand, viewing the school of Antioch
on its judaical side, we are met by a different but not
less remarkable contrast to the Eclectics. These phi-
losophers had followed the Alexandrians in adopting
the allegorical rule ; both from its evident suitableness
to their mystical turn of mind, and as a means of
obliterating the scandals and reconciling the inconsis-
tencies of the heathen mythology. Judaism, on the
contrary, being carnal in its views, was essentially
literal in its interpretations ; and, in consequence,
as hostile from its grossness, as the Sophists from
their dryness, to the fanciful fastidiousness of the
Eclectics. It had rejected the Messiah, because He
The Eclectic Sect .
1 1 1
SECT. IV.]
did not fulfil its hopes of a temporal conqueror and
king. It had clung to its obsolete ritual, as not dis-
cerning in it the anticipation of better promises and
commands, then fulfilled in the Gospel. In the Chris-
tian Church, it was perpetuating the obstinacy of its
unbelief in a disparagement of Christ’s spiritual
authority, a reliance on the externals of religious
worship, and an indulgence in worldly and sensual
pleasures. Moreover, it had adopted in its most
odious form the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millen-
arians, respecting the reign of the saints upon earth, a
doctrine which Origen, and afterwards his pupil
Dionysius, opposed on the basis of an allegorical
interpretation of Scripture 3 . And in this controversy,
Judaism was still in connexion, more or less, with the
school of Antioch; which is celebrated in those times,
in contrast to the Alexandrian, for its adherence to
the theory of the literal sense 4 .
It may be added, as drawing an additional distinc-
tion between the Arians and the Eclectics, that while
the latter maintained the doctrine of Emanations, and
of the eternity of matter, the hypothesis of the former
required or implied the rejection of both tenets ; so
that the philosophy did not even furnish the argumen-
tative foundation of the heresy, to which its theology
outwardly bore a partial resemblance.
3 -
But in seasons of difficulty men look about on all
sides for support ; and Eclecticism, which had no
3 Mosh. de Rebus ante Const. Saec. iii. c. 38.
4 Conybeare, Bampt. Lect. iv. Orig. Opp. ed. Benedict, vol. ii. praef.
I 12
The Eclectic Sect .
[chap. i.
attractions for the Sophists of Antioch while their
speculations were unknown to the world at large,
became a seasonable refuge (as we learn from various
authors 5), in the hands of ingenious disputants, when
pressed by the numbers and authority of the defenders
of orthodoxy. First, there was an agreement between
the Schools of Ammonius and of Paulus, in the car-
dinal point of an inveterate opposition to the Catholic
doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity. The judaizers
admitted at most only His miraculous conception.
The Eclectics, honouring Him as a teacher of wisdom,
still, far from considering Him more than man, were
active in preparing from the heathen sages rival
specimens of holiness and power. Next, the two
parties agreed in rejecting from their theology all
mystery, in the ecclesiastical notion of the word. The
Trinitarian hypothesis of the Eclectics was not per-
plexed by any portion of that difficulty of statement
which, in the true doctrine, results from the very
incomprehensibility of its subject. They declared
their belief in a sublime tenet, which Plato had first
propounded and the Christians corrupted ; but their
Three Divine Principles were in no sense one, and,
while essentially distinct from each other, there was a
successive subordination of nature in the second and
the third 5 6 . In such speculations the judaizing Sophist
found the very desideratum which he in vain de-
manded of the Church ; a scripturally-worded creed,
without its accompanying difficulty of conception.
5 Vide Brucker, Hist. Phil. per. ii. part ii. i. 2. § 8. Baltus, Defense
des Peres, ii. 19.
6 ap^LKCU yTroo-TOLcreLS. Cudworth, Intell. Syst. i. 4 § 36.
sect. iv. The Eclectic Sect . 1 1 3
Accordingly, to the doctrine thus put into his hands
he might appeal by way of contrast, as fulfilling his
just demands ; nay, in proportion as he out-argued
and unsettled the faith of his Catholic opponent, so
did he open a way, as a matter of necessity and with-
out formal effort, for the perverted creed of that
philosophy which had so mischievously anticipated
the labours and usurped the office of an ecclesiastical
Synod.
And, further, it must be observed, that, when the
Sophist had mastered the Eclectic theology, he had
in fact a most powerful weapon to mislead or to
embarrass his Catholic antagonist. The doctrine
which Ammonius professed to discover in the Church,
and to reclaim from the Christians, was employed by
the Arian as if the 'testimony of the early Fathers to
the truth of the heretical view which he was main-
taining. What was but incaution, or rather unavoid-
able liberty, in the Ante-Nicene theology, was insisted
on as apostolic truth. Clement and Origen, already
subjected to a perverse interpretation, were witnesses
provided by the Eclectics by anticipation against
orthodoxy. This express appeal to the Alexandrian
writers, seems, in matter of fact, to have been reserved
for a late period of the controversy ; but from the
first an advantage would accrue to the Arians, by
their agreement (as far as it went) with received
language in the early Church. Perplexity and doubt
were thus necessarily introduced into the minds of
those who only heard the rumour of the discussion,
and even of many who witnessed it, and who, but for
this apparent primitive sanction, would have shrunk
from the bold, irreverent inquiries and the idle subtle-
The Eclectic Sect .
[chap. i.
1 14
ties which are the tokens of the genuine Arian temper.
Nor was the allegorical principle of Eclecticism in-
compatible with the instruments of the Sophist. This
also in the hands of a dexterous disputant, particu-
larly in attack, would become more serviceable to the
heretical than to the orthodox cause. For, inasmuch
as the Arian controversialist professed to be asking
for reasons why he should believe our Lord’s divinity,
an answer based on allegorisms did not silence him,
while at the same time, it suggested to him the means
of thereby evading those more argumentative proofs of
the Catholic doctrine, which are built upon the
explicit and literal testimonies of Scripture. It was
notoriously the artifice of Arius, which has been since
more boldly adopted by modern heretics, to explain
away its clearest declarations by a forced figurative
exposition. Here that peculiar subtlety in the use of
language, in which his school excelled, supported and
extended the application of the allegorical rule,
recommended, as it was, to the unguarded believer,
and forced upon the more wary, by its previous recep-
tion on the part of the most illustrious ornaments and
truest champions of the Apostolic faith.
But after all there is no sufficient evidence in history
that the Arians did make this use of Neo-Platonism 7,
7 There seems to have been a much earlier coalition between the Platonic
and Ebionitish doctrines, if the works attributed to the Roman Clement may
be taken in evidence of it. Mosheim (de Turb. Eccl. § 34) says both the
Recognitions and Clementines are infected with the latter, and the Clemen-
tines with the former doctrine. These works were written between
a.d. 180 and a.d. 250 : are they to be referred to the school of Theodotus
and Artemon, which was humanitarian and Roman, expressly claimed
the Bishops of Rome as countenancing its errors, and falsified the Scrip-
tures at least ? Plotinus came to Rome a.d. 244, and Philostratus com-
sect, iv.] The Eclectic Sect . 1 15
considered as a party. I believe they did not, and
from the facts of the history should conclude Eusebius
of Caesarea alone to be favourable to that philosophy :
but some persons may attach importance to the cir-
cumstance, that Syria was one of its chief seats from
its very first appearance. The virtuous and amiable
Alexander Severus openly professed its creed in his
Syrian court, and in consequence of this profession,
extended his favour to the Jewish nation. Zenobia, a
Jewess in religion, succeeded Alexander in her taste
for heathen literature, and attachment to the syncre-
tistic philosophy. Her instructor in the Greek lan-
guage, the celebrated Longinus, had been the pupil of
Ammonius, and was the early master of Porphyry, the
most bitter opponent of Christianity that issued from
the Eclectic school. Afterwards, Amelius, the friend
and successor of Plotinus, transferred the seat of the
philosophy from Rome to Laodicea in Syria ; which
became remarkable for the number and fame of its
Eclectics 8 . In the next century, Iamblicus and
Libanius, the friend of Julian, both belonged to the
Syrian branch of the sect. It is remarkable that, in
the mean time, its Alexandrian branch declined in
reputation on the death of Ammonius ; probably, in
consequence of the hostility it met with from the
Church which had the misfortune to give it birth.
menced his life of Apollonius there as early as a.d. 217. This would
account for the Platonism of the latter of the two compositions, and its
absence from the earlier.
8 Mosheim, Diss. de Turb. Eccl. §11.
SECTION V.
SABELLIANISM.
ONE subject more must be discussed in illustration of
the conduct of the Alexandrian school, and the cir-
cumstances under which the Arian heresy rose and
extended itself. The Sabellianism which preceded it
has often been considered the occasion of it ; — viz. by
a natural reaction from one error into its opposite ; to
separate the Father from the Son with the Arians.
being the contrary heresy to that of confusing them
together after the manner of the Sabellians. Here
however, Sabellianism shall be considered neither a
the proximate nor the remote cause, or even occasion,
of Arianism ; but first, as drawing off the attention of
the Church from the prospective evil of the philo-
sophical spirit ; next, as suggesting such reasonings,
and naturalizing such expressions and positions in the
doctrinal statements of the orthodox, as seemed to
countenance the opposite error; lastly, as providing a
sort of justification of the Arians, when they first
showed themselves ; — that is, Sabellianism is here
regarded as facilitating rather than originating the
disturbances occasioned by the Arian heresy.
I.
The history of the heresy afterwards called Sabellian
Sabellianism .
sect, v ]
1 1 7
is obscure. Its peculiar tenet is the denial of the dis-
tinction of Persons in the Divine Nature; or the
doctrine of the Monarchia, as it is called by an assump-
tion of exclusive orthodoxy, like that which has led to
the term “ Unitarianism ” at the present day 1 . It
was first maintained as a characteristic of party by a
school established (as it appears) in Proconsular Asia,
towards the end of the second century. This school,
of which Noetus was the most noted master, is sup-
posed to be an offshoot of the Gnostics ; and doubt-
less it is historically connected with branches of that
numerous family. Irenaeus is said to have written
against it ; which either proves its antiquity, or seems
to imply its origination in those previous Gnostic
systems, against which his extant work is entirely
directed 2 . It may be added, that Simon Magus,
the founder of the Gnostics, certainly held a doctrine
resembling that advocated by the Sabellians.
At the end of the second century, Praxeas, a pres-
byter of Ephesus, passed from the early school already
mentioned to Rome. Meeting there with that deter-
mined resistance which honourably distinguishes the
primitive Roman Church in its dealings with heresy,
he retired into Africa, and there, as founding no sect,
he was soon forgotten. However, the doubts and
speculations which he had published, concerning the
great doctrine in dispute, remained alive in that part
of the world, though latent 3 , till they burst into a
1 Burton, Bampt. Lect. note 103. [The word Momp^ia was adopted in
opposition to the three ap^LKal v 7 rocrTd<T€LS of the Eclectics ; vide supra
p. 1 12.]
2 Dodwell in Iren. Diss. vi. 26.
8 Tertull. in Prax. [It is not certain Praxeas was detected at Rome.]
1 1 8 Sabellianism . [chap. i.
flame about the middle of the third century, at the
eventful era when the rudiments of Arianism were
laid by the sophistical school at Antioch.
The author of this new disturbance was Sabellius,
from whom the heresy has since taken its name. He
was a bishop or presbyter in Pentapolis, a district of
Cyrenaica, included within the territory afterwards
called, and then virtually forming, the Alexandrian
Patriarchate. Other bishops in his neighbourhood
adopting his sentiments, his doctrine became so
popular among a clergy already prepared for it, or
hitherto unpractised in the necessity of a close
adherence to the authorized formularies of faith, that
in a short time (to use the words of Athanasius) “ the
Son of God was scarcely preached in the Churches.”
Dionysius of Alexandria, as primate, gave his judg-
ment in writing ; but being misunderstood by some
orthodox but over-zealous brethren, he in turn was
accused by them, before the Roman See, of advocating
the opposite error, afterwards the Arian ; and in con-
sequence, instead of checking the heresy, found himself
involved in a controversy in defence of his own
opinions 4 . Nothing more is known concerning the
Sabellians for above a hundred years ; when it is
inferred from the fact that the Council of Constanti-
nople (a.D. 381) rejected their baptism, that they
formed at that time a communion distinct from the
Catholic Church.
Another school of heresy also denominated Sabel-
lian, is obscurely discernible even earlier than the
Ephesian, among the Montanists of Phrygia. The
well-known doctrine of these fanatics, when adopted
1 Vide Athan. de Sent. Dionys.
SECT. V.]
Sabellianism
119
by minds less heated than its original propagators,
evidently tended to a denial of the Personality of the
Holy Spirit, Montanus himself probably was never
capable of soberly reflecting on the meaning of his
own words ; but even in his lifetime, Aischines, one of
his disciples, saw their real drift, and openly main-
tained the unreserved monarchia of the Divine
Nature^. Hence it is usual for ancient writers to
class the Sabellians and Montanists together, as if
coinciding in their doctrira 1 views 5 6 7 . The success of
Hischines in extending Ks heresy in Asia Minor was
considerable, if we may judge from the condition of
that country at a later period. — Gregory, the pupil of
Origen, appears to have made a successful stand against
it in Pontus. Certainly his writings were employed
in the controversy after his death, and that with such
effect, as completely to banish it from that country,
though an attempt was made to revive it in the time
of Basil (a.D. 375 7 ). — In the patriarchate of Antioch
we first hear of it at the beginning of the third cen-
tury, Origen reclaiming from it Beryllus, Bishop of
Bostra, in Arabia. In the next generation the martyr
Lucian is said to have been a vigorous opponent of it;
and he was at length betrayed to his heathen perse-
cutors by a Sabellian presbyter of the Church of
Antioch. At a considerably later date (A.D. 375) we
hear of it in Mesopotamia 8 .
At first sight it may seem an assumption to refer
these various exhibitions of heterodoxy in Asia Minor,
5 Tillemont, Mem. vol. ii. p. 204.
6 Vales, ad Socr. i. 23 Soz. ii. 18.
7 Basil. Epist. ccx. § 3.
8 Epiphan. Haer. lxii. 1.
120
Scibellianism.
[chap. t.
and the East, to some one school or system, merely
on the ground of their distinguishing tenet being sub-
stantially the same. And certainly, in treating an
obscure subject, on which the opinions of learned men
differ, it must be owned that conjecture is the utmost
4 that I am able to offer. The following statement will
at once supply the grounds on which the above
arrangement has been made, and explain the real
nature of the doctrine itself in which the heresy con-
sisted 9 .
Let it be considered then, whether there were not
two kinds of Sabellianism; the one taught by Praxeas,
the other somewhat resembling, though less material
than, the theology of the Gnostics : — the latter being
a modification of the former, arising from the pressure
of the controversy : for instance, parallel to the change
which is said to have taken place in the doctrine of
the Ebionites, and in that of the followers of Paulus of
Samosata. Those who denied the distinction of
Persons in the Divine Nature were met by the
obvious inquiry/ in what sense they believed God
to be united to the human nature of Christ. The
more orthodox, but the more assailable answer to
this question, was to confess that God was, in such
sense, one Person with Christ, as (on their Monarchis-
ts principle) to be in no sense distinct from Plim. This
was the more orthodox answer, as preserving inviolate
what is theologically called the doctrine of the hypos-
tatic union, — the only safeguard against a gradual
declension into the Ebionite, or modern Socinian
heresy. But at the same time such an answer was
repugnant to the plainest suggestions of scripturally-
9 [Vid. Athan. Transl. vol. li. p. 377*
Sabellianism.
12 [
SECT. V.]
enlightened reason, which leads us to be sure that,
according to the obvious meaning of the inspired text,
there is some real sense in which the Father is not the
Son ; that the Sender and the Sent cannot be in all re-
spects the same ; nor can the Son be said to make Him-
self inferior to the Father, and condescend to become
man, — to come from God, and then again to return to
Him,- — if, after all, there is no distinction beyond that
of words, between those Blessed and Adorable Agents
in the scheme of our redemption. Besides, without
venturing to intrude into things not as yet seen, it
appeared evident to the primitive Church, that, in
matter of fact, the Son of God, though equal in
dignity of nature to the Father, and One with Him in
essence, was described in Scripture as undertaking
such offices of ministration and subjection, as are
never ascribed, and therefore may not without blas-
phemy be ascribed, to the self-existent Father. Ac-
cordingly, the name of Patripassian was affixed to
Praxeas, Noetus, and their followers, in memorial of
the unscriptural tenet which was immediately involved *
in their denial of the distinction of Persons in the
Godhead.
Such doubtless was the doctrine of Sabellius, if
regard be paid to the express declarations of the
Fathers. The discriminating Athanasius plainly af-
firms it, in his defence of Dionysius k The Semi-Arian
Creed called the Macrostich, published at Antioch,
gives a like testimony 1 2 ; distinguishing, moreover,
1 De Sent. Dionys. §5.9, &c. [Orat. iii. 36. Origen. in Ep. ad. Tit.
t. iv. p. 695 : “ Duos definimus, ne (ut vestra perversitas infert) Pater ipse
credatur natus et passus.” Tertull. adv. Prax. 13.]
2 Athan de Synod. § 26.
122
Sabellianism.
[chap. i.
between the Sabellian doctrine, and the doctrines of
the Paulianists and Photinians, to which some mo-
dern critics have compared it. Cyprian and Austin,
living in Africa, bear express witness to the ex-
istence of the Patripassian sect 3 . On the other
hand, it cannot be denied, that authorities exist
favourable to a view of the doctrine different from the
above, and these accordingly may lead us, in agree-
ment with certain theological writers 4 5 , without inter-
fering with the account of the heresy already given, to
describe a modification of it which commonly suc-
ceeded to its primitive form.
The following apparently inconsistent testimonies,
suggest both the history and the doctrine of this
second form of Sabellianism. While the Montanists
and Sabellians are classed together by some authors,
there is separate evidence of the connexion of each of
these with the Gnostics. Again, Ambrosius, the
convert and friend of Origen was originally a Valen-
tinian, or Marcionite, or Sabellian, according to
* different writers. Further, the doctrine of Sabellius
is compared to that of Valentinus by Alexander of
Alexandria, and (apparently) by a Roman Council
(a.D. 324) ; and by St. Austin it is referred indiffer-
ently to Praxeas, or to Hermogenes, a Gnostic. On
the other hand, one Leucius is described as a Gnostic
and Montanist 3 . It would appear then, that it is so
repugnant to the plain word of Scripture, and to the
3 Cyprian. Epist. lxxiii. Tillemont, Mem. iv. 100.
4 Beausobre, Hist, de Manich. iii. 6. § 7. Mosheim, de Reb. ant.
Const, saec. ii. § 68 ; saec. iii. §3 2. Lardner, Cred. part ii. ch. 41.
5 Vide Tillemont, vol. ii. p. 204 ; iv. p. 100, &c. Waterland’s
Works, vol. i. p. 236, 237.
SECT. V.]
Sabellianiswi.
123
most elementary notions of doctrine thence derived,
to suppose that Almighty God is in every sense one
with the human nature of Christ, that a disputant,
especially an innovator, cannot long maintain such a
position. It removes the mystery of the Trinity,
only by leaving the doctrine of the Incarnation in a
form still more strange, than that which it unavoidably
presents to the imagination. Pressed, accordingly, by
the authority of Scripture, the Sabellian, instead of
speaking of the substantial union of God with Christ,
would probably begin to obscure his meaning in the
decorum of a figurative language. He would speak
of the presence rather than the existence of God in
His chosen servant ; and this presence, if allowed to
declaim, he would represent as a certain power or
emanation from the Centre of light and truth; if forced
by his opponent into a definite statement, he would
own to be but an inspiration, the same in kind, though
superior in degree, with that which enlightened and
guided the prophets. This is that second form of the
Sabellian tenet, which some learned moderns have
illustrated, though they must be considered to err in
pronouncing it the only true one. That it should
have resulted from the difficulties of the Patripassian
creed, is natural and almost necessary ; and viewed
merely as a conjecture, the above account of its rise
reconciles the discordant testimonies of ecclesiastical
history. But we have almost certain evidence of the
matter of fact in Tertullian’s tract against Praxeas 6 ,
in which the latter is apparently represented as holding
successively, the two views of doctrine which have
been here described. Parallel instances meet us in
6 In Prax. §. 27.
124
Sabellianism .
[chap. i.
the history of the Gnostics and Montanists. Simon
Magus, for instance, seems to have adopted the Patri-
passian theory. But the Gnostic family which
branched from him, modified it by means of their
doctrine of emanations or aeons, till in the theology
of Valentinus, as in that of Cerinthus and Ebion, the
incarnation of the Word, became scarcely more than
the display of Divine Power with a figurative person-
ality in the life and actions of a mere man. The
Montanists, in like manner, from a virtual assumption
of the Divinity of their founder, were led on, as the
only way of extricating themselves from one blas-
phemy, into that other of denying the Personality of
the Holy Spirit, and then of the Word. Whether the
school of Noetus maintained its first position, we have
no means of knowing ; but the change to the second,
or semi-humanitarian, may be detected in the Sabel-
lians, as in Praxeas before them. In the time of
Dionysius of Alexandria, the majority was Patri-
passian ; but in the time of Alexander they advocated
the Emanative, as it may be called, or in-dwelling
theory 7.
2 .
What there is further to be said on this subject
shall be reserved for the next chapter. Here, how-
ever, it is necessary to examine, how, under these
circumstances, the controversy with the Sabellians
would affect the language of ecclesiastical theology.
It will be readily seen, that the line of argument by
which the two errors above specified are to be met, is
nearly the same : viz. that of insisting upon the
7 Theod. Hist. i. 4.
SECT. V.]
Sabellianism .
125
personality of the Word as distinct from the Father.
For the Patripassian denied that the Word was in any
real respect distinct from Him ; the Emanatist, if he
may so be called, denied that He was a Person, or
more than an extraordinary manifestation of Divine
Power. The Catholics, on the other hand, asserted
His distinct personality ; and necessarily appealed, in
proof of this, to such texts as speak of His pre-existent
relations towards the Father ; in other words, His
ministrative office in the revealed Economy of the
Godhead. And thus, being obliged from the course
of the controversy, to dwell on this truly scriptural
tenet, and happening to do so without a protest
against a denial, as if involved in it, of His equality
with the Father in the One Indivisible Divine Nature
(a protest, which nothing but the actual experience of
that denial among them could render necessary or
natural), they were sometimes forced by the circum-
stances of the case into an apparent anticipation of
the heresy, which afterwards arose in the shape of
Arianism.
This may be illustrated in the history of the two
great pupils of Origen, who, being respectively
opposed to the two varieties of Sabellianism above
described, the Patripassian and the Emanative,
incurred odium in a later age, as if they had been
forerunners of Arius : Gregory of Neocaesarea, and
Dionysius of Alexandria.
The controversy in which Dionysius was engaged
with the Patripassians of Pentapolis has already been
adverted to. Their tenet of the incarnation of the
Father (that is, of the one God without distinction of
Persons), a tenet most repugnant to every scripturally-
Sabellianism .
[chap. i.
1 26
informed mind, was refuted at once, by insisting on the
essential character of the Son as representing and re-
vealing the Father ; by arguing, that on the very face
of Scripture, the Christ who is there set before us,
(whatever might be the mystery of His nature,) is cer-
tainly delineated as one absolute and real Person,
complete in Himself, sent by the Father, doing His
will, and mediating between Him and man; and that,
this being the case, His Person could not be the same
with that of the Father, who sent Him, by any process
of reasoning, which would not also prove any two indi-
vidual men to have one literal personality ; that is, if
there be any analogy at all between the ordinary sense
of the word “ person ” and that in which the idea is
applied in Scripture to the Father and the Son : for
instance, by what artifice of interpretation can the
beginning of St. John’s Gospel, or the second chapter
of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians be made to
harmonize with the notion, that the one God, simply
became and is man, in every sense in which He can
still be spoken of as God ?
Writing zealously and freely on this side of the
Catholic doctrine, Dionysius laid himself open to the
animadversion of timid and narrow-minded men, who
were unwilling to receive the truth in that depth and
fulness in which Scripture reveals it, and who thought
that orthodoxy consisted in being at all times careful
to comprehend in one phrase or formula the whole of
what is believed on any article of faith. The Roman
Church, even then celebrated for its vigilant, perhaps
its over earnest exactness, in matters of doctrine and
discipline, was made the arbiter of the controversy.
A council was held under the presidency of Dionysius
SECT. V.]
Sabellianism .
127
its Bishop (about A.D. 260), in which the Alexandrian
prelate was accused by the Pentapolitans of asserting
that the Son of God is made and created, distinct in
nature from the incommunicable essence of the
Father, “as the vine is distinct from the vine-dresser,”
and in consequence, not eternal. The illustration
imputed to Dionysius in this accusation, being a
reference to our Lord’s words in the fifteenth chapter
of St. John, is a sufficient explanation by itself of the
real drift of his statement, even if his satisfactory
answer were not extant, to set at rest all doubt con-
cerning his orthodoxy. In that answer, addressed to
his namesake of Rome, he observes first, that his
letter to the Sabellians, being directed against a par-
ticular error, of course contained only so much of the
entire Catholic doctrine as was necessary for the
refutation of that error ; — that his use of the words
“ Father and Son,” in itself implied his belief in a one-
ness of nature between Them ; — that in speaking of
the Son as “made,” he had no intention of distin-
guishing “ made ” from “ begotten,” but, including all
kinds of origination under the term, he used it to
discriminate between the Son and His underived self-
originating Father; — lastly, that in matter of fact he
did confess the Catholic doctrine in its most unquali-
fied and literal sense, and in its fullest and most
accurate exposition. In this letter he even recognizes
the celebrated Homousion ( consubstantial ) which was
afterwards adopted at Nicaea. However, in spite of
these avowals, later writers, and even Basil himself,
do not scruple to complain of Dionysius as having
sown the first seeds of Arianism ; Basil confessing the
while that his error was accidental, occasioned by his
vehement opposition to the Sabellian heresy.
Sabellianism.
128
[chap. I.
Gregory of Neocaesarea, on the other hand, is so far
more hardly circumstanced than Dionysius, first, inas-
much as the charge against him was not made till after
his death, and next, because he is strangely accused
of a tendency to Sabellian as well as Arian errors.
Without accounting for the former of these charges,
which does not now concern us, I offer to the reader
the following explanation of the latter calumny. Sa-
bellianism, in its second or emanative form, had con-
siderable success in the East before and at the date of
Gregory. In the generation before him, Hermogenes,
who professed it, had been refuted by Theophilus and
Tertullian, as well as by Gregory’s master, Origen,
who had also reclaimed from a similar error Ambrosius
and Beryllus 8 . Gregory succeeded him in the con-
troversy with such vigour, that his writings were suffi-
cient to extinguish the heresy, when it reappeared in
Pontus at a later period. He was, moreover, the prin-
cipal bishop in the first Council held against Paulus
of Samosata, whose heresy was derived from the
emanative school. The Synodal Letter addressed by
the assembled bishops to the heresiarch, whether we
ascribe it to this first Council, with some critics, or
with others to the second, or even with Basnage reject
it as spurious, at least illustrates the line of argument
which it was natural to direct against the heresy, and
shows how easily it might be corrupted into an Arian
meaning. To the notion that the Son was but in-
habited by a divine power or presence impersonal, and
therefore had no real existence before He came in
the flesh, it was a sufficient answer to appeal to the
8 Euseb. Hist. iv. 24. Tlieod. Haer. i. 19. Tertull. in Hermog.
Huet. Origen, lib. i.
Sabellianism .
129
sect, v.]
great works ascnoed to Him in the beginning of all
things, and especially to those angelic manifestations
by which God revealed Himself to the elder Church,
and which were universally admitted to be represen-
tations of the Living and Personal Word. The
Synodal Letter accordingly professes a belief in the
Son, as the Image and Power of God, which was
before the worlds, in absolute existence, the living and
intelligent Cause of creation ; and cites some of the
most striking texts descriptive of His ministrative
office under the Jewish law, such as His appearance
to Abraham and Jacob, and to Moses in the burning
bush 8 9 . Such is the statement, in opposition to Paulus
of Samosata, put forth by Gregory and his associate
bishops at Antioch ; and, the circumstances of the
controversy being overlooked, it is obvious how easily
it may be brought to favour the hypothesis, that the
Son is in all respects distinct from the Father, and
by nature as well as in revealed office inferior to Him.
Lastly, it so happened, that in the course of the
third century, the word Homoiision became more or
less connected with the Gnostic, Manichsean, and
Sabellian theologies. Hence early writers, who had
but opposed these heresies, seemed in a subsequent
age to have opposed what had been by that time
received as the characteristic of orthodoxy ; as, on
the other hand, the Catholics, on their adopting it in
that later age, were accused of what in an earlier time
would have been the Sabellian error, or again of the
introduction of corporeal notions into their creed.
But of this more hereafter.
8 Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 463
K
130 Sabellianism. [chap. i.
Here a close may be put to our inquiry into the
circumstances under which Arianism appeared in the
early Church. The utmost that has been proposed
has been to classify and arrange phenomena which
present themselves on the surface of the history ; and
this, with a view of preparing the reader for the direct
discussion of the doctrine which Arianism denied, and
for the proceedings on the part of the Church which
that denial occasioned. Especially has it been my
object in this introduction, following the steps of our
great divines, to rescue the Alexandrian Fathers from
the calumnies which, with bad intentions either to
them or to the orthodox cause, have been so freely
and so fearlessly cast upon them. Whether Judaism
or whether Platonism had more or less to do in pre-
paring the way for the Arian heresy, are points of
minor importance, compared with the vindication of
those venerable men, the most learned, most eloquent,
and most zealous of the Ante-Nicene Christians.
With this view it has been shown above, that, though
the heresy openly commenced, it but accidentally
commenced in Alexandria ; that no Alexandrian of
name advocated it, and that, on its appearance, it was
forthwith expelled from the Alexandrian Church,
together with its author? j — next, that, even granting
Platonism originated it, of which there is no proof,
still there are no grounds for implicating the Alexan-
drian Fathers in its formation ; that while the old
Platonism, which they did favour, had no part in the
origination of the Arian doctrine, the new Platonism
or Eclecticism which may be conceived to have arian-
ized, received no countenance from them ; that
1 [Vid. Athan. Apol. adv. Arian. 52, and Hist. Arian. 78 fin.]
Sabellianism .
sect, v.]
T 3 T
Eclecticism must abstractedly be referred to their
schools, it arose out of them in no more exact sense
than error ever springs from truth ; that, instead of
being welcomed by them, the sight of it, as soon as it
was detected, led them rather to condemn their own
older and innocent philosophy ; and that, in Alexan-
dria, there was no Eclectic successor to Ammonius
(who concealed his infidelity to the last), till after the
commencement of the Arian troubles ; — further, that
granting (what is undeniable) that the Alexandrian
Fathers sometimes use phrases which are similar to
those afterwards adopted by the heretics, these were
accidents, not the characteristics of their creed, and
were employed from a studied verbal imitation of the
Jewish and philosophical systems ; — of the philoso-
phical, in order to conceal their own depth of meaning,
and to conciliate the heathen, a duty to which their
peculiar functions in the Christian world especially
bound them, and of the Jewish, from an affectionate
reverence for the early traces, in the Old Testament,
of God’s long-meditated scheme of mercy to mankind ;
— or again, that where they seem to arianize, it is
from incompleteness rather than from unsoundness
in their confessions, occasioned by the necessity of op-
posing a contrary error then infecting the Church ;
that five Fathers, who have more especially incurred
the charge of philosophizing in their creed, belong to
the schools of Rome and Antioch, as well as of Alex-
andria, and that the most unguarded speculator in the
Alexandrian, Origen, is the very writer first to detect
for us, and to denounce the Arian tenet, at least sixty
years before it openly presented itself to the world.
On the other hand, if, dismissing this side of the
K 2
13 2 Sabellianism. [chap. i.
question, we ask whence the heresy actually arose, we
find that contemporary authors ascribe it partially to
Judaism and Eclecticism, and more expressly to the
influence of the Sophists ; that Alexander, to whose
lot it fell first to withstand it, refers us at once to
Antioch as its original seat, to Judaism as its ultimate
source, and to the subtleties of disputation as the
instrument of its exhibition : that Arius and his
principal supporters were pupils of the school of
Antioch ; and lastly, that in this school at the date
fixed by Alexander, the above-mentioned elements of
the heresy are discovered in alliance, almost in union,
Paulus of Samosata, the judaizing Sophist, being the
favourite of a court which patronized Eclecticism,
when it was neglected at Alexandria.
It is evident that deeper and more interesting ques-
tions remain, than any which have here been ex-
amined. The real secret causes of the heresy ; its
connexion with the character of the age, with the
opinions then afloat, viewed as active moral influences,
not as parts of a system ; its position in the general
course of God’s providential dealings with His
Church, and in the prophecies of the New Testament ;
and its relation towards the subsequently developed
corruptions of Christianity; these are subjects towards
which some opening may have been incidentally
made for inquirers, but which are too large to be
imagined in the design of a work such as the present.
CHAPTER II.
THE TEACHING OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH IN
ITS RELATION TO THE ARIAN HERESY.
SECTION L
ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FORMATION AND IMPO-
SITION OF CREEDS.
It has appeared in the foregoing Chapter, that the
temper of the Ante-Nicene Church was opposed to
the imposition of doctrinal tests upon her members ;
and on the other hand, that such a measure became
necessary in proportion as the cogency of Apos-
tolic Tradition was weakened by lapse of time. This
is a subject which will bear some further remarks ;
and will lead to an investigation of the principle upon
which the formation and imposition of creeds rests.
After this, I shall delineate the Catholic doctrine
itself, as held in the first ages of Christianity ; and
then, the Arian substitution for it.
I.
I have already observed, that the knowledge of the
Christian mysteries was, in those times, accounted as
a privilege, to be eagerly coveted. It was not likely,
134 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. ii.
then, that reception of them would be accounted a
test ; which implies a concession on the part of the
recipient, not an advantage. The idea of disbelieving,
or criticizing the great doctrines of the faith, from the
nature of the case, would scarcely occur to the primi-
tive Christians. These doctrines were the subject of
an Apostolical Tradition ; they were the very truths
which had been lately revealed to mankind. They
had been committed to the Church’s keeping, and
were dispensed by her to those who sought them, as a
favour. They were facts, not opinions. To come to
the Church. was all one with expressing a readiness to
receive her teaching ; to hesitate to believe, after
coming for the sake of believing, would be an incon-
sistency too rare to require a special provision against
the chance of it 1 . It was sufficient to meet the evil as"
it arose : the power of excommunication and deposi-
tion was in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities,
and, as in the case of Paulus, was used impartially.
Yet, in the matter of fact, such instances of contumacy
were comparatively rare; and the Ante-Nicene heresies
were in many instances the innovations of those who
had never been in the Church, or who had already
been expelled from it.
We have some difficulty in putting ourselves into
the situation of Christians in those times, from the
circumstance that the Holy Scriptures are now our
sole means of satisfying ourselves on points of doctrine.
Thus, every one who comes to the Church considers
himself entitled to judge and decide individually
upon its creed. But in that primitive age, the
1 [Hoc penitus absurdum est, ut discipulus, ad magistrum vadens,
ante sit artifex quam doceatur, &c. Hieron. adv. Lucif. 12.]
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds .
135
Apostolical Tradition, that is, the Creed, was prac-
tically the chief source of instruction, especially
considering the obscurities of Scripture ; and being
withdrawn from public view, it could not be subjected
to the degradation of a comparison, on the part of
inquirers and half-Christians, with those written docu-
ments which are vouchsafed to us from the same
inspired authorities. As for the baptized and incor-
porate members of the Church, they of course had the
privilege of comparing the written and the oral
tradition, and might exercise it as profitably as in
comparing and harmonizing Scripture with itself.
But before baptism, the systematic knowledge was
withheld ; and without it, Scripture, instead of being
the source of instruction on the doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation, was scarcely more than a
sealed book, needing an interpretation, amply and
powerfully as it served the purpose of proving those
doctrines, when they were once disclosed. And so
much on the reluctance of the primitive Fathers to
publish creeds, on the ground that the knowledge of
Christian doctrines was a privilege reserved for those
who were baptized, and in no sense a subject of hesi-
tation and dispute. — It may be added, that the very J
love of power, which in every age will sway the* bulk
of those who are exposed to the temptation of it, and
ecclesiastics in the number, would indispose them to
innovate upon a principle which made themselves the
especial guardians of revealed truth 2 .
Their backwardness proceeded also from a profound
reverence for the sacred mysteries of which they were
the dispensers. Here they present us with the true
2 Vide Hawkins on Unauthoritative Tradition.
136 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. ii.
exhibition of that pious sensitiveness which the
heathen had conceived, but could not justly execute.
The latter had their mysteries, but their rude attempts
were superseded by the divine discipline of the Gospel,
which here acted in the office which is peculiarly its
own, rectifying, combining, and completing the inven-
tions of uninstructed nature. If the early Church
regarded the very knowledge of the truth as a fearful
privilege, much more did it regard that truth itself as
glorious and awful ; and scarcely conversing about it
to her children, shrank from the impiety of subjecting
it to the hard gaze of the multitude 3 . We still pray,
in the Confirmation service, for those who are intro-
duced into the full privileges of the Christian cove-
nant, that they may be “ filled with the spirit of God’s
holy fear but the meaning and practical results of
deep-seated religious reverence were far better under-
stood in the primitive times than now, when the
infidelity of the world has corrupted the Church.
Now, we allow ourselves publicly to canvass the
most solemn truths in a careless or fiercely argumen-
tative way ; truths, which it is as useless as it is
unseemly to discuss in public, as being attainable
only by the sober and watchful, by slow degrees, with
3 Sozomen gives this reason for not inserting the Nicene Creed in his
history : “I formerly deemed it necessary to transcribe the confession of
faith drawn up by the unanimous consent of this Council [the Nicene],
in order that posterity might possess a public record of the truth ; but
subsequently I was persuaded to the contrary by some godly and learned
friends, who represented that such matters ought to be kept secret, as
being only requisite to be known by disciples and their instructors
(/xucrrats kcll ^uo'raywyots), and it is possible that the volume will fall
into the hands of the unlearned (tw v aiAvrjTUv)” Hist. i. 20. Bohn’s
translation.
137
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds .
dependence on the Giver of wisdom, and with strict
obedience to the light which has already been granted.
Then, they would scarcely express in writing, what is
now not only preached to the mixed crowds who
frequent our churches, but circulated in print among
all ranks and classes of the unclean and the profane,
and pressed upon all who choose to purchase it. Nay,
so perplexed is the present state of things, that the
Church is obliged to change her course of acting, after
the spirit of the alteration made at Nicsea, and unwil-
lingly to take part in the theological discussions of the
day, as a man crushes venomous creatures of necessity,
powerful to do it, but loathing the employment.
This is the apology which the author of the present
work, as far as it is worth while to introduce himself,
offers to all sober-minded and zealous Christians, for
venturing to exhibit publicly the great evangelical
doctrines, not indeed in the medium of controversy or
proof (which would be a still more humiliating
office), but in an historical and explanatory form.
And he earnestly trusts, that, while doing so, he may
be betrayed into no familiarity or extravagance of
expression, cautiously lowering the Truth, and (as it
were), wrapping it in reverent language, and so
depositing it in its due resting-place, which is the
Christian’s heart : guiltless of those unutterable
profanations with which a scrutinizing infidelity
wounds and lacerates it. Here, again, is strikingly
instanced the unfitness of books, compared with
private communication, for the purposes of religious
instruction ; levelling, as they do, the distinctions of
mind and temper by the formality of the written
character, and conveying each kind of knowledge the
138 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. 11.
less perfectly, in proportion as it is of a moral nature,
and requires to be treated with delicacy and discrim-
ination.
2 .
As to the primitive Fathers, with their reverential
feelings towards the Supreme Being, great must have
been their indignation first, and then their perplexity,
when apostates disclosed and corrupted the sacred
truth, or when the heretical or philosophical sects
made guesses approximating to it. Though the
heretics also had their mysteries, yet, it is remarkable,
that as regards the high doctrines of the Gospel, they
in great measure dropped that restraint and reserve
by which the Catholics partly signified, and partly
secured a reverence for them. Tertullian sharply
exposes the want of a grave and orderly discipline
among them in his day. “ It is uncertain,” he says,
who among them is catechumen, who believer. They
meet alike, they hear alike, they pray alike ; nay,
though the heathen should drop in, they will cast
holy things to dogs, and their pearls, false jewels as
they are, to swine. This overthrow of order they call
simplicity, and our attention to it they call mere-
tricious embellishment. They communicate with all
men promiscuously ; it being nothing to them in what
they differ from them, provided they join with them
for the destruction of the truth. They are all high-
minded ; all make pretence of knowledge. Their
catechumens are perfect in the faith before they are
fully taught. Even their women are singularly
forward ; venturing, that is, to teach, to argue, to
exorcise, to undertake cures, nay, perhaps to baptise 4 .”
4 Tertull. de Praescr. hseret. § 41.
139
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds .
The heretical spirit is ever one and the same in its
various forms : this description of the Gnostics was
exactly paralleled, in all those points for which we
have introduced it here, in the history of Arianism ;
historically distinct as is the latter system from
Gnosticism. Arius began by throwing out his ques-
tions as a subject of debate for public consideration ;
and at once formed crowds of controversialists from
those classes who were the least qualified or deserving
to take part in the discussion. Alexander, his
diocesan, accuses him of siding with the Jews and
heathen against the Church ; and certainly we learn
from the historians, that the heathen philosophers
were from the first warmly interested in the dispute,
so that some of them attended the Nicene Council,
for the chance of ascertaining the orthodox doctrine.
Alexander also charges him with employing women
in his disturbance of the Church, apparently referring
at the same time to the Apostle’s prediction of them.
He speaks especially of the younger females as
zealous in his cause, and as traversing Alexandria in
their eagerness to promote it ; — a fact confirmed by
Epiphanius, who speaks (if he may be credited) of
as many as seven hundred from the religious societies
of that city at once taking part with the heresiarchS.
But Arius carried his agitation lower still. It is on
no other authority than that of the historian Philo-
storgius, his own partisan, that we are assured of his
composing and setting to music, songs on the subject
of his doctrine for the use of the rudest classes of
society, with a view of familiarizing them to it. Other
of his compositions, of a higher literary excellence,
6 Soc. i. 6. Theod. Hist, i. iv. Soz. i. 18. Epiph. haer. lxix. 3.
140 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. 11 .
were used at table as a religious accompaniment to
the ordinary meal ; one of which, in part preserved by
Athanasius, enters upon the most sacred portions of
the theological question 6 . The success of these
exertions in drawing public attention to his doctrine
is recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, who, though no
friend of the heresiarch himself, is unsuspicious
evidence as being one of his party. “ From a little
spark a great fire was kindled. The quarrel began
in the Alexandrian Church, then it spread through the
whole of Egypt, Lybia, and the farther Thebais ; then
it ravaged the other provinces and cities, till the war
of words enlisted not only the prelates of the churches,
but the people too. At length the exposure was so
extraordinary, that even in the heathen theatres, the
divine doctrine became the subject of the vilest ridi-
cule 7; ” Such was Arianism at its commencement ;
and if it was so indecent in the hands of its originator,
who, in spite of his courting the multitude, was dis-
tinguished by a certain reserve and loftiness in his
personal deportment, much more flagrant was its
impiety under the direction of his less refined suc-
cessors. Valens, the favourite bishop of Constantius,
exposed the solemnities of the Eucharist in a judicial
examination to which Jews and heathen were admit-
ted ; Eudoxius, the Arianizer of the Gothic nations,
when installed in the patriarchal throne of Constanti-
nople, uttered as his first words a profane jest, which
was received with loud laughter in the newly-conse-
crated Church of St. Sophia ; and Aetius, the founder
of the Anomceans, was the grossest and most
6 Philost. iu 2. Athan. in Arian. i. 5 ; de Syn. 15.
7 Euseb. Vit. Const, ii. 61. Vid. Greg. Naz. Orat. i. 142; [ii. 81, 82.]
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds. 14 1
despicable of buffoons 8 9 . Later still, we find the same
description of the heretical party in a discourse of the
kind and amiable Gregory of Nazianzus. With a
reference to the Arian troubles he says, “ Now is
priest an empty name ; contempt is poured upon the
rulers, as Scripture says. . . . All fear is banished from
our souls, shamelessness has taken its place. Know-
ledge is now at the will of him who chooses it, and all
the deep mysteries of the Spirit. We are all pious,
because we condemn the impiety of others. We use
the infidels as our arbiters, and cast what is holy to
dogs, and pearls before swine, publishing divine truths
to profane ears and minds ; and, wretches as we are,
we carefully fulfil the wishes of our enemies, while,
without blushing, we ‘ pollute ourselves in our inven-
tions^ ”
Enough has now been said, by way of describing
the condition of the Catholic Church, defenceless
from the very sacredness and refinement of its disci-
pline, when the attack of Arianism was made upon it ;
insulting its silence, provoking it to argue, unsettling
and seducing its members r , and in consequence
requring its authoritative judgment on the point in
dispute. And in addition to the instruments of evil
8 Athan. Apol. contr. Arian. 31. Socr. ii. 43. Cave, Hist. Literar.
vol. i. [Eustathius speaks of the irapa$o£oi rrjs ’Apeiov OvpieXrj^
fJLtcroxopoL. Phot. Bibl. p. 759. 30.]
9 Greg. Naz. Orat, i. 135; [ii. 79.]
1 [“Is it not enough to distract a man, on mere hearing, though
unable to controvert, and to make him stop his ears, from astonishment
at the novelty of what he hears said, which even to mention is to blas-
pheme ? *’ Ath. Orat. i. 35. Hence, as if feeling the matter to be beyond
argument, Athanasius could but call the innovators * 1 Ariomaniacs, ” from
the fierceness of their “ ipse dixit.” Vid. Athan. Transl. vol. ii. p. 377-]
142 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. ii.
which were internally directed against it, the Eclectics
had by this time extended their creed among the
learned, with far greater decorum than the Arians,
but still so as practically to interpret the Scriptures in
the place of the Church, and to state dogmatically
the conclusions for which the Arian controvertists
were but indirectly preparing the mind by their
objections and sophisms.
3 -
Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the
rulers of the Church, at whatever sacrifice of their
feelings, to discuss the subject in controversy fully
and unreservedly, and to state their decision openly.
The only alternative was an unmanly non-interference,
and an arbitrary or treacherous prohibition of the dis-
cussion. To enjoin silence on perplexed inquirers, is
not to silence their thoughts ; and in the case of
serious minds, it is but natural to turn to the spiritual
ruler for advice and relief, and to feel disappointment
at the timidity, or irritation at the harshness, of those
who refuse to lead a lawful inquiry which they cannot
stifle 2 . Such a course, then, is most unwise as well as
cruel, inasmuch as it throws the question in dispute
upon other arbitrators ; or rather, it is more com-
monly insincere, the traitorous act of those who care
little for the question in dispute, and are content that
opinions should secretly prevail which they profess
to condemn. The Nicene Fathers might despair of
reclaiming the Arian party, but they were bound to
2 [kiVSwos yap 7rpo8oorias , Iv rw pir] 7rpo^etpo)s a7roSiSomi ra?
7 repl 6eov airoKpLcrtLS rols aya7rcucrt tov KvpLov. Basil, Ep. 7. Vide
Hil. de Trin. xii. 20.
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds. 143
erect a witness for the truth, which might be a guide
and a warning to all Catholics, against the lying spirit
which was abroad in the Church. These remarks
apply to a censure which is sometimes passed on
them, as if it was their duty to have shut up the
question in the words of Scripture ; for the words of
Scripture were the very subject in controversy, and
to have prohibited the controversy, would, in fact,
have been but to insult the perplexed, and to ex-
tend real encouragement to insidious opponents of
the truth. — But it may be expedient here to explain
more fully the principle of the obligation which led to
their interposition.
Let it be observed then, that as regards the doctrine
of the Trinity, the mere text of Scripture is not calcu-
lated either to satisfy the intellect or to ascertain the
temper of those who profess to accept it as a rule of
faith.
1. Before the mind has been roused to reflection
and inquisitiveness about its own acts and impressions,
it acquiesces, if religiously trained, in that practical
devotion to the Blessed Trinity, and implicit acknow-
ledgment of the divinity of Son and Spirit, which
holy Scripture at once teaches and exemplifies. This is
the faith of uneducated men, which is not the less
philosophically correct, nor less acceptable to God,
because it does not happen to be conceived in those
precise statements which presuppose the action of the
mind on its own sentiments and notions. Moral
feelings do not directly contemplate and realize to
themselves the objects which excite them. A heathen
in obeying his conscience, implicitly worships Him of
whom he has never distinctly heard. Again, a child
144 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. ii.
feels not the less affectionate reverence towards his
parents, because he cannot discriminate in words, nay,
or in idea, between them and others. As, however,
his reason opens, he might ask himself concerning the
ground of his own emotions and conduct towards
them ; and might find that these are the correlatives
of their peculiar tenderness towards him, long and
intimate knowledge of him, and unhesitating assump-
tion of authority over him ; all which he continually
experiences. And further, he might trace these
characteristics of their influence on him to the essential
relation itself, which involves his own original debt to
them for the gift of life and reason, the inestimable
blessing of an indestructible, never-ending existence.
And now his intellect contemplates the object of those
affections, which acted truly from the first, and are
not purer or stronger merely for this accession of know-
ledge. This will tend to illustrate the sacred subject
to which we are directing our attention.
As the mind is cultivated and expanded, it can-
not refrain from the attempt to analyze the vision
which influences the heart, and the Object in which
that vision centres ; nor does it stop till it has, in
some sort, succeeded in expressing in words, what has
all along been a principle both of its affections and of
its obedience. But here the parallel ceases ; the
Object of religious veneration being unseen, and dis-
similar from all that is seen, reason can but represent
it in the medium of those ideas which the experience
of life affords (as we see in the Scripture account, as
far as it is addressed to the intellect) ; and unless
these ideas, however inadequate, be correctly applied
to it, they re-act upon the affections, and deprave the
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds. 145
religious principle. This is exemplified in the case of
the heathen, who, trying to make their instinctive
notion of the Deity an object of reflection, pictured to
their minds false images, which eventually gave them
a pattern and a sanction for sinning. Thus the sys-
tematic doctrine of the Trinity may be considered as
the shadow, projected for the contemplation of the
intellect, of the Object of scripturally-informed piety :
a representation, economical ; necessarily imperfect,
as being exhibited in a foreign medium, and therefore
involving apparent inconsistencies or mysteries ; given
to the Church by tradition contemporaneously with
those apostolic writings, which are addressed more
directly to the heart ; kept in the background in the
infancy of Christianity, when faith and obedience
were vigorous, and brought forward at a time when,
reason being disproportionately developed, and aiming
at sovereignty in the province of religion, its presence
became necessary to expel an usurping idol from the
house of God.
If this account of the connexion between the theo-
logical system and the Scripture implication of it be
substantially correct, it will be seen how ineffectual all
attempts ever will be to secure the doctrine by mere
general language. It may be readily granted that the
intellectual representation should ever be subordinate
to the cultivation of the religious affections. And
after all, it must be owned, so reluctant is a well-con-
stituted mind to reflect on its own motive principles,
that the correct intellectual image, from its hardness
of outline, may startle and offend those who have all
along been acting upon it. Doubtless there are
portions of the ecclesiastical doctrine, presently to be
L
1 46 On the Principle of the Formation [ ch . 11.
exhibited, which may at first sight seem a refinement,
merely because the object and bearings of them are not
understood without reflection and experience. But
what is left to the Church but to speak out, in order
to exclude error ? Much as we may wish it, we can-
not restrain the rovings of the intellect, or silence its
clamorous demand for a formal statement concerning
the Object of our worship. If, for instance, Scripture
bids us adore God, and adore His Son, our reason at
once asks, whether it does not follow that there are
two Gods ; and a system of doctrine becomes unavoid-
able ; being framed, let it be observed, not with a
view of explaining, but of arranging the inspired
notices concerning the Supreme Being, of providing,
not a consistent, but a connected statement. There
the inquisitiveness of a pious mind rests, viz., when it
has pursued the subject into the mystery which is its
limit. But this is not all. The intellectual expres-
sion of theological truth not only excludes heresy, but
directly assists the acts of religious worship and
obedience ; fixing and stimulating the Christian
spirit in the same way as the knowledge of the One
God relieves and illuminates the perplexed conscience
of the religious heathen. — And thus much on the
importance of Creeds to tranquillize the mind ; the
text of Scripture being addressed principally to the
affections, and of a religious, not a philosophical
character.
2. Nor, in the next place, is an assent to the text of
Scripture sufficient for the purposes of Christian
fellowship. As the sacred text was not intended to
satisfy the intellect, neither was it given as a test of
the religious temper which it forms, and of which it is
x 47
sect. I.] and Imposition of Creeds .
an expression. Doubtless ho combination of words
will ascertain an unity of sentiment in those who
adopt them ; but one form is m^re adapted for the
purpose than another. Scripture being unsystematic,
and the faith which it propounds being scattered
through its documents, and understood only when
they are viewed as a whole, the Creeds aim at con-
centrating its general spirit, so as to give security to
the Church, as far as may be, that its members take
that definite view of that faith which alone is the true
one. But, if this be the case, how idle is it to suppose
that to demand assent to a form of words which
happens to be scriptural, is on that account sufficient
to effect an unanimity in thought and action ! If the
Church would be vigorous and influential, it must be
decided and plain-spoken in its doctrine, and must
regard its faith rather as a character of mind than as
a notion. To attempt comprehensions of opinion,
amiable as the motive frequently is, is to mistake
arrangements of words, which have no existence
except on paper, for habits which are realities ; and
ingenious generalizations of discordant sentiments for
that practical agreement which alone can lead to co-
operation. We may indeed artificially classify light
and darkness under one term or formula ; but nature
has her own fixed courses, and unites mankind by
the sympathy of moral character, not by those forced
resemblances which the imagination singles out at
pleasure even in the most promiscuous collection of
materials. However plausible may be the veil thus
thrown over heterogeneous doctrines, the flimsy
artifice is discomposed so soon as the principles
beneath it are called upon to move and act. Nor are
L 2
148 On the Principle of the Formation [ch. ii.
these attempted comprehensions innocent ; for, it
being the interest of our enemies to weaken the
Church, they have always gained a point, when they
have put upon us words for things, and persuaded us
to fraternize with those who, differing from us in
essentials, nevertheless happen, in the excursive range
of opinion, somewhere to intersect that path of faith,
which centres in supreme and zealous devotion to the
service of God.
Let it be granted, then, as indisputable, that there
are no two opinions so contrary to each other, but
some form of words may be found vague enough to
comprehend them both. The Pantheist will admit
that there is a God, and the Humanitarian that Christ
is God, if they are suffered to say so without explana-
tion. But if this be so, it becomes the duty, as well as
the evident policy of the Church, to interrogate them,
before admitting them to her fellowship. If the
Church be the pillar and ground of the truth, and
bound to contend for the preservation of the faith
once delivered to it ; if we are answerable as ministers
of Christ for the formation of one, and one only,
character in the heart of man ; and if the Scriptures
are given us, as a means indeed towards that end, but
inadequate to the office of interpreting themselves,
except to such as live under the same Divine
Influence which inspired them, and which is expressly
sent down upon us that we may interpret them, —
then, it is evidently our duty piously and cautiously
to collect the sense of Scripture, and solemnly to
promulgate it in such a form as is best suited, as far
as it goes, to exclude the pride and unbelief of the
world. It will be admitted that, to deny to individual
149
sect, i.] and Imposition of Creeds .
Christians the use of terms not found in Scripture, as
such, would be a superstition and an encroachment on
their religious liberty ; and in like manner, doubtless,
to forbid the authorities of the Church to require an
acceptance of such terms, when necessary, from its
members, is to interfere with the discharge of their
peculiar duties, as appointed of the Holy Ghost to be
overseers of the Lord’s flock. And, though the dis-
charge of this office is the most momentous and
fearful that can come upon mortal man, and never to
be undertaken except by the collective illumination
of the Heads of the Church, yet, when innovations
arise, they must discharge it to the best of their
ability ; and whether they succed or fail, whether they
have judged rightly or hastily of the necessity of
their interposition, whether they devise their safe-
guard well or ill, draw the line of Church fellowship
broadly or narrowly, countenance the profane reasoner,
or cause the scrupulous to stumble, — to their Master
they stand or fall, as in all other acts of duty, the
obligation itself to protect the Faith remaining un-
questionable.
This is an account of the abstract principle on
which ecclesiastical confessions rest. In its practical
adoption it has been softened in two important
respects. First, the Creeds imposed have been
compiled either from Apostolical traditions, or from
primitive writings ; so that in fact the Church has
never been obliged literally to collect the sense of
Scripture. Secondly, the test has been used, not as a
condition of communion, but of authority. As learn-
ing is not necessary for a private Christian, so neither
is the full knowledge of the theological system. The
150 On the Principle of the Formation, &c.
clergy, and others in station, must be questioned as to
their doctrinal views : but for the mass of the laity, it is
enough if they do not set up such counter-statements
of their own, as imply that they have systematized,
and that erroneously. In the Nicene Council, the
test was but imposed on the Rulers of the Church.
Lay communion was not denied to such as refused to
take it, provided they introduced no novelties of their
own ; the anathemas or excommunications being
directed solely against the Arian innovators.
SECTION II.
THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
I BEGIN by laying out the matter of evidence for the
Catholic Doctrine, as it is found in Scripture ; that is,
assuming it to be there contained, let us trace out the
form in which it has been communicated to us, — the
disposition of the phenomena, which imply it, on the
face of the Revelation. And here be it observed, in
reference to what has already been admitted concern-
ing the obscurity of the inspired documents, that it is
nothing to the purpose whether or not we should have
been able to draw the following view of the doctrine
from them, had it never been suggested to us in the
Creeds. For it has been (providentially) so suggested
to all of us ; and the question is not, what we should
have done, had we never had external assistance, but,
taking things as we find them, whether, the clue to
the meaning of Scripture being given, (as it ever has
been given,) we may not deduce the doctrine thence,
by as argumentative a process as that which enables
us to verify the received theory of gravitation, which
perhaps we could never have discovered for ourselves,
though possessed of the data from which the inventor
drew his conclusions. Indeed, such a state of the case
is analogous to that in which the evidence for Natural
Religion is presented to us. It is very doubtful,
i52
The Scripture Doctrine [chap. ii.
whether the phenomena of the visible world would in
themselves have brought us to a knowledge of the
Creator ; but the universal tradition of His existence
has been from the beginning His own comment upon
them, graciously preceding the study of the evidence.
With this remark I address myself to an arduous
undertaking.
First, let it be assumed as agreeable both to reason
and revelation, that there are Attributes and Opera-
tions, or by whatever more suitable term we designate
them, peculiar to the Deity ; for instance, creative
and preserving power, absolute prescience, moral
sovereignty, and the like. These are ever included
in our notion of the incommunicable nature of God ;
and, by a figure of speech, were there occasion for
using it, might be called one with God, present,
actively co-operating, and exerting their own distin-
guishing influence, in all His laws, providences, and
acts. Thus, if He be eternal, or omnipresent, we
consider His knowledge, goodness, and holiness, to be
co-eternal and co-extensive with Him. Moreover,
it would be an absurdity to form a comparison
between these and God Himself ; to regard them as
numerically distinct from Him ; to investigate the
particular mode of their existence in the Divine
Mind ; or to treat them as parts of God, inasmuch as
they are all included in the idea of the one Indivisible
Godhead. And, lastly, subtle and unmeaning ques-
tions might be raised about some of these ; for
instance, God’s power : whether, that is, it did or did
not exist from eternity, on the ground, that bearing a
relation to things created, it could not be said to have
existence before the era of creation h
1 Origen de Principiis, i. 2, § to.
153
sect, ii.] of the Trinity .
Next, it is to be remarked, that the Jewish Scrip-
tures introduce to our notice certain peculiar Attri-
butes or Manifestations (as they would seem) of the
Deity, corresponding in some measure to those
already mentioned as conveyed to us by Natural
Religion, though of a more obscure character. Such
is what is called “ the Spirit of God a phrase which
denotes sometimes the Divine energy, sometimes
creative or preserving power, sometimes the assem-
blage of Divine gifts, moral and intellectual, vouch-
safed to mankind ; having in all cases a general
connexion with the notion of the vivifying principle
of nature. Such again, is “ the Wisdom of God,”
as introduced into the book of Proverbs ; and such is
the “Name,” the “ Word,” the “Glory,” of God.
Further, these peculiar Manifestations (to give them
a name) are sometimes in the same elder Scriptures
singularly invested with the properties of personality ;
and, although the expressions of the sacred text may
in some places be interpreted figuratively, yet there
are passages so strangely worded, as at first sight to
be inconsistent with themselves, and such as would be
ascribed, in an uninspired work, to forgetfulness or in-
accuracy in the writer ; — as, for instance, when what is
first called the Glory of God is subsequently spoken of
as an intelligent Agent, often with the characteristics,
or even the name of an Angel. On the other hand, it
elsewhere occurs, that what is introduced as an Angel,
is afterwards described as God Himself.
Now, when we pass on to the New Testament, we
find these peculiar Manifestations of the Divine
Essence concentrated and fixed in two, called the
Word, and the Spirit. At the same time, the
r 54
The Scripture Doctrine [chap. ii.
apparent Personality ascribed to Them in the Old
Testament, is changed for a real Personality, so
clearly and explicitly marked as to resist all critical
experiments upon the language, all attempts at alle-
gorical interpretation. Here too the Word is also
called the Son of God, and appears to possess such
strict personal attributes, as to be able voluntarily to
descend from heaven, and assume our nature without
ceasing to be identically what He was before ; so as
to speak of Himself, though a man, as one and the
same with the Divine Word who existed in the
beginning. The Personality of the Spirit in some
true and sufficient sense is as accurately revealed ; and
that the Son is not the Spirit, is also evident from the
fixed relations which are described as separating
Them from each other in the Divine Essence.
Reviewing this process of revelation, Gregory Nazi-
anzen, somewhat after the manner of the foregoing
account, remarks that, as Almighty God has in the
course of His dispensations changed the ritual of
religion by successive abrogations, so He has changed
its theology by continual additions till it has come to
perfection, “ Under the Old Dispensation,” he pro-
ceeds, “the Father was openly revealed, and the Son
but obscurely. When the New was given, the Son
was manifested, but the Divinity of the Spirit inti-
mated only. Now the Spirit dwells with us, affording
us clearer evidence about Himself, . . . that by gradual
additions, and flights, as David says, and by advanc-
ing and progressing from glory to glory, the radiance
of the Trinity might shine out on those who are
illuminated 2 .”
2 Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvii. p. 608 ; [xxxi. 26.]
of the Trinity .
155
SECT. II.]
Now from this peculiar method in which the
doctrine is unfolded to us in Scripture, we learn so
much as this in our contemplation of it ; viz. the
absurdity, as well as the presumption, of inquiring
minutely about the actual relations subsisting between
God and His Son and Spirit, and drawing large
inferences from what is told us of Them. Whether
They are equal to Him or unequal, whether posterior
to Him in existence or coeval, such inquiries (though
often they must be answered when once started) are
in their origin as superfluous as similar questions con-
cerning the Almighty’s relation to His own attributes
(which still we answer as far as we can, when asked) ;
for the Son and the Spirit are one with Him, the ideas
of number and comparison being excluded. Yet this
statement must be qualified from the evidence of
Scripture, by two additional remarks. On the one
hand, the Son and Spirit are represented to us in the
Economy of Revelation, as ministering to God, and
as, so far, personally subordinate to Him ; and on the
other hand, in spite of this personal inequality, yet, as
being partakers of the fulness of the Father, they are
equal to Him in nature, and in Their claims upon our
faith and obedience, as is sufficiently proved by the
form of baptism.
The mysteriousness of the doctrine evidently lies
in our inability to conceive a sense of the word person ,
such, as to be more than a mere character, yet less
than an individual intelligent being ; our own notions,
as gathered from our experience of human agents,
leading us to consider personality as equivalent, in its
very idea, to the unity and independence of the
immaterial substance of which it is predicated.
SECTION III.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
This being the general Scripture view of the Holy
Trinity, it follows to describe the Ecclesiastical Doc-
trine, chiefly in relation to our Lord, as contained in
the writings of the Fathers, especially the Ante-
Nicene 1 .
Scripture is express in declaring both the divinity
of Him who in due time became man for us, and also
His personal distinction from God in His pre-existent
state. This is sufficiently clear from the opening of
St. John’s Gospel, which states the mystery as dis-
tinctly as an ecclesiastical comment can propound it.
On these two truths the whole doctrine turns, viz.
that our Lord is one with, yet personally separate
from God. Now there are two appellations given to
Him in Scripture, enforcing respectively these two
essentials of the true doctrine ; appellations imperfect
and open to misconception by themselves, but quali-
fying and completing each other. The title of the
1 The examples cited are principally borrowed from the elaborate
catalogues furnished by Petavius, Bishop Bull, and Suicer, in his The-
saurus and his Comment on the Nicene Creed.
SECT. III.]
of the Trinity.
157
Son marks His derivation and distinction from the
Father, that of the Word (i.e. Reason) denotes His
inseparable inherence in the Divine Unity ; and while
the former taken by itself, might lead the mind to con-
ceive of Him as a second being, and the latter as no
real being at all, both together witness to the mystery,
that He is at once from , and yet in> the Immaterial,
Incomprehensible God. Whether or not these titles
contain the proof of this statement, (which, it is
presumed, they actually do,) at least, they will enable
us to classify our ideas : and we have authority for
so using them. “ The*Son,” says Athanasius, “ is the
Word and Wisdom of the Father : from which titles
we infer His impassive and indivisible derivation from
the Father, inasmuch as the word (or reason) of a
man is no mere part of him, nor when exercised, goes
forth from him by a passion ; much less, therefore, is
it so with the Word of God. On the other hand, the
Father calls Him His Son, lest, from hearing only
that He was the Word, we should consider Him such
as the word of man, impersonal, whereas the title of
Son, designates Him as a Word which exists, and a
substantial Wisdom 2 .”
Availing ourselves of this division, let us first dwell
on the appellation of Son, and then on that of Word
or Reason.
2 Athan. de Syn. 41.
In the same way the Semi-Arian Basil (of Ancyra), speaking of such
heretics as argued that the Son has no existence separate from the
Father, because He is called the Word, says, “ For this reason our prede-
cessors, in order to signify that the Son has a reality, and is in being, and
not a mere word which comes and goes, were obliged to call Him a
substance. . . . For a word has no real existence, and cannot be a Son
of God, else were there many sons.” Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. 12.
The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. ii.
153
1.
Nothing can be plainer to the attentive student of
Scripture, than that our Lord is there called the Son
of God, not only in respect of His human nature, but
of His pre-existent state also. And if this be so, the
very fact of the revelation of Him as such, implies
that we are to gather something from it, and attach in
consequence of it some ideas to our notion of Him,
which otherwise we should not have attached ; else
would it not have been made. Taking then the word
in its most vague sense, so as to admit as little risk as
possible of forcing the analogy, we seem to gain the
notion of derivation from God, and therefore, of the
utter dissimilarity and distance existing between
Him and all beings except God His Father, as if He
partook of that unapproachable, incommunicable
Divine Nature, which is increate and imperishable.
But Scripture does not leave us here : in order to
fix us in this view, lest we should be perplexed with
another notion of the analogy, derived from that
adopted sonship, which is ascribed therein to created
beings, it attaches a characteristic epithet to His
Name, as descriptive of the peculiar relation of Him
who bears it to the Father. It designates Him as the
Only-begotten or the own 3 Son of God, terms evidently
referring, where they occur, to His heavenly nature,
and thus becoming the inspired comment on the more
general title. It is true that the term generation is
also applied to certain events in our Lord’s media-
torial history : to His resurrection from the dead 4 ;
3 [John i. 1. 14. 18; iii. 16; v. 18. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. i. 1 — 14.]
4 Ps. ii. 7. Act? xiii. 33. Heb. v. 5. Rev. i. 5. Rom. i. 4.
1 59
sect, hi.] of the Trinity .
and, according to the Fathers 5, to His original mission
in the beginning of all things to create the world ; and
to His manifestation in the flesh. Still, granting this,
the sense of the word “ only-begotten ” remains,
defined by its context to relate to something higher
than any event occurring in time, however great or
beneficial to the human race.
Being taken then, as it needs must be taken, to
designate His original nature, it witnesses most
forcibly and impressively to that which is peculiar in
it, viz. His origination from God, and such as to
exclude all resemblance to any being but Him, whom
nothing created resembles. Thus, without irreverently
and idly speculating upon the generation in itself, but
considering the doctrine as given us as a practical
direction for our worship and obedience, we may
accept it in token, that whatever the Father is, such is
the Son. And there are some remarkable texts in
Scripture corroborative of this view : for instance, that
in the fifth chapter of St. John, “ As the Father hath
life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have
life in Himself. . What things soever the Father
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the
Father #loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things
that Himself doeth. . As the Father raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth
whom He will . . that all men should honour the Son
even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth
not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath
sent Him.”
This is the principle of interpretation acknowledged
by the primitive Church. Its teachers warn us against
6 Ball, Defens. Fid. Nfic. iii. 9, § 12.
i6o 1 he Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. n.
resting in the word “ generation,” they urge us on to
seize and use its practical meaning. “ Speculate not
upon the divine generation ( gennesis )” says Gregory
Nazianzen, “for it is not safe .... let the doctrine
be honoured silently ; it is a great thing for thee to
know the fact ; the mode, we cannot admit that even
Angels understand, much less thou 6 .” Basil says,
“Seek not what is undiscoverable, for you will not
discover ; . . if you will not comply, but are obstinate,
I shall deride you, or rather I weep at your daring :
. . . . believe what is written, seek not what is not
written 7 .” Athanasius and Chrysostom repel the
profane inquiry argumentatively. “ Such specula-
tors,” the former says, “ might as well investigate,
where God is, and how God is, and of what nature
the Father is. But as such questions are irreligious,
and argue ignorance of God, so is it also unlawful to
venture such thoughts about the generation of the
Son of God.” And Chrysostom ; “ I know that He
begat the Son : the manner how, I am ignorant of. I
know that the Holy Spirit is from Him ; how from
Him, I do not understand. I eat food ; but how this
is converted into my flesh and blood, I know not.
We know not these things, which we see every day
when we eat, yet we meddle with inquiries concerning
the substance of God 8 .”
While they thus prohibited speculation, they boldly
used the doctrine for the purposes for which it was
given them in Scripture. Thus Justin Martyr speaks
of Christ as the Son, “ who alone is literally called by
that name :” and arguing with the heathen, he says,
6 Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxv. 29, 30 [xxix. 8].
7 Petav. v. 6, § 2.
8 Ibid.
sect, in.] of the Trinity . 161
“ Jesus might well deserve from His wisdom to be
called the Son of God, though He were only a man
like others, for all writers speak of God as the i Father
of both men and gods.’ But let it not be strange to
you, if, besides this common generation, we consider
Him, as the Word of God, to have been begotten of
God in a special way 9 .” Eusebius of Caesarea, unsatis-
factory as he is as an authority, has nevertheless
well expressed the general Catholic view in his attack
upon Marcellus. “ He who describes the Son as a
creature made out of nothing,” he says, “ does not
observe that he is bestowing on Him only the name
of Son, and denying Him to be really such ; for He
who has come out of nothing, cannot truly be the
Son of God, more than other things which are made.
But He who is truly the Son, born from God, as from
a Father, He may reasonably be called the singularly
beloved and only-begotten of the Father, and therefore
He is Himself God 1 .” This last inference, that what is
born of God, is God, of course implicitly appeals to, and
is supported by, the numerous texts which expressly
call the Son God, and ascribe to Him the divine
attributes 2
9 Bull, Defens. ii. 4, § 2. [The sentence runs on thus : — to is to v
C E pfjirj \ 6 yov tov 7 rapa Oeov ayy cXtckov Xeyovcrtv. Apol. i. 22.]
1 Euseb. de Eccles. Theol. i. 9, 10.
2 The following are additional specimens from primitive theology.
Clement calls the Son “ the perfect Word, born of the perfect Father.”
Tertullian, after quoting the text, “ All that the Father hath are Mine,”
adds, “ If so, why should not the Father’s titles be His ? When then
we read that God is Almighty, and the Highest, and the God of Hosts,
and the King of Israel, and Jehovah, see to it whether the Son also be not
signified by these passages, as being in His own right the Almighty
God, inasmuch as He is the Word of the Almighty God.” Bull, Defens,
b. 6, § 3. 7, § 4.
M
1 62 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine ["chap. ii.
The reverential spirit in which the Fathers held the
doctrine of the gennesis , led them to the use of other
forms of expression, partly taken from Scripture,
partly not, with a view of signifying the fact of the
Son’s full participation in the divinity of Him who is
His Father, without dwelling on the mode of partici-
pation or origination, on which they dared not specu-
late 3 . Such were the images of the sun and its
radiance, the fountain and the stream, the root and
its shoots, a body and its exhalation, fire and the fire
kindled from it ; all which were used as emblems of
the sacred mystery in those points in which it was
declared in Scripture, viz. the mystery of the Son’s
being from the Father and, as such, partaker in His
Divine perfections. The first of these is found in the
first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where
our Lord is called, “ the brightness of God’s glory.”
These illustrations had a further use in their very
variety, as reminding the Christian that he must not
dwell on any one of them for its own sake. The
following passage from Tertullian will show how they
were applied in the inculcation of the sacred doctrine.
“ Even when a ray is shot forth from the sun, though
it be but a part from the whole, yet the sun is in the
ray, inasmuch as it is the ray of the sun ; nor is its
substance separated, but drawn out. In like manner
there is Spirit from Spirit, and God from God. As
when a light is kindled from another, the original
0 light remains entire and undiminished, though you
borrow from it many like itself ; so That which pro-
ceeds from God, is called at once God, and the Son of
God, and Both are One 4 .”
3 Vid Athan. ad Serap. i. 20. 4 Bull, Defens. ii. 7, § 2.
of the Trinity.
