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 0s 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'/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/ tAocrotas. 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 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 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 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 rpocnreS. 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€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 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)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