rejecting the eternal substantial Logos, who was with the Father before the world was, and is God from everlasting to everlasting. I say then, that the zeal shown by the ancient Church against the Sabellians of all denominations, (as well as their zeal against the more direct impugners of Christ's Divinity,) is a very strong argument of their judging the doctrine of a coeternal Trinity to be an essential of the Gospel. They intended much the same thing by animadverting upon those or these; for they saw plainly, that the Divinity of Christ, considered as a real Person, was as much undermined by Sabellianism, as it was attacked by the other. Many and various have been the ways of evading and eluding these two prime verities, viz. that three real Persons are one God, and that God and man is one Christ: but watchful and honest Christians still kept their eyes fixed upon those sacred truths, and would never admit any doctrine as true, which was contrary to them, or as sufficient, that was short of them. If any one denied Christ's humanity, (as the Docetæ, or Phantasiasta,) that was manifestly false doctrine, to be rejected at once: but if another admitted his humanity, and stopped there, that was short and insufficient. If it was added, (as by Cerinthus,) that a celestial substance or spirit rested sometimes upon Jesus, that was true, but still short of the whole truth in more respects than one. If it were said, constantly residing, that was better, but still very insufficient. If to that were added, personally united, that came nearer up to the full truth, but still was evasive, and short. Say, divine substance personally united with the human: that comes nearer to the point than any of the former; but still there is room for evasion, because it might mean the Father; and then it amounts to Sabellianism only, and Patripassianism. Add, therefore, that such divine substance is personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and then it is confessing three real and divine Persons in one Godhead, which is the whole truth. The several kinds of heresies which have affected this Scripture truth, are but the various wanderings of human imagination. Truth is simple and uniform, while error is almost infinite. But I return to Beryllus. The error which Beryllus unhappily split upon, was the denying a real distinction of divine Persons, as I before observed; which in direct consequence made Christ Jesus a mere man, in whom the Father dwelt. The bishops of the neighbouring sees were alarmed at the doctrine, and met in synod to condemn the heresy, and the teacher of it. But the great Origen being called in to debate and clear the point in question, Beryllus was made sensible of his error, and being a person of a pious and an humble mind, he honestly retracted it: and it is farther to be observed, that he loved his instructor Origen ever after, and was sincerely thankful to him k for affording him so much new light (new to him) in a question of the greatest importance. A rare example of godly sincerity, and true Christian humility. His mistake had shown some weakness of judgment; but his recovery manifested great strength of mind, and a good command over himself and his own passions. A. D. 265. PAUL of Samosata. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was of a temper and character very different from what we have mentioned in the last article: he gave the churches fresh occasion for exerting their pious zeal in behalf of our Lord's Divinity. He was impeached for heresy in a council of Antioch, A. D. 265, and distinguished himself off at that time, and escaped without censure; but in another council, A. D. 270, he was again accused, and convicted, and thereupon deposed. He is charged by the council which condemned him, with reviving the heresy of Artemon, with denying his Lord and God, with disowning any Son of God from heaven, preaching up a detestable heresy, a i Euseb. E. H. lib. vi. c. 33. * Hieronym. Eccles. Script. lxx. p. 138. edit. Fabric. damnable doctrine, and the like'. The sum of his heresy, upon comparing the best accounts, appears to be this: that there is but one real Person in the Godhead, viz. the Father m; that the Logos is a mere attribute, quality, power, or operation, nothing real and substantial"; and that Christ, as it follows of consequence, is a mere mano. His scheme appears to have been, in substance, little dif ferent from the Sabellian P: but the stress of the charge against him rested upon this, that he had denied his Lord's Divinity; and therefore his heresy was called, like Theodotus's and Artemon's before, the God-denying wickedness 9. A. D. 317. ARIUS. I cannot well conclude this view of antiquity, with respect to the heresies against Christ's Divinity, without throwing in a word or two about the famous Arius, and his condemnation for proclaiming God the Son a creature, therein denying his Lord's real and proper Divinity, as much as any before him. Alexander, then Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle to the other Alexander of Byzantium, or Constantinople, (about A. D. 321.) charges the Arians with denying their Saviour's Divinity, and with reviving the heresy of Ebion, Artemon, and Paul of Samosatas. Not that the Arian scheme was exactly the same with any of those three, (for there are degrees of variation from truth, and many wrong ways to one right,) but it fell in with them all in the main thing, and in which the principal malignity of their heresies consisted, namely, in 1 Euseb. E. H. lib. vii. c. 30. m Vid. Athanas. contr. Apollinar. p. 942. Epiphan. Hær. lxv. 1. 