13. After the middle of the century appeared Sabellius, an African presbyter or bishop, at Ptolemais, the principal city in Pentapolis, a province of Libya Cyrenaica. He explained what the scriptures teach concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in a manner somewhat different from Noëtus, and gathered a number of followers, although he was confuted by Dionysius of Alexandria. Noëtus had supposed that God the Father, personally, assumed the human nature of Christ; but Sabellius held that only a certain energy put forth by the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine nature being separated from it, became united with the Son or the man Christ. And the Holy Spirit he considered as being a similar portion or part of the eternal Father. Hence it appears that the Sabel views than the Socinians. So far as relates to two lians must have been denominated by the ancients Patripassians, in a different sense of the word from that in which the Noëtians were so called. Yet the appellation was not wholly improper. 14. Nearly at the same time [about A.D. 244], Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, a pious and learned man, taught that Christ before his birth of the Virgin had no distinct divinity, but only that of the Father. This proposition, if we duly consider what is reported concerning him by the ancients, contained the following sentiment: that Christ had no existence before he was born of Mary; that at his birth, a soul, originating from God himself, and therefore superior to the souls of all men, being a particle of the divine nature, entered into and was united with the man. Beryllus was so lucidly and energetically confuted by Origen in a council assembled at Bostra [A.D. 244], that he gave up the cause, and returnd into the bosom of the church.2 15. Very different from him, both in a Unitarian, as respects the doctrine of three persons; but in regard to the character of Christ, he held better natures united in one person in Christ, he agreed with the orthodox; but the divine person which was united with the human nature, according to Noëtus' views, was no other than the person of the Father, because there was no other person in the Godhead. See Mos- how his opposers could infer that he admitted but one heim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. pages 681-687; and distinction under three different names. The greatest Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. pages 1-13.-Schl. difficulty is in this, that according to some representa1 Most of the ancients who wrote against the heretics, tions, Sabellius taught there was a difference or separaspeak of Sabellius [especially Epiphanius, Hares. Ixii. tion (Siaiperi) between the Father, Son, and Holy and Theodoret, Haret. Fabul. lib. ii. cap. ix.] To Ghost; but according to other accounts, he maintained these add Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. vi.; Atha- such a unity as was inconsistent with it. This diffinasius, De Sententia Dionysii [and Basil the Great, culty is the most easily surmounted, by supposing the Ep. 210 and 235.] Nearly all that is written by the former to refer to an imagined or conceived distinction, ancients has been collected by Wormius in his Historia and not any real one. Such are Walch's views of the Sabelliana, Francf. and Lips. 1696, 8vo, a learned work, Sabellian system [and very similar are those of Neanonly a small part of which relates to Sabellius. [See der, Kirchengesch. vol. i. part iii. pages 1018-1025.] Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. pages 688-699; Walch thinks that Sabellius ought not to be called a Beausobre, Histoire de Manichée &c. tome 1. p. 533, Patripassian, for these held Christ to be one person, in &c.; Lardner, Credibility of the Gos. Hist. part ii. vol. whom two natures were personally united; and believed iv. p. 558, &c. and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. that, not the divine nature of the Son, as a person, but pages 14-49. The last of these differs somewhat from the divine nature of the Father, who was the only perMosheim in his description of the Sabellian doctrine. son, was united with the human nature in Christ. Now He states it thus:-the ancients one and all say that the as Sabellius held the Son to be no real part of the Sabellian system marred the true doctrine concerning Father, and still less held to a personal union of two God, and concerning all the three persons. It was one natures in Christ, he cannot truly be called a Patriof two directly opposite errors of which Arianism was passian. According to Sabellius' opinion, Christ was the other; and the true doctrine occupied the middle à mere man, in whom resided a divine power that proground between them. Indeed Arius, by pushing his duced those effects which we regard as the acts of the opposition to Sabellius too far, was led into his error. divine nature united to the human. Among the opIt hence follows that Sabellius, who did not deny the posers of Sabellius, Dionysius of Alexandria attracted existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, made too the most notice. Yet the opposition made by this little distinction between them, while Arius made the bishop was not satisfactory to all. Offensive passages distinction too wide. It is clear that Sabellius acknow- were found in his epistles against the Sabellians. As ledged but one person, and considered the Son of God he there brought forward the doctrine of Christ's incaras not being a distinct person; so that he could not nation, and from that deduced his proof of the real have taught a personal distinction