SECT. III.]
163
So much is evidently deducible from what Scripture
tells us concerning the generation of the Son ; that
there is, (so to express it,) a reiteration of the One
Infinite Nature of God, a communicated divinity, in
the Person of our Lord ; an inference supported by
the force of the word “ only begotten,” and verified
by the freedom and fulness with which the Apostles
ascribe to Christ the high incommunicable titles of
eternal perfection and glory. There is one other
notion conveyed to us in the doctrine, which must be
evident as soon as stated, little as may be the practical
usefulness of dwelling upon it. The very name of Son,
and the very idea of derivation, imply a certain sub-
ordination of the Son to the Father, so far forth as we
view Him as distinct from the Father, or in His
personality : and frequent testimony is borne to the
correctness of this inference in Scripture, as in the
descriptions of the Divine Angel in the Old Testa-
ment, revived in the closing revelations of the New 5 ;
and in such passages as that above cited from St.
John’s Gospel 6 . This is a truth which every Christian
feels, admits, and acts upon ; but from piety he would
not allow himself to reflect on what he does, did not
the attack of heresies oblige him. The direct answer
which a true religious loyalty leads him to make to
any question about the subordination of the Son, is
that such comparisons are irreverent, that the Son is
one with the Father, and that unless he honours the
Son in all the fulness of honour which he ascribes to
the Father, he is disobeying His express command.
It may serve as a very faint illustration of the offence
given him, to consider the manner in which he would
6 Rev. viii. 3. 6 John \\ 19 — 30.
M 2
164 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. ii.
receive any question concerning the love which he
feels respectively for two intimate friends, or for a
brother and sister, or for his parents : though in such
cases the impropriety of the inquiry, arises from the
incommensurableness, not the coincidence, of the
respective feelings. But false doctrine forces us to
analyze our own notions, in order to exclude it.
Arius argued that, since our Lord was a Son, there-
fore He was not God : and from that time we have
been obliged to determine how much we grant and
what we deny, lest, while praying without watching,
we lose all. Accordingly, orthodox theology has
since his time worn a different aspect ; first, inasmuch
as divines have measured what they said themselves ;
secondly, inasmuch as they have measured the Ante-
Nicene language, which by its authors was spoken
from the heart, by the necessities of controversies of a
later date. And thus those early teachers have been
made appear technical, when in fact they have only
been reduced to system ; just as in literature what is
composed freely, is afterwards subjected to the rules
of grammarians and critics. This must be taken as
an apology for whatever there is that sounds harsh in
the observations which I have now to make, and for
the injustice which I may seem incidentally to do in
the course of them to the ancient writers whose words
are in question.
“ The Catholic doctors/ 1 says Bishop Bull, “ both be-
fore and after the Nicene Council, are unanimous in
declaring that the Father is greater than the Son, even
as to divinity [paternity ?] ; i.e. not in nature or any
essential perfection, which is in the Father and not in
the Son, but alone in what may be called authority,
SECT. III.]
of the Trinity .
i6 5
that is in point of origin, since the Son is from the
Father, not the Father from the Son 7.” Justin, for
instance, speaks of the Son as “ having the second
place after the unchangeable and everlasting God and
Father of all.” Origen says that “ the Son is not
more powerful than the Father, but subordinate
(vi roSeecrrepov) ; according to His own words, ‘ The
Father that sent Me, is greater than L’” This text is
cited in proof of the same doctrine by the Nicene,
and Post-Nicene Fathers, Alexander, Athanasius,
Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and
others, of whom we may content ourselves with the
words of Basil : “ 4 My Father is greater than 1/ that
is, so far forth as Father, since what else does ‘ Fa-
ther’ signify, than that He is cause and origin of Him
who was begotten by Him?” and in another place,
7 Bull, Defens. iv. 2, § i. Or, again, to take the words of Petavius :
[“ Filius eandem numero cum Patre divinitatem habet, sed proprietate
differt. Proinde Filietas ipsa Paternitat equodammodo minor est, vel
Filius, qua Filius, Patre, ut Pater est, minor dicitur, quoniam origine est
posterior, non autem ut Deus,” ii. 2, § 15.] Cudworth, too, observes:
“ Petavius himself, expounding the Athanasian creed, writeth in this
manner: ‘ The Father is in a right Catholic manner affirmed by most of
the ancients, to be greater than the Son, and He is commonly said also,
without reprehension, to be before Him in respect of original.’ Where-
upon he concludeth the true meaning of that Creed to be this, that no
Person of the Trinity is greater or less than other in respect of the essence
of the Godhead common to them all but that notwithstanding
there may be some inequality in them, as they are Hie Deus et Haec
Persona. Wherefore when Athanasius, and the other orthodox Fathers,
writing against Arius, do so frequently assert the equality of all the Three
Persons, this is to be understood in way of opposition to Arius only, who
made the Son to be unequal to the Father, as erepoovorLos one
being God, and the other a creature ; they affirming on the contrary,
that He was equal to the Father, as opLOOvacos .... that is, as God
and not a creature.” Cudw. Intell. Syst. 4, § 36.
1 66 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [ chap . ii .
“ The Son is second in order to the Father, since He
is from Him ; and in dignity, inasmuch as the Father
is the origin and cause of His existence 8 .”
Accordingly, the primitive writers, with an unsuspi-
cious yet reverent explicitness, take for granted the
ministrative character of the relation of both Son and
Spirit towards the Father ; still of course speaking of
Them as included in the Divine Unity, not as external
to it. Thus Irenaeus, clear and undeniable as is his
orthodoxy, still declares, that the Father “is minis-
tered to in all things by His own Offspring and
Likeness, the Son and Holy Ghost, the Word and
Wisdom, of whom all angels are servants and sub-
jects 9 .” In like manner, a ministry is commonly
ascribed to the Son and Spirit, and a bidding and
willing to the Father, by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement,
Origen, and Methodius 1 , altogether in the spirit of the
Post-Nicene authorities already cited : and without
any risk of misleading the reader, as soon as the
second and third Persons are understood to be internal
to the Divine Mind, connaturalia instrumental con-
current (at the utmost) in no stronger sense, than when
the human will is said to concur with the reason.
Gregory Nazianzen lays down the same doctrine with
an explanation, in the following sentence : “ It is
plain,” he says, “ that the things, of which the Father
designs in Him the forms, these the Word executes ;
not as a servant, nor unskilfully, but with full know-
8 Justin, Apol. i. 13. 60. Bull, Defens, iv. 2, § 6, § 9. Petav. ii. 2,
§ 2, &c.
y Petav. i. 3, § 7.
1 {/7n7pecrta, fiovXrjcrLS, OeXrjfxa, praeceptio. Petav. ibid. et. seqq.
of the Trinity.
sect, in.]
167
ledge and a master’s power, and, to speak more
suitably, as if He were the Father 2 3 .”
Such is the Scriptural and Catholic sense of the
word Son ; on the other hand, it is easy to see what
was the defect of this image, and the consequent
danger in the use of it. First, there was an appear-
ance of materiality, the more suspiciously to be viewed
because there were heresies at the time which denied
or neglected the spiritual nature of Almighty God.
Next, too marked a distinction seemed to be drawn
between the Father and Son, tending to give a separate
individuality to each, and so to introduce a kind of
ditheism ; and here too heresy and philosophy had
prepared the way for the introduction of the error.
The Valentinians and Manichees are chargeable with
both misconceptions. The Eclectics, with the latter ;
being Emanatists, they seem to have considered the
Son to be both individually distinct from the Father,
and of an inferior nature. — Against these errors we
have the following among other protests.
Tertullian says, “ We declare that two are revealed
as God in Scripture, two as Lord ; but we explain
ourselves, lest offence should be taken. They are not
called two, in respect of their both being God, or
Lord, but in respect of their being Father and Son ;
and this moreover, not from any division of substance,
but from mutual relation, since we pronounce the Son
to be individual with and inseparable from the Fa-
ther 3.” Origen also, commenting upon the word
2 Bull, Defens. ii. 13, § 10. [Greg. Orat. xxx. n. For the subordi-
nation of mediatorship, vid. Athan. Orat. iv. 6.]
3 Bull, Defens. ii. 4, § 3. 7, § 5. Petav. i. 4, § 1.
1 68 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. ii.
“ brightness 4 5 ,” in the first chapter of the Hebrews,
says, “ Holy Scripture endeavours to give to men a
refined perception of its teaching, by introducing the
illustration of breath 5. It has selected this material
image, in order to our understanding even in some
degree, how Christ, who is Wisdom, issues, as though
Breath, from the perfection of God Himself. .... In
like manner from the analogy of material objects, He
is called a pure and perfect Emanation of the
Almighty glory 6 . Both these resemblances most
clearly show the fellowship of nature between the
Son and Father. For an emanation seems to be of
one substance with that body of which it is the
emanation or breath 7 .” And to guard still more
strongly against any misconception of the real drift
of the illustration, he cautions his readers against
“ those absurd fictions which give the notion of
certain literal extensions in the Divine Nature; as
if they would distribute it into parts, and divide
God the Father, if they could ; whereas to entertain
even the light suspicion of this, is not only an extreme
impiety, but an utter folly also, nay not even intelli-
4 a7ravyu<TfJLa.
5 ar/xiV Wisd. vii. 25.
a 7 roppota, ibid.
7 In like manner Justin, after saying that the Divine Power called the
Word is born from the Father, adds, “ but not by separation from Him
(kcit 0,7 as if the Father lost part of Himself, as corporeal sub-
stances are not the same before and after separation.” [Tryph. 128.]
“ The Son of God,” says Clement, “ never relinquishes His place of
watch, not parted or separated off, not passing from place to place, but
always every where, illimitable, all intellect, all the light of the Father,
all eye, all-seeing, all-hearing, all-knowing, searching the powers with
His power.” [Strom, vii. 2.]
of the Trinity .
sect, in.]
169
gible at all, that an incorporeal nature should be
capable of division 8 .”
2 .
To meet more fully this misconception to which
the word Son gave rise, the ancient Fathers availed
themselves of the other chief appellation given to our
Lord in Scripture. The Logos or Sophia, the Word,
Reason, or Wisdom of God, is only by St. John dis-
tinctly applied to Christ ; but both before his time
and by his contemporary Apostles it is used in that
ambiguous sense, half literal, half evangelical, which,
when it is once known to belong to our Lord, guides
us to the right interpretation of the metaphor. For
instance, when St. Paul declares that “ the Word of
God is alive and active, and keener than a two-edged
sword, and so piercing as to separate soul and spirit,
joints and nerves, and a judge of our thoughts and
designs, and a witness of every creature,” it is scarcely
possible to decide whether the revealed law of God be
spoken of, or the Eternal Son. On the whole it
would appear that our Lord is called the Word or
Wisdom of God in two respects ; first, to denote His
essential presence in the Father, in as full a sense as
the attribute of wisdom is essential to Him ; secondly,
His mediatorship, as the Interpreter or Word between
God and His creatures. No appellation, surely, could
have been more appositely bestowed, in order to
counteract the notions of materiality and of distinct
individuality, and of beginning of existence, which the
title of the Son was likely to introduce into the
Catholic doctrine. Accordingly, after the words
Bull, Defens. ii. 9, § 19.
170 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [ chap . ii .
lately cited, Origen uses it (or a metaphor like it) for
this very purpose. Having mentioned the absurd
idea, which had prevailed, of parts or extensions in
the Divine Nature, he proceeds : “ Rather, as will
proceeds out of the mind, and neither tears the mind,
nor is itself separated or divided from it, in some such
manner must we conceive that the Father has be-
gotten the Son, who is His Image.” Elsewhere he
says, “ It were impious and perilous, merely because
our intellect is weak, to deprive God, as far as our
words go, of His only-begotten co-eternal Word, viz.
the ‘ wisdom in which He rejoiced.’ We might as
well conceive that He was not for ever in joy 9 .”
Hence it was usual to declare that to deny the
eternity of our Lord was all one as saying that
Almighty God was. once without intelligence 1 : for
instance, Athenagoras says, that the Son is “ the first-
born of the Father ; not as made, for God being Mind
Eternal, had from the beginning reason in Himself,
being eternally intellectual ; but as issuing forth upon
the chaotic mass as the Idea and Agent of Creation 2 .”
The same interpretation of the sacred figure is con-
tinued after the Nicene Council ; thus Basil says, “ If
Christ be the Power of God, and the Wisdom, and
these be increate and co-eternal with God, (for He
never was without wisdom and power,) then, Christ
is increate and co-eternal with God 3 .”
But here again the metaphor was necessarily imper-
9 Bull, Defens. iii. 3, § 1.
1 aAoyos.
2 Bull, Defens. iii. 5, § 2, rov \6yov . . . Ao^c/co? . . . 7rpoe\66v
. . . iSia kcu ivepyet a.
3 Petav. vi. 9, § 2.
sect , hi .] of the Trinity. 171
feet; and, if pursued, open to misconception. Its
obvious tendency was to obliterate the notion of the
Son’s Personality, that is, to introduce Sabellianism.
Something resembling this was the error of Paulus of
Samosata and Marcellus : who, from the fleeting and
momentary character of a word spoken, inferred that
the Divine Word was but the temporary manifestation
of God’s glory in the man Christ. And it was to
counteract this tendency, that is, to witness against it,
that the Fathers speak of Him as the Word in an
hypostasis 4 5 , the permanent, real, and living Word.
3 -
The above is a sketch of the primitive doctrine con-
cerning our Lord’s divine nature, as contained in the
two chief appellations which are ascribed to Him in
Scripture. The opposite ideas they convey may be
further denoted respectively by the symbols “of God,”
and “ in God 5 ; ” as though He were so derived from
the simple Unity of God as in no respect to be divided
or extended from it, (to speak metaphorically,) but to
inhere within that ineffable individuality. Of these
two conditions 6 of the doctrine, however, the divinity
of Christ, and the unity of God, the latter was much
more earnestly insisted on in the early times. The
divinity of our Lord was, on the whole, too plain a
4 ivvirodTaros Aoyos.
5 £k Oeov and iv Oeco.
6 [Son and Word, “ of Godf and “ in God ” however, imply each other.
“ If n ot Son, neither is He Word : if not Word, neither is He Son.”
Athan. Orat. iv. 24. “ The Son’s Being, because of the Father, is there-
fore in the Father.” Athan. iii. 3. “ Quia Verbum ideo Filius.” August,
in Psalm, vii. 14, § 5.]
172 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. ii.
truth to dispute ; but in proportion as it was known to
the heathen, it would seem to them to involve this con-
sequence, — that, much as the Christians spoke against
polytheism, still, after all, they did admit a polytheism
of their own instead of the Pagan. Hence the
anxiety of the Apologists, while they assail the
heathen creed on this account, to defend their own
against a similar charge. Thus Athenagoras, in the
passage lately referred to, says ; “ Let no one ridicule
the notion that God has a Son. For* we have not
such thoughts either about God the Father or about
the Son as your poets, who, in their mythologies,
make the Gods no better than men. But the Son of
God is the Word of the Father [as Creator] both in
idea and in active power 7 .... the Father and the
Son being one. The Son being in the Father, and
the Father in the Son, in the unity and power of the
Spirit, the Son of God is the Mind and Word of the
Father.” Accordingly, the divinity of the Son being
assumed, the early writers are earnest in protecting
the doctrine of the Unity; protecting it both from
the materialism of dividing the Godhead, and the
paganism of separating the Son and Spirit from the
Father. And to this purpose they made both the “of
God,” and the “ in God,” subservient, in a manner
which shall now be shown.
First, the “in God.” It is the clear declaration of
Scripture, which we must receive without questioning,
that the Son and Spirit are in the one God, and He
in Them. There is that remarkable text in the first
chapter of St. John which says that the Son is “in the
7 iSe a Kal ivepyeia, as at p. t 70.
sect, hi.] of the Trinity. 173
bosom of the Father.” In another place it is said
that “ the Son is in the Father and the Father in the
Son.” (John xiv. 11.) And elsewhere the Spirit of
God is compared to “ the spirit of a man which is in
him” (1 Cor. ii. 11). This is, in the language of
theology, the doctrine of the coinherence 8 / which was
used from the earliest times on the authority of
Scripture, as a safeguard and witness of the Divine
Unity. A passage from Athenagoras to this purpose
has just been cited. Clement has the following dox-
ology at the end of his Christian Instructor. “ To
the One Only Father and Son, Son and Father, Son
our guide and teacher, with the Holy Spirit also, to
the One in all things, in whom are all things, &c. . . .
to Him is the glory, &c.” And Gregory of Neo-
caesarea, if the words form part of his creed, “ In the
Trinity there is nothing created, nothing subservient,
nothing of foreign nature, as if absent from it once,
and afterwards added. The Son never failed the
Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but the Trinity remains
evermore unchangeable, unalterable.” These autho-
rities belong to the early Alexandrian School. The
Ante-Nicene school of Rome is still more explicit.
Dionysius of Rome says, “ We must neither distribute
into three divinities the awful and divine Unity, nor
diminish the dignity and transcendant majesty of our
Lord by the name of creature, but we must believe in
God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His
Son, and in the Holy Spirit ; and believe that the
Word is united with the God of the universe. For
He says, I and the Father are One ; and, I am in the
7T€pi^u)p7](jL^ 9 or circumincessio.
1 74 The Ecclesiastical DocEine [ chap . ii .
Father, and the Father in Me. For thus the Divine
Trinity and the holy preaching of the monarchia will
be preserved 9 .”
This doctrine of the coinherence , as protecting the
Unity without intrenching on the perfections of the
Son and Spirit, may even be called the characteristic
of Catholic Trinitarianism as opposed to all counter-
feits, whether philosophical, Arian, or Oriental. One
Post-Nicene statement of it shall be added. “If any
one truly receive the Son, says Basil, “he will find
that He brings with him on one hand His Father, on
the other the Holy Spirit. For neither can He from
the Father be severed, who is of and ever in the
Father ; nor again from His own Spirit disunited,
who in It operates all things. . . For we must not con-
ceive separation or division in any way ; as if either
the Son could be supposed without the Father, or the
Spirit disunited from the Son. But there is discovered
between them some ineffable and incomprehensible,
both communion and distinction 1 .”
y Shortly before he had used the following still stronger expressions :
TjVwcrOaL yap av ay ky) tw 0 eo) tw v oXojv tov Oclov A oyov' e/x<£ ikoy^
a)p€Lr 8e tco 0 €o> koI iv^kairacrdai Set to ' Ay lov Uvevpia. The Ante-
Nicene African school is as express as the Roman. Tertullian says,
“ Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohasrentes,
qui tres unum sint, non unus.’’ Bull, Defens. ii. 6, § 4 ; 12, § 1. 11 ;
iv. 4, 12, § 1. 11 ; iv. 4, § 10.
1 Petav. iv. 16, § 9. The Semi-Arian creed, called Mcicrostichos ,
drawn up at Antioch a.d. 345, which is in parts unexceptionable in point
of orthodoxy, contains the following striking exposition of the Catholic
notion of the coinherence. “ Though we affirm the Son to have a distinct
existence and life as the Father has, yet we do not therefore separate Him
from the Father, inventing place and distance between Their union after
a corporeal manner. For we believe that they are united without medium
or interval, and are inseparable. ,, And then follow words to which our
of the Trinity .
175
SECT. III.]
Secondly, as the “ in God ” led the Fathers to the
doctrine of the coinherence , so did the “ of God ” lead
them to the doctrine of the monarchia 2 / still, with
the one object of guarding against any resemblance to
Polytheism in their creed. Even the heathen had
shown a disposition, designedly or from a spontaneous
feeling, to trace all their deities up to one Principle or
arche ; as is evident by their Theogonies 3 . Much
more did it become that true religion, which promin-
ently put forth the Unity of God, jealously to guard
its language, lest it should seem to admit the exis-
tence of a variety of original Principles. It is said to
have been the doctrine of the Marcionists and
Manichees, that there were three unconnected indepen-
dent Beings in the Divine Nature. Scripture and the
Church avoid the appearance of tritheism, by tracing
back, (if we may so say,) the infinite perfections of the
Son and Spirit to Him whose Son and Spirit They
are. They are, so to express it, but the new manifes-
tation and repetition of the Father ; there being no
room for numeration or comparison between Them,
nor any resting-place for the contemplating mind, till
They are referred to Him in whom They centre. On
the other hand, in naming the Father, we imply the
Son and Spirit, whether They be named or not 4 .
Without this key, the language of Scripture is per-
language is unequal : oXov fikv tov Tlarpos iveo-TcpvicrpLevov tov
Ylov oXov Se tov Ylov igrjpTrjpievov kclI 7 rpocnre<pv kotos rof
IlaTpt, KCLI pLOVOV TOLS 7 rCLTp(!)OL<Z KoA. 7 TOtS aVCLTTCLVOpL€.VOV Sl? 7 V€Ka>S.
Bull, Defens. iv. 4, § 9.
2 [Vid. Athan. Tr. vol. i. pp. no — 112.]
3 Cudw. Intell. Syst. 4, § 13.
4 Athan. ad Serap. i. 14.
i 76 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine [chap. ii.
plexed in the extreme^. Hence it is, that the Father
is called “the only God,” at a time when our Lord’s
name is also mentioned, John xvii. 3, 1 Tim. i. 16, 17,
as if the Son was but the reiteration of His Person,
who is the Self-Existent, and therefore not to be
contrasted with Him in the way of number. The
Creed, called the Apostles’, follows this mode of
stating the doctrine ; the title of God standing in the
opening against the Father’s name, while the Son and
Spirit are introduced as distinct forms or modes, (so
to say,) of and in the One Eternal Being. The Nicene
Creed, commonly so called, directed as it is against
the impugners both of the Son’s and of the Spirit’s
divinity, nevertheless observes the same rule even in
a stricter form, beginning with a confession of the
“ One God.” Whether or not this mode of speaking
was designed in Scripture to guard the doctrine of the
Unity from all verbal infringement (and there seems
evidence that it was so, as in 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6,) it
certainly was used for this purpose in the primitive
Church. Thus Tertullian says, that it is a mistake
“ to suppose that the number and arrangement of the
Trinity is a division of its Unity ; inasmuch as the
Unity drawing out the Trinity from itself, is not
destroyed by it, but is subserved 6 .” Novatian, in like
manner, says, “ God originating from God, so as to be
the Second Person, yet not interfering with the
Father’s right to be called the one God. For, had
s Let 1 John v. 20 be taken as an example ; or again, 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 6.
John xiv. 16 — 18; xvi. 7 — 15.
6 Again he says, that “ the Trinity descending from the Father by
closely knit and connected steps, both is consistent with the monarchia
(Unity), and protects the economia (revealed dispensation) .”
of the Trinity .
l 77
SECT. III.]
He not a birth, then indeed when compared with Him
who had no birth, He would seem, from the appearance
of equality in both, to make two who were without
birth 7, and therefore two Gods 7 8 .”
Accordingly it is impossible to worship One of the
Divine Persons, without worshipping the Others also.
In praying to the Father, we only arrive at His mys-
terious presence through His Son and Spirit ; and in
praying to the Son and Spirit, we are necessarily
carried on beyond them to the source of Godhead from
which They are derived. We see this in the very form
of many of the received addresses to the Blessed
Trinity ; in which, without intended reference to the
mediatorial scheme, the Son and Spirit seem, even in
the view of the Divine Unity, to take a place in our
thoughts between the Father and His creatures ; as in
the ordinary doxologies “ to the Father through the
Son and by the Spirit,” or “to the Father and Son in
the unity of the Holy Ghost.”
This gives us an insight into the force of expressions,
common with the primitive Fathers, but bearing, in
7 [Or unoriginate ; viz. on ayivvrjTOS and avap^os, in the next
Section.]
8 Petav. Praef. 5, i.iii. ; §8. Dionysius of Alexandria implies the
same doctrine, when he declares; “We extend the indivisible Unity into
the Trinity, and again we concentrate the indestructible Trinity into the
Unity.” And Hilary, to take a Post-Nicene authority, “ We do not
detract from the Father, His being the one God, when we say also that
the Son is God. For He is God from God, one from one ; therefore one
God, because God is from Himself. On the other hand, the Son is not
on that account the less God, because the Father is the one God. For
the only-begotten Son of God is not without birth, so as to detract from
the Father His being the one God, nor is He other than God, hut because
He is born of God.” De Trin. i. Vide also Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 17.
Bull, Defens. iv. 4, § 7.
N
1 78 The Ecclesiastical Doctrine , &c. [chap. ii.
the eyes of inconsiderate observers, a refined and
curious character. They call the Son, “ God of God,
Light of Light,” &c., much more frequently than
simply God, in order to anticipate in the very form of
words, the charge or the risk of ditheism. Hence,
also, the illustrations of the sun and his rays, &c., were
in such repute ; viz. as containing, not only a descrip-
tion, but also a defence of the Catholic doctrine.
Thus Hippolytus says, “ When I say that the Son is
distinct from the Father, I do not speak of two Gods;
but, as it were, light of light, and the stream from the
fountain, and a ray from the sun 9 .” It was the same
reason which led the Fathers to insist upon the doc-
trine of the divine generation.
9 Bull, Defens. iv. 4, § 5.
179
SECTION IV.
VARIATIONS IN THE ANTE-NICENE THEOLOGICAL
STATEMENTS.
There will, of course, be differences of opinion, in
deciding how much of the ecclesiastical doctrine, as
above described, was derived from direct Apostolical
Tradition, and how much was the result of intuitive
spiritual perception in scripturally informed and
deeply religious minds. Yet it does not seem too
much to affirm, that copious as it may be in theo-
logical terms, yet hardly one can be pointed out
which is not found or strictly implied in the New
Testament itself. And indeed so much perhaps will
be granted by all who have claim to be considered
Trinitarians; the objections, which some among them
may be disposed to raise, lying rather against its
alleged over-exactness in systematizing Scripture,
than against the truths themselves which are con-
tained in it. But it should be remembered, that it is
we in after times who systematize the statements of
the Fathers, which, as they occur in their works, are
for the most part as natural and unpremeditated as
those of the inspired volume itself. If the more
exact terms and phrases of any writer be brought
together, that is, of a writer who has fixed principles
N 2
180 Variations in the [chap. ii.
at all, of course they will appear technical and severe.
We count the words of the Fathers, and measure
their sentences ; and so convert doxologies into
creeds. That we do so, that the Church has done so
more or less from the Nicene Council downwards, is
the fault of those who have obliged us, of those who,
“ while men slept,” have “ sowed tares among the
wheat.”
This remark applies to the statements brought
together in the last Section, from the early writers :
which, even though generally subservient to certain
important ends, as, for instance, the maintenance of
the Unity of God, & c., are still on the whole written
freely and devotionally. But now the discussion
passes on to that more intentional systematizing on
the part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which, unavoid-
able as it was, yet because it was in part conventional
and individual, was ambiguous, and in consequence
afforded at times an apparent countenance to the
Arian heresy. It often becomes necessary to settle
the phraseology of divinity, in points, where the chief
problem is, to select the clearest words to express
notions in which all agree ; or to find the proposition
which will best fit in with, and connect, a number of
received doctrines. Thus the Calvinists dispute
among themselves whether or not God wills the dam-
nation of the non-elect ; both parties agree in doctrine,
they doubt how their own meaning may be best
expressed x . However clearly we see, and firmly we
grasp the truth, we have a natural fear of the appear-
ance of inconsistency ; nay, a becoming fear of mis-
1 Vid. another instance infra, ch. v. § 2, in the controversy about the
use of the word hypostasis .
sect, iv.] A nte-Nicene Theological Statements . 1 8 r
leading others by our inaccuracy of language ; and
especially when our words have been misinterpreted
by opponents, are we anxious to guard against such
an inconvenience in future. There are two charac-
teristics of opinions subjected to this intellectual
scrutiny : first, they are variously expressed during
the process ; secondly, they are consigned to arbitrary
formulas, at the end of it. Now, to exemplify this in
certain Ante-Nicene statements of the great Catholic
doctrine.
i.
The word ayevvrjro 9, ingenitus ( unborn, ingenerate ),
was the philosophical term to denote that which had
existed from eternity. It had accordingly been
applied by Aristotle to the world or to matter, which
was according to his system without beginning ; and
by Plato to his ideas. Now since the Divine Word
was according to Scripture generate , He could not be
called ingenerate (or eternal), without a verbal contra-
diction. In process of time a distinction was made
between ayevrjros and ayevvrjros, ( increate and ingene-
rate,) according as the letter v was or was not doubled,
so that the Son might be said to be ayevrjroo? yevvrjros
( increately generate). The argument which arose from
this perplexity of language, is urged by Arius himself ;
who ridicules the ayevvrjroyeves, ingenerately-generate,
which he conceives must be ascribed, according to the
orthodox creed, to the Son of God 2 . Some years
afterwards, the same was the palmary, or rather the
essential argument of Eunomius, the champion of the
Anomoeans.
% Vid. infra, Section 5.
Variations in the
CHAP. II.
18:
2.
The avapgov (unoriginate). As is implied in the
word monarchia, as already explained, the Father
alone is the arche , or origin , and the Son and Spirit
are not origins. The heresy of the Tritheists made it
necessary to insist upon this. Hence the condemna-
tion, in the (so-called) Apostolical Canons, of those
who baptized “into the name of Three Unoriginate 3 ”
And Athanasius says, “We do not teach three Origins,
as our illustration shows ; for we do not speak of
three Suns, but of the Sun and its radiance 4 5 .” For
the same reason the early writers spoke of the Father
as the Fount of Divinity. At the same time, lest
they should in word dishonour the Son, they ascribed
to Him “ an unoriginate generation ” or “ birth 5.”
Thus Alexander, the first champion of orthodox truth
against Arius, in his letter to his namesake of Byzan-
tium: “We must reserve to the unbegotten (or unborn)
Father His peculiar prerogative, confessing that no
one is the cause of His existence, and to the Son we
must pay the due honour, attributing to Him the
unoriginate generation from the Father, and as we
have said already, paying Him worship, so as ever to
speak of Him piously and reverently, as ‘pre-existent,
ever-living,’ and ‘ before the worlds 6 .’ ” This distinction
however, as might be expected, was but partially re-
3 Bull, Defens. iv. i, § 6.
4 Cudw. Intell. Syst. 4, § 36 [p. 709, ed. Mosheim. But the Benedic-
tine Ed. in Cyril, Catech. xi., says that Athanasius maintained the Son’s
avapxov. Epiphanius, from 1 Cor. xi. 3, argues that the Father is the
K€<t>a\r), not the apXVi of th e Son. Hser. 76, fin.]
5 Suicer. Symb. Nicen. c. viii.
6 Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 18.
sect. I v.]Ante-Nicene Theological Statements . 183
ceived among the Catholics. Contrasted with all
created beings, the Son and Spirit are of necessity
Unoriginate in the Unity of the Father. Clement,
for instance, calls the Son, “ the everlasting, unori-
ginate, origin and commencement of all things 7 ” It
was not till they became alive to the seeming ditheism
of such phrases, which the Sabellian controversy was
sure to charge upon them, that they learned the
accurate discrimination observed by Alexander. On
the other hand, when the Arian contest urged them
in the contrary direction to Sabellius, then they
returned more or less to the original language of
Clement, though with a fuller explanation of their
own meaning. Gregory Nyssen gives the following
plain account of the variations of their practice :
“ Whereas the word Origin has many significations . . .
sometimes we say that the appellation of the Unorigi-
nate is not unsuitable to the Son. For when it is
taken to mean derivation of substance from no cause,
this indeed we ascribe to the Father alone. But
according to the other senses of the word, since
creation, time, the order of the world are referred to
an origin, in respect of these we ascribe to the Only-
begotten, superiority to any origin ; so as to believe
Him to be beyond creation, time, and mundane order,
through whom were made all things. And thus we
confess Him, who is not unoriginate in regard to His
subsistence, in all other respects to be unoriginate,
and, while the Father is unoriginate and unborn, the
Son to be unoriginate in the sense explained, but not
unborn 8 .”
' T7jv a^pcvov, avap^ov, olPXV v TC Kai OLircLpxfpt twv ttovudv.
8 Gregory Nazianzen says the same more concisely : 6 Ytos, iav ws
1 84 Variations in the [ chap . ii .
The word cause (clltlos) used in this passage, as a
substitute for that use of Origin which peculiarly
applies to the Father as the Fount of Divinity, is
found as early as the time of Justin Martyr, who in
his dialogue with Trypho, declares the Father is to the
Son the alr^o?, or cause of His being ; and it was
resumed by the Post-Nicene writers, when the Arian
controversy was found to turn in no small degree on
the exact application of such terms. Thus Gregory
Nazianzen says, '‘There is One God, seeing that the
Son and Spirit are referred to One Cause 9 .”
3 -
The Ante-Nicene history of the word homoiision or
; consubstantial , which the Council of Nicaea adopted as
its test, will introduce a more important discussion.
It is one characteristic of Revelation, that it clears
up all doubts about the existence of God, as separate
from, and independent of nature ; and shows us that
the course of the world depends not merely on a sys-
tem, but on a Being, real, living, and individual. What
we ourselves witness, evidences to us the operation
of laws, physical and moral ; but it leaves us unsatis-
fied, whether or not the principle of these be a mere
nature or fate, whether the life of all things be a mere
Anima Mundi, a spirit connatural with the body in
cuTiov tov Haripa Xappdvrjs, ovk ava px o< *' ^PXV Yiov Harry),
0)9 airto?. Bull, Defens. iv. 2, § 8 . 1 ; § 3. Petav. i. 4, § i. Suicer,
ibid.
9 However, here too we have a variation in the use of the word :
atTi-09 being- sometimes applied to the Son in the sense dpvrj. The
Latin word answering to amo 9 is sometimes causa, more commonly
principium or auctor. Bull, Defens. iv. 1, § 2 ; § 4. Petav. v. 5, § 10.
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements . 185
which it acts, or an Agent powerful to make or un
make, to change or supersede, according to His will.
It is here that Revelation supplies the deficiency of
philosophical religion ; miracles are its emblem, as
well as its credentials, forcing on the imagination the
existence of an irresponsible self-dependent Being, as
well as recommending a particular message to the
reason. This great truth, conveyed in the very cir-
cumstances under which Revelation was made, is
explicitly recognized in its doctrine. Among other
modes of inculcating it, may be named the appellation
under which Almighty God disclosed Himself to the
Israelites; Jehovah (or, as the Septuagint translates it,
6 wv) being an expressive appellation of Him, who is
essentially separate from those variable and perishable
beings or substances, which creation presents to our
observation. Accordingly, the description of Him as
to ov , or in other words, the doctrine of the ovaLa of
God, that is, of God viewed as Being and as the one
Being, became familiar to the minds of the primitive
Christians ; as embodying the spirit of the Scriptures,
and indirectly witnessing against the characteristic
error of pagan philosophy, which considered the
Divine Mind, not as a reality, but as a mere abstract
name, or generalized law of nature, or at best as a
mere mode, principle, or an animating soul, not a
Being external to creation, and possessed of individu-
ality. Cyril of Alexandria defines the word ovglcl ,
( usia , being ; substance ,) to be “ that which has exis-
tence in itself, independent of every thing else to
constitute it 1 ; ” that is, an individual. This sense
1 Trpayjia avOvTrapKTov , pir] Seopievov irepov 7 rpos rrjv eavrov
(jvo’Tao’LV. Suicer, Thesaur. verb, ovcria .
t86
Variations in the [ chap . ii .
of the word must be carefully borne in mind, since it
was not that in which it is used by philosophers, who
by it denoted the genus or species, or the “ ens unum
in multis,” — a sense which of course it could not bear
when applied to the One Incommunicable God. The
word, thus appropriated to the service of the God of
Revelation, was from the earliest date used to express
the reality and subsistence of the Son ; and no word
could be less metaphorical and more precise for this
purpose, although the Platonists chose to refine, and
from an affectation of reverence refused to speak of
God except as hyperusios 2 . Justin Martyr, for
instance, speaks of heretics, who considered that God
put forth and withdrew His Logos when it pleased
Him, as if He were an influence, not a Person 3 , some-
what in the sense afterwards adopted by Paulus of
Samosata and others. To meet this error, he speaks
of Him as inseparable from the substance or being,
usia, of the Father ; that is, in order to exclude all such
evasions of Scripture, as might represent the man
Christ as inhabited by a divine glory, power, nature,
and the like, evasions which in reality lead to the con-
clusion that He is not God at all.
For this purpose the word homousion or consubstan-
tial was brought into use among Christian writers ;
viz. to express the real divinity of Christ, and that, as
being derived from, and one with the Father’s. Here
again, as in the instance of its root, the word was
adopted, from the necessity of the case, in a sense
2 [Or e7r€K€tva oucrias] Petav. [t. i. i. 6] t. ii. iv. 5, § 8. [Brucker, t.
2, p. 395. Plot. Enn. v. lib. i. We find virepovcrios or e7re/c€ti/a
oncrtas in Orig. c. Cels. vi. 64. Damasc. F. O. i. 4, 8, and 12.]
3 Justin, Tryph. 128*
sect, iv.] A nte-Nicene Theological Statements. 1 8 7
different from the ordinary philosophical use of it.
Homoiision properly means of the same nature , or
under the same general nature, or species ; that is, it is
applied to things, which are but similar to each other,
and are considered as one by an abstraction of our
minds ; or, it may mean of the same material. Thus
Aristotle speaks of the stars being consubstantial with
each other ; and Porphyry of the souls of brute
animals being consubstantial to ours 4 . When, how-
ever, it was used in relation to the incommunicable
Essence of God, there was obviously no abstraction
possible in contemplating Him, who is above all
comparison with His works. His nature is solitary,
peculiar to Himself, and one ; so that whatever was
accounted to be consubstantial or co-essential with
Him, was necessarily included in His individuality, by
all who would avoid recurring to the vagueness of
philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between
the incommunicable Essence of Jehovah and all
created intelligences. And hence the fitness of the
term to denote without metaphor the relation which
the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to His eternal
Father. Its use is explained by Athanasius as fol-
lows. “ Though,” he says, “we cannot understand
what is meant by the usia y being, or substance of God,
yet we know as much as this, that God is, which is the
way in which Scripture speaks of Him ; and after
this pattern, when we wish to designate Him dis-
tinctly, we say God, Father, Lord. When then He
says in Scripture, T am 6 cov,’ the Being, and ‘ I am
Jehovah, God,’ or uses the plain word ‘ God,’ we under-
stand by such statements nothing but His incompre-
4 Bull, Defens. ii. i, § 2, &c.
i8S Variations in the [chap. ix.
hensible ova la (being or substance), and that He, who
is there spoken of, is. Let no one then think it
strange, that the Son of God should be said to be
eic rrjs ovalas (from the being or substance) of God ;
rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene
fathers, who, for the words ‘of God’ substituted ‘of the
divine being or substance.' They considered the two
phrases substantially the same, because, as I have said,
the word ‘God’ denotes nothing but the ova la avrov
rov oWo?, the being of Him who is. On the other
hand, if the Word be not in such sense ‘of God,’ as to
be the true Son of the Father according to His nature,
but be said to be ‘of God,’ merely as all creatures are
such because they are His work, then indeed He is not
‘from the being of the Father,’ nor Son ‘according to
being or substance,’ but so called from His virtue, as
we may be, who receive the title from graced”
The term homoiisios is first employed for this pur-
pose by the author of the Pczmander, a Christian of
the beginning of the second century. Next it occurs in
several writers at the end of the second and the begin-
ning of the third. In Tertullian, the equivalent
phrase, “unius substantiae,” “of one substance ,” is ap-
plied to the Trinity. In Origen’s comment on the
Hebrews, the homoiision of the Son is deduced from
the figurative title airavyaafxa, or radiance , there given
to Him. In the same age, it was employed by various
writers, bishops and historians, as we learn from the
testimonies of Eusebius and Athanasius 6 . But at this
era, the middle of the third century, a change took
5 Athan. de Deer. Nic. 22.
6 [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 438. Also Archelaus speaks of our Lord
as “de substantia Dei.” Routh, t. iv. p. 228.]
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements. 1 89
place in the use of it and other similar words, which
is next to be explained.
The oriental doctrine of Emanations was at a very
early period combined with the Christian theology.
According to the system of Valentinus, a Gnostic
heresiarch, who flourished in the early part of the
second century, the Supreme Intelligence of the world
gave existence to a line of Spirits or Eons, who were
all more or less partakers of His nature, that is, of a
nature specifically the same, and included in His glory
(7 r\r)pcofjLo), though individually separate from the true
and Sovereign Deity. It is obvious, that such a
teaching as this abandons the great revealed principle
above insisted on, the incommunicable character and
individuality of the Divine Essence. It considers all
spiritual beings as like God, in the same sense that
one man resembles or has the same nature as another:
and accordingly it was at liberty to apply, and did
actually apply, to the Creator and His creatures the
word homoiision or consubstantial in the philosophical
sense which the word originally bore. We have evi-
dence in the work of Irenaeus that the Valentinians
did thus employ it. The Manichees followed, about
a century later ; they too were Emanatists, and spoke
of the human soul as being consubstantial or co-essen-
tial with God, of one substance with God. Their
principles evidently allowed of a kind of Trinitarian-
ism ; the Son and Spirit being considered Eons of a
superior order to the rest, consubstantial with God
because Eons, but one with God in no sense which
was not true also of the soul of man. It is said, more-
over, that they were materialists ; and used the word
consubstantial as it may be applied to different vessels
1 90 Variations in the [chap. ii.
or instruments, wrought out from some one mass of
metal or wood. However, whether this was so or not,
it is plain that anyhow the word in question would
become unsuitable to express the Catholic doctrine, in
proportion as the ears of Christians were familiarized
to the terms employed in the Gnostic and Manichean
theologies ; nor is it wonderful that at length they
gave up the use of it.
The history of the word probole or offspring is par-
allel to that of the consubstantiaP . It properly means
any thing which proceeds, or is sent forth from the
substance of another, as the fruit of a tree, or the rays
of the sun ; in Latin it is translated b y prolatio, emissio ,
or editio , an offspring or issue . Accordingly Justin
employed it, or rather a cognate phrase 8 , to designate
what Cyril calls above the self-existence 9 of the Son,
in opposition .to the evasions which were necessary for
the system of Paulus, Sabellius, and the rest. Ter-
tullian does the same ; but by that time, Valentinus
had given the word a material signification. Hence
Tertullian is obliged to apologize for using it, when
writing against Praxeas, the forerunner of the Sabel-
lians. “ Can the Word of God,” he asks, “be unsub-
stantial, who is called the Son, who is even named
God ? He is said to be in the form or image of God.
Is not God a body [substance], Spirit though Hebe? . .
Whatever then has been the substance of the Word , 1
that, I call a Person, and claim for it the name of Son,
and being such, He comes next to the Father. Let
no one suppose that I am bringing in the notion of
^ Beausobre, Hist. Manich. iii. 7. § 6. [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 458.]
8 7 rpof 3 \y] 6 ev y evvrjfxa. Justin. Tryph. 62.
9 avroyovos. [Vide Ath. Tr. art. vioTraroop, vol. ii. p. 475, ed. 188 1.]
1 [Ibid. p. 340, art. Word. ]
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements . 1 9 1
any such probole ( offspring ) as Valentinus imagined,
drawing out his Eons the one from the other. Why
must I give up the word in a right sense, because
heresy uses it in a wrong ? besides, heresy borrowed
it from us, and has turned truth into a lie. .... This
is the difference between the uses of it. Valentinus
separates his probolce from their Father ; they know
Him not. But we hold that the Son alone knows the
Father, reveals Him, performs His will, and is within
Him. He is ever in the Father, as He has said ; ever
with God, as it is written ; never separated from Him,
for He and the Father are one. This is the true/r<?-
bole , the safeguard of unity, sent forth, not divided
ofifi” Soon after Tertullian thus defended his use of
the word probole , Origen in another part of the Church
gave it up, or rather assailed it, in argument with
Candidus, a Valentinian. “If the Son is a probole of
the Father,” he says, “who begets Him from Himself,
like the birth of animals, then of necessity both off-
spring and original are of a bodily nature 1 2 .” Here
we see two writers, with exactly the same theological
creed before them, taking opposite views as to the pro-
priety of using a word which heresy had corrupted 3 .
But to return to the word consnbstantial : though
Origen gave up the word probole , yet he used the word
consnbstantial \ as has already been mentioned 4 . But
shortly after his death, his pupils abandoned it at the
1 Tertull. in Prax. 7, 8, abridged.
2 [Periarch. iv. p. 190.]
3 Vide an apposite note of Coustant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p. 496, on
Damasus’s Words : “nec prolativum, ut generationem ei ftemas.”]
4 [But he was not consistent. Vide Hieron. contr. Ruff. ii. 19. Also
the dissertation in Jackson’s preface to Novatian, p. xlviii, &c.]
1 92 Variations in the [chap. ii.
celebrated Council held at Antioch (A.D. 264) against
Paulus of Samosata. When they would have used it
as a test, this heretic craftily objected to it on the very
ground on which Origen had surrendered the probole.
He urged that, if Father and Son were of one sub-
stance, consubstan tial, there was some common sub-
stance in which they partook, and which consequently
was distinct from and prior to the Divine Persons
Themselves ; a wretched sophism, which of course
could not deceive Firmilian and Gregory, but which,
being adapted to perplex weak minds, might decide
them on withdrawing the word. It is remarkable too,
that the Council was held about the time when Manes
appeared on the borders of the Antiochene Patriarch-
ate. The disputative school of Paulus pursued the
advantage thus gained ; and from that time used the
charge of materialism as a weapon for attacking all
sound expositions of Scripture truth. Having ex-
torted from the Catholics the condemnation of a word
long known in the Church, almost found in Scripture,
and less figurative and material in its meaning than
any which could be selected, and objectionable only in
the mouths of heretics, they employed this concession
as a ground of attacking expressions more directly
metaphorical, taken from visible objects, and sanc-
tioned by less weighty authority. In a letter which
shall afterwards be cited, Arius charges the Catholics
with teaching the errors of Valentinus and Manes ;
and in another of the original Arian documents,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, maintains in like manner
that their doctrine involves the materiality of the
Divine Nature. Thus they were gradually silencing
the Church by a process which legitimately led to
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements . 193
Pantheism, when the Alexandrians gave the alarm,
and nobly stood forward in defence of the faith 5.
It is worth observing that, when* the Asiatic
Churches had given up the consubstantial, they, on
the contrary, had preserved it. Not only Dionysius
willingly accepts the challenge of his namesake of
Rome, who reminded him of the value of the symbol ;
but Theognostus also, who presided at the Catecheti-
cal School at the end of the third century, recognizes
it by implication in the following passage, which has
been preserved by Athanasius. “ The substance 5 6 of
the Son,” he says, “is not external to the Father, or
created ; but it is by natural derivation from that of
the Father, as the radiance comes from light (Fleb. i. 3 ).
For the radiance is not the sun, . . . and yet not
foreign to it ; and in like manner there is an effluence
(a7roppota, Wisd. vii. 25 .) from the Fathers substance,
though it be indivisible from Him. For as the sun
remains the same without infringement of its nature,
though it pour forth its radiance, so the Father’s
substance is unchangeable, though the Son be its
Image 7 .”
4*
Some notice of the 6e\r}aei <yevv7]0ev^ or voluntary
generation, will suitably follow the discussion of the
5 [Parallel to the above instances is Basil’s objection to yeVi/77/xa, when
used of the Son, which Athanasius and others apply to him. Vide
Ath. Tr, vol. ii. p. 396.]
6 [It may be questioned, however, whether the word substance in this
passage is not equivalent to hypostasis or subsistence $ vide Appendix,
No. 4 J
7 Athan. de Deer. Nic. 25.
O
194 Variations in the [chap. ii.
consubstantial ; though the subject does not closely
concern theology. It has been already observed that
the tendency ’of the heresies of the first age was to-
wards materialism and fatalism. As it was the object
of Revelation to destroy all theories which interfered
with the belief of the Divine Omniscience and active
Sovereignty, so the Church seconded this design by
receiving and promulgating the doctrine of the “ He
that is” or the Divine “Being” or “Essence” as a
symbol of His essential distinction from the perishable
world in which He acts. But when the word substance
or essence itself was taken by the Gnostics and Mani-
chees in a material sense, the error was again intro-
duced by the very term which w^as intended to witness
against it. According to the Oriental Theory, the
emanations from the Deity were eternal with Himself,
and were considered as the result, not of His will and
personal energy, but of the necessary laws to which
His nature was subjected ; a doctrine which was but
fatalism in another shape. The Eclectics honourably
distinguished themselves in withstanding this blasphe-
mous, or rather atheistical tenet. Plotinus declares,
that “ God’s substance and His will are the same ; and
if so, as He willed, so He is ; so that it is not a more
certain truth that, as is His substance or nature, so is
His will and action, than, as His will and action, so is
His substance.” Origen had preceded them in their
opposition to the same school. Speaking of the
simplicity and perfection of the Divine Essence, he
says, “ God does not even participate in substance,
rather He is partaken ; by those, namely, who have
the Spirit of God. And our Saviour does not share
in holiness, but, being holiness itself, is shared by the
sect, iv.] A nte-Nicene Theological Statements . 195
holy.” The meaning of this doctrine is clear ; — to
protest, in the manner of Athanasius, in a passage
lately cited, against the notion that the substance of
God is something distinct from God Himself, and not
God viewed as self-existent, the one immaterial, intel-
ligent, all-perfect Spirit ; but the risk of it lay in its
tendency to destroy the doctrine of His individual
and real existence (which the Catholic use of substance
symbolized), and to introduce in its stead the notion
that a quality or mode of acting was the governing
principle of nature ; in other words, Pantheism. This
is an error of which Origen of course cannot be
accused ; but it is in its measure chargeable on the
Platonic Masters, and is countenanced even by their
mode of speaking of the Supreme Being, as not sub-
stantial, but above the notion of substance 8 .”
The controversy did not terminate in the subject of
Theism, but was pursued by the heretical party into
questions of Christian Theology. The Manichees con-
sidered the Son and Spirit as necessary emanations
from the Father ; erring, first, in their classing those
Divine Persons with intelligences confessedly imper-
fect and subservient ; next, in introducing a sort of
materialism into their notion of the Deity. The
Eclectics on the other hand, maintained, by a strong
figure, that the Eternal Son originated from the
Father at His own will ; meaning thereby, that the
everlasting mystery, which constitutes the relation
between Father and Son, has no physical or material
conditions, and is such as becomes Him who is alto-
8 v7T€pov(TLO<s. Cudw. Intell. Syst. iv. § 23. Petav. vi. 8, § 19, ibid
t. i. ii, 6, § 9.
O 2
ig6
Variations in the [chap. ii.
gether Mind, and bound by no laws, but those estab-
lished by His own perfection as a first cause. Thus
Iamblichus calls the Son self-begotten 9 .
The discussion seems hardly to have entered farther
into the Ante-Nicene Church, than is implied in the
above notice of it: though some suppose that Justin
and others referred the divine gennesis or generation to
the will of God. However, it is easy to see that the
ground was prepared for the introduction of a subtle
and irreverent question, whenever the theologizing
Sophists should choose to raise it. Accordingly, it
was one of the first and principal interrogations put to
the Catholics by their Arian opponents, whether the
generation of the Son was voluntary or not on the part
of the Father ; their dilemma being, that Almighty
God was subject to laws external to Himself, if it
were not voluntary, and that, if on the other hand it
was voluntary, the Son was in the number of things
created. But of this more in the next Section.
3 -
The Word as internal or external to the Father ;
\0709 evSiddero 9 and irpotyopucw 9 1 : — One theory there
was, adopted by several of the early Fathers, which
led them to speak of the Son’s generation or birth as
resulting from the Fathers will, and yet did not inter-
fere with His consubstantiality. Of the two titles
ascribed in Scripture to our Lord, that of the “ Word ”
expresses with peculiar force His co-eternity in the
One Almighty Father. On the other hand, the title
9 avroyovos . [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 475*1
1 [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. pp. 34°— 342.]
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements. 1 9 7
“ Son" has more distinct reference to His derivation
and ministrative office. A distinction resembling this
had already been applied by the Stoics to the Platonic
Logos, which they represented under two aspects, the
ivStdOero? and irpofyopucos, that is, the internal Thought
and Purpose of God, and its external Manifestation, as
if in words spoken. The terms were received among
Catholics ; the “ Endiathetic ” standing for the Word,
as hid from everlasting in the bosom of the Father,
while the “ Prophoric ” was the Son sent forth into the
world, in apparent separation from God, with His
Father’s name and attributes upon Him, and His
Father’s will to perform 2 This contrast is acknow-
ledged by Athanasius, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril, and
other Post-Nicene writers ; nor can it be confuted,
being Scriptural in its doctrine, and merely expressed
in philosophical language, found ready for the purpose.
But further, this change of state in the Eternal Word,
from repose to energetic manifestation, as it took
place at the creation, was called by them a gennesis :
and here too, no blame attaches to them, for the
expression is used in Scripture in different senses, one
of which appears to be the very signification which
they put on it, the mission of the Word to make and
govern all things. Such is the text in St. Paul, that
He is “the image of the Invisible God, the First-born
of every creature ; ” such is His title in St. John as
“ the Beginning of the Creation of God V 1 This
gennesis or generation was called also the “going-
2 Burton, Bampt. Lect., note 91. Petav. vi. 1 — 3.
s Col. i. 15. Rev. iii. 14. Vide also Gen. i. 3. Heb. xi. 3. Eccl.
xxiv. 3 — 9.
198
Variations in the [chap. ii.
forth,” or “ condescension,” of the Son, which may
Scripturally be ascribed to the will of the all-bountiful
Father 4 5 . However, there were some early writers
who seem to interpret the gennesis in this meaning
exclusively, ascribing the title of “ Son ” to our Lord
only after the date of His mission or economy, and
considering that of the “ Word ” as His peculiar appel-
lation during the previous eternity^. Nay, if we.carry
off their expressions hastily or perversely, as some
theologians have done, we shall perhaps conclude that
they conceived that God existed in One Person before
the “ going-forth” and then, if it may be said, by a
change in His nature began to exist in a Second
Person ; as if an attribute (the Internal Word, “ Endia-
thetic ,”) had come into substantive being, as “ Propho-
ric .” The Fathers, who have laid themselves open to
this charge, are Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus,
Hippolytus, and Novatian, as mentioned in the first
Chapter.
Now that they did not mean what a superficial
reader might lay to their charge, may be argued, first,
from the parallel language of the Post-Nicenes, as
mentioned above, whose orthodoxy no one questions.
Next, from the extreme absurdity, not to speak of the
impiety, of the doctrine imputed to them ; as if, with
a more than Gnostic extravagance, they conceived
that any change or extension could take place in that
Individual Essence, which is without parts or passions,
4 7rpoe\.ev(TLS, arvyKaTafiaarLS, Bull, Defens. iii. 9. [Other writers
support him in this view, as Maranus, in Just. Tryph. 61, and in his work
Divin. Jes. Christi, lib. iv. c. 6. Vide contr. Dissert. 3 and 4 in
the Author’s “ Theological Tracts.”]
5 [Vide “Theological Tracts,” iii.]
sect, iv.] Ante-Nicene Theological Statements. 1 99
or that the divine generation could be an event in time,
instead of being considered a mere expression of the
eternal relation of the Father towards the Son 6 .
Indeed, the very absurdity of the literal sense of the
words, in whatever degree they so expressed them-
selves, was the mischief to be apprehended from them.
The reader, trying a rhetorical description by too
rigid a rule, would attempt to elicit sense by imputing
a heresy, and would conclude that they meant by the
External or Prophoric Word a created being, made in
the beginning of all things as the visible emblem of
the Internal or Endiathetic , and the instrument of
God’s purposes towards His creation. This is in fact
the Arian doctrine, which doubtless availed itself in its
defence of the declarations of incautious piety ; or
rather we have evidence of the fact, that it did so avail
itself, in the letter of Arius to Alexander, and from the
anathema of the Nicene Creed directed against such
as said that “ the Son was not before His gennesisP
Lastly, the orthodoxy of the five writers in question
is ascertained by a careful examination of the pas-
sages, which give ground for the accusation. Two of
these shall here be quoted without comment. Theo-
philus then says, “God having His own Word in His
womb, begat Him together with His Wisdom ” (that
is, His Spirit), “ uttering them prior to the universe.”
“ He had this Word as the Minister of His works, and
did all things through Him. . . . The prophets were
not in existence when the world was made ; but the
[ oirre apxw c X ei V « KaraXr^TTTO s avrov yevvrjcns ovre reAos,
avapxus, aKaTairavfTTws, &c. Damasc. F. O. p. 8. Vide Ath. Tr.
vol. ii. pp. 350 and 108.]
200 Variations in the Statements . [chap. ii.
Wisdom of God, which is in Him, and His Holy Word,
who is ever present with Him 7.” Elsewhere he
speaks of “ the Word, eternally seated in the heart of
God 8 ;” “ for,” he presently adds, “ before anything
was made, He possessed this Counseller, as being His
mind and providence. And when He purposed to make
all that He had deliberated on, He begat this Word
as external to Him, being the First-born antecedent
to the whole creation ; not, however, Himself losing
the Word ” (that is, the Internal), “ but begetting it,
and yet everlastingly communing with it 9 .”
In like manner Hippolytus in his answer to Noetus :
— “ God was alone, and there was no being coeval
with Him, when He willed to create the world
Not that He was destitute of reason (the Logos),
wisdom or counsel. They are all in Him, He was all.
At the time and in the manner He willed, He mani-
fested His Word [Logos], . . through whom He made
all things. . . Moreover He placed over them His
Word, whom He begat as His Counseller and Instru-
ment ; whom He had within Him, invisible to creation,
till He manifested Him, uttering the Word, and
begetting Light from Light. . . . And so Another
stood by Him, not as if there were two Gods, but as
though Light from Light, or a ray from the Sun 1 .”
And thus closes our survey of Catholic Ante-
Nicene theology.
7 *Xov . . 6 Qeos to v kavrov Xoyov ivStaOerov iv roTs ISlols
orirXay^yoi^ iyevvrjcrev avrov /xera ryg kavrov crocf) Cas, cfepcvf-
afji€vos (Psalm xlv. i), 7 rpo rw v oXcav ... 6 del o-v/nrapivv avrG).
8 tov Xoyov $La7ravrb<; ivS laQerov iv KapSla 6eov,
9 iyivvrjcre 7 rpocfropiKOv.
1 Vide Ball, Defens. iii. 7, 8.
201
SECTION V.
THE ARIAN HERESY,
It remains to give some account of the heretical doc-
trine, which was first promulgated within the Church
by Arius. There have been attempts to attribute this
heresy to Catholic writers previous to his time ; yet its
contemporaries are express in their testimony that he
was the author of it, nor can anything be adduced
from the Ante-Nicene theology to countenance such
an imputation. Sozomen expressly says, that Aj/ius
was the first to introduce into the Church the formulae
of the “out of nothing,” and the “ once He y w as not,”
that is, the creation and the non-eternity of) the Son
of God. Alexander and Athanasius, whc\> had the
amplest means of information on the subject, confirm
his testimony E That the heresy existed before his
time outside the Church, may be true, — though litfife
is known on the subject ; and that there had beefi-
certain speculators, such as Paulus of Samosata, who
were simply humanitarians, is undoubtedly true ; but
they did not hold the formal doctrine of Arius, that an
Angelic being had been exalted into a God. How-
1 Soz. i. 15. Theod. His. i. 4. Athan. Deer. Nic. 27. de Sent.
Dionys. 6 .
202
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
ever, he and his supporters, though they do not venture
to adduce in their favour the evidence of former
Catholics, nevertheless speak in a general way of their
having received their doctrines from others. Arius
too himself appears to be only a partisan of the
Eusebians, and they in turn are referable to Lucian of
Antioch, who for some cause or other was at one time
under excommunication. But here we lose sight of
the heresy ; except that Origen assails a doctrine,
whose we know not 2 3 , which bears a resemblance to
it ; nay, if we may trust Ruffinus, which was expressed
in the very same heterodox formulae, which Sozomen
declares that Arius was the first to preach within the
Church.
i.
Before detailing, however, the separate character-
istics of his heresy, it may be right briefly to confront
it With such previous doctrines, in and out of the
Church, as may be considered to bear a resemblance
to it.
The fuiqdamental tenet of Arianism was, that the
Son of GCd was a creature, not born of the Father,
but, in the scientific language of the times, made “out
of nothing 3.” It followed that He only possessed a
S'Tper-angelic nature, being made at God’s good
'pleasure before the worlds, before time, after the
pattern of the attribute Logos or Wisdom, as existing
in the Divine Mind, gifted with the illumination of it,
and in consequence called after it the Word and the
2 The rjv 7 rore ore ovk rjv ; it might beTertullian who was aimed at,
especially as St. Dionysius of Rome denounces the doctrine also.]
3 ef ovk ovtcjv ) hence the Arians were called Exucontii.
203
sect, v.] The A rian Heresy .
Wisdom, nay inheriting the title itself of God ; and at
length united to a human body, in the place of its soul,
in the person of J esus Christ
1. This doctrine resembled that of the five philoso-
phizing Fathers, as described in the foregoing Section,
so far as this, that it identified the Son with the
External or Prophoric Logos, spoke of the Divine
Logos Itself as if a mere internal attribute, and yet
affected to maintain a connexion between the Logos
and the Son. Their doctrine differed from it, inas-
much as they believed, that He who was the Son had
ever been in personal existence as the Logos in the
Father’s bosom, whereas Arianism dated His personal
existence from the time of His manifestation.
2. It resembled the Eclectic theology, so far as to
maintain that the Son was by nature separate from
and inferior to the Father ; and again, formed at the
Father’s will. It differed from Eclecticism, in con-
sidering the Son to have a beginning of existence,
whereas the Platonists held Him, as they held the
universe, to be an eternal Emanation, and the Father’s
will to be a concomitant, not an antecedent, of His
i
gennesis .
3. It agreed with the teaching of Gnostics and
Manichees, in maintaining the Son’s essential infe-
riority to the Father : it vehemently opposed them in
their material notions of the Deity.
4. It concurred with the disciples of Paulus, in
considering the Intellectual and Ruling Principle in
Christ, the Son of God, to be a mere creature, by
nature subject to a moral probation, as other men, and
exalted on the ground of His obedience, and gifted,
moreover, with a heavenly wisdom, called the Logos,
204 The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
which guided Him. The two heresies also agreed, as
the last words imply, in holding the Logos to be an
attribute or manifestation, not a Person 4 5 . Paulus
considered it as if a voice or sound, which comes and
goes ; so that God may be said to have spoken in
Christ. Arius makes use of the same illustration :
“ Many words speaketh God,” he says, “ which of
them is manifested in the flesh 5 ? ” He differs from
Paulus, in holding the pre-existence of the spiritual
intelligence in Christ, or the Son, whom he considers
to be the first and only creation of the Father’s
Hand, superangelic, and the God of the Christiar
Economy.
5 . Arianism agreed with the heresy of Sabellius, in
teaching God to exist only in one Person, and His
true Logos to be an attribute, manifested in the Son,
who was a creature 6 . It differed from Sabellianism,
as regards the sense in which the Logos was to be
accounted as existing in Christ. The Sabellian,
lately a Patripassian, at least insisted much upon the
formal and abiding presence of the Logos in Him.
The Arian, only partially admitting the influence of
the Divine Logos on that superangelic nature, which
was the Son, and which in Christ took the place of a
soul, nevertheless gave it the name of Logos, and
maintained accordingly that the incarnate Logos was
not the true Wisdom and Word of God, which was one
with Him, but a created semblance of it.
4 [When the Eternal Word, after the Nicene Council, was defined to
have a personal subsistence, then the Samosatene doctrine would become
identical with Nestorianism. Both heresies came from Antioch.}
5 Athan. Decret. Nicen. 16.
6 Athan. Sent. Dionys. 25.
205
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
6. Such is Arianism in its relations to the prin-
cipal errors of its time ; and of these it was most
opposed to the Gnostic and Sabellian, which, as we
shall see, it did not scruple to impute to its Catholic
adversaries. Towards the Catholics, on the other
hand, it stood thus : it was willing to ascribe to the
Son all that is commonly attributed to Almighty God,
His name, authority, and power ; all but the incom-
municable nature or being (usia), that is, all but that
which alone could give Him a right to these preroga-
tives of divinity in a real and literal sense. Now to
turn to the arguments by which the heresy defended
itself* or rather, attacked the Church.
2 .
I. Arius commenced his heresy thus, as 5 ocrates
informs us : — “ (i) If the Father gave birth to the Son,
He who was born has an origin of existence; (2) there-
fore once the Son was not; (3) therefore He is created
out of nothing It appears, then, that he inferred his
7 Socr. i. 5. That is, the Son, as such, (i) had dpxW V 7 rdp£eu)s,
(2) rjv ore ovk rjv, (3) ££ ovk ovtwv e^et rrjv virocrrao-LV,
The argument thus stated in the history, answers to the first three pro-
positions anathematized at Nicaea, which are as follows, the figures prefixed
marking the correspondence of each with Arius’s theses, as set down by
Socrates: — rous Aeyorras (2) on rjv 1 Tore ore ovk rjv, (i) k&l r.plv
ytvvrjOrjvcu ovk rjv, (3) koI otl ££ ovk ovtojv eyevero, (4) n ££
erepas viroo-rdcrctos rj ouerta? eTvcu, rj ktlo-tov, ( 5 ) rj Tp€7rTov fj
aWoLWTOv rov vlov tov Oeov, avaOepLaTL&L rj ayua raOoXiKrj
iKK\r)(TLa. [The fourth of these propositions is the denial of the
op-oouo-toi/.] The last, viz. the mutability of the Son, was probably not
one of Arius’s original propositions, but forced from him by his opponents
as a necessary consequence of his doctrine. He retracts it in his letters
to Eusebius and Alexander, who, on the other hand, bear testimony to
his having avowed it.
206
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
doctrine from the very meaning of the word “ Son,”
which is the designation of our Lord in Scripture ; and
so far he adopted a fair and unexceptionable mode of
reasoning. Human relations, though the merest
shadows of “ heavenly things,” yet would not of
course be employed by Divine Wisdom without
fitness, nor unless with the intention of instructing
us. But what should be the exact instruction derived
by us from the word “ Son ” is another question 8 .
The Catholics (not to speak of their guidance from
tradition in determining it) had taken “ Son ” in its
most obvious meaning ; as interpreted moreover by
the title “ Only-begotten” and as confirmed by the
general tenor of Revelation. But the Arians selected
as the sense of the figure, that part of the original
import of the word, which, though undeniably included
in it, when referred to us, is at best what logicians
call a property deduced from the essence or nature,
noit an element of its essential idea, and which was
especially out of place, when the word was used to
express a truth about the Divine Being. That a
father is pirior to his son, is not suggested, though it is
implied, by the force of the terms, as ordinarily used ;
and it is ,an inference altogether irrelevant, when the
inquiry has reference to that Being, from our notion
oCwhom time as well as space is necessarily excluded,
litis fair, indeed, to object at the outset to the word
Father” being applied at all in its primary sense to
the Supreme Being ; but this was not the Arian
ground, which was to argue from, not against, the
8 “ [Non recte faciunt, qui vim adhibent, ut sic se habeat exemplum, ut
prototypum. Non enim esset jam exemplum, nisi haberet aliquid dis-
simile*” Leont. Contr. Nest. i. p. 539, ed. Canis.]
207
SECT.
V.]
The A rian Heresy .
metaphor employed. Nor was even this the extent of
perverseness which their argument evidences. Let it
be observed, that they admitted the primary sense of
the word, in order to introduce a mere secondary
sense, contending that, because our Lord was to be
considered really as a Son, therefore in fact He was
no Son at all. In the first proposition Arius assumes
that He is really a Son, and argues as if He were ; in
the third he has arrived at the conclusion that He was
created, that is, no Son at all, except in a secondary
sense, as having received from the Father a sort of
adoption. An attempt was made by the Arians to
smooth over their inconsistency, by adducing passages
of Scripture, in which the works of God are spoken of
as births, — as in the instance from Job, “ He giveth
birth to the drops of dew.” But this is obviously an
entirely new mode of defending their theory of a divine
adoption, and does not relieve their original fault ;
which consisted in their arguing from an
analogy, which the result of that argument des
For, if He be the Son of God, no otherwise
is, that is, by adoption, what becomes of the
from the anterior and posterior in existen
the notion of adoption, contained in it any
reference to the nature and circumstances
parties between whom it takes place.
2. Accordingly, the Arians were soon
betake themselves to a more refined argument,
dropped the consideration of time, and withdrew
inference involving it, which they had drawn from the
literal sense of the word “ Son.” Instead of this, they
9 [That is, an adopted son is not necessarily younger, but might be
older, than the person adopting him.]
2o8
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
maintained that the relation of Father and Son, as
such, in whatever sense considered, could not but
imply the notion of voluntary originator, and on the
other hand, of a free gift conferred ; and that the Son
must be essentially inferior to Him, from whose will
His existence resulted. Their argument was conveyed
in the form of a dilemma : — “Whether the Father
gave birth to the Son volens or nolens ? ” The Catho-
lics wisely answered them by a counter inquiry,
which was adapted to silence, without countenancing,
the presumptuous disputant. Gregory of Nazianzus
asked them, “Whether the Father is God, volens or
nolens ? ” And Cyril of Alexandria, “ Whether He is
good, compassionate, merciful, and holy, with or
against His choice ? For, if He is so in consequence of
choosing it, and choice ever precedes what is chosen,
these attributes once did not exist in God.” Athana-
sius gives substantially the same answer, solving,
■ever, rather than confuting, the objection. “The
he says, “ direct their view to the contradictory
instead of considering the more important
revious question ; for, as unwillingness is
o willing, ; so is nature prior to willing, and
ay to it h”
urther : — the Arians attempted to draw their
..don as to the dissimilarity of the Father and
Son, from the divine attribute of the “ Ingenerate”
biborn or increate), which, as I have already said, was
acknowledged on all hands to be the peculiar attribute
1 Petav. ii. 5, § 9 ; vi. 8. 14. [“Generatio non potestatis est, sed
naturae.’’ Ambros. Incarn. 79. C H yevvrjcris cfrvcre o>s epyov, f] 8c
ktlctis OeXrjorews, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133.]
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy . 209
of the Father, while it had been the philosophical as
well as Valentinian appellation of the Supreme God.
This was the chief resource of the Anomoeans, who re-
vived the pure Arian heresy, some years after the
death of its first author. Their argument has been
expressed in the following form : — that “ it is the
essence of the Father to be ingenerate , and of the Son
to be generate ; but unborn and born cannot be the
same 2 .” The shallowness, as well as the miserable
trifling of such disputations on a serious subject,
renders them unworthy of a refutation.
4. Moreover, they argued against the Catholic sense
of the word “ Son ” from what they conceived to be its
materiality ; and, unwarrantably contrasting its
primary with its figurative signification, as if both
could not be preserved, they contended that, since
the word must be figurative, therefore it could not
retain its primary sense, but must be taken in the
secondary sense of adoption.
5. Their reasonings (so to call them) had now con-
ducted them thus far : — to maintain that our Lord
was a creature, advanced, after creation, to be a Son
of God. They did not shrink from the inference
which these positions implied, viz. that He had been
put on trial as other moral agents, and adopted on
being found worthy ; that His holiness was not
essential, but acquired.
6. It was next incumbent on them, to explain in
what sense our Lord was the “ Only-begotten ” since
they refused to understand that title in the Catholic
sense of the Homoiision or consubstantial. Accordingly,
2 Beausobre, Hist. Manich, Hi. 7, §
P
210
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
while pronouncing the divine birth to be a kind of
creation, or an adoption, they attempted to hide the
offensiveness of the heretical doctrine by the variety
and dignity of the prerogatives, by which they distin-
guished the Son from other creatures. They declared
that He was, strictly speaking, the only creature of
God, as being alone made immediately by Him ; and
hence He was called Only-begotten , as “born alone
from Him alone 3 ,” whereas all others were made
through Him, as the instrument of Divine Power ; and
that in consequence He was “a creature, but not as
being one of the creatures, a birth or production, but
not as being one of the produced 4 * ;” that is, to express
their sentiment with something of the same ambiguity,
“ He was not a creature like other creatures.” An-
other ambiguity of language followed. The idea of
time depending on that of creation, they were able to
grant that He, who was employed in forming all
things, therefore brought time itself into being, and was
“ before all time ; ” not granting thereby that He was
everlasting, but meaning that He was brought into
existence “ timelessly,” independent of that succession
of second causes (as they are called), that elementary
system, seemingly self-sustained and self-renovating,
to the laws of which creation itself may be considered
as subjected.
7. Nor, lastly, had they any difficulty either in
allowing or in explaining away the other attributes of
divinity ascribed to Christ in Scripture. They might
3 Pearson on the Creed, vol. ii. p. 148. Suicer. Thes. verb. /LLovoyevr/s.
4 KTLcrfJLa, aAA’ ovx Tail/ KTio’/xarcoi'* yevvrjfjia, a \\ 7 ov% cos
iv TO)v yey^WYjfJiivoiv.
2 1 i
sect. v.J The Arian Heresy.
safely confess Him to be perfect God, one with God,
the object of worship, the author of good ; still with
the reserve, that sacred appellations belonged to Him
only in the same general sense in which they are
sometimes accidentally bestowed on the faithful
servants of God, and without interfering with the
prerogatives of the One, Eternal, Self-existing Cause
of all things 5.
3 *
This account of the Arian theology may be suitably
illustrated by some of the original documents of the
controversy. Here, then, shall follow two letters of
Arius himself, an extract from his Thalia, a letter of
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and parts of the encyclical
Epistle of Alexander of Alexandria, in justification
of his excommunication of Arius and his followers 5 6 .
i. “To his most dear Lord, Eusebius, a man of
God, faithful and orthodox, Arius, the man unjustly
persecuted by the Pope Alexander for the all-con-
quering truth’s sake, of which thou too art a champion,
sends health in the Lord. As Ammonius, my father,
was going to Nicomedia, it seemed becoming to
address this through him ; and withal to represent
to that deep-seated affection which thou bearest
towards the brethren for the sake of God and His
5 It may be added that the chief texts, which the Arians adduced in
controversy were, Prov. viii. 22. Matt. xix. 17 ; xx. 23. Mark xiii. 32.
