that Christ was a mere man; but that the Reason or Wisdom of the Father descended into him, and by him wrought miracles upon earth, and instructed the nations; and finally, that, on account of this union of the Divine Word with the man Jesus, Christ might, though improperly, be called God.' Several councils were called in consequence of this spiritual wickedness in high places; and although the rhetoric and sophistry of Paulus for a time baffled his opponents, he was finally condemned by the Council of Antioch (A.D. 264), and dispossessed of his bishoprick by Aurelian (A.D. 272), after having held it, in spite of condemnation, by the aid of Zenobia1. The controversies, which these various errors gave rise to, naturally tended to unsettle men's minds, to introduce strife about words, and so paved the way for the most formidable heresy that has probably ever disturbed the Christian Church. Arius, a native of Antioch, but a presbyter of Alexandria, began by charging his bishop, Alexander, with Sabellianism. It is most probable that, as his predecessor Dionysius, in his zeal against Sabellianism, had been betrayed into incautious expressions, seeming to derogate from the dignity of Christ's Divine nature; so Alexander, in his zeal to maintain that dignity, may have used language not unlike the language of the Patripassians. There is no doubt, however, that he was a sound believer in the Trinity. Arius was, from this beginning, led on to propound, and mould into shape, his own dangerous heresy. It was unlike the heresy of any of his predecessors. For though some of them may have been mere humanitarians; those, who held that the Logos dwelt in Christ, held that Logos to be either God, or an emanation from God, and so in some sense co-eternal and consubstantial. Arius, on the contrary, held that there was a time when the Son of God was not 1 See Mosheim, Cent. III. Pt. II. ch. v. § 15; Newman's Arians; Burton's Bampton Lectures, Note 103. (v TÓTE оTE Oúk v), and that He was created by God, of a substance which once was not (ɧ ovk övтwv). They called Him by the name of God, and allowed to Him, in terms, all the attributes of God; but denied that He was homo-ousios, of one Substance with the Father', or in any sense one with Him. The true Logos they esteemed to be merely the Wisdom, an attribute of God; but the Son they held to have been created before all worlds, and so far enlightened by the Wisdom of God, that He might, though improperly, be called the Logos, and that by Him God made the world. They said of Him, that before He was created or begotten, He did not exist (piv yeνvnen, οὐκ ἦν), and they explained the title of μονογενής, Only Begotten, as though it meant Begotten by God alone, yevun eis παρὰ μόνον2. Here we see a second and created God introduced into the Christian Theology. The Patripassians, on the one hand, had denied the Trinity of Persons; the Valentinians and Manichees, on the contrary, are accused of saying that there were three unconnected, independent Beings in the Godhead3. But Arianism taught distinctly the existence of one, or two, beings who were to be worshipped, as God, and yet were neither one with, nor of the same nature with the Father. The inevitable tendency of this was either to direct Polytheism, or more probably and naturally to Humanitarianism1. The Council of Nice, consisting of 318 bishops, was summoned in 325 by Constantine the Great; which condemned Arianism, established the doctrine of the homo-ousion (i. e. that 1 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 1. p. 135. (fol. Lond. 1723.) 2 This was the fallacy of Eunomius. See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. II. p. 138. 3 The Apostolical Canons mention and condemn certain persons who baptized in the name of three unoriginated principles, rpeis dvápxovs. Can. Apost. c. 49. And the first Council of Bracara says that the Gnostics and Priscillianists introduced a Trinity of Trinities. See Bingham, B. xi. ch. II. § 4. 4 See Newman's Arians, ch. II. § v. the Son was consubstantial with the Father), and drew up the There those who symbolized with them-the Anomoans, and Eunomians, and Semi-Arians-appear to have held that the Holy Ghost, like the Son, was a created being. Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, whose followers were called Macedonians, or Pneumatomachi, seems to have been more orthodox on the Person of the Son; but to have esteemed, like the Arians, that the Holy Ghost was a creature'. This heresy was condemned at the second General Council at Constantinople, A. D. 381; 1 Macedoniani sunt a Macedonio Constantinopolitanæ ecclesiæ episcopo, quos et IIvevμaroμáxovs Græci dicunt, eo quod de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de Patre et Filio recte sentiunt, quod unius est ejusdemque substantiæ, vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu Sancto hoc nolunt credere, creaturam Eum esse dicentes. S. August. Hæres. 52. See Pearson, On the Creed, p. 316, Note, Art. vIII. which added to the Nicene Creed the clauses which follow I believe in the Holy Ghost'.' With this Council the struggles between the Catholics and the Arians ended. Arianism thenceforth became a heresy excommunicated, and detached from the Church2. It found refuge for some time with the Gothic invaders of the Empire, who persecuted the Catholics; but at length declined and became extinct. After this, we hear of a sect of Tritheists in the sixth century, the principal defender of whose doctrine was Philoponus of Alexandria3. The discussions between the Nominalists and Realists of the middle ages often led to something like erroneous statements of the Trinitarian question; but these are scarcely deserving much consideration here. After the Reformation, when freedom of opinion was introduced, and an unsettled state of mind naturally sprang from violent changes, several heretics arose, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus, a Spaniard, in 1531, taught a doctrine like that of the low or emanative Sabellians; that Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was united to one of the two personal representations or modes of existence, which God, before the world, had produced within Himself. He was apprehended by Calvin, on his way through Geneva, and put to death1. Several other sects of Arians and Anti-Trinitarians arose about this time; some of which took refuge in Poland, as the country of most religious liberty. They called themselves Unitarians. In the Cracow Catechism, which they published as their confession of faith, they plainly deny the Divinity of the 1 With the exception of course of the famous 'Filioque.' 2 Much information on the terms of the controversy may be found by turning to the words Τριάς, ὑπόστασις, οὐσία, ὁμοούσιος, Ἄρειος, Ημιάρειος, Πνεῦμα (e), πνευματόμαχος, &c., in Suicer's Thesaurus. 3 See Suicer, s. v. Tpileirai, and Mosheim, Cent. vI. Pt. II. ch. v. § 10. 4 Mosheim, Cent. xvI. § 3, Pt. II. ch. IV. Son and of the Spirit, making Jesus Christ but a prophet of God. In the mean time, Lælius and Faustus Socinus constructed the system which bears their name. They were natives of Tuscany, which they left from hatred to Romanism; and Faustus, after his uncle's death, joined the Unitarians of Poland, and there taught his doctrines, which soon spread into Hungary, Holland, and England. He professed that Luther had begun, but that he would perfect the Reformation; which was incomplete, whilst any doctrine, which Rome had held, remained to be believed. His fundamental error was, that Scripture should be received as truth, but be made to bend to reason. He taught that Jesus was born of a virgin, and having been translated to heaven, was instructed in God's will, and endued with that portion of the Divine power, called the Holy Ghost. He then came down as a teacher of righteousness. Those who obey him shall be saved. The disobedient shall be tormented for a time, and then annihilated. In a certain sense, Socinus allowed Christ to be called God, and worshipped. But his followers have generally looked on Him as a mere man, following herein that sect of Socinians, whose first leader was Budnæus1. In the Reformed Church of England, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, Mr. Whiston, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, adopted and maintained the Arian doctrine, or a slight modification of it. And Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of learning and unblemished character, maintained the subordination of the Persons in the Godhead in so objectionable a form, as to lay himself open to the charge of Arianism, or semiArianism. The masterly works of Waterland on the Trinity were many of them called forth by the unsound views of Dr. Clarke. 1 Mosheim, Cent. XVI. § 3, Pt. II. ch. IV.; also Cent. XVII. § 2, Pt. II. ch. VI. |