in the Trinity. By distinction between the Father and the Son, he was the Word (Aóyos) Sabellius understood an energy, by understood as holding that the Son, in so far as he was which the man Christ performed his works. So long a divine being, was a created one, or as denying that as Christ remained on earth, this divine energy was in the Father and the Son were of the same essence. him, but afterwards it ceased. It was therefore like a Dionysius defended himself, and showed that he had sunbeam, which operates on bodies and produces the been misunderstood. Notwithstanding this the Arians effects of the sun, without being itself a person. So after his death claimed him as on their side, which also is it with the Holy Ghost, by which we are to un- obliged Athanasius to vindicate the reputation of DioStill there continued to be some derstand the operations of God in men, tending to fur- nysius against them. ther their knowledge of the truth and their advancement to whom this defence appeared insufficient-Basil the in virtue. The manner of God's putting forth his Great is an example. There can be no doubt that Dioenergy, by which the Son was produced, and by which nysius thought with Athanasius in regard to the Trithe Holy Ghost is still produced and continued, the nity, but he used the language of Arius. In regard to ancients expressed by the words, to spread out or ex- the person of Christ, he expressed himself in the mantend (λarúverbal, protendere, extendere), to send forth ner of Nestorius, for he carried the distinction between (TéμTEσbai), and to transform, or change one's form and the divine and the human natures of Christ so far as appearance (ueтаuорpeiotaι, μETAσ nμATÍČεIV). From wholly to exclude the former from a participation in what has now been stated, it may be perceived how Sa- those changes in the latter which were the result of the See Walch, Hist. bollius could have taught the existence of three forms personal union of the two natures. or aspects (Tpía mрóowna) in the divine essence, without der Ketzer. vol. II. pages 50-63.- Schl. admitting the reality of three different persons; and 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xx. and xxxiii.; 2 morals and in sentiment, was Paul of Samo- | ambiguous forms of speech, that repeated sata, a bishop of Antioch [in Syria], and at ecclesiastical councils were wholly unable the same time clothed with the civil office to convict him; but at last in the council' of a ducenarius. He was an ostentatious assembled A. D. 269, Malchion, a rhetoriman, opulent and arrogant; and greatly cian, drew him from his concealment, and disquieted the eastern church soon after the he was convicted and divested of his epismiddle of this century, by his novel expla- copal office.3 nations of the doctrine concerning the divine nature and concerning Christ. The sect which embraced his opinions were called Paulians or Paulianists. So far as can be judged from the accounts which have reached us, he supposed the Son and the Holy Spirit to exist in God, just as reason and the active power do in man; that Christ was born a mere man; but that the wisdom or reason (λóyos) of the Father desended into him and enabled him to teach and work miracles; that on account of this union of the divine Word (Aóyos) with the man Christ, we might say Christ was God, though not in the proper sense of the word. He so concealed his real sentiments under 16. In a very different way some obscure philosophers in Arabia, the disciples of a man unknown, marred a part of the Christian system. They denied the soul to be immortal, maintaining that it died with the body, and that it would be resuscitated with it by the power of God.* The believers in this doctrine were called Arabians, from the country in which they lived. Origen, being sent for from Egypt, disputed against them with such success in a full council, that they renounced their error. 17. Among the sects which arose in this century, that of the Novatians is placed last. They did not indeed corrupt the doctrines of Christianity, but by the severity of the discipline to which they adhered, Jerome, De Viris Illustr. cap. Ix.; Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. vii. Among the moderns; see Le Clerc, Ars Critica, tom. i. par. ii. sec. i. cap. xiv.; Chauffepić. Nouveau Dictionnaire Hist. Crit. tome i. p. 268, &c. [See Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. p. 699, &c. and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. pages 126-278. See also Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. 136. Walch does not place Beryllus among the heretics, because he is not chargeable with obstinacy in his errors, nor with establishing a sect or party; both of which are necessary to constitute a heretic. Mosheim's assertion that Beryllus represented Christ as possessing a soul derived from the divine essence, is a mere conjecture that cannot be supported by proof.-Schl. [Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. i. part iii. p. 1014, &c. places Beryllus among that class of Patripassians who considered the personality of the Son of God as originating from a radiation or emanation from the essence of God into a human body. He therefore places Beryllus and Sabellius in the same class.-Mur. 1 The ducenarii were a species of procurators for the emperors in the provinces, whose salary was two hundred sestertia [ducena sestertia, equal to above £1600 Ster.] from which sum these officers derived their title. See Dion Cassius, lib. liii.; Suetonius, Claudian, cap. xxiv. and Salmasius, Notes on Capitolinus, Pertinax, p. 125. From Seller's Antiquities of Palmyra, Lond. 1696, 8vo, p. 166, &c. it appears that this office was much used in the province of Syria, and Mosheim conjectures (Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. p. 705) that Paul obtained it by means of Zenobia, who had a high esteem for him.