John v. 19 ; xiv. 28. 1 Cor. xv. 28. Col. i. 15 ; and others which refer
to our Lord’s mediatorial office (Petav. ii. 1, &c. Theod. Hist. i. 14).
But it is obvious, that the strength of their cause did not lie in the text of
Scripture.
c Theodor. Hist. i. 4 — 6. Socr. i. 6. Athan. in Arian. i. 5. Synod
15, 16. Epiphan. Haer. lxix. 6, 7. Hilar. Trin. iv. 12 ; vi. 5.
P 2
212
The Arian Heresy . [ chap . ii .
Christ, how fiercely the bishop assaults and drives us,
leaving no means untried in his opposition. At length
he has driven us out of the city, as men without God,
for dissenting from his public declarations, that, ‘ As
God is eternal, so is His Son: where the Father, there
the Son ; the Son co-exists in God without a begin-
ning (or birth) : ever generate, an ingenerately-gen-
erate ; that neither in idea, nor by an instant of time,
does God precede the Son ; an eternal God, an eternal
Son ; the Son is from God Himself.’ Since then,
Eusebius, thy brother of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus,
&c. . . . and all the Bishops of the East declare that
God exists without origin before the Son, they are
made anathema by Alexander’s sentence ; all but
Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, heretical, ill-
grounded men, who say, one that He is an utterance,
another an offspring, another co-ingenerate. These
blasphemies we cannot bear even to hear ; no, not if
the heretics should threaten us with ten thousand
deaths. What, on the other hand, are our statements
and opinions, our past and present teaching ? that the
Son is not ingenerate, nor in any way a part of the
Ingenerate, nor made of any subject-matter 7 ; but
that, by the will and counsel of God, He subsisted
before times and ages, perfect God, Only-begotten,
unchangeable ; and that before this generation, or
7 The Greek of most of these scientific expressions has been given ;
cf the rest it is as follows : — men without God, aOeovs ; without a
beginning or birth, ayewrjTus ; ever-generate, aetyei /77s ; ingenerately-
generate, ayewrjToyevyjs ; an utterance, Ipvyrj (Psalm xlv. 1); off-
spring, 7 rpopoXrj ; co-ingenerate, (rvvayewrjTOV ; of any subject-
matter, c£ VI TOK€Lp.€VOV TLVOS.
213
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
creation, or determination, or establishment 8 , He was
not, for He is not ingenerate. And we are persecuted
for saying, The Son has an origin, but God is unorigi-
nate ; for this we are under persecution, and for
saying that He is out of nothing, inasmuch as He is
neither part of God, nor of any subject-matter.
Therefore we are persecuted ; the rest thou knowest.
I pray that thou be strong in the Lord, remembering
our afflictions, fellow-Lucianist, truly named Euse-
bius 9 .”
2. The second letter is written in the name of
himself and his partisans of the Alexandrian Church ;
who, finding themselves excommunicated, had with-
drawn to Asia, where they had a field for propagating
their opinions. It was composed under the direction
of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and is far more temperate
and cautious than the former.
“To Alexander, our blessed Pope and Bishop, the
Priests and Deacons send health in the Lord. Our
hereditary faith, which thou too, blessed Pope, hast
taught us, is this : — We believe in One God, alone in-
generate, alone everlasting, alone unoriginate, alone
truly God, alone immortal, alone wise, alone good,
alone sovereign, alone judge of all, ordainer, and dis-
penser, unchangeable and unalterable, just and good,
of the Law and the Prophets, and of the New Co-
venant. We believe that this God gave birth to the
Only-begotten Son before age-long times, through
whom He has made those ages themselves, and all
things else ; that He generated Him, not in semblance,
8 These words are selected by Arius, as being found in Scripture;
[Vide Heb. i. 5. Rom. i. 4. Prov. viii. 22, 23.]
9 [i.e. the pious, or rather, the orthodox.]
214
The Arian Heresy. [chap. ii.
but in truth, giving Him a real subsistence (or hypos-
tasis ), at His own will, so as to be unchangeable and
unalterable, God’s perfect creature, but not as other
creatures, His production, but not as other productions;
nor as Valentinus maintained, an offspring (probole) ;
nor again, as Manichaeus, a consubstantial part ; nor,
as Sabellius, a Son-Father, which is to make two out
of one ; nor, as Hieracas, one torch from another, or a
flame divided into two ; nor, as if He were previously
in being, and afterwards generated or created again to
be a Son, a notion condemned by thyself, blessed
Pope, in full Church and among the assembled
Clergy ; but, as we affirm, created at the will of God
before times and before ages, and having life and
being from the Father, who gave subsistence as to
Him, so to His glorious perfections. For, when the
Father gave to Him the inheritance of all things, He
did not thereby deprive Himself of attributes, which
are His ingenerately, who is the Source of all things.
“ So there are Three Subsistences (or Persons) ;
and, whereas God is the Cause of all things, and
therefore unoriginate simply by Himself, the Son on
the other hand, born of the Father time-apart, and
created and established before all periods, did not
exist before He was born, but being born of the
Father time-apart, was brought into substantive
existence (subsistence), He alone by the Father alone.
For He is not eternal, or co-eternal, or co-ingenerate
with the Father ; nor hath an existence together with
the Father, as if there were two ingenerate Origins ; but
God is before all things, as being a Monad, and the
Origin of all ; — and therefore before the Son also, as
indeed we have learned from thee in thy public
2I 5
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
preaching. Inasmuch then as it is from God that He
hath His being, and His glorious perfections, and His
life, and His charge of all things, for this reason God
is His Origin, as being His God and before Him. As
to such phrases as ‘ from Him,’ and ‘ from the womb/
and ‘ issued forth from the Father, and am come,’ if
they be understood, as they are by some, to denote a
part of the consubstantial, and a probole (offspring),
then the Father will be of a compound nature, and
divisible, and changeable, and corporeal ; and thus,
as far as their words go, the incorporeal God will be
subjected to the properties of matter. I pray for thy
health in the Lord, blessed Pope 1 .”
3. About the same time Arius wrote his Thalia, or
song for banquets and merry-makings, from which the
following is extracted. He begins thus : — “According
to the faith of God’s elect, who know God, holy
children, sound in their creed, gifted with the Holy
Spirit of God, I have received these things from the
partakers of wisdom, accomplished, taught of God,
and altogether wise. Along their track I have pur-
sued my course with like opinions, — I, the famous
among men, the much-suffering for God’s glory ; and,
taught of God, I have gained wisdom and know-
ledge.” After this exordium, he proceeds to declare,
“ that God made the Son the origin (or beginning) of
1 Before age-long periods, 7 rpo ypovwv atcortW ; giving Him a real
subsistence, virocrTYjo-avTa ; Son-Father, mo7raropa [Vide Ath. Tr. p.
97, k and p. 514, o ; also Didym. de Trin. iii. 18] ; gave subsistence, as
to Him, so to His glorious perfections, ras 8 o£as crvvvTrocrTrjcravTO^
aura); Three Subsistences, rpeis {rrotrracreis ; born time-apart, a^oo-
V(os yevvrjOeis ; of a compound nature, ow#eros. The texts to which
Arius refers are Ps. cx. 3, and John xvi. 28.
2 1 6 The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
creation, being Himself unoriginate, and adopted
Him to be His Son ; who, on the other hand, has no
property of divinity in His own Hypostasis , not being
equal, nor consubstantial with Him ; that God is
invisible, not only to the creatures created through the
Son, but to the Son Himself ; that there is a Trinity,
but not with an equal glory, the Hypostases being
incommunicable with each other, One infinitely more
glorious than the other ; that the Father is foreign in
substance to the Son, as existing unoriginate ; that
by God’s will the Son became Wisdom, Power, the
Spirit, the Truth, the Word, the Glory, and the Image
of God ; that the Father, as being Almighty, is able
to give existence to a being equal to the Son, though
not superior to Him ; that, from the time that He was
made, being a mighty God, He has hymned the
praises of His Superior ; that He cannot investigate
His Father’s nature, it being plain that the originated
cannot comprehend the unoriginate ; nay, that He
does not know His own 2 .”
4. On the receipt of the letter from Arius, which was
the first document here exhibited, Eusebius of Nico-
media addressed a letter to Paulinus of Tyre, of which
the following is an extract : — “We have neither heard
of two Ingenerates, nor of One divided into two, sub-
jected to any material affection ; but of One Ingene-
rate, and one generated by Him really ; not from His
substance, not partaking of the nature of the Ingene-
rate at all, but made altogether other than He in
2 Incommunicable, av€7r l/jllktol, (this is in opposition to the TrepL\y-
pr)<TLS , or co-inherence) ; foreign in substance £evos /car’ over cav ;
investigate, k^ixyiadai.
SECT. V.
The Arian Heresy .
217
nature and in power, though made after the perfect
likeness of the character and excellence of His Maker.
. . . But, if He were of Him in the sense of ‘ from
Him,’ as if a part of Him, or from the effluence of His
substance 3 , He would not be spoken of (in Scripture)
as created or established ... for what exists as being
from the Ingenerate ceases to be created or estab-
lished, as being from its origin ingenerate. But, if
His being called generate suggests the idea that He
is made out of the Father’s substance, and has from
Him a sameness of nature, we know that not of Him
alone does Scripture use the word ‘ generate,’ but also
of things altogether unlike the Father in nature. For
it says of men, ‘ I have begotten sons and exalted
them, and they have set Me at nought and, ‘ Thou
hast left the God who begat thee and in other
instances, as ‘ Who has given birth to the drops of
dew ? ’ . . . Nothing is of His substance ; but all
things are made at His will.”
5. Alexander, in his public accusation of Arius and
his party to Alexander of Constantinople, writes thus :
— “ They say that once the Son of God was not,
and that He, who before had no existence, was at
length made, made such, when He was made, as
any other man is by nature. Numbering the Son
of God among created things, they are but con-
sistent in adding that He is of an alterable nature,
capable of virtue and vice. . . . When it is urged on
them that the Saviour differs from others, called sons
of God, by the unchangeableness of His nature,
stripping off all reverence, they answer, that God,
3 Generated, ycyovos; effluence of His substance, onroppoLas Trjs
ovcrias j being from the Ingenerate, ix. tov a ycvvyrov V7rap^ov.
2l8
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
foreknowing and foreseeing His obedience, chose Him
out of all creatures ; chose Him, I say, not as possess-
ing aught by nature and prerogative above the others
(since, as they say, there is no Son of God by nature),
nor bearing any peculiar relation towards God ; but, as
being, as well as others, of an alterable nature, and
preserved from falling by the pursuit and exercise of
virtuous conduct ; so that, if Paul or Peter had made
such strenuous progress, they would have gained a
sonship equal to His.”
In another letter, which was addressed to the
Churches, he says, “ It is their doctrine, that ‘ God
was not always a Father', that ‘the Word of God has
not always existed, but was made out of nothing ; for
the self-existing God made Him, who once was not,
out of what once was not . . . Neither is He like the
Father in substance, nor is He the true and natural
Logos of the Father, nor His true Wisdom, but one of
His works and creatures ; and He is catachrestically
the Word and Wisdom, inasmuch as He Himself was
made by the proper Logos of God, and by that
Wisdom which is in God, by which God made all
things, and Him in the number. Hence He is
mutable and alterable by nature, as other rational
beings ; and He is foreign and external to God’s sub-
stance, being excluded from it. He was made for
our sakes, in order that God might create us by Him
as by an instrument ; and He would not have had
subsistence, had not God willed our making.' Some
one asked them, if the Word of God could change, as
the devil changed ? They scrupled not to answer,
‘ Certainly, He can 4 .’ ”
4 Like in substance, o/xotos koP ov&iav [This, as we shall see after-
wards, in the Homceiisian, the symbol of the Eusebians or Semi- Asians],
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy . 219
4 .
More than enough has now been said in explanation
of a controversy, the very sound of which must be
painful to any one who has a loving faith in the
Divinity of the Son. Yet so it has been ordered, that
He who was once lifted up to the gaze of the world,
and hid not His face from contumely, has again been
subjected to rude scrutiny and dishonour in the pro-
mulgation of His religion to the world. And His
true followers have been themselves obliged in His
defence to raise and fix their eyes boldly on Him, as
if He were one of themselves, dismissing the natural
reverence, which would keep them ever at His feet.
The subject may be dismissed with the following
remarks : —
1. First/ it is obvious to notice the unscriptural
character of the arguments on which the heresy was
founded. It is true that the Arians did not neglect to
support their case from such detached portions of the
Inspired Volume as suited their purpose ; but still it
can never be said that they showed that earnest desire
of sacred truth, and careful search into its documents,
which alone mark the Christian inquirer. The ques-
tion is not merely whether they confined themselves
to the language of Scripture, but whether they began
with the study of it. Doubtless, to forbid in contro-
versy the use of all words but those which actually
occur in Scripture, is a superstition, an encroachment
on Scripture liberty, and an impediment to freedom
mutable and alterable, rptirTos kcu aWoiwros ; excluded, aTrecr^oLVicr-
fxevos*
220 The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
of thought ; and especially unreasonable, considering
that a traditional system of theology, consistent with,
but independent of, Scripture, has existed in the
Church from the Apostolic age. “ Why art thou in
that excessive slavery to the letter,” says Gregory
Nazianzen, “and employest a Judaical wisdom, dwel-
ling upon syllables, while letting slip realities ?
Suppose, on thy* saying twice five, or twice seven, 1
were to understand thence ten or fourteen ; or, if I
spoke of a man, when thou hadst named an animal
rational and mortal, should I in that case appear to
thee to trifle ? How could I so appear, in merely
expressing your own meaning 5 ? ” But, inasmuch as
this liberty was an evangelical privilege, which might
be allowed to the Arian disputants, on the other hand
it was a dangerous privilege also, ever to be subjected
to a profound respect for the sacred text; a cautious
adherence to the whole of the doctrine therein con-
tained, and a regard also for those received statements,
which, though not given to us as inspired, probably
are derived from inspired teachers. Now the most
liberal admission which can be made in behalf of the
Arians, is, to grant that they did not in controversy
throw aside the authority of Scripture altogether ;
that is, proclaim themselves unbelievers ; for it is
evident that they took only just so much of it as
would afford them a basis for erecting their system of
heresy by an abstract logical process. The mere
6 Petav. iv. 5, § 6. [Athanasius ever exalts the theological sense over
the words, whether sacred or ecclesiastical, which are its vehicle, and this
even to the apparent withholding of the symbol ofxoovcrLov. Vide Orat.
ii. 3, and Ath. Tr. vol. i., notes pp. 163, 212, 214, 231, &c.]
221
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
words “ Father and Son,” “ birth,” “ origin ” &c., were
all that they postulated of revealed authority for their
argument ; they professed to do all the rest for them-
selves. The meaning of these terms in their context,
the illustration which they afford to each other, and,
much more, the divine doctrine considered as one
undivided message, variously exhibited and dispersed
in the various parts of Scripture, were excluded from
the consideration of controversialists, who thought
that truth was gained by disputing instead of investi-
gating.
2. Next, it will be observed that, throughout their
discussions, they assumed as an axiom, that there
could be no mystery in the Scripture doctrine respect-
ing the nature of God. In this, indeed, they did but
follow the example of the contemporary spurious
theologies ; though their abstract mode of reasoning
from the mere force of one or two Scripture terms,
necessarily forced them more than other heretics into
the use and avowal of the principle. The Sabellian,
to avoid mystery, denied the distinction of Persons in
the Divine Nature. Paulus, and afterwards Apollina-
ris, for the same reason, denied the existence of two
Intelligent Principles at once, the Word and the
human soul, in the Person of Christ. The Arians
adopted both errors. Yet what is a mystery in
doctrine, but a difficulty or inconsistency in the intel-
lectual expression of it ? And what reason is there
for supposing, that Revelation addresses itself to the
intellect, except so far as intellect is necessary for con-
veying and fixing its truths on the heart ? Why are
we not content to take and use what is given us, with-
out asking questions ? The Catholics, on the other
222
The Arian Heresy. [chap. ii.
hand, pursued the intellectual investigation of the
doctrine, under the guidance of Scripture and Tra-
dition, merely as far as some immediate necessity
called for it ; and cared little, though one mode of
expression seemed inconsistent with another. Thus,
they developed the notion of “ substance ” against the
Pantheists, of the “ Hypostatic Word ” against the
Sabellians, of the “ Internal Word ” to meet the
imputation of Ditheism ; still they did not use these
formulae for any thing beyond shadows of sacred truth,
symbols witnessing against the speculations into
which the unbridled intellect fell.
Accordingly, they were for a time inconsistent with
each other in the minor particulars of their doctrinal
statements, being far more bent on opposing error,
than on forming a theology : — inconsistent, that is,
before the experience of controversy and the voice of
tradition had detached them from less accurate or
advisable expressions, and made them correct, or at
least compare and adjust their several declarations.
Thus, some said that there was but one hypostasis y
meaning substance, in God ; others three hypostases ,
meaning Subsistences or Persons ; and some spoke of
one usia, meaning substance, while others spoke of
more than one usia. Some allowed, some rejected,
the terms probole and homousion , according as they
were guided by the prevailing heresy of the day, and
by their own judgment how best to meet it. Some
spoke of the Son as existing from everlasting in the
Divine Mind ; others implied that the Logos was
everlasting, and became the Son in time. Some
asserted that He was unoriginate, others denied it.
Some, when interrogated by heretics, taught that He
223
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
was born of the Father at the Father’s will ; others,
from His nature, not His will ; others, neither with
His willing nor not willing 6 7 . Some declared that
God was in number Three ; others, that He was
numerically One ; while to others it perhaps appeared
more philosophical to exclude the idea of number
altogether, in discussions about that Mysterious
Nature, which is beyond comparison with itself,
whether viewed as Three or One, and neither falls
under nor involves any conceivable species 7.
In all these various statements, the object is clear
and unexceptionable, being merely that of protesting
and practically guarding against dangerous deductions
from the Scripture doctrine ; and the problem implied
in all of them is, to determine how this end may best
be effected. There are no signs of an intellectual
curiosity in the tenor of these Catholic expositions,
prying into things not seen as yet ; nor of an ambition
to account for the representations of the truth given
us in the sacred writings. But such a temper is the
very characteristic of the Arian disputants. They
insisted on taking the terms of Scripture and of the
Church for more than they signified, and expected
their opponents to admit inferences altogether foreign
to the theological sense in which they were really
used. Hence, they sometimes accused the orthodox
of heresy, sometimes of self-contradiction. The
Fathers of the Church have come down to us
loaded with the imputation of the strangest errors,
merely because they united truths, which heresies only
6 Justin, Tryph. 6i. ioo, &c. Petav. vi. 8. § 14, 15. 18.
7 Petav. iv. 13.
224
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
shared among themselves ; nor have writers been
wanting in modern times, from malevolence or care-
lessness, to aggravate these charges. The mystery of
their creed has been converted into an evidence of
concurrent heresies. To believe in the actual Incar-
nation of the Eternal Wisdom, has been treated, not
as orthodoxy, but as an Ariano-Sabellianism 8 . To
believe that the Son of God was the Logos, was
Sabellianism ; to believe that the pre-existent Logos
was the Son of God, was Valentinianism. Gregory of
Neo-Caesarea was called a Sabellian, because he spoke
of one substance in the Divine Nature ; he was called
a forerunner of Arius, because he said that Christ was
a creature. Origen, so frequently accused of Arianism,
seemed to be a Sabellian, when he said that the Son
was the Auto-aletheia, the Archetypal Truth. Athen-
agoras is charged with Sabellianism by the very writer
(Petau), whose general theory it is that he was one of
those Platonizing Fathers who anticipated Arius 9 .
Alexander, who at the opening of the controversy,
was accused by Arius of Sabellianizing, has in these
latter times been detected by the flippant Jortin to be
an advocate of Semi- Arianism r , which was the peculiar
enemy and assailant of Sabellianism in all its forms.
The celebrated word, homousion , has not escaped a
similar contrariety of charges. Arius himself ascribes
it to the Manichees ; the Semi-Arians at Ancyra
anathematize it, as Sabellian. It is in the same spirit
8 [“ Eorum error veritati testimonium dicit, et in consona perfidorum
sententia in unum recte fidei modulum concinuIlt. ,, Vigil. Tbaps. contr.
Eut. ii. init.]
9 Bull, Defens. iii. 5. § 4.
1 Jortin, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 179, 180.
225
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy.
that Arius, in his letter to Eusebius, scoffs at the
“ eternal birth,” and the “ ingenerate generation,” as
ascribed to the Son in the orthodox theology ; as if
the inconsistency, which the words involved, when
taken in their full sense, were a sufficient refutation of
the heavenly truth, of which they are, each in its
place, the partial and relative expression.
The Catholics sustained these charges with a
prudence, which has ( humanly speaking ) secured
the success of their cause, though it has availed little
to remove the calumnies heaped upon themselves.
The great Dionysius, who has himself been defamed
by the “ accuser of the brethren,” declares perspicu-
ously the principle of the orthodox teaching. “ The
particular expressions which I have used,” he says, in
his defence, “ cannot be taken separate from each
other .... whereas my opponents have taken two
bald w r ords of mine, and sling them at me from a
distance ; not understanding, that, in the case of
subjects, partially known, illustrations foreign to them
in nature, nay, inconsistent with each other, aid the
inquiry 2 .”
However, the Catholics of course considered it a
duty to remove, as far as they could, their own verbal
inconsistencies, and to sanction one form of expression,
as orthodox in each case, among the many which
might be adopted. Hence distinctions were made
between the unborn and unmade , origin and cause , as
already noticed. But these, clear and intelligible as
they were in themselves, and valuable, both as facili-
tating the argument and disabusing the perplexed
inquirer, opened to the heretical party the opportunity
2 Athan. de Sent. Dionys. iS.
Q
226
The Arian Hei'esy. [chap. ii.
of a new misrepresentation. Whenever the orthodox
writers showed an anxiety to reconcile and discrimi-
nate their own expressions, the charge of Manicheism
was urged against them ; as if to dwell upon, were to
rest in the material images which were the signs of the
unknown truths. Thus the phrase, “ Light of Light,”
the orthodox and almost apostolic emblem of the
derivation of the Son from the Father, as symbolizing
Their inseparability, mutual relation, and the separate
fulness and exact parallelism and unity of Their
perfections, was interpreted by the gross conceptions
of the Manichaean Hieracas 3 .
3. When in answer to such objections the Catholics
denied that they attached other than a figurative
meaning to their words, their opponents suddenly
turned round, and professed the figurative meaning of
the terms to be that which they themselves advocated.
This inconsistency in their mode of conducting the
argument deserves notice. It has already been in-
stanced in the original argument of Arius, who main-
tained, that, since the word Son in its literal sense
included among other ideas that of a beginning of.
being, the Son of God had had a beginning or was
6 The €K ©eon was treated thus : el yap Ik ©cov cart, koX
eyevvy]crev avrov 6 ©eos, <!)? elireiv, ef i8ia? v7rocrrd(re(v<s
rf>v(T€L fj £k rr}<; i8ia? overtax, ovkovv dyKibOrj, rj rop,r]V ibe^aro rj
ev tco yevvav eivXa TvvOrj, rj (TVvearrdXr], rj n tojv Kara ra iraOrj ra
crw/xartKa vireurr). Epiph. Haer. lxix. 15. Or, to take the objection
made at Nicsea to the opioovcnov by Eusebius and some others : €7ret
yap etfcacrav opioovcnov elvai, o €K tit/os ecrrlv, rj Kara p.epicrp.ov, 17
Kara pevcnv, rj Kara TrpofioXrjV Kara TrpofioXrjV plev, ws ck pc&v
/3Xa crTrjpLa, Kara be pevcnv, tbs ol Trarpucol iralbes, Kara pLepLcrp,bv
be, oj? (3o)\ov xpuaxSes bvo f) rpe t<r /car ovbev 8 c tovtcov ecrnv
b Y lbs, bta tovto ov crv^ KarartOecrOai ttj 7tlctt€l eXeyov. Socr. i. 8.
227
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy .
created, and therefore was not really a Son of God at
all. It was on account of such unscrupulous dexterity
in the controversy, that Alexander and Athanasius
give them the title of chameleons. “ They are as
variable and uncertain in their opinions,” (says the
latter,) “ as chameleons in their colour. When refuted,
they look confused, and when examined they are
perplexed ; however, at length they recover their
assurance, and bring forward some evasion. Then, if
this in turn is exposed, they do not rest till they have
devised some new absurdity, and, as Scripture says,
meditate vain things, so that they may secure the
privilege of being profane 4 .”
Let us, however, pursue the Arians on their new
ground of allegory. It has been already observed,
that they explain the word Only-begotten in the sense
of only-created ; and considered the oneness of the
Father and Son to consist in an unity of character
and will, such as exists between God and His Saints,
not in nature.
Now, surely, the temper of mind, which had re-
course to such a comparison between Christ and us, to
defend a heresy, was still more odious, if possible,
than the original impiety of the heresy itself. Thus,
the honours graciously bestowed upon human nature,
as well as the condescending self-abasement of our
Lord, were made to subserve the cause of the blas-
phemer. It is a known peculiarity of the message of
mercy, that it views the Church of Christ as if clothed
with, or hidden within, the glory of Him who ran-
somed it ; so that there is no name or title belonging
to Him literally, which is not in a secondary sense
4 Athan. de Deer. Nic. I. Socr. i. 6. [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 71.]
Q 2
228
The A rian Heresy . [chap. ii.
applied to the reconciled penitent. As our Lord is
the Priest and King of His redeemed, they, as
members of Him, are accounted kings and priests
also. They are said to be Christs, or the anointed, to
partake of the Divine Nature, to be the well-beloved of
God, His sons, one with Him, and heirs of glory ; in
order to express the fulness and the transcendent
excellence of the blessings gained to the Saints by
Christ. In all these forms of speech, no religious
mind runs the risk of confusing its own privileges
with the real prerogatives of Him who gave them ;
yet it is obviously difficult in argument to discriminate
between the primary and secondary use of the words,
and to elicit and exhibit the delicate reasons lying in
the context of Scripture for conclusions, which the
common sense of a Christian is impatient as well as
shocked to hear disputed. Who would so trifle with
words, to take a parallel case, as to argue that, because
Christians are said by St. John to “know all things,”
that therefore God is not omniscient in a sense
infinitely above man’s highest intelligence ?
It may be observed, moreover, that the Arians were
inconsistent in their application of the allegorical rule,
by which they attempted to interpret Scripture ; and
showed as great deficiency in their philosophical con-
ceptions of God, as in their practical devotion to Him.
They seem to have fancied that some of His acts were
more comprehensible than others, and might accord-
ingly be made the basis on which the rest might be
interpreted. They referred the divine gennesis or gen-
eration to the notion of creation ; but creation is in
fact as mysterious as the divine gennesis ; that is, we
are as little able to understand our own words, when
229
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy.
we speak of the world’s being brought out of
nothing at God’s word, as when we confess that His
Eternal Perfections are reiterated, without being
doubled, in the person of His Son. “How is it,” asks
Athanasius, “that the impious men dare to speak
flippantly on subjects too sacred to approach, mortals
as they are, and incapable of explaining even God’s
works upon earth ? Why do I say, His earthly works ?
Let them treat of themselves, if so be they can investi-
gate their own nature ; yet venturous and self-confi-
dent, they tremble not before the glory of God, which
Angels are fain reverently to look into, though in
nature and rank far more excellent than they 5.”
Accordingly, he argues that nothing is gained by
resolving one of the divine operations into another ;
that to make, when attributed to God, is essentially
distinct from the same act when ascribed to man, as
incomprehensible as to give birth or beget 6 ; and
consequently that it is our highest wisdom to take the
truths of Scripture as we find them there, and use
them for the purposes for which they are vouchsafed,
without proceeding accurately to systematize them or
to explain them away. Far from elucidating, we are
evidently enfeebling the revealed doctrine, by substi-
tuting only-created for only-begotten ; for if the words
are synonymous, why should the latter be insisted on
in Scripture ? Accordingly, it is proper to make a
distinction between the primary and the literal
meaning of a term. All the terms which human
language applies to the Supreme Being, may perhaps
5 Athan. on Matt. xi. 22. § 6.
fi . Athan. de Deer. Nic. 11 ; vide also Greg. Naz. Orat. 35, p. 566.
Euseb. Eccl. Theol. i. 12.
230
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
be more or less figurative ; but their primary and
secondary meaning may still remain as distinct, as
when they are referred to earthly objects. We need
not give up the primary meaning of the word Son as
opposed to the secondary sense of adoption, because
we forbear to use it in its literal and material sense.
4 . This being the general character of the Arian
reasonings, it is natural to inquire what was the object
towards which they tended. Now it will be found,
that this audacious and elaborate sophistry could not
escape one of two conclusions : — the establishment
either of a sort of ditheism, or, as the more practical
alternative, of a mere humanitarianism as regards our
Lord ; either a heresy tending to paganism, or the
virtual atheism of philosophy. If the professions of
the Arians are to be believed, they confessed our
Lord to be God, God in all respects 7, full and perfect,
yet at the same time to be infinitely distant from the
perfections of the One Eternal Cause. Here at once
they are committed to a ditheism ; but Athanasius
drives them on to the extreme of polytheism. “ If,”
he says, “ the Son were an object of worship for
His transcendent glory, then every subordinate being
is bound to worship his superior 8 .” But so repulsive
is the notion of a secondary God both to reason, and
much more to Christianity, that the real tendency of
Arianism lay towards the sole remaining alternative,
the humanitarian doctrine. — Its essential agreement
with the heresy of Paulus has already been incidentally
shown ; it differed from it only when the pressure of
controversy required it. Its history is the proof of
7 7 r\r]pr)<s ©eos.
8 Cudw. Intell. Syst. 4. § 36. Petav. ii. 12. § 6.
231
sect, v.] The Arian Heresy.
this. It started with a boldness not inferior to that
of Paulus ; but as soon as it was attacked, it suddenly
coiled itself into a defensive posture, and plunged
amid the thickets of verbal controversy. At first it
had not scrupled to admit the peccable nature of the
Son ; but it soon learned to disguise such conse-
quences of its doctrine, and avowed that, in matter of
fact, He was indefectible. Next it borrowed the
language of Platonism, which, without committing it
to any real renunciation of its former declarations,
admitted of the dress of a high and almost enthusiastic
piety. Then it professed an entire agreement with the
Catholics, except as to the adoption of the single
word consubstantial , which they urged upon it, and
concerning which, it affected to entertain conscientious
scruples. At this time it was ready to confess that
our Lord was the true God, God of God, born time-
apart, or before all time, and not a creature as other
creatures, but peculiarly the Son of God, and His
accurate Image. Afterwards, changing its ground, it
protested, as we shall see, against non-scriptural
expressions, of which itself had been the chief in-
ventor ; and proposed an union of all opinions, on
the comprehensive basis of a creed, in which the Son
should be merely declared to be “ in all things like the
Father ,” or simply “ like Him .” This versatility of
profession is an illustration of the character given of
the Arians by Athanasius, some pages back, which is
further exemplified in their conduct at the Council in
which they were condemned ; but it is here adduced
to show the danger to which the Church was exposed
from a party who had no fixed tenet, except that of
opposition to the true notion of Christ’s divinity; and
232 The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
whose teaching, accordingly, had no firm footing of
internal consistency to rest upon, till it descended to
the notion of His simple humanity, that is, to the
doctrine of Artemas and Paulus, though they too, as
well as Arius, had enveloped their impieties in such
admissions and professions, as assimilated it more or
less in appearance to the Faith of the Catholic
Church.
The conduct of the Arians at Nicsea, as referred to,
was as follows. “ When the Bishops in Council
assembled,” says Athanasius, an eye-witness, “ were
desirous of ridding the Church of the impious expres-
sions invented by Arius, 4 the Son is out of nothing ,’
* is a creature ,’ 4 once was not ,’ 4 of an alterable nature ,’
and perpetuating those which we receive on the
authority of Scripture, that the Son is the Only-
begotten of God by nature, the Word, Power, the sole
Wisdom of the Father, very God, as the Apostle
John says, and as Paul, the Radiance of His glory,
and the express Image of His Person ; the Eusebians,
influenced by their own heterodoxy, said one to
another, 4 Let us agree to this ; for we too are of God,
there being one God, of whom are all things.'
The Bishops, however, discerning their cunning, and
the artifice adopted by their impiety, in order to
express more clearly the 4 of God> wrote down 4 of
God’s substance ,’ creatures being said to be 4 of God,’
as not existing of themselves without cause, but
having an origin of their production ; but the Son being
peculiarly of the substance of the Father. . . . Again,
on the Bishops asking the few advocates of Arianism
present, whether they allowed the Son to be, not a
creature, but the sole Power, Wisdom, and Image,
SECT. V.J
The A rian Heresy .
233
eternal and in all respects 9 , of the Father, and very
God, the followers of Eusebius were detected making
signs to each other, to express that this also could be
applied to ourselves. 4 For we too/ they said, ‘ are
called in Scripture the image and glory of God ; we
are said to live always . . . There are many powers ;
the locust is called in Scripture “ a great power.”
Nay, that we are God’s own sons, is proved expressly
from the text, in which the Son calls us brethren.
Nor does their assertion, that He is very (true) God,
distress us ; He is very God, because He was made
such.’ This was the unprincipled meaning of the
Arians. But here too the Bishops, seeing through
their deceit, brought together from Scripture, the
radiance, source and stream, express Image of Person,
‘ In Thy Light we shall see light/ 4 1 and the Father
are one/ and last of all, expressed themselves more
clearly and concisely, in the phrase ‘ consubstantial
with the Father ; ’ for all that was beforesaid has this
meaning. As to their complaint about non-scriptural
phrases, they themselves are evidence of its futility.
It was they who began with their impious expressions;
for, after their 4 Out of nothing/ and * Once was not,’
going beyond Scripture in order to be impious, now
they make it a grievance, that, in condemning them,
we go beyond Scripture, in order to be pious 1 .” The
last remark is important ; even those traditional state-
ments of the Catholic doctrine, which were more
explicit than Scripture, had not as yet, when the
controversy began, taken the shape of formulae. It
was the Arian defined propositions of the “ out of
9 OL7rapaX\aKTOV.
1 Athan. Ep. ad Afros., 5, 6.
2 34
The Arian Heresy . [chap. ii.
nothing” and the like, which called for the imposition
of the “unsubstantial'.'
It has sometimes been said, that the Catholics
anxiously searched for some offensive test, which
might operate to the exclusion of the Arians. This is
not correct, inasmuch as they have no need to search ;
the “from God's substance ” having been openly
denied by the Arians, five years before the Council,
and no practical distinction between it and the unsub-
stantial existing, till the era of Basil and his Semi-
Arians. Yet, had it been necessary, doubtless it
would have been their duty to seek for a test of this
nature ; nay, to urge upon the heretical teachers the
plain consequences of their doctrine, and to drive
them into the adoption of them. These consequences
are certain of being elicited in the long-run ; and it is
but equitable to anticipate them in the persons of the
heresiarchs, rather than to suffer them gradually to
unfold and spread far and wide after their day, sap-
ping the faith of their deluded and less guilty followers.
Many a man would be deterred from outstepping the
truth, could he see the end of his course from the
beginning. The Arians felt this, and therefore resisted
a detection, which would at once expose them to the
condemnation of all serious men. In this lies the
difference between the treatment due to an individual
in heresy, and to one who is confident enough to
publish the innovations which he has originated. The
former claims from us the most affectionate sympathy,
and the most considerate attention. The latter should
meet with no mercy ; he assumes the office of the
Tempter, and, so far forth as his error goes, must be
dealt with by the competent authority, as if he were
sect, v.] The.Arian Heresy .
235
embodied Evil. To spare him is a false and dangerous
pity. It is to endanger the souls of thousands, and it
is uncharitable towards himself.
236
CHAPTER III.
THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NIOEA
IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE.
SECTION I.
HISTORY OF THE NICENE COUNCIL.
The authentic account of the proceedings of the
Nicene Council is not extant 1 . It has in consequence
been judged expedient to put together in the fore-
going Chapter whatever was necessary for the ex-
planation of the Catholic and Arian creeds, and the
controversy concerning them, rather than to reserve
any portion of the doctrinal discussion for the present,
though in some respects the more appropriate place
for its introduction. Here then the transactions at
Nicaea shall be reviewed in their political or ecclesias-
tical aspect.
1 Vide Ittigius, Hist. Cone. Nic. § 1. The rest of this volume is
drawn up from the following authorities : Eusebius, Vit. Const. Socrates,
Sozomen, and Theodoret, Hist. Eccles., the various historical tracts of
Athanasius, Epiphanius Haer. lxix. lxxiii., and the Acta Conciliorum.
Of moderns, especially Tillemont and Petavius ; then, Maimbourg’s
History of Arianism, the Benedictine Life of Athanasius, Cave’s Life of
Athanasius and Literary History, Gibbon’s Roman History and Mr.
Bridges* Reign of Constantine.
sect. i. J History of the Nicene Council.
2 37
1.
Arius first published his heresy about the year 319.
With his turbulent conduct in 306 and a few years
later we are not here concerned. After this date, in
313, he is said, on the death of Achillas, to have
aspired to the primacy of the Egyptian Church ; and,
according to Philostorgius 2 , the historian of his party,
a writer of little credit, to have generously resigned
his claims in favour of Alexander, who was elected.
His ambitious character renders it not improbable that
he was a candidate for the vacant dignity ; but, if so,
the difference of age between himself and Alexander,
which must have been considerable, would at once
account for the elevation of the latter, and be an
evidence of the indecency of Arius in becoming a
competitor at all. His first attack on the Catholic
doctrine was conducted with an openness which, con-
sidering the general duplicity of his party, is the most
honourable trait in his character. In a public meeting
of the clergy of Alexandria, he accused his diocesan
of Sabellianism ; an insult which Alexander, from
deference to the talents and learning of the objector,
sustained with somewhat too little of the dignity
befitting “the ruler of the people. 5 ' The mischief
which ensued from his misplaced meekness was con-
siderable. Arius was one of the public preachers of
Alexandria ; and, as some suppose, Master of the
Catechetical School. Others of the city Presbyters
were stimulated by his example to similar irregu-
larities. Colluthus, Carponas, and Sarmatas began to
form each his own party in a Church which Meletius
2 Philos, i. 3.
238 History of the Nicene Council, [chap. iii.
had already troubled ; and Colluthus went so far as to
promulgate an heretical doctrine, and to found a sect.
Still hoping to settle these disorders without the
exercise of his episcopal power, Alexander summoned
a meeting of his clergy, in which Arius was allowed
to state his doctrines freely, and to argue in their
defence ; and, whether from a desire not to over-
bear the discussion, or from distrust in his own power
of accurately expressing the truth, and anxiety about
the charge of heresy brought against himself, the
Primate, though in no wise a man of feeble mind, is
said to have refrained from committing himself on the
controverted subject, “ applauding,” as Sozomen tells
us, “ sometimes the one party, sometimes the other 3 .”
At length the error of Arius appeared to be of so
serious and confirmed a nature, that countenance of it
would have been sinful. It began to spread beyond
the Alexandrian Church ; the indecision of Alexander
excited the murmurs of the Catholics ; till, called
unwillingly to the discharge of a severe duty, he gave
public evidence of his real indignation against the
blasphemies which he had so long endured, by excom-
municating Arius with his followers.
This proceeding, obligatory as it was on a Christian
Bishop, and ratified by the concurrence of a provincial
Council, and expedient even for the immediate in-
terests of Christianity, had other Churches been
equally honest in their allegiance to the true faith,
had the effect of increasing the influence of Arius, by
throwing him upon his fellow-Lucianists of the rival
dioceses of the East, and giving notoriety to his name
and tenets. In Egypt, indeed, he had already been sup-
3 So z. i. 14.
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council* 239
ported by the Meletian faction ; which, in spite of its
profession of orthodoxy, continued in alliance with
him, through jealousy of the Church, even after he
had fallen into heresy. But the countenance of these
schismatics was of small consideration, compared with
the powerful aid frankly tendered him, on his excom-
munication, by the leading men in the great Catholic
communities of Asia Minor and the East. Caesarea
was the first place to afford him a retreat from Alex-
andrian orthodoxy, where he received a cordial
reception from the learned Eusebius, Metropolitan of
Palestine ; while Athanasius, Bishop of Anazarbus in
Cilicia, and others, did not hesitate, by letters on his
behalf, to declare their concurrence with him in the
full extent of his heresy. Eusebius even declared that
Christ was not very or true God ; and his associate
Athanasius asserted, that He was in the number of
the hundred sheep of the parable, that is, one of the
creatures of God.
Yet, in spite of the countenance of these and other
eminent men, Arius found it difficult to maintain his
ground against the general indignation which his
heresy excited. He was resolutely opposed by Philo-
gonius, Patriarch of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusa-
lem ; who promptly answered the call made upon
them by Alexander, in his circulars addressed to the
Syrian Churches. In the meanwhile Eusebius of
Nicomedia, the early friend of Arius, and the eccle-
siastical adviser of Constantia, the Emperor’s sister,
declared in his favour ; and offered him a refuge,
which he readily accepted, from the growing unpopu-
larity which attended him in Palestine. Supported
by the patronage of so powerful a prelate, Arius was
240 History of the Nicene Council, [chap. iii.
now scarcely to be considered in the position of a
schismatic or an outcast. He assumed in consequence
a more calm and respectful demeanour towards Alex-
ander ; imitated the courteous language of his friend ;
and in his Epistle, which was introduced into the
foregoing Chapter, addresses his diocesan with stu-
dious humility, and defers or appeals to previous
statements made by Alexander himself on the doc-
trine in dispute 4 . At this time also he seems to have
corrected and completed his system. George, after-
wards Bishop of Laodicea, taught him an evasion for
the orthodox test “ of God” by a reference to 1 Cor.
xi. 12. Asterius, a sophist of Cappadocia, advocated
the secondary sense of the word Logos as applied to
Christ, with a reference to such passages as Joel ii. 25 ;
and, in order to explain away the force of the word
“ Only -begotten ,” ( /Jiovoyevrjs,) maintained, that to
Christ alone out of all creatures it had been given,
to be fashioned under the immediate presence and
perilous weight of the Divine Hand. Now too, as it
appears, the title of “ True God ” was ascribed to Him
by the heretical party ; the “of an alterable nature ” was
withdrawn ; and an admission of His actual indefecti-
bility substituted for it. The heresy being thus placed
on a less exceptionable basis, the influence of Eusebius
was exerted in Councils both in Bithynia and Palestine;
in which Arius was acknowledged, and more urgent
solicitations addressed to Alexander, with the view of
effecting his re-admission into the Church.
4 [Alexander’s siding with Arius, was nothing more than his disclaim-
ing the views of the Five Fathers, vide supr. pp. 202, 220 ; also Appendix,
No. 2, yevvrjo-is. As to the Arian evasions which follow, vide supr. pp.
193, 216, 223, 238, &c.]
241
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council .
This was the history of the controversy for the first
four or five years of its existence ; that is, till the era
of the battle of Hadrianople (A.D. 323), by the issue
of which Constantine, becoming master of the Roman
world, was at liberty to turn his thoughts to the state
of Christianity in the Eastern Provinces of the Empire.
From this date it is connected with civil history ; a
result natural, and indeed necessary under the existing
circumstances, though it was the occasion of subject-
ing Christianity to fresh persecutions, in place of those
which its nominal triumph had terminated. When a
heresy, condemned and excommunicated by one
Church, was taken up by another, and independent
Christian bodies thus stood in open opposition, nothing
was left to those who desired peace, to say nothing of
orthodoxy, but to bring the question under the notice
of a General Council. But as a previous step, the
leave of the civil power was plainly necessary for so
public a display of that wide-spreading Association,
of which the faith of the Gospel was the uniting and
animating principle. Thus the Church could not
meet together in one, without entering into a sort of
negotiation with the powers that be ; whose jealousy
it is the duty of Christians, both as individuals and as
a body, if possible, to dispel. On the other hand, the
Roman Emperor, as a professed disciple of the truth,
was of course bound to protect its interests, and to
afford every facility for its establishment in purity and
efficacy. It was under these circumstances that the
Nicene Council was convoked.
2.
Now we must direct our view for a while to the
R
242 History of the Nicene Council . [chap. iii.
character and history of Constantine. It is an un-
grateful task to discuss the private opinions and
motives of an Emperor who was the first to profess
himself the Protector of the Church, and to relieve it
from the abject and suffering condition in which it
had lain for three centuries. Constantine is our
benefactor ; inasmuch as we, who now live, may be
considered to have received the gift of Christianity by
means of the increased influence which he gave to the
Church. And, were it not that in conferring his
benefaction he burdened it with the bequest of an
heresy, which outlived his age by many centuries, and
still exists in its effects in the divisions of the East,
nothing would here be said, from mere grateful re-
collection of him, by way of analyzing the state of
mind in which he viewed the benefit which he has
conveyed to us. But his conduct, as it discovers
itself in the subsequent history, natural as it was in
his case, still has somewhat of a warning in it, which
must not be neglected in after times.
It is of course impossible accurately to describe the
various feelings with which one in Constantine’s
peculiar situation was likely to regard Christianity ;
yet the joint effect of them all may be gathered from
his actual conduct, and the state of the civilized world
at the time. He found his empire distracted with
civil and religious dissensions, which tended to the
dissolution of society ; at a time too, when the bar-
barians without were pressing upon it with a vigour,
formidable in itself, but far more menacing in conse-
quence of the decay of the ancient spirit of Rome.
He perceived the powers of its old polytheism, from
whatever cause, exhausted ; and a newly-risen philo-
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council. 243
sophy vainly endeavouring to resuscitate a mythology
which had done its work, and now, like all things of
earth, was fast returning to the dust from which it
was taken. He heard the same philosophy inculcating
the principles of that more exalted and refined religion,
which a civilized age will always require ; and he
witnessed the same substantial teaching, as he would
consider it, embodied in the precepts, and enforced by
the energetic discipline, the union, and the example of
the Christian Church. Here his thoughts would rest,
as in a natural solution of the investigation to which
the state of his empire gave rise ; and, without know-
ing enough of the internal characters of Christianity
to care to instruct himself in them, he would discern,
on the face of it, a doctrine more real than that of
philosophy, and a rule of life more severe and ener-
getic even than that of the old Republic. The Gospel
seemed to be the fit instrument of a civil reformation 5,
being but a new form of the old wisdom, which had
existed in the world at large from the beginning.
Revering, nay, in one sense, honestly submitting to its
faith, still he acknowledged it rather as a school than
joined it as a polity ; and by refraining from the sacra-
ment of baptism till his last illness, he acted in the
spirit of men of the world in every age, who dislike to
pledge themselves to engagements which they still
intend to fulfil, and to descend from the position of
judges to that of disciples of the truth 6 .
Concord is so eminently the perfection of the Chris-
tian temper, conduct, and discipline, and it had been
so wonderfully exemplified in the previous history of
5 Gibbon, Hist. ch. xx.
6 Vide his speech, Euseb. Vit. Const, iv. 62.
244 History of the Nicene Council, [chap. iii.
the Church, that it was almost unavoidable in a
heathen soldier and statesman to regard it as the sole
precept of the Gospel. It required a far more refined
moral perception, to detect and to approve the prin-
ciple on which this internal peace is grounded in
Scripture ; to submit to the dictation of truth, as such,
as a primary authority in matters of political and
private conduct ; to understand how belief in a certain
creed was a condition of Divine favour, how the social
union was intended to result from an unity of opinions,
the love of man to spring from the love of God, and
zeal to be prior in the succession of Christian graces
to benevolence. It had been predicted by Him, who
came to offer peace to th^ world, that, in matter of
fact, that gift would be changed into the sword of
discord ; mankind being offended by the doctrine,
more than they were won over by the amiableness, of
Christianity. But He alone was able thus to discern
through what a succession of difficulties Divine truth
advances to its final victory ; shallow minds anticipate
the end apart from the course which leads to it.
Especially they who receive scarcely more of His
teaching than the instinct of civilization recognizes
(and Constantine must, on the whole, be classed
among such), view the religious dissensions of the
Church as simply evil, and (as they would fain prove)
contrary to His own precepts ; whereas in fact they
are but the history of truth in its first stage of trial,
when it aims at being “ pure,” before it is “peaceable
and are reprehensible only so far as baser passions
mix themselves with that true loyalty towards God,
which desires His glory in the first place, and only in
the second place, the tranquillity and good order of
society.
sect, i.] Histoiy of the Nicene Council ’ 245
The Edict of Milan (A.D. 313) was among the first
effects of Constantine’s anxiety to restore fellowship
of feeling to the members of his distracted empire.
In it an absolute toleration was given by him and his
colleague Licinius, to the Christians and all other
persuasions, to follow the form of worship which each
had adopted for himself ; and it was granted with the
professed view of consulting for the peace of their
people.
A year did not elapse from the date of this Edict,
when Constantine found it necessary to support it by
severe repressive measures against the Donatists of
Africa, though their offences were scarcely of a civil
nature. Their schism had originated in the disap-
pointed ambition of two presbyters ; who fomented
an opposition to Caecilian, illegally elevated, as they
pretended, to the episcopate of Carthage. Growing
into a sect, they appealed to Constantine, who referred
their cause to the arbitration of successive Councils.
These pronounced in favour of Caecilian ; and, on
Constantine’s reviewing and confirming their sentence,
the defeated party assailed him with intemperate
complaints, accused Hosius, his adviser, of partiality
in the decision, stirred up the magistrates against the
Catholic Church, and endeavoured to deprive it of its
places of worship. Constantine in consequence took
possession of their churches, banished their seditious
bishops, and put some of them to death. A love of
truth is not irreconcilable either with an unlimited
toleration, or an exclusive patronage of a selected
religion ; but to endure or discountenance error, ac-
cording as it is, or is not, represented in an inde-
pendent system and existing authority, to spare
246 History of the Nicene Council . (_chap. hi.
the pagans and to tyrannize over the schismatics, is
the conduct of one who subjected religious principle
to expediency, and aimed at peace, as a supreme
good, by forcible measures where it was possible,
otherwise by conciliation.
It must be observed, moreover, that subsequently to
the celebrated vision of the Labarum (A.D. 312), he
publicly invoked the Deity as one and the same in all
forms of worship ; and at a later period (A.D. 321), he
promulgated simultaneous edicts for the observance
of Sunday, and the due consultation of the aruspices 7
On the other hand, as in the Edict of Milan, so in
his Letters and Edicts connected with the Arian con-
troversy, the same reference is made to external peace
and good order, as the chief object towards which his
thoughts were directed. The same desire of tran-
quillity led him to summon to the Nicene Council
the Novatian Bishop Acesius, as well as the orthodox
prelates. At a later period still when he extended a
more open countenance to the Church as an institution,
the same principle discovers itself in his conduct as
actuated him in his measures against the Donatists.
In proportion as he recognizes the Catholic body, he
drops his toleration of the sectaries. He prohibited
the conventicles of the Valentinians, Montanists, and
other heretics ; who, at his bidding, joined the Church
in such numbers (many of them, says Eusebius,
“ through fear of the Imperial threat, with hypocritical
minds 8 ” ), that at length both heresy and schism
might be said to disappear from the face of society.
7 Gibbon, Hist. ibid.
8 Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 66 . [yvv Tre7rXrjpu)raL rj eKKXrjo-ia KtKpvpi-
/JLtVQ) v alp€TLK(DV. Cyril. Catech. xv. 4 .]
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council. 247
Now let us observe his conduct in the Arian con-
troversy.
Doubtless it was a grievous disappointment to a
generous and large-minded prince, to discover that
the Church itself, from which he had looked for the
consolidation of his empire, was convulsed by dis-
sensions such as were unknown amid the heartless
wranglings of Pagan philosophy. The disturbances
caused by the Donatists, which his acquisition of Italy
(a.D. 312) had opened upon his view, extended from
the borders of the Alexandrian patriarchate to the
ocean. The conquest of the East (A.D. 323) did but
enlarge his prospect of the distractions of Christen-
dom. The patriarchate just mentioned had lately
been visited by a deplorable heresy, which having run
its course through the chief parts of Egypt, Lybia,
and Cyrenaica, had attacked Palestine and Syria, and
spread thence into the dioceses of Asia Minor and
the Lydian Proconsulate.
Constantine was informed of the growing schism at
Nicomedia, and at once addressed a letter to Alex-
ander and Arius jointly 9 ; a reference to which will
enable the reader to verify for himself the account
above given of the nature of the Emperor’s Chris-
tianity. He professes therein two motives as impel-
ling him in his public conduct ; first, the desire of
effecting the reception, throughout his dominions, of
some one definite and complete form of religious
worship ; next, that of settling and invigorating the
civil institutions of the empire. Desirous of securing an
unity of sentiment among all the believers in the Deity,
he first directed his attention to the religious dissen-
9 Euseb. Yit. Const, ii. 64 — 72.
248 History of the Nicene Council, [chap, hi.,
sions of Africa, which he had hoped, with the aid of
the Oriental Christians, to terminate. “ But,” he con-
tinues, “ glorious and Divine Providence ! how fatally
were my ears, or rather my heart, wounded, by the
report of a rising schism among you, far more acri-
monious than the African dissensions. . . . On investi-
gation, I find that the reason for this quarrel is
insignificant and worthless. . . . As I understand it,
you, Alexander, were asking the separate opinions of
your clergy on some passage of your law, or rather
were inquiring about some idle question, when you,
Arius, inconsiderately committed yourself to state-
ments which should either never have come into your
mind, or have been at once repressed. On this a
difference ensued, Christian intercourse was sus-
pended, the sacred flock was divided into two,
breaking the harmonious unity of the common body.
. . . . Listen to the advice of me, your fellow-ser-
vant : — neither ask nor answer questions which are
not upon any injunction of your law, but from the
altercation of barren leisure ; at best keep them to
yourselves, and do not publish them. . . . Your con-
tention is not about any capital commandment of
your law ; neither of you is introducing any novel
scheme of divine worship ; you are of one and the
same way of thinking, so that it is in your power to
unite in one communion. Even the philosophers can
agree together, one and all, in one dogma, though
differing in particulars. ... Is it rigrr for brothers to
oppose brothers, for the sake of tiifles ? . . . Such
conduct might be expected from the multitude, or
from the recklessness of boyhood ; but is little in
keeping with your sacred profession, and with your
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council. 249
personal wisdom.” Such is the substance of his
letter, which, written on an imperfect knowledge of
the facts of the case, and with somewhat of the preju-
dices of Eclectic liberalism, was inapplicable, even
where abstractedly true ; his fault lying in his suppos-
ing, that an individual like himself, who had not even
received the grace of baptism, could discriminate
between great and little questions in theology. He
concludes with the following words, which show the
amiableness and sincerity of a mind in a measure
awakened from the darkness of heathenism, though
they betray the affectation of the rhetorician : “ Give
me back my days of calm, my nights of security ;
that I may experience henceforth the comfort of the
clear light, and the cheerfulness of tranquillity.
Otherwise, I shall sigh and be dissolved in tears. . . So
great is my grief, that I put off my journey to the
East on the news of your dissension. . . . Open for me
that path towards you, which your contentions have
closed up. Let me see you and all other cities in
happiness ; that I may offer due thanksgivings to
God above, for the unanimity and free intercourse
which is seen among you.”
This letter was conveyed to the Alexandrian
Church by Hosius, who was appointed by the
Emperor to mediate between the contending parties.
A Council was called, in which some minor irregu-
larities were arranged, but nothing settled on the
main question in dispute. Hosius returned to his
master to report an unsuccessful mission, and to
advise, as the sole measure which remained to be
adopted, the calling of a General Council, in which
the Catholic doctrine might be formally declared,
250 History of the Nicene Council . [chap. iii.
and a judgment promulgated as to the basis upon
which communion with the Church was henceforth
to be determined. Constantine assented ; and, dis-
covering that the ecclesiastical authorities were
earnest in condemning the tenets of Arius, as being
an audacious innovation on the received creed, he
suddenly adopted a new line of conduct towards the
heresy ; and in a Letter which he addressed to Arius,
professes himself a zealous advocate of Christian
truth, ventures to expound it, and attacks Arius with
a vehemence which can only be imputed to his im-
patience in finding that any individual had presumed
to disturb the peace of the community. It is remark-
able, as showing his utter ignorance of doctrines,
which were never intended for discussion among the
unbaptized heathen, or the secularized Christian, that,
in spite of this bold avowal of the orthodox faith in
detail, yet shortly after he explained to Eusebius one
of the Nicene declarations in a sense which even
Arius would scarcely have allowed, expressed as it is
almost after the manner of Paulus l .
3 -
The first Ecumenical Council met at Nicaea in
Bithynia, in the summer of A.D. 325. It was attended
by about 300 Bishops, chiefly from the eastern pro-
vinces of the empire, besides a multitude of priests,
deacons, and other functionaries of the Church.
Hosius, one of the most eminent men of an age of
saints, was president. The Fathers who took the
principal share in its proceedings were Alexander of
Alexandria, attended by his deacon Athanasius, then
1 Theod. Hist. i. 12.
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council.
2 5 T
about 27 years of age, and soon afterwards his successor
in the see ; Eustathius, patriarch of Antioch, Macarius
of Jerusalem, Caecilian of Carthage, the object of the
hostility of the Donatists, Leontius of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, and Marcellus of Ancyra, whose name
was afterwards unhappily notorious in the Church.
The number of Arian. Bishops is variously stated at
13, 1 7, or 22 ; the most conspicuous of these being the
well-known prelates of Nicomedia and Caesarea, both
of whom bore the name of Eusebius.
The discussions of the Council commenced in the
middle of June, and were at first private. Arius was
introduced and examined ; and confessed his im-
pieties with a plainness and vehemence far more
respectable than the hypocrisy which was the charac-
teristic of his party, and ultimately was adopted
by himself. Then followed his disputation with
Athanasius 2 * , who afterwards engaged the Arian
2 [“It is difficult,” say the Notes, Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 17, “to gain a
clear idea of the character of Arius. Athanasius speaks as if his Thalia
was but in keeping with his life, calling him ‘the Sotadean Arius, ; while
Constantine, Alexander, and Epiphanius give us a contrary view of him,
still differing one from the other. Constantine, indeed, is not consistent
with himself ; first he cries out to him (as if with Athanasius), 4 Arius,
Arius, at least let the society of Venus keep you back,’ then ‘ Look, look
all men . . how his veins and flesh are possessed with poison, and are in
a ferment of severe pain ; how his whole body is wasted, and is all
withered and sad and pale and shaking, and all that is miserable and
fearfully emaciated. How hateful to see, and how filthy is his mass of
hair, how he is half dead all over, with failing eyes and bloodless counte-
nance, and woe-begone ; so that, all these things combining in him at
once, frenzy, madness, and folly, from the continuance of the complaint,
have made thee wild and savage. But, not having any sense of the bad
plight he is in, he cries out, “ I am transported with delight, and I leap
and skip for joy, and I fly ; ” and again, with boyish impetuosity, “Be it
so,” he says, “we are lost.” Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 457. St. Alexan-
252 History of the Nicene Council, [chap. iii.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris, and Theognis. The
unfortunate Marcellus also distinguished himself in
the defence of the Catholic doctrine.
Reference has been already made to Gibbon’s
representation 3 , that the Fathers of the Council were
in doubt for a time, how to discriminate between
their own doctrine and the heresy ; but the discus-
sions of the foregoing Chapter contain sufficient
evidence, that they had rather to reconcile themselves
to the adoption of a formula which expedience sug-
gested, and to the use of it as a test, than to discover
a means of ejecting or subduing their opponents. In
the very beginning of the controversy, Eusebius of
Nicomedia had declared, that he would not admit the
“ from the substance ” as an attribute of our Lord 4
A letter containing a similar avowal was read in the
Council, and made clear to its members the objects
for which they had met ; viz. to ascertain the char-
acter and tendency of the heresy ; to raise a protest
and defence against it ; lastly, for that purpose, to
der speaks of Arius’s melancholy temperament. Epiphanius’s account
of him is as follows: “ From elation of mind this old man swerved from
the truth. He was in stature very tall, downcast in visage, with man-
ners like a wily serpent, captivating to every guileless heart by that same
crafty bearing. For, ever habited in cloke and vest, he was pleasant of
address, ever persuading souls and flattering,” &c. Haer. 69, 3. Arius is
here said to be tall ; Athanasius, unless Julian’s description of him is but
declamation, was short, prjSe av 7 ]p, a\\’ avQ pour tar kos evreXrjs (“ not
even a man, but a common little fellow’’). Ep. 51. However, Gregory
Nazianzen, who had never seen him, speaks of him, as “high in prowess,
and humble in spirit, mild, meek, full of sympathy, pleasant in speech,
more pleasant in manners, angelical in person , more angelical in mind,
serene in his rebukes, instructive in his praises,” &c. Orat. 21. 8.]
3 [Supr. p. 234.]
4 Theod. Hist. i. 6. [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 438.]
sect, i.] History of the Nicene Council . 253
overcome their own reluctance to the formal and
unauthoritative adoption of a word, in explanation
of the true doctrine, which was not found in Scripture,
had actually been perverted in the previous century
to an heretical meaning, and was in consequence
forbidden by the Antiochene Council which con-
demned Paulus.
The Arian party, on the other hand, anxious to
avoid a test, which they themselves had suggested,
presented a Creed of their own, drawn up by Eusebius
of Caesarea. In it, though the expression “ of the
substance ” or “ consubstantial ” was omitted, every
term of honour and dignity, short of this, was be-
stowed therein upon the Son of God ; who was des-
ignated as the Logos of God, God of God, Light of
Light, Life of Life, the Only-begotten Son, the First-
born of the whole creation, of the Lather before all
worlds, and the Instrument of creating them. The
Three Persons were confessed to be in real hypostasis
or subsistence (in opposition to Sabellianism), and to
be truly Lather, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Catho-
lics saw very clearly, that concessions of this kind on
the part of the Arians did not conceal the real question
in dispute. Orthodox as were the terms employed
by them, naturally and satisfactorily as they would
have answered the purposes of a test, had the existing
questions never been agitated, and consistent as they
were with certain producible statements of the Ante-
Nicene writers, they were irrelevant at a time when
evasions had been found for them all, and triumph-
antly proclaimed. The plain question was, whether
our Lord was God in as full a sense as the Father,
though not to be viewed as separable from Him ; or
254 History of the Nicene Council . [chap. iii.
whether, as the sole alternative, He was a creature ;
that is, whether He was literally of, and in, the one
Indivisible Essence which we adore as God, “ consub-
stantial with God,” or of a substance which had a
beginning. The Arians said that He was a "creature,
the Catholics that He was very God ; and all the
subtleties of the most fertile ingenuity could not alter,
and could but hide, this fundamental difference. A
specimen of the Arian argumentation at the Council
has already been given on the testimony of Athana-
sius ; happily it was not successful. A form of creed
was drawn up by Hosius, containing the discrimina-
ting terms of orthodoxy 5 ; and anathemas were added
against all who maintained the heretical formulae,
Arius and his immediate followers being mentioned
by name. In order to prevent misapprehension of
the sense in which the test was used, explanations
accompanied it. Thus carefully defined, it was offered
for subscription to the members of the Council ; who
in consequence bound themselves to excommunicate
from their respective bodies all who actually obtruded
upon the Church the unscriptural and novel positions
of Arius. As to the laity, they were not required to
subscribe any test as the condition of communion ;
though they were of course exposed to the operation
of the anathema, in case they ventured on positive
innovations on the rule of faith.
While the Council took this clear and temperate
5 [Justice has not been done here to the ground of tradition, on which
the Fathers specially took their stand. For example, “ Whoever heard
such doctrine ? ” says Athanasius ; “ whence, from whom did they gain it?
Who thus expounded to them when they were at school ? ” Orat. i. § 8.
<c Is it not enough to distract a man, and to make him stop his ears?”
\ 35. Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. pp. 247—253, 31 1.]
2 55
sect. i.J History of the Nicene Council .
view of its duties, Constantine acted a part altogether
consistent with his own previous sentiments, and
praiseworthy under the circumstances of his defective
knowledge. He had followed the proceedings of the
assembled prelates with interest, and had neglected
no opportunity of impressing upon them the supreme
importance of securing the peace of the Church. On
the opening of the Council, he had set the example
of conciliation, by burning publicly, without reading,
certain charges which had been presented to him
against some of its members ; a noble act, as conveying
a lesson to all present to repress every private feeling,
and to deliberate for the well-being of the Church
Catholic to the end of time. Such was his behaviour,
while the question in controversy was still pending ;
but when the decision was once announced, his tone
altered, and what had been a recommendation of
caution, at once became an injunction to conform.
Opposition to the sentence of the Church was con-
sidered as disobedience to the civil authority ; the
prospect of banishment was proposed as the alterna-
tive of subscription ; and it was not long before seven
of the thirteen dissentient Bishops submitted to the
pressure of the occasion, and accepted the creed with
its anathemas as articles of peace.
Indeed the position in which Eusebius of Nico-
media had placed their cause, rendered it difficult for
them consistently to refuse subscription. The violence,
with which Arius originally assailed the Catholics,
had been succeeded by an affected earnestness for
unity and concord, so soon as his favour at Court
allowed him to dispense with the low popularity by
which he first rose into notice. The insignificancy of
256 History of the Nicene Council . [chap. iii.
the points in dispute which had lately been the very
ground of complaint with him and his party against
the particular Church which condemned him, became
an argument for their yielding, when the other
Churches of Christendom confirmed the sentence of
the Alexandrian. It is said, that some of them sub-
stituted the “homxiision ” (“like in substance” ), for the
“ homousion ” (“one in substance ”) in the confessions
which they presented to the Council ; but it is unsafe
to trust the Anomoean Philostorgius, on whose autho-
rity the report rests 6 , in a charge against the Eusebian
party, and perhaps after all he merely means, that
they explained the latter by the former as an excuse
for their own recantation. The six, who remained
unpersuaded, had founded an objection, which the
explanations set forth by the Council had gone to
obviate, on the alleged materialism of the word which
had been selected as the test. At length four of them
gave way ; and the other two, Eusebius of Nicomedia
and another, withdrawing their opposition to the
“homousion” only refused to sign the condemnation
of Arius. These, however, were at length released
from their difficulty, by the submission of the here-
siarch himself ; who was pardoned on the understand-
ing, that he never returned to the Church, which had
suffered so much from his intrigues. There is, how-
ever, some difficulty in this part of the history.
Eusebius shortly afterwards suffered a temporary
exile, on a detection of his former practices with
Licinius to the injury of Constantine ; and Arius,
apparently involved in his ruin, was banished with
his followers into Illyria.
Philost. i. 9.
257
SECTION II.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE NICENE COUNCIL,
FROM the time that the Eusebians consented to sub-
scribe the Homoiision in accordance with the wishes
of a heathen prince, they became nothing better than
a political party. They soon learned, indeed, to call
themselves Homceiisians, or believers in the “ like”
substance (homoeiision,) as if they still held the peculi-
arities of a religious creed ; but in truth it is an abuse
of language to say that they had any definite belief at
all. For this reason, the account of the Homceusian
or Semi-Arian doctrine shall be postponed, till such
time as we fall in with individuals whom we may
believe to be serious in their professions, and to act
under the influence of religious convictions however
erroneous. Here the Eusebians must be described as
a secular faction, which is the true character of them
in the history in which they bear a part.
Strictly speaking, the Christian Church, as being a
visible society, is necessarily a political power or
party. It may be a party triumphant, or a party
under persecution ; but a party it always must be,
prior in existence to the civil institutions with which
it is surrounded, and from its latent divinity formi-
S
258 Consequences of the Nicene Council, [chap.iii.
dable and influential, even to the end of time. The
grant of permanency was made in the beginning, not
to the mere doctrine of the Gospel, but to the Associ-
ation itself built upon the doctrine 1 ; in prediction,
not only of the indestructibility of Christianity, but of
the medium also through which it was to be mani-
fested to the world. Thus the Ecclesiastical Body is
a divinely-appointed means, towards realizing the
great evangelical blessings. Christians depart from
their duty, or become in an offensive sense political,
not when they act as members of one community, but
when they do so for temporal ends or in an illegal
manner ; not when they assume the attitude of a
party, but when they split into many. If the primitive
believers did not interfere with the acts of the civil
government, it was merely because they had no civil
rights enabling them legally to do so. But where
they have rights, the case is different 2 ; and the
existence of a secular spirit is to be ascertained, not
by their using these, but their using them for ends
short of the ends for which they were given. Doubt-
less in criticizing the mode of their exercising them in
a particular case, differences of opinion may fairly
exist ; but the principle itself, the duty of using their
civil rights in the service of religion, is clear ; and
since there is a popular misconception, that Christians,
and especially the Clergy, as such, have no concern in
temporal affairs, it is expedient to take every oppor-
tunity of formally denying the position, and demanding
proof of it. In truth, the Church was framed for the
express purpose of interfering, or (as irreligious men
will say) meddling with the world. It is the plain
2 Acts xvi. 37 — 39.
1 Matt. xvi. 18.
sect, ii.] Consequences of the Nicene Council. 259
duty of its members, not only to associate internally,
but also to develope that internal union in an external
warfare with the spirit of evil, whether in Kings’
courts or among the mixed multitude ; and, if they
can do nothing else, at least they can suffer for the
truth, and remind men of it, by inflicting on them the
task of persecution,
1.
These principles being assumed, it is easy to enter
into the relative positions of the Catholics and Arians
at the era under consideration. As to the Arians, it
is a matter of fact, that Arius and his friends com-
menced their career with the deliberate commission of
disorderly and schismatical acts ; and it is a clear
inference from their subsequent proceedings, that they
did. so for private ends. For both reasons, then, they
were a mere political faction, usurping the name of
religion ; and, as such, essentially anti-christian. The
question here is not whether their doctrine was right
or wrong ; but, whether they did not make it a
secondary object of their exertions, an instrument
towards attaining ends which they valued above it.
Now it will be found, that the party was prior to the
creed. They grafted their heresy on the schism of
the Meletians, who continued to support them after
they had published it ; and they readily abandoned it,
when their secular interests required the sacrifice. At
the Council of Nicaea, they began by maintaining an
erroneous doctrine ; they ended by concessions which
implied the further heresy that points of faith are of
no importance ; and, if they were odious when they
blasphemed the truth, they were still more odious
260 Consequences of the Nicene Council . [chap.iii.
when they confessed it. It was the very principle of
Eclecticism to make light of differences in belief ;
while it was involved in the primary notion of a
Revelation that these differences were of importance,
and it was taught with plainness in the Gospel, that
to join with those who denied the right faith was a
sin.
This adoption, however, on the part of the Euse-
bians, of the dreams of Pagan philosophy, served in
some sort as a recommendation of them to a prince
who, both from education and from knowledge of the
world, was especially tempted to consider all truth as
a theory which was not realized in a present tangible
form. Accordingly, when once they had rid them-
selves of the mortification caused by their forced
subscription, they had the satisfaction of finding
themselves the most powerful party in the Church,
as being the representative and organ of the Em-
peror’s sentiments. They then at once changed places
with the Catholics ; who sustained a double defeat,
both in the continued power of those whom they had
hoped to exclude from the Church, and again, in the
invidiousness of their own unrelenting suspicion and
dislike of men, who had seemed by subscription to
satisfy all reasonable doubt respecting their ortho-
doxy.
The Arian party was fortunate, moreover, in its
leaders ; one the most dexterous politician, the other
the most accomplished theologian of the age. Euse-
bius of Nicomedia was a Lucianist, the fellow-disciple
of Arius. He was originally Bishop of Berytus, in
Phoenicia ; but, having gained the confidence of Con-
stants, sister to Constantine, and wife to Licinius, he
sect, ii.] Consequences of the Nicene Council ’ 261
was by her influence translated to Nicomedia, where
the Eastern Court then resided. Here he secretly
engaged in the cause of Licinius against his rival,
and is even reported to have been indifferent to the
security of the Christians during the persecution which
followed ; a charge which certainly derives some con-
firmation from Alexander’s circular epistle, in which
the Arians are accused of directing the violence of the
civil power against the orthodox of Alexandria. On
the ruin of Licinius, he was screened by Constantia
from the resentment of the conqueror ; and, being
recommended by his polished manners and shrewd
and persuasive talent, he soon contrived to gain an
influence over the mind of Constantine himself. From
the time that Arius had recourse to him on his flight
from Palestine, he is to be accounted the real head of
the heretical party ; and his influence is quickly
discernible in the change which ensued in its language
and conduct. While a courteous tone was assumed
towards the defenders of the orthodox doctrine, the
subtleties of dialectics, in which the sect excelled,
were used, not in attacking, but in deceiving its oppo-
nents, in making unbelief plausible, and obliterating
the distinctive marks of the true creed. It must not
be forgotten that it was from Nicomedia, the see of
Eusebius, that Constantine wrote his epistle to Alex-
ander and Arius.
In supporting Arianism in its new direction, the
other Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was of singular
service. This distinguished writer, to whom the Chris-
tian world has so great a debt at the present day,
though not characterized by the unprincipled ambition
of his namesake, is unhappily connected in history
262 Consequences of the Nicene Council, [chap. iit.
with the Arian party. He seems to have had the
faults and the virtues of the mere man of letters :
strongly excited neither to good nor to evil, and
careless at once of the cause of truth and the prizes of
secular greatness, in comparison of the comforts and
decencies of literary ease. His first master was
Dorotheus of Antioch 3 ; afterwards he became a
pupil of the School of Caesarea, which seems to have
been his birth-place, and where Origen had taught.
