the Father; yet not by nature, but only by grace. The leaders of this party were George of Laodicea, and Basil of Ancyra.2 The latter, who were also called pure Arians, Aëtians3, and Erucontians, contended that Christ was ἑτεροούσιος or ἁνόμοιος, i. e. dissimilar, both in essence and in other respects, to the Father.5 Under each of these classes there were other subordinate sects, whose subtleties and refinements have been but obscurely developed by the ancient writers. This discord among the Arians was as injurious to their cause, as the confutations and the zeal of the orthodox.

§ 17. Unhappily the Arian contests produced, as was very natural, some new sects. Some persons, eager to avoid and overthrow the opinions of Arius, fell into opinions equally dangerous. Others, after treading in the footsteps of Arius, ventured on far beyond him, and exceeded his offences. The human mind, weak, powerless, and subject to the control of the senses and the imagination, seldom exerts all its energies to comprehend

2 See Prud. Maran, Dissert. sur les Semi-Ariens; which has been reprinted by Joh. Voigt, in Biblioth. Hæresiolog. tom. ii. p. 119, &c. [The Semi-Arians were also called moderate Arians; and Eusebians, because the Eusebiuses, especially the one of Cæsarea, supported this party; and Homœousians, from the word duolovσios, which was, as it were, their symbol. George of Laodicea was a native of Alexandria, and a very learned man. He had personal difficulties with bishop Alexander, and obtained the bishopric of Laodicea, through the Eusebian party, to which he devoted himself. Basil, bishop of Ancyra, had the reputation of an upright and learned man, and was in great favour with the emperor Constantius. He can be taxed with no other fault, than that of not tolerating the word ὁμοούσιος. He drew on himself much persecution by his zealous opposition to Photinus and to the genuine Arians; and was deprived of his office by the Acacians. Schl.]

tioch; but the Semi-Arians and the
orthodox hated him, and he was de-
posed and banished in the reign of
Constantius. Julian recalled him, and
gave him a bishopric. He had the sur-
name of the Atheist. Socrates, H. E. i.
c. 35.
Sozomen, H. E. iii. c. 15, &c. ;
and iv. c. 23. Schl.]

[This name is derived from the Greek words e ouк oνTwv. They said, that the Son of God might indeed be called God, and the Word of God; but only in a sense consistent with his having been brought forth ouk ŏVTwv [from non-existences]; that is, that he was one of those things which once had no existence; and, of course, that he was properly a creature, and was once a nonentity. Schl.]

5 See Ja. Basnage, Diss. de Eunomio, in Henr. Canisius, Lectiones Antiquæ, tom. i. p. 172, &c., where are extant the creed and an apology of Eunomius. See also J. Alb. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Gr. vol. viii. p. 100-148; and Codex Theodos. tom. vi. p. 147, 155, 157, 167, 200. &c. [Eunomius, a Cappadocian, was a scholar of Aëtius, and was made bishop of Cyzicum by his partizans. But he was soon displaced, and his whole life was full of unpleasant occurrences. was peculiarly lucid in his style, and his writings are, on that account, the most valuable documents for the history of Arianism. Schl.-See note, p. 333. Tr.]

He

divine subjects, in such a manner as to be duly guarded against extremes. To the former class I would refer Apollinaris the younger, bishop of Laodicea, though otherwise a man of great merit, and one who in various ways rendered important service to the church. He manfully asserted the divinity of Christ, against the Arians; but by philosophizing too freely and too eagerly, he almost set aside his humanity. He maintained, that Christ assumed only a human body, endowed with a sentient soul, but not possessed of intellect; and that the divine nature in Christ did the office of a rational soul or mind': whence it seemed to follow, that the divine nature became mingled with the humans, and with the human nature suffered pain and death. This great man was led astray, not merely by the ardour of debate, but likewise by his immoderate attachment to the Platonic doctrine concerning a two-fold soul; from which, if the divines of that age had been free, they would have formed more wise and more correct judgments on many points. Some among the ancients note other errors besides this in Apollinaris, but how much credit is due to them may be doubted. The doctrine

6 [See a sketch of his life and writings, above, p. 331, note. Tr.]