3. Epiphan. Hær. lxv. 1. Philastr. Ixiv. p. 126. • Euseb. E. H. lib. vii. c. 27. Theodorit. Hæret. Fab. lib. ii. p. 223. Au gustin. Hær. 44. Damascen. Hæres. lxv. P See my First Defence, vol. i. Query xxiii. p. 249. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 423. Dr. Berriman's Historical Account, p. 144, &c. ¶ 'Agmoidros xaxía. Euseb. lib. vii. c. 29. ▾ Theodorit. Eccl. Hist. cap. iv. p. 9. edit. Vales. Theodorit. ibid. p. 14. the rejecting the true Godhead of Christ. I shall say nothing of the synodical censures passed upon Arius and his adherents, at the first opening of the heresy. In the year 325 he was condemned, in more solemn form, by the famous Council of Nice, by three hundred and eighteen bishops called from all parts of the Christian world, seventeen only of the number scrupling it for a time, and at last two only or three dissenting. They condemned his sentiments, as amounting to impiety, madness, blasphemy, such as they almost trembled to heart; which appears by the Council's letter after his condemnation. Their sentence in that cause carried the greater weight in it, as the Council was general, called together out of Europe, Asia, and Africa, from all parts of the empire"; as it was upon the matter free, and under no secular awe or influences; and lastly, as it was made up of the wisest, worthiest, and every way excellent prelates which the Christian world could then furnish. The determination of so venerable a council gave a considerable check to Arianism, and always carried great force with it; though it did not so quash the controversy as finally to put an end to it, any more than the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem y (A. D. 49.) put an end to the dispute about the necessity of imposing circumcision 2. But as that first council had its use in the Church, and very great use, notwithstanding the repeated oppositions made to it, so had this other also, and has to this day. Divine wisdom has appointed no certain effective remedies for the perverseness of man, but has provided sufficient means for the instruction and direction of the humble and modest, and well designing. Some persons have suggested, that the Council of Ariminum, (held in 359,) consisting of four hundred bishops ε"Απαντα ἀναθεμάτισεν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος, οὐδὲ ὅσον ἀκοῦσαι τῆς ἀσεβοῦς δόξης, ἢ ἀπονοίας, καὶ τῶν βλασφήμων ῥημάτων ἀνασχομένη. Apud Socr. lib. i. c. 9. "Euseb. de Vit. Constantin. lib. iii. c. 7. Ibid. lib. iii. c. 9. y Acts xv. 2 See Buddæus, Eccl. Apost. p. 114, 294, &c. or more a, may properly be mentioned on the other side, as a counterbalance to the Council of Nice: but there is no comparison betwixt them, when the circumstances are duly considered. For, 1. the Council of Rimini, or Ariminum, was not general, being of the west only. 2. It was not free, being greatly menaced, distressed, and overawed by the Emperor Constantius b. 3. Out of the number of four hundred, there were but eighty Arians, at the utmost: the other three hundred and twenty, or more, were really orthodox men, induced by artifices to subscribe a creed which they understood in a good sensed, but which, being worded in general terms, was capable of being perverted to a bad one. The deep dissimulation, at that time used by the Arian managers, procured them the advantage only of a short-lived triumph. For no sooner did the orthodox side perceive how they had been imposed upon, and what use was to be made of it, but they declared to the world their own good meaning, and the perfidiousness of the opposite party. But of this I have treated more largely elsewhere. It was of that time that St. Jerome speaks, when he pleasantly says, that the "whole Christian world groaned," (viz. under the slander thrown upon them by their adversaries,)" and wondered. Ito see itself become all over Arian f:" that is to say, they wondered at the assurance of the Arians, in so imposing upon the Catholics, and in representing them to be the very reverse of what they were 5. The learned Mr. Athanas. de Synod. 720, 749. Sulpic. Sever. p. 267. Socr. E. H. lib. iv. c. 17. b Athanas. ad Afros, 892, 893. Socrat. E. H. lib. ii. c. 37. Sozom. lib. iv. c. 19. Hilar. Pictav. 1242. ed. Bened. Ariani non amplius quam octoginta: reliqui nostrarum partium erant. Sulpic. Sever. lib. ii. c. 56. d Sonabant verba pietatem, et inter tanta mella præconii, nemo venenum insertum putabat. Hieron. contr. Lucifer. • See my Defence, vol. i. Query xxiv. p. 331, 332. Answer to Whitby, vol. ii. p. 223. Compare Berriman's Histor. Account, p. 228, &c. f Ingenuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est. Hieronym. contr. Lucifer. p. 300. s Concurrebant Episcopi, qui Ariminensibus dolis irretiti, sine conscientia |