Here he studied the works of that great master, and
the other writers of the Alexandrian school. It does
not appear when he first began to arianize. At
Caesarea he is celebrated as the friend of the Orthodox
Pamphilus, afterwards martyred, whom he assisted in
his defence of Origen, in answer to the charges of
heterodoxy then in circulation against him. The first
book of this work is still extant in the Latin trans-
lation of Ruffinus, and its statements of the Catholic
doctrines are altogether explicit and accurate. In
his own writings, numerous as they are, there is very
little which fixes on Eusebius any charge, beyond that
of an attachment to the Platonic phraseology. Had
he not connected himself with the Arian party, it
would have been unjust to have suspected him of
heresy. But his acts are his confession. He openly
sided with those whose blasphemies a true Christian
would have abhorred ; and he sanctioned and shared
their deeds of violence and injustice perpetrated on the
Catholics.
But it is a different reason which has led to the
mention of Eusebius in this connection. The grave
accusation under which he lies, is not that of arian-
3 Danz. de Eus. Caesar. 22.
sect. ii. J Consequences of the Nicene Council . 263
izing, but of corrupting the simplicity of the Gospel
with an Eclectic spirit. While he held out the
ambiguous language of the schools as a refuge, and
the Alexandrian imitation of it as an argument,
against the pursuit of the orthodox, his conduct gave
countenance to the secular maxim, that difference in
creeds is a matter of inferior moment, and that, pro-
vided we confess as far as the very terms of Scripture,
we may speculate as philosophers, and live as the
world 4 . A more dangerous adviser Constantine could
hardly have selected, than a man thus variously gifted,
thus exalted in the Church, thus disposed towards the
very errors against which he required especially to be
guarded. The remark has been made that, through-
out his Ecclesiastical History no instance occurs of
his expressing abhorrence of the superstitions of
paganism, and that his custom is either to praise, or
not to blame, such heretical writers as fall under his
notice 5.
Nor must the influence of the Court pass unnoticed,
in recounting the means by which Arianism secured a
hold over the mind of the Emperor. Constantia, his
favourite sister, was the original patroness of Eusebius
of Nicomedia ; and thus a princess, whose name
would otherwise be dignified by her misfortunes, is
4 In this association of the Eusebian with the Eclectic temper, it must
not be forgotten, that Julian the Apostate was the pupil of Eusebius of
Nicomedia, his kinsman; that he took part with the Arians against the
Catholics ; and that, in one of his extant epistles, he speaks in praise of
the writings of an Arian Bishop, George of Laodicea. Vide Weisman,
sec. iv. 35. § 12.
° Kestner de Euseb. Auctor. prolegom. § 17. Yet it must be confessed,
he is strongly opposed to yorjT€La in all its forms ; i. e. as being un-
worthy a philosopher.
264 Consequences of the Nicene Council ’ [chap. hi.
known to Christians of later times only as a principal
instrument of the success of heresy. Wrought upon
by a presbyter, a creature of the bishop’s, who was in
her confidence, she summoned Constantine to her
bed-side in her last illness, begged him, as her parting
request, to extend his favour to the Arians, and
especially commended to his regard the presbyter
himself, who had stimulated her to this experiment on
the feelings of a brother. The hangers-on of the
Imperial Court imitated her in her preference for the
polite and smooth demeanour of the Eusebian pre-
lates, which was advantageously contrasted to the
stern simplicity of the Catholics. The eunuchs and
slaves of the palace (strange to say) embraced the
tenets of Arianism ; and all the most light-minded
and frivolous of mankind allowed themselves to
pervert the solemn subject in controversy into matter
for fashionable conversation or literary amusement.
The arts of flattery completed the triumph of the
heretical party. So many are the temptations to
which monarchs are exposed of forgetting that they
are men, that it is obviously the duty of the Episcopal
Order to remind them that there is a visible Power in
the world, divinely founded and protected, superior to
their own. But Eusebius places himself at the feet
of a heathen ; and forgetful of his own ordination-
grace, allows the Emperor to style himself “ the bishop
of Paganism,” and “ the predestined Apostle of virtue
to all men 6 .” The shrine of the Church was thrown
open to his inspection ; and, contrary to the spirit of
Christianity, its mysteries were officiously explained
to one who was not yet even a candidate for baptism.
Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 58. iv. 24. Vide also, i. 4. 24.
sect, ii.] Consequences of the Nicene Council. 265
The restoration and erection of Churches, which is the
honourable distinction of his reign, assimilated him,
in the minds of his courtiers, to the Divine Founder
and Priest of the invisible temple ; and the magni-
ficence, which soothed the vanity of a monarch, seemed
in its charitable uses almost a substitute for personal
religion
2 .
While events thus gradually worked for the secular
advancement of the heretical party, the Catholics
were allotted gratifications and anxieties of a higher
character. The proceedings of the Council had de-
tected the paucity of the Arians among the Rulers of
the Church ; which had been the more clearly ascer-
tained, inasmuch as no temporal interests had operated
to gain for the orthodox cause that vast preponderance
of advocates which it had actually obtained. More-
over, it had confirmed by the combined evidence of
the universal Church, the argument from Scripture
and local tradition, which each separate Christian
community already possessed. And there was a
satisfaction in having found a formula adequate to the
preservation of the all-important article in controversy
in all its purity. On the other hand, in spite of these
immediate causes of congratulation, the fortunes of
the Church were clouded in prospect, by the Em-
peror’s adoption of its Creed as a formula of peace,
not of belief, and by the ready subscription of the
unprincipled faction, which had previously objected to
it. This immediate failure, which not unfrequently
attends beneficial measures in their commencement,
7 Ibid. iv. 22, and alibi. Vide Gibbon, ch. xx.
266 Consequences of the Nicene Council ’ [chap. hi.
issued, as has been said, in the temporary triumph of
the Arians. The disease, which had called for the
Council, instead of being expelled from the system,
was thrown back upon the Church, and for a time
afflicted it 8 ; nor was it cast out, except by the
persevering fasting and prayer, the labours and suf-
ferings, of the oppressed believers. Meanwhile, the
Catholic prelates could but retire from the Court
party, and carefully watch its movements ; and, in
consequence, incurred the reproach and the penalty
of being “ troublers of Israel.” This may be illustrated
from the subsequent history of Arius himself, with
which this Chapter shall close.
It is doubtful, whether or not Arius was persuaded
to sign the symbol at the Nicene Council ; but at
least he professed to receive it about five years after-
wards. At this time Eusebius of Nicomedia had
been restored to the favour of Constantine ; who, on
the other hand, influenced by his sister, had become
less zealous in his adherence to the orthodox side of
the controversy. An attempt was made by the
friends of Arius to effect his re-admission into the
Church at Alexandria. The great Athanasius was at
this time Primate of Egypt ; and in his instance the
question was tried, whether or not the Church would
adopt the secular principles, to which the Arians were
willing to subject it, and would abandon its faith, as
the condition of present peace and prosperity. He
was already known as the counsellor of Alexander in
the previous controversy ; yet, Eusebius did not at
once give up the hope of gaining him over, a hope
which was strengthened by his recent triumph over
8 Theod. Hist. i. 6. fin.
sect, ii.] Consequences of the Nicene Council . 267
the orthodox prelates of Antioch, Gaza, and Hadrian-
ople, whom he had found means to deprive of their
sees to make way for Arians. Failing in his attempt
at conciliation, he pursued the policy which might
have been anticipated, and accused the Bishop of
Alexandria of a youthful rashness, and an obstinate
contentious spirit, incompatible with the good under-
standing which ought to subsist among Christians.
Arius was summoned to Court, presented an ambig-
uous confession, and was favourably received by
Constantine. Thence he was despatched to Alex-
andria, and was quickly followed by an imperial
injunction addressed to Athanasius, in order to secure
the restoration of the heresiarch to the Church to
which he had belonged. “ On being informed of my
pleasure,” says Constantine, in the fragment of the
Epistle preserved by Athanasius, “give free admission
to all, who are desirous of entering into communion
with the Church. For if I learn of your standing in
the way of any who were seeking it, or interdicting
them, I will send at once those who shall depose you
instead, by my authority, and banish you from your
see 9 .” It was not to be supposed, that Athanasius
would yield to an order, though from his sovereign,
which was conceived in such ignorance of the principles
of Church communion, and of the powers of its
Rulers ; and, on his explanation, the Emperor pro-
fessed himself well satisfied, that he should use his
own discretion in the matter. The intrigues of the
Eusebians, which followed, shall elsewhere be related ;
they ended in effecting the banishment of Athanasius
into Gaul, the restoration of Arius at a Council held
9 Athan. Apol. contr. Arian 59.
268 Consequences of the Nicene Council ’ [chap. iii.
at Jerusalem, his return to Alexandria, and, when the
anger of the intractable populace against him broke
out into a tumult, his recall to Constantinople to give
further explanations respecting his real opinions.
There the last and memorable scene of his history
took place, and furnishes a fresh illustration of the
clearness and integrity, with which the Catholics
maintained the true principles of Church union,
against those who would have sacrificed truth to
peace. The aged Alexander, bishop of the see,
underwent a persecution of entreaties and threats,
such as had already been employed against Athana-
sius. The Eusebians urged upon him, by way of
warning, their fresh successes over the Bishops of
Ancyra and Alexandria ; and appointed a day, by
which he was to admit Arius to communion, or to be
ejected from his see. Constantine confirmed this
alternative. At first, indeed, he had been struck with
doubts respecting the sincerity of Arius ; but, on the
latter professing with an oath that his tenets were
orthodox, and presenting a confession, in which the
terms of Scripture were made the vehicle of his char-
acteristic impieties, the Emperor dismissed his scruples,
observing with an anxiety and seriousness which rise
above his ordinary character, that Arius had well
sworn if his words had no double meaning ; otherwise,
God would avenge. The miserable man did not
hesitate to swear, that he professed the Creed of the
Catholic Church without reservation, and that he had
never said nor thought otherwise, than according to the
statements which he now made.
For seven days previous to that appointed for his
re-admission, the Church of Constantinople, Bishop
sect, ii.] Consequences of the Nicene Council. 269
and people, were given up to fasting and prayer.
Alexander, after a vain endeavour to move the
Emperor, had recourse to the most solemn and
extraordinary form of anathema allowed in the
Church 1 ; and with tears besought its Divine Guardian,
either to take himself out of the world, or to remove
thence the instrument of those extended and increasing
spiritual evils, with which Christendom was darken-
ing. On the evening before the day of his proposed
triumph, Arius passed through the streets of the city
with his party, in an ostentatious manner ; when the
stroke of death suddenly overtook him, and he expired
before his danger was discovered.
Under the circumstances, a thoughtful mind cannot
but account this as one of those remarkable interpo-
sitions of power, by which Divine Providence urges on
the consciences of men in the natural course of things,
what their reason from the first acknowledges, that He
is not indifferent to human conduct. To say that
these do not fall within the ordinary course of His
governance, is merely to say that they are judgments;
which, in the common meaning of the word, stand for
events extraordinary and unexpected. That such do
take place under the Christian Dispensation, is suffi-
ciently proved by the history of Ananias and Sapphira.
It is remarkable too, that the similar occurrences,
which happen at the present day, are generally con-
nected with some unusual perjury or extreme blas-
phemy ; and, though we may not infer the sin
from the circumstance of the temporal infliction,
yet, the commission of the sin being ascertained,
we may well account, that its guilt is providentially
1 Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 2. § 17.
2 70 Consequences of the Nicene Council ’ [chap. iii.
impressed on the minds and enlarged in the esti-
mation of the multitude, by the visible penalty by
which it is followed. Nor do we in such cases neces-
sarily pass any absolute sentence upon the person,
who appears to be the object of Divine Visita-
tion ; but merely upon the particular act which
provoked it, and which has its fearful character of evil
stamped upon it, independent of the punishment which
draws our attention to it. The man of God, who
prophesied against the altar in Bethel, is not to be
regarded by the light of his last act, though a judg-
ment followed it, but according to the general tenor
of his life. Arius also must thus be viewed ; though,
unhappily, his closing deed is but the seal of a pre-
varicating and presumptuous career.
Athanasius, who is one of the authorities from
whom the foregoing account is taken, received it from
Macarius, a presbyter of the Church of Constanti-
nople, who was in that city at the time. He adds,
“ while the Church was rejoicing at the deliverance,
Alexander administered the communion in pious and
orthodox form, praying with all the brethren and
glorifying God greatly ; not as if rejoicing over his
death, (God forbid ! for to all men it is appointed
once to die,) but because in this event there was
displayed somewhat more than a human judgment.
For the Lord Himself, judging between the threats of
the Eusebians and the prayer of Alexander, has in
this event given sentence against the heresy of the
Arians ; showing it to be unworthy of ecclesiastical
fellowship, and manifesting to all, that though it have
the patronage of Emperor and of all men, yet that by
the Church itself it is condemned 2
3 Epist. ad Scrap. 4
CHAPTER IV . 1
COUNCILS IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS. 2
SECTION I.
THE EUSEBIANS.
The death of Arius was productive of no important
consequences in the history of his party. They had
never deferred to him as their leader, and since the
Nicene Council had even abandoned his creed. The
theology of the Eclectics had opened to Eusebius of
Caesarea a language less obnoxious to the Catholics
and to Constantine, than that into which he had been
betrayed in Palestine ; while his namesake, possessing
the confidence of the Emperor, was enabled to wield
weapons more decisive in the controversy than those
which Arius had used. From that time Semi-Arianism
was their profession, and calumny their weapon,
for the deposition, by legal process, of their Catholic
opponents. This is the character of their proceedings
from A.D. 328 to A.D. 350 ; when circumstances led
them to adopt a third creed, and enabled them to
support it by open force.
1 [In this Chapter a change in the structure of the sentences has been
made here and there, with the view of relie\ing the intricacies of the
narrative.]
2 [Vid. Appendix, No. 6.]
272
The Eusebians .
[chap. iv.
1.
It may at first sight excite our surprise, that men
who were so little careful to be consistent in their
professions of faith, should be at the pains to find
evasions for a test, which they might have subscribed as
a matter of course, and then dismissed from their
thoughts. But, not to mention the natural desire of
continuing an opposition to which they had once com-
mitted themselves, and especially after a defeat,
there is, moreover, that in religious mysteries which is
ever distasteful to secular minds. The marvellous,
which is sure to excite the impatience and resentment
of the baffled reason, becomes insupportable when
found in those solemn topics, which it would fain
look upon, as necessary indeed for the uneducated, but
irrelevant when addressed to those who are already
skilled in the knowledge and the superficial decencies
of virtue. The difficulties of science may be dis-
missed from the mind, and virtually forgotten ; the
precepts of morality, imperative as they are, may be
received with the condescension, and applied with the
modifications, of a self-applauding refinement. But
what at once demands attention, yet refuses to satisfy
curiosity, places itself above the human mind, imprints
on it the thought of Him who is eternal, and enforces
the necessity of obedience for its own sake. And
thus it becomes to the proud and irreverent, what the
consciousness of guilt is to the sinner ; a spectre
haunting the field, and disturbing the complacency,
of their intellectual investigations. In this at least,
throughout their changes, the Eusebians are consis-
tent, — in their hatred of the Sacred Mystery.
sect. i.J The Eusebictns. 273
It has sometimes been scornfully said, on the other
hand, that the zeal of Christians, in the discussion of
theological subjects, has increased with the mysterious-
ness of the doctrine in dispute. There is no reason
why we should shrink from the avowal. Doubtless,
a subject that is dear to us, does become more deeply
fixed in our affections by its very peculiarities and
incidental obscurities. We desire to revere what we
already love; and we seek for the materials of reve-
rence in such parts of it, as exceed our intelligence
or imagination. It should therefore excite our devout
gratitude, to reflect how the truth has been revealed to
us in Scripture in the most practical manner ; so as
both to humble and to win over, while it consoles, those
who really love it. Moreover, with reference to the
particular mystery under consideration, since a belief
in our Lord’s Divinity is closely connected (how, it
matters not) with deep religious feeling generally, —
involving a sense both of our need and of the value
of the blessings which He has procured for us, and
an emancipation from the tyranny of the visible
world, — it is not wonderful, that those, who would
confine our knowledge of God to things seen, should
dislike to hear of His true and only Image. If the
unbeliever has attempted to account for the rise of the
doctrine, by the alleged natural growth of a veneration
for the Person and acts of the Redeemer, let it at least
be allowed to Christians to reverse the process of
argument, and to maintain rather, that a low estima-
tion of the evangelical blessings leads to unworthy
conceptions of the Author of them. In the case of
laymen it will show itself in a sceptical neglect of the
subject of religion altogether; while ecclesiastics, on
T
The Eusebians .
274
[chap. IV.
whose minds religion is forced, are tempted either to
an undue exaltation of their order, or to a creed dis-
honourable to their Lord. The Eusebians adopted
the latter alternative, and so merged the supremacy of
Divine Truth amid the multifarious religions and
philosophies of the world.
Their skilfulness in reasoning and love of disputa-
tion afford us an additional explanation of their per-
tinacious opposition to the Nicene Creed. Though, in
possessing the favour of the Imperial Court, they had
already the substantial advantages of victory, they
disdained success without a battle. They loved the
excitement of suspense, and the triumph of victory.
And this sophistical turn of mind accounts, not only
for their incessant wranglings, but for their frequent
changes of view, as regards the doctrine in dispute.
It may be doubted whether men, so practised in the
gymnastics of the Aristotelic school, could carefully
develope and consistently maintain a definite view of
doctrine ; especially in a case, where the difficulties of
an unsound cause combined with their own habitual
restlessness and levity to defeat the attempt. Ac-
cordingly, in their conduct of the argument, they
seem to be aiming at nothing beyond “living from
hand to mouth,” as the saying is ; availing themselves
of some or other expedient, which would suffice to
carry them through existing difficulties ; admissions,
whether to satisfy the timid conscience of Constantius,
or to deceive the Western Church ; or statements so
faintly precise and so decently ambiguous, as to
embrace the greatest number of opinions possible, and
to deprive religion, in consequence, of its austere and
commanding aspect.
The Eusebians . ,
275
SECT. I.]
That I may not seem to be indulging in vague
accusation, I here present the reader with a sketch of
the lives of the chief of them ; from which he will be
able to decide, whether the above explanation of their
conduct is unnecessary or gratuitous.
The most distinguished of the party, after Euse-
bius himself, for ability, learning, and unscrupulousness,
was Acacius, the successor of the other Eusebius in the
see of Caesarea. He had been his pupil, and on his
death inherited his library. Jerome ranks him among
the most learned commentators on Scripture. The
Arian historian, Philostorgius, praises his boldness,
penetration, and perspicuity in unfolding his views :
and Sozomen speaks of his talents and influence as
equal to the execution of the most difficult designs 3 .
He began at first with professing himself a Semi-Arian
after the example of Eusebius, his master ; next, he
became the founder of the party, which will presently
be described as the Homoecin or Scriptural ; thirdly, he
joined himself to the Anomoeans or pure Arians, so
as even to be the intimate associate of the wretched
Aetius ; fourthly, at the command of Constantius, he
deserted and excommunicated him ; fifthly, in the
reign of the Catholic Jovian, he signed the Homoiision
or symbol of Nicaea.
George, of Laodicaea, another of the leading mem-
bers of the Eusebian party, was originally a presbyter
of the Alexandrian Church, and deposed by Alexan-
der for the assistance afforded by him to Arius at
Nicomedia. At the end of the reign of Constantius,
he professed for a while the sentiments of the Semi-
Arians ; whether seriously or not, we have not the
3 Tillemont, Mem. des Aliens, vol. vi. c. 28.
276
The Eusebians .
[chap. iv.
means of deciding, although the character given of him
by Athanasius, who is generally candid in his judg-
ments, is unfavourable to his sincerity. Certainly he
deserted the Semi-Arians in no long time, and died
an Anomcean. He is also accused of open and
habitual irregularities of life.
Leontius, the most crafty of his party, was pro-
moted by the Arians to the see of Antioch 4 ; and
though a pupil of the school of Lucian, and consis-
tently attached to the opinions of Arius throughout
his life, he seems to have conducted himself in his
high position with moderation and good temper. The
Catholic party was at that time still strong in the
city, particularly among the laity; the crimes of
Stephen and Placillus, his immediate Arian predeces-
sors, had brought discredit on the heretical cause ;
and the theological opinions of Constantius, who was
attached to the Semi-Arian doctrine, rendered it
dangerous to avow the plain blasphemies of the first
founder of their creed. Accordingly, with the view of
seducing the Catholics to his own communion, he was
anxious to profess an agreement with the Church,
even where he held an opposite opinion ; and we are
told that in the public doxology, which was practically
the test of faith, not even the nearest to him in the
congregation could hear from him more than the
words “ for ever and ever,” with which it concludes.
It was apparently with the same design, that he con-
verted the almshouses of the city, destined for the
reception of strangers, into seminaries for propagating
the Christian faith ; and published a panegyrical
4 A strange and scandalous transaction in early life, gave him the
appellation of 6 airoKOTros. Athan. ad Monach. 4.
The Eusebians.
2 77
SECT. I.]
account of St. Babylas, when his body was to be
removed to Daphne, by way of consecrating a place
which had been before devoted to sensual excesses.
In the meanwhile, he gradually weakened the Church,
by a systematic promotion of heretical, and a dis-
countenance of the orthodox Clergy ; one of his most
scandalous acts being his ordination of Aetius, the
founder of the Anomoeans, who was afterwards pro-
moted to the episcopacy in the reign of Julian.
Eudoxius, the successor of Leontius, in the see of
Antioch, was his fellow-pupil in the school of Lucian.
He is said to have been converted to Semi-Arianism
by the writings of the Sophist Asterius ; but he
afterwards joined the Anomoeans, and got possession
of the patriarchate of Constantinople. It was there,
at the dedication of the cathedral of St. Sophia, that he
uttered the wanton impiety, which has characterized
him with a distinctness, which supersedes all historical
notice of his conduct, or discussion of his religious
opinions. “ When Eudoxius,” says Socrates, “had
taken his seat on the episcopal throne, his first words
were these celebrated ones, ‘ the Lather is acre/3^9,
irreligious ; the Son eiW/3?)?, religious.’ When a
noise and confusion ensued, he added, ‘ Be not dis-
tressed at what I say; for the Father is irreligious, as
worshipping none; but the Son is religious towards the
Father.’ On this the tumult ceased, and in its place
an intemperate laughter seized the congregation ; and
it remains as a good saying even to this time 5.”
5 Socr. Hist. ii. 43. [EtW^ca, ao-efie ta, Svcrcre/Jcia, and their
derivatives, in the language of Athanasius or his age, means orthodoxy,
heterodoxy, orthodox, &c. This circumstance gives its point to the jest.
This sense is traceable to St. Paul’s words, “ Great is the mystery of
278
The Eusebians .
[chap. iv.
Valens, Bishop of Mursa, in Pannonia, shall close
this list of Eusebian Prelates. He was one of the im-
mediate disciples of Arius; and, from an early age, the
champion of his heresy in the Latin Church. In the
conduct of the controversy, he inherited more of the
plain dealing as well as of the principles of his master,
than his associates ; he was an open advocate of the
Anomcean doctrine, and by his personal influence
with Constantius balanced the power of the Semi-
Arian party, derived from the Emperor’s private
attachment to their doctrine. The favour of Con-
stantius was gained by a fortunate artifice, at the time
the latter was directing his arms against the tyrant
Magnentius. “ While the two armies were engaged
in the plains of Mursa,” says Gibbon, “and the fate of
the two rivals depended on the chance of war, the son
of Constantine passed the anxious moments in a
church of the martyrs, under the walls of the city.
His spiritual comforter Valens, the Arian Bishop of
the diocese, employed the most artful precautions to
obtain such early intelligence, as might secure either
his favour or his escape. A secret chain of swift and
trusty messengers informed him of the vicissitudes of
the battle; and while the courtiers stood trembling
around their affrighted master, Valens assured him that
godliness (tvcrepe. tots),” orthodoxy. Vide Athan. Opp. passim. Thus
Arius also ends his letter to Eusebius with “ a\r) 6 £)S evcrefiLe” And St.
Basil, defending his own freedom from Arian error, says that St. Macrina,
his grandmother, “ moulded him from his infancy in the dogmas of
religion (cvcre/^ctas),” and that, when he grew up, and travelled, he
ever chose those for his fathers and guides, whom he found walking
according to “ the rule of religion (eucre/^aas) handed down.” Ep.204.
6. Vide also, Basil. Opp. t. 2, p. 599. Greg. Naz. Orat. ii. 80. Euseb.
cont. Marc. i. 7. Joan. Antioch, apud Facund. i. 1. Sozomen, i. 20. as
supr. note p. 140.]
SECT. I.]
The Eusebians.
279
the Gallic legions gave way ; and insinuated, with
some presence of mind, that the glorious event had
been revealed to him by an Angel. The grateful
Emperor ascribed his success to the merits and inter-
cession of the Bishop of Mursa, whose faith had
deserved the public and miraculous approbation of
Heaven 6 .”
Such were the leaders of the Eusebian or Court
faction.; and on the review of them, do we not seem
to see in each a fresh exhibition of their great type
and forerunner, Paulus, on one side or other of his
character, though surpassing him in extravagance of
conduct, as possessing a wider field, and more power-
ful incentives for ambitious and energetic exertion ?
We see the same accommodation of the Christian
Creed to the humour of an earthly Sovereign, the
same fertility of disputation in support of their version
of it, the same reckless profanation of things sacred,
the same patient dissemination of error for the
services of the age after them ; and, if they are free
from the personal immoralities of their master, they
balance this favourable trait of character by the cruel
and hard-hearted temper, which discovers itself in
their persecution of the Catholics.
2.
This persecution was conducted till the middle of
the century according to the outward forms of eccle-
siastical law. Charges of various kinds were preferred
in Council against the orthodox prelates of the prin-
cipal sees, with a profession at least of regularity,
whatever unfairness there might be in the details of
Gibbon, Hist. ch. xxi.
280 The Eusebians . [chap. iv.
the proceedings. By this means all the most power-
ful Churches of Eastern Christendom, by the com-
mencement of the reign of Constantius (A.D. 337), had
been brought under the influence of the Arians ; Con-
stantinople, Heraclea, Hadrianople, Ephesus, Ancyra,
both Caesareas, Antioch, Laodicaea, and Alexandria.
Eustathius of Antioch, for instance, had incurred their
hatred, by his strenuous resistance to the heresy in
the seat of its first origin. After the example of his
immediate predecessor Philogonius, he refused com-
munion to Stephen, Leontius, Eudoxius, George, and
others ; and accused Eusebius of Caesarea openly of
having violated the faith of Nicaea. The heads of the
party assembled in Council at Antioch ; and, on
charges of heresy and immorality, which they pro-
fessed to be satisfactorily maintained, pronounced
sentence of deposition against him. Constantine
banished him to Philippi, together with a considerable
number of the priests and deacons of his Church.
So again, Marcellus of Ancyra, another of their in-
veterate opponents, was deposed, anathematized, and
banished by them, with greater appearance of justice,
on the ground of his leaning to the errors of Sabellius.
But their most rancorous enmity and most persever-
ing efforts were directed against the high-minded
Patriarch of Alexandria ; and, in illustration of their
principles and conduct, the circumstances of his first
persecution shall here be briefly related.
When Eusebius of Nicomedia failed to effect the
restoration of Arius into the Alexandrian Church by
persuasion, he had threatened to gain his end by
harsher means. Calumnies were easily invented
against the man who had withstood his purpose : and
The Eusebians .
281
SECT. I.]
it so happened, that willing tools were found on the
spot for conducting the attack. The Meletian sec-
taries have already been noticed, as being the original
associates of Arius ; who had troubled the Church by
taking part in their schism, before he promulgated his
peculiar heresy. They were called after Meletius,
Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid ; who, being
deposed for lapsing in the Dioclesian persecution,
separated from the Catholics, and, propagating a
spurious succession of clergy by his episcopal pre-
rogative, formed a powerful body in the heart of the
Egyptian Church. The Council of Nicaea, desirous
of terminating the disorder in the most temperate
manner, instead of deposing the Meletian bishops, had
arranged, that they should retain a nominal rank in
the sees, in which they had respectively placed them-
selves ; while, by forbidding them to exercise their
episcopal functions, it provided for the termination of
the schism at their death. But, with the bad fortune /
which commonly attends conciliatory measures, unless
accompanied by such a display of vigour as shows
that concession is but condescension, the clemency
was forgotten in the restriction, which irritated, with-
out repressing them ; and, being bent on the overthrow
of the dominant Church, they made a sacrifice of their
principles, which had hitherto been orthodox, and
joined the Eusebians. By this intrigue, the latter
gained an entrance into the Egyptian Church, as
effectual as that which had already been opened to
them, by means of their heresy itself, in Syria and
Asia Minor 7.
7 The Meletians, on the other hand, were not in the event equally
advantaged by the coalition ; for, after the success of their attack upon
282
The Ensebians .
CHAP. IV.
Charges against Athanasius were produced and ex-
amined in Councils successively held at Caesarea and
Tyre (A.D. 333 — 335) ; the Meletians being the ac-
cusers, and the Eusebians the judges in the trial. At
an earlier date, it had been attempted to convict him
of political offences ; but, on examination, Constantine
became satisfied of his innocence. It had been
represented, that, of his own authority, he had
imposed and rigorously exacted a duty upon the
Egyptian linen cloth ; the pretended tribute being in
fact nothing beyond the offerings, which pious persons
had made to the Church, in the shape of vestments
for the service of the sanctuary. It had moreover
been alleged, that he had sent pecuniary aid to one
Philumenus, who was in rebellion against the Em-
peror ; as at a later period they accused him of a
design of distressing Constantinople, by stopping the
corn vessels of Alexandria, destined for the supply of
the metropolis.
The charges brought against him before these
Councils were both of a civil and of an ecclesiastical
character ; that he, or Macarius, one of his deacons,
had broken a consecrated chalice, and the holy table
itself, and had thrown the sacred books into the fire ;
next, that he had killed Arsenius, a Meletian bishop,
whose hand, amputated and preserved for magical
purposes, had been found in Athanasius’s house. The
latter of these strange accusations was refuted at the
Council of Caesarea by Arsenius himself, whom Atha-
nasius had gained, and who, on the production of a
Athanasius, Constantine, true to his object of restoring tranquillity to
the Church, while he banished Athanasius to Treves, banished also
John, the leader of the Meletians, who had been forward in procuring his
condemnation.
The Eusebians .
SECT. I.]
28^
human hand at the trial, presented himself before the
judges, thus destroying the circumstantial evidence by
which it was to be identified as his. The former
charge was refuted at Tyre by the testimony of the
Egyptian bishops ; who, after exposing the equivo-
cating evidence of the accuser, went on to prove that
at the place where their Metropolitan was said to have
broken the chalice, there was neither church, nor altar,
nor chalice, existing. These were the principal al-
legations brought against him ; and their extraordi-
nary absurdity, (certain as the charges are as matters
of history, from evidence of various kinds,) can only
be accounted for by supposing, that the Eusebians
were even then too powerful and too bold, to care for
much more than the bare forms of law, or to scruple
at any evidence, which the unskilfulness of their
Egyptian coadjutors might set before them. A charge
of violence in his conduct towards certain Meletians
was added to the above ; and, as some say, a still
more frivolous accusation of incontinence, but whether
this was ever brought, is more than doubtful.
Caesarea and Tyre were places too public even for
the audacity of the Eusebians, when the facts of the
case were so plainly in favour of the accused. It was
now proposed that a commission of inquiry should be
sent to the Mareotis, which was in the neighbourhood,
and formed part of the diocese, of Alexandria, and
was the scene of the alleged profanation of the sacred
chalice. The leading members of this commission
were Valens and Ursacius, Theognis, Maris, and two
others, all Eusebians ; they took with them the chief
accuser of Athanasius as their guide and host, leaving
Athanasius and Macarius at Tyre, and refusing
284
The Eusebians .
[chap. iv.
admittance into the court of inquiry to such of the
clergy of the Mareotis, as were desirous of defending
their Bishop’s interests in his absence. The issue
of such proceedings may be anticipated. On the
return of the commission to Tyre, Athanasius was
formally condemned of rebellion, sedition, and a
tyrannical use of his episcopal power, of murder,
sacrilege, and magic ; was deposed from the see of
Alexandria, and prohibited from ever returning to
that city. Constantine confirmed the sentence of the
Council, and Athanasius was banished to Gaul.
3 -
It has often been remarked that persecutions of
Christians, as in St. Paul’s case, “ fall out rather unto
the furtherance of the Gospel 8 .” The dispersion of the
disciples, after the martyrdom of St. Stephen, intro-
duced the word of truth together with themselves
among the Samaritans ; and in the case before us, the
exile of Athanasius led to his introduction to the
younger Constantine, son of the great Emperor of
that name, who warmly embraced his cause, and gave
him the opportunity of rousing the zeal, and gaining
the personal friendship of the Catholics of the West.
Constans also, another son of Constantine, declared in
his favour ; and thus, on the death of their father,
which took place two years after the Council of Tyre,
one third alone of his power, in the person of the Semi-
Arian Constantius, Emperor of the East, remained
with that party, which, while Constantine lived, was
able to wield the whole strength of the State against
8 Phil. i. 12.
SECT. I.]
The Eusebians .
285
the orthodox Bishops. The support of the Roman
See was a still more important advantage gained by
Athanasius. Rome was the natural mediator between
Alexandria and Antioch, and at that time possessed
extensive influence among the Churches of the West.
Accordingly, when Constantius re-commenced the
persecution, to which his father had been persuaded,
the exiles betook themselves to Rome ; and about the
year 340 or 341 we read of Bishops from Thrace,
Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, collected there, besides
a multitude of Presbyters, and among the former,
Athanasius himself, Marcellus, Asclepas of Gaza, and
Luke of Hadrianople. The first act of the Roman
See in their favour was the holding a provincial
Council, in which the charges against Athanasius and
Marcellus were examined, and pronounced to be
untenable. And its next act was to advocate the sum-
moning of a Council of the whole Church with the
same purpose, referring it to Athanasius to select a
place of meeting, where his cause might be secure
of a more impartial hearing, than it had met with at
Caesarea and Tyre.
The Eusebians, on the other hand, perceiving the
danger which their interests would sustain, should a
Council be held at any distance from their own
peculiar territory, determined on anticipating the
projected Council by one of their own, in which they
might both confirm the sentence of deposition against
Athanasius, and, if possible, contrive a confession of
faith, to allay the suspicions which the Occidentals
entertained of their orthodoxy 9 . This was the occa-
9 [“ After the Nicene Council, the Eusebians did not dare avow their
heresy in Constantine’s time, but merely attempted the banishment of
286
The Eusebians .
[chap. iv.
sion of the Council of the Dedication, as it is called,
held by them at Antioch, in the year 341, and which
is one of the most celebrated Councils of the century.
It was usual to solemnize the consecration of places
of worship, by an attendance of the principal prelates
of the neighbouring districts ; and the great Church
of the Metropolis of Syria, called the Dominicum
Aureum, which had just been built, afforded both the
pretext and the name to their assembly. Between
ninety and a hundred bishops came together on this
occasion, all Arians or Arianizers, and agreed without
difficulty upon the immediate object of the Council,
the ratification of the Synods of Csesarea and Tyre in
condemnation of Athanasius.
So far their undertaking was in their own hands ;
but a more difficult task remained behind, viz., to gain
the approval and consent of the Western Church, by
an exposition of the articles of their faith. Not
intending to bind themselves by the decision at
Nicaea, they had to find some substitute for the Homo -
iision. With this view four, or even five creeds, more
or less resembling the Nicene in language, were suc-
cessively adopted. The first was that ascribed to the
martyr Lucian, though doubts are entertained con-
cerning its genuineness. It is in itself almost unex-
ceptionable ; and, had there been no controversies
on the subjects contained in it, would have been a
satisfactory evidence of the orthodoxy of its promul-
gators. The Son is therein styled the exact Image
of the substance, will, power, and glory of the
Athanasius, and the restoration of Arius. Their first Council was A.D.
341, four years after Constantine’s death and Constantius’s accession.” —
Athr Tr. vol. i. pp. 92, 93.]
The Eusebians .
287
SECT. I.]
Father ; and the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity
are said to be three in substance, one in will 1 . An
evasive condemnation was added of the Arian tenets ;
sufficient, as it might seem, to delude the Latins, who
were unskilled in the subtleties of the question. For
instance, it was denied that our Lord was born “ in
time,” but in the heretical school, as was shown above,
time was supposed to commence with the creation of
the world ; and it was denied that He was “ in the
number of the creatures,” it being their doctrine, that
He was the sole immediate work of God, and, as such,
not like others, but separate from the whole creation,
of which indeed He was the author. Next, for some
or other reason, two new creeds were proposed, and
partially adopted by the Council ; the same in char-
acter of doctrine, but shorter. These three were all
circulated, and more or less received in the neighbour-
ing Churches ; but, on consideration, none of them
seemed adequate to the object in view, that of recom-
mending the Eusebians to the distant Churches of
the West. Accordingly, a fourth formulary was drawn
up after a few months’ delay, among others by Mark,
Bishop of Arethusa, a Semi-Arian Bishop of religious
character, afterwards to be mentioned ; its composers
were deputed to present it to Constans ; and, this
creed proving unsatisfactory, a fifth confession was
drawn up with considerable care and ability ; though it
too failed to quiet the suspicions of the Latins. This
last is called the Macrostich, from the number of its
paragraphs, and did not make its appearance till three
years after the former.
1 Exact image, a7rapd\XaKTOS eiKwv ; substance, ovcrta ; subsis-
tence, or person, vttoctt avis.
288 The Eusebians . [chap. iv.
In truth, no such exposition of the Catholic faith
could satisfy the Western Christians, while they were
witnesses to the exile of its great champion on account
of his fidelity to it. Here the Eusebians were wanting
in their usual practical shrewdness. Words, however
orthodox, could not weigh against so plain a fact. The
Occidentals, however unskilled in the niceties of the
Greek language, w T ere able to ascertain the heresy of
the Eusebians in their malevolence towards Athana-
sius. Nay, the anxious attempts of his enemies, to
please them by means of a confession of faith, were
a refutation of their pretences. For, inasmuch as the
sense of the Catholic world, had already been re-
corded in the Homousion , why should they devise
a new formulary, if after all they agreed with the
Church ? or, why should they themselves be so fertile
in confessions, if they had all of them but one faith ?
It is brought against them by Athanasius, that in
their creeds they date their exposition of the Catholic
doctrine, as if it were something new, instead simply
of its being declared, which was the sole design of the
Nicene Fathers ; while at other times, they affected to
acknowledge the authority of former Councils, which
nevertheless they were indirectly opposing 2 . Under
these circumstances the Roman Church, as the repre-
sentative of the Latins, only became more bent upon
the convocation of a General Council in which the
Nicene Creed might be ratified, and any innovation
upon it reprobated ; and the innocence of Athanasius,
which it had already ascertained in its provincial
Synod, might be formally proved, and proclaimed to
the whole of Christendom. This object was at length
2 Athan. de Syn. 3. 37.
SECT. I.]
The Ensebians .
289
accomplished. Constans, whom Athanasius had visited
and gained, successfully exerted his influence with his
brother Constantius, the Emperor of the East ; and a
Council of the whole Christian world was summoned
at Sardica for the above purposes, the exculpation of
Marcellus and others being included with that of
Athanasius.
Sardica was chosen as the place of meeting, as lying
on the confines of the two divisions of the Empire. It
is on the borders of Mcesia, Thrace, and Illyricum,
and at the foot of Mount Hsemus, which separates it
from Philippopolis. There the heads of the Christian
world assembled in the year 347, twenty-two years
after the Nicene Council, in number above 380
bishops, of whom seventy-six were Arian. The
President of the Council was the venerable Hosius ;
whose name was in itself a pledge, that the decision
of Nicaea was simply to be preserved, and no fresh
question raised on a subject already exhausted by
controversy. But, almost before the opening of the
Council, matters were brought to a crisis ; a schism
took place in its members ; the Arians retreated to
Philippopolis, and there excommunicated the leaders
of the orthodox, Julius of Rome, Hosius, and Pro-
togenes of Sardica, issued a sixth confession of faith,
and confirmed the proceedings of the Antiochene
Council against Athanasius and the other exiles.
This secession of the Arians arose in consequence
of their finding, that Athanasius was allowed a seat in
the Council ; the discussions of which they refused
to attend, while a Bishop took part in them, who had
already been deposed by Synods of the East. The
orthodox replied, that a later Council, held at Rome,
U
290 The Eusebians . [chap. iv.
had fully acquitted and restored him ; moreover, that
to maintain his guilt was but to assume the principal
point, which they were then assembled to debate ;
and, though very consistent with their absenting
themselves from the Council altogether, could not be
permitted to those, who had by their coming recog-
nized the object, for which it was called. Accordingly,
without being moved by their retreat, the Council
proceeded to the condemnation of some of the more
notorious opponents among them of the Creed of
Nicaea, examined the charges against Athanasius and
the rest, reviewed the acts of the investigations at Tyre
and the Mareotis, which the Eusebians had sent to
Rome in their defence, and confirmed the decree of
the Council of Rome, in favour of the accused. Con-
stans enforced this decision on his brother by the
.arguments peculiar to a monarch ; and the timid
Constantius, yielding to fear what he denied to justice,
consented to restore to Alexandria a champion of the
truth, who had been condemned on the wildest of
charges, by the most hostile and unprincipled of
judges.
The journey of Athanasius to Alexandria elicited
the fullest and most satisfactory testimonies of the
real orthodoxy of the Eastern Christians ; in spite of
the existing cowardice or misapprehension, which
surrendered them to the tyrannical rule of a few
determined and energetic heretics. The Bishops of
Palestine, one of the chief holds of the Arian spirit,
welcomed, with the solemnity of a Council, a resto-
ration, which, under the circumstances of the case, was
almost a triumph over their own sovereign ; and so
excited was the Catholic feeling even at Antioch, that
The Eusebians.
291
sect. 1.]
Constantius feared to grant to the Athanasians a
single Church in that city, lest it should have been
the ruin of the Arian cause.
One of the more important consequences of the
Council of Sardica, was the public recantation of
Valens, and his accomplice Ursacius, Bishop of Singi-
don, in Pannonia, two of the most inveterate enemies
and calumniators of Athanasius. It was addressed to
the Bishop of Rome, and was conceived in the follow-
ing terms : “ Whereas we are known heretofore to
have preferred many grievous charges against Athana-
sius the Bishop, and, on being put on our defence by
your excellency, have failed to make good our charges,
we declare to your excellency, in the presence of all the
presbyters, our brethren, that all which we have hereto-
fore heard against the aforesaid, is false, and altogether
foreign to his character ; and therefore, that we heartily
embrace the communion of the aforesaid Athanasius,
especially considering your Holiness, according to
your habitual clemency, has condescended to pardon
our mistake. Further we declare, that, should the
Orientals at any time, or Athanasius, from resentful
feelings, be desirous to bring us to account, that we
will not act in the matter without your sanction. As
for the heretic Arius, and his partisans, who say that
“ Once the Son was not” that “He is of created Sub-
stance” and that “He is not the Son of God before all
time” we anathematize them now, and once for all,
according to our former statement which we presented
at Milan. Witness our hand, that we condemn once
for all the Arian heresy, as we have already said, and
its advocates. Witness also the hand of Ursacius. —
I, Ursacius the Bishop, have set my name to this
statement 3 .”
3 Athan. Apoi. cont. Arian. 58.
U 2
292
The Eusebians.
[chap. iv.
The Council of Milan, referred to in the conclusion
of this letter, seems to have been held A.D. 347 ; two
years after the Arian creed, called Macrostich, was
sent into the West, and shortly after the declaration
of Constans in favour of the restoration of the Atha-
nasians.
293
SECTION II.
THE SEMI-ARIANS.
The events recorded in the last Section were attended
by important consequences in the history of Arianism.
The Council of Sardica led to a separation between
the Eastern and Western Churches ; which seemed to
be there represented respectively by the rival Synods
of Sardica and Philippopolis, and which had before
this time hidden their differences from each other, and
communicated together from a fear of increasing the
existing evil 1 . Not that really there was any dis-
cordance of doctrine between them. The historian,
from whom this statement is taken, gives it at the
same time as his own opinion, that the majority of the
Asiatics were Homoiisians, though tyrannized over
by the court influence, the sophistry, the importunity,
and the daring, of the Eusebian party. This mere
handful of divines, unscrupulously pressing forward
into the highest ecclesiastical stations, set about them
to change the condition of the Churches thus put into
their power ; and, as has been remarked in the case of
Leontius of Antioch, filled the inferior offices with
1 Soz. iii. 13.
294
The Semi- A rictus.
[chap. iv.
their own creatures, and sowed the seeds of future
discords and disorders, which they could not hope
to have themselves the satisfaction of beholding. The
orthodox majority of Bishops and divines, on the
other hand, timorously or indolently, kept in the
background ; and allowed themselves to be repre-
sented at Sardica by men, whose tenets they knew to
be unchristian, and professed to abominate. And in
such circumstances, the blame of the open dissensions,
which ensued between the Eastern and Western
divisions of Christendom, was certain to be attributed
to those who urged the summoning of the Council,
not to those who neglected their duty by staying
away. In qualification of this censure, however, the
intriguing spirit of the Eusebians must be borne
in mind ; who might have means, of which we are
not told, of keeping away their orthodox brethren from
Sardica. Certainly the expense of the journey was
considerable, whatever might be the imperial or the
ecclesiastical allowances for it 2 , and their absence
2 [On the cursus puhlicus , vid. Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 5.
It was provided for the journeys of the Emperor, for persons whom he
summoned, for magistrates, ambassadors, and for such private persons
as the Emperor indulged in the use of it, which was gratis. The use
was granted by Constantine to the Bishops who were summoned to
Nicaea, as far as it went, in addition to other means of travelling. Euseb.
V. Const, iii. 6. (though aliter Valesius in loc.) The cursus puhlicus
brought the Bishops to the Council of Tyre. Ibid. iv. 43. In the con-
ference between Liberius and Constantius (Theod. Hist. ii. 13), it is
objected that the cursus puhlicus is not sufficient to convey Bishops to the
Council, as Liberius proposes ; he answers that the Churches are rich
enough to convey their Bishops as far as the seas. Thus St. Hilary was
compelled (data evectionis copia, Sulp. Sev. Hist. ii. 57) to attend at
Seleucia, as Athanasius at Tyre. Julian complains of the abuse of the
cursus puhlicus , perhaps with an allusion to these Councils of Constantius.
Vide Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 5, 1. 12 ; where Gothofred quotes Liban. Epitaph.
sect. ilI Th e Semi-Arictns.
295
from their flocks, especially in an age fertile in Coun-
cils, was an evil. Still there is enough in the history
of the times, to evidence a culpable negligence on the
part of the orthodox of Asia.
However, this rupture between the East and West
has here been noticed, not to censure the Asiatic
Churches, but for the sake of its influence on the
fortunes of Arianism. It had the effect of pushing
forward the Semi-Arians, as they are called, into a
party distinct from the Eusebian or Court party,
among whom they had hitherto been concealed.
This party, as its name implies, professed a doctrine
approximating to the orthodox ; and thus served as a
means of deceiving the Western Churches, which were
unskilled in the evasions, by which the Eusebians
extricated themselves from even the most explicit
confessions of the Catholic doctrine. Accordingly,
the six heretical confessions hitherto recounted were
all Semi-Arian in character, as being intended more
or less to justify the heretical party in the eyes of the
Latins. But when this object ceased to be feasible,
in Julian, (vol. i. p. 569, ed. Reiske). Vide the well-known passage of
Ammianus, who speaks of the Councils as being the ruin of the res vehi-
cularia , Hist. xxi. 16. The Eusebians at Philippopolis say the same,
Hilar. Fragm. iii. 25. The Emperor provided board and perhaps lodg-
ing for the Bishops at Ariminum ; which the Bishops of Aquitaine, Gaul,
and Britain declined, except three British from poverty. Sulp.Hist. ii.56.
Hunmeric in Africa, after assembling 466 Bishops at Carthage, dismissed
them without mode of conveyance, provision, or baggage. Victor. Utic.
Hist. iii. init. In the Emperor’s letter previous to the assembling of the
sixth Ecumenical Council, a.d. 678 (Harduin. Cone. t. 3, p. 1043, fin.),
he says he has given orders for the conveyance and maintenance of its
members. Pope John VIII. reminds Ursus, Duke of Venice (a.d. 876), of
the same duty of providing for the members of a Council, “ secundum
pios principes, qui in talibus munifick semper erant intend.” Colet.
Concil. fVen. 1730) t. xi. p. 14.]
296
The Semi-Arlans [chap. iv.
by the event of the Sardican Council, the Semi-Arians
ceased to be of service to the Eusebians, and a separ-
ation between the parties gradually took place.
I.
The Semi-Arians, whose history shall here be
introduced, originated, as far as their doctrine is con-
cerned, in the change of profession which the Nicene
anathema was the occasion of imposing upon the
Eusebians ; and had for their founders Eusebius of
Caesarea, and the Sophist Asterius. But viewed as a
party, they are of a later date The genuine Euse-
bians were never in earnest in the modified creeds,
which they so ostentatiously put forward for the appro-
bation of the West. However, while they clamoured in
defence of the inconsistent doctrine contained in them,
which, resembling the orthodox in word, might in fact
subvert it, and at once confessed and denied our Lord,
it so happened, that they actually recommended that
doctrine to the judgment of some of their followers,
and succeeded in creating a direct belief in an hypo-
thesis, which in their own case was but the cloke for their
own indifference to the truth. This at least seems the
true explanation of an intricate subject in the history.
There are always men of sensitive and subtle minds,
the natural victims of the bold disputant ; men, who,
unable to take a broad and common-sense view of an
important subject, try to satisfy their intellect and
conscience by refined distinctions and perverse reser-
vations. Men of this stamp were especially to be
found among a people possessed of the language and
8 [Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. pp. 282 — 286 ]
297
sect, ii.] The Semi- A rians.
acuteness of the Greeks. Accordingly, the Eusebians
at length perceived, doubtless to their surprise and
disgust, that a party had arisen from among them-
selves, with all the positiveness (as they would consider
it), and nothing of the straightforward simplicity of the
Catholic controversialists, more willing to dogmatize
than to argue, and binding down their associates to the
real import of the words, which they had themselves
chosen as mere evasions of orthodoxy ; and to their
dismay they discovered, that in this party the new
Emperor himself was to be numbered. Constantius,
indeed, may be taken as a type of a genuine Semi-
Arian ; resisting, as he did, the orthodox doctrine from
over-subtlety, timidity, pride, restlessness, or other
weakness of mind, yet paradoxical enough to combat
at the same time and condemn all, who ventured to
teach anything short of that orthodoxy. Balanced
on this imperceptible centre between truth and error,
he alternately banished every party in the controversy,
not even sparing his own ; and had recourse in turn
to every creed for relief, except that in which the
truth was actually to be found.
The symbol of the Semi-Arians was th Homoeusion,
“like in substance ,” which they substituted for the
orthodox Homoiision , “one in substance ,” or “ consitb-
st antiaV.' Their objections to the latter formula took
the following form. If the word usia , “ substance ,”
denoted the “ first substance,” or an individual being,
then Homoiisios seemed to bear a Sabellian meaning,
and to involve a denial of the separate personality of
the Son 4 . On the other hand, if the word was under-
stood as including two distinct Persons (or Hypostases),
Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. n. fin.
298
The Semi-Arlans . [chap. iv.
this was to use it, as it is used of created things ; as if
by substance were meant some common nature, either
divided in fact, or one merely by abstraction 5 . They
were strengthened in this view by the decree of the
Council, held at Antioch between the years 260 and
270, in condemnation of Paulus, in which the word
Homoiision was proscribed. They preferred, accord-
ingly, to name the Son “like in sub stance 6 ,” or Homce-
iisios , with the Father, that is, of a substance like in
all things, except in not being the Father’s substance;
maintaining at the same time, that, though the Son
and Spirit were separate in substance from the Father,
still they were so included in His glory that there was
but one God.
Instead of admitting the evasion of the Arians, that
the word Son had but a secondary sense, and that our
Lord was in reality a creature, though “ not like other
creatures,” they plainly declared that He was not a
creature, but truly the Son, born of the substance
(usia) of the Father, as if an Emanation from Him at
His will ; yet they would not allow Him simply to be
God, as the Father was ; but, asserting that there were
various energies in the Divine Being, they considered
creation to be one, and the gennesis or generation to be
another, so that the Son, though distinct in substance
from God, was at the same time essentially distinct
from every created nature. Or they suggested that
He was the offspring of the Person ( hypostasis ), not of
the substance or usia of the Father ; or, so to say, of
the Divine Will, as if the force of the word “Son ”
consisted in this point. Further, instead of the “once
5 Soz. iii. 18.
ofxoLos K.ar ovatav.
299
sect, ii.] The Semi-Arians.
He was not” they adopted the “generated time-apart ,”
for which even Arius had changed it. That is, as
holding that the question of the beginning of the Son’s
existence was beyond our comprehension, they only
asserted that there was such a beginning, but that it
was before time and independent of it ; as if it were
possible to draw a distinction between the Catholic
doctrine of the derivation or order of succession in the
Holy Trinity (the “ unoriginately generated”) and this
notion of a beginning simplified of the condition of
time.
Such was the Semi-Arian Creed, really involving
contradictions in terms, parallel to those of which the
orthodox were accused ; — that the Son was born
before all times, yet not eternal ; not a creature, yet
not God ; of His substance, yet not the same in
substance ; and His exact and perfect resemblance in
all things, yet not a second Deity.
2 .
Yet the men were better than their creed ; and it is
satisfactory to be able to detect amid the impiety and
worldliness of the heretical party any elements of a
purer spirit, which gradually exerted itself and worked
out from the corrupt mass, in which it was embedded.
Even thus viewed as distinct from their political asso-
ciates, the Semi-Arians are a motley party at best ;
yet they may be considered as Saints and Martyrs,
when compared with the Eusebians, and in fact some
of them have actually been acknowledged as such by
the Catholics of subsequent times. Their zeal in
detecting the humanitarianism of Marcellus and Pho-
tinus, and their good service in withstanding the
300
The Semi- A rians. [chap. iv.
Anomoeans, who arrived at the same humanitarianism
by a bolder course of thought, will presently be
mentioned. On the whole they were men of correct
and exemplary life, and earnest according to their
views ; and they even made pretensions to sanctity
in their outward deportment, in which they differed
from the true Eusebians, who, as far as the times
allowed it, affected the manners and principles of the
world. It may be added, that both Athanasius and
Hilary, two of the most uncompromising supporters
of the Catholic doctrine, speak favourably of them.
Athanasius does not hesitate to call them brothers 7 ;
considering that, however necessary it was for the
edification of the Church at large, that the Homoiision
should be enforced on the clergy, yet that the privi-
leges of private Christian fellowship were not to be
denied to those, who from one cause or other stumbled
at the use of it 8 . It is remarkable, that the Semi-
Arians, on the contrary, in their most celebrated
Synod (at Ancyra, A.D. 358) anathematized the
holders of the Homoiision, as if crypto-Sabellians 9 .
Basil, the successor of Marcellus, in the see of
Ancyra, united in his person the most varied learning
with the most blameless life, of all the Semi-Arians r .
This praise of rectitude in conduct was shared with
him by Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus.
These three Bishops especially attracted the regard of
Hilary, on his banishment to Phrygia by the intrigues
of the Arians (a.d. 356). The zealous confessor feel-
7 [However, he is severe upon Eustathius and Basil (ad Ep. JEg. 7.),
as St. Basil is on the former, who had been his friend.]
8 Athan. de Syn. 41. 9 Epiph. supra.
1 Theod. Hist. ii. 25.
sect, ii.] The Semi-Arians. 301
ingly laments the condition, in which he found the
Churches in those parts. “ I do not speak of things
strange to me : ” he says, “ I write not without know-
ledge ; I have heard and seen in my own person the
faults, not of laics merely, but of bishops. For,
excepting Eleusius and a few with him, the ten pro-
vinces of Asia, in which I am, are for the most part
truly ignorant of God 2 .” His testimony in favour of
the Semi-Arians of Asia Minor, must in fairness be
considered as delivered with the same force of asser-
tion, which marks his protest against all but them ;
and he elsewhere addresses Basil, Eustathius, and
Eleusius, by the title of “ Sanctissimi viri 3 .”
Mark, Bishop of Arethusa, in Syria, has obtained
from the Greek Church the honours of a Saint and
Martyr. He indulged, indeed, a violence of spirit,
which assimilates him to the pure Arians, who were
the first among Christians to employ force in the cause
of religion. But violence, which endures as freely as it
assails, obtains our respect, if it is denied our praise.
His exertions in the cause of Christianity were
attended with considerable success. In the reign of
Constantius, availing himself of his power as a Chris-
tian Bishop, he demolished a heathen temple, and
built a church on its site. When Julian succeeded, it
was Mark’s turn to suffer. The Emperor had been
saved by him, when a child, on the massacre of the
other princes of his house ; but on this occasion he
considered that the claims at once of justice and of
paganism outweighed the recollection of ancient
2 Hilar, de Syn. 63.
3 Ibid. 90. Vid. also the Life of St. Basil of Caesarea, who was inti-
mate for a time with Eustathius and others.
302
The Semi-Arians. [chap. iv.
services. Mark was condemned to rebuild the temple,
or to pay the price of it ; and, on his flight from his
bishoprick, many of his flock were arrested as his
hostages. Upon this, he surrendered himself to his
persecutors, who immediately subjected him to the
most revolting, as well as the most cruel indignities.
“ They apprehended the aged prelate,” says Gibbon,
selecting some out of the number, “ they inhumanly
scourged him ; they tore his beard ; and his naked
body, anointed with honey, was suspended, in a net,
between heaven and earth, and exposed to the stings
of insects and the rays of a Syrian sun 4 .” The pay-
ment of one piece of gold towards the rebuilding of
the temple, would have rescued him from these
torments ; but, resolute in his refusal to contribute to
the service of idolatry, he allowed himself, with a
generous insensibility, even to jest at his own suffer-
ings 5, till he wore out the fury, or even, it is said,
effected the conversion of his persecutors. Gregory
Nazianzen, and Theodoret, besides celebrating his
activity in making converts, make mention of his
wisdom and piety, his cultivated understanding, his
love of virtue, and the honourable consistency of his
life 6
Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Samosata, are
both Saints in the Roman Calendar, though connected
in history with the Semi-Arian party. Eusebius was
the friend of St. Basil, surnamed the Great ; and
Cyril is still known to us in his perspicuous and
eloquent discourses addressed to the Catechumens.
Others might be named of a like respectability,
though deficient, with those above-mentioned, either
4 Gibbon, Hist. ch. xxiii. 5 Soz. v. to.
6 Tillem. Mem. vol. vii. p. 340.
sect. ii. J The Semi-Arians .
303
in moral or in intellectual judgment. With these
were mingled a few of a darker character. George of
Laodicea, one of the genuine Eusebians, joined them
for a time, and took a chief share together with Basil
in the management of the Council of Ancyra. Mace-
donius, who was originally an Anomcean, passed
through Semi-Arianism to the heresy of the Pneuma-
tomachists, that is, the denial of the Divinity of the
Holy Ghost, of which he is theologically the founder.
3 -
The Semi-Arians, being such as above described,
were at first both in faith and conduct an ornament
and recommendation of the Eusebians. But, when
once the latter stood at variance with the Latin
Church by the event of the Sardican Council, they
ceased to be of service to them as a blind, which was
no longer available, or rather were an incumbrance to
them, and formidable rivals in the favour of Constan-
tius. The separation between the two parties was
probably retarded for a while by the forced submission
and recantation of the Eusebian Valens and Ursacius;
but an event soon happened, which altogether released
those two Bishops and the rest of the Eusebians from
the embarrassments, in which the influence of the
West and the timidity of Constantius had for the
moment involved them. This was the assassination
of the Catholic Constans which took place A.D. 350;
in consequence of which (Constantine, the eldest of
the brothers, being already dead) Constantius suc-
ceeded to the undivided empire. Thus the Eusebians
had the whole of the West opened to their ambition 7;
7 [The Eusebians, or political party, were renewed in the Acacians,
immediately to be mentioned, Athanasius calling the latter the heirs of
304 The Semi- Arians , [chap. iv.
and were bound by no impediment, except such as
the ill-instructed Semi-Arianism of the Emperor
might impose upon them. Their proceedings under
these fortunate circumstances will come before us
presently ; here I will confine myself to the mention
of the artifice, by which they succeeded in recom-
mending themselves to Constantius, while they op-
posed and triumphed over the Semi-Arian Creed.
This artifice, which, obvious as it is, is curious, from
the place which it holds in the history of Arianism,
was that of affecting on principle to limit confessions
of faith to Scripture terms ; and was adopted by
Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, the successor
of the learned Eusebius, one of the very men, who had
advocated the Semi-Arian non-scriptural formularies
of the Dedication and of Philippopolis 8 . From the
earliest date, the Arians had taken refuge from the
difficulties of their own unscriptural dogmas in the
letter of the sacred writers; but they had scarcely
ventured on the inconsistency of objecting to the
terms of theology, as such. But here Eusebius of
Caesarea anticipated the proceedings of his party ;
and, as he opened upon his contemporaries the
evasion of Semi-Arianism, so did he also anticipate
his pupil Acacius in the more specious artifice now
under consideration. It is suggested in the apology
which he put forth for signing the Nicene anathema
of the Arian formulae ; which anathema he defends on
the principle, that these formulae were not conceived
the former, Hist. Arian. §§19 and 28 ; vid. also Ath. Tr. vol. ii. p. 28.)
He ever distinguishes the Arians proper from the Eusebians (in his
Ep. Enc. and Apol. Contr. Arian.), as afterwards the Anomoeans were
to be distinguished from the Acacians.]
8 Athan. de Syn. 36 — 38.
305
sect, ii.] The Semi-Arians.
in the language of Scripture 9 . Allusion is made to
the same principle from time to time in the subse-
quent Arian Councils, as if even then the laxer Euse-
bians were struggling against the dogmatism of the
Semi-Arians. Though the Creed of Lucian intro-
duces the “ usia,” the three other Creeds of the Dedi-
cation omit it ; and this hypothesis of differences of
opinion in the heretical body at these Councils partly
accounts for that hesitation and ambiguity in declaring
their faith, which has been noticed in its place. Again,
the Macrostich omits the “usia,” professes generally
that the Son is “like in . all things to the Father ,” and
enforces the propriety of keeping to the language of
Scripture 1 .
About the time which is at present more particu-
larly before us, that is, after the death of Constans,
this modification of Arianism becomes distinct, and
collects around it the Eastern Eusebians, under the
skilful management of Acacius. It is not easy to
fix the date of his openly adopting it ; the immediate
cause of which was his quarrel with the Semi-Arian
Cyril, which lies between A.D. 349 — 357. The distin-
guishing principle of his new doctrine was adherence
to the Scripture phraseology, in opposition to the
inconvenient precision of the Semi-Arians ; its distin-
guishing tenet is the vague confession that the Son is
generally “ like or at most “ in all things like ” the
Father , — “ like ” as opposed to the “ one in substance ,”
9 Vid. also Theod. Hist. ii. 3. [who tells us that the objection of “un-
scripturalness ,, had been suggested to Constantius by the Arian priest,
the favourite of Constantia, to whom Constantine had entrusted his will.
Eusebius, in his Letter about the Nicene Creed, does scarcely more than
glance at this objection.]
1 Vid. Athan. de Synod.
X
30 6
The Semi-Arians. [chap. iv.
“ like in substance” and “unlike 2 ” — that is, the vague
confession that the Son is generally like, or altogether
like , the Father. Of these two expressions, the “in all
things like ” was allowed by the Semi-Arians, who in-
cluded “ in substance ” under it ; whereas the Acacians
(for so they may now be called), or Homoeans (as
holding the Homoeon or like), covertly intended to ex-
clude the “in substance ” by that very expression, mere
similarity always implying difference, and “substance”
being, as they would argue, necessarily excluded from
the “ in all things,” if the “ like ” were intended to
stand for any thing short of identity. It is plain then
that, in the meaning of its authors, and in the prac-
tical effect of it, this new hypothesis was neither more
nor less than the pure Arian, or, as it was afterwards
called, Anomcean, though the phrase, in which it
was conveyed, bore in its letter the reverse sense.
Such was the state of the heresy about the year 350 ;
before reviewing its history, as carried on between the
two rival parties into which its advocates, the Euse-
bians, were dividing, the Semi-Arian and Homoean, I
shall turn to the sufferings of the Catholic Church at
that period.
2 o/jlolov or Kara iravra o/jlolov is the tenet of the Acacians or Ho-
moeans, as opposed to Catholic ofJboovo'iov , the Semi-Arian ofiocovcnov,
and the clvo[xolov of the Eunomians or Aetians. [St. Cyril, however,
adopts the Kara rravra opoiov, as does Damascene.]
307
SECTION III.
THE ATH AN ASIANS.
The second Arian Persecution is spread over the
space of about twelve years, being the interval
between the death of Constans, and that of Constan-
tius (a.D. 350 — 361). Various local violences, particu-
larly at Alexandria and Constantinople, had occurred
with the countenance of the Eusebians at an earlier
date ; but they were rather acts of revenge, than
intended as means of bringing over the Catholics, and
were conducted on no plan. The chief sees, too,
had been seized, and their occupants banished. But
now the alternative of subscription or suffering was
generally introduced ; and, though Arianism was
more sanguinary in its later persecutions, it could not
be more audacious and abandoned than it showed
itself in this.
The artifice of the Homoeon, of which Acacius had
undertaken the management, was adapted to promote
the success of his party, among the orthodox of the
West, as well as to delude or embarrass the Oriental
Semi-Arians, for whom it was particularly provided.
The Latin Churches, who had not been exposed to
those trials of heretical subtlety of which the Homo-
X 2
3°S
The Athanasians.
[chap. IV.
iision was reluctantly made the remedy, had adhered
with a noble simplicity to the decision of Nicaea; being
satisfied (as it would seem), that, whether or not they
had need of the test of orthodoxy at present, in it lay
the security of the great doctrine in debate, whenever
the need should come. At the same time, they were
naturally jealous of the introduction of such terms
into their theology, as chiefly served to remind them
of the dissensions of foreigners ; and, as influenced by
this feeling, even after their leaders had declared
against the Eusebians at Sardica, they were exposed
to the temptation of listening favourably to the artifice
of the “ Homoeon ” or “ like!' To shut up the subject
in Scripture terms, and to say that our Lord was like
His Father, no explanation being added, seemed to be
a peaceful doctrine, and certainly was in itself unex-
ceptionable ; and, of course would wear a still more
favourable aspect, when contrasted with the threat of
exile and poverty, by which its acceptance was
enforced. On the other hand, the proposed measure
veiled the grossness of that threat itself, and fixed the
attention of the solicited Churches rather upon the
argument, than upon the Imperial command. Minds
that are proof against the mere menaces of power,
are overcome by the artifices of an importunate
casuistry. Those, who would rather have suffered
death than have sanctioned the impieties of Arius,
hardly saw how to defend themselves in refusing
creeds, which were abstractedly true, though incom-
plete, and intolerable only because the badges of a
prevaricating party. Thus Arianism gained its first
footing in the West. And, when one concession was
made, another was demanded ; or, at other times, the
sect, hi.] The Athanasians.
309
first concession was converted, not without specious-
ness, into a principle, as allowing change altogether in
theological language, as if to depart from the Homo-
iision were in fact to acquiesce in the open impieties
of Arius and the Anomoeans. This is the character
of the history as more or less illustrated in this and
the subsequent Section ; the Catholics being harassed
by sophistry and persecution, and the Semi-Arians
first acquiescing in the Homoeon, then retracting, and
becoming more distinct upon the scene, as the Euse-
bians or Acacians ventured to speak of our Lord in
less honourable terms.
But there was another subscription, required of the
Catholics during the same period and from an earlier
date, as painful, and to all but the most honest minds
as embarrassing, as that to the creed of the Homoeon;
and that was the condemnation of Athanasius. The
Eusebians were incited against him by resentment
and jealousy ; they perceived that the success of their
schemes was impossible, while a Bishop was on the
scene, so popular at home, so respected abroad, the
bond of connexion between the orthodox of Europe
and Asia, the organ of their sentiments, and the guide
and vigorous agent of their counsels. Moreover, the
circumstances of the times had attached an adven-
titious importance to his fortunes ; as if the cause of
the Homoiision were providentially committed to his
custody, and in his safety or overthrow, the triumph
or loss of the truth were actually involved. And, in
the eyes of the Emperor, the Catholic champion
appeared as a rival of his own sovereignty ; type, as
he really was, and instrument of that Apostolic Order,
which, whether or not united to the civil power, must,
3io
The Athanasians . [chap. iv.
to the end of time, divide the rule with Caesar as the
minister of God. Considering then Athanasius too
great for a subject, Constantius, as if for the peace of
his empire, desired his destruction at any rate x .
Whether he was unfortunate or culpable it mattered
not ; whether implicated in legal guilt, or forced by
circumstances into his present position ; still he was
the fit victim of a sort of ecclesiastical ostracism,
which, accordingly, he called upon the Church to
inflict. He demanded it of the Church, for the very
eminence of Athanasius rendered it unsafe, even for
the Emperor, to approach him in any other way. The
Patriarch of Alexandria could not be deposed, except
after a series of successes over less powerful Catholics,
and with the forced acquiescence or countenance of
the principal Christian communities. And thus the
history of the first few years of the persecution,
presents to us the curious spectacle of a party warfare
raging everywhere, except in the neighbourhood of
the person who was the real object of it, and who was
left for a time to continue the work of God at Alex-
andria, unmolested by the Councils, conferences, and
usurpations, which perplexed the other capitals of
Christendom.
As regards the majority of Bishops who were called
upon to condemn him, there was, it would appear,
little room for error of judgment, if they dealt honestly
with their consciences. Yet, in the West, there were
those, doubtless, who hardly knew enough of him to
give him their confidence, or who had no means of
forming a true opinion of the fresh charges to which
he was subjected. Those, which were originally
1 Gibbon, Hist. ch. xxi.
3 1 !
sect. iii.J The A thancisians.
urged against him, have already been stated ; the new
allegations were as follows : that he had excited
differences between Constantius and his brother;
that he had corresponded with Magnentius, the
usurper of the West ; that he had dedicated, or used,
a new Church in Alexandria without the Emperor’s
leave; and lastly, that he had not obeyed his mandate
summoning him to Italy. — Now to review some of the
prominent passages in the persecution : —
i.
Paul had succeeded Alexander in the See of Con-
stantinople, A.D. 336. At the date before us (a.D. 350),
he had already been thrice driven from his Church by
the intrigues of the Arians ; Pontus, Gaul, and Mesopo-
tamia, being successively the places of his exile. He
had now been two years restored, when he was called
a fourth time, not merely to exile, but to martyrdom.
By authority of the Emperor, he was conveyed from
Constantinople to Cucusus in Cappadocia, a dreary
town amid the deserts of the Taurus, afterwards the
place of banishment of his successor St. Chrysostom.
Here he was left for six days without food ; when his
conductors impatiently anticipated the termination of
his sufferings by strangling him in prison. Macedo-
nia, the Semi-Arian, took possession of the vacant
see, and maintained his power by the most savage
excesses. The confiscation of property, banishment,
brandings, torture, and death, were the means of his
accomplishing in the Church of Constantinople, a con-
formity with the tenets of heresy. The Novatians, as
maintaining the Homoiision, were included in the
persecution. On their refusing to communicate with
3 12
The Athanasians . [chap. iv.
him, they were seized and scourged, and the sacred
elements violently thrust into their mouths. Women
and children were forcibly baptized ; and, on the former
resisting, they were subjected to cruelties too miserable
to be described.
2 .
The sufferings of the Church of Hadrianople
occurred about the same time, or even earlier. Under
the superintendence of a civil officer, who had already
acted as the tool of the Eusebians in the Mareotis,
several of the clergy were beheaded ; Lucius, their
Bishop, for the second time loaded .with chains and
sent into exile, where he died ; and thiee other
Bishops of the neighbourhood visited by an Imperial
edict, which banished them, at the peril of their lives,
from all parts of the Empire.
3 -
Continuing their operations westward, the Arians
next possessed themselves of the province of Sirmium
in Pannonia, in which the dioceses of Valens and
Ursacius were situated. These Bishops, on the death
of Constans, had relapsed into the heresy of his
brother, who was now master of the whole Roman
world ; and from that time they may be accounted as
the leaders of the Eusebian party, especially in the
West. The Church of Sirmium was opened to their
assaults under the following circumstances. It had
always been the policy of the Arians to maintain
that the Homoiision involved some or other heresy by
necessary consequence. A Valentinian or a Mani-
chean materialism was sometimes ascribed to the
sect, in.] The Athanasians. 313
orthodox doctrine ; and at another time, Sabellianism,
which was especially hateful to the Semi-Arians. And
it happened, most unhappily for the Church, that one
of the most strenuous of her champions at Nicaea, had
since fallen into a heresy of a Sabellian character ;
and had thus confirmed the prejudice against the true
doctrine, by what might be taken to stand as an
instance of its dangerous tendency. In the course of
a work in refutation of the Sophist Asterius, one of
the first professed Semi-Arians, Marcellus, Bishop of
Ancyra, was led to simplify (as he conceived) the
creed of the Church, by statements which savoured
of Sabellianism ; that is, he maintained the unity of
the Son with the Father, at the expense of the doc-
trine of the personal distinction between the Two.
He was answered, not only by Asterius himself, but
by Eusebius of Caesarea and Acacius ; and, A.D. 335, he
was deposed from his see by the Eusebians, in order
to make way for the Semi-Arian Basil. In spite of
the suspicions against him, the orthodox party
defended him for a considerable time, and the Coun-
cil of Sardica (A.D 347) acquitted him and restored
him to his see ; but at length, perhaps on account of
the increasing definiteness of his heretical views, he
was abandoned by his friends as hopeless, even by
Athanasius, who quietly put him aside with the
acquiescence of Marcellus himself. But the evil did
not end there ; his cfisciple Photinus, Bishop of Sir-
mium, increased the scandal, by advocating, and with
greater boldness, an almost Unitarian doctrine. The
Eusebians did not neglect the opportunity thus offered
them, both to calumniate the Catholic teaching, and
to seize on so considerable a see, which its present
314 The Athanasians. [chap. iv.
occupier had disgraced by his heresy. They held a
Council at Sirmium (A.D. 351), to inquire into his
opinions ; and at his request a formal disputation was
held. Basil, the rival of Marcellus, was selected to be
the antagonist of his pupil ; and having the easier
position to defend, gained the victory in the judgment
of impartial arbiters, who had been selected. The
deposition of Photinus followed, and an Arian, Ger-
minius, placed in his see. Also a new creed was
promulgated of a structure between Homoeusian and
Homcean, being the first of three which are dated
from Sirmium. Germinius some years afterwards
adopted a Semi-Arianism bordering upon the Catholic
doctrine, and that at a time when it may be hoped
that secular views did not influence his change.