7

[Apollinaris believed that Christ had no need of a rational soul, because the divine nature was competent to all the rational and free acts which the Saviour performed; and he could see no reason why Christ must have had two intelligent natures and two free wills. He supposed further, that a rational human soul, as it was the seat of sinful acts, was liable to moral changes; and therefore Christ, if he had possessed a rational human soul, could not have had an unchangeable, that is, a sinless, human nature. And he supported his opinion by the many passages of Scripture which speak of Christ's becoming man, in which only the word σapt, flesh, is used for the human nature; e. g. John i. 14. These arguments needed an answer; but his opposers replied to them very imperfectly. They showed, indeed, from the Bible, that Christ had a rational human soul. But their proof was defective in this, that they did not show, that by the word ux, in the Scriptures, must necessarily be understood a rational soul. And what they brought forward beside this, were either the bad consequences that would follow,

9

or occasions for logomachy, which rather retarded than furthered the discovery of truth. See Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 186, &c. Schl.]

8 [This consequence, however, Apollinaris did not admit. He was indeed accused of denying the actual distinction of the two natures, and of holding to such a confusion of them, as Eutyches afterwards maintained. But he rejected the term mixture; and expressly taught, that he did not subvert the doctrine of two distinct natures in Christ, but that the divinity remained divine, and the flesh remained flesh. See Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 193, &c. Schl.]

See J. Basnage, Historia Haresis Apollinaris; which is republished with some learned editions, by Jo. Voigt, Biblioth. Haresiologica, tom. i. fascic. i. p. 1-96. See also ibid. tom. i. fascic. iii. p. 607. The laws against the Apollinarians are extant in the Coder Theodos. tom. vi. p. 144, &c. See likewise (Chaufepie,) Nouveau Dictionnaire Hist. et Crit. tom. i. p. 304, &c. ["See an account of Apollinaris, and his heresy, in the English edition of Bayle's Dictionary, at the article Apollinaris." Macl.-Concerning this sect, Dr. Walch has treated most solidly, and with the

of Apollinaris met the approbation of many, in nearly all the eastern provinces; and being explained in different ways, it became the source of new sects. But as it was assailed by the laws of the emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of learned men, it gradually sank under these united assaults.

§ 18. In the same class must be reckoned Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia1; if confidence may be placed in Eusebius of Cæsarea, and in his other adversaries, who tell us, that he so explained the mystery of the holy Trinity, as to fall into the Sabellian and Samosatenian errors. Yet there are many who think, that both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Cæsarea unfairly represent his sentiments, because he gave offence by the severity of his attacks upon the Arians and upon the bishops who favoured them. But, admitting that his accusers were influenced in some respects by their hatred of the man, yet it is certain that their accusations were not altogether groundless. For it appears, from a careful examination of the whole subject, that Marcellus considered the Son and the Holy Spirit as two emanations from the divine nature, which, after performing their

application of impartial criticism, in his Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 119-229. Schl.]

1

[This Marcellus was a person of weight in the Nicene council, and there opposed the Arians with a zeal and energy which procured him praise from his own party, and hatred and obloquy from the opposite side. (See Epiphanius, Hares. lxxii. c. 2. Athanas.

he was recognized as orthodox, and as a sufferer for the truth. On the other hand, the eastern bishops persevered in their criminations of him. In the year 347, the western bishops at the council of Sardica again pronounced him innocent. But when Photinus, a pupil of Marcellus, commenced his disturbance, Athanasius now first threw out some suspicions, that his doctrine was not pure; but he soon dropped them. Basil the Great, however, was more decided in his opposition to Marcellus, and held him to be actually a heretic. Yet he afterwards acknowledged himself in the wrong. Marcellus and his friends took pains to procure testimony, from influential men and from churches, to their orthodoxy; and they were not unsuccessful. Marcellus was, in reality, not without considerable learning; but his judgment was weak, and he had the habit of talking at random, and was at the same time very bitter against his antagonists. It is, therefore, not only possible, but also very probable, that he often let drop faulty expressions, which in the view of his enemies contained dangerous errors. See Walch, Historie der