4 .
The first open attack upon Athanasius and the
independence of the West, was made two years later
at Arles, at that time the residence of the Court.
There the Emperor held a Council, with the intention
of committing the Bishops of the West to an overt act
against the Alexandrian prelate. It was attended by
the deputies of Liberius, the new Bishop of Rome,
whom the Eusebian party had already addressed,
hoping to find him more tractable than his predecessor
Julius. Liberius, however, had been decided in Atha-
nasius’s favour by the Letter of an Egyptian Council ;
and, in order to evade the Emperor’s overtures, he
addressed to him a submissive message, petitioning
him for a general and final Council at Aquileia,
a measure which Constantius had already led the
Catholics to expect. The Western Bishops at Arles,
sect, hi.] The A thanasians, 315
on their part, demanded that, as a previous step to
the condemnation of Athanasius, the orthodox Creed
should be acknowledged by the Council, and Arius
anathematized. However, the Eusebians carried their
point ; Valens followed up with characteristic violence
the imperiousness of Constantius ; ill treatment was
added, till the Fathers of the Council, worn out by
sufferings, consented to depose and even excom-
municate Athanasius. Upon this, an edict was
published, denouncing punishment on all Bishops
who refused to subscribe the decree thus obtained.
Among the instances of cowardice, which were ex-
hibited at Arles, none was more lamentable than that'
of Vincent of Capua, one of the deputies from Liberius
to the Emperor. Vincent had on former occasions
shown himself a zealous supporter of orthodoxy. He
is supposed to be the presbyter of the same name who
was one of the representatives of the Roman Bishop
at Nicaea ; he had acted with the orthodox at Sardica,
and had afterwards been sent by Constans to Constan-
tius, to effect the restoration of the Athanasians in
A.D. 348. It was on this occasion, that he and his
companion had been exposed to the malice of
Stephen, the Arian Bishop of Antioch ; who, anxious
to destroy their influence, caused a woman of light
character to be introduced into their chamber, with
the intention of founding a calumny against them ;
and who, on the artifice being discovered, was deposed
by order of Constantius. On the present occasion,
Vincent was entirely in the confidence of Liberius ;
who, having entrusted him with his delicate commis-
sion from a sense of his vigour and experience, was
deeply afflicted at his fall. It is satisfactory to know,
3 l6
The A thanasians, [chap. iv.
that Vincent retrieved himself afterwards at Ari-
minum ; where he boldly resisted the tyrannical
attempt of the Eusebians, to force their creed on the
Western Church.
5 -
Times of trial bring forward men of zeal and bold-
ness, who thus are enabled to transmit their names to
posterity. Liberius, downcast at the disgrace of his
representative, and liable himself to fluctuations of
mind, was unexpectedly cheered by the arrival of the
famous Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia, and
Eusebius of Vercellae. These, joined by a few others,
proceeded as his deputies and advocates to the great
Council of Milan, which was held by Constantins
(a.D. 355), two years later than that in which Vincent
fell. The Fathers collected there were in number
above 300, almost all of the Western Church. Con-
stantius was present, and Valens conducted the Arian
manoeuvres ; and so secure of success were he and his
party, that they did not scruple to insult the Council
with the proposal of a pure Arian, or Anomoean,
creed.
Whether this creed was generally subscribed, does
not appear ; but the condemnation of Athanasius was
universally agreed upon, scarcely one or two of the
whole number refusing to sign it. This is remarkable ;
inasmuch as, at first, the Occidentals demanded of the
Eusebians an avowal of the orthodox faith, as the
condition of entering upon the consideration of the
charges against him. But herein is the strength of
audacious men ; who gain what is unjust, by asking
what is extravagant. Sozomen attributes the con-
sect, hi.] The A thanasians. 3 1 7
cession of the Council to fear, surprise, and ignorance 2 .
In truth, a collection of men, who were strangers to
each other, and without organization or recognized
leaders, without definite objects or policy, was open to
every variety of influence, which the cleverness of the
usurping faction might direct against them. The
simplicity of honesty, the weakness of an amiable
temper, the inexperience of a secluded life, and the
slowness of the unpractised intellect, all combined
with their alarm at the Emperor’s manifested dis-
pleasure, to impel them to take part with his heresy.
When some of them ventured to object the rule of the
Church against his command, that they should con-
demn Athanasius, and communicate with the Arians,
“ My will must be its rule,” he replied ; “so the Syrian
Bishops have decided ; and so must yourselves, would
you escape exile.’ 1
Several of the more noble-minded prelates of the
principal Churches submitted to the alternative, and
left their sees. Dionysius, Exarch of Milan, was
banished to Cappadocia or Armenia, where he died
before the end of the persecution ; Auxentius being
placed in his see, a bitter Arian, brought for the
purpose from Cappadocia, and from his ignorance of
Latin, singularly ill-fitted to preside over a Western
province. Lucifer was sent off into Syria, and Euse-
bius of Vercellse into Palestine. A fresh and more
violent edict was published against Athanasius ;
orders were given to arrest him as an impious person,
and to put the Arians in possession of his churches,
and of the benefactions, which Constantine had left
for ecclesiastical and charitable uses. All Bishops
2 Soz. iv. 9.
318 The Athanasians. [chap. iv.
were prohibited from communion with him, under
pain of losing their sees ; and the laity were to be
compelled by the magistrates to join themselves to
the heretical party. Hilary of Poictiers was the next
victim of the persecution. He had taken part in a
petition, presented to Constantius, in behalf of the
exiled bishops. In consequence a Gallic Council was
called, under the presidency of Saturninus, Bishop of
Arles ; and Hilary was banished into Phrygia.
6 .
The history of Liberius, the occupier of the most
powerful see in the West, possesses an interest, which
deserves our careful attention. In 356, the year after
the Council of Milan, the principal eunuch of the Impe-
rial Court had been sent, to urge on him by threats
and promises the condemnation of Athanasius ; and,
on his insisting on a fair trial for the accused, and a
disavowal of Arianism on the part of his accusers, as
preliminary conditions, had caused him to be forced
away to Milan. There the same arguments were
addressed to him in the more impressive words of the
Emperor himself ; who urged upon him “ the noto-
riously wicked life of Athanasius, his vexatious oppo-
sition to the peace of the Church, his intrigues to effect
a quarrel between the imperial brothers, and his fre-
quent condemnation in the Councils of Eastern and
Western Christendom and further exhorted him, as
being by his pastoral office especially a man of peace,
to be cautious of appearing the sole obstacle to the
happy settlement of a question, which could not
otherwise be arranged. Liberius replied by demand-
ing of Constantius even more than his own deputies
sect. hi. J The A thanctsians. 3 1 9
had proposed to the Milanese Council ; — first, that
there should be a general subscription to the Nicene
faith throughout the Church ; next, that the banished
bishops should be restored to their sees ; and lastly,
should the trial of Athanasius be still thought advis-
able, that a Council should be held at Alexandria,
where justice might be fairly dealt between him and
his accusers. The conference between them ended in
Liberius being allowed three days to choose between
making the required subscription, and going into exile;
at the end of which time he manfully departed for
Bercea, in Thrace. Constantius and the empress,
struck with the nobleness of his conduct, sent after
him a thousand pieces of gold ; but he refused a gift,
which must have laid him under restraint towards
heretical benefactors. Much more promptly did he
reject the offer of assistance, which Eusebius, the
eunuch before-mentioned, from whatever feeling, made
him. “You have desolated the Churches of Christen-
dom, ” he said to the powerful favourite, “ and then
you offer me alms as a convict. Go, first learn to be
a Christian 3 . 5 ’
There are men, in whose mouths sentiments, such
as these, are becoming and admirable, as being the
result of Christian magnanimity, and imposed upon
them by their station in the Church. But the sequel
of the history shows, that in the conduct of Liberius
there was more of personal feeling and intemperate
indignation, than of deep-seated fortitude of soul.
His fall, which followed, scandalous as it is in itself,
may yet be taken to illustrate the silent firmness of
those others his fellow-sufferers, of whom we hear less,
3 Soz. iv. 11. Theod. Hist. ii. 16.
320 The Athanasians . [chap. iv.
because they bore themselves more consistently. Two
years of exile, among the dreary solitudes of Thrace,
broke his spirit ; and the triumph of his deacon Felix,
who had succeeded to his power, painfully forced
upon his imagination his own listless condition, which
brought him no work to perform, and no witness of
his sufferings for the truth’s sake. Demophilus, one of
the foremost of the Eusebian party, was bishop of
Beroea, the place of Liberius’s banishment ; and gave
intelligence of his growing melancholy to his own
associates. Wise in their generation, they had an in-
strument ready prepared for the tempter’s office.
Fortunatian, Bishop of Aquileia, who stood high in
the opinion of Liberius for disinterestedness and
courage, had conformed to the court-religion in the
Arian Council of Milan ; and he was now employed
by the Eusebians, to gain over the wavering prelate.
The arguments of Fortunatian and Demophilus shall
be given in the words of Maimbourg. “ They told
him, that they could not conceive, how a man of his
worth and spirit could so long obstinately resolve to
be miserable upon a chimerical notion, which subsisted
only in the imagination of people of weak or no
understanding : that, indeed, if he suffered for the
cause of God and the Church, of which God had given
him the government, they should not only look upon
his sufferings as glorious, but, being willing to partake
of his glory, they should also become his companions
in banishment themselves. But that this matter related
neither to God nor religion ; that it concerned merely
a private person, named Athanasius, whose cause had
nothing in common with that of the Church, whom the
public voice had long since accused of numberless
sect. hi. J The Athanosians.
321
crimes, whom Councils had condemned, and who had
been turned out of his see by the great Constantine,
whose judgment alone was sufficient to justify all that
the East and West had so often pronounced against him.
That, even if he were not so guilty as men made him,
yet it was necessary to sacrifice him to the peace of
the Church, and to throw him into the sea to appease
the storm, which he was the occasion of raising ; but
that, the greater part of the Bishops having condemned
him, the defending him would be causing a schism,
and that it was a very uncommon sight to see the
Roman prelate abandon the care of the Church, and
banish himself into Thrace, to become the martyr of
one, whom both divine and human justice had so often
declared guilty. That it was high time to undeceive
himself, and to open his eyes at last ; to see, whether
it was not passion in Athanasius, which gave a false
alarm, and opposed an imaginary heresy, to make the
world believe that they had a mind to establish
error 4 .”
The arguments, diffusively but instructively reported
in the above extract, were enforced by the threat of
death as the consequence of obstinacy ; while, on the
other hand, a temptation of a peculiar nature presented
itself to the exiled bishop in his very popularity with
the Roman people, which was such, that Constantius
had already been obliged to promise them his restora-
tion. Moreover, as if to give a reality to the induce-
ments by which he was assailed, a specific plan of
mutual concession and concord had been projected, in
which Liberius was required to take part. The
4 Webster’s translation is used : one or two irrelevant phrases, intro-
duced by Maimbourg on the subject of Roman supremacy, being omitted.
Y
3 22
The A thanasians. [chap. iv.
Western Catholics were, as we have seen, on all occa-
sions requiring evidence of the orthodoxy of the
Eusebians, before they consented to take part with
them against Athanasius. Constantius then, desirous
of ingratiating himself with the people of Rome, and
himself a Semi-Arian, and at that time alarmed at the
increasing boldness of the Anomceans, or pure Arians,
presently to be mentioned, perceived his opportunity
for effecting a general acceptance of a Semi-Arian
creed ; and thus, while sacrificing the Anomceans,
whom he feared, to the Catholics, and claiming from
the Catholics in turn what were scarcely concessions,
in the imperfect language of the West, for realizing
that religious peace, which he held to be incompatible
with the inflexible orthodoxy of Athanasius. More-
over, the heresies of Marcellus and Photinus were in
favour of this scheme ; for, by dwelling upon them, he
withdrew the eyes of Catholics from the contrary
errors of Semi-Arianism. A creed was compiled from
three former confessions, that of the orthodox Council
against Paulus (a.D. 264), that of the Dedication
(a.D. 341), and one of the three published at Sirmium.
Thus carefully composed, it was signed by all parties,
by Liberius 5 , by the Semi-Arians, and by the Euse-
bians ; the Eusebians being compelled by the Emperor
to submit for the time to the dogmatic formulae, which
they had gradually abandoned. Were it desirable to
enlarge on this miserable apostasy, there are abundant
materials in the letters, which Liberius wrote in renun-
ciation of Athanasius, to his clergy, and to the Arian
5 [Vide supr. pp. 13T. 294.323. There is much difference of opinion,
however, among writers, which was the creed which Liberius signed:
vide Appendix, No. 3.]
3^3
sect, hi.] The Athanasians .
bishops. To Valens he protests, that nothing but his
love of peace, greater than his desire of martyrdom
itself, would have led him to the step which he had
taken ; in another he declares, that he has but followed
his conscience in God’s sight 6 . To add to his misery,
Constantius suffered him for a while to linger in exile,
after he had given way. At length he was restored ;
and at Ariminum in a measure retrieved his error,
together with Vincent of Capua.
7 -
The sufferings and trials of Hosius, which took place
about the same time, are calculated to impress the
mind with the most sorrowful feelings, and still more
with a lively indignation against his inhuman perse-
cutors. Shortly before the conference at Sirmium, at
which Liberius gave his allegiance to the supremacy
of Semi-Arianism, a creed had been drawn up in
the same city by Valens and the other more daring
members of the Eusebian body. It would seem, that
at this date Constantius had not taken the alarm
against the Anomceans, to the extent in which he felt
it soon afterwards, on the news probably of their pro-
ceedings in the East. Accordingly, the creed in ques-
tion is of a mixed character. Not venturing on the
Anomceon, as at Milan, it nevertheless condemns the
use of the usia ( substance ), Homousion y and Homoeiision ,
on somewhat of the equivocal plan, of which Acacius,
as I have said above, was the most conspicuous patron ;
and being such, it was presented for signature to the
aged Bishop of Corduba. The cruelty which they
6 Hilar. Fragm. iv. and vi.
Y 2
324 The Athanasians. [chap. iv.
exercised to accomplish their purpose, was worthy of
that singularly wicked faction which Eusebius had
organized. Hosius was at this time 101 years old ;
and had passed a life, prolonged beyond the age of
man, in services and sufferings in the cause of Christ.
He had assisted in the celebrated Council of Elvira,
in Spain (about the year 300), and had been distin-
guished as a confessor in the Maximinian persecution.
He presided at the General Councils of Nicsea and
Sardica, and was perhaps the only Bishop, besides
Athanasius, who was known and reverenced at once
in the East and West. When Constantius became pos-
sessed of the Western world, far from relaxing his zeal
in a cause discountenanced at the Court, Hosius had
exerted himself in his own diocese for the orthodox
faith ; and, when the persecution began, endeavoured
by letter to rouse other bishops to a sense of the con-
nexion between the acquittal of Athanasius, and the
maintenance of divine truth. The Eusebians were
irritated by his opposition ; he was summoned to the
Court at Milan, and, after a vain attempt to shake his
constancy, dismissed back to his see. The importu-
nities of Constantius being shortly after renewed,
both in the way of threats and of promises, Hosius
addressed him an admirable letter, which Athanasius
has preserved. After declaring his willingness to
repeat, should it be necessary, the good confession
which he had made in the heathen persecution, he
exhorts the Emperor to abandon his unscriptural
creed, and to turn his ear from Arian advisers. He
states his conviction, that the condemnation of Athan-
asius was urged merely for the establishment of the
heresy ; declares, that at Sardica his accusers had
sect, hi.] The Athanasians . 325
been challenged publicly to produce the proof of their
allegations, and had failed, and that he himself had
conversed with them in private, and could gain nothing
satisfactory from them ; and he further reminds Con-
stantius, that Valens and Ursacius had before now
retracted the charges, which they once urged against
him. “ Change your course of action, I beseech you,”
continues the earnest Prelate ; “ remember that you
are a man. Fear the day of judgment ; keep your
hands clean against it ; meddle not with Church
matters ; far from advising us about them, rather seek
instruction from us. God has put dominion into your
hands ; to us He has entrusted the management of
the Church ; and, as a traitor to you is a rebel to the
God who ordained you, so be afraid on your part, lest,
usurping ecclesiastical power, you become guilty of a
great sin. It is written, ‘ Render unto Caesar, Caesar’s,
and what is God’s, to God.’ We may not bear rule ;
you, O Emperor, may not burn incense. I write this
from a care for your soul. As to your message, I
remain in the same mind. I do not join the Arians.
I anathematize them. I do not subscribe the condem-
nation of Athanasius 7 .” Hosius did not address such
language with impunity to a Court, which affected the
majesty of oriental despotism. He was summoned to
Sirmium, and thrown into prison. There he remained
for a whole year. Tortures were added to force the
old man from his resolution. He was scourged, and
afterwards placed upon the rack. Mysterious it was,
that so honoured a life should be preserved to an
extremity of age, to become the sport and triumph of
the Enemy of mankind. At length broken in spirit,
7 Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 44.
326 The Athanasians. [chap. iv.
the contemporary of Gregory and Dionysius 8 was
induced to countenance the impieties of the genera-
tion, into which he had lived ; not indeed signing the
condemnation of Athanasius, for he spurned that
baseness to the last, but yielding subscription to a
formulary, which forbad the mention of the Homoiision,
and thus virtually condemned the creed of Nicaea,
and countenanced the Arian proceedings. Hosius
lived about two years after this tragical event : and,
on his deathbed, he protested against the compulsion
which had been used towards him, and, with his last
breath, abjured the heresy which dishonoured his
Divine Lord and Saviour.
8 .
Meanwhile, the great Egyptian prelate, seated on his
patriarchal throne, had calmly prosecuted the work, for
which he was raised up, as if his name had not been
mentioned in the Arian Councils, and the troubles,
which agitated the Western Church, were not the
prelude to the blow, which was to fall on himself.
Untutored in concession to impiety, by the experience
or the prospect of suffering, yet, sensitively alive to
the difference between misbelief and misapprehension,
while he punished he spared, and restored in the
spirit of meekness, while he rebuked and rejected
with power. On his return to Alexandria, seven years
previous to the events last recorded, congratulations
and professions of attachment poured in upon him.
from the provinces of the whole Roman world, near
and distant. From Africa to Illyricum, and from
8 Vide supr. p. 125.
327
sect, hi.] The Athananans .
England to Palestine, 400 episcopal letters solicited
his communion or patronage ; and apologies, and the
officiousness of personal service were liberally tendered
by those, who, through cowardice, dulness, or self-
interest, had joined themselves to the heretical party.
Nor did Athanasius fail to improve the season of
prosperity, for the true moral strength and substantial
holiness of the people committed to him. The sacred
services were diligently attended ; alms and benefac-
tions supplied the wants of the friendless and infirm ;
and the young turned their thoughts to that generous
consecration of themselves to God, recommended by
St. Paul in times of trouble and persecution.
In truth the sufferings, which the Church of Alex-
andria had lately undergone from the hands of the
Eusebians, were sufficient to indispose serious minds
towards secular engagements, or vows of duty to a
fellow-mortal ; to quench those anticipations of quiet-
ness and peace, which the overthrow of paganism had
at first excited ; and to remind them, that the girdle
of celibacy and the lamp of watchers best became
those, on whom God’s judgments might fall suddenly.
Not more than ten years were gone by, since Gregory,
appointed to the see of Athanasius by the Council of
the Dedication 9 , had been thrust upon them by the
Imperial Governor, with the most frightful and revolt-
ing outrages. Philagrius, an apostate from the
Christian faith, and Arsacius, an eunuch of the Court,
introduced the Eusebian Bishop into his episcopal
city. A Church besieged and spoiled, the massacre
of the assembled worshippers, the clergy trodden
underfoot, the women subjected to the most infamous
9 Vid. supra, p. 286.
328
The Athanasians. [chap. iv.
profanations, these were the first benedictory greetings
scattered by the Arian among his people. Next,
bishops were robbed, beaten, imprisoned, banished ;
the sacred elements of the Eucharist were scornfully
cast about by the heathen rabble, which seconded the
usurping party ; birds and fruits were offered in sac-
rifice on the holy table ; hymns chanted in honour of
the idols of paganism ; and the Scriptures given to
the flames.
Such had already been the trial of a much-enduring
Church ; and it might suddenly be renewed in spite of
its present prosperity. The Council of Sardica, con-
voked principally to remedy these miserable disorders,
had in its Synodal Letter warned the Alexandrian
Catholics against relaxing in the brave testimony they
were giving to the faith of the Gospel. “We exhort
you, beloved brethren, before all things, that ye hold
the right faith of the Catholic Church. Many and
grievous have been your sufferings, and many are the
insults and injuries inflicted on the Catholic Church,
but ‘ he, who endureth unto the end, the same shall be
saved.’ Wherefore, should they essay further enor-
mities against you, let affliction be your rejoicing.
For such sufferings are a kind of martyrdom, and
such confessions and tortures have their reward. Ye
shall receive from God the combatant’s prize. Where-
fore struggle with all might for the sound faith, and
for the exculpation of our brother Athanasius, your
bishop. We on our part have not been silent about
you, nor neglected to provide for your security ; but
have been mindful, and done all that Christian love
requires of us, suffering with our suffering brethren,
and accounting their trials as our own 1 .”
1 Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 38.
sect, hi.] The Athanasians. 329
The time was now at hand, which was anticipated
by the prophetic solicitude of the Sardican Fathers.
The same year in which Hosius was thrown into
prison, the furies of heretical malice were let loose
upon the Catholics of Alexandria. George of Cap-
padocia, a man of illiterate mind and savage man-
ners, was selected by the Eusebians as their new
substitute for Athanasius in the see of that city ;
and the charge of executing this extraordinary de-
termination was committed to Syrianus, Duke of
Egypt. The scenes which followed are but the re-
petition, with more aggravated horrors, of the atro-
cities perpetrated by the intruder Gregory. Syrianus
entered Alexandria at night ; and straightway pro-
ceeded with his soldiers to one of the churches,
where the Alexandrians were engaged in the services
of religion. We have the account of the irruption
from Athanasius himself ; who, being accused by the
Arians of cowardice, on occasion of his subsequent
flight, after defending his conduct from Scripture,
describes the circumstances, under which he was
driven from his Church. “ It was now night,” he says,
“ and some of our people were keeping vigil, as com-
munion was in prospect ; when the Duke Syrianus
suddenly came upon us, with a force of above 5000
men, prepared for attack, with drawn swords, bows,
darts, and clubs, . . . and surrounded the church with
close parties of the soldiery, that none might escape
from within. There seemed an impropriety in my
deserting my congregation in such a riot, instead of
hazarding the danger in their stead ; so I placed
myself in my bishop’s chair, and bade the deacon read
the Psalm (Ps. cxxxvi.), and the congregation alternate
330
The Athanasians . [chap. iv.
‘ for His mercy endureth for ever/ and then all retire
and go home. But the General bursting at length
into the church, and his soldiers blocking up the
chancel, with a view of arresting me, the clergy and
some of my people present began in their turn clamor-
ously to urge me to withdraw myself. However, I
refused to do so, before one and all in the church were
gone. Accordingly I stood up, and directed prayer
to be said ; and then I urged them all to depart first,
for that it was better that I should run the risk, than
any of them suffer. But by the time that most of them
were gone out, and the rest were following, the
Religious Brethren and some of the clergy, who were
immediately about me, ran up the steps, and dragged
me down. And so, be truth my witness, though the
soldiers blockaded the chancel, and were in motion
round about the church, the Lord leading, I made my
way through them, and by His protection got away
unperceived ; glorifying God mightily, that I had
been enabled to stand by my people, and even to send
them out before me, and yet had escaped in safety
from the hands of those who sought me 2 .”
The formal protest of the Alexandrian Christians
against this outrage, which is still extant, gives a
stronger and fuller statement of the violences attending
it. “ While we were watching in prayer,” they say,
“ suddenly about midnight, the most noble Duke Syri-
anus came upon us with a large force of legionaries,
with arms, drawn swords, and other militarv weapons,
and their helmets on. The prayers and sacred read-
ing were proceeding, when they assaulted the doors,
and, on these being laid open by the force of numbers,
2 Athan. Apol. de Fug. 24.
33i
sect, hi."] The Athanasians .
he gave the word of command. Upon which, some
began to let fly their arrows, and others to sound a
charge ; and there was a clashing of weapons, and
swords glared against the lamplight. Presently, the
sacred virgins were slaughtered, numbers trampled
down one over another by the rush of the soldiers,
and others killed by arrows. Some of the soldiers
betook themselves to pillage, and began to strip the
females, to whom the very touch of strangers was
more terrible than death. Meanwhile, the Bishop sat
on his throne, exhorting all to pray. ... He was
dragged down, and almost torn to pieces. He swooned
away, and became as dead ; we do not know how he
got away from them, for they were bent upon killing
him 3”
The first purpose of Athanasius on his escape was
at once to betake himself to Constantius ; and he had
begun his journey to him, when news of the fury, with
which the persecution raged throughout the West,
changed his intention. A price was set on his head,
and every place was diligently searched in the at-
tempt to find him. He retired into the wilderness
of the Thebaid, then inhabited by the followers of
Paul and Anthony, the first hermits. Driven at length
thence by the activity of his persecutors, he went
through a variety of strange adventures, which lasted
for the space of six years, till the death of Con-
stantius allowed him to return to Alexandria.
His suffragan bishops did not escape a persecution,
which was directed, not against an individual, but
against the Christian faith. Thirty of them were
banished, ninety were deprived of their churches ; and
3 Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 8i.
332
The A thanasians. [chap. iv.
many of the inferior clergy suffered with them. Sick-
ness and death were the ordinary result of such hard-
ships as exile involved ; but direct violence in good
measure superseded a lingering and uncertain ven-
geance. George, the representative of the Arians, led
the way in a course of horrors, which he carried through
all ranks and professions of the Catholic people ; and
the Jews and heathen of Alexandria, sympathizing in
his brutality, submitted themselves to his guidance,
and enabled him to extend the range of his crimes in
every direction. Houses were pillaged, churches were
burned, or subjected to the most loathsome profana-
tions, and cemeteries were ransacked. On the week
after Whitsuntide, George himself surprised a congre-
gation, which had refused to communicate with him.
He brought out some of the consecrated virgins, and
threatened them with death by burning, unless they
forthwith turned Arians. On perceiving their con-
stancy of purpose, he stripped them of their garments,
and beat them so barbarously on the face, that for
some time afterwards their features could not be dis-
tinguished. Of the men, forty were scourged ; some
died of their wounds, the rest were banished. This is
one out of many notorious facts, publicly declared at
the time, and uncontradicted ; and which were not
merely the unauthorized excesses of an uneducated
Cappadocian, but recognized by the Arian body as
their own acts, in a state paper from the Imperial
Court, and perpetrated for the maintenance of the
peace of the Church, and of a good understanding
among all who agreed in the authority of the sacred
Scriptures.
In the manifesto, issued for the benefit of the people
sect, hi.] The Athanasians. 333
of Alexandria (A.D. 356), the infatuated Emperor ap-
plauds their conduct in turning from a cheat and
impostor, and siding with those who were venerable
men, and above all praise. “The majority of the
citizens,” he continues, “ were blinded by the influence
of one who rose from the abyss, darkly misleading
those who seek the truth ; who had at no time any
fruitful exhortation to communicate, but abused the
souls of his hearers with frivolous and superficial dis-
cussions. . . . That noble personage has not ventured
to stand a trial, but has adjudged himself to banish-
ment ; whom it is the interest even of the barbarians
to get rid of, lest by pouring out his griefs as in a play
to the first comer, he persuade some of them to be
profane. So we will wish him a fair journey. But
for yourselves, only the select few are your equals, or
rather, none are worthy of your honours ; who are
allotted excellence and sense, such as your actions
proclaim, celebrated as they are almost in eveiy place.
. . . You have roused yourselves from the grovelling
things of earth to those of heaven, the most reverend
George undertaking to be your leader, a man of all
others the most accomplished in such matters ; under
whose care you will enjoy in days to come honourable
hope, and tranquillity at the present time. May all
of you hang upon his words as upon a holy anchor,
that any cutting and burning may be needless on our
part against men of depraved souls, whom we seriously
advise to abstain from paying respect to Athanasius,
and to dismiss from their minds his ' troublesome
garrulity ; or such factious men will find themselves
involved in extreme peril, which perhaps no skill will
be able to avert from them. For it were absurd
334 The Athanasians . [chap. iv.
indeed, to drive about the pestilent Athanasius from
country to country, aiming at his death, though he
had ten lives, and not to put a stop to the extrava-
gances of his flatterers and juggling attendants, such
as it is a disgrace to name, and whose death has long
been determined by the judges. Yet there is a hope
of pardon, if they will desist from their former offences.
As to their profligate leader Athanasius, he distracted
the harmony of the state, and laid on the most holy
men impious and sacrilegious hands 4 .”
The ignorance and folly of this remarkable document
are at first sight incredible ; but to an observant mind
the common experience of life brings sufficient proof,
that there is nothing too audacious for party spirit to
assert, nothing too gross for monarch or inflamed
populace to receive.
4 Athan. Apol. ad Constant. 30. [Aug. 10, 1886. There is great
reason for concluding that the documentary fragments used above and
ascribed to St. Hilary and Liberius, pp. 322, 323, are not genuine. It is
safer to confine ourselves to the following judgment of Bishop Hefele
in his “ Councils,” vol. ii. pp. 245, 246, ed. 1875 : —
“ We therefore conclude without doubt that Liberius, yielding to
force and sinking under many years of confinement and exile, signed the
so-called third Sirmian formula, that is, the collection of older formulas
of faith accepted at the third Sirmian Synod of 358. He did not do
this without scruples, for the Semi-Arian character and origin of these
formulas were not unknown to him ; but, as they contained no direct
or express rejection of the orthodox faith, and as it was represented to
him, on the other side, that the Nicene ofxoovarios formed a cloak for
Sabellianism and Photinism, he allowed himself to be persuaded to
accept the third Sirmian confession. But by so doing he only renounced
the letter of the Nicene faith, not the orthodox faith itself.”]
335
SECTION IV.
THE ANOMGEANS.
It remains to relate the circumstances of the open
disunion and schism between the Semi-Arians and
the Anomoeans. In order to set this clearly before
the reader, a brief recapitulation must first be made of
the history of the heresy, which has been thrown into
the shade in the last Section, by the narrative of the
ecclesiastical events to which it gave occasion.
The Semi-Arian school was the offspring of the
ingenious refinements, under which the Eusebians
concealed impieties, which the temper of the faithful
made it inexpedient for them to avow 1 . Its creed
preceded the party ; that is, those subtleties, which
were too feeble to entangle the clear intellects of the
school of Lucian, produced after a time their due
effect upon the natural subjects of them, viz. men who,
with more devotional feeling than the Arians, had less
plain sense, and a like deficiency of humility. A
Platonic fancifulness made them the victims of an
Aristotelic subtlety ; and in the philosophising Euse-
bius and the sophist Asterius, we recognize the
appropriate inventors, though hardly the sincere dis-
ciples, of the new creed. For a time, the distinction
between the Semi-Arians and the Eusebians did not
1 [Plato made Semi-Arians, and Aristotle Arians.]
336
The Anomceans. [chap. iv.
openly appear ; the creeds put forth by the whole
party being all, more or less, of a Semi-Arian cast,
down to the Council of Sirmium inclusive (A.D. 351),
in which Photinus was condemned. In the meanwhile
the Eusebians, little pleased with the growing dogma-
tism of members of their own body, fell upon the
expedient of confining their confessions to Scripture
terms ; which, when separated from their context,
were of course inadequate to concentrate and ascertain
the true doctrine. Hence the formula of the Homceon ;
which was introduced by Acacius with the express
purpose of deceiving or baffling the Semi-Arian mem-
bers of his party. This measure was the more
necessary for Eusebian interests, inasmuch as a new
variety of the heresy arose in the East at the same
time, advocated by Aetius and Eunomius ; who, by
professing boldly the pure Arian tenet, alarmed Con-
stantius, and threw him back upon Basil, and the
other Semi-Arians. This new doctrine, called Ano-
mcean, because it maintained that the usia or substance
of the Son was unlike ( avofioLos ) the Divine usia , was
actually adopted by one portion of the Eusebians,
Valens and his rude Occidentals ; whose language
and temper, not admitting the refinements of Grecian
genius, led them to rush from orthodoxy into the most
hard and undisguised impiety. And thus the parties
stand at the date now before us (A.D. 356 — 361) ; Con-
stantius being alternately swayed by Basil, Acacius,
and Valens, that is, by the Homoeusian, the Homoean,
and the Anomoean, — the Semi-Arian, the Scriptu-
ralist, and the Arian pure ; by his respect for Basil and
the Semi-Arians, the talent of Acacius, and his per-
sonal attachment to Valens.
SECT. IV.]
The Anomoeans .
337
i.
Aetius, the founder of the Anomoeans, is a remark-
able instance of the struggles and success of a restless
and aspiring mind under the pressure of difficulties.
He was a native of Antioch ; his father, who had an
office under the governor of the province, dying when
he was a child, he was made the servant or slave of a
vine-dresser. He was first promoted to the trade of a
goldsmith or travelling tinker, according to the con-
flicting testimony of his friends and enemies. Falling
in with an itinerant practitioner in medicine, he
acquired so much knowledge of the art, as to pro-
fess it himself ; and, the further study of his new
profession introducing him to the disputations of his
more learned brethren, he manifested such acuteness
and boldness in argument, that he was soon engaged,
after the manner of the Sophists, as a paid advocate
for such physicians as wished their own theories ex-
hibited in the most advantageous form. The schools
of Medicine were at that time infected with Arianism,
and thus introduced him to the science of theology, as
well as that of disputation ; giving him a bias towards
heresy, which was soon after confirmed by the tuition
of Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. At Tyre he so boldly
conducted the principles of Arianism to their legiti-
mate results, as to scandalize the Eusebian successor of
Paulinus ; who forced him to retire to Anazarbus, and
to resume his former trade of a goldsmith. The energy
of Aetius, however, could not be restrained by the
obstacles which birth, education, and decency threw in
his way. He made acquaintance with a teacher of
grammar ; and, readily acquiring a smattering of
z
338 The Anomceans. [chap. iv.
polite literature, he was soon enabled to criticise his
master’s expositions of sacred Scripture before his
pupils. A quarrel, as might be expected, ensued ; and
Aetius was received into the house of the Bishop of
Anazarbus, who had been one of the Arian prelates at
Nicaea. This man was formerly mentioned as one of
the rudest and most daring among the first assailants
of our Lord’s divinity 2 . It is probable, however, that,
after signing the Homoiision , he had surrendered him-
self to the characteristic duplicity and worldliness of
the Eusebian party ; for Aetius is said to have com-
plained, that he w^as deficient in depth, and, in spite of
his hospitality, looked out for another instructor. Such
an one he found in the person of a priest of Tarsus,
who had been from the first a consistent Arian ; and
with him he read the Epistles of St. Paul. Returning
to Antioch, he became the pupil of Leontius, in the
prophetical Scriptures ; and, after a while, put himself
under the instruction of an Aristotelic sophist of
Alexandria. Thus accomplished, he was ordained
deacon by Leontius (A.D. 350), who had been lately
raised to the patriarchal See of Antioch. Thus the
rise of the Anomoean sect coincides in point of time
with the death of Constans, an event already noticed
in the history of the Eusebians, as transferring the
Empire of the West to Constantius, and, thereby
furthering their division into the Homoean and
Homceusian factions. Scarcely had Aetius been
ordained, when the same notorious irregularities in
his carriage, whatever they were, which had more
than once led to his expulsion from the lay com-
munion of the Arians, caused his deposition from the
2 [Vide supra, p. 239.]
339
sect, iv.] The A nomceans.
diaconate, by the very prelate who had promoted him
to it. After this, little is known of him for several
years ; excepting a dispute, which he held with the
Semi-Arian Basil, which marks his rising importance.
During the interval, he ingratiated himself with
Gallus, the brother of Julian; and was implicated in
his political offences. Escaping, however, the anger
of Constantius, by his comparative insignificance, he
retired to Alexandria, and lived for some time in the
train of George of Cappadocia, who allowed him to
officiate as deacon. Such was at this time the cha-
racter of the clergy, whom the Arians had introduced
into the Syrian Churches, that this despicable adven-
turer, whose manners were as odious, as his life was
eccentric, and his creed blasphemous, had sufficient
influence to found a sect, which engaged the attention
of the learned Semi- Arians at Ancyra (a.D. 358), and
has employed the polemical powers of the orthodox
Fathers, Basil and Gregory Nyssen.
Eunomius, his disciple, was the principal disputant
in the controversy. With more learning than Aetius,
he was enabled to complete and fortify the Anomoean
system, inheriting from his master the two peculiarities
of character which belong to his school ; the first, a
faculty of subtle disputation and hard mathematical
reasoning, the second, a fierce, and in one sense an
honest, disdain of compromise and dissimulation.
These had been the two marks of Arianism at its
first rise ; and the first associates of Arius, who, after
his submission to Constantine, had kept aloof from
the Court party in disgust, now joyfully welcomed
and joined the Anomoeans. The new sect justified
their anticipations of its boldness. The same im-
340
The Anomoeans. [chap. iv.
patience, with which Aetius had received the ambigu-
ous explanations of the Eusebian Bishop of Anazar-
bus, was expressed by Eunomius for the Acacianism
of Eudoxius of Antioch, who in vain endeavoured to
tutor him into a less real and systematic profession of
the Arian tenets. So far did his party carry their
vehemence, as even to re-baptize their Christian con-
verts, as though they had been heathen ; and that, not
in the case of Catholics only, but, to the great offence
of the Eusebians, even of those, whom they converted
from the other forms of Arianism 3 . Earnestness is
always respectable ; and, if it be allowable to speak
with a sort of moral catachresis, the Anomoeans
merited on this account, as well as ensured, a success,
which a false conciliation must not hope to obtain.
2 .
The progress of events rapidly carried them forward
upon the scene of ecclesiastical politics. Valens, who
by this time had gained the lead of the Western
Bishops, was seconded in his patronage of them by
the eunuchs of the Court ; of whom Eusebius, the
Grand Chamberlain, had unlimited sway over the
weak mind of the Emperor. The concessions, made
3 Epiph. Hser. lxxvi. fin. Bingham, xi. i. § to. [Thus, bold as were
the original Arians, the Anomoeans were bolder and more consistent.
Athanasius challenges the former, if they dare, to speak out. Basil says
“ Aetius was the first to teach openly that the Father’s substance was un-
like the Son’s.” Vide Ath. Tr. vol. ii. pp. 34, 287—292 However,
Athanasius interprets Arius’s Thalia to say that the Persons of the Holy
Trinity are utterly unlike (aj/o/xotot) each other in substance and glorj
without limit.” Orat. § 6. De Syn. § 15. Again, Arius held that
the Divine Being was incomprehensible (Athan. de Syn. § 15), but the
Anomoeans denied it. Socr. iv. 7.]
The Anoinaeans.
SECT. IV.]
34 1
by Liberius and Hosius to the Eusebian party, fur-
nished an additional countenance to Arianism, being
misrepresented as actual advances towards the heretical
doctrine. The inartificial cast of the Western theology,
which scarcely recognized any middle hypothesis
between that of the Homoiision and pure Arianism,
strengthened the opinion that those, who had aban-
doned the one, must in fact have embraced the other.
And, as if this were not enough, it appears that an
Anomcean creed was circulated in the East, with the
pretence that it was the very formula which Hosius
and Liberius had subscribed. Under these circum-
stances, the Anomoeans were soon strong enough to aid
the Eusebians of the East in their contest with the
Semi-Arians 4 . Events in the Churches of Antioch and
Jerusalem favoured their enterprise. It happening
that Acacius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem were
rivals for the primacy of Palestine, the reputed con-
nexion of Cyril with the Semi-Arian party had the
effect of throwing Acacius, though the author of the
Homceon, on the side of its Anomcean assailants ;
accordingly, with the aid of the neighbouring Bishops,
he succeeded in deposing Cyril, and sending him out
of the country. At Antioch, the cautious Leontius,
Arian Bishop, dying (a.D. 357), the eunuchs of the
Court contrived to place Eudoxius in his see, a man of
restless and intriguing temper, and opposed to the
Semi-Arians. One of his first acts was to hold a Coun-
cil, at which Acacius was present, as well as Aetius and
Eunomius, the chiefs of the Anomoeans. There the
assembled Bishops did not venture beyond the lan-
guage of the second creed of Sirmium, which Hosius
4 Petav. tom. ii. i. 9, § 6. [Tillemont, t. 6. p. 429.]
34 2
The Anomoeans . [chap. iv.
had signed, and which kept clear of Anomcean doc-
trine ; but they had no difficulty in addressing a letter
of thanks and congratulations to the party of the
Anomcean Valens, for having at Sirmium brought the
troubles of the West to so satisfactory a termination.
The election, however, of Eudoxius, and this Coun-
cil which followed it were not to pass unchallenged by
the Semi-Arians. Mention has already been made of
one George 5 , a presbyter of Alexandria ; who, being
among the earliest supporters of Arius, was degraded
by Alexander, but, being received by the Eusebians
into the Church of Antioch, became at length Bishop
of Laodicea. George was justly offended at the pro-
motion of Eudoxius, without the consent of himself
and Mark of Arethusa, the most considerable Bishops
of Syria ; and, at this juncture, took part against the
combination of Homceans and Anomoeans, at Antioch,
who had just published their assent to the second
creed of Sirmium. Falling in with some clergy
whom Eudoxius had excommunicated, he sent letters
by them to Macedonius, Basil of Ancyra, and other
leaders of the Semi-Arians, intreating them to raise a
protest against the proceedings of the Council of
Antioch, and so to oblige Eudoxius to separate him-
self from Aetius and the Anomoeans. This remon-
strance produced its effect ; and, under pretence of
the dedication of a Church, a Council was immediately
held by the Semi-Arian party at Ancyra (A.D. 358), in
which the Anomcean heresy was condemned. The
Synodal letter, which they published, professed to be
grounded on the Semi-Arian creeds of the Dedication
(a.D. 341), of Philippopolis (A.D. 347), and of Sirmium
5 Vide supr. p. 240.
343
sect, iv.] The Anomceans .
(a.D. 351), when Photinus was condemned and deposed.
It is a valuable document, even as a defence of ortho-
doxy ; its error consisting in its obstinate rejection of
the Nicen e Homoiision, the sole practical bulwark of
the Catholic faith against the misrepresentations of
heresy, — against a sort of tritheism on the one hand,
and a degraded conception of the Son and Spirit on
the other.
The two parties thus at issue, appealed to Constan-
tius at Sirmium. That weak Prince had lately sanc-
tioned the almost Acacian creed of Valens, which
Hosius had been compelled to subscribe, when the
deputation from Antioch arrived at the Imperial
Court ; and he readily gave his assent to the new
edition of it which Eudoxius had promulgated.
Scarcely had he done so, when the Semi-Arians
made their appearance from Ancyra, with Basil at
their head ; and succeeded so well in representing the
dangerous character of the creed passed at Antioch,
that, recalling the messenger who had been sent off to
that city, he forthwith held the Conference, mentioned
in the foregoing Section, in which he imposed a Semi-
Arian creed on all parties, Eudoxius and Valens, the
representatives of the Eusebians, being compelled, as
well as the orthodox Liberius, to sign a formulary,
which Basil compiled from the creeds against Paulus
of Samosata, and Photinus (A.D. 264. 351), and the
creed of Lucian, published by the Council of the
Dedication (a.D. 341). Yet in spite of the learning,
and personal respectability of the Semi-Arians, which
at the moment exerted this strong influence over the
mind of Constantius, the dexterity of the Eusebians
in disputation and intrigue was ultimately successful.
344 The Anomoeans. [chap. iv.
Though seventy Bishops of their party were im-
mediately banished, these were in a few months rein-
stated by the capricious Emperor, who from that time
inclined first to the Acacian or Homcean, and then to
the open Anomoean or pure Arian doctrine ; and who
before his death (A.D. 361) received baptism from the
hands of Euzoius, one of the original associates of
Arius, then recently placed in the see of Antioch. —
The history of this change, with the Councils attend-
ing it, will bring us to the close of this chapter.
3 -
The Semi-Arians, elated by their success with the
Emperor, followed it up by obtaining his consent for
an Ecumenical Council, in which the faith of the
Christian Church should definitely be declared for
good. A meeting of the whole of Christendom had
not been attempted, except in the instance of the
Council of Sardica, since the Nicene ; and the Sar-
dican itself had been convoked principally to decide
upon the charges urged against Athanasius, and not
to open the doctrinal question. Indeed it is evident,
that none but the heterodox party, now dominant,
could consistently debate an article of belief, which
the united testimony of the Churches of the East and
West had once for all settled at Nicaea. This, then,
was the project of the Semi-Arians. They aimed at
a renewal on an Ecumenical scale of the Council of
the Dedication at Antioch in A.D. 341. The Eusebian
party, however, had no intention of tamely submitting
to defeat. Perceiving that it would be more for their
own interest that the prelates of the East and West
should not meet in the same place (two bodies being
345
sect, iv.] The Anomoeans.
more manageable than one), they exerted themselves so
strenuously with the assistance of the eunuchs of the
palace, that at last it was determined, that, while the
Orientals met at Seleucia in Isauria, the Occidental
Council should be held at Ariminum, in Italy. Next,
a previous Conference was held at Sirmium, in order
to determine on the creed to be presented to the
bipartite Council ; and here again the Eusebians
gained an advantage, though not at once to the
extent of their wishes. Warned by the late indigna-
tion of Constantius against the Anomoean tenet, they
did not attempt to rescue it from his displeasure ; but
they struggled for the adoption of the Acacian
Homoeon , which the Emperor had already both re-
ceived and abandoned, and they actually effected
the adoption of the “like in all things according to the
Scriptures ” — a phrase in which the Semi-Arians
indeed included their “like in substance ” or Homoe-
iision , but which did not necessarily refer to substance
or nature at all. Under these circumstances the two
Councils met in the autumn of A.D. 359, under the
nominal superintendence of the Semi-Arians ; but on
the Eusebian side, the sharp-witted Acacius under-
taking to deal with the disputatious Greeks, the
overbearing and cruel Valens with the plainer Latins.
About 160 Bishops of the Eastern Church assembled
at Seleucia 6 , of whom not above forty were Eusebians.
Far the greater number were professed Semi-Arians ;
the Egyptian prelates alone, of whom but twelve or
thirteen were present, displaying themselves, as at the
first, the bold and faithful adherents of the Homousion .
It was soon evident that the forced reconciliation
[Vide Ath. Tr. vol. i. p. 78, notes 8, 9.]
346
The Anomceans. [chap. iv.
which Constantius had imposed on the two parties at
Sirmium, was of no avail in their actual deliberations.
On each side an alteration of the proposed formula
was demanded. In spite of the sanction given by
Basil and Mark to the “like in all things ,” the majority
of their partisans would be contented with nothing
short of the definite “ like in substance ,” or Homceiision ,
which left no opening (as they considered) to evasion ;
and in consequence proposed to return to Lucian’s
creed, adopted by the Council of the Dedication.
Acacius, on the other hand, not satisfied with the
advantage he had just gained in the preliminary
meeting at Sirmium, where the mention of the usia
or substance was dropped (although but lately imposed
by Constantius on all parties, in the formulary which
Liberius signed), proposed a creed in which the
Homoiision and Homceiision , were condemned, the
Anomceon anathematized, as the source of confusion
and schism, and his own Homoeon adopted (that is,
“like” without the addition of “ in all things ” ) ; and
when he found himself unable to accomplish his pur-
pose, not waiting for the formal sentence of deposition,
which the Semi-Arians proceeded to pronounce upon
himself and eight others, he set off to Constantinople,
where the Emperor then was, hoping there, in the
absence of Basil and his party, to gain what had been
denied him in the preliminary meeting at Sirmium.
It so happened, however, that his object had been
effected even before his arrival ; for, a similar quarrel
having resulted from the meeting at Ariminum, and
deputies from the rival parties having thence similarly
been despatched to Constantius, a Conference had
already taken place at a city called Nice or Nicsea, in
The Anomceans.
347
SECT. IV.]
the neighbourhood of Hadrianople, and an emendated
creed adopted, in which, not only the safeguard of the
“in all things ” was omitted, and the usia condemned,
but even the word Hypostasis ( Subsistence or Person)
also, on the ground of its being a refinement on
Scripture. So much had been already gained by the
influence of Valens, when the arrival of Acacius at
Constantinople gave fresh activity to the Eusebian
party.
Thereupon a Council was summoned in the Imperial
city of the neighbouring Bishops, principally of those
of Bithynia, and the Acacian formula of Ariminum
confirmed. Constantius was easily persuaded to
believe of Basil, what had before been asserted of
Athanasius, that he was the impediment to the settle-
ment of the question, and to the tranquillity of the
Church. Various charges of a civil and ecclesiastical
nature were alleged against him and other Semi-
Arians, as formerly against Athanasius, with what
degree of truth it is impossible at this day to deter-
mine ; and a sentence of deposition was issued against
them. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Eusta-
thius of Sebaste, and Macedonius of Constantinople,
were in the number of those who suffered with Basil;
Macedonius being succeeded by Eudoxius, who, thus
seated in the first see of the East, became subsequently
the principal stay of Arianism under the Emperor
Valens.
This triumph of the Eusebian party in the East,
took place in the beginning of A.D. 360 ; by which
time the Council of Ariminum in the West, had been
brought to a conclusion. To it we must now turn our
attention.
348
The Anomceans. [chap. iv.
The Latin Council had commenced its deliberations,
before the Orientals had assembled at Seleucia ; yet it
did not bring them to a close till the end of the year.
The struggle between the Eusebians and their oppo-
nents had been so much the more stubborn in the
West, in proportion as the latter were more numerous
there, and further removed from Arian doctrine, and
Valens on the other hand more unscrupulous, and
armed with fuller powers. Four hundred Bishops
were collected at Ariminum, of whom but eighty were
Arians ; and the civil officer, to whom Constantius had
committed the superintendence of their proceedings,
had orders not to let them stir out of the city, till they
should agree upon a confession of faith. At the
opening of the Council, Valens, Ursacius, Germinius,
Auxentius, Caius, and Demophilus, the Imperial
Commissioners, had presented to the assembly the
formula of the “like in all things ” agreed upon in the
preliminary conference at Sirmium ; and demanded,
that, putting aside all strange and mysterious terms
of theology, it should be at once adopted by the
assembled Fathers. They had received for answer,
that the Latins determined to adhere to the formulary
of Nicaea ; and that, as a first step in their present
deliberations, it was necessary that all present should
forthwith anathematize all heresies and innovations,
beginning with that of Arius. The Commissioners
had refused to do so, and had been promptly con-
demned and deposed, a deputation of ten being sent
from the Council to Constantius, to acquaint him with
the result of its deliberations. The issue of this
mission to the Court, to which Valens opposed one
from his own party, has been already related. Con-
The Anomceans .
349
SECT. IV.]
stantius, with a view of wearing out the Latin Fathers,
pretended that the barbarian war required his im-
mediate attention, and delayed the consideration of
the question till the beginning of October, several
months after the opening of the Council ; and then,
frightening the Catholic deputation into compliance,
he effected at Nice the adoption of the Homcean creed
(that is, the “like ” without the “in all things ”) and
sent it back to Ariminum.
The termination of the Council there assembled was
disgraceful to its members, but more so to the Emperor
himself. Distressed by their long confinement, impa-
tient at their absence from their respective dioceses,
and apprehensive of the approaching winter, they
* began to waver. At first, indeed, they refused to com-
municate with their own apostate deputies ; but these,
almost in self-defence, were active and successful in
bringing over others to their new opinions. A threat
was held out by Taurus, the Praetorian Prefect, who
superintended the discussions, that fifteen of the most
obstinate should be sent into banishment; and Valens
was importunate in the use of such theological argu-
ments and explanations, as were likely to effect his
object. The Prefect conjured them with tears to
abandon an unfruitful obstinacy, to reflect on the
length of their past confinement, the discomfort of
their situation, the rigours of the winter, and to con-
sider, that there was but one possible termination of
the difficulty, which lay with themselves, not with
him. Valens, on the other hand, affirmed that the
Eastern bishops at Seleucia had abandoned the usia ;
and he demanded of those who still stood their ground,
what objection they could make to the Scriptural
350
The Anomoeans. [chap. iv.
creed proposed to them, and whether, for the sake of a
word, they would be the authors of a schism between
Eastern and Western Christendom. He affirmed,
that the danger apprehended by the Catholics was
but chimerical ; that he and his party condemned
Arius and Arianism, as strongly as themselves, and
were only desirous of avoiding a word, which con-
fessedly is not in Scripture, and had in past time
been productive of much scandal. Then, to put his
sincerity to the proof, he began with a loud voice to
anathematize the maintainers of the Arian blas-
phemies in succession ; and he concluded by declaring,
that he believed the Word to be God, begotten of God
before all time, and not in the number of the creatures,
and that whoever should say that He was a creature as
other creatures, was anathema. The foregoing history
of the heresy has sufficiently explained how the
Arians evaded the force of these strong declarations ;
but the inexperienced Latins did not detect their
insincerity. Satisfied, and glad to be released, they
gave up the Homoiision , and signed the formula of
the Homoeon ; and scarcely had they separated, when
Valens, as might be expected, boasted of his victory,
arguing that the faith of Nicaea had been condemned
by the very circumstance of his being allowed to
confess, that the Son was “ not a creature as other
creatures,” and so to imply, that, though not like
other creatures, still He was created. Thus ended this
celebrated Council ; the result of which is well cha-
racterized in the lively statement of Jerome: “The
whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself
Arian 7”
7 [“ Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est.”"|
The Anomoeans.
35i
SECT. IV.]
In the proceedings attendant on the Councils of
Seleucia and Ariminum, the Eusebians had skilfully
gained two important objects, by means of unim-
portant concessions on their part. They had sac-
rificed Aetius and his Anomceon ; and effected in
exchange the disgrace of the Semi-Arians as well as
of the Catholics, and the establishment of the Homoeon ,
the truly characteristic symbol of a party, who, as
caring little for the sense of Scripture, found an ex-
cuse and an indulgence of their unconcern, in a pre-
tended maintenance of the letter. As to the wretched
mountebank just mentioned, whose profaneness was so
abominable, as to obtain for him the title of the
“ Atheist,” he was formally condemned in the Council
at Constantinople (A.D. 360) already mentioned, in
which the Semi-Arian Basil, Macedonius, and their
associates had been deposed. During the discussions
which attended it, Eleusius, one of the latter party,
laid before the Emperor an Anomcean creed, which
he ascribed to Eudoxius. The latter, when questioned,
disowned it ; and named Aetius as its author, who was
immediately summoned. Introduced into the Imperial
presence, he was ^unable to divine, in spite of his
natural acuteness, whether the Emperor was pleased
or displeased with the composition ; and, hazarding
an acknowledgement of it, he drew down on himself
the full indignation of Constantius, who banished him
into Cilicia, and obliged his patron Eudoxius to
anathematize both the confession in question, and all
the positions of the pure Arian heresy. Such was
the fall of Aetius, at the time of the triumph of the
Eusebians ; but soon afterwards he was promoted to
the episcopate (under what circumstances is unknown),
35 2
The Anomoeans . [chap. iv.
and was favourably noticed, as a former friend of
Gallus, by the Emperor Julian, who gave him a terri-
tory in the Island of Mitelene.
Eunomius, his disciple, escaped the jealousy of Con-
stantius through the good offices of Eudoxius, and was
advanced to the Bishoprick of Cyzicus ; but, being
impatient of dissimulation, he soon fell into disgrace,
and was banished. The death of the Emperor took
place at the end of A.D. 361 ; his last acts evincing a
further approximation to the unmitigated heresy of
Arius. At a Council held at Antioch in the course of
that year, he sanctioned the Anomcean doctrine in its
most revolting form ; and shortly before his decease,
received the sacrament of baptism, as has been stated
above, from Euzoius, the personal friend and original
associate of Arius himself 8 .
8 [“At this critical moment Constantius died, when the cause of truth
was only not in the lowest state of degradation, because a party was in
authority and vigour who could reduce it to a lower still ; the Latins com-
mitted to an Anti-Catholic creed, the Pope a renegade, Hosius fallen and
dead, Athanasius wandering in the deserts, Arians in the sees of Christen-
dom, and their doctrine growing in blasphemy, and their profession of it
in boldness, every day. The Emperor had come to the throne when almost
a boy, and at this time was but forty-four years old. In the ordinary
course of things, he might have reigned till orthodoxy, humanly
speaking, was extinct.’* Ath. Tr. vol. i. p. 121.]
353
CHAPTER V.
COUNCILS AFTER THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS.
SECTION I.
THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE REIGN OF
JULIAN.
The accession of Julian was followed by a general
restoration of the banished Bishops ; and all eyes
throughout Christendom were at once turned towards
Alexandria, as the Church, which, by its sufferings
and its indomitable spirit, had claim to be the arbiter
of doctrine, and the guarantee of peace to the Catholic
world. Athanasius, as the story goes, was, on the
death of his persecutor, suddenly found on his episco-
pal throne in one of the Churches of Alexandria 1 ; a
legend, happily expressive of the unwearied activity
and almost ubiquity of that extraordinary man, who,
while a price was set on his head, mingled unperceived
in the proceedings at Seleucia and Ariminum 2 and
directed the movements of his fellow-labourers by his
1 Cave, Life of Athan. x. 9.
2 [This is doubtful ; vide Montfaucon, Athan., though Tillemont and
Gibbon seem to admit it.]
A A
354 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
writings, when he was debarred the exercise of his dex-
terity in debate, and his persuasive energy in private
conversation. He was soon joined by his fellow-
exile, Eusebius of Vercellae ; Lucifer, who had jour-
neyed with the latter from the Upper Thebaid, on his
return to the West, having gone forward to Antioch
on business which will presently be explained. Mean-
while, no time was lost in holding a Council at
Alexandria (A.D. 362) on the general state of the
Church.
The object of Julian in recalling the banished
Bishops, was the renewal of those dissensions, by
means of toleration, which Constantius had en-
deavoured to terminate by force. He knew these
prelates to be of various opinions, Semi-Arians,
Macedonians, Anomoeans, as well as orthodox ; and,
determining to be neuter himself, he waited with the
satisfaction of an Eclectic for the event ; being per-
suaded, that Christianity could not withstand the
shock of parties, not less discordant, and far more
zealous, than the sects of philosophy. It is even said
that he “invited to his palace the leaders of the hostile
sects, that he might enjoy the agreeable spectacle
of their furious encounters 3 .” But, in indulging such
anticipations of overthrowing Christianity, he but
displayed his own ignorance of the foundation on
which it was built. It could scarcely be conceived,
that an unbeliever, educated among heretics, would
understand the vigour and indestructibility of the true
Christian spirit ; and Julian fell into the error, to
which in all ages men of the world are exposed, of
mistaking whatever shows itself on the surface of the
3 Gibbon, ch. xxiii.
sect, l] The Council of Alexandria. 355
Apostolic Community, its prominences and irregu-
larities, all that is extravagant, and all that is tran-
sitory, for the real moving principle and life of the
system. It is trying times alone that manifest the
saints of God ; but they live notwithstanding, and
support the Church in their generation, though they
remain in their obscurity. In the days of Arianism,
indeed, they were in their measure, revealed to the
world ; still to such as Julian, they were unavoidably
unknown, both in respect to their numbers and their
divine gifts. The thousand of silent believers, who
worshipped in spirit and in truth, were obscured by
the tens and twenties of the various heretical factions,
whose clamorous addresses besieged the Imperial
Court ; and Athanasius would be portrayed to
Julian’s imagination after the picture of his own
preceptor, the time-serving and unscrupulous Euse-
bius. The event of his experiment refuted the
opinion which led to it. The impartial toleration of
all religious persuasions, malicious as was its intent,
did but contribute to the ascendancy of the right faith ;
that faith, which is the only true aliment of the
human mind, which can be held as a principle as well
as an opinion, and which influences the heart to suffer
and to labour for its sake.
Of the subjects which engaged the notice of the
Alexandrian Council, two only need here be men-
tioned ; the treatment to be pursued towards the
bishops, who had arianized in the reign of Constan-
tius, and the settlement of the theological sense of
the word Hypostasis. And here, of the former of
these.
A A 2
356
The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
I.
Instances have already occurred, of the line of
conduct pursued by Athanasius in ecclesiastical
matters. Deliberate apostasy and systematic heresy
were the objects of his implacable opposition ; but in
his behaviour towards individuals, and in his judg-
ment of the inconsistent, whether in conduct or creed,
he evinces an admirable tenderness and forbearance.
Not only did he reluctantly abandon his associate,
the unfortunate Marcellus, on his sabellianizing, but
he even makes favourable notice of the Semi-Arians,
hostile to him both in word and deed, who rejected
the orthodox test, and had confirmed against him
personally at Philippopolis, the verdict of the com-
mission at the Mareotis. When bishops of his own
party, as Liberius of Rome, were induced to excom-
municate him, far from resenting it, he speaks of them
with a temper and candour, which, as displayed in
the heat of controversy, evidences an enlarged pru-
dence, to say nothing of Christian charity 4 . It is this
union of opposite excellences, firmness with discrimi-
nation and discretion, which is the characteristic
praise of Athanasius : as well as of several of his
predecessors in the See of Alexandria. The hundred
years, preceding his episcopate, had given scope to
the enlightened zeal of Dionysius, and the patient
resoluteness of Alexander. On the other hand, when
we look around at the other more conspicuous
champions of orthodoxy of his time, much as we
must revere and bless their memory, yet as regards
4 Athan. de Syn. 41. Apol. contr. Arian. 89. Hist. Arian. ad Monach.
41, 42.
357
sect, i.] The Council of Alexandria,
this maturity and completeness of character, they are
far inferior to Athanasius. The noble-minded Hilary
was intemperate in his language, and assailed Con-
stantiuswith an asperity unbecoming a dutiful subject.
The fiery Bishop of Cagliari, exemplary as is his
self-devotion, so openly showed his desire for martyr-
dom, as to lead the Emperor to exercise towards him
a contemptuous forbearance. Eusebius of Vercellae
negotiated in the Councils, with a subtlety bordering
on Arian insincerity. From these deficiencies of
character Athanasius was exempt ; and on the occa-
sion which has given rise to these remarks, he had
especial need of the combination of gifts, which has
made his name immortal in the Church.
The question of the arianizing bishops was one of
much difficulty. They were in possession of the
Churches ; and could not be deposed, if at all, without
the risk of a permanent schism. It is evident, more-
over, from the foregoing narrative, how many had been
betrayed into an approval of the Arian opinions,
without understanding or acting upon them. This
was particularly the case in the West, where threats
and ill-usage, had been more or less substituted for
those fallacies, which the Latin language scarcely
admitted. And even in the remote Greek Churches,
Eere was much of that devout and unsuspecting
simplicity, which was the easy sport of the super-
cilious sophistry of the Eusebians. This was the case
with the father of Gregory Nazianzen ; who, being
persuaded to receive the Acacian confession of Con-
stantinople (A.D. 359, 360), on the ground of its un-
mixed scripturalness, found himself suddenly deserted
by a large portion of his flock, and was extricated
358 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
from the charge of heresy, only by the dexterity of his
learned son. Indeed, to many of the Arianizing
bishops, may be applied the remarks, which Hilary
makes upon the laity subjected to Arian teaching;
that their own piety enabled them to interpret ex-
pressions religiously, which were originally invented as
evasions of the orthodox doctrine 5.
And even in parts of the East, where a much
clearer perception of the difference between truth and
error existed, it must have been an extreme difficulty
to such of the orthodox as lived among Arians, to
determine, in what way best to accomplish duties,
which were in opposition to each other. The same
obligation of Christian unity, which was the apology
for the laity who remained, as at Antioch, in com-
munion with an Arian bishop, would lead to a similar
recognition of his authority by clergy or bishops who
were ecclesiastically subordinate to him. Thus Cyril
of Jerusalem, who was in no sense either Anomoean
or Eusebian, received consecration from the hands of
his metropolitan Acacius ; and St. Basil, surnamed’
the Great, the vigorous champion of orthodoxy
against the Emperor Valens, attended the Council of
Constantinople (A.D. 359, 360), as a deacon, in the
train of his namesake Basil, the leader of the Semi-
Arians.
On the other hand, it was scarcely safe to leave the
deliberate heretic in possession of his spiritual power.
Many bishops too were but the creatures of the times,
raised up from the lowest of the people, and deficient
in the elementary qualifications of learning and
5 “ Sanctiores sunt aures plebis,” he says, “ quam corda sacerdotain^
Bull, Defens, epilog. [Vide infr. Appendix, No 5.]
359
sect. I.] The Council of Alexandria.
sobriety. Even those, who had but conceded to the
violence of others, were the objects of a just suspicion;
since, frankly as they now joined the Athanasians,
they had already shown as much interest and reliance
in the opposite party.
Swayed by these latter considerations, some of the
assembled prelates advocated the adoption of harsh
measures towards the Arianizers, considering that
their deposition was due both to the injured dignity
and to the safety of the Catholic Church. Athanasius,
however, proposed a more temperate policy ; and his
influence was sufficient to triumph over the excitement
of mind which commonly accompanies a deliverance
from persecution. A decree was passed, that such
bishops as had communicated with the Arians through
weakness or surprise, should be recognized in their
respective sees, on their signing the Nicene formulary;
but that those, who had publicly defended the heresy,
should only be admitted to lay-communion. No act
could evince more clearly than this, that it was no party
interest, but the ascendancy of the orthodox doctrine
itself, which was the aim of the Athanasians. They
allowed the power of the Church to remain in the
hands of men indifferent to the interests of themselves,
on their return to that faith, which they had denied
through fear ; and their ability to force on the Arian-
izers this condition, evidences what they might have
done, had they chosen to make an appeal against the
more culpable of them to the clergy and laity of their
respective churches, and to create and send out bishops
to supply their places. But they desired peace, as
soon as the interests of truth were secured ; and their
magnanimous decision was forthwith adopted by
360 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
Councils held at Rome, in Spain, Gaul, and Achaia.
The state of Asia was less satisfactory. As to Antioch,
its fortunes will immediately engage our attention.
Phrygia and the Proconsulate were in the hands of the
Semi-Arians and Macedonians ; Thrace and Bithynia,
controlled by the Imperial Metropolis, were the
stronghold of the Eusebian or Court faction.
2.
The history of the Church of Antioch affords an
illustration of the general disorders of the East at this
period, and of the intention of the sanative measure
passed at Alexandria respecting them. Eustathius,
its Bishop, one of the principal Nicene champions, had
been an early victim of Eusebian malice, being
deposed on calumnious charges, A.D. 331. A series
of Arian prelates succeeded ; some of whom, Stephen,
Leontius, and Eudoxius, have been commemorated in
the foregoing pages 6 . The Catholics of Antioch had
disagreed among themselves, how to act under these
circumstances. Some, both clergy and laity, refusing
the communion of heretical teachers, had holden
together for the time, as a distinct body, till the cause
of truth should regain its natural supremacy ; while
others had admitted the usurping succession, which
the Imperial will forced upon the Church. When
Athanasius passed through Antioch on his return from
his second exile (A.D. 348), he had acknowledged the
seceders, from a respect for their orthodoxy, and for
the rights of clergy and laity in the election of a
bishop. Yet it cannot be denied, that men of zeal
and boldness were found among those who remained
Vide supra, p. 280.
361
sect, i.] The Council of Alexandria.
in the heretical communion. Two laymen, Flavian
and Diodorus, protested with spirit against the hetero-
doxy of the crafty Leontius, and kept alive an ortho-
dox party in the midst of the Eusebians.
On the translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople,
the year before the death of Constantius, an accident
occurred, which, skilfully improved, might have nealed
the incipient schism among the Trinitarians. Scarcely
had Meletius, the new Bishop of the Eusebian party,
taken possession of his see, when he conformed to the
Catholic faith. History describes him as gifted with
remarkable sweetness and benevolence of disposition.
Men thus characterized are often deficient in sensi-
bility, in their practical judgment of heresy ; which
they abhor indeed in the abstract, yet countenance in
the case of their friends, from a false charitableness ;
which leads them, not merely to hope the Dest, but to
overlook the guilt of opposing the truth, where the
fact is undeniable. Meletius had been brought up in
the communion of the Eusebians ; a misfortune, in
which nearly all the Oriental Christians of his day
were involved. Being considered as one of their party,
he had been promoted by them to the see of Sebaste,
in Armenia ; but, taking offence at the conduct of his
flock, he had retired to Beroea, in Syria. During the
residence of the Court at Antioch, A. D. 361, the
election of the new prelate of that see came on ; and
the choice of both Arians and Arianizing orthodox
fell on Meletius. Acacius was the chief mover in this
business. He had lately 7 succeeded in establishing
the principle of liberalism at Constantinople, where a
condemnation had been passed on the use of words
7 Vide supra, pp. 347, 350.
362 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
not found in Scripture, in confessions of faith ; and he
could scarcely have selected a more suitable instru-
ment, as it appeared, of extending its influence, than a
prelate, who united purity of life and amiableness
of temper, to a seeming indifference to the distinctions
between doctrinal truth and error.
On the new Patriarch’s arrival at Antioch, he was
escorted by the court bishops, and his own clergy and
laity, to the cathedral. Desirous of solemnizing the
occasion, the Emperor himself had condescended to
give the text, on which the assembled prelates were to
comment. It was the celebrated passage from the
Proverbs, in which Origen has piously detected, and
the Arians perversely stifled, the great article of our
faith ; “ the Lord hath created [possessed] Me in the
beginning of His ways, before His works of old.”
George of Laodicea, who, on the departure of Eudoxius
from Antioch, had left the Semi- Arians and rejoined
the Eusebians, opened the discussion with a dogmatic
explanation of the words. Acacius followed with that
ambiguity of language, which was the characteristic of
his school. At length the new Patriarch arose, and to
the surprise of the assembly, with a subdued manner,
and in measured words, avoiding indeed the Nicene
Homoiision , but accurately fixing the meaning of his
expressions, confessed the true Catholic tenet, so long
exiled from the throne and altars of Antioch. A
scene followed, such as might be expected from the
excitable temper of the Orientals. The congregation
received his discourse with shouts of joy ; while the
Arian archdeacon of the church running up, placed his
hand before his mouth to prevent his speaking ; on
which Meletius thrust out his hand in sight of the
sect, i.] The Council of Alexandria. 363
people, and raising first three fingers, and then one,
symbolized the great truth which he was unable to
utter 8 . The consequences of this bold confession
might be expected. Meletius was banished, and a
fresh Bishop appointed, Euzoius, the friend of Arius.
But an important advantage resulted to the orthodox
cause by this occurrence ; Catholics and heretics were
no longer united in one communion, the latter being
thrown into the position of schismatics, who had
rejected their own bishop. Such was the state of
things, when the death of Constantius occasioned the
return of Meletius, and the convocation of the Council
of Alexandria, in which his case was considered.
The course to be pursued in this matter by the
general Church was evident. There were now in
Antioch, besides the heretical party, two communions
professing orthodoxy, of which what may be called
the Protestant body was without a head, Eustathius
having died some years before. It was the obvious
duty of the Council, to recommend the Eustathians
to recognize Meletius, and to join in his communion,
whatever original intrusion there might be in the
episcopal succession from which he received his Orders,
and whatever might have been his own previous errors
of doctrine. The . general principle of restoration,
which they had made the rule of their conduct towards
the Arianizers, led them to this. Accordingly, a com-
mission was appointed to proceed to Antioch, and to
exert their endeavours to bring the dissension to a
happy termination.
Their charitable intentions, however, had been
already frustrated by the unfortunate interference of
8 So z. iv. 28.
364 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
Lucifer. This Latin Bishop, strenuous in contending
for the faith, had little of the knowledge of human
nature, or of the dexterity in negotiation, necessary
for the management of so delicate a point as that
which he had taken upon himself to settle. He had
gone straight to Antioch, when Eusebius of Vercellae
proceeded to Alexandria ; and, on the Alexandrian
commission arriving at the former city, the mischief
was done, and the mediation ineffectual. Indulging,
instead of overcoming, the natural reluctance of the
Eustathians to submit to Meletius, Lucifer had been
induced, with the assistance of two others, to conse-
crate a separate head for their communion, and by so
doing re-animate a dissension, which had run its
course and was dying of itself. The result of this
indiscretion was the rise of an additional, instead of
the termination of the existing schism. Eusebius,
who was at the head of the commission, retired from
Antioch in disgust. Lucifer, offended at becoming
the object of censure, separated first from Eusebius,
and at length from all who acknowledged the conform-
ing Arianizers. He founded a sect, which was called
after his name, and lasted about fifty years.
As to the schism at Antioch, it was not terminated
till the time of Chrysostom about the end of the
century. Athanasius and the Egyptian Churches
continued in communion with the Eustathians.
Much as they had desired and exerted themselves
for a reconciliation between the parties, they could
not but recognize, while it existed, that body which
had all along suffered and laboured with themselves.
And certainly the intercourse, which Meletius held
with the unprincipled Acacius, in the Antiochene
sect. i.J The Council of Alexandria.
365
Council the following year, and his refusal to commu-
nicate with Athanasius, were not adapted to make
them repent their determination 9 . The Occidentals
and the Churches of Cyprus followed their example.
The Eastern Christians, on the contrary, having for
the most part themselves arianized, took part with
the Meletians. At length St. Chrysostom successfully
exerted his influence with the Egyptian and Western
Catholics in behalf of Flavian, the successor of Mele-
tius ; a prelate, it must be admitted, not blameless in
the ecclesiastical quarrel, though he had acted a bold
part with Diodorus, afterwards Bishop of Tarsus, in
resisting the insidious attempts of Leontius to secu-
larize the Church.
3 -
The Council of Alexandria was also concerned in
determining a doctrinal question ; and here too it
exercised a virtual mediation between the rival parties
in the Antiochene Church.
The word Person which we venture to use in speak-
ing of those three distinct and real modes in which it
has pleased Almighty God to reveal to us His being,
is in its philosophical sense too wide for our meaning.
Its essential signification, as applied to ourselves, is
that of an individual intelligent agent, answering to
the Greek hypostasis , or reality. On the other hand, if
we restrict it to its etymological sense of persona or
prosopon , that is character , it evidently means less than
the Scripture doctrine, which we wish to define by
9 Vit. S. Basil, p. cix, ed. Benedict. [Basil at length succeeded in
reconciling Meletius to Athanasius. Vitt. Benedictt. S. Athanasii, p.
lxxxvn, and S. Basilii, p. cix.]
366 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
means of it, as denoting merely certain outward mani-
festations of the Supreme Being relatively to ourselves,
which are of an accidental and variable nature. The
statements of Revelation then lie between these
antagonistic senses in which the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity may be erroneously conceived, between Tri-
theism, and what is popularly called Unitarianism.
In the choice of difficulties, then, between words
which say too much and too little, the Latins, looking
at the popular and practical side of the doctrine,
selected the term which properly belonged to the
external and defective notion of the Son and Spirit,
and called Them Personae, or Characters ; with no
intention, however, of infringing on the doctrine of
their completeness and reality, as distinct from the
Father, but aiming at the whole truth, as nearly as
their language would permit. The Greeks, on the
other hand, with their instinctive anxiety for philoso-
phical accuracy of expression, secured the notion of
Their existence in Themselves, by calling them
Hypostases or Realities ; for which they considered,
with some reason, that they had the sanction of the
Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Moreover,
they were led to insist upon this internal view of the
doctrine, by the prevalence of Sabellianism in the
East in the third century ; a heresy, which professed
to resolve the distinction of the Three Persons, into a
mere distinction of character. Hence the prominence
given to the Three Hypostases or Realities, in the
creeds of the Semi-Arians (for instance, Lucian’s and
Basil’s, A.D. 341 — 358), who were the especial antago-
nists of Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, and kindred
heretics. It was this praiseworthy jealousy of Sabel-
sect. I.] The Comicil of Alexandria.
367
lianism, which led the Greeks to lay stress upon the
doctrine of the Hypostatic Word 1 (the Word in real
existence), lest the bare use of the terms, Word,
Voice, Power, Wisdom, and Radiance, in designating
our Lord, should lead to a forgetfulness of His
Personality. At the same time, the word usia ( sub-
stance) was adopted by them, to express the simple
individuality of the Divine Nature, to which the
Greeks, as scrupulously as the Latins, referred the
separate Personalities of the Son and Spirit.
Thus the two great divisions of Christendom rested
satisfied each with its own theology, agreeing in doc-
trine, though differing in the expression of it. But,
when the course of the detestable controversy, which
Arius had raised, introduced the Latins to the phrase-
ology of the Greeks, accustomed to the word Persona,
they were startled at the doctrine of the three Hypos-
tases ; a term which they could not translate except
by the word sitbstance, and therefore considered
synonymous with the Greek usia , and which, in
matter of fact, had led to Arianism on the one hand,
and Tritheism on the other. And the Orientals, on
their part, were suspicious of the Latin maintenance
of the One Hypostasis, and Three Personae ; as if
such a formula tended to Sabellianism 2 .
This is but a general account of the difference
between the Eastern and Western theology ; for it is
difficult to ascertain, when the language of the Greeks
first became fixed and consistent. Some eminent
critics have considered, that usia was not discriminated
from hypostasis , till the Council which has given rise to
1 [Aoyos CW 7 T qctt clt 09. Vide supr. p. 1 7 1 .]
2 [For the meaning of Usia and Hypostasis , vide Appendix, No. 4.]
368 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
these remarks. Others maintain, that the distinction
between them is recognized in the “ substance or
hypostasis 3 ” of the Nicene Anathema; and these
certainly have the authority of St. Basil on their side 4 5 .
Without attempting an opinion on a point, obscure in
itself, and not of chief importance in the controversy,
the existing difference between the Greeks and Latins,
at the times of the Alexandrian Council, shall be here
stated.
At this date, the formula of the Three Hypostases
seems, as a matter of fact, to have been more or less a
characteristic of the Arians. At the same time, it was
held by the orthodox of Asia, who had communicated
with them ; that is, interpreted by them, of course, in
the orthodox sense which it now bears. This will
account for St. Basil’s explanation of the Nicene
Anathema ; it being natural in an Asiatic Christian,
who seems (unavoidably) to have arianized 3 for the
first thirty years of his life, to imagine (whether
rightly or not) that he perceived in it the distinction
between Usia and Hypostasis , which he himself had
been accustomed to recognize. Again, in the schism
at Antioch, which has been above narrated, the party
of Meletius, which had so long arianized, maintained
the Three Hypostases, in opposition to the Eusta-
thians, who, as a body, agreed with the Latins, and
had in consequence been accused by the Arians of
Sabellianism. Moreover, this connexion of the
Oriental orthodox with the Semi-Arians, partly
3 e£ ovcrtas rj u7rocrracrews.
4 Vid. Petav. Theol. Dogm. tom. li. lib. iv. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. ii.
9 > § “•
5 i. e. Semi-Arianized.
sect, i.] The Council of Alexandria. 369
accounts for some apparent tritheisms of the former ;
a heresy into which the latter certainly did fall 6 .
Athanasius, on the other hand, without caring to be
uniform in his use of terms, about which the orthodox
differed, favours the Latin usage, speaking of the
Supreme Being as one Hypostasis, i. e. substance.
And in this he differed from the previous writers of
his own Church ; who, not having experience of the
Latin theology, nor of the perversions of Arianism,
adopt, not only the word hypostasis but ( what is
stronger) the words “ nature ” and “substance,” to
denote the separate Personalities of the Son and
Spirit.
As to the Latins, it is said that, when Hosius came
to Alexandria before the Nicene Council, he was de-
sirous that some explanation should be made about
the Hypostasis ; though nothing was settled in con-
sequence. But, soon after the Council of Sardica, an
addition was made to its confession, which in Theo-
doret runs as follows : “ Whereas the heretics maintain
that the Hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
are distinct and separate, we declare that according to
the Catholic faith there is but one Hypostasis (which
they call Usia) of the Three; and the Hypostasis of
the Son is the same as the Father’s 7.”
Such was the state of the controversy, if it may so
6 Petav. i. fin. iv. 13, § 3. The illustration of three men, as being
under the same nature (which is the ground of the accusation which some
writers have brought against Gregory Nyssen and others, vid. Cudw. iv.
36. p. 597. 601, &c. Petav. iv. 7. and 10. Gibbon, ch.xxi.), was but an
illustration of a particular point in the doctrine, and directed against the
erepovo-LOTrjs of the Arians. It is no evidence of tritheism. Vid. Petav.
tom. i. iv. 13, § 6 — 16 ; and tom. i. ii. 4.
7 Theod. Hist. ii. 8.
BB
370 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
be called, at the time of the Alexandrian Council; the
Church of Antioch being, as it were, the stage, upon
which the two parties in dispute were represented, the
Meletians siding with the orthodox of the East, and the
Eustathians with those of the West. The Council,
however, instead of taking part with either, determined,
in accordance with the writings of Athanasius himself,
that, since the question merely related to the usage of
words, it was expedient to allow Christians to under-
stand the “ hypostasis ” in one or other sense indif-
ferently. The document which conveys its decision,
informs us of the grounds of it. “If any propose to
make additions to the Creed of Nicsea, (says the
Synodal letter,) stop such persons and rather persuade
them to pursue peace ; for we ascribe such conduct to
nothing short of a love of controversy. Offence
having been given by a declaration on the part of
certain persons, that there are Three Hypostases , and
it having been urged that this language is not scrip-
tural, and for that reason suspicious, we desired that
the inquiry might not be pushed beyond the Nicene
Confession. At the same time, because of this spirit
of controversy, we questioned them, whether they
spoke, as the Arians, of Hypostases foreign and dis-
similar to each other, and diverse in substance, each
independent and separate in itself, as in the case of
individual creatures, or the offspring of man, or, as
different substances, gold, silver, or brass ; or, again,
as other heretics hold, of Three Origins, and Three
Gods. In answer, they solemnly assured us, that they
neither said nor had imagined any such thing. On
our inquiring, ‘ In what sense then do you say this, or
why do you use such expressions at all ? ’ they an-
sect, i.] The Council of Alexandria. 37 t
swered, 'Because we believe in the Holy Trinity, not as
a Trinity in name only, but in truth and reality 8 . We
acknowledge the Father truly and in real subsistence,
and the Son truly in substance, and subsistent, and
the Holy Ghost subsisting and existing 9 .' They said
too, that they had not spoken of Three Gods, or Three
Origins, nor would tolerate that statement or notion ;
but acknowledged a Holy Trinity indeed, but only
One Godhead, and One Origin, and the Son consub-
stantial with the Father, as the Council declared, and
the Holy Spirit, not a creature, nor foreign, but proper
to and indivisible from, the substance of the Son and
the Father.
“ Satisfied with this explanation of the expressions
in question, and the reasons for their use, we next ex-
amined the other party, who were accused by the
above-mentioned as holding but One Hypostasis,
whether their teaching coincided with that of the
Sabellians, in destroying the substance of the Son and
the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. They were as
earnest as the others could be, in denying both the
statement and thought of such a doctrine ; ' but we
use Hypostasis' (subsistence), they said, 'considering it
means the same as Usia (substance), and we hold that
there is but one, because the Son is from the Usia
(substance) of the Father, and because of the identity
of Their nature ; for we believe, as in One Godhead,
so in One Divine Nature, and not that the Father’s is
one, and that the Son’s is foreign, and the Holy
Ghost’s also.’ It appeared then, that both those, who
8 vcfrecTTUicrav.
9 YtoV aXrjOws ivovcnov ovra kcll vfacrToyra, kcCl Uvevfxa "Ayiov
vfa&Tos koI vTrap^oVs
B b 2
372 The Council of Alexandria, [chap. v.
were accused of holding three Hypostases , agreed with
the other party, and those, who spoke of one Substance,
professed the doctrine of the former in the sense of
their interpretation ; by both was Arius anathematized
as an enemy of Christ, Sabellius and Paulus of Samo-
sata as impious, Valentinus and Basilides as strangers
to the truth, Manichaeus, as an originator of evil doc-
trines. And, after these explanations, all, by God’s
grace, unanimously agree, that such expressions were
not so desirable or accurate as the Nicene Creed, the
words of which they promised for the future to acqui-
esce in and to use 1 .”
Plain as was this statement, and natural as the de-
cision resulting from it, yet it could scarcely be ex-
pected to find acceptance in a city, where recent
events had increased dissensions of long standing.
In providing the injured and zealous Eustathians with
an ecclesiastical head, Lucifer had, under existing cir-
cumstances, administered a stimulant to the throbbings
and festerings of the baser passions of human nature
— passions, which it requires the strong exertion of
Christian magnanimity and charity to overcome.
The Meletians, on the other hand, recognized as they
were by the Oriental Church as a legitimate branch of
itself, were in the position of an establishment, and so
exposed to the temptation of disdaining those whom
the surrounding Churches considered as schismatics.
How far each party was in fault, we are not able to
determine ; but blame lay somewhere, for the contro-
versy about the Hypostasis , verbal as it was, became
the watchword of the quarrel between the two parties,
and only ended, when the Eustathians were .finally
absorbed by the larger and more powerful body.
1 Athan. Tom. ad Antioch, 5 and 6.
373
SECTION II.
THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN
THE REIGN OF THEODOSIUS.
The second Ecumenical Council was held at Constan-
tinople, A.D. 381 — 383. It is celebrated in the history
of theology for its condemnation of the Macedonians,
who, separating the Holy Spirit from the unity of the
Father and Son, implied or inferred that He was a
creature. A brief account of it is here added in its
ecclesiastical aspect ; the doctrine itself, to which it
formally bore witness, having been incidentally dis-
cussed in the second Chapter of this Volume.
Eight years before the date of this Council, Athana-
sius had been taken to his rest. After a life of contest,
prolonged, in spite of the hardships he encountered,
beyond the age of seventy years, he fell asleep in
peaceable possession of the Churches, for which he had
suffered. The Council of Alexandria was scarcely
concluded, when he was denounced by Julian, and
saved his life by flight or concealment. Returning on
Jovian’s accession, he was, for a fifth and last time,
forced to retreat before the ministers of his Arian
successor Valens ; and for four months lay hid in his
father’s sepulchre. On a representation being made
to the new Emperor, even with the consent of the
374 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
Arians themselves, he was finally restored ; and so it
happened, through the good Providence of God, that
the fury of persecution, heavily as it threatened in his
last years, yet was suspended till his death, when it at
once burst forth upon the Church with renewed vigour.
Thus he was permitted to muse over his past trials,
and his prospects for the future ; to collect his mind
to meet his God, gathering himself up with Jacob on
his bed of age, and yielding up the ghost peaceably
among his children. Yet, amid the decay of nature,
and the visions of coming dissolution, the attention of
Athanasius was in no wise turned from the active duties
of his station. The vigour of his obedience to those
duties remained unabated ; one of his last acts being
the excommunication of one of the Dukes of Lybia,
for irregularity of life.
At length, when the great Confessor was removed,
the Church sustained a loss, from which it never re-
covered. His resolute resistance of heresy had been
but one portion of his services ; a more excellent praise
is due to him, for his charitable skill in binding to-
gether his brethren in unity. The Church of Alexan-
dria was the natural mediator between the East and
West ; and Athanasius had well improved the ad-
vantages thus committed to him. His judicious
interposition in the troubles at Antioch has lately
been described ; and the dissensions between his own
Church and Constantinople, which ensued upon his
death, may be taken to show how much the combina-
tion of the Catholics depended on his silent authority.
Theological subtleties were for ever starting into
existence among the Greek Christians ; and the
Arian controversy had corrupted their spirit, where it
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 375
had failed to impair their orthodoxy. Disputation
was the rule of belief, and ambition of conduct, in the
Eusebian school ; and these evil introductions out-lived
its day. Patronized by the secular power, the great
Churches of Christendom conceived a jealousy of each
other, and gradually fortified themselves in their own
resources. As Athanasius drew towards his end, the
task of mediation became more difficult. In spite of
his desire to keep aloof from party, circumstances
threw him against his will into one of the two
divisions, which were beginning to discover themselves
in the Christian world. Even before his time, traces
appear of a rivalry between the Asiatic and Egyptian
Churches. The events of his own day, developing
their differences of character, at the same time con-
nected the Egyptians with the Latins. The mistakes
of his own friends obliged him to side with a seeming
faction in the body of the Antiochene Church ; and,
in the schism which followed, he found himself in
opposition to the Catholic communities of Asia Minor
and the East. Still, though the course of events
tended to ultimate disruptions in the Catholic Church,
his personal influence remained unimpaired to the
last, and enabled him to interpose with good effect
in the affairs of the East. This is well illustrated by
a letter addressed to him shortly before his death, by
St. Basil, who belonged to the contrary party, and had
then recently been elevated to the exarchate of
Caesarea. It shall be here inserted, and may serve as
a sort of valediction in parting with one, who, after
the Apostles, has been a principal instrument, by
which the sacred truths of Christianity have been con-
veyed and secured to the world.
376 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
“To Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. The more
the sicknesses of the Church increase, so much the
more earnestly do we all turn towards thy Perfection,
persuaded that for thee to lead us is our sole remain-
ing comfort in our difficulties. By the power of thy
prayers, by the wisdom of thy counsels, thou art able
to carry us through this fearful storm ; as all are sure,
who have heard or made trial of that perfection ever
so little. Wherefore cease not both to pray for our
souls, and to stir us up by thy letters; didst thou
know the profit of these to us, thou wouldst never let
pass an opportunity of writing to us. For me, were it
vouchsafed to me, by the co-operation of thy prayers,
once to see thee, and to profit by the gift lodged in
thee, and to add to the history of my life a meeting
with so great and apostolical a soul, surely I should
consider myself to have received from the loving
mercy of God a compensation for all the ills, with
which my life has ever been afflicted h”
I.
The trials of the Church, spoken of by Basil in this
letter, were the beginnings of the persecution directed
against it by the Emperor Valens. This prince, who
succeeded Jovian in the East, had been baptized by
Eudoxius ; who, from the time he became possessed of
the See of Constantinople, was the chief, and soon
became the sole, though a powerful, support of the
Eusebian faction. He is said to have bound Valens
by oath, at the time of his baptism, that he would
establish Arianism as the state religion of the East ;
and thus to have prolonged its ascendancy for an
1 Basil. Ep. 80.
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople . 377
additional sixteen years after the death of Constan-
tius (a.D. 361 — 378). At the beginning of this period,
the heretical party had been weakened by the seces-
sion of the Semi-Arians, who had not merely left it,
but had joined the Catholics. This part of the history
affords a striking illustration, not only of the gradual
influence of truth over error, but of the remarkable
manner in which Divine Providence makes use of
error itself as a preparation for truth ; that is, employ-
ing the lighter forms of it in sweeping away those of
a more offensive nature. Thus Semi-Arianism became
the bulwark and forerunner of the orthodoxy which it
opposed. From A.D. 357, the date of the second and
virtually Homcean formulary of Sirmium 2 , it had pro-
tested against the impiety of the genuine Arians. In
the successive Councils of Ancyra and Seleucia, in the
two following years, it had condemned and deposed
them ; and had established the scarcely objectionable
creed of Lucian. On its own subsequent disgrace at
Court, it had concentrated itself on the Asiatic side of
the Hellespont ; while the high character of its leading
bishops for gravity and strictness of life, and its influ-
ence over the monastic institutions, gave it a formidable
popularity among the lower classes on the opposite
coast of Thrace.
Six years after the Council of Seleucia (A.D. 365), in
the reign of Valens, the Semi-Arians held a Council at
Lampsacus, in which they condemned the Homoean
formulary of Ariminum, confirmed the creed of the
Dedication (a.D. 341), and, after citing the Eudoxians
to answer the accusations brought against them, pro-
ceeded to ratify that deposition of them, which had
[Vide supra, pp. 322, 323.]
378 The Council of Constantinople, ["chap. v.
already been pronounced at Seleucia. At this time
they seem to have entertained hopes of gaining the
Emperor ; but, on finding the influence of Eudoxius
paramount at Court, their horror or jealousy of his
party led them to a bolder step. They resolved on
putting themselves under the protection of Valen-
tinian, the orthodox Emperor of the West ; and,
finding it necessary for this purpose to stand well
with the Latin Church, they at length overcame their
repugnance to the Homousion , and subscribed a for-
mula, of which (at least till the Council of Constanti-
nople, A.D. 360) they had been among the most
eager and obstinate opposers. Fifty-nine Semi-Arian
Bishops gave in their assent to orthodoxy on this
memorable occasion, which took place A.D. 366. Their
deputies were received into communion by Liberius,
who had recovered himself at Ariminum, and who
wrote letters in favour of these new converts to the
Churches of the East. On their return, they pre-
sented themselves before an orthodox Council then
sitting at Tyana, exhibited the commendatory letters
which they had received from Italy, Gaul, Africa,
and Sicily, as well as Rome, and were joyfully ac-
knowledged by the assembled Fathers as members of
the Catholic body. A final Council was appointed at
Tarsus ; whither it was hoped all the Churches of the
East would send representatives, in order to complete
the reconciliation between the two parties. But
enough had been done, as it would seem, in the
external course of events, to unite the scattered
portions of the Church ; and, when that end was on
the point of accomplishment, the usual law of Divine
Providence intervened, and left the sequel of the union
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 379
l
as a task and a trial for Christians individually. The
project of the Council failed ; thirty-four Semi-Arian
bishops suddenly opposed themselves to the purpose
of their brethren, and protested against the Homoiision.
The Emperor, on the other hand, recently baptized
by Eudoxius, interfered ; forbade the proposed Coun-
cil, and proceeded to issue an edict, in which all
bishops were deposed from their Sees who had been
banished under Constantius, and restored by Julian.
It was at this time, that the fifth exile of Athanasius
took place, which was lately mentioned. A more
cruel persecution followed in A.D. 371, and lasted for
several years. The death of Valens, A.D. 378, was
followed by the final downfall of Arianism in the
Eastern Church.
As to Semi-Arianism, it disappears from ecclesias-
tical history at the date of the proposed Council of
Tarsus (A.D. 367) ; from which time the portion of the
party, which remained non-conformist, is more properly
designated Macedonian, or Pneumatomachist, from
the chief article of their heresy.
2 .
During the reign of Valens, much had been done in
furtherance of evangelical truth, in the still remaining
territory of Arianism, by the proceedings of the Semi-
Arians ; but at the same period symptoms of return-
ing orthodoxy, even in its purest form, had appeared
in Constantinople itself. On the death of Eudoxius
(A.D. 370), the Catholics elected an orthodox successor,
by name Evagrius. He was instantly banished by
the Emperor’s command ; and the population of Con-
stantinople seconded the act of Valens, by the most
380 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
\
unprovoked excesses towards the Catholics. Eighty
of their clergy, who were in consequence deputed to
lay their grievances before the Emperor, lost their
lives, under circumstances of extreme treachery and
barbarity. Faith, which was able to stand its ground
in such a season of persecution, was naturally
prompted to more strenuous acts, when prosperous
times succeeded. On the death of Valens, the Catho-
lics of Constantinople looked beyond their own com-
munity for assistance, in combating the dominant
heresy. Evagrius, whom they had elected to the See,
seems to have died in exile ; and they invited to his
place the celebrated Gregory Nazianzen, a man of
diversified accomplishments, distinguished for his
eloquence, and still more for his orthodoxy, his in-
tegrity, and the innocence, amiableness, and refine-
ment of his character.
Gregory was a native of Cappadocia, and an intimate
friend of the great Basil, with whom he had studied at
Athens. On Basil’s elevation to the exarchate of
Caesarea, Gregory had been placed by him in the
bishoprick of Sasime ; but, the appointment being
contested by Anthimus, who claimed the primacy
of the lower Cappadocia, he retired to Nazianzus, his
father’s diocese, where he took on himself those duties,
to which the elder Gregory had become unequal.
After the death of the latter, he remained for several
years without pastoral employment, till the call of
the Catholics brought him to Constantinople. His
election was approved by Meletius, patriarch of
Antioch ; and by Peter, the successor of Athanasius,
who by letter recognized his accession to the metro-
politan see.
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 381
&
On his first arrival there, he had no more suitable
place of worship than his own lodgings, where he
preached the Catholic doctrine to the dwindled com-
munion over which he presided. But the result
which Constantius had anticipated, when he denied to
Athanasius a Church in Antioch, soon showed itself
at Constantinople. His congregation increased ; the
house, in which they assembled, was converted into a
church by the pious liberality of its owner, with the
name of Anastasia, in hope of that resurrection which
now awaited the long-buried truths of the Gospel.
The contempt, with which the Arians had first re-
garded him, was succeeded by a persecution on the
part of the populace. An attempt was made to stone
him ; his church was attacked, and he himself brought
before a magistrate, under pretence of having caused
the riot. Violence so unjust did but increase the
influence, which a disdainful toleration had allowed
him to establish ; and the accession of the orthodox
Theodosius secured it.
On his arrival at Constantinople, the new Emperor
resolved on executing in his capital the determination,
which he had already prescribed by edict to the East-
ern Empire. The Arian Bishops were required to
subscribe the Nicene formulary, or to quit their sees.
Demophilus, the Eusebian successor of Eudoxius, who
has already been introduced to our notice as an
accomplice in the seduction of Liberius, was first pre-
sented with this alternative ; and, with an honesty of
which his party affords few instances, he refused at
once to assent to opinions, which he had all through
his life been opposing, and retired from the city.
Many bishops, however, of the Arian party conformed;
382 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
and the Church was unhappily inundated by the very
evil, which in the reign of Constantine the Athana-
sians had strenuously and successfully withstood.
The unfortunate policy, which led to this measure,
might seem at first sight to be sanctioned by the
decree of the Alexandrian Council, which made sub-
scription the test of orthodoxy ; but, on a closer
inspection, the cases will be found to be altogether
dissimilar. When Athanasius acted upon that prin-
ciple, in the reign of Julian, there was no secular
object to be gained by conformity ; or rather, the
malevolence of the Emperor was peculiarly directed
against those, whether orthodox or Semi-Arians, who
evinced any earnestness about Christian truth. Even
then, the recognition was not extended to those who
had taken an active part on the side of heresy. On
the other hand, the example of Athanasius himself,
and of Alexander of Constantinople, in the reign of
Constantine, sufficiently marked their judgment in the
matter ; both of them having resisted the attempt of
the Court to force Arius upon the Church, even
though he professed his assent to the Homousion.
Whether or not it was in Gregory’s power to hinder
the recognition of the Arianizers, or whether his firm-
ness was not equal to his humility and zeal, the con-
sequences of the measure are visible in the conduct of
the General Council, which followed it. He himself may
be considered as the victim of it ; and he has left us
in poetry and in oratory his testimony to the deterio-
ration of religious principle, which the chronic vicissi-
tudes of controversy had brought about in the Eastern
Church.
The following passage, from one of his orations,
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 383
illustrates both the state of the times, and his own
beautiful character, though unequal to struggle against
them. “Who is there,” he says, 44 but will find, on
measuring himself by St. Paul’s rules for the conduct
of Bishops and Priests, — that they should be sober,
chaste, not fond of wine, not strikers, apt to teach, un-
blamable in all things, unassailable by the wicked, —
that he falls far short of its perfection ? .... I am
alarmed to think of our Lord’s censure of the Phari-
sees, and his reproof of the Scribes ; disgraceful indeed
would it be, should we, who are bid be so far above
them in virtue, in order to enter the kingdom of
heaven, appear even worse than they. . . These
thoughts haunt me night and day ; they consume my
bones, and feed on my flesh ; they keep me from
boldness, or from walking with erect countenance.
They so humble me and cramp my mind, and place
a chain on my tongue, that I cannot think of a Ruler’s
office, nor of correcting and guiding others, which is
a talent above me ; but only, how I myself may flee
from the wrath to come, and scrape myself some little
from the poison of my sin. First, I must be cleansed,
and then cleanse others ; learn wisdom, and then
impart it ; draw near to God, and then bring others
to Him ; be sanctified, and then sanctify. 4 When
will you ever get to the end of this ? ’ say the all-hasty
and unsafe, who are quick to build up and to pull down.
4 When will you place your light on a candlestick ?
Where is your talent ? ’ So say friends of mine, who
have more zeal for me than religious seriousness.
Ah, my brave men, why ask my season for acting,
and my plan ? Surely the last day of payment is
soon enough, old age in its extreme term. Grey hairs
384 The Council of Constantinople . [chap. v.
have prudence, and youth is untaught. Best be slow
and sure, not quick and thoughtless ; a kingdom for
a day, not a tyranny for a life ; a little gold, not a
weight of lead. It was the shallow earth shot forth
the early blade. Truly there is cause of fear, lest I be
bound hand and foot, and cast without the marriage-
chamber, as an audacious intruder without fitting
garment among the assembled guests. And yet I
was called thither from my youth (to confess a matter
which few know), and on God was I thrown from the
womb ; made over to Him by my mother’s promise,
confirmed in His service by dangers afterwards. Yea,
and my own wish grew up beside her purpose, and
my reason ran along with it ; and all I had to give,
wealth, name, health, literature, I brought and offered
them to Him, who called and saved me ; my sole
enjoyment of them being to despise them, and to have
something which I could resign for Christ. To under-
take the direction and government of souls is above
me, who have not yet well learnt to be guided, nor to
be sanctified as far as is fitting. Much more is this so
in a time like the present, when it is a great thing to
flee away to some place of shelter, while others are
whirled to and fro, and so to escape the storm and
darkness of the evil one ; for this is a time when the
members of the Christian body war with each other,
and whatever there was left of love is come to nought.
Moabites and Ammonites, who were forbidden even to
enter the Church of Christ, now tread our holiest
places. We have opened to all, not gates of righteous-
ness, but of mutual reviling and injury. We think
those the best of men, not who keep from every idle
word through fear of God, but such as have openly or
sect, ii.] The Cozmcil of Constantinople . 385
covertly slandered their neighbour most. And we
mark the sins of others, not to lament, but to blame
them ; not to cure, but to second the blow ; and to
make the wounds of others an excuse for our own.
Men are judged good and bad, not by their course of
life, but by their enmities and friendships. We praise
to-day, we call names to-morrow. All things are
readily pardoned to impiety. So magnanimously are
we forgiving in wicked ways 3 !”
The first disturbance in the reviving Church of
Constantinople had arisen from the ambition of Max-
imus, a Cynic philosopher, who aimed at supplanting
Gregory in his see. He was a friend and countryman
of Peter, the new Patriarch of Alexandria ; and had
suffered banishment in the Oasis, on the persecution
which followed the death of Athanasius. His reputa-
tion was considerable among learned men of the day,
as is shown by the letters addressed to him by Basil.
Gregory fell in with him at Constantinople ; and
pleased at the apparent strictness and manliness of his
conduct, he received him into his house, baptized him,
and at length admitted him into inferior orders. The
return made by Maximus to his benefactor, was to
conduct an intrigue with one of his principal Pres-
byters ; to gain over Peter of Alexandria, who had
already recognized Gregory ; to obtain from him the
presence of three of his bishops ; and, entering the
metropolitan church during the night, to instal him-
self, with their aid, in the episcopal throne. A tumult
ensued, and he was obliged to leave the city ; but, far
from being daunted at the immediate failure of his
plot, he laid his case before a Council of the West, his
3 Greg. Orat. i. 119 — 137. [ii. 69 — 73. 77 — 80. abridged.
C C
386 The Council of Constantinople . [chap. v.
plea consisting on the one hand, in the allegation
that Gregory, as being Bishop of another Church,
held the See contrary to the Canons, and on the other
hand, in the recognition which he had obtained from
the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Council, deceived
by his representations, approved of his consecration ;
but Theodosius, to whom he next addressed himself,
saw through his artifices, and banished him.
Fresh mortifications awaited the eloquent preacher,
to whom the Church of Constantinople owed its resur-
rection. While the Arians censured his retiring habits,
and his abstinence from the innocent pleasures of life,
his own flock began to complain of his neglecting to
use his influence at Court for their advantage. Over-
whelmed with the disquietudes, to which these occur-
rences gave birth, Gregory resolved to bid adieu to a
post which required a less sensitive or a more vigorous
mind than his own. In a farewell oration, he re-
counted his labours and sufferings during the time he
had been among them, commemorated his successes,
and exhorted them to persevere in the truth, which
they had learned from him. His congregation were
affected by this address ; and, a reaction of feeling
taking place, they passionately entreated him to
abandon a resolve, which would involve the ruin
of orthodoxy in Constantinople, and they declared that
they would not quit the church till he acceded to
their importunities. At their entreaties, he consented
to suspend the execution of his purpose for a while ;
that is, until the Eastern prelates who were expected
at the General Council, which had by that time been
convoked, should appoint a Bishop in his room.
The circumstances attending the arrival of Theodo-
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 387
siiis at Constantinople, connected as they were with
the establishment of the true religion, still were cal-
culated to inflict an additional wound on his feelings,
and to increase his indisposition to continue in his
post, endeared though it was to him by its first
associations. The inhabitants of an opulent and
luxurious metropolis, familiarized to Arianism by its
forty years’ ascendancy among them, and disgusted at
the apparent severity of the orthodox school, prepared
to resist the installation of Gregory in the cathedral
of St. Sophia. A strong military force was appointed
to escort him thither ; and the Emperor gave coun-
tenance to the proceedings by his own presence.
Allowing himself to be put in possession of the
church, Gregory was nevertheless firm to his purpose
of not seating himself upon the Archiepiscopal throne;
and when the light-minded multitude clamorously
required it, he was unequal to the task of addressing
them, and deputed one of his Presbyters to speak in
his stead.
Nor were the manners of the Court more congenial
to his well-regulated mind, than the lawless spirit of
the people. Offended at the disorders which he wit-
nessed there, he shunned the condescending advances
of the Emperor ; and was with difficulty withdrawn
from the duties of his station, the solitude of his own
thoughts, and the activity of pious ministrations,
prayer and fasting, the punishment of offenders and
the visitation of the sick. Careless of personal splen-
dour, he allowed the revenues of his see to be
expended in supporting its dignity, by inferior eccle-
siastics, who were in his confidence ; and, while he*
defended the principle, on which Arianism had been
C C 2
388 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
dispossessed of its power, he exerted himself with
earnestness to protect the heretics from all intem-
perate execution of the Imperial decree.
Nor was the elevated refinement of Gregory better
adapted to sway the minds of the corrupt hierarchy
which Arianism had engendered, than to rule the
Court and the people. “ If I must speak the truth,”
he says in one of his letters, “ I feel disposed to shun
every conference of Bishops ; because I never saw
Synod brought to a happy issue, nor remedying, but
rather increasing, existing evils. For ever is there
rivalry and ambition, and these have the mastery of
reason ; — do not think me extravagant for saying so ;
— and a mediator is more likely to be attacked him-
self, than to succeed in his pacification. Accordingly,
I have fallen back upon myself, and consider quiet the
only security of life 3 4 .”
3 -
Such was the state of things, under which the
second ([Ecumenical Council, as it has since been con-
sidered, was convoked. It met in May, A.D. 381 ;
being designed to put an end, as far as might be, to
those very disorders, which unhappily fo,nnd their
principal exercise in the assemblies which were to
remove them. The Western Church enjoyed at this
time an almost perfect peace, and sent no deputies to
Constantinople. But in the Oriental provinces, besides
the distractions caused by the various heretical off-
shoots of Arianism, its indirect effects existed in the
dissensions of the Catholics themselves ; in the schism
at Antioch ; in the claims of Maximus to the see of
4 Greg. Naz. Ep. 55. [Ep. 130.]
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 389
Constantinople ; and in recent disturbances at Alexan-
dria, where the loss of Athanasius was already painfully
visible. Added to these, was the ambiguous position
of the Macedonians ; who resisted the orthodox doc-
trine, yet were only by implication heretical, or at
least some of them far less than others. Thirty-six
of their Bishops attended the Council, principally
from the neighbourhood of the Hellespont ; of the
orthodox there were 150, Meletius, of Antioch, being
the president. Other eminent prelates present were
Gregory Nyssen, brother of St. Basil, who had died
some years before ; Amphilochius of Iconium, Dio-
dorus of Tarsus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gelasius of
Caesarea, in Palestine.
The Council had scarcely accomplished its first act,
the establishment of Gregory in the see of Constan-
tinople, to the exclusion of Maximus, when Meletius,
the President, died ; an unhappy event, as not only
removing a check from its more turbulent members,
but in itself supplying the materials of immediate
discord. An arrangement had been effected between
the two orthodox communions at Antioch, by which it
was provided, that the survivor of the rival Bishops
should be acknowledged by the opposite party, and a
termination thus put to the schism. This was in
accordance with the principle acted upon by the
Alexandrian Council, on the separation of the Mele-
tians from the Arians. At that time the Eustathian
party was called on to concede, by acknowledging
Meletius ; and now, on the death of Meletius, it became
the duty of the Meletians in turn to submit to Pauli-
nus, whom Lucifer had consecrated as Bishop of the
Eustathians. Schism, however, admits not of these
390 The Council of Constantinople . [chap. v.
simple remedies. The self-will of a Latin Bishop had
defeated the plan of conciliation in the former instance ;
and now the pride and jealousy of the Orientals revolted
from communion with a prelate of Latin creation.
The attempt of Gregory, who had succeeded to the
presidency of the Council, to calm their angry feelings,
and to persuade them to deal fairly with the Eusta-
thians, as well as to restore peace to the Church, only
directed their violence against himself. It was in
vain that his own connection with the Meletian party
evidenced the moderation and candour of his advice ;
in vain that the age of Paulinus gave assurance, that
the nominal triumph of the Latins could be of no long
continuance. Flavian, who, together with others, had
solemnly sworn, that he would not accept the bishop-
rick in case of the death of Meletius, permitted himself
to be elevated to the vacant see ; and Gregory, driven
from the Council, took refuge from its clamours in a
remote part of Constantinople.
About this time the arrival of the Egyptian bishops
increased the dissension. By some inexplicable omis-
sion they had not been summoned to the Council ;
and they came, inflamed with resentment against the
Orientals. They had throughout taken the side of
Paulinus, and now their earnestness in his favour
was increased by their jealousy of his opponents.
Another cause of offence was given to them, in the
recognition of Gregory before their arrival ; nor did
his siding with them in behalf of Paulinus, avail to
avert from him the consequences of their indignation.
Maximus was their countryman, and the deposition
of Gregory was necessary to appease their insulted
patriotism. Accordingly, the former charge was revived
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 391
of the illegality of his promotion. A Canon of the
Nicene Council prohibited the translation of bishops,
priests, or deacons, from Church to Church ; and,
while it was calumniously pretended, that Gregory
had held in succession three bishopricks, Sasime,
Nazianzus, and Constantinople, it could not be denied,
that, at least, he had passed from Nazianzus, the
place of his original ordination, to the Imperial city.
Urged by this fresh attack, Gregory once more re-
solved to retire from an eminence, which he had from
the first been reluctant to occupy, except for the sake
of the remembrances, with which it was connected.
The Emperor with difficulty accepted his resignation;
but at length allowed him to depart from Constanti-
nople, Nectarius being placed on the patriarchal
throne in his stead.
In the mean while, a Council had been held at
Aquileia of the bishops of the north of Italy, with a
view of inquiring into the faith of two Bishops of
Dacia, accused of Arianism. During its session,
news was brought of the determination of the Con-
stantinopolitan Fathers to appoint a successor to
Meletius ; and, surprised both by the unexpected
continuation of the schism, and by the slight put on
themselves, they petitioned Theodosius to permit a
general Council to be convoked at Alexandria, which
the delegates of the Latin Church might attend.
Some dissatisfaction, moreover, was felt for a time
at the appointment of Nectarius, in the place of
Maximus, whom they had originally recognized.
They changed their petition shortly after, and ex-
pressed a wish that a Council should be held at
Rome.
39 2 The Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
These letters from the West were submitted to the
Council of Constantinople, at its second, or, (as some
say,) third sitting, A.D. 382 or 383, at which Nectarius
presided. An answer was returned to the Latins, de-
clining to repair to Rome, on the ground of the incon-
venience, which would arise from the absence of the
Eastern bishops from their dioceses ; the Creed and
other doctrinal statements of the Council were sent
them, and the promotion of Nectarius and Flavian was
maintained to be agreeable to the Nicene Canons,
which determined, that the Bishops of a province had
the right of consecrating such of their brethren, as
were chosen by the people and clergy, without the
interposition of foreign Churches ; an exhortation to
follow peace was added, and to prefer the edification
of the whole body of Christians, to personal attach-
ments and the interests of individuals.
Thus ended the second General Council. As to
the addition made by it to the Nicene Creed, it is
conceived in the temperate spirit, which might be ex-
pected from those men, who took the more active
share in its doctrinal discussions. The ambitious and
tumultuous part of the assembly seems to have been
weary of the controversy, and to have left its settle-
ment to the more experienced and serious-minded of
their body. The Creed of Constantinople is said to
be the composition of Gregory NyssenS.
From the date of this Council, Arianism was formed
into a sect exterior to the Catholic Church ; and,
5 Whether or not the Macedonians explicitly denied the divinity of the
Holy Spirit, is uncertain; but they viewed Him as essentially separate
sect, ii.] The Council of Constantinople. 393
taking refuge among the Barbarian Invaders of the
Empire, is merged among those external enemies of
Christianity, whose history cannot be regarded as
strictly ecclesiastical. Such is the general course of
religious error ; which rises within the sacred precincts,
but in vain endeavours to take root in a soil uncon-
genial to it. The domination of heresy, however pro-
longed, is but one stage in its existence ; it ever
hastens to an end, and that end is the triumph of
the Truth. “ I myself have seen the ungodly in
great power,” says the Psalmist, “ and flourishing like
a green bay tree ; I went by, and lo, he was gone ; I
sought him, but his place could nowhere be found.”
And so of the present perils, with which our branch of
the Church is beset, as they bear a marked resem-
blance to those of the fourth century, so are the
lessons, which we gain from that ancient time,
especially cheering and edifying to Christians of the
present day. Then as now, there was the prospect,
and partly the presence in the Church, of an Heretical
Power enthralling it, exerting a varied influence and a
usurped claim in the appointment of her functionaries,
and interfering with the management of her internal
affairs. Now as then, “ whosoever shall fall upon this
stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall,
from, and external to, the One Indivisible Godhead. Accordingly, the
Creed (which is that since incorporated into the public services of the
Church), without declaring more than the occasion required, closes all
speculations concerning the incomprehensible subject, by simply confes-
sing his unity with the Father and Son. It declares, moreover, that He
is the Lord ( Kvptos ) or Sovereign Spirit, because the heretics considered
Him to be but a minister of God ; and the supreme Giver of life, because
they considered Him a mere instrument, by whom we received the gift.
The last clause of the second paragraph in the Creed, is directed against
the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra.
394 ^ ie Council of Constantinople, [chap. v.
it will grind him to powder.” Meanwhile, we may
take comfort in reflecting, that, though the present
tyranny has more of insult, it has hitherto had less of
scandal, than attended the ascendancy of Arianism ;
we may rejoice in the piety, prudence, and varied
graces of our Spiritual Rulers ; and may rest in the
confidence, that, should the hand of Satan press us
sore, our Athanasius and Basil will be given us in
their destined season, to break the bonds of the
Oppressor, and let the captives go free.
395
The original Creed of Nicaea, as contained in Socr.
Hist. i. 8.
II iarevo/jbev 669 eva Oeov, irarepa 7ravTOKpdropa y iravTcov
oparwv re Kal dopdrcov 7roi7]Trjv •
Kal 6^9 eva Kvpiov Irjaovv ^piaroVy tov vlov roi 5 Oeov'
yevvrjOevTa i/c tov iraTpos piovoyevrj' tovt eanv etc Trjs
overlap t ov 'narpos, 6eov etc Oeov, Kal (pebs e/c <£coto9, Oeov
dXrjdivov etc Oeov aXrjOivov * yevvrjOevTa ov TrocrjOevTa,
opioovGiov tg3 irarpr BC ov ra irdvra eyeveTo, rd re ev
re 3 ovpav m Kal ra ev rfj yfj. AC rjpids tov 9 dv0pd>7rov<;
Kal Bid rrjv fipierepav acoTrjplav KareXOovra , Kal aapKco-
Oevra } Kal evavQ p<i>Tcr)cravTa' iraOovTa , Kal dvaaravra rfj
rplry 'fjpiepa, dve\0bvTa eh rov 9 ovpavovs, ep^opcevov
Kplvai ^cbvras Kal veKpovs .
Kal 669 to aycov 7 Tvevpua.
Tov 9 Be \eyovTas, otl rjv 7 rore ore ovk rjv Kal irplv
yevvrjOrjvai ovk r)V' Kal otl e% ovk ovtcov iyevero • rj eg
erepa 9 viroGracrew ? rj ovaias (paaKovTa 9 elvar rj ktlgtov ,
rj t peiTTov 9 rj aWoicorov tov vlov rov Oeov • dvaOefiari^et
rj dyla KaOoXiKrj Kal a7roGTo\iKrj eKKXrjaLa .
397
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
PERSONS AND EVENTS INTRODUCED INTO THE FOREGOING
HISTORY.
( The dates are , for the most part , according to Tttj/emontQ
a.d.
Philo Jucheus, pp. 62, 101 « 40
St. Mark in Egypt, p. 41 49
Cerinthus and Ebion, heretics, pp. 20, 21 90
Nazarenes, heretics, p. 21., 137
Valentine, heretic, p. 55 . . 140
Marcion, heretic, p. 55 144
Justin, p. 68, martyred 167
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, p. 95 168
Tatian, heretic, pp. 52, 95 169
Montanus, heresiarch, p. 16 171
Athenagoras, pp. 42, 95, writes his Apology. . . . 177
Pantaenus, Missionary to the Indians, pp. 42, 102. . 189
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, p. 42 189
Clement of Alexandria, Master of the Catechetical
School, pp. 48 — 87 189
Theodotus and Artemon, heretics, pp. 22, 35, 114. . 193
Severus, Emperor,, p. 10 . . . 193
Victor, Bishop of Rome, pp. 13, 21, 35 197
Quarto- decimans of Asia Minor, p. 15 197
Praxeas, heretic, p. 117 201
39 ^ Chronological Table .
A.D.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, p. 54, martyred .... 202
Origen, aged 18, Master of the Catechetical School,
P-4 2 203
Tertullian, pp. 138, 188, falls away into Montanism . 204
Philostratus writes the Life of Apollonius Tyanaeus,
P- io 9 . 217
Noetus, heretic, pp. 117, 124 220
Origen converts Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 66 . . . 231
Ammonius the Eclectic, p. 102 232
Gregory Thaumaturgus delivers his panegyric on
Origen, p. 108 239
Plotinus at Rome, pp. 107, 1 15 . . 244
Babylas, Bishop of Antioch martyred, p. 3 .... 250
Novatian, heresiarch, p. 16 . 250
Hippolytus, p. 200 ; martyr 252
Death of Origen, aged 69, p. 107 253
Sabellius, heresiarch, p. 118 255
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, animadverts on Dionysius
of Alexandria, p. 126 260
Paulus of Samosata, heretic, pp. 3, 27, 171, 186, 203. 260
Council against Paulus, pp. 27, 128; with Creed, pp.
129,192,322,343 264
Death of Dionysius of Alexandria, p. 108 264
Paulus deposed, p. 3 272
Quarto-decimans of the Proconsulate come to an end,
p. 14 276
Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, p. 66 282
Hosius, Bishop of Corduba, pp. 249, 2 54, 289, 323 . 293
Meletian Schism in Egypt, pp. 239, 281-2 .... 306
Donatist Schism in Africa, p. 245 306
Constantine’s vision of the Labarum, p. 246. . . . 312
Lucian, martyred, p. 8 312
Edict of Milan, p. 245. . . . 313
Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, p. 260 319
Chronological Table . 399
A.D.
Arius, heresiarch, pp. 205, 237 319
Alexander excommunicates and writes against Arius,
pp. 217, 238 320
Battle of Hadrianople, pp. 241, 247 323
Constantine writes to Athanasius and Arius, p. 247 . 324
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, p. 250 325
Audius, the Quarto-deciman in Mesopotamia, p. 15 . 325
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, p. 266 326
Arius recalled from exile, p. 266 330
Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, deposed by the Arians,
pp. 280, 360 331
Eusebian Council of Caesarea, p. 282 333
And of Tyre, ibid. Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, de-
posed, pp. 280, 313 335
Athanasius banished to Treves, p. 284. . . . . . 335
Death of Arius, p. 269 336
Death of Constantine, who is succeeded in the East
by Constantius, p. 280 337
Death of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is succeeded by
Acacius, p. 275 340
Assemblage of exiled Bishops at Rome, Council at
Rome, p. 285 340
Eusebian Council of the Dedication at Antioch, p. 285.
Semi-Arian Creed of Lucian, pp. 286, 322, 343, . 341
Semi-Arian Creed of Antioch, called the Macrostich,
P- 287 . . 345
Great Council of Sardica, pp. 289, 313 347
Eusebian Council, p. 289, and Semi-Arian Creed, p.
342, of Philippopolis 347
Council of Milan, p. 292 347
Athanasius returns from exile, pp. 290, 360 . . . . 348
Formal recantation of Valens and Ursacius, p. 291 , 349
Death of Constans, p. 303 350
Paulus of Constantinople martyred, p. 3 1 1 . . . . 350
400
Chronological Table .
A.D.
Battle of Mursa, p. 278 351
Eusebian Council, pp. 314, 336, with Semi-Arian
Creed of Sirmium, against Photinus, pp, 314, 322,
343 • 35 1
Eusebian Council of Arles, pp. 314, 315 . . . . 353
Eusebian Council of Milan, p. 316 355
Hilary exiled in Phrygia, p. 300 356
Liberius tempted, p. 318 356
Syrianus and George in Alexandria, p. 329 . . . . 356
Aetius and Eunomius, Anomoeans, p. 337 . . . . 357
Eusebian or Acacian Conferences and Creeds of Sir-
mium ; fall of Liberius and Hosius, pp. 323 —
326, 341 .. 358
Acacian Council of Antioch, p. 341 358
Semi-Arian Council of Ancyra, pp. 300, 342 . . . 358
Acacian Councils of Seleucia (p. 345) and Ariminum,
P- 348 . • • 359
Eudoxius at Constantinople, p. 361 360
Acacian Council at Constantinople, pp. 347, 351, 358 360
Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, p. 361. Death of Con-
stantius, pp. 344, 352 361
Julian restores the exiled Bishops, p. 353 362
Council of Alexandria, p. 355 362
Schism of Antioch, p. 364 362
Semi-Arian Council of Lampsacus, p. 377 . . . . 365
Fifty-nine Semi-Arian Bishops accept the Homoilsion ,
P- 37 8 - • • 366
Apollinaris, heresiarch, p. 221 369
Basil, Exarch of Caesarea, p. 375 370
Death of Eudoxius, p. 379 370
Eighty Catholic Clergy burned at sea, 380 . . . . 370
Persecution of Catholics, p. 380 371
Athanasius excommunicates one of the dukes of Lybia
P -374 37 i
Chronological Table .
401
A.D.
Death of Athanasius, 374. . . . 373
Death of Valens, p. 380 378
Theodosius, Emperor, p. 381 379
Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople, ibid . . . . 379
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, pp. 373, &c. . 381
Sabbatius, Quarto-deciman, p. 17 . 395
D D
403
APPENDIX.
NOTE I.
THE SYRIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY.
( Vide Supra , p. 8.)
Much has been written at home, and more has come to us
from abroad, on the subject of the early Syrian theology,
since this Volume was published. At that time, it was at
Oxford considered a paradox to look to Antioch for the
origin of a heresy which takes its name from an Alexandrian
ecclesiastic, and which Mosheim had ruled to be one out of
many instances of the introduction of Neo-Platonic ideas
into the Christian Church. The Divinity Professor of the
day, a learned and kind man, Dr. Burton^ in talking with me
on the subject, did but qualify his surprise at the view
which I had taken, by saying to me, “ Of course you have a
right to your own opinion.” Since that time, it has become
clear, from the works of Neander and others, that Arianism
was but one out of various errors, traceable to one and the
same mode of theologizing, and that mode, as well as the
errors it originated, the characteristics of the Syrian school.
I have thought it would throw light on the somewhat
meagre account of it at the beginning of this Volume, if I
here added a passage on the same subject, as contained in
one of my subsequent works 1 .
The Churches of Syria and Asia Minor were the most
intellectual portion of early Christendom. Alexandria was
1 ** Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” pp. 281, 323.
D D 2
404
Appendix .
but one metropolis in a large region, and contained the philo-
sophy of the whole Patriarchate; but Syria abounded in
wealthy and luxurious cities, the creation of the Seleucidae,
where the arts and the schools of Greece had full opportuni-
ties of cultivation. For a time too, — for the first two hundred
years, as some think, — Alexandria was the only See as well
as the only School of Egypt ; while Syria was divided into
small dioceses, each of which had at first an authority of
its own, and which, even after the growth of the Patriarchal
power, received their respective bishops, not from the See of
Antioch, but from their own metropolitan. In Syria too the
schools were private, a circumstance which would tend both
to diversity in religious opinion, and incaution in the ex-
pression of it ; but the sole catechetical school of Egypt was
the organ of the Church, and its Bishop could banish Origen
for speculations which developed and ripened with impunity
in Syria.
But the immediate source of that fertility in heresy, which
is the unhappy distinction of the Syrian Church, was its
celebrated Exegetidhl School. The history of that school is
summed up in the broad characteristic fact, on the one hand
that it devoted itself to the literal and critical interpretation
of Scripture, and on the other that it gave rise first to the
Arian and then to the Nestorian heresy. In all ages of the
Church, her teachers have shown a disinclination to confine
themselves to the mere literal interpretation of Scripture.
Her most subtle and powerful method of proof, whether in
ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense, which is so
frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions
to supersede any other. In the early centuries we find this
method of interpretation to be the very ground for receiving
as revealed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Whether we
betake ourselves to the Ante-Nicene writers or the Nicene,
certain texts will meet us, which do not obviously refer to
that doctrine, yet are put forward as palmary proofs of it.
Appendix .
405
On the other hand, if evidence be wanted of the connexion of
heterodoxy and biblical criticism in that age, it is found in
the fact that, not long after their contemporaneous appear-
ance in Syria, they are found combined in the person of
Theodore of Heraclea, so called from the place both of his
birth and his bishoprick, an able commentator and an active
enemy of St. Athanasius, though a Thracian unconnected
except by sympathy with the Patriarchate of Antioch. The
case had been the same in a still earlier age ; — the Jews
clung to the literal sense of the Old Testament and rejected
the Gospel; the Christian Apologists proved its divinity by
means of the allegorical. The formal connexion of this mode
of interpretation with Christian theology is noticed by
Porphyry, who speaks of Origen and others as borrowing it
from heathen philosophy, both in explanation of the Old
Testament and in defence of their own doctrine. It may
almost be laid down as an historical fact that the mystical
interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.
This is clearly seen, as regards the primitive theology, by a
recent writer, in the course of a Dissertation upon St. Ephrem.
After observing that Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius, and
Diodorus gave a systematic opposition to the mystical inter-
pretation, which had a sort of sanction from Antiquity and
the orthodox Church, he proceeds; “ Ephrem is not as sober
in his interpretations, nor could he be, since he was a zealous
disciple of the orthodox faith. For all those who are most
eminent in such sobriety were as far as possible removed from
the faith of the Councils On the other hand, all who
retained the faith of the Church never entirely dispensed
with the spiritual sense of the Scriptures. For the Councils
watched over the orthodox faith; nor was it safe in those
ages, as we learn especially from the instance of Theodore
of Mopsuestia, to desert the spiritual for an exclusive culti-
vation of the literal method. Moreover, the allegorical in-
terpretation, even when the literal sense was not injured, was
406
Appendix .
also preserved ; because in those times, when both heretics
and Jews in controversy were stubborn in their objections to
Christian doctrine, maintaining that the Messiah was yet to
come, or denying the abrogation of the Sabbath and cere-
monial law, or ridiculing the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity, and especially that of Christ’s Divine Nature, under
such circumstances ecclesiastical writers found it to their
purpose, in answer to such exceptions, violently to refer
every part of Scripture by allegory to Christ and His
Church 2 .”
The School of Antioch appears to have risen in the middle
of the third century ; but there is no evidence to determine
whether it was a local institution, or, as is more probable, a
discipline or method characteristic of the Syrian Church.
Dorotheus is one of its earliest teachers ; he is known as a
Hebrew scholar, as well as a commentator on the sacred
text, and he was the master of Eusebius of Caesarea. Lucian,
the friend of the notorious Paul of Samosata, and for three
successive Episcopates after him a seceder from the Church,
though afterwards a martyr in it, was the editor of a new edi-
tion of the Septuagint, and master of the chief original
teachers of Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea, Asterius called
the Sophist, and Eusebius of Emesa, Arians of the Nicene
period, and Diodorus, a zealous opponent of Arianism, but
the Master of Theodore of Mopsuestia, have all a place in
the Exegetical School. St. Chrysostom and Theodoret,
both Syrians, and the former the pupil of Diodorus, adopted
the literal interpretation, though preserved from its abuse.
But the principal doctor of the School was the master of
Nestorius, that Theodore, who has just been mentioned, and
who with his writings, and with the writings of Theodoret
against St. Cyril, and the letter written by Ibas of Edessa to
Maris, was condemned by the fifth CEcumenical Council.
Ibas translated into Syriac, and Maris into Persian, the
3 Lengerke, de Ephr. S. pp. 78 — 80.
Appendix .
407
books of Theodore and Diodorus 3 ; and in so doing they:
became the immediate instruments of the formation of the
great Nestorian school and Church in farther Asia.
As many as ten thousand tracts of Theodore are said in
this way to have been introduced to the knowledge of the
Christians of Mesopotamia, Adiabene, Babylonia, and the
neighbouring countries. He was called by those Churches
absolutely “ the Interpreter,” and it eventually became the
very profession of the Nestorian communion to follow him as
such. “ The doctrine of all our Eastern Churches,” says the
Council under the patriarch Marabas, “is founded on the
Creed of Nicaea; but in the exposition of the Scriptures we
follow St. Theodore.” “We must by all means remain firm
to the commentaries of the great Commentator,” says the
Council under Sabarjesus ; “whoso shall in any manner op-
pose them, or think otherwise, be he anathema 4 .” No one
since the beginning of Christianity, except Origen and St.
Augustine, has had such great influence on his brethren as
Theodore 5 .
The original Syrian school had possessed very marked
characteristics, which it did not lose when it passed into a
new country and into strange tongues. Its comments on
Scripture seem to have been clear, natural, methodical, appo-
site, and logically exact. “In all Western Aramaea,” says
Lengerke, that is, in Syria, “there was but one mode of
treating whether exegetics or doctrine, the practical 6 .” Thus
Eusebius of Caesarea, whether as a disputant or a commen-
tator, is confessedly a writer of sense and judgment, and
he belongs historically to the Syrian school, though he does
not go so far as to exclude the mystical interpretation or to
deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Again, we see in
3 Asseman. t. 3, p. 30, p. lxviii., &c.
4 Assem. t. 3, p. 84, Note 3.
5 Wegnern, Proleg. in Theod. Opp. p. ix.
6 De Ephraem Syr. p. 61.
408
Appendix.
St. Chrysostom a direct, straightforward treatment of the
sacred text, and a pointed application of it to things and
persons ; and Theodoret abounds in modes of thinking and
reasoning which without any great impropriety may be called
English. Again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, though he does not
abstain from allegory, shows the character of his school by
the great stress he lays upon the study of Scripture, and, I
may add, by the peculiar clearness and neatness of his style,
which will be appreciated by a modern reader.
It would have been well, had the genius of the Syrian
theology been ever in the safe keeping of men such as St.
Cyril, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret ; but in Theodore of
Mopsuestia, nay in Diodorus before him, it developed into
those errors, of which Paul of Samosata had been the omen
on its rise. As its attention was chiefly directed to the
examination of the Scriptures, in its interpretation of the
Scriptures was its heretical temper discovered ; and though
allegory can be made an instrument of evading Scripture
doctrine, criticism may more readily be turned to the de-
struction of doctrine and Scripture together. Bent on ascer-
taining the literal sense, Theodore was naturally led to the
Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint, and thence to Jewish
commentators. Jewish commentators naturally suggested
events and objects short of evangelical as the fulfilment of the
prophetical announcements, and when it was possible, an
ethical sense instead of a prophetical. The eighth chapter of
Proverbs ceased to bear a Christian meaning, because, as
Theodore maintained, the writer of the book had received the
gift, not of prophecy, but of wisdom. The Canticles must
be interpreted literally; and then it was but an easy, or
rather a necessary step, to exclude the book from the Canon.
The book of Job too professed to be historical ; yet what was
it really but a Gentile drama ? He also gave up the books
of Chronicles and Ezra, and, strange to say, the Epistle of
St. James, though it was contained in the Peschito Version
A ppendix.
409
of his Church. He denied that Psalms xxii. and lxix. applied
to our Lord ; rather he limited the Messianic passages of the
whole book to four ; of which the eighth Psalm was one, and
the forty-fifth another. The rest he explained of Hezekiah
and Zerubbabel, without denying that they might be ac-
commodated to an evangelical sense 7 . He explained St.
Thomas’s words, “ My Lord and my God,” as a joyful ex-
clamation; and our Lord’s, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” as
an anticipation of the day of Pentecost. As might be expected,
he denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Also, he held
that the deluge did not cover the earth ; and, as others
before him, he was heterodox on the doctrine of original sin,
and denied the eternity of punishment.
Maintaining that the real sense of Scripture was, not the
scope of a Divine Intelligence, but the intention of the mere
human organ of inspiration, Theodore was led to hold, not
only that that sense was but one in each text, but that it was
continuous and single in a context ; that what was the subject
of the composition in one verse, must be the subject in the
next, and that if a Psalm was historical or prophetical in its
commencement, it was the one or the other to its termina-
tion. Even that fulness of meaning, refinement of thought,
subtle versatility of feeling, and delicate reserve or reverent
suggestiveness, which poets exemplify, seem to have been
excluded from his idea of a sacred composition. Accordingly,
if a Psalm contained passages which could not be applied to
our Lord, it followed that that Psalm did not properly apply
to Him at all, except by accommodation. Such at least is the
doctrine of Cosmas, a writer of Theodore’s school, who on
this ground passes over the twenty-second, sixty-ninth, and
other Psalms, and limits the Messianic to the second, the
eighth, the forty-fifth, and the hundred and tenth. “ David,”
he says, did not make common to the servants what
belongs to the Lord 8 Christ, but what was proper to the
7 Lengerke, de Ephraem Syr. pp. 73 — 75.
8 8 ecr 7 totov, vide La Croze, Thesaur. Ep. t. 3, § 145.
4io
Appendix .
Lord he spoke of the Lord, and what was proper to the
servants, of servants 9 .” Accordingly the twenty-second
could not properly belong to Christ, because in the begin-
ning it spoke of the “ verba delictorum meorum .” A remark-
able consequence would follow from this doctrine, that as
Christ was divided from His Saints, so the Saints were divided
from Christ ; and an opening was made for a denial of the
doctrine of their cultus , though this denial in the event has
not been developed among the Nestorians. But a more
serious consequence is latently contained in it, and nothing
else than the Nestorian heresy, viz. that our Lord’s manhood
is not so intimately included in His Divine Personality that
His brethren according to the flesh may be associated with
the Image of the One Christ. Here St. Chrysostom point-
edly contradicts the doctrine of Theodore, though his
fellow-pupil and friend 1 ; as does St. Ephraem, though a
Syrian also 2 ; and St. Basil 3 .
One other characteristic of the Syrian school, viewed as
independent of Nestorius, should be added : — As it tended
to the separation of the Divine Person of Christ from His
manhood, so did it tend to explain away His Divine Presence
in the Sacramental elements. Ernesti seems to consider
that school, in modern language, Sacramentarian : and
certainly some of the most cogent passages brought by
moderns against the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist are
taken from writers who are connected with that school ; as
the author, said to be St. Chrysostom, of the Epistle to
Caesarius, Theodoret in his Eranistes, and Facundus. Some
countenance too is given to the same view of the Eucharist,
at least in some parts of his works, by Origen, whose lan-
guage concerning the Incarnation also leans to what was
9 Montf. Coll. Nov. t. 2, p. 227.
1 Rosenmuller, Hist. Interpr. t. 3, p. 278.
s Lengerke, de Ephr. Syr. pp. 165 — 167.
A Ernest, de Proph. Mess. p. 462.
Appendix.
411
afterwards Nestorianism. To these may be added Eusebius 4 ,
who, far removed, as he was, from that heresy, was a disciple
of the Syrian school. The language of the later Nestorian
writers seems to have been of the same character 5 . Such
then on the whole is the character of that theology of Theo-
dore, which passed from Cilicia and Antioch to Edessa first,
and then to Nisibis.
Edessa, the metropolis of Mesopotamia, had remained an
Oriental city till the third century, when it was made a
Roman colony by Caracalla 6 . Its position on the confines
of two empires gave it great ecclesiastical importance, as the
channel by which the theology of Rome and Greece was
conveyed to a family of Christians, dwelling in contempt
and persecution amid a still heathen world. It was the seat
of various schools ; apparently of a Greek school, where the
classics were studied as well as theology, where Eusebius of
Emesa 7 had originally been trained, and where perhaps
Protogenes taught 8 . There were Syrian schools attended
by heathen and Christian youths in common. The cultiva-
tion of the native language had been an especial object of
its masters since the time of Vespasian, so that the pure and
refined dialect went by the name of the Edessene 9 . At
Edessa too St. Ephrsem formed his own Syrian school, which
lasted long after him ; and there too was the celebrated
Persian Christian school, over which Maris presided, who
has been already mentioned as the translator of Theodore
into Persian 1 . Even in the time of the predecessor of Ibas
in the See (before a.d. 435) the Nestorianism of this Persian
School was so notorious that Rabbula the Bishop had ex-
4 Eccl. Theol. iij. 12.
5 Professor Lee’s Serm. Oct. 1838, pp. 144 — 152.
6 Noris. Opp. t. 2, p. 1 1 2.
7 Augusti. Euseb. Em. Opp.
8 Asseman. p. cmxxv. 9 Hoffman, Gram. Syr. Proleg. § 4.
1 The educated Persians were also acquainted with Syriac. — Assem.
t. i. p. 351, Note.
412
A ppendix .
pelled its masters and scholars 2 ; and they, taking refuge
in the country with which they were connected, had intro-
duced the heresy to the Churches subject to the Persian
King.
Something ought to be said of these Churches ; though
little is known except what is revealed by the fact, in itself
of no slight value, that they had sustained two persecutions
at the hands of the heathen government in the fourth and
fifth centuries. One testimony is extant as early as the end
of the second century, to the effect that in Parthia, Media,
Persia, and Bactria there were Christians who “were not
overcome by evil laws and customs 3 .” In the early part
of the fourth century, a Bishop of Persia attended the
Nicene Council, and about the same time Christianity is
said to have pervaded nearly the whole of Assyria 4 . Mon-
achism had been introduced there before the middle of the
fourth century, and shortly after commenced that fearful
persecution in which sixteen thousand Christians are said
to have suffered. It lasted thirty years, and is said to have
recommenced at the end of the century. The second per-
secution lasted for at least another thirty years of the next,
at the very time when the Nestorian troubles were in pro-
gress in the Empire. Trials such as these show the popu-
lousness as well as the faith of the Churches in those parts ;
and the number of the Sees, for the names of twenty-seven
Bishops are preserved who suffered in the former persecution.
One of them was apprehended together with sixteen priests,
nine deacons, besides monks and nuns of his diocese; another
with twenty-eight companions, ecclesiastics or regulars ;
another with one hundred ecclesiastics of different orders ;
another with one hundred and twenty-eight ; another with
his chorepiscopus and two hundred and fifty of his clergy.
Such was the Church, consecrated by the blood of so many
2 Asseman. p. lxx. 3 Euseb. Praep. vi. io.
4 Tillemont, Mem. t. 7, p. 77-
Appendix .
413
martyrs, which immediately after its glorious confession fell
a prey to the theology of Theodore ; and which through a
succession of ages discovered the energy, when it had lost
the purity of saints.
The members of the Persian school, who had been driven
out of Edessa by Rabbula, found a wide field open for their
exertions under the pagan government with which they had
taken refuge. The Persian monarchs, who had often pro-
hibited by edict 5 the intercommunion of the Church under
their sway with the countries towards the west, readily
extended their protection to exiles, who professed the means
of destroying its Catholicity. Barsumas, the most energetic
of them, was placed in the metropolitan See of Nisibis,
where also the fugitive school was settled under the presi-
dency of another of their party ; while Maris was promoted
to the See of Ardaschir. The primacy of the Church had
from an early period belonged to the See of Seleucia in
Babylonia. Catholicus was the title appropriated to its
occupant, as well as to the Persian Primate, as being depu-
ties of the Patriarch of Antioch, and was derived apparently
from the Imperial dignity so called, denoting their function
as Procurators-general, or officers-in-chief for the regions in
which they were placed. Acacius, another of the Edessene
party, was put into this principal See, and suffered, if he did
not further, the innovations of Barsumas. The mode by
which the latter effected his purposes has been left on
record by an enemy. “ Barsumas accused Barbuaeus, the
Catholicus, before King Pherozes, whispering, ‘These men
hold the faith of the Romans, and are their spies. Give me
power against them to arrest them. 6 ’” It is said that in
this way he obtained the death of Barbu^us, whom Acacius
succeeded. When a minority resisted 7 the process of schism,
a persecution followed. The death of seven thousand seven
Gibbon, ch. 47.
6 Asseman. p. lxxviii.
7 Gibbon, ioid.
4*4
Appendix.
hundred Catholics is said by Monophysite authorities to
have been the price of the severance of the Chaldaic Churches
from Christendom 8 . Their loss was compensated in the
eyes of the government by the multitude of Nestorian
fugitives, who flocked into Persia from the Empire, numbers
of them industrious artisans, who sought a country where
their own religion was in the ascendant.
The foundation of that religion lay, as we have already
seen, in the literal interpretation of Scripture, of which
Theodore was the principal teacher. The doctrine, in which
it formerly consisted, is known by the name of Nestorius :
it lay in the ascription of a human as well as a Divine Per-
sonality to our Lord ; and it showed itself in denying the
title of “ Mother of God ” or Ocotokos, to St. Mary. As
to our Lord’s Personality, it is to be observed that the
question of language came in, which always serves to perplex
a subject and make a controversy seem a matter of words.
The native Syrians made a distinction between the word
“ Person,” and “ Prosopon,” which stands for it in Greek ;
they allowed that there was one Prosopon or Parsopa, as
they called it, and they held that there were two Persons.
It is asked what they meant by parsopa : the answer seems
to be, that they took the word merely in the sense of
character or aspect , a sense familiar to the Greek prosopon,
and quite irrelevant as a guarantee of their orthodoxy.
It follows moreover that, since the aspect of a thing is its
impression upon the beholder, the personality to which they
ascribed unity must have lain in our Lord’s manhood, and
not in His Divine Nature. But it is hardly worth while
pursuing the heresy to its limits. Next, as to the phrase
“Mother of God,” they rejected it as unscriptural ; they
maintained that St. Mary was Mother of the humanity of
Christ, not of the Word, and they fortified themselves by
the Nicene Creed, in which no such title is ascribed to
her.
Asseman. t. 2, p. 403, t. 3, p. 393.
Appendix .
4i5
Whatever might be the obscurity or the plausibility of
their original dogma, there is nothing obscure or attractive
in the developments, whether of doctrine or of practice, in
which it issued. The first act of the exiles of Edessa, on
their obtaining power in the Chaldean communion, was to
abolish the celibacy of the clergy, or, in Gibbon’s forcible
words, to allow “ the public and reiterated nuptials of the
priests, the bishops, and even the patriarch himself.”
Barsumas, the great instrument of the change of religion,
was the first to set an example of the new usage, and is
even said by a Nestorian writer to have married a nun .
He passed a Canon at Councils, held at Seleucia and else-
where, that Bishops and priests might marry, and might
renew their wives as often as they lost them. The Catholic
who followed Acacius went so far as to extend the benefit
of the Canon to Monks, that is, to destroy the Monastic
order; and his two successors availed themselves of this
liberty, and are recorded to have been fathers. A restriction,
however, was afterwards placed upon the Catholic, and upon
the Episcopal order.
Such were the circumstances, and such the principles,
under which the See of Seleucia became the Rome of the
East. In the course of time the Catholic took on himself
the loftier and independent title of Patriarch of Babylon ;
and though Seleucia was changed for Ctesiphon and for
Bagdad 1 , still the name of Babylon was preserved from first
to last as a formal or ideal Metropolis. In the time of the
Caliphs, it was at the head of as many as twenty-five Arch-
bishops ; its Communion extended from China to Jerusalem;
and its numbers, with those of the Monophysites, are said to
have surpassed those of the Greek and Latin Churches
together.
9 Asseman. t. 3, p. 67.
1 Gibbon, ibid.
Appendix.
416
NOTE II.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE GENNESIS ACCORDING TO
THE EARLY FATHERS.
( Vide supra , p. 240.)
Already in the Notes on Athanasius (Athan. Tr. pp. 272 —
280), and in Dissert. Theolog. iii. I have explained my
difficulty in following Bull and others in the interpretation
they assign to certain statements made in the first age of
the Church concerning the Divine Sonship. Those state-
ments, taken in their letter, are to the effect that our Lord
was the Word of God before He was the Son ; that, though,
as the Word, He was from eternity, His gennesis is in essential
connexion both with the design and the fact of creation ;
that He was born indeed of the Father apart from all time,
but still with a definite relation to that beginning of time
when the creation took place, and though born, and not
created, nevertheless born definitely in order to create.
Before the Nicene Council, of the various Schools of the
Church, the Alexandrian alone, is distinctly clear of this doc-
trine ; and even after the Council it is found in the West, in
Upper Italy, Rome, and Africa; France, as represented by
Hilary 1 and Phoebadius, having no part in it. Nay, at Nicaea
when it lay in the way of the Council to condemn it, it was
not distinctly condemned, though to pass it over was in fact
to give it some countenance. Bull indeed considers it was
even recognized indirectly by the assembled Fathers, in their
anathematizing those who contradicted its distinctive for-
mula, “ He was before He was bom in this (as I have
1 Vide however Hilar, in Matt. xxxi. 3 ; but he corrects himself, de
Trin. xii.
A ppendix .
417
said in the Notes on Athanasius), I cannot agree with him,
but at least it is unaccountable that the Fathers should not
have guarded their anathema from Bull’s easy misinterpre-
tation of it, if the opinion which it seems to countenance
was as much reprobated then, as it rightly is now.
The opinion which I have been describing is, as far as
words go, definitely held by Justin, Tatian, Theophilus,
Methodius, in the East ; by Hippolytus, Tertullian, Nova-
tian, Lactantius, Zeno, and Victorinus, in the West; and
that with so plain an identity of view in these various
writers, and with such exact characteristics, that we cannot
explain it away into carelessness of writing, personal idio-
syncracy, or the influence of some particular school ; but are
forced to consider it as the common property of them all,
so that we may interpret one writer by the other, and
illustrate or supply from the rest what is obscure or deficient
in each.