Apolog. contra Arian. tom. i. pt. ii. p. 135, 150, and Constantine, Epistt. Pontiff. p. 379. 383.) Asterius, a defender of the Arian doctrine, attacked him in writing, and accused him of Sabellianism. Marcellus in reply wrote a book to defend the true doctrine respecting the subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father. In the year 336, the Arian bishops assembled at Constantinople deposed him, as one convicted of the Sabellian or Samosatenian heresy, and elected Basil in his place. After the death of Constantius, he recovered his see; but lost it again almost immediately, as the Eusebians again got the ascendency. He now fled to Rome, and exhibited a confession of his faith to the bishop Julius, by whom, with the other bishops of the Athanasian party assembled at Rome, Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 232, &c. Schl.]

respective offices, were to return back into the substance of the Father: and whoever believed so, could not, without self-contradiction, hold the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to differ from each other in the manner of distinct persons. Marcellus increased the odium and suspicions against him, by refusing, in the last years of his life, to condemn Photinus his disciple.3

§ 19. At the head of those whom the contests with Arius led into still greater errors, may undoubtedly be placed Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, who, in the year 343, advanced opinions concerning God equally remote from those of the orthodox and those of the Arians. On well considering what the ancients have stated without much perspicuity or uniformity, it appears, that he supposed Jesus Christ to have been born of the virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit; that with this extraordinary man, a certain divine emanation, which he called the Word, became united; that, on account of this union of the Word with the man Jesus, he was called the Son of God, and also God; and that the Holy Spirit was a virtue or energy, proceeding from God, and not a person. The temerity of the man was chastised,

2 [It is nevertheless uncertain, whether Marcellus really denied the personal distinctions in the Trinity. The accusations of his opposers are not credible evidence in this case. Marcellus and his friends constantly denied that they were Sabellians. He denied, indeed, that they were three ὑποστάσεις, affirming that there was but one úпóστaσis. But this word had then so indeterminate a meaning, that nothing certain can be inferred from it. For it denoted, sometimes, what we should call substance; and at other times, was equivalent to person. Dr. Walch, ubi supra, p. 290, thinks it probable, as Marcellus always strenuously contended, and with justice, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are adiapér@s and axwpioтws, (inseparably) united, he must have regarded the word úrboTaos as equivalent to the phrase vooraris dieσTwoα, a different substance. Yet clearly he often used unsuitable descriptions and comparisons respecting the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; and such as seem to show, that he understood by these persons only certain attributes and acts of God. But perhaps these were only unfortunate expressions, VOL. I.

or errors of the moment, from which he would give back, when the heat of contest subsided. Schl.]

9 See Bernh. de Montfaucon, Diatribe de caussa Marcelli; in the Nova Collectio Patrum Græcor. tom. ii. p. 51, &c. [republished with some notes, by Voigt, Biblioth. Haresiolog. vol. i. fascic. ii. p. 297. Schl.] and Ja. Gervaise, Vie de S. Epiphane, p. 42, &c. [Add also, Walch, Hist. der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 229-299, and Chr. Hen. Vogel's Disputation at Göttingen, 1757, de Marcello Ancyræ Episcopo. Schl.]

4

[Yet Photinus was not a native of Sirmium, as some have supposed, being misled by a faulty Latin version of a passage in Epiphanius, de Hares. lxxi. § 1. He was rather a Galatian, (Jerome, de Viris Illustr. c. 107, and Socrates, H. E. ii. c. 18,) and most probably of Ancyra. He was an author; but his writings are lost. And he was eloquent, and had an excellent faculty at securing the affections and making proselytes among his hearers. See Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 9, &c. Schl.]

D D

5 [To give a more distinct view of the opinions of Photinus, we will here state them as they are arranged by Dr.

not only by the orthodox, in their councils of Antioch, A.D. 345, of Milan, A.D. 347, and of Sirmium, but also by the Arians, in a council held at Sirmium, A. D. 351. He was deprived of his office, and died in exile in the year 372.7

§ 20. After him Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, a distinguished Semi-Arian teacher, being deprived of his office, through the influence of the Eunomians, by the council of Constantinople, in the year 360, founded in his exile the sect