For instance: Justin says, “ He was begotten, when God
at the beginning through Him created and adorned all
things ” (Ap. ii. 6). “ Not a perfect Son, without the flesh,
though a perfect Word,” says Hippolytus, “ being the Only-
begotten, . . . whom God called ‘ Son,’ because He was to
become such” (contr. Noet. 15). . . “ There was a time
when the Son was not,” says Tertullian (adv. Herm. 3) ;
“ He proceeds unto a birth,” says Zeno, “who was, before
He was born ” (Tract, ii. 3).
There can be no doubt what the literal sense is of words
such as these, and that in consequence they require some
accommodation in order to reconcile them with the received
Catholic teaching de Deo and de SS. Trinitate. It is the
object of Bull, as of others after him, to effect this recon-
ciliation. He thinks it a plain duty both to the authors in
question and to the Church, at whatever cost, to reconcile
their statements in all respects with the orthodox belief;
but unless he had felt it a duty, I do not think he would
E E
418
Appendix .
have ventured upon it. He would have taken them in their
literal sense, had he found them in the writing of some
Puritan or Quaker. If so, his defence of them is but a
confirmation of a foregone conclusion; he starts with the
assumption that the words of the early writers cannot mean
what they naturally mean ; and, though this bias is worthy
of all respect, still the fact that it exists is a call on us to
examine closely arguments which without it would not have
been used. And what I have said of Bull applies of course
to others, such as Maran and the Ballerini, who have followed
in his track.
Bull then maintains that the terms “ generation,” “ birth,”
and the like, which occur in the passages of the authors in
question, must be taken figuratively, or improprie , to mean
merely our Lord’s going forth to create, and the great
manifestation of the Sonship made in and to the universe
at its creation; and on these grounds : — i. The terms used
cannot be taken literally, from the fact that in those very
passages, or at least in other passages of the same authors,
His co-eternity with the Father is expressly affirmed. 2. And
they must be taken figuratively, first, because in those
passages they actually stand in connexion with mention of
His forthcoming or mission to create ; and next, because un-
suspected authors, such as Athanasius, distinctly connect
His creative office with His title of “ First-born,” which be-
longs to His nature .
Now I do not think these arguments will stand ; as to the
negative argument, it is true that the Fathers, who speak of
the gennesis as having a relation to time and to creation, do
in the same passages or elsewhere speak of the eternity of the
Word. Doubtless ; but no one says that these Fathers deny
His eternity, as the Word, but His eternity as the Son. Bull
ought to bring passages in which they declare the Son and
His gennesis to be eternal.
As to the positive argument, if they recognized, as he thinks,
Appendix .
419
any gennesis besides that which had a relation to creation, and
which he maintains to be only figuratively a gennesis , viz. an
eternal gennesis from the substance of the Father, why do
they not say so ? do they ever compare and contrast the
two births with each other? do they ever recognize them
as two, one real and eternal, the other just before time ; the
one proper, the other metaphorical? We- know they held
a gennesis in order to creation, or with a relation to time ;
what reason have we for holding that they held any other ?
and what reason for saying that the gennesis which they
connect with creation was not in their minds a real gennesis ,
that is, such a gennesis as we all now hold, all but, as they
expressly state, its not being from eternity ?
In other words, what reason have we for saying that the
term gennesis is figurative in their use of it ? It is true
indeed that both the Son's gennesis and also His forthcoming,
mission, or manifestation are sometimes mentioned together
by these writers in the same sentence ; but that does not pro^ye
they are not in their minds separate Divine acts; for His crea-
tion of the world is mentioned in such passages too, and as
His creation of the world is not His mission, therefore His
mission need not be His gennesis ; and again, as His crea-
ting is (in their teaching) concurrent with His mission, so
His mission may (in their teaching) be concurrent with His
gennesis .
Nor are such expositions of the title “ First-born of crea-
tion," as Athanasius has so beautifully given us, to the purpose
of Bull. Bull takes it to show that gennesis may be con-
sidered to be a mission or forthcoming ; whereas Athanasius
does not mean by the “ First-born" any gennesis of our Lord
from the Father at all, but he simply means His coming to
the creature, that is, His exalting the creature into a Divine
sonship by a union with His own Sorlship. The Son applies
His own Sonship to the creation, and makes Himself, who is
the real Son, the first and the representative of a family of
EE 2
420
Appendix.
adopted sons. The term expresses a relation, not towards
God, but towards the creature. This Athanasius says ex-
pressly : “ It is nowhere written [of the Son] in the Scrip-
tures, ‘ the First-born of God,’ nor ‘ the creature of God / but
it is 4 Only-begotten/ and ‘ Son/ and ‘ Word/ and 4 Wisdom/
that have relation to the Father. The same cannot be both
Only-begotten and First-born, except in different relations,
— Only-begotten because of His gennesis , First-born because
of His condescension.” Thus Athanasius expressly denies
that, because our Lord is First-born at and to the creation,
therefore He can be said to be begotten at the creation ;
“ Only-begotten ” is internal to the Divine Essence ; “ First-
born ” external to It : the one is a word of nature, the other,
of office. If then the authors, whom Bull is defending,
had wished to express a figurative gennesis, they would
always have used the word “ First-born,” never “ Only-
begotten :” and never have associated the generation from
t^e Father with the coming forth to create. It is true they
sometimes associate the Word’s creative office with the term
“ First-born ;” but they also associate it with “ Only-begotten.”
There seems no reason then why the words of Theophilus,
Hippolytus, and the rest should not be taken in their obvious
sense ; and so far I agree with Petavius against Bull, Fabri-
cius, Maran, the Ballerini, and Routh. But, this being
granted, still I am not disposed to follow Petavius in his
severe criticism upon those Fathers, and for the following
reasons : —
1. They considered the “ Theos Logos ” to be really dis-
tinct from God, (that is, the Father,) not a mere attribute,
quality, or power, as the Sabellians did, and do.
2. They considered Him to be distinct from God from
everlasting.
3. Since, as Dionysius says, “ He who speaks is father
of his words,” they considered the Logos always to be of the
nature of a Son. Hence Zeno says He was from everlasting
Appendix. 42 1
“ Filii non sine affectu and Hippolytus, riXeio s Aoyos,
fjLovoyevtfs.
4. They considered, to use the Scripture term, that He
was “ in utero Patris ” before His actual gennesis. Victo-
rinus applies the word “ foetus ” to Him ; “ Non enim foetus
non est ante partum ; sed in occulto est ; generatio est
manifestatio ” (apud Galland, v. 8, p. 146, col. 2). Zeno says
that He “ prodivit ex ore Dei ut rerum naturam fingeret,”
“ cordis ejus nobilis inquilinus,” and was embraced by the
Father “ profundo suse sacrse mentis arcano sine revelamine.”
5. Hippolytus even considered that the perfection of His
Sonship was not attained till His incarnation, reAaos Aoyos
mo? areXrjs ; but even he recognized the identity of the Son
with the Logos.
6. Further, this change of the Logos into the Son was
internal to the Divine Mind, Tertull. adv. Prax. 8. contr.
Hermog. 18, and therefore was unlike the probole oi the
Gnostics.
7. Such an opinion was not only not inconsistent with the
Homousion , but implied it. It took for granted that the
Son was from the substance of the Father, and consubstantial
with Him ; though it implied a very defective view of the
immutability and simplicity of the Divine Essence.
8. Accordingly, though I cannot allow that it was actually
protected at the Council, by the anathema on those who said
that our Lord “ was not before He was born,” at least it was
passed over on an occasion when the Arian error had to be
definitively reprobated.
This may be said in its favour : but then, on the other
hand, —
1. It seriously compromised, as I have said, the simplicity
and immutability of the Divine Essence.
2. It could be resolved, with very little alteration, into
Semi-Arianism on the one hand, or into Sabellianism on the
other.
422
A ppendix.
3. On this account it had all along been resisted with
definiteness and earnestness by the Fathers of the Alexandrian
School, by whom finally it was eradicated. Origen urges the
doctrine of the aeiywves; “ Perfect Son from Perfect Father,”
says Gregory Thaumaturgus in his creed; “The Father being
everlasting the Son is everlasting,” says Dionysius; “The
Father,” says Alexander, “ is ever Father of the ever-present
Son,” and Athanasius reprobates the Xo'yos iv ro> 6 e& dreXi)?,
yewrjOeis riXecos (Orat. iv. ix). Hence Gregory Nazianzen
in like manner condemns the d-reXi} irpoTcpov, ctra reXetov
t&oircp v6p,os ^/xerepos yeveo-ea)s (Orat. XX. 9, fin.). And
at length it was classed, and duly, among the heresies.
“ Alia (hseresis),” says Augustine, “ sempitern^ natum non in-
telligens Filium, putat illam nativitatem sumpsisse k tempore
initium ; et tamen volens coseternum Patri Filium confiteri,
apud ilium fuisse, antequam de illo nasceretur, existimat ; hoc
est, semper eum fuisse, veruntamen semper eum Filium non
fuisse, sed ex quo de illo natus est, Filium esse ccepisse ”
(HEer. 50).
However, this subject should be treated at greater length
than I can allow it here.
4^3
Appendix .
NOTE III \
THE CONFESSIONS AT SIRMIUM.
( Vide supra, p. 314.J
1. A. 13. 351. Confession against Photinus.
(First Sirmian Council).
This Confession was published at a Council of Eastern
Bishops (Coustant. in Hil. p. 1174, Note 1 ), and was drawn
up by the whole body, Hil. de Syn. 37 (according to Sir-
mond. Diatr. 1. Sirm. p. 366, Petavius de Trin. 1. 9. § 8.
Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318 init., and Coustant. in Hil. 1 . c.) ;
or by Basil of Ancyra (as Valesius conjectures in Soz. iv.
22, and Larroquanus, de Liberio, p. 147) ; or by Mark of
Arethusa, Socr. ii. 30, but Socrates, it is considered, con-
fuses together the dates of the different Confessions, and
this ascription is part of his mistake (vide Vales, in loc.,
Coustant. in Hil. de Syn. 1 . c., Petav. Animad. in Epiph. l.c.).
It was written in Greek.
Till Petavius, Socrates was generally followed in ascribing
all three Sirmian Confessions to this one Council, though at
the same time he was generally considered mistaken as to
the year. E. g. Baronius places them all in 357. Sirmond
defended Baronius against Petavius (though in Facund. x. 6,
Note c, he agrees with Petavius) ; and, assigning the third
Confession to 359, adopted the improbable conjecture of two
Councils, the one Catholic and the other Arian, held at
Sirmium at the same time, putting forth respectively the
first and second Creeds, somewhat after the manner of the
contemporary rival Councils of Sardica. Pagi. Natalis
1 From the Oxford Translation of Athanasius, p. 160.
424
A ppendix.
Alexander, Valesius, de Marca, Tillemont, S. Basnage, Mont-
faucon, Coustant, Larroquanus agree with Petavius in
placing the Council, at which Photinus was deposed and
the Confession published, in a.d. 351. Mansi dates it at
35 8 -
Gothofred considers that there were two or three successive
Councils at Sirmium, between a.d. 357 and 359 (in Philo-
storg. Index, pp. 74, 75 ; Dissert, pp. 200. 21 1 — 214). Peta-
vius, and Tillemont, speak of three Councils or Conferences
held in a.d. 351. 357, and 359. Mansi, of three in 358,
359 ; Zaccaria (Dissert. 8) makes in all five, 349 (in which
Photinus was condemned ), 351; 357 (in which Hosius
lapsed); 357 (following Valesius and Pagi ) ; and 359.
Mamachi makes three, 351. 357. 359; Basnage four, 351.
357 , 35 s , 359 -
This was the Confession which Pope Liberius signed,
according to Baronius, Natalis Alexander, and Coustant in
Hil. Note n. pp. 1335 — 1337, and as Tillemont thinks
probable. Zaccaria says it is the general opinion, in which
he is willing to concur (p. 18).
It would appear (Ath. Tr. p. 114, b.) that Photinus was
condemned at Antioch in the Macrostich, a.d. 345 ; at Sar-
dica, 347 ; at Milan, 348 ; and at his own See, Sirmium,
351, if not there, in 349 also ; — however, as this is an intri-
cate point on which there is considerable difference of
opinion among critics, it may be advisable to state here
the dates of his condemnation as they are determined by
various writers.
Petavius (de Photino Hseretico, 1) enumerates in all five
condemnations : — 1. at Constantinople, a.d. 336, when Mar-
cellus was deposed. 2. At Sardica, a.d. 347. 3. At Milan,
a.d. 347. 4. At Sirmium, a.d. 349. 5. At Sirmium, when
he was deposed, a.d. 351. Of these the 4th and 5th were
first brought to light by Petavius, who omits mention of the
Macrostich in 345.
Appendix .
425
Petavius is followed by Natalis Alexander, Montfaucon
(vit. Athan.), and Tillemont; and by De Marca ( Diss. de
temp. Syn. Sirm.) and S. Basnage (Annales), and Valesius
(in Theod. Hist. ii. 16. p. 23; Socr. ii. 20), as regards the
Council of Milan, except that Valesius places it with Sir-
mond in 346 ; but for the Council of Sirmium in 349, they
substitute a Council of Rome of the same date, while De
Marca considers Photinus condemned again in the Eusebian
Council of Milan in 355. De la Roque, on the other hand
( Larroquan. Dissert, de Photino Haer. ), considers that Pho-
tinus was condemned, 1. in the Macrostich, 344 [345]. 2.
At Sardica, 347. 3. At Milan, 348. 4. At Sirmium, 350.
5. At Sirmium, 351. Zaccaria, besides 345 and 347; at
Milan, 347 ; at Sirmium, 349 ; at Sirmium again, 351, when
he was deposed.
Petavius seems to stand alone in assigning to the Council
of Constantinople, 336, his first condemnation.
2. a.d. 357. The Blasphemy of Potamius and Hosius
( Second Sirmian J.
Hilary calls it by the above title, de Syn. 1 1 ; vide also
Soz. iv. 12, p. 554. He seems also to mean it by the
blasphemia Ursacii et Valentis, contr. Const. 26.
This Confession was the first overt act of disunion between
Arians and Semi-Arians.
Sirmond, De Marca, and Valesius ( in Socr. ii. 30), after
Phoebadius, think it put forth by a Council ; rather, at a
Conference of a few leading Ariaps about Constantius, who
seems to have been present ; e. g. Ursacius, Valens, and
Germinius. Soz. iv. 12. Vide also Hil. Fragm. vi. 7.
It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Potamius wrote
very barbarous Latin, judging from the Tract ascribed to
him in Dacher. Spicileg. t. 3. p. 299, unless it be a trans-
426
Appendix .
lation from the Greek, vide also Galland. Bibl. t. v. p. 96.
Petavius thinks the Creed not written, but merely subscribed
by Potamius (de Trin. i. 9. § 8) ; and Coustant (in Hil. p.
11 5 5, Note f) that it was written by Ursacius* Valens, and
Potamius. It is remarkable that the Greek in Athanasius is
clearer than the original.
This at first sight is the Creed which Liberius signed,
because S. Hilary speaks of the latter as “ perfidia Ariana,”
Fragm. 6. Blondel (Prim, dans TEglise, p. 484), Larro-
quanus, &c., are of this opinion. And the Roman Breviary,
Ed. Ven. 1482, and Ed. Par. 1543, in the Service for S.
Eusebius of Rome, August. 14, says that “ Pope Liberius
consented to the Arian misbelief,” Launnoi, Ep. v. 9. c. 13.
Auxilius says the same, Ibid. vi. 14. Animadv. 5. n. 18.
Petavius grants that it must be this, if any of the three
Sirmian (Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316), but we shall see his
own opinion presently. Zaccaria says that Hosius signed
it, but not Liberius ( Diss. 8. p. 20, Diss. 7). Zaccaria
seems also to consider that there was another Council
or Conference at Sirmium this same year, and it was at this
Conference that Liberius subscribed “ formulae, quae contra
Photinum Sirmii edita fuerat, primae scilicet Sirmiensi, in
unum cum Antiochensi (against Paul of Samosata, also the
creed of the Dedication) libellum conjectae.” Vide infra.
He says he subscribed it “ iterum,” the first time being in
Berrhoea.
3. a.d. 357. The foregoing interpolated.
A creed was sent*into the East in Hosius’s name, Epiph.
Haer. 73. 14. Soz. iv. 15, p. 558, of an Anomoean character,
which the “ blasphemia ” was not. And St. Hilary may
allude to this when he speaks of the “ deliramenta Osii, et
incrementa Ursacii et Valentis,” contr. Const. 23. An
Appendix .
427
Anomcean Council of Antioch under Eudoxius of this date,
makes acknowledgments to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius,
Soz. iv. 12 fin. as being agents in the Arianizing of the
West.
Petavius and Tillemont consider this Confession to be
the “ blasphemia ” interpolated. Petavius throws out a
further conjecture, which seems gratuitous, that the whole
of the latter part of the Creed is a later addition, and
that Liberius only signed the former part Animadv. in
Epiph. p. 316.
4. a.d. 358. The Ancyrene Anathemas*
The Semi-Arian party had met in Council at Ancyra in
the early spring of 358 to protest against the “ blasphemia,”
and that with some kind of correspondence with the Gallic
Bishops who had just condemned it, Phoebadius of Agen
writing a Tract against it, which is still extant. They had
drawn up and signed, besides a Synodal Letter, eighteen
anathemas, the last against the “ Consubstantial.” These,
except the last, or the last six, they submitted at the end of
May to the Emperor who was again at Sirmium. Basil,
Eustathius, Eleusius, and another formed the deputation ;
and their influence persuaded Constantius to accept the
Anathemas, and even to oblige the party of Valens, at
whose “ blasphemia ” they were levelled, to recant and
subscribe them.
. 5. a.d. 358. Semi-Arian Digest of Three Confessions .
The Semi-Arian Bishops, pursuing their advantage, com-
posed a Creed out of three, that of the Dedication, the first
Sirmian, and the Creed of Antioch against Paul, 264 — 270,
in which the “ Consubstantial ” is said to have been omitted
or forbidden, Soz. iv. 15. This Confession was imposed
428
Appendix.
by Imperial authority on the Arian party, who signed it.
So did Liberius, Soz. ibid. Hil. Fragm. vi. 6, 7 ; and Petavius
considers that this is the subscription by which he lapsed,
de Trin. i. 9. § 5, Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316, and so Zac-
caria, as above, and S. Basnage, in Ann. 358. 13.
It is a point of controversy whether or not the Arians
at this time suppressed the “ blasphemia.” Socrates and
Sozomen say that they made an attempt to recall the copies
they had issued, and even obtained an edict from the Em-
peror for this purpose, but without avail. Socr. ii. 30 fin.
Soz. iv. 6, p. 543.
Athanasius, on the other hand, de Syn. 29, relates this in
substance of the third Confession of Sirmium, not of the
“ blasphemia ” or second.
Tillemont follows Socrates and Sozomen, considering that
Basil's influence with the Emperor enabled him now to
insist on a retraction of the “ blasphemia." And he argues
that Germinius in 366, being suspected of orthodoxy, and
obliged to make profession of heresy, was referred by his
party to the formulary of Ariminum, no notice being taken
of the “ blasphemia," which looks as if it were suppressed ;
whereas Germinius himself appeals to the third Sirmian,
which is a proof that it was not suppressed. Hil. Fragm.
15. Coustant, in Hil. contr. Const. 26, though he does
not adopt the opinion himself, observes, that the charge
brought against Basil, Soz. iv. 132, Hil. 1. c., by the Acacians,
of persuading the Africans against the second Sirmian is an
evidence of a great effort on his part, at a time when he had
the Court with him, to suppress it. We have just seen
Basil uniting with the Gallic Bishops against it.
6. a.d. 359. The Confession with a date
( Third Sirmian ).
The Semi-Arians, with the hope of striking a further blow
Appendix .
429
at their opponents by a judgment against the Anomoeans,
Soz. iv. 16 init., seem to have suggested a general Council,
which ultimately became the Councils of Seleucia and Ari-
minum. If this was their measure, they were singularly
out-manoeuvred by the party of Acacius and Valens, as may
be seen in Athanasius’s de Synodis. A preparatory Con-
ference was held at Sirmium at the end of May in this year,
in which the Creed was determined which should be laid
before the great Councils then assembling. Basil and Mark
were the chief Semi-Arians present, and in the event became
committed to an almost Arian Confession. Soz. iv. 16, p.
562. It was finally settled on the Eve of Pentecost, and
the dispute lasted till morning. Epiph. Haer. 73, 22. Mark
at length was chosen to draw it up, Soz. iv. 22, p. 573, yet
Valens so managed that Basil could not sign it without
an explanation. It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30, Soz.
iv. 17, p. 563. Coustant, however, in Hil. p. 1152, note i.,
seems to consider this dispute and Mark’s confession to
belong to the same date (May 22,) in the foregoing year;
but p. 1363, note b, he seems to change his opinion.
Petavius, who, Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318, follows So-
crates in considering that the second Sirmian is the Confes-
sion which the Arians tried to suppress, nevertheless, de Trin.
i. 9, § 8, yields to the testimony of Athanasius in behalf of
the third, attributing the measure to their dissatisfaction
with the phrase “ Like in all things,” which Constantius
had inserted, and with Basil’s explanation on subscribing it,
and to the hopes of publishing a bolder creed which their
increasing influence with Constantius inspired. He does
not think it impossible, however, that an attempt was made
to suppress both. Coustant, again, in Hil. p. 1363, note b,
asks 7 vhen it could be that the Eusebians attempted to sup-
press the second Confession; and conjectures that the ridicule
which followed their dating of the third and their wish to
get rid of the “ Like in al) things,” were the causes of their
430
Appendix.
anxiety about it. He observes too with considerable specious-
ness that Acacius’s Second formulary at Seleucia (Athan.
de Syn. 29), and the Confession of Nice (Ibid. 30), resemble
second editions of the third Sirmian. Valesius, in Socr. ii.
30, and Montfaucon, in Athan. Syn. § 29, take the same
side.
Pagi in Ann. 357. n. 13, supposes that the third Sirmian
was the Crbed signed by Liberius. Yet Coustant in Hil. p.
1335, note n > speaking of Liberius’s “ perfidia Ariana,” as
St. Hilary calls it, says, “ Solus Valesius existimat tertiam
[confessionem] hie memorari : ” whereas Valesius, making
four, not to say five, Sirmian Creeds, understands Liberius'
to have signed, not the third, but an intermediate one,
between the second and third, as Petavius does, in Soz.
iv. 15 and 16. Moreover, Pagi fixes the date as a . d . 358
ibid.
This Creed, thus drawn up by a Semi-Arian, with an
Acacian or Arian Appendix, then a Semi-Arian insertion, and
after all a Semi-Arian protest on subscription, was proposed
at Seleucia by Acacius, Soz. iv. 22, and at Ariminum by
Valens, Socr. ii. 37, p. 132.
7. a . d . 359. Nicene Edition of the Third Sirmian .
The third Sirmian was rejected both at Seleucia and Ari-
minum ; but the Eusebians, dissolving the Council of Se-
leucia, kept the Fathers at Ariminum together through the
summer and autumn. Meanwhile at Nice in Thrace they
confirmed the third Sirmian, Socr. ii. 37, p. 141, Theod.
Hist. ii. 16, with the additional proscription of the word
hypostasis ; apparently lest the Latins should by means of it
evade the condemnation of the “ consubstantial.” This
Creed, thus altered, was ultimately accepted at Ariminum ;
and was confirmed in January 360 at Constantinople; Socr.
ii. 41, p. 163. Soz. iv. 24 init.
Appendix .
43i
Liberius retrieved his fault on this occasion ; for, whatever
vas the confession he had signed, he now refused his assent
to the Ariminian, and, if Socrates is to be trusted, was
banished in consequence, Socr. ii. 37, p. 140?
432
A ppendix.
NOTE IV. 1
THE TERMS USM AND hypostasis , AS USED IN THE
EARLY CHURCH-
( Vide supra , p. 186.^
1. Even before we take into account the effect which would
naturally be produced on the first Christians by the novelty
and mysteriousness of doctrines which depend for their
reception simply upon Revelation, we have reason to antici-
pate that there would be difficulties and mistakes in expres-
sing them, when they first came to be set forth by unautho-
ritative writers. Even in secular sciences, inaccuracy of
thought and language is but gradually corrected ; that is,
in proportion as their subject-matter is thoroughly scruti-
nized and mastered by the co-operation of many independent
intellects, successively engaged upon it. Thus, for instance,
the word Person requires the rejection of various popular
senses, and a careful definition, before it can serve for philo-
sophical uses. We sometimes use it for an individual as
contrasted with a class or multitude, as when we speak of
having “personal objections” to another; sometimes for
the body , in contrast to the soul, as when we speak of
“ beauty of person.” We sometimes use it in the abstract,
as when we speak of another as “ insignificant in person ; ”
sometimes in the concrete, as when we call him “ an insig-
nificant person.” How divergent in meaning are the deri-
vatives, personable , personalities , personify , personation , per-
sonage, parsonage ! This variety arises partly from our own
carelessness, partly from the necessary developments of
1 From the Atlantis , July, 1858.
Appendix .
433
language, partly from the exuberance of human thought,
partly from the defects of our vernacular tongue.
Language then requires to be refashioned even for sciences
which are based on the senses and the reason ; but much
more will this be the case, when we are concerned with
subject-matters, of which, in our present state, we cannot
possibly form any complete or consistent conception, such
as the Catholic doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Since they are from the nature of the case above our intel-
lectual reach, and were unknown till the preaching of Chris-
tianity, they required on their first promulgation new words,
or words used in new senses, for their due enunciation; and,
since these were not definitely supplied by Scripture or by
tradition, nor, for centuries, by ecclesiastical authority, variety
in the use, and confusion in the apprehension of them, were
unavoidable in the interval. This conclusion is necessary,
admitting the premisses, antecedently to particular instances
in proof.
Moreover, there is a presumption equally strong, that
the variety and confusion that I have anticipated, would
in matter of fact issue here or there in actual heterodoxy,
as often as the language of theologians was misunderstood
by hearers or readers, and deductions were made from it
which the teacher did not intend. Thus, for instance, the
word Person , used in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
would on first hearing suggest Tritheism to one who made
the word synonymous with individual ; and Unitarianism
to another, who accepted it in the classical sense of a mask
or character .
Even to this day our theological language is wanting in
accuracy : thus, we sometimes speak of the controversies
concerning the Person of Christ, when we mean to include
in them those also which belong to the two natures which
are predicated of Him.
Indeed, the difficulties of forming a theological phraseology
F F
434
A ppendix.
for the whole of Christendom were obviously so great, that
we need not wonder at the reluctance which the first age
of Catholic divines showed in attempting it, even apart from
the obstacles caused by the distraction and isolation of the
churches in times of persecution. Not only had the words
to be adjusted and explained which were peculiar to different
schools or traditional in different places, but there was the
formidable necessity of creating a common measure between
two, or rather three languages, — Latin, Greek, and Syriac.
The intellect had to be satisfied, error had to be successfully
excluded, parties the most contrary to each other, and the
most obstinate, had to be convinced. The very confidence
which would be felt by Christians in general that Apostolic
truth would never fail, — and that they held it in each
locality themselves and the orbis terrarum with them, in
spite of all verbal contrarieties, — would indispose them to
define it, till definition became an imperative duty.
2. I think this plain from the nature of the case ; and
history confirms me in the instance of the celebrated word
liomoiision, which, as one of the first and most necessary steps,
so again was apparently one of the most discouraging, in the
attempt to give a scientific expression to doctrine. This
formula, as Athanasius, Hilary, and Basil affirm, had been
disowned, as savouring of heterodoxy, by the great Council
of Antioch in a.d. 264 — 269 ; yet, in spite of this disavowal
on the part of Bishops of the highest authority, it was im-
posed on all the faithful to the end of time in the Ecumenical
Council of Nicsea, a.d. 325, as the one and only safeguard,
as it really is, of orthodox teaching. The misapprehensions
and protests which, after such antecedents, its adoption occa-
sioned for many years, may be easily imagined. Though
above three hundred Bishops had accepted it at Nicsea, the
great body of the Episcopate in the next generation con-
sidered it inexpedient ; and Athanasius himself, whose im-
perishable name is bound up with it, showed himself most
A ppendix .
435
cautious in putting it forward, though he knew it had the.
sanction of a General Council. Moreover, the word does
not occur in the Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d.
347, nor in the recantation made before Pope Julius by
Ursacius and Valens, a.d. 349, nor in the cross-questionings
to which St. Ambrose subjected Palladius and Secundianus,
a.d. 381. At Seleucia, a.d. 359, as many as 100 Eastern
Bishops, besides the Arian party, were found to abandon it,
while at Ariminum in the same year the celebrated scene
took place of 400 Bishops of the West being worried and
tricked into a momentary act of the same character. They
had not yet got it deeply fixed into their minds, as a sort
of first principle, that to abandon the formula was to betray
the faith.
3. This disinclination on the part of Catholics to dogmatic
definitions was not confined to the instance of the homousion .
In the use of the word hypostasis , a variation was even
allowed by the authority of a Council [a.d. 362] ; and the
circumstances under which it was allowed, and the possi-
bility of allowing it, without compromising Catholic truth,
shall here be considered.
As to the use of the word. At least in the West, and
in St. Athanasius’s day, it was usual to speak of one
hypostasis , as of one usia , of the Divine Nature. Thus the
so-called Sardican Creed, a.d. 347, speaks of “ one hypostasis ,
which the heretics call usia.” Theod. Hist. ii. 8; the Roman
Council under Damasus, a.d. 371, says that the Three
Persons are of the same hypostasis and usia; and the Nicene
Anathema condemns those who say that the Son “ came
from other hypostasis or usia” Epiphanius too speaks of
“ one hypostasis ,” Hcer. 74, 4, Ancor. 6 (and though he
has the hypostases , Hcer. 62, 3, 72, 1, yet he is shy of the
plural, and prefers “ the hypostatic Father, the hypostatic
Son,” &c., ibid. 3 and 4, Ancor. 6 ; and rpL a, as Hcer. 74, 4,
where he says “ three hypostatic of the same hypostasis
F F 2
436
Appendix.
vide also " in hypostasis of perfection,” Hoer. 74, 12,
Ancor. 7 et alibi ) ; and Cyril of Jerusalem of the “ uniform
hypostasis ” of God, Catech. vi. 7, vide also xvi. 12 and
xvii. 9 (though the word may be construed one out of three
in Cat. xi. 3 ) ; and Gregory Nazianzen, Or at. xxviii, 9,
where he is speaking as a Natural, not as a Christian theo-
logian.
In the preceding century Gregory Thaumaturgus had
laid it down that the Father and the Son were in hypostasis
one, and the Council of Antioch, a.d. 264 — 269, calls the
Son in usia -and hypostasis God, the Son of God. Routh,
Reliq. t. 2, p. 466. Accordingly Athanasius expressly tells
us, u Hypostasis is usia , and means nothing else but avro to
6V,” ad Afros , 4. Jerome says that “ Tota saecularium litte-
rarum schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi usiam novit,”
Epist. xv. 4 ; Basil, the Semi-Arian, that “ the Fathers have
called hypostasis usia,” Epiph. Hcer, 73, 12, fin. And
Socrates says that at least it was frequently used for usia,
when it had entered into the philosophical schools. Hist.
iii. 7.
On the other hand the Alexandrians, Origen (in Joan.
ii. 6 et alibi), Ammonius ( ap . Caten. in Joan. x. 30, if
genuine), Dionysius (ap. Basil de Sp. S. n. 72), and Alex-
ander ( ap. Theod. Hist. i. 4), speak of more hypostases than
one in the Divine Nature, that is, of Three ; and apparently
without the support of the divines of any other school,
unless Eusebius, who is half an Alexandrian, be an excep-
tion. Going down beyond the middle of the fourth century,
we find the Alexandrian Didymus committing himself to a
bold and strong enunciation of the Three hypostases , (e.g. de
Trin. 1. 18, & c.), which is almost without a parallel in papis-
tical literature.
It was under these circumstances that the Council of
Alexandria in a.d. 362, to which I have already referred,
a Council in which Athanasius and Eusebius of Vercellae
Appendix \
437
were the chief actors, determined to leave the sense and use
of the word open, so that, according to the custom of their
own church or school, Catholics might freely speak of three
hypostases or of one.
Thus we are brought to the practice of Athanasius him-
self. It is remarkable that he should so far innovate on
the custom of his own Church, as to use the word in each of
these two applications of it. In his In illud Omnia he
speaks of “ the three perfect Hypostases On the other
hand, he makes itsia and hypostasis synonymous in Orat .
iii. 65, 66, Orat. iv. 1 and 33 fin.
There is something more remarkable still in this inno-
vation. Alexander, his immediate predecessor and master,
published, a.d. 320 — 324, two formal letters against Arius,
one addressed to his namesake of Constantinople, the other
encyclical. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the latter
was written by Athanasius; it is so unlike the former in
style and diction, so like the writings of Athanasius. Now
it is observable that in the former the word hypostasis occurs
in its Alexandrian sense at least five times ; in the latter,
which I attribute to Athanasius, it is dropped, and usia is
introduced, which is absent from the former. That is,
Athanasius has, on this supposition, when writing in his
Bishop’s name a formal document, pointedly innovated on
his Bishop’s theological language, and that the received
language of his own Church. I am not supposing he did
this without Alexander’s sanction. Indeed the character
of the Arian polemic would naturally lead Alexander, as well
as Athanasius, to be suspicious of their own formula of the
“ Three Hypostases ,” which Arianism was using against
them ; and the latter would be confirmed in this feeling by
his subsequent familiarity with Latin theology, and the
usage of the Holy See, which, under Pope Damasus, as we
have seen, a.d. 371, spoke of one hypostasis , and in the pre-
vious century, a.d. 260, protested by anticipation in the
43 §
Appendix .
person of Pope Dionysius against the use, which might be
made in the hands of enemies, of the formula of the Three
Hypostases . Still it is undeniable that Athanasius does at
least once speak of Three, though his practice is to dispense
with the word and to use others instead of it.
4. Now then we come to the explanation of this difference
of usage in the application of the word. It is difficult to
believe that so accurate a thinker as Athanasius really used
an important term in two distinct, nay contrasted senses;
and I cannot but question the fact, so commonly taken for
granted, that the divines of the beginning of the fourth
century had appropriated any word whatever definitely to
express either the idea of Person as contrasted with that of
Essence , or of Essence as contrasted with Person. I alto-
gether doubt whether we are correct in saying that they
meant by hypostasis , in one country Person , in another
Essence. I think such propositions should be carefully
proved, instead of being taken for granted, as at present is
the case. Meanwhile, I have an hypothesis of my own.
I think they used the word both in East and West in
one and the same substantial sense ; with some accidental
variation or latitude indeed, but that of so slight a character,
as would admit of Athanasius, or any one else, speaking of
one hypostasis or three, without any violence to that sense
which remained on the whole one and the same. What this
sense is I proceed to explain : —
The school-men are known to have insisted with great
earnestness on the numerical unity of the Divine Being ; each
of the three Divine Persons being one and the same God,
unicus, singularis, et totus Deus. In this, however, they did
but follow the recorded doctrine of the Western theologians
of the fifth century, as I suppose will be allowed by critics
generally. So forcible is St. Austin upon the strict unity of
God, that he even thinks it necessary to caution his readers
lest they should suppose that he could allow them to speak of
Appendix .
439
One Person as well as of Three in the Divine nature de Trim,
vii. 1 1. Again, in the (so-called) Athanasian Creed, the same
elementary truth is emphatically insisted on. The neuter
unum of former divines is changed into the masculine, in
enunciating the mystery. “ Non tres seterni, sed unus
aeternus.” I suppose this means, that each Divine Person is
to be received as the one God as entirely and absolutely as He
would be held to be, if we had never heard of the other Two,
and that He is not in any respect less than the one and only
God, because They are each that same one God also ; or in
other words, that, as each human individual being has one
personality, the Divine Being has three.
Returning then to Athanasius, I consider that this same
mystery is implied in his twofold application of the word
hypostasis . The polytheism and pantheism of the heathen
world imagined, — not the God whom natural reason can
discover, conceive, and worship, one individual, living, and
personal, — but a divinitas , which was either a quality,
whether energy or life, or an extended substance, or something
else equally inadequate to the real idea which the word
conveys. Such a divinity could not properly be called an
hypostasis or said to be in hypostasi (except indeed as brute
matter may be called, as in one sense it can be called, an
hypostasis), and therefore it was, that that word had some
fitness, especially after the Apostle’s adoption of it, Hebr. i. 3
to denote the Christian’s God. And this may account for
the remark of Socrates, that it was a new word, strange to
the schools of ancient philosophy, which had seldom professed
pure theism or natural theology. “The teachers of philosophy
among the Greeks,” he says, “have defined usia in many
ways : but of hypostasis , they have made no mention at all.
Irenaeus, the grammarian, affirms that the word is barbarous.”
—Hist. iii. 7. The better then was it fitted to express that
highest object of thought, of which the “barbarians” of
Palestine had been the special witnesses. When the divine
440
Appendix.
hypostasis was confessed, the word expressed or suggested the
attributes of individuality, self-subsistence, self-action, and
personality, such as go to form the idea of the Divine Being
to the natural theologian ; and, since the difference between
the theist and the Catholic divine in their idea of His nature
is simply this, that, in opposition to the Pantheist, who
cannot understand how the Infinite can be Personal at all,
the one ascribes to him one personality, and the other three,
it will be easily seen how a word, thus characterized and
circumstanced, would admit of being used with but a slight
modification of its sense, of the Trinity as well as of the
Unity.
Let us take, by way of illustration, the word monad , which
when applied to intellectual beings, includes the idea of
personality. Dionysius of Alexandria, for instance, speaks of
the monad and the triad: now, would it be very harsh, if, as
he has spoken of “ three hypostases ” in monad so he had
instead spoken of “ the three monads,” that is, in the sense of
“ thrice hypostatic monad P as if the intrinsic force of the
word monas would preclude the possibility of his use of
the plural monads being mistaken to imply that he held
more 7no7iads than one? To take an analogous case, it
would be about the same improper use of plural for singular,
if we said that a martyr by his one act gained three victories
instead of a triple victory, over his three spiritual foes.
And indeed, though Athanasius does not directly speak of
three monads, yet he implies the possibility of such phraseology
by teaching that, though the Father and the Son are two,
the 77ionas of the Deity (OtoTrjs) is indivisible, and that the
Deity is at once Father and Son.
This, then, is what I conceive that he means by sometimes
speaking of one, somtimes of three hypostases. The word hypo-
stasis stands neither for Perso7i nor for Essence exclusively ;
but it means the one Personal God of natural theology, the
notion of whom the Catholic corrects and completes as often
Appendix .
441
as he views him as a Trinity; of which correction Nazianzen’s
language ( Orat. xxviii. 9) contrasted with his usual formula
( vid. Orat. xx. 6) of the Three Hypostases , is an illustration.
The specification of three hypostases does not substantially
alter the sense of the word itself, but is a sort of catachresis
by which this Catholic doctrine is forcibly brought out) as it
would be by the phrase “ three monads ”), viz. that each of
the Divine Persons is simply the Unus et Singulars Deus.
If it be objected, that by the same mode of reasoning, Atha-
nasius might have said catachrestically not only three monads
or three hypostases , but three Gods, I deny it, and for this
reason, because hypostasis is not equivalent to the simple
idea of God, but is rather a definition of Him, and that in
some special elementary points, as essence, personality, &c.,
and because such a mere improper use or varying application
of the term hypostasis would not tend to compromise a truth,
which never must even in forms of speech be trifled with, the
absolute numerical unity of the Supreme Being. Though a
Catholic could not say that there are three Gods, he could
say, that the definition of God applies to unus and tres.
Perhaps it is for this reason that Epiphanius speaks of the
“ hypostatic Three,” “co -hypostatic? “of the same hypostasis
Hcer. 74, 4 (vid. Jerome, Ep. 15, 3), in the spirit in which
St. Thomas, I think, interprets the “ non tres aeterni, sed
unus aeternus,” to turn on the contrast of adjective and sub-
stantive.
Petavius makes a remark which is apposite to my present
purpose. “Nomen Dei,” he says, de Trin. iii. 9. § 10, “ cum
sit ex eorum genere quae concreta dicuntur, formam significat,
non abstractam ab individuis proprietatibus, sed in iis sub-
sistentem. Est enim Deus substantia aliqua divinitatem
habens. Sicut homo non humanam naturam separatam, sed
in aliquo individuo subsistentem exponit, ita tamen ut
individuum ac personam, non certam ac determinatam, sed
confuse infiniteque representet, hoc est, naturam in aliquo , ut
442
A ppendix.
diximus, consistentem ... sic nomen Dei proprie ac directe
divinitatem naturamque divinam indicat, assignificat autem
eundem , ut in quapiam persona subsisteniem , nullam de tribus
expresse designans, sed confuse et universe .” Here this great
author seems to say, that even the word “ Deus ” may stand,
not barely for the Divine Being, but besides “ in quapiam
persona subsistentem,” without denoting which Person ; and
in like manner I would understand hypostasis to mean the
monas with a like indeterminate notion of personality,
(without which attribute the idea of God cannot be,) and
thus, according as one hypostasis is spoken of, or three, the
word may be roughly translated, in the one case “ personal
substance,” or “ being with personality,” in the other “ sub-
stantial person,” or “ person which is in being.” In all cases
it will be equivalent to the Deity, to the monad , to the divine
usia , &c., though with that peculiarity of meaning which I
have insisted on.
5. Since, as ha's been said above, hypostasis is a word more
peculiarly Christian than usia , I have judged it best to speak
of it first, that the meaning of it, as it has now been ascertained
on inquiry, may serve as a key for explaining other parallel
terms. Usia is one of these the most in use, certainly in the
works of Athanasius ; and we have his authority as well as
St. Jerome’s for stating that it was once simply synonymous
with hypostasis. Moreover, in Orat. iii. 65, he uses the two
words as equivalent to each other. If this be so, what has
been said above in explanation of the sense he put on the
word hypostasis , will apply to usia also. This conclusion is
corroborated by the proper meaning of the word usia itself
which answers to the English word “ being.” Now, when
we speak of the Divine Being, we mean to speak of Him, as
what he is, 6 wv, including generally His attributes and
characteristics, and among them, at least obscurely, His
personality. By the u Divine Being” we do not commonly
mean a mere anima mundi , or first principle of life or system
Appendix .
443
of laws. Usia then, thus considered, agrees very nearly in
sense, from its very etymology, with hypostasis. Further,
this was the sense in which Aristotle used it, viz. for what is
“ individuum,” and “ numero unum f and it must not be
forgotten that the Neo-platonists, who exerted so great an
influence on the Alexandrian Church, professed theAristotelic
logic. And so St. Cyril himself, the successor of Athanasius
(Suicer, Thes . in voce , over ca.)
This is the word, and not hypostasis , which Athanasius
commonly uses in controversy with the Arians, to express
the divinity of the Word. He speaks of the usia of the Son
as being united to the Father, and His usia being the offspring
of the Father’s usia. In these and other passages usia , I
conceive, is substantially equivalent to hypostasis , as I have
explained it, viz. expressing the divine /was with an obscure
intimation of personality inclusively ; and here I think I am
able to quote the words of Father Passaglia, as agreeing (so
far) in what I have said. “ Quum hypostasis ,” he says, de
Trinitate , p. 1302, “esse nequeat sine substantia, nihil vetabat
quominus trium hypostasum defensores hypostasim interdum
pro substantia sumerent, prsesertim ubi hypostasis opponitur
rei non subsistenti ac efficientiae.” I should wish to complete
the admission by adding, “ Since an intellectual usia naturally
implies an hypostasis , there was nothing to hinder usia being
used, when hypostasis had to be expressed.”
6. After what I have said of usia and hypostasis , it will not
surprise the reader if I consider that </>Ar is (nature) also, in
the Alexandrian theology, was equally capable of being ap-
plied to the Divine Being viewed as One, or viewed as Three
or each of the Three separately. Thus Athanasius says, One
is the Divine Nature, (contr. A poll. ii. i^pn. de Incar n. V %
fin.) Alexander, on the other hand, calls the Father and Son
the “ two hypostatic natures,” and speaks of the “ only
begotten nature,” (Theod. Hist. i. 4,) and Clement of “ the
Son’s nature ” as “ most intimately near the sole Almighty,”
444
Appendix .
(Strom, vii. 2,) and Cyril of a “ generating nature ” and a
“ generated ” (Thes. xi. p. 85) and, in words celebrated in
theological history, of “ the Word’s One Nature incarnate.”
7. EtSos is a word of a similar character. As it is found in
John v. 37, it may be indifferently interpreted of essence or
of person ; the Vulgate translates it “ neque speciem ejus
vidistis.” In Athan. Orat . iii. 3, it is synonymous with deity
or usia; as ibid ’ 6 also; and apparently in ibid. 16, where
the Son is said to have the species of the Father. And so in
de Syn. 52. Athanasius says that there is only one “ species
deitatis.” Yet, as taken from Gen . xxxii. 31, it is considered
to denote the Son; e.g. Athan. Orat. i. 20, where it is used
as synonymous with Image, eb<w v. In like manner the Son
is called “ the very species deitatis.” Ep. EEg. 17. But
again in Athan. Orat. iii. 6, it is first said that the species of
the Father and Son are one and the same, then that the Son
is the species of the Father’s (deity), and then that the Son is
the species of the Father.
The outcome of this investigation is this : — that we need
not by an officious piety arbitrarily force the language of
separate Fathers into a sense which it cannot bear ; nor by
an unjust and narrow criticism accuse them of error; nor
impose upon an early age a distinction of terms belonging to
a later. The words nsia and hypostasis were, naturally and
intelligibly, for three or four centuries, practically syno-
nymous, and were used indiscriminately for two ideas, which
were afterwards respectively denoted by the one and the
other.
Appendix .
445
NOTE V 4
THE ORTHODOXY OF THE BODY OF THE FAITHFUL DURING
THE SUPREMACY OF ARIANISM.
(Vide supra, p. 358.)
The episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant
at Nicsea on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order
of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the
Council ; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the
length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate cham-
pions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course
there were great and illustrious exceptions ; first, Athanasius,
Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phcebadius ; and after them,
Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose ; there are others, too,
who suffered, if they did nothing else, as Eustathius, Paulus,
Paulinus, and Dionysius ; and the Egyptian bishops, whose
weight was small in the Church in proportion to the great
power of their Patriarch. And, on the other hand, as I shall
say presently, there were exceptions to the Christian heroism
of the laity, especially in some of the great towns. And
again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their
parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places ; but
on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are
obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came
short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal,
courage, and constancy.
This is a very remarkable fact : but there is a moral in it.
Perhaps it was permitted, in order to impress upon the Church
at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to
1 From the Ramhler , July, 1859.
446
A ppendix.
her long temporal ascendancy, the great evangelical lesson,
that, not the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the un-
learned, and the weak constitute her real strength. It was.
mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown;
it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius
and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by
their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was with-
stood and stamped out of the sacred territory.
The contrast stands as follows : —
i.
1. a.d. 325. The great Council of Nicaea of 318 Bishops,
chiefly from the eastern provinces of Christendom, under the
presidency of Hosius of Cordova. It was convoked against
Arianism, which it once for all anathematized ; and it inserted
the formula of the “ Consubstantial” into the Creed, with the
view of establishing the fundamental dogma which Arianism
impugned. It is the first (Ecumenical Council, and recog-
nized at the time its own authority as the voice of the
infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at
this day.
2. a.d. 326. St. Athanasius, the great champion of the
Homoiision, was elected Bishop of Alexandria.
3. a.d. 334, 335. The Synods of Caesarea and Tyre (sixty
Bishops) against Athanasius, who was therein accused and
formally condemned of rebellion, sedition, and ecclesiastical
tyranny ; of murder, sacrilege, and magic ; deposed from his
See, forbidden to set foot in Alexandria for life, and banished
to Gaul. Also, they received Arius into communion.
4. a.d. 341. Council of Rome of fifty Bishops, attended
by the exiles from Thrace, Syria, &c., by Athanasius, &c., in
which Athanasius was pronounced innocent.
5. a.d. 341. Great Council of the Dedication at Antioch,
attended by ninety or a hundred Bishops. The council
ratified the proceedings of the Councils of Caesarea and Tyre,
A ppendix .
447
and placed an Arian in the See of Athanasius. Then it pro-
ceeded to pass a dogmatic decree in reversal of the formula
of the “ Consubstantial.” Four or five creeds, instead of
the Nicene, were successively adopted by the assembled
Fathers.
Three of these were circulated in the neighbourhood ; but
as they wished to send one to Rome, they directed a fourth
to be drawn up. This, too, apparently failed.
6. a.d. 345. Council of the creed called Macrostich.
This Creed suppressed, as did the third, the word “ sub-
stance.” The eastern Bishops sent this to the Bishops of
France, who rejected it
7. a.d. 347. The great Council of Sardica, attended by
more than 300 Bishops. Before it commenced, a division
between its members broke out on the question whether or
not Athanasius should have a seat in it. In consequence,
seventy-six retired to Philippopolis, on the Thracian side of
Mount Hsemus, and there excommunicated the Pope and the
Sardican Fathers. These seceders published a sixth con-
fession of faith. The Synod of Sardica, including Bishops
from Italy, Gaul, Africa, Egypt, Cyprus, and Palestine, con-
firmed the act of the Roman Council, and restored Athana-
sius and the other exiles to their Sees. The Synod of
Philippopolis, on the contrary, sent letters to the civil
magistrates of those cities, forbidding them to admit the
exiles into them. The Imperial power took part with the
Sardican Fathers, and Athanasius went back to Alexandria.
8. a.d. 351. The Bishops of the East met at Sirmium.
The semi-Arian Bishops began to detach themselves from
the Arians, and to form a separate party. Under pretence
of putting down a kind of Sabellianism, they drew up a
new creed, into which they introduced the language of some
of the ante-Nicene writers on the subject of our Lord’s divi-
nity, and dropped the word “ substance.”
9. a.d. 353. The Council of Arles. The Pope sent to it
448
Appendix .
several Bishops as legates. The Fathers of the Council,
including the Pope’s legate, Vincent, subscribed the con-
demnation of Athanasius. Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, was
nearly the only one who stood up for the Nicene faith and
for Athanasius. He was accordingly banished into Phrygia,
where he died.
10. a.d. 355. The Council of Milan, of more than 300
Bishops of the West. Nearly all of them subscribed the
condemnation of Athanasius ; whether they generally sub-
scribed the heretical creed, which was brought forward, does
not appear. The Pope’s four legates remained firm, and St.
Dionysius of Milan, who died an exile in Asia Minor. An
Arian was put into his See. Saturninus, the Bishop of Arles,
proceeded to hold a Council at Beziers ; and its Fathers
banished St. Hilary to Phrygia.
11. a.d. 357-9. The Arians and Semi-Arians successively
drew up fresh creeds at Sirmium.
12. a.d. 357-8. Hosius’ fall. “ Constantius used such
violence towards the old man, and confined him so straitly,
that at last, broken by suffering, he was brought, though
hardly, to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius [the
Arian leaders], though he would not subscribe against
Athanasius.” Athan. Arian. Hist. 45.
13. a.d. 357-8. And Liberius. “ The tragedy was not
ended in the lapse of Hosius, but in the evil which befell
Liberius, the Roman Pontiff, it became far more dreadful
and mournful, considering that he was Bishop of so great a
city, and of the whole Catholic Church, and that he had so
bravely resisted Constantius two years previously. There is
nothing, whether in the historians and holy fathers, or in his
own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that
Liberius communicated with the Arians, and confirmed the
sentence passed by them against Athanasius ; but he is not
at all on that account to be called a heretic.” Baron. Ann.
357 ? 38-45’ Athanasius says : “ Liberius, after he had been
Appendix .
449
in banishment for two years, gave way, and from fear of
threatened death was induced to subscribe. Arian . Hist.
§41. St. Jerome says : “ Liberius, taedio victus exilii, et in
haereticam pravitatem subscribens, Romam quasi victor in-
traverat.” Chron. ed. Val. p. 797.
14. a.d. 359. The great Councils of Seleucia and Arimi-
num, being one bi-partite Council, representing the East and
West respectively. At Seleucia there were 150 Bishops, of
which only the twelve or thirteen from Egypt were cham-
pions of the Nicene “ Consubstantial.” At Ariminum there
were as many as 400 Bishops, who, worn out by the artifice
of long delay on the part of the Arians, abandoned the
“ Consubstantial,” and subscribed the ambiguous formula
which the heretics had substituted for it.
15. About a.d. 360, St. Hilary says : “ I am not speaking
of things foreign to my knowledge ; I am not writing about
what I am ignorant of ; I have heard and I have seen the
shortcomings of persons who are round about me, not of
laymen, but of Bishops. For, excepting the Bishop Eleusius
and a few with him, for the most part the ten Asian pro-
vinces, within whose boundaries I am situate, are truly
ignorant of God.” De Syn. 63. It is observable, that even
Eleusius, who is here spoken of as somewhat better than the
rest, was a Semi-Arian, according to Socrates, and even a
persecutor of Catholics at Constantinople ; and, according
to Sozomen, one of those who were active in causing Pope
Liberius to give up the Nicene formula of the “ Consubstan-
tial.” By the ten Asian provinces is meant the east and
south provinces of Asia Minor, pretty nearly as cut off by a
line passing from Cyzicus to Seleucia through Synnada.
16. a.d. 360. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, about this
date : “ Surely the pastors have done foolishly ; for, excepting
a very few, who either on account of their insignificance
were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted,
and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing
G G
45 °
A ppendix.
up again and revival of Israel by the influences of the Spirit,
all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that
some succumbed earlier, and others later ; some were fore-
most champions and leaders in the impiety, and others
joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear,
or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable,
by their own ignorance.” Orat. xxi. 24.
17. a.d. 361. About this time, St. Jerome says : “ Nearly
all the churches in the whole world, under the pretence of
peace and of the emperor, are polluted with the communion
of the Arians.” Chron . Of the same date, that is, upon
the Council of Ariminum, are his famous words, “ Ingemuit
totus orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est.” In Lucif. 19.
“ The Catholics of Christendom were strangely surprised to
find that the Council had made Arians of them.”
18. a.d. 362. State of the Church of Antioch at this
time. There were four Bishops or communions of Antioch ;
first, the old succession and communion, which had possession
before the Arian troubles ; secondly, the Arian succession,
which had lately conformed to orthodoxy in the person of
Meletius ; thirdly, the new Latin succession, lately created
by Lucifer, whom some have thought the Pope’s legate there ;
and, fourthly, the new Arian succession, which was started
upon the recantation of Meletius. At length, as Arianism
was brought under, the evil reduced itself to two Episcopal
Successions, that of Meletius and the Latin, which went on
for many years, the West and Egypt holding communion
with the latter, and the East with the former.
19. St. Hilary speaks of the series of ecclesiastical Councils
of that time in the following well-known passage : “ Since the
Nicene Council, we have done nothing but write the Creed.
While we fight about words, inquire about novelties, take
advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party
questions, have difficulties in agreeing, and prepare to anathe-
matize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to
Appendix.
45i
Christ. Take, for instance, last year’s Creed, what alteration
is there not in it already? First, we have the Creed, which
bids us not to use the Nicene ‘ consubstantial; ’ then comes
another, which decrees and preaches it; next, the third,
excuses the word ‘ substance,’ as adopted by the Fathers in
their simplicity ; lastly, the fourth, which instead of ex-
cusing, condemns. We determine creeds by the year or by
the month, we change our own determinations, we prohibit
our changes, we anathematize our prohibitions. Thus, we
either condemn others in our own persons, or ourselves in
the instance of others, and while we bite and devour one
another, are like to be consumed one of another.” Ad
Const, ii. 4, 5.
20. a.d. 382. St. Gregory writes : “ If I must speak the
truth, I feel disposed to shun every conference of Bishops :
for never saw I Synod brought to a happy issue, and remedy-
ing, and not rather aggravating, existing evils. For rivalry
and ambition are stronger than reason, — do not think me
extravagant for saying so, — and a mediator ifc more likely
to incur some imputation himself than to clear up the impu-
tations which others lie under.” — Ep. 129.
2.
Coming to the opposite side of the contrast, I observe
that there were great efforts made on the part of the Arians
to render their heresy popular. Arius himself, according to
the Arian Philostorgius, “ wrote songs for the sea, and for
the mill, and for the road, and then set them to suitable
music 4 .” Hist. ii. 2. Alexander speaks of the “ running about”
of the Arian women, Theod. Hist. i. 4, and of the buffoonery
of their men. Socrates says that “ in the Imperial court,
the officers of the bed-chamber held disputes with the
4 The translations which follow are for the most part from Bohn’s and
the Oxford editions, the passages being abridged.
G G 2
45 2
Appendix .
women, and in the city, in every house, there was a war of
dialectics,” ii. 2. Especially at Constantinople there were,
as Gregory says, “ of Jezebels as thick a crop as of hemlock
in a field,” Orat. 35, 3 ; and he himself suffered from the
popular violence there. At Alexandria the Arian women
are described by Athanasius as “ running up and down like
Bacchanals and furies,” and as “ passing that day in grief on
which they could do no harm.” Hist. Arian. 59.
The controversy was introduced in ridicule into the hea-
then theatres, Euseb. v. Const, ii. 6. Socr. i. 6. “ Men of
yesterday,” says Gregory Nyssen, “ mere mechanics, off-
hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that
have been scourged, run-aways from servile work, and philo-
sophical about things incomprehensible. Of such the city
is full ; its entrances, forums, squares, thoroughfares ; the
clothes-vendors, the money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask about
pence, and they will discuss the generate and ingenerate,”
&c., &c., tom. ii. p. 898. Socrates, too, says that the heresy
“ ravaged provinces and cities ; and Theodoret that, “ quar-
rels took place in every city and village concerning the
divine dogma, the people looking on, and taking sides.”
Hist. i. 6.
In spite of these attempts, however, on the part of the
Arians, still, viewing Christendom as a whole, we shall find
that the Catholic populations sided with Athanasius; and
the fierce disputes above described evidenced the zeal of the
orthodox rather than the strength of the heretical party.
This will appear in the following extracts : —
1. Alexandria. “We suppose,” says Athanasius, “you
are not ignorant what outrages they [the Arian Bishops]
committed at Alexandria, for they are reported every where.
They attacked the holy virgins and brethren with naked
swords; they beat with scourges their persons, esteemed
honourable in God’s sight, so that their feet were lamed by
the stripes, whose souls were whole and sound in purity and
all good works.” Athan Ap. c. Arian. 15.
Appendix.
453
“ Accordingly Constantius writes letters, and commences
a persecution against all. Gathering together a multitude
of herdsmen and shepherds, and dissolute youths belonging
to the town, armed with swords and clubs, they attacked
in a body the Church of Quirinus : and some they slew, some
they trampled under foot, others they beat with stripes and
cast into prison or banished. They haled away many women
also, and dragged them openly into the court, and insulted
them, dragging them by the hair. Some they proscribed ;
from some they took away their bread, for no other reason
but that they might be induced to join the Arians, and re-
ceive Gregory [the Arian Bishop], who had been sent by
the Emperor.” Athan. Hist. Arian. § io.
“On the week that succeeded the holy Pentecost, when
the people after their fast, had gone out to the cemetery to
pray, because that all refused communion with George [the
Arian Bishop], the commander, Sebastian, straightway with
a multitude of soldiers proceeded to attack the people, though
it was the Lord’s day ; and finding a few praying (for the
greater part had already retired on account of the lateness
of the hour), having lighted a pile, he placed certain virgins
near the fire, and endeavoured to force them to say that they
were of the Arian faith. And having seized on forty men,
he cut some fresh twigs of the palm-tree, with the thorns
upon them, and scourged them on the back so severely that
some of them were for a long time under medical treatment,
on account of the thorns which had entered their flesh, and
others, unable to bear up under their sufferings, died. All
those whom they had taken, both the men and the virgins,
they sent away into banishment to the great Oasis. More-
over, they immediately banished out of Egypt and Libya
the following Bishops [sixteen], and the presbyters, Hierax
and Dioscorus ; some of them died on the way, others in the
place of their banishment. They caused also more than
thirty Bishops to take to flight.” Apol. de Fug. 7.
454
Appendix.
2. Egypt. 44 The Emperor Valens having issued an edict
commanding that the orthodox should be expelled both from
Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, depopulation and ruin to
an immense extent immediately followed ; some were dragged
before the tribunals, others cast into prison, and many tor-
tured in various ways ; all sorts of punishment being inflicted
upon persons who aimed only at peace and quiet.” Socr.
Hist . iv. 24.
3. The Monks (i.) of Egypt . 44 Antony left the
solitude of the desert to go about every part of the city
[Alexandria], warning the inhabitants that the Arians
were opposing the truth, and that the doctrines of the
Apostles were preached only by Athanasius.” Theod. Hist.
iv. 27.
“ Lucius, the Arian, with a considerable body of troops,
proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt, where he in
person assailed the assemblage of holy men with greater
fury than the ruthless soldiery. When these excellent per-
sons remained unmoved by all the violence, in despair he
advised the military chief to send the fathers of the monks,
the Egyptian Macarius and his namesake of Alexandria, into
exile.” Socr. iv. 24.
(2.) Of Constantinople. 44 Isaac, on seeing the emperor
depart at the head of his army, exclaimed, 4 You who have
declared war against God cannot gain His aid. Cease from
fighting against Him, and He will terminate the war.
Restore the pastors to their flocks, and then you will obtain
a bloodless victory.’ ” Theod. iv.
(3.) Of Syria , &c. 44 That these heretical doctrines
[Apollinarian and Eunomian] did not finally become pre-
dominant is mainly to be attributed to the zeal of the monks
of this period ; for all the monks of Syria, Cappadocia, and
the neighbouring provinces were sincerely attached to the
Nicene faith. The same fate awaited them which had been
experienced by the Arians ; for they incurred the full weight
Appendix.
455
of the popular odium and aversion, when it was observed
that their sentiments were regarded with suspicion by the
monks. ” Sozom. vi. 27.
(4.) Of Cappadocia . “ Gregory, the father of Gregory
Theologus, otherwise a most excellent man, and a zealous
defender of the true and Catholic religion, not being on his
guard against the artifices of the Arians, such was his sim-
plicity, received with kindness certain men who were con-
taminated with the poison, and subscribed an impious
proposition of theirs. This moved the monks to such indig-
nation, that they withdrew forthwith from his communion,
and took with them, after their example, a considerable part
of his flock.” Ed. Bened. Monit. in Greg. Naz. Orat. 6.
4 Antioch. “ Whereas he (the Bishop Leontius) took
part in the blasphemy of Arius, he made a point of con-
cealing this disease, partly for fear of the multitude, partly
for the menaces of Constantius ; so those who followed the
Apostolical dogmas gained from him neither patronage nor
ordination, but those who held Arianism were allowed the
fullest liberty of speech, and were placed in the ranks of
the sacred ministry. But Flavian and Diodorus, who had
embraced the ascetical life, and maintained the Apostolical
dogmas, openly withstood Leontius’s machinations against
religious doctrine. They threatened that they would retire
from the communion of his Church, and would go to the West,
and reveal his intrigues. Though they were not as yet in
the sacred ministry, but were in the ranks of the laity, night
and day they used to excite all the people to zeal for religion.
They were the first to divide the singers into two choirs, and
to teach them to sing in alternate parts the strains of David.
They too, assembling the devout at the shrines of the mar-
tyrs, passed the whole night there in hymns to God. These
things Leontius seeing, did not think it safe to hinder them,
for he saw that the multitude was especially well affected
towards those excellent persons. Nothing, however, could
45 6
Appendix .
persuade Leontius to correct his wickedness. It follows,
that among the clergy were many who were infected with
the heresy : but the mass of the people were champions of
orthodoxy.” Theodor. Hist. ii. 24.
5. Edessa. “ There is in that city a magnificent church,
dedicated to St. Thomas the Apostle, wherein, on account of
the sanctity of the place, religious assemblies are continually
held. The Emperor Valens wished to inspect this edifice ;
when, having learned that all who usually congregated there
were enemies to the heresy which he favoured, he is said to
have struck the prefect with his own hand, because he had
neglected to expel them thence. The prefect, to prevent
the slaughter of so great a number of persons, privately
warned them against resorting thither. But his admonitions
and menaces were alike unheeded; for on the following day
they all crowded to the church. When the prefect was
going towards it with a large military force, a poor woman
leading her own little child by the hand, hurried hastily by
on her way to the church, breaking through the ranks of
the soldiery. The prefect, irritated at this, ordered her to
be brought to him, and thus addressed her : ‘ Wretched
woman, whither are you running in so disorderly a manner ?’
She replied, ‘ To the same place that others are hastening.’
4 Have you not heard,’ said he, ‘ that the prefect is about to
put to death all that shall be found there ? ’ 4 Yes,’ said
the woman, ‘ and therefore I hasten, that I may be found
there.’ 4 And whither are you dragging that little child ? ’
said the prefect. The woman answered, c That he also may
be vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom.’ The prefect went
back and informed the Emperor that all were ready to die in
behalf of their own faith ; and added that it would be pre-
posterous to destroy so many persons at one time, and
thus succeeded in restraining the Emperor’s wrath.” Socr.
iv. 18. ‘‘Thus was the Christian faith confessed by the
whole city of Edessa.” Sozom. vi. 18.
Appendix .
457
6. Samosata. “ The Arians, having deprived this exem-
plary flock of their shepherd, elected in his place an indi-
vidual with whom none of the inhabitants of the city,
whether poor or rich, servants or mechanics, husbandmen
or gardeners, men or women, young or old, would hold com-
munion. He was left quite alone ; no one even calling to
see him, or exchanging a word with him. It is, however, said
that his disposition was extremely gentle ; and this is proved
by what I am about to relate. One day, when he went to
bathe in the public baths, the attendants closed the doors ;
but he ordered the doors to be thrown open, that the people
might be admitted to bathe with himself. Perceiving that
they remained in a standing posture before him, imagining
that great deference towards himself was the cause of this
conduct, he arose and left the bath. These people believed
that the water had been contaminated by his heresy, and
ordered it to be let out, and fresh water to be supplied.
When he heard of this circumstance, he left the city, thinking
that he ought no longer to remain in a place where he was
the object of public aversion and hatred. Upon this re-
tirement of Eunomius, Lucius was elected as his successor
by the Arians. Some young persons were amusing them-
selves with playing at ball in the market-place ; Lucius was
passing by at the time, and the ball happened to fall beneath
the feet of the ass on which he was mounted. The youths
uttered loud exclamations, believing that the ball was con-
taminated. They lighted a fire, and hurled the ball through
it, believing that by this process the ball would be purified.
Although this was only a childish deed, and although it
exhibits the remains of ancient superstition, yet it is suffi-
cient to show the odium which the Arian faction had
incurred in this city. Lucius was far from imitating the
mildness of Eunomius, and he persuaded the heads of
the government to exile most of the clergy.” Theodor, iv. 15.
7. Osrhoene. “ Arianism met with similar opposition at
45 §
Appendix .
the same period in Osrhoene and Cappadocia. Basil, Bishop
of Caesarea, and Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, were held
in high admiration and esteem throughout these regions.”
Sozom. vi. 21.
8 . Cappadocia. “ Yalens, in passing through Cappadocia,
did all in his power to injure the orthodox, and to deliver up
the churches to the Arians. He thought to accomplish his
designs more easily on account of a dispute which was then
pending between Basil and Eusebius, who governed the
Church of Caesarea. This dissension had been the cause of
Basil’s departing to Pontus. The people, and some of the
most powerful and wisest men of the city, began to regard
Eusebius with suspicion, and to meditate a secession from
his communion. The emperor and the Arian Bishops
regarded the absence of Basil and the hatred of the people
towards Eusebius, as circumstances that would tend greatly
to the success of their designs. But their expectations were
utterly frustrated. On the first intelligence of the intention
of the emperor to pass through Cappadocia, Basil returned to
Caesarea, where he effected a reconciliation with Eusebius.
The projects of Valens were thus defeated, and he returned
with his Bishops.” Sozom. vi. 15.
9. Pontus. “ It is said that when Eulalius, Bishop of
Amasia in Pontus, returned from exile, he found that his
Church had passed into the hands of an Arian, and that
scarcely fifty inhabitants of the city had submitted to the
control of their new bishop.” Sozom. vii. 2.
10. Armenia. “That company of Arians, who came
with Eustathius to Nicopolis, had promised that they would
bring over this city to compliance with the commands of the
Imperial vicar. This city had great ecclesiastical importance,
both because it was the metropolis of Armenia, and because
it had been ennobled by the blood of martyrs, and governed
hitherto by Bishops of great reputation, and thus, as Basil
calls it, was the nurse of religion and the metropolis of sound
Appendix.
459
doctrine. Fronto, one of the city presbyters, who had
hitherto shown himself as a champion of the truth, through
ambition gave himself up to the enemies of Christ, and pur-
chased the bishoprick of the Arians at the price of renouncing
the Catholic faith. This wicked proceeding of Eustathius
and the Arians brought a new glory instead of evil to the
Nicopolitans, since it gave them an opportunity of defending
the faith. Fronto, indeed, the Arians consecrated, but there
was a remarkable unanimity of clergy and people in rejecting
him. Scarcely one or two clerks sided with him ; on the
contrary, he became the execration of all Armenia.” Vita . S.
Basil., Bened. pp. clvii, clviii.
11. Nicomedia. “ Eighty pious clergy proceeded to
Nicomedia, and there presented to the emperor a supplica-
tory petition complaining of the ill-usage to which they had
been subjected. Valens, dissembling his displeasure in their
presence, gave Modestus, the prefect, a secret order to appre-
hend these persons and to put them to death. The prefect,
fearing he should excite the populace to a seditious move-
ment against himself, if he attempted the public execution of
so many, pretended to send them away into exile,” &c.
Socr. iv. 1 6.
12. Cappadocia. St. Basil says, about the year 372 :
“ Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue
is let loose. Sacred things are profaned ; those of the laity
who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools
of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans
and tears to the Lord in heaven.” Ep. 92. Four years after
he writes : “ Matters have come to this pass : the people
have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts, —
a pitiable sight ; women and children, old men, and men
otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the
most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of
winter ; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To
this they submit, because they will have no part in the
460
Appendix.
wicked Arian leaven.” Ep . 242. Again: “Only one
offence is now vigorously punished, — an accurate observance
of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are
driven from their countries, and transported into deserts.
The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home
and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the coun-
try, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerful-
ness are no more ; our feasts are turned into mourning ; our
houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiri-
tual worship.” Ep. 243.
13. Paphlagonia, &c. “ I thought,” says Julian in one
of his Epistles, “ that the leaders of the Galilaeans would feel
more grateful to me than to my predecessor. For in his
time they were in great numbers turned out of their homes,
and persecuted, and imprisoned ; moreover, multitudes of
so-called heretics ” [ the Novatians who were with the
Catholics against the Arians] “ were slaughtered, so that
in Samosata, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, and Galatia, and many
other nations, villages were utterly sacked and destroyed ”
Ep. 52.
14. Scythia. “ There are in this country a great number
of cities, of towns, and of fortresses. According to an
ancient custom which still prevails, all the churches of the
whole country are under the sway of one Bishop. Valens
[the emperor] repaired to the Church, and strove to gain over
the Bishop to the heresy of Arius ; but this latter manfully
opposed his arguments, and after a courageous defence of the
Nicene doctrines, quitted the emperor, and proceeded to
another church, whither he was followed by the people.
Valens was extremely offended at being left alone in a church
with his attendants, and in resentment condemned Vetranio
[the Bishop] to banishment. Not long after, however, he re-
called him, because, I believe, he apprehended insurrection.”
Sozom. vi. 21.
15. Constantinople. “Those who acknowledged the
A pfiendix.
461
doctrine of consubstantiality were not only expelled from the
churches, but also from the cities. But although expulsion
at first satisfied them [the Arians], they soon proceeded to
the worse extremity of inducing compulsory communion
with them, caring little for such a desecration of the churches.
They resorted to all kinds of scourgings, a variety of tortures,
and confiscation of property Many were punished with exile,
some died under the torture, and others were put to death
while being driven from their country. These atrocities were
exercised throughout all the eastern cities, but especially at
Constantinople.” Socr. ii. 27.
16. Illyria. “ The parents of Theodosius were Christians
and were attached to the Nicene doctrine, hence he took
pleasure in the ministration of Ascholius [Bishop of Thessa-
lonica]. He also rejoiced at finding that the Arian heresy
had not been received in Illyria.” Sozom, vii. 4.
17. Neighbourhood of Macedonia. “ Theodosius in-
quired concerning the religious sentiments which were
prevalent in the other provinces, and ascertained that, as
far as Macedonia, one form of belief was universally pre-
dominant,” &c. Ibid.
18. Rome. “ With respect to the doctrine no dissension
arose either at Rome or in any other of the Western Churches •
the people unanimously adhered to the form of belief esta-
blished at Nicsea.” Sozom. vi. 23.
“ Liberius, returning to Rome, found the mind of the mass
of men alienated from him, because he had so shamefully
yielded to Constantius. And thus it came to pass, that those
persons who had hitherto kept aloof from Felix [the rival
Pope], and had avoided his communion in favour of Liberius,
on hearing what had happened, left him for Felix, who raised
the Catholic standard.” Baron. Ann. 357. 56. He tells us
besides (57), that the people would not even go to the
public baths, lest they should bathe with the party of
Liberius.
462
Appendix.
19 Milan. At the Council of Milan, Eusebius of
Vercellae, when it was proposed to draw up a declaration
against Athanasius, “ said that the Council ought first to be
sure of the faith of the Bishops attending it, for he had found
out that some of them were polluted with heresy. Accord-
ingly he brought before the Fathers the Nicene Creed, and
said he was willing to comply with all their demands, after
they had subscribed that confession. Dionysius, Bishop of
Milan, at once took up the paper and began to write his
assent ; but Valens [the Arian] violently pulled pen and
paper out of his hands, crying out that such a course of pro-
ceeding was impossible. Whereupon, after much tumult,
the question came before the people, and great was the
distress of all of them ; the faith of the Church was attacked
by the Bishops. They then, dreading the judgment of the
people, transfer their meeting from the church to the Imperial
palace.” Hilar, ad Const, i. 8.
Again : “ As the feast of Easter approached, the empress sent
to St. Ambrose to ask a church of him, where the Arians who
attended her might meet together. He replied, that a Bishop
could not give up the temple of God. The pretorian prefect
came into the church, where St. Ambrose was attended by
the people, and endeavoured to persuade him to yield up at
least the Portian Basilica. The people were clamorous
against the proposal ; and the prefect retired to report how
matters stood to the emperor. The Sunday following St.
Ambrose was explaining the creed, when he was informed
that the officers were hanging up the Imperial hangings in
the Portian Basilica, and that upon this news the people
were repairing thither. While he was offering up the holy
sacrifice, a second message came that the people had seized
an Arian priest as he was passing through the street. He
despatched a number of his clergy to the spot to rescue
the Arian from his danger. The court looked on this resis-
tance of the people as seditious, and immediately laid con-
Appendix.
463
siderable fines upon the whole body of the tradesmen of the
city. Several were thrown into prison. In three days’ time
these tradesmen were fined two hundred pounds weight of
gold, and they said that they were ready to give as much
again on condition that they might retain their faith. The
prisons were filled with tradesmen ; all the officers of the
household, secretaries, agents of the emperor, and dependent
officers who served under various counts, were kept within
doors, and were forbidden to appear in public, under
pretence that they should bear no part in sedition. Men of
higher rank were menaced with severe consequences, unless
the Basilica were surrendered. . . .
“ Next morning the Basilica was surrounded by soldiers ;
but it was reported, that these soldiers had sent to the
Emperor to tell him, that if he wished to come abroad he
might, and that they would attend him, if he was going to
the assembly of the Catholics : otherwise, that they would
go to that which would be held by St. Ambrose. Indeed,
the soldiers were all Catholics, as well as the citizens of
Milan : there were so few heretics there, except a few officers
of the emperor and some Goths. . . .
“ St. Ambrose was continuing his discourse, when he was
told that the Emperor had withdrawn the soldiers from the
Basilica, and that he had restored to the tradesmen the fines
which he had exacted from them. This news gave joy to the
people, who expressed their delight with applauses and
thanksgivings ; the soldiers themselves were eager to bring
the news, throwing themselves on the altars, and kissing
them in token of peace. “ Fleury’s Hist, xviii. 41, 42, Oxf.
trans.
20. Christendom generally. St. Hilary to Constantius :
“ Not only in words, but in tears, we beseech you to save
the Catholic Churches from any longer continuance of these
most grievous injuries, and of their present intolerable
persecutions and insults, which moreover they are enduring,
464
Appendix.
monstrous as it is, from our brethren. Surely your clemency
should listen to the voice of those who cry out so loudly, ‘ I
am a Catholic, I have no wish to be a heretic. 7 It should
seem equitable to your sanctity, most glorious Augustus,
that they who fear the Lord God and His judgment should
not be polluted and contaminated with execrable blasphemies,
but should have liberty to follow those Bishops and prelates
who both observe inviolate the laws of charity, and who
desire a perpetual and sincere peace. It is impossible, it
is unreasonable, to mix true and false, to confuse light and
darkness, and bring into union, of whatever kind, night and
day. Give permission to the populations to hear the teach-
ing of the pastors whom they have wished, whom they fixed
on, whom they have chosen, to attend their celebration of
the divine mysteries, to offer prayers through them for your
safety and prosperity.” ad Const, i. 1, 2.
In drawing out this comparison between the conduct of the
Catholic Bishops and that of their flocks during the Arian
troubles, I must not be understood as intending any conclusion
inconsistent with the infallibility of the Ecclesia docens, (that
is, the Church when teaching) and with the claim of the Pope
and the Bishops to constitute the Church in that aspect. I
am led to give this caution, because, for the want of it, I was
seriously misunderstood in some quarters on my first writing
on the above subject in the Rambler Magazine of May, 1859.
But on that occasion I was writing simply historically, not
doctrinally, and, while it is historically true, it is in no sense
doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much
more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we
find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius
might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of
Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in
spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions.
Appendix.
465
The reason of my being misunderstood arose from two or
three clauses or expressions which occurred in the course of
my remarks, which I should not have used had I anticipated
how they would be taken, and which I avail myself of this
opportunity to explain and withdraw. First, I will quote
the passage which bore a meaning which I certainly did not
intend, and then I will note the phrases which seem to have
given this meaning to it. It will be seen how little, when
those phrases are withdrawn, the sense of the passage, as I
intended it, is affected by the withdrawal. I said then : —
“ It is not a little remarkable, that, though, historically
speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors, illus-
trated, as it is, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two
Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augus-
tine, (and all those saints bishops also), except one, neverthe-
less in that very day the Divine tradition committed to the
infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more
by the faithful than by the Episcopate.
“ Here of course I must explain : — in saying this then, un-
doubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the
Bishops were in their internal belief orthodo.x; nor that
there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and
acted as their centres and guides ; nor that the laity actually
received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops
and clergy ; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant,
and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian
teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an
heretical clergy : — but I mean still, that in that time of
immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity
was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speak-
ing) preserved, far more by the “ Ecclesia docta” than by the
“Ecclesia docens ; ” that the body of the Episcopate was un-
faithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was
faithful to its baptism ; that at one time the pope, at other
times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at
H H
466
Appendix .
other times general councils, said what they should not have
said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth ;
while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who,
under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Atha-
nasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary
confessors, who would have failed without them. . . .
“ On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary
suspense of the functions of the ‘ Ecclesia docens.’ The
body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They
spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing,
after Nicsea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, lor
nearly sixty years. . . .
“We come secondly to the proofs of the fidelity of the
laity, and the effectiveness of that fidelity, during that domi-
nation of Imperial heresy, to which the foregoing passages
have related.”
The three clauses which furnished matter of objection
were these : — I said, (i), that “there was a temporary sus-
pense of the functions of the ‘ Ecclesia docens ; ’ ” (2), that
“the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith.”
(3), that “general councils, &c., said what they should not have
said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed
truth.”
(1). That “ there was a temporary suspense of the functions
of the Ecclesia docens ” is not true, if by saying so is meant
that the Council of Nicaeaheldin 325 did not sufficiently de-
fine and promulgate for all times and all places the dogma of
our Lord's divinity, and that the notoriety of that Council and
the voices of its great supporters and maintainers, as Atha-
nasius, Hilary, &c., did not bring home the dogma to the
intelligence of the faithful in all parts of Christendom. But
what I meant by “ suspense ” ( I did not say “ suspen-
sion,” purposely, ) was only this, that there was no authori-
tative utterance of the Church’s infallible voice in matter of
fact between the Nicene Council, a.d. 325, and the Council
Appendix.
467
of Constantinople, a.d. 381, or, in the words which I actually
used, “ there was nothing after Nicsea of firm, unvarying,
consistent testimony for nearly sixty years.” As writing
before the Vatican Definition of 1870, I did not lay stress
upon the Roman Councils under Popes Julius and Damasus. 5
(2). That “ the body of Bishops failed in their confession
of the faith,” p. 17. Here, if the word “body” is used in
the sense of the Latin “ corpus,” as “ corpus ” is used in
theological treatises, and as it doubtless would be trans-
lated for the benefit of readers ignorant of the English
language, certainly this would be a heretical statement. But
I meant nothing of the kind. I used it in the vague, familiar,
genuine sense of which Johnson gives instances in his diction-
ary, as meaning “ the great preponderance,” or, “ the mass ”
of Bishops, viewing them in the main or the gross, as a
cumulus of individuals. Thus Hooker says, “ Life and death
have divided between them the whole body of mankind ; ”
‘Clarendon, after speaking of the van of the king’s army, says,
‘ in the body was the king and the prince : ” and Addison
5 A distinguished theologian infers from my words that I deny that
“ the Church is in every time the activum instrumentum docendi.” But
I do not admit the fairness of this inference. Distinguo: activum instru-
mentum docendi virtuale, C. Actuale, N. The Ecumenical Council of 325
was an effective authority in 341, 351, and 359, though at those dates
the Arians were in the seats of teaching. Fr. Perrone agrees with me.
1. He reckons the “ fidelium sensus’’ among the ** instrumenta tra-
ditionis.’’ ( Immac . Concept . p. 139.) 2. He contemplates, nay he
instances, the case in which the “ sensus fidelium’ , supplies, as the
“ instrumentum,” the absence of the other instruments, the magisterium
of the Church, as exercised atNicaea, being always supposed. One of his
instances is that of the dogma de visione Dei beatifica. He says :
“ Certe quidem in Ecclesia non deerat quoad hunc fidei articulum divina
traditio ; alioquin, nunquam is definiri potuisset : verum non omnibus
ilia erat comperta : divina eloquia haud satis in re sunt conspicuaj
Patres, ut vidimus, in varias abierunt sententias ; liturgiae ipsae non
modicam prae se ferunt difficultatem. His omnibus succurrit juge
Ecclesiae magisterium ; communis praeterea fidelium sensus.’* p. 148.
H H 2
468
Appendix .
speaks of “ navigable rivers, which ran up into the body of
Italy.” In this sense it is true historically that the body of
Bishops failed in their confesson. Tillemont, quoting from
St. Gregory Nazianzen, says, “La souscription (Arienne) etait
une des dispositions necessaires pour entrer et pour se con-
server dans l’episcopat. L’encre etait toujours toute prete, et
l’accusateur aussi. Ceux qui avaient paru invincibles jusques
alors, cederent a cette tempete. Si leur esprit ne tomba
pas dans Fheresie, leur main neanmoins y consentit. . . .
Peu d’Eveques s’exemterent de ce malheur, n’ y ayant eu
que ceux que leur propre bassesse faisait negliger, ou que
leur vertu fit resister genereusement, et que Dieu conserva
afin qu’il restat encore quelque semence et quelque racine
pour faire refleurir Israel.” T. vi. p. 499. In St. Gregory’s
own words, 7 r\rjv oXcyaiv ayav, 7rai/res rov Kcupov yeyovacrr
tocovtov a\\rj\(x)v SieveyKovreg, ocrov rov s pXv Trporepov, tovs
S e varepov tovto TraOeiv. Orat. xxi. 24. p. 40 1. Ed. Bened.
(3). That “ general councils said what they should not
have said, and did what obscured and compromised revealed
truth.” Here again the question to be determined is what
is meant by the word “general.” If I meant by “general”
ecumenical, I should have spoken as no Catholic can speak;
but ecumenical Councils there were none between 325 and
381, and so I could not be referring to any; and in matter
of fact I used the word “ general ” in contrast to “ ecumeni-
cal,” as I had used it in Tract No. 90, and as Bellarmine
uses the word. He makes a fourfold division of “ general
Councils,” viz., those which are approbata ; reprobata ; partim
confirmata, partim reprobata ; and nec manifeste probata
nec manifeste reprobata. Among the “ reprobata ” he placed
the Arian Councils. They were quite large enough to be
called “ generalia ; ” the twin Councils of Seleucia and Ari-
minum numbering as many as 540 Bishops. When I spoke
then of “ general councils compromising revealed truth,” I
spoke of the Arian or Eusebian Councils, not of the Catholic.
I hope this is enough to observe on this subject.
Appendix.
469
NOTE VI.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE COUNCILS.
( Vide supra , p . 271.^
As the direct object of the foregoing Volume was to exhibit
the doctrine, temper, and conduct of the Arians in the fourth
century rather than to write their history, there is much
incidental confusion in the order in which the events which
it includes are brought before the reader. However, in
truth, the chronology of the period is by no means clear, and
the author may congratulate himself that, by the scope of his
work, he is exempt from the necessity of deciding questions
relative to it, on which ancient testimonies and modern
critics are in hopeless variance both with themselves and
with each other.
Accordingly, he has chosen one authority, the accurate
Tillemont, and followed him almost throughout. Here,
however, he thinks it well to subjoin some tables on the
subject, taken from the Oxford Library of the Fathers, which
delineate the main outline of the history, while they vividly
illustrate the difficulty of determining in detail the succession
of dates.
Principal Events between a.d. 325 and a.d. 381,
in Chronological Order.
1.
From 325 to 337.
( Mainly from Tillemont. )
A.D.
325. (From June 19 to August 25.) Council of Nic/ea.
Arius and his partisans anathematized and banished,
47 °
Appendix.
Arius to Illyricum. The Eusebians subscribe the
Homoiision.
32 6. Athanasius raised to the See of Alexandria at the age
of about 30.
328-9. Eusebius of Nicomedia in favouy with Constantine.
330. An Arian priest gains the ear of Constantine, who
recalls Arius from exile to Alexandria.
331. Athanasius refuses to restore him to communion.
Eustathius deposed by the Eusebians on a charge
of Sabellianism ; other Bishops deposed.
334. Council of Caesarea against Athanasius, who refuses
to attend it.
335. Council of Tyre and Jerusalem, in which Arius and
the Arians are formally readmitted. Athanasius,
forced by the emperor to attend, abruptly leaves it
in order to appeal to Constantine. The Eusebians
depose Athanasius, and Constantine banishes
him to Treves.
336. Eusebians hold a Council at Constantinople to con-
demn Marcellus on the ground of his Sabellianism ;
and to recognize Arius. Death of Arius.
337. Death of Constantine. The Eusebian Constantius
succeeds him in the East, the orthodox Constans
and Constantine in the West.
2.
From 337 to 342.
338 Exiles recalled by the three new Emperors.
(End of June.) Athanasius leaves Treves for Alexandria.
339
(From Valesius , Schels-
trate , Pagi, Montfau-
con , andS. Basnage.)
Eusebius sends to Pope
Julius for a Council
(From Baronvus and
Petavius.)
Eusebius, &c.
Council of Alexan-
dria defends Atha-
nasius to the Pope.
(From Tillemont ami
Papebroke.)
Eusebius, &c.
Council of Alex-
andria, & c.
(Sept.) Athanasitis
goes to Rome.'
340
Council of Alexandria
defends Athanasius
to the Pope.
Papal Legates sent to
Antioch from Rome.
(Early in year) Athana-
sius goes to Rome.
Papal Legates, &c.
(End of year,/ A thana-
sius returns to A lex-
andria.
1 The events in italics are grounded on an hypothesis of the authors who
introduce them, that Athanasius made two journeys to Rome, which they
.adopt in order to lighten the difficulties of the chronology.
Appendix.
47 1
(Christmas or before Sept.)
Council of the Dedica-
tion at Antioch (Eu-
sebian), not in order to
anticipate the Council
at Rome.
(Lent) The Arian Gre-
gory in Alexandria.
(March — May.) Atha-
nasius ESCAPES TO
Rome, after the Council
of the Dedication, im-
mediately before or
after the Papal Legates
set out from Rome.
(April or June.)
The Papal Legates ar-
rive at Antioch.
(Jan.) The Papal Legates
leave Antioch.
(March or April.) _ The
Papal Legates arrive at
Rome.
Council of Rome. The
Pope’s Letter to the
Eusebians.
Council of Dedica-
tion, &c.,
in order to anticipate
the Council at Rome-
The Papal Legates leave
Antioch.
A Roman Council.
(End of year) A thanasius
returns to A lexandria.
(Or beginning Lent.)
The Arian Gregory
in Alexandria.
The Papal Legates ar-
rive at Rome.
Athanasius escapes to
Rome shortly after the
Roman Council there.
Council of Rome.
The Pope’s Letter to
the Eusebians, &c.
(Christmas or before
Sept.) Council, See.
(Lent.) The Ariak
Gregory, &c.
Athanasius escapes,
&c.
The Papal Legates, &c.
The Papal Legates ar-
rive at Rome during
the Council there.
(June till Aug. or Sept.)
Council of Rome.
The Pope’s Letter
to the Eusebians
immediately after
the Council.
3 -
From 342 to 351.
( Mainly from Tillemont. )
345. Council of Antioch (Eusebian), at which the
Macrostich is drawn up.
347. Great Council of Sardica, at the instance of the
orthodox Constans. Council of Milan against
Photinus. Ursacius and Valens sue for reconcilia-
tion to the Church.
349. Council of Jerusalem, at which Athanasius is present.
Athanasius returns to Alexandria. Ursacius and
Valens recant, and are reconciled at Rome.
Council at Sirmium or at Rome against Photinus.
350. Death of Constans. The Eusebian Constantius sole
Emperor.
351. Great Council of Sirmium, at which Photinus is
deposed. First Sirmian creed,
47
Appendix.
4 -
From 351 to 361.
.2
*3
0
*4
gS
M
Petavius.
Valesius.
Pagi.
Basnage.
Tillemont.
N. Alexander
Constant.
Montfaucon.J
Mansi.
Mamachi.
Zaccaria |
i. Great Council of Sirmium
357
35i
35i
35i
I 35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
357-8
35i
35i
2 . Photinus deposed
357
35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
358
35i
35i
3 . First Sirmian Creed (Semi-
Arian)
357
35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
35i
358
35i
4 . Signed by Pope Liberius with
a condemnation of Athanasius
357
0
0
0
0
357
or 8
358
357
0
358
0
357
5 . Council of Arles (Eusebian)
Athanasius condemned
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
353
354
353
6 . Great Council of Milan
01 4
(Eusebian) Athanasius con-
demned
355
(
com
mu
niter)
355
7 . Rise of the Eunomians
356
356
356
8 . Syrianus in Alexandria, and
George of Cappadocia
356
356
356
356
356
356
355
356
356
356-7
356
9 . Council of Beziers. Hilary
deposed and banished
356
355
356
356
356
356
356?
355
356
10 . Fresh Council or Conference
at Sirmium
0
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
359 :
357
357
11 . Second Sirmian Creed, the blas-
phemy of Potamius and Hosius
(Homoean, if not Anomcean) . .
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
359
357
12 . Signed by Hosius, but without
condemning Athanasius
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
357
355
357
357
13 . Signed by Liberius, with a
condemnation of Athanasius.
0
357
357
0
0
0
14 . Another or an altered Creed
signed by Liberius with con-
demnation of Athanasius
0
357
357
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15 . Council of Antioch in favour
of Eunomius
358
358
358
16 . Its Creed (Anomoean)
358
358
358
17 . Council of Ancyra of 12
Bishops
1 8 . Its Creed (Semi-Arian) against
357
353
358
358
358
358
358
359
358
both the Homoiisian and the
358
Anomoean, signed by Li-
357
358
358
358
358
359
358
iq. Fresh Council or Conference
358
at Sirmium
0
359
358
358-9
359
359
359
359
359
20 . Third Sirmian. Creed (Ho-
moean) drawn up by Semi-
Arians .....
357
353
359
358
358-9
359
359
359
359
359
359
359
21 . Signed by Liberius
0
0 1
358?
358
0
0
0
0
0
22. Bi-partite Council of Ari-
1
358 j
minum (Homcean) and of
Seleucia (Semi-Arian)
359
(j
com
mu '■
niter)
23 . Council of Constantinople (Ho-
moean)
360
359
360
359
360
359
359
24 . Council of Antioch (Anomoean)
-OO
361
360
361
361
361
25. Death of Constantius —
361
com
mu |i
niter)
1
l
Appendix.
473
5 -
From 361 to 381.
( From Tillemont.)
362. Council of Alexandria.
365. Council of Lampsacus (Semi-Arian or Macedonian).
366. Macedonian Bishops reconciled to the Church at
Rome.
367. Council of Tyre for the same purpose.
373. Death of Athanasius.
381. Second (Ecumenical Council at Constantinople.
474
Appendix.
NOTE VII.
OMISSIONS IN THE TEXT OF THE THIRD EDITION.
( Vide Advertisement ).
Here follow the two sentences, which, as was stated in
the Advertisement to this Edition, have forfeited their place
in the text : —
1. Supra, p. n (p. 12, ist Ed.), after “ external obser-
vers,” the text proceeded. “ Presenting then the characters
of a religion, sufficiently correct in the main articles of faith
to satisfy the reason, and yet indulgent to the carnal nature
of man, Judaism occupied that place in the Christian world,
which has since been filled by a corruption of Christianity
itself. While its adherents manifested a rancorous malevo-
lence, ” &c.
2. Supra, p. 393 (p. 421, ist Ed.), after “ his place could
nowhere be found,” the text proceeded. “ Even the Papal
Apostasy, which seems at first sight an exception to this
rule, has lasted but the same proportion of the whole dura-
tion of Christianity, which Arianism occupied in its day;
that is, if we date it, as in fairness we ought, from the fatal
Council of Trent. And, as to the present perils,” &c.
^.TTO-XJST 1887.
GENERAL LISTS OF WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.; and
15 EAST 16 th STREET, NEW YORK.
HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL MEMOIRS, Ac.
Abbey’s The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.
Abbey and Overton’s English Church in the Eighteenth Century. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Arnold’s Lectures on Modem History. 8vo.*7s. 6d.
Bagwell’s Ireland under the Tudors. Yols. 1 and 2. 2 vols. 8vo. 3 2s.
Ball’s The Reformed Church of Ireland, 1537-1886. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Boultbee’s History of the Church of England, Pre-Reformation Period. 8vo. 15s.
Buckle’s History of Civilisation. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 24s.
Cox’s (Sir G. W.) General History of Greece. Crown 8vo. Maps, 7s. 6d.
Creighton’s History of the Papacy during the Reformation. 8vo. Yols. 1 and 2,
32s. Yols. 3 and 4, 24s.
De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.
D’Herisson’s The Black Cabinet. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Doyle’s English in America : Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, 8vo. 18s.
— — — The Puritan Colonies, 2 vols. 8vo. 36s.
Epochs of Ancient History. Edited by the Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, Bart, and C.
Sankey, M.A. With Maps. Ecp. 8vo. price 2s. 6d. each.
Beesly’s Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla.
Capes’s Age of the Antonines.
— Early Roman Empire.
Cox’s Athenian Empire.
— Greeks and Persians.
Curteis’s Rise of the Macedonian
Empire.
Epochs of Modern History. Edited by C. Colbeck, M.A,
price 2s. 6d. each.
Ihne’s Rome to its Capture by the
Gauls.
Merivale’s Roman Triumvirates.
Sankey’s Spartan and Theban Supre-
macies.
Smith’s Rome and Carthage, the
Punic Wars.
With Maps. Fcp. 8vo,
Church’s Beginning of the Middle
Ages.
Cox’s Crusades.
Creighton’s Age of Elizabeth.
Gairdner’s Houses of Lancaster
and York.
Gardiner’s Puritan Revolution.
— • Thirty Years’ War.
— (Mrs.) French Revolution,
1789-1790.
Hale’s Pall of the Stuarts.
Johnson’s Normans in Europe.
Longman’s Frederick the Great and
the Seven Years’ War.
Ludlow’s War of American Inde-
pendence.
M‘Carthy’s Epoch of Reform, 1830-
1850.
Moberly’s The Early Tudors.
Morris’s Age of Queen Anne.
— The Early Hanoverians.
Seebohm’s Protestant Revolution.
Stubbs’s The Early Plantagenets.
Warbur ton’s Edward III.
Brodrick’s A History of the Uni-
versity of Oxford.
Carr’s The Church and the Roman
Empire.
Overton’s The Evangelical Revival
in the Eighteenth Century. |
Other Volume s in preparation.
Epochs of Church History. Edited by the Rev. Mandell Creighton, M.A.
Fcp. 8vo. price 2s. 6d. each.
Perry’s The Reformation in England.
Plummer’s The Church of the Early
Fathers.
Tucker’s The English Church in
other Lands.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. London and New York.
General Lists of Works.
I Freeman’s Historical Geography of Europe. 2 vols. 8vo. 31 5 . Bd.
i Froude’s English in Ireland in the 18th Century. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 18.?.
! — History of England. Popular Edition. 12 vols. crown 8vo. 3s. Bd. each.
Gardiner’s History of England from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak
of the Civil War. 10 vols. crown 8vo. 60s.
— History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649 (3 vols.) Yol. 1, 1642-1644,
8vo. 21s.
! Greville’s Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, 1837-1852. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
1852-1860, 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.
Historic Towns. Edited by E. A. Freeman, D.C.L. and the Rev. William Hunt,
M.A. With Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 3s. Bd. each.
London. By W. E. Loftie. . I Bristol. By the Rev. W. Hunt,
j Exeter. By E. A. Freeman. | Oxford. By the Rev. C. W. Boase.
*** Other volumes in preparation,
Lecky’s Historv of England in the Eighteenth Century. Vols. 1 & 2, 1700-1760,
8vo. 36s. Vols. 3 & 4, 1760-1784, 8vo. 36s. Vols. 5 & 6, 1784-1793, 36s.
, — History of European Morals. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.
— — — Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.
! Longman’s Life and Times of Edward III. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
Macaulay’s Complete Works. Library Edition. 8 vols. 8vo. £5. 5s.
— — — Cabinet Edition. 16 vols. crown 8vo. £4. 16s.
— History of England : —
Student’s Edition. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 12s. I Cabinet Edition. 8 vols. post 8vo. 48s.
People’s Edition. 4 vols. cr. 8vo. 16s. | Library Edition. 5 vols. 8vo. £4.
Macaulay’s Critical and Historical Essays, with Lays of Ancient Rome In One
Volume : —
Authorised Edition. Cr. 8vo. 2s. Bd. I Popular Edition. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6 d.
or 3s. 6 d. gilt edges.
Macaulay’s Critical and Historical Essays
Student’s Edition. 1 vol. cr. 8vo. 6s. I Cabinet Edition. 4 vols. post 8vo. 24s.
People’s Edition. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 8s. | Library Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
' Macaulay’s Speeches corrected by Himself. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6<L
Malmesbury’s (Earl of) Memoirs of an Ex-Minister. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
May’s Constitutional History of England, 1760-1870. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 18s.
— Democracy in Europe. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
j Merivale’s Fall of the Roman Republic. 12mo. 7s. Bd.
' — General History of Rome, b.c. 753-a.d. 476. Crown 8,vo. 7s. Bd.
— History of the Romans under the Empire. 8 vols. post 8vo. 48s.
Nelson’s (Lord) Letters and Despatches. Edited by J. K. Laughton. 8vo. 16s.
Pears’ The Fall of Constantinople. 8vo. 16s.
Saintsbury’s Manchester : a Short History. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6rf.
Seebohm’s Oxford Reformers — Colet, Erasmus, & More. 8vo. 14s.
Short’s History of the Church of England. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
Smith’s Carthage and the Carthaginians. Crown 8vo. 10s. Bd.
Taylor’s Manual of the History of India. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
Todd’s Parliamentary Government in England (2 vols.) Vol. 1, 8vo. 24s.
Vitzthum’s St. Petersburg and London, 1852-1864. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s.
Walpole’s History of England, from 1815. 5 vols. 8vo. Vols. 1 & 2, 1815-1832, 36s.
Vol. 3, 1832-1841, 18s. Vols. 4 & 5, 1841-1858, 36s.
Wylie’s History of England under Henry IV. Vol. 1, crown 8vo. 10s. Bd.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
General Lists of Works.
BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS
Armstrong’s (E. J.) Life and Letters. Edited by G. F. Armstrong. Fcp. 8vo. 7s.Sd.
Bacon’s Life and Letters, by Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. £4. 4 s.
Bagehot’s Biographical Studies. 1 vol. 8vo. 125.
Carlyle’s Life, by J. A. Froude. Yols. 1 & 2, 1795-1835, 8vo. 325 . Vols. 3 & 4 ,
1834-1881, 8vo. 325.
— (Mrs.) Letters and Memorials. 3 vols. 8vo. 365.
Doyle (Sir F. H.) Reminiscences and Opinions. 8vo. 165.
English Worthies. Edited by Andrew Lang. Crown 8vo. 25. 6d. each.
Steele. By Austin Dobson.
Ben Jonson. By J. A. Symonds.
George Canning. By Frank H. Hill.
Claverhouse. By Mowbray Morris.
Charles Darwin. By Grant Allen.
Shaftesbury (The First Earl). By
H. D. Traill.
Admiral Blake. By David Hannay.
Marlborough. By Geo. Saintsbury.
*** Other Volumes in preparation .
Fox (Charles James) The Early History of. By Sir G. 0. Trevelyan, Bart.
Crown 8vo. 65 .
Froude’s Caesar : a Sketch. Crown 8vo. 65.
Hamilton’s (Sir W. R.) Life, by Graves. Vols. 1 and 2, 8vo. 155. each.
Havelock’s Life, by Marshman. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
Hobart Pacha’s Sketches from my Life. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Macaulay’s (Lord) Life and Letters. By his Nephew, Sir G. 0. Trevelyan, Bart.
Popular Edition, 1 vol. crown 8vo. 65. Cabinet Edition, 2 vols. post
8vo. 125. Libraiy Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 365.
Mendelssohn’s Letters. Translated by Lady Wallace. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 5s. each.
Mill (James) Biography of, by Prof. Bain. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— (John Stuart) Recollections of, by Prof. Bain. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6 d.
— — Autobiography. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
MUller’s (Max) Biographical Essays. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Newman’s Apologia pro Vita SueI. Crown 8vo. 65.
Pasteur (Louis) His Life and Labours. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Shakespeare’s Life (Outlines of), by Halliwell-Phillipps. 2 vols. royal 8vo. 105. 6d.
Southey’s Correspondence with Caroline Bowles. 8vo. 145.
Stephen’s Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Wellington’s Life, by Gleig. Crown 8vo. 65 .
MENTAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, FINANCE, &o.
Amos’s View of the Science of Jurisprudence. 8vo. I85.
— Primer of the English Constitution. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Bacon’s Essays, with Annotations by Whately. 8vo. 105. 6d,
— Works, edited by Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. 735. 6d.
Bagehot’s Economic Studies, edited by Hutton. 8vo. IO 5 . 6 d.
— The Postulates of English Political Economy. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Bain’s Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Crown 8vo. IO5. 6 d.
Part I. Deduction, 45. | Part II. Induction, 65. 6d.
— Mental and Moral Science. Crown 8vo. 105. 6 d.
— The Senses and the Intellect. 8vo. 15s .
— The Emotions and the Will. 8vo. 155.
— Practical Essays. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6 d.
LONGMANS, GKEEN, & CO., London and New York.
4 General Lists of Works.
Buckle’s (H. T.) Miscellaneous and Posthumous Works. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 21s.
Crump’s A Short Enquiry into the Formation of English Political Opinion.
8 vo. 7 s. 6 d.
Dowell’s A History of Taxation and Taxes in England. 4 vols. 8vo. 485.
Green’s (Thomas Hill) Works. (3 vols.) Vols. 1 & 2, Philosophical Works. 8vo.
16s. each.
Hume’s Essays, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. 8vo. 285.
— Treatise of Human Nature, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. 8vo. 285.
Ladd’s Elements of Physiological Psychology. 8vo. 215.
Lang’s Custom and Myth : Studies of Early Usage and Belief. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
Leslie’s Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy. 8vo. 105. 6 d.
Lewes’s History of Philosophy. 2 vols. 8vo. 325.
Lubbock’s Origin of Civilisation. 8vo. I85.
Macleod’s Principles of Economical Philosophy. In 2 vols. Vol. 1, 8vo. 155.
Yol. 2, Part 1. 125.
— The Elements of Economics. (2 vols.) Yol. 1, cr. 8vo. 75. 6 d. Yol. 2,
Part I. cr. 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
— The Elements of Banking. Crown 8vo. 55.
— The Theory and Practice of Banking, Yol. 1, 8vo. 125. Yol. 2, 145.
— Economics for Beginners. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
— Lectures on Credit and Banking. 8vo. 5s.
Mill’s (James) Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind. 2 vols. 8vo. 285.
Mill (John Stuart) on Representative Government. Crown 8vo. 2s.
— — on Liberty. Crown 8vo. I5. 4 d.
— — Examination of Hamilton’s Philosophy. 8vo. I65.
— — Logic. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— — Principles of Political Economy. 2 vols. 8vo. 305. People’s
Edition, 1 vol. crown 8vo. 5s.
— — Subjection of Women. Crown 8vo. 65.
— — Utilitarianism. 8vo. 65.
— — Three Essays on Religion, &c. 8vo. 5 s.
Mulhall’s History of Prices since 1850. Crown 8vo. 65.
Muller’s The Science of Thought. 8vo. 215.
Sandars’s Institutes of Justinian, with English Notes. 8vo. 185.
Seebohm’s English Village Community. 8vo. I65.
Sully’s Outlines of Psychology. 8vo. 125. 6 d.
— Teacher’s Handbook of Psychology. Crown 8vo. 65. 6 d.
Swinburne’s Picture Logic. Post 8vo. 5s.
Thompson’s A System of Psychology. 2 vols. 8vo. 365.
— The Problem of Evil. 8vo. IO5. 6 d.
Thomson’s Outline of Necessary Laws of Thought. Crown 8vo. 65.
Twiss’s Law of Nations in Time of War. 8vo. 215.
— — in Time of Peace. 8vo. 155.
Webb’s The Yeil of Isis. 8vo. IO5. M.
Whately’s Elements of Logic. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d.
— — — Rhetoric. Crown 8vo. 45. Qd.
Wylie’s Labour, Leisure, and Luxury. Crown 8vo. 65.
Zeiler’s History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy. Crown 8vo. 105. 6 d.
— Plato and the Older Academy. Crown 8vo. I85.
— Pre-Socratic Schools. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 305.
— Socrates and the Socratic Schools. Crown 8vo. 105. 6<f.
— Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics. Crown 8vo. 15 5.
— Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. Crown 8vo. 105. 6 d.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
General Lists of Works. 5
MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.
A. K. H. B., The Essays and Contributions of. Crown 8vo.
Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson. 3 s. 2d.
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths. 3 s. 2d.
Common-Place Philosopber in Town and Country. 3 s. 2d.
Critical Essays of a Country Parson. 3s. 6 d.
Counsel and Comfort spoken from a City Pulpit. 3 s. 2d.
G-raver Thoughts of a Country Parson. Three Series. 3s. 2d. each.
Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities. 3s. 2d.
Leisure Hours in Town. 3s. 6d. Lessons of Middle Age. 3s. 2d.
Our Homely Comedy ; and Tragedy. 3s. 2d.
Our Little Life. Essays Consolatory and Domestic. Two Series. 3s. 6 d.
Present-day Thoughts. 3s. 6 d. [each.
Recreations of a Country Parson. Three Series. 3s. 6 d. each.
Seaside Musings on Sundays and Week-Days . 3s. 6d.
Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a University City. 3s. 2d.
Armstrong’s (Ed. J.) Essays and Sketches. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
Arnold’s (Dr. Thomas) Miscellaneous Works. 8vo. 7s. 2d.
Bagehot’s Literary Studies, edited by Hutton. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
Beaconsfield (Lord), The Wit and Wisdom of. Crown 8vo. Is. boards ; Is. 6 d. cl.
Evans’s Bronze Implements of Great Britain. 8vo. 25s.
Farrar’s Language and Languages. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Froude’s Short Studies on Great Subjects. 4 vols. crown 8vo. 24s.
Lang’s Letters to Dead Authors. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 2d.
— Books and Bookmen. Crown 8vo. 6s. 2d.
Macaulay’s Miscellaneous Writings. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 4s. 2d.
— Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— Miscellaneous Writings, Speeches, Lays of Ancient Rome, &c.
Cabinet Edition. 4 vols. crown 8vo. 24 s.
— Writings, Selections from. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Muller’s (Max) Lectures on the Science of Language. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16s.
— — Lectures on India. 8vo. 12s. 2d.
Proctor’s Chance and Luck. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Sinith (Sydney) The Wit and Wisdom of. Crown 8vo. Is. boards ; Is. 6d. cloth.
ASTRONOMY.
Herschel’s Outlines of Astronomy. Square crown 8vo. 12s.
Proctor’s Larger Star Atlas. Folio, 15s. or Maps only, 12s. 2d.
— New Star Atlas. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— Light Science for Leisure Hours. 3 Series. Crown 8vo. 6s. eaoh.
— The Moon. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— Other Worlds than Ours. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— The Sun. Crown 8vo. 14s.
— Studies of Venus-Transits. 8vo. 5s.
— Orbs Around Us. Crown 8 vo. 5s.
— Universe of Stars. 8vo. 10s. 2d.
Webb’s Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes. Crown 8vo. 9s.
THE ‘KNOWLEDGE’ LIBRARY.
Edited by Richard A. Proctor.
How to Play Whist. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Home Whist. 16mo. Is.
The Borderland of Science. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Nature Studies. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Leisure Readings. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Stars in their Seasons. Imp. 8vo. 5s.
Myths and Marvels of Astronomy.
Crown 8 vo. 6s.
Pleasant Ways in Science. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Star Primer. Crown 4to. 2s. 2d.
The Seasons Pictured. Demy 4to. 5s.
Strength and Happiness. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
Rough Ways made Smooth. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
The Expanse of Heaven. Cr. 8vo. 5s.
Our Place among Infinities. Cr. 8vo. 6s,
LONGMANS, GKEEN, 6c CO., London and New York.
6 General Lists of Works.
CLASSICAL LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE.
2Eschylus, The Eumenides of. Text, with Metrical English Translation, by
J. E. Davies. 8vo. 7s.
Aristophanes’ The Acharnians, translated by R. Y. Tyrrell. Crown 8vo. 2 s. 6 d.
Aristotle’s The Ethics, Text and Notes, by Sir Alex. Grant, Bart. 2 vols. 8vo. 32 j.
— The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Williams, crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
— The Politics, Books I. III. IY. (VII.) with Translation, &c. by
Bolland and Lang. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Becker’s Charicles and Gallus, by Metcalfe. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. each.
Cicero’s Correspondence, Text and Notes, by R. Y. Tyrrell. Vols. 1 & 2, 8vo.
125. each.
Homer’s Iliad, Homometrically translated by Cayley. 8vo. 125. 6 d.
— — Greek Text, with Verse Translation, by W. C. Green. Vol. 1,
Books I.-XII. Crown 8vo. (is .
Mahaffy’s Classical Greek Literature. Crown 8vo. Vol. 1, The Poets, 7s. 6 d.
Vol. 2, The Prose Writers, 7s. 6d.
Plato’s Parmenides, with Notes, &c. by J. Maguire. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Virgil’s Works, Latin Text, with Commentary, by Kennedy. Crown 8vo. 105. 6 d.
— iEneid, translated into English Verse, by Conington. Crown 8vo. 95.
— — — — — — byW. J. Thornhill. Cr.8vo.75.6d. !
— Poems, — — — Prose, by Conington. Crown 8vo. 95.
Witt’s Myths of Hellas, translated by F. M. Younghusband. Crown 8vo. 35. 6 d.
— The Trojan War, — — Fcp. 8vo. 2s.
— The Wanderings of Ulysses, . — Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANY, & GARDENING.
Allen’s Flowers and their Pedigrees. Crown 8vo. Woodcuts, 55.
Decaisne and Le Maout’s General System of Botany. Imperial 8vo. 8 I 5 . 6 d.
Dixon’s Rural Bird Life. Crown 8vo. Illustrations, 55.
! Hartwig’s Aerial World, 8vo. IO 5 . 6 d.
— Polar World, 8vo. IO 5 . 6d.
— Sea and its Living Wonders. 8vo. 105. 6d.
— Subterranean World, 8vo. 105. 6d.
— , Tropical World, 8vo. IO 5 . 6d.
\ Lindley’s Treasury of Botany. 2 vols. fcp. 8vo. 125.
Loudon’s Encyclopaedia of Gardening. 8vo. 215.
— — Plants. 8vo. 425.
Rivers’s Orchard House. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— Miniature Fruit Garden. Fcp. 8vo. 45.
Stanley’s Familiar History of British Birds. Crown 8 vo. 65 .
Wood’s Bible Animals. With 112 Vignettes. 8vo. 105. 6d.
— Common British Insects. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
— Homes Without Hands, 8vo. 105. 6d.
— Insects Abroad, 8vo. 105. 6 d.
— Horse and Man. 8vo. 145.
— Insects at Home. With 700 Illustrations. 8vo. IO 5 . 6 d.
— Out of Doors. Crown 8vo . 5s.
— Petland Revisited. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
— Strange Dwellings. Crown 8vo. 5s. Popular Edition, 4to. 6 d.
j-
LONG-MANS, G-KLLN, <5c CO., London and New York.
General Lists of Works.
7
PRIZE AND PRESENTATION BOOKS.
Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art. 6 vols. square 8vo.
Legends of the Madonna. 1 vol. 21s.
— — — Monastic Orders 1 vol. 21s.
— — — Saints and Martyrs. 2 vols. 31s. bd.
— — — Saviour. Completed by Lady Eastlake. 2 vols. 42s.
Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome, illustrated by Scharf. Fcp. 4to. 10s. bd.
The same, with Ivry and the Armada, illustrated by Weguelin. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
New Testament (The) illustrated with Woodcuts after Paintings by the Early
Masters. 4to. 21s.
By Dr. G. Hartwig.
Sea Monsters and Sea Birds (from ‘The
Sea and its Living Wonders ’). With
75 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6 d.
cloth extra, gilt edges.
Denizens of the Deep (from ‘The Sea
and its Living Wonders ’). With 117
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 2s. bd. cloth
extra, gilt edges.
Dwellers in the Arctic Regions (from
‘ The Sea and its Living Wonders ’).
With 29 Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d. cloth extra, gilt edges.
Winged Life in the Tropics (from ‘ The
Tropical World’). With 55 Illustra-
I tions. Crown 8vo. 2s. bd. cloth extra,
! gilt edges.
| Volcanoes and Earthquakes (from ‘ The
i Subterranean World ’). With 30
j Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 2s. bd.
cloth extra, gilt edges.
Wild Animals of the Tropics (from ‘ The
j Tropical World ’). With 66 Illustra-
| tions. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6 d. cloth extra,
j gilt edges.
CHEMISTRY ENGINEERING, 8c GENERAL SCIENCE.
! Amott’s Elements of Physics or Natural Philosophy. Crown 8vo. 12s. bd.
; Barrett’s English Glees and Part-Songs : their Historical Development.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Bourne’s Catechism of the Steam Engine. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
— Handbook of the Steam Engine. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.
— Recent Improvements in the Steam Engine. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
j Buckton’s Our Dwellings, Healthy and Unhealthy. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
j Clerk’s The Gas Engine. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. (id .
Crookes’s Select Methods in Chemical Analysis. 8vo. 24s.
j Culley’s Handbook of Practical Telegraphy. 8vo. 16s.
Fairbairn’s Useful Information for Engineers. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 31s. 6 <2.
— Mills and Millwork. 1 vol. 8vo. 25s.
Ganot’s Elementary Treatise on Phvsics, by Atkinson. Large crown 8vo. 15s.
— Natural Philosophy, by Atkinson. Crown 8vo. 7s. (id.
Grove’s Correlation of Physical Forces. 8vo. 15s.
Haughton’s Six Lectures on Physical Geography. 8vo. 15s.
.ny T/ue nev. a. u-. woou.
The Branch Builders (from ‘ Homes
without Hands ’). With 28 Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. 2s. bd. cloth extra,
gilt edges.
Wild Animals of the Bible (from ‘ Bible
Animals’). With 29 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. (id. cloth extra, gilt
edges.
Domestic Animals of the Bible (from
‘Bible Animals’). With 23 Illus-
trations. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd. cloth
extra, gilt edges.
Bird Life of the Bible (from ‘ Bible
Animals’). With 32 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. bd. cloth extra, gilt
edges.
Wonderful Nests (from ‘ Homes with-
out Hands ’). With 30 Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. bd. cloth extra, gilt
edges.
Homes Under the Ground (from
1 Homes without Hands ’). With
28 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
cloth extra, gilt edges.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
8 General Lists of Works.
Helmholtz on the Sensations of Tone. Royal 8vo. 28 $.
Helmholtz’s Lectures on Scientific Subjects. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 7$. 6 d. each.
Hudson and Gosse’s The Rotifera or ‘ Wheel Animalcules.’ With 30 Coloured
Plates. 6 parts. 4to. 10$. 6 d. each. Complete, 2 yols. 4to. £3. 10$.
Hullah’s Lectures on the History of Modern Music. 8vo. 8$. 6 <2.
— Transition Period of Musical History. 8vo. 10$. 6(2.
Jackson's Aid to Engineering Solution. Royal 8vo. 21$.
Jago’s Inorganic Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical. Fcp. 8vo. 2$.
Jeans’ Railway Problems. 8vo. 12$. 6(2.
Kolbe’s Short Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6(2.
Lloyd’s Treatise on Magnetism. 8vo. 10$. 6(2.
Macalister’s Zoology and Morphology of Vertebrate Animals. 8vo. 10$. 6<2.
Macfarren’s Lectures on Harmony. 8vo. 1 2$.
Miller’s Elements of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical. 3 vols. 8vo. Part I.
Chemical Physics, 16$. Part II. Inorganic Chemistry, 24$. Part III. Organic
Chemistry, price 31$. 6(2.
Mitchell’s Manual of Practical Assaying. 8vo. 31$. 6(2.
Noble’s Hours with a Three-inch Telescope. Crown 8vo. 4$. 6(2.
Northcott’s Lathes and Turning. 8vo. 18$.
Owen’s Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrate Animals.
3 vols. 8 vo. 73$. 6(2.
Piesse’s Art of Perfumery. Square crown 8vo. 21$.
Richardson’s The Health of Nations ; Works and Life of Edwin Chadwick, C.B.
2 vols. 8vo. 28$.
— The Commonhealth ; a Series of Essays. Crown 8vo. 6$.
Schellen’s Spectrum Analysis. 8vo. 31$. 6(2.
Sennett’s Treatise on the Marine Steam Engine. 8vo. 21$.
Smith’s Air and Rain. 8vo. 24$.
Stoney’s The Theory of the Stresses on Girders, &c. Royal 8vo. 36$.
Tilden’s Practical Chemistry. Fcp. 8vo. 1$. 6<2.
Tyndall’s Faraday as a Discoverer. Crown 8vo. 3$. 6(2.
— Floating Matter of the Air. Crown 8vo. 7$. 6(2.
— Fragments of Science. 2 vols. post 8vo. 16$.
— Heat a Mode of Motion. Crown 8vo. 12$.
— Lectures on Light delivered in America. Crown 8vo. 5$.
— Lessons on Electricity. Crown 8vo. 2$. 6(2.
— Notes on Electrical Phenomena. Crown 8vo. 1$. sewed, 1$. 6(2. cloth.
— Notes of Lectures on Light. Crown 8vo. 1$. sewed, 1$. 6(2. cloth.
— Sound, with Frontispiece and 203 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 10$. 6(2.
Watts’s Dictionary of Chemistry. 9 vols. medium 8vo. £15. 2$. 6c2.
Wilson’s Manual of Health-Science. Crown 8vo. 2$. 6(2.
THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS WORKS.
Arnold’s (Rev. Dr. Thomas) Sermons. 6 vols. crown 8vo. 5s. each.
Boultbee’s Commentary on the 39 Articles. Crown 8vo. 6$.
Browne’s (Bishop) Exposition of the 39 Articles. 8vo. 16$.
Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New
Testament. Royal 8vo. 15$.
Colenso on the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Crown 8vo. 6$.
Conder’s Handbook of the Bible. Post 8vo. 7s. 6(2.
LONG-MANS, GrREEN, & CO., London and New York.
General Lists of Works. 9
Conybeare & Howson’s Life and Letters of St. Paul : —
Library Edition, with Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. 2 vols. square crown
8vo. 21 s.
Student’s Edition, revised and condensed, with 46 Illustrations and Maps.
1 vol. crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
Cox’s (Homersham) The First Century of Christianity. 8vo. 12s.
Davidson’s Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s.
Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.
— Prophecy and History in relation to the Messiah. 8vo. 12$.
Ellicott’s (Bishop) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles. 8vo. Corinthians I. 16$.
Galatians, 8s. Bd. Ephesians, 8s. Bd. Pastoral Epistles, 10s. 6 d. Philippians,
Colossians and Philemon, 10s. Bd. Thessalonians, 7s. 6d.
— Lectures on the Life of our Lord. 8vo. 12s.
Ewald’s Antiquities of Israel, translated by Solly. 8vo. 12s. 6 d.
— History of Israel, translated by Carpenter & Smith. 8 vols. 8vo. Vols.
1 & 2, 24s. Vols. 3 & 4, 21s. Vol. 5, 18s. Vol. 6, 16s. Vol. 7, 21s.
Vol. 8, 18s.
Hobart’s Medical Language of St. Luke. 8vo. 16s.
Hopkins’s Christ the Consoler. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. Bd.
Jukes’s New Man and the Eternal Life. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— Second Death and the Restitution of all Things. Crown 8vo. 3s. Bd.
— Types of Genesis. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
— The Mystery of the Kingdom. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6 <2.
Lenormant’s New Translation of the Book of Genesis. Translated into English.
8vo. 10s. Bd.
Lyra Germanica : Hymns translated by Miss Winkworth. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Macdonald’s (G.) Unspoken Sermons. Two Series, Crown 8vo. 3s. Bd. each.
— The Miracles of our Lord. Crown 8vo. 3s. Bd.
Manning’s Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. Crown 8vo. 8s. Bd.
Martineau’s Endeavours after the Christian Life. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
— Hymns of Praise and Prayer. Crown 8vo. 4s. Bd. 32mo. Is. Bd.
— Sermons, Hours of Thought on Sacred Things. 2 vols. 7s. Bd. each.
Monsell’s Spiritual Songs for Sundays and Holidays. Fcp. 8vo. 5s. 18mo. 2s.
Mtiller’s (Max) Origin and Growth of Religion. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
— — Science of Religion. Crown 8vo. 7s. Bd.
Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sufi. Crown 8vo. Bs.
— The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 7s.
— Historical Sketches. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 6s. each.
— Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Con-
sidered. Vol. 1 , crown 8vo. 7s. Bd. Vol. 2, crown 8vo. 6s. Bd.
— The Via Media of the Anglican Church, Illustrated in Lectures, &c.
2 vols. crown 8vo. 6s. each
— Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 12s.
— Essays on Biblical and on Ecclesiastical Miracles. Crown 8vo. 6s.
— An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. 7s. Bd.
Overton’s Life in the English Church (1660-1714). 8vo. 14s.
Supernatural Religion. Complete Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
Younehusband’s The Story of Our Lord told in Simple Language for Children.
Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 2s. Bd. cloth plain ; 3s. Bd. cloth extra, gilt edges.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
10
General Lists of Works.
TRAVELS, ADVENTURES, &c.
Baker’s Eight Years in Ceylon. Crown 8vo. 5$.
— Rifle and Hound in Ceylon. Crown 8vo. 5 s.
Brassey’s Sunshine and Storm in the East. Library Edition, 8vo. 21*. Cabinet
Edition, crown 8vo. 7s. Gd. Popular Edition, 4to. 6 d.
— Voyage in the ‘ Sunbeam.’ Library Edition, 8vo. 21*. Cabinet Edition,
crown 8vo. 7s. Gd. School Edition, fcp. 8vo. 2s. Popular Edition,
4to. Gd.
— In the Trades, the Tropics, and the ‘ Roaring Forties.’ Library Edition,
8vo.21s. Cabinet Edition, crown 8vo. 17*. 6d. Popular Edition,
4to. 6d.
Froude’s Oceana ; or, England and her Colonies. Crown 8vo. 2s. boards ; 2s. 6 d.
cloth.
Howitt’s Visits to Remarkable Places. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Riley’s Athos ; or, The Mountain of the Monks. 8vo. 21*.
Three in Norway. By Two of Them. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 2s. boards ;
2s. Gd. cloth.
WORKS OF FICTION.
Beaconsfield’s (The Earl of) Novels and Tales. Hughenden Edition, with 2
Portraits on Steel and 11 Vignettes on Wood. 11 vols. crown 8vo. £2. 2*.
Cheap Edition, 11 vols. crown 8vo. 1*. each, boards ; 1*. Gd. each, cloth.
Contarini Fleming.
Alroy, Ixion, &c.
The Young Duke, Sue.
Vivian Grey.
Endymion.
Lothair.
Sybil.
Coningsby.
Tancred.
Venetia.
Henrietta Temple.
Brabourne’s (Lord) Friends and Foes from Fairyland. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Caddy’s (Mrs.) Through the Fields with Linnaeus : a Chapter in Swedish History.
2 vols. crown 8vo. 16*.
Gilkes’ Boys and Masters. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6 d.
Haggard’s (H. Rider) She: a History of Adventure. Crown 8vo. 6*.
— Allan Quatermain. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Harte (Bret) On the Frontier. Three Stories. 16mo. 1*.
— — By Shore and Sedge. Three Stories. 16 mo. 1*.
— — In the Carquinez Woods. Crown 8vo. 1*. boards ; 1*. Gd. cloth.
Lyall’s (Edna) The Autobiography of a Slander. Fcp. 1*. sewed.
Melville’s (Whyte) Novels. 8 vols. fcp. 8vo. 1*. each, boards ; 1*. 6d. each, cloth.
Good for Nothing.
Holmby House.
The Interpreter.
The Queen’s Maries.
Crown 8 vo. 2*. Gd.
Digby Grand.
General Bounce.
Kate Coventry.
The Gladiators.
Molesworth’s (Mrs.) Marrying and Giving in Marriage.
Novels by the Author of ‘ The Atelier du Lys ’ :
The Atelier du Lys ; or, An Art Student in the Reign of Terror. Crown
8vo. 2*. Gd.
Mademoiselle Mori : a Tale of Modern Rome. Crown 8vo. 2s. Gd.
In the Olden Time: a Tale of the Peasant War in Germany. Crown 8vo. 2s. Gd.
Hester’s Venture. Crown 8vo. 2*. Gd.
Oliphant’s (Mrs.) Madam. Crown 8vo. 1*. boards ; 1*. 6t?. cloth.
— — In Trust : the Story of a Lady and her Lover. Crown 8vo.
1*. boards ; 1*. Gd. cloth.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Loudon and New York.
General Lists of Works.
11
Payn’s (James) The Lnck of the Darrells. Crown Rvo. Is. boards ; Is. 6d. cloth.
— — Thicker than Water. Crown 8vo. Is. boards ; Is. 6d. cloth.
Reader’s Fairy Prince Follow-my-Lead. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6 d.
The Ghost of Brankinshaw ; and other Tales. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
(Miss) Stories and Tales. Crown 8vo. Is. each, boards ; Is. 6 d. cloth ;
Sewell’
2s. 6d. cloth extra, gilt edges.
Amy Herbert. Cleve Hall,
The Earl’s Daughter.
Experience of Life.
Gertrude. Ivors.
A Glimpse of the World.
Katharine Ashton.
Laneton Parsonage.
Margaret Percival. Ursula.
Stevenson’s (R.L.) The Dynamiter. Fcp. 8vo. Is. sewed ; Is. 6c?. cloth.
— — Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Fcp. 8vo. Is.
sewed ; Is. Qd. cloth.
Sturgis’ Thraldom : a Story. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Trollope’s (Anthony) Novels. Fcp. 8vo. Is. each, boards ; Is. 6d. cloth.
The Warden | Barchester Towers.
POETRY AND THE DRAMA.
Armstrong’s (Ed. J.) Poetical Works.
— (G. F.) Poetical Works : —
Poems, Lyrical and Dramatic. Fcp.
8vo. 6s.
Ugone : a Tragedy. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
A Garland from Greece. Fcp. 8vo.9s.
Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
King Saul. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
King David. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
King Solomon . Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Stories of Wicklow. Fcp. 8vo. 9s.
Bowen’s Harrow Songs and other Verses. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d. ; or printed on
hand-made paper, 5s.
Bowdler’s Family Shakespeare. Medium 8vo. 14s. 6 vols. fcp. 8vo. 21s.
Dante's Divine Comedy, translated by Jan es Innes Minchin. Crown 8vo. 15s.
Goethe’s Faust, translated by Birds. Large crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.
— — translated by Webb. 8vo. 12s. 6 d,
— — edited by Selss. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Ingelow’s Poems. Vols. 1 and 2, fcp. 8vo. 12s.
— Lyrical and other Poems. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6 d. cloth, plain ; 3s. cloth,
gilt edges.
Macaulay’s Lays of Ancient Rome, with Ivry and the Armada. Illustrated by
Weguelin. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. gilt edges.
The same, Popular Edition. Illustrated by Scharf. Fcp. 4to. 6d. swd.. Is. cloth.
Nesbit’s Lays and Legends. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Reader’s Voices from Flowerland, a Birthday Book, 2s. 6 d. cloth, 3s. 6 d. roan.
Southey’s Poetical Works. Medium 8vo. 14s.
Stevenson’s A Child’s Garden of Verses. Fcp. 8vo. 5s.
Virgil’s iEneid. translated by Conington. Crown 8vo. 9s.
— Poems, translated into English Prose. Crown 8vo. 9s.
AGRICULTURE, HORSES, DOGS, AND CATTLE.
Fitzwygram's Horses and Stables. 8vo. 5s.
Lloyd’s The Science of Agriculture. 8vo. 12s.
Loudon’s Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. 21s.
Steel’s Diseases of the Ox, a Manual of Bovine Pathology. 8vo. 15s.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
12
General Lists of Works.
Stonehenge’s Dog in Health and Disease. Square crown 8vo. 7 s. 6 d.
— Greyhound. Square crown 8vo. 155.
Taylor’s Agricultural Note Book. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6 d.
Ville on Artificial Manures, by Crookes. 8vo. 21 s.
Youatt’s Work on the Dog. 8vo. 65.
— — — — Horse. 8vo. 7s. Gd.
SPORTS AND PASTIMES.
The Badminton Library of Sports and Pastimes. Edited by the Duke of Beaufort
and A. E. T. Watson. With numerous Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 10$. 6 d. each.
Hunting, by the Duke of Beaufort, <fcc.
Fishing, by H. Cholmondeley -Pennell, &c. 2 vols.
Racing, by the Earl of Suffolk, &c.
Shooting, by Lord Walsingham, &c. 2 vols.
Cycling. By Viscount Bury.
*** Other Volumes in preparation.
Campbell- Walker’s Correct Card, or How to Play at Whist. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Ford’s Theory and Practice of Archery, revised by W. Butt. 8vo. 14$.
Francis’s Treatise on Fishing in all its Branches. Post 8vo. 15$.
Longman’s Chess Openings. Fcp. 8vo. 2$. 6d.
Pease’s The Cleveland Hounds as a Trencher-Fed Pack. Royal 8vo. 18$.
: Pole’s Theory of the Modern Scientific Game of Whist. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
| Proctor’s How to Play Whist. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Ronalds’s Fly-Fisher’s Entomology. 8vo. 14s.
; Verney’8 Chess Eccentricities. Crown 8vo. 10$. Gd.
Wilcocks’s Sea- Fisherman. Post 8vo. 6$. •
ENCYCLOPAEDIAS, DICTIONARIES, AND BOOKS OF
REFERENCE.
Acton’s Modern Cookery for Private Families. Fcp. 8vo. 4s. Gd.
Ayre’s Treasury of Bible Knowledge. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Brande’s Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 3 vols. medium 8vo. 63$.
Cabinet Lawyer (The), a Popular Digest of the Laws of England. Fcp. 8vo. 9$.
Cates’s Dictionary of General Biography. Medium 8vo. 28$.
{ Gwilt’s Encyclopaedia of Architecture. 8vo. 52$. Gd.
Keith Johnston’s Dictionary of Geography, or General Gazetteer. 8vo. 42$.
M‘Culloch’s Dictionary of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. 8vo. 63$.
Maunder’s Biographical Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
Historical Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
— Scientific and Literary Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Treasury of Bible Knowledge, edited by Ayre. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
— Treasury of Botany, edited by Lindley & Moore. Two Parts, 12$.
— Treasury of Geography. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
— Treasury of Knowledge and Library of Reference. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
— Treasury of Natural History. Fcp. 8vo. 6$.
j Quain’s Dictionary of Medicine. Medium 8vo. 31$. Gd ., or in 2 vols. 34$.
Reeve’s Cookery and Housekeeping. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Rich’s Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. Crown 8vo. 10$. Gd.
Willich’s Popular Tables, by Marriott. Crown 8vo. 10$. Gd. d
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
A SELECTION
OP
EDUCATIONAL WORKS.
TEXT BOOKS OF SCIENCE
FULLY ILLUSTRATED.
Abney’s Treatise on Photography. Fcp. 8 vo. 3s. 6 d.
Anderson’s Strength of Materials. 3s. fid.
Armstrong’s Organic Chemistry. 3s. 6d.
Ball’s Elements of Astronomy. 65 .
Barry’s Bail way Appliances. 3s. 6 d.
Bauerman’s Systematic Mineralogy. 0s.
— Descriptive Mineralogy. 6 s.
Bloxam and Huntington’s Metals, 5s.
Glazebrook’s Physical Optics. 6 s.
G-lazebrook and Shaw’s Practical Physics. 6 s.
Gore’s Art of Electro-Metallurgy, 6 s.
Griffin’s Algebra and Trigonometry. 3s. 6 d. Notes and Solutions, 3 s. 6 c?.
Holmes’s The Steam Engine. 6 s.
Jenkin’s Electricity and Magnetism. 3s. 6 c?.
Maxwell’s Theory of Heat. 3s. 6 d.
Merrifield’s Technical Arithmetic and Mensuration. 3s. 6 d. Key, 3s. 6 c?.
Miller’s Inorganic Chemistry. 3s. 6 c?.
Preece and Sivewright’s Telegraphy. 5s.
Butley’s Study of Bocks, a Text-Book of Petrology. 4s. 6 c?.
Shelley’s Workshop Appliances. 4s. 6 d.
Thomd’s Structural and Physiological Botany. 6 s.
Thorpe’s Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 4s. 6 c?.
Thorpe and Muir’s Qualitative Analysis. 3s. 6 c?.
Tilden’s Chemical Philosophy. 3s. 6 c?. With Answers to Problems. 4s. 6 c?.
Unwin’s Elements of Machine Design. 6 s.
Watson’s Plane and Solid Geometry. 3s. 6 c?.
THE GREEK LANGUAGE.
Bloomfield’s College and School Greek Testament. Pep. 8 vo. 5s.
Bolland & Lang’s Politics of Aristotle. Post 8 vo. 7s. 6 c?.
Collis’s Chief Tenses of the Greek Irregular Verbs. 8 vo. Is.
— Pontes Graeci, Stepping-Stone to Greek Grammar. 12mo. 3s. 6 c?.
— Praxis Grseca, Etymology. 12mo. 2s. 6 c?.
— Greek Verse-Book, Praxis Iambica. 12mo. 4s. 6 c?.
Farrar’s Brief Greek Syntax and Accidence. 12mo. 4s. 6 c?.
— Greek Grammar Buies for Harrow School. 12mo. Is. 6d.
Geare’s Notes on Thucydides. Book I. Fcp. 8 vo. 2s. 6 c?.
Hewitt’s Greek Examination-Papers. 12mo. Is. 6 c?.
Isbister’s Xenophon’s Anabasis, Books I. to III. with Notes. 12mo. 3s. 6 c?.
Jerram’s Graec 6 Beddenda. Crown 8 vo. Is. 6 c?.
LONGMANS, GEEEN, & CO., London and New York.
14 A Selection of Educational Works,
Kennedy’s G-reek Grammar. 12mo. 45. 6d.
Liddell & Scott’s English-Greek Lexicon. 4to. 365. ; Square 12mo. 75. Sd.
Mahaffy’s Classical Greek Literature. Crown 8vo. Poets, 7s. 6 d. Prose Writers,
75. 6d.
Morris’s Greek Lessons. Square 18mo. Part I. 2s. 6d. ; Part II. 15.
Parry’s Elementary Greek Grammar. 12mo. 35. 6d.
Plato’s Republic, Book I. Greek Text, English Notes by Hardy. Crown 8vo. 35.
Sheppard and Evans’s Notes on Thucydides. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Thucydides, Book IY. with Notes by Barton and Chavasse. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Yalpy’s Greek Delectus, improved by White. 12mo. 2s. 6d. Key, 25. 6d .
White’s Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus, with English Notes. 12mo. 7s. 6d.
Wilkins’s Manual of Greek Prose Composition. Crown 8vo. 5s. Key, 5s.
— Exercises in Greek Prose Composition. Crown 8vo. 45. 6 d. Key, 25. 6<f.
— New Greek Delectus. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. Key, 25. 6<2.
— Progressive Greek Delectus. 12mo. 45. Key, 2s. 6d.
— Progressive Greek Anthology. 12mo. 5s.
— Scriptores Attici, Excerpts with English Notes. Crown 8vo. 75. 6 d.
— Speeches from Thucydides translated. Post 8vo. 65 .
Yonge’s English-Greek Lexicon. 4to. 215. ; Square 12mo. 85 . 6d.
THE LATIN LANGUAGE.
Bradley’s Latin Prose Exercises. 12mo. 35. Qd. Key, 5s.
— Continuous Lessons in Latin Prose. 12mo. 5s. Key, 5s. 6d.
— Cornelius Nepos, improved by White. 12mo. 35. 6d.
Eutropius, improved by White. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
— Ovid’s Metamorphoses, improved by White. 12mo. 45. 6 d.
— Select Fables of Phaedrus, improved by White. 12mo. 25. 6d.
Collis’s Chief Tenses of Latin Irregular Yerbs. 8vo. 15.
— Pontes Latini, Stepping-Stone to Latin Grammar. 12mo. 35. 6 d.
Hewitt’s Latin Examination-Papers. 12mo. 15. 6d.
Isbister’s Caesar, Books I.-YII. 12mo. 45. ; or with Reading Lessons, 4s. 6 d.
— Caesar’s Commentaries, Books I.-Y. 12mo. 35. 6 d.
— First Book of Caesar’s Gallic War. 12mo. 15. 6d.
Jerram’s Latini Reddenda. Crown 8vo. 15. 6d.
Kennedy’s Child’s Latin Primer, or First Latin Lessons. 12mo. 25.
— Child’s Latin Accidence. 12mo. I 5 .
— Elementary Latin Grammar. 12mo. 35. 6 d.
— Elementary Latin Reading Book, or Tirocinium Latinum. 12mo. 2s.
— Latin Prose, Palaestra Stili Latini. 12mo. 65 .
— Latin Yocabulary. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
— Subsidia Primaria, Exercise Books to the Public School Latin Primer.
I. Accidence and Simple Construction, 25. 6 d. II. Syntax, 35. 6<2.
— Key to the Exercises in Subsidia Primaria, Parts I. and a II. price 5s.
— Subsidia Primaria, III. the Latin Compound Sentence. 12mo. 15.
— Curriculum Stili Latini. 12mo. 45. 6 d. Key, 7s. 6d.
— Palaestra Latina, or Second Latin Reading Book. 12mo. 5s.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
A Selection of Educational Works, 15
Millington’s Latin Prose Composition. Crown 8vo. 3$. Sd.
— Selections from Latin Prose. Crown 8vo. 2s. Sd.
Moody’s Eton Latin Grammar. 12mo. 2s. 6d. The Accidence separately, 1«.
Morris’s Elementa Latina. Fcp. 8vo. Is. Sd. Key, 2s. 6 d.
Parry’s Origines Romanae, from Livy, with English Notes. Crown 8vo. 4s.
The Public School Latin Primer. 12mo. 25. 6d.
— — — — Grammar, by Rev. Dr. Kennedy. Post 8vo. 7s. 6 d.
Prendergast’s Mastery Series, Manual of Latin. 12mo. 25. 6 <2.
Rapier’s Introduction to Composition of Latin Verse. 12mo. 35. Sd. Key, 2s. 6 d.
Sheppard and Turner’s Aids to Classical Study. 12mo. 55. Key, 65.
Valpy’s Latin Delectus, improved by White. 12mo. 25. Sd. Key, 35. Sd.
Virgil’s iEneid, translated into English Verse by Conington. Crown 8vo. 95.
— Works, edited by Kennedy. Crown 8vo. 105. Sd.
— — translated into English Prose by Conington. Crown 8vo. 95.
Walford’s Progressive Exercises in Latin Elegiac Verse. 12mo. 2s. Sd. Key, 5s.
White and Riddle’s Large Latin-English Dictionary. 1 vol. 4to. 215.
White’s Concise Latin-Eng. Dictionary for University Students. Royal 8vo. 125.
Junior Students’ Eng.-Lat. & Lat.-Eng. Dictionary. Square 12mo. 55.
<3 , , f The Latin-English Dictionary, price 35.
toepaia e y | rpk e English-Latin Dictionary, price 35.
Yonge’s Latin Gradus. Post 8vo. 95. ; or with Appendix, 125.
WHITES GRAMMAR-SCHOOL GREEK TEXTS.
u®sop (Fables) & Palsephatus (Myths).
32mo. 15.
Euripides, Hecuba. 25.
Homer, Iliad, Book I. 15.
— Odyssey, Book I. 15.
Lucian, Select Dialogues. 15.
Xenophon, Anabasis, Books I. III. IV.
V. & VI. I 5 . 6 d. each ; Book II. 15. ;
Book VII. 25.
Xenophon, Book I. without Vocabu-
lary. 3d. ■
St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels.
25. fid. each.
St. Mark’s and St. John’s Gospels.
I5. Sd. each.
The Acts of the Apostles. 25. Sd.
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 15. 6 d .
The Four Gospels in Greek, with Greek-English Lexicon. Edited by John T.
White, D.D. Oxon. Square 32mo. price 5s,
WHITE’S GRAMMAR-SCHOOL LATIN TEXTS.
Caesar. Gallic War, Books I. & II. V.
& VI. 15. each. Book I. without
Vocabulary, 3d.
Caesar, Gallic War, Books III. & IV.
9 d. each.
Caesar, Gallic War, Book VII. li. Sd.
Cicero, Cato Major (Old Age). I5. 6 d.
Cicero, Laelius (Friendship). 15. Sd.
Eutropius, Roman History Books I.
& II. 15. Books III. & IV. 15.
Horace, Odes, Books I. II. & IV. 15. each.
Horace, Odes, Book III. 15. Sd.
Horace, Epodes and Carmen Seculare.
I 5 .
Nepos, Miltiades, Simon, Pausanias,
Aristides. 9 d.
Ovid. Selections from Epistles and
Fasti. 15.
Ovid, Select Myths from Metamor-
phoses. 9d.
Phaedrus, Select Easy Fables,
Phaedrus, Fables, Books I. & II. 15.
Sallust, Bellum Catilinarium. I 5 . Sd.
Virgil, Georgies, Book IV. 15.
Virgil, jEneid, Books I. to VI. 15. each.
Book I. without Vocabulary, 3d.
Virgil, HSneid, Books VII. VIII. X.
XI. XII. I 5 . Sd. each.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
16
A Selection of Educational Works.
French Translation-Book, 8 d.
Easy French Delectus, 8d.
First French Reader, 8 d.
Second French Reader, 8 d.
French and English Dialogues, 8 d.
12mo. 3^. 6d. Key 3s. 6d.
THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.
Albites’s How to Speak French. Fcp. 8vo. 55. 6d.
— Instantaneous French Exercises. Fcp. 2s. Key, 2s.
Cassal’s French Genders. Crown 8vo. 35. 6 d.
Oassal & Karcher’s Graduated French Translation Book. Part I. 3s. 6d.
Part II. 55. Key to Part I. by Professor Cassal, price 5s.
Contanseau’s Practical French and English Dictionary. Post 8vo. 35. 6d.
— Pocket French and English Dictionary. Square 18mo. 15. 6d.
— Premieres Lectures. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
— First Step in French. 12mo. 25. 6d. Key, 35.
— French Accidence. 12mo. 2s. 6d.
— — Grammar. 12mo. 45. Key, 35.
Contanseau’s Middle-Class French Course. Fcp. 8vo. : —
Accidence, 8 d.
Syntax, 8 d.
^French Conversation-Book, 8 d.
First French Exercise-Book, 8d.
Second French Exercise-Book, 8d.
Contanseau’s Guide to French Translation.
— Prosateurs et Pontes Fran9ais. 12mo. 5s.
— Precis de la Literature Fran9aise. 12mo. 35. 6d.
— Abr6g6 de l’Histoire de France. 12mo. 25. 6d.
F6val’s Chouans et Bleus, with Notes by C. Sankey, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 25. 6 d.
Jerram’s Sentences for Translation into French. Cr. 8vo. I5. Key, 25. 6d.
Prendergast’s Mastery Series, French. 12mo. 25. 6 d.
Souvestre’s Philosophe sous les Toits, by Sti&venard. Square 18mo. 15. 6 d.
Stepping-Stone to French Pronunciation. 18mo. I5.
Sti^venard’s Lectures Fraii9aises from Modern Authors. 12mo. 45. 6d .
— Rules and Exercises on the French Language. 12mo. 35. 6d.
Tarver’s Eton French Grammar. 12mo. 65. 6 d.
THE GERMAN LANGUAGE.
Blackley’s Practical German and English Dictionary. Post 8vo. 35. Bd.
Bnchheim’s German Poetry, for Repetition. 18mo. 15. Bd.
Collis’s Card of German Irregular Verbs. 8vo. 2s.
Fischer-Fischart’s Elementary German Grammar. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. Bd.
Just’s German Grammar. 12mo. I5. Bd.
— German Reading Book. 12mo. 35. Bd.
Longman’s Pocket German and English Dictionary. Square 18mo. 2s. Bd.
Naftel’s Elementary German Course for Public Schools. Fcp. 8vo.
German Accidence. 9 d.
German Syntax. 9<L
First German Exercise-Book. 2d.
Second German Exercise-Book. 9 d.
Prendergast’s Mastery Series, German. 12mo. 2s. Bd.
Quick’s Essentials of German. Crown 8vo. 35. 6 d.
Selss’s School Edition of Goethe’s Faust. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— Outline of German Literature. Crown 8vo. 45. 6 d.
Wirth’s German Chit-Chat. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
German Prose Composition Book.
First German Reader. 2d.
Second German Reader. 2d.
2d.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., London and New York.
A
Spottiswoode <L' Co. Printers, New-street Square, London.
4