- Schl. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. cap. xxx. [Euse bius here gives copious extracts from the circular letter of the council, which condemned Paul and ordained Domnus his successor. The council characterize Paul as having risen from poverty to opulence, by extortion and bribery; as proud, and insolent, and ostentatious; as choosing to be addressed by his civil title, and appearing in public attended by guards and all the splendour of worldly rank; as abusing authority as an officer in the church; as Intolerably vain, and coveting the adulations of the multitude; as decrying the fathers of the church, exalting himself, and abolishing the hymns in common use, and appointing women to sing psalms in praise of himself; as sending out bishops and presbyters to sound his praise, and to extol him as an angel from heaven; as keeping several young and handsome women near his person, whom he enriched with presents, and as living in luxury with them. How much of colouring there may be in this picture we have not the means of determining. But there can be little doubt the character of Paul was such as did not become a bishop-Mur. 3 See Epistola Concilii Antiocheni ad Paulum, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, tom. xi. p. 302, ed. Paris, 1644, fol. and Dionysius Alexandrinus, Ep. ad Paulum, ibid. p. 273, and Decem Pauli Samosateni Quæstiones, ibid. p. pages 701-718, and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. p. pages 64-125. From the last writer we extract the following, to give a more full and correct view of the Samosatenian doctrines:-1. Paul of Samosata_taught that there is but one God, who in the scriptures is denominated the Father. 2. He did not deny that the Scriptures speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 3. What he understood by the Holy Ghost we do not know; and Mosheim has attempted to supply this defect by a mere conjecture. 4. Concerning the Word and the Wisdom of God, he has spoken largely; but whether he distinguished between the Word in God (Aóyos évdiábeтOS) and the Word produced from God (Aóyos πроdоpuòs), is doubtful. 5. This Word or Wisdom in God is not a substance or a person. 6. But it is in the divine mind, as reason is in men. 7. Christ was a mere man. 8. He first began to exist when he was born of Mary. 9. Yet in this man dwelt the divine Word or Wisdom, and it was operative in him. 10. The union commenced when Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary. 11. By means of this Wisdom of God in him, Christ gradually acquired his knowledge and his practical virtues. By it he became at once God and the Son of God, yet both in an improper sense of the terms. From this account it appears that Photian in the next age came very near to Paul of Samosata, not indeed in his statements and expressions, but rather in his grand error, that Christ was a mere man, and superior to other men only on account of his pre-eminent gifts.- Schl. [Sec Neander, Kirchenges. vol. i. part ii. pages 1007-14.-Mur. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xxxvii. [See Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. p. 718, and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. pages 167-171. As Eusebius, who is the only witness we have in regard to this sect, gives a very brief account of them, the learned in modern times have entertained two opinions concerning their system. Some suppose they held that the soul, though immaterial, sleeps while the body is in the grave; which however the words of Eusebius seem to contradict, for they describe the soul as dying, and being dissolved, with the body, ovvanovýσKELY TOTS σwμAσ kai ovvdiapteipcolai. Others suppose, more correctly, that they were Christian materialists, who regarded the soul as being a part of the body. And Mosheim conJectures that their error originated from their combin |ing the Epicurean philosophy with Christianity.-Sch they produced a lamentable schism. No 18. Respecting the fundamental articles vatian,' a presbyter in the church of Rome, of the Christian faith, there was no disaa man of learning and eloquence, but of agreement between the Novatians and other stern and austere character, 2 maintained Christians. Their peculiarity was, that that such as had fallen into the more heinous they would not receive into the church persins, and especially such as had denied sons who, after being baptized, fell into the Christ during the Decian persecution, ought greater sins. They did not, however, exnever to be admitted again to the church. clude them from all hopes of eternal salvaMost of the other presbyters as well as tion. They considered the Christian church Cornelius, whose influence was very great, as a society of innocent persons, who from were of a different opinion. Hence in the their entrance into it had defiled themyear 250, when a new bishop was to be selves with no sin of any considerable magchosen at Rome in place of Fabian, Nova- nitude; and hence it followed that all tian strenuously opposed the election of associations of Christians which opened the Cornelius. Cornelius however was chosen, door for the return of gross offenders were and Novatian withdrew from communion in their view unworthy of the name of true with him. On the other hand Cornelius, churches of Christ. And hence they asin a council held at Rome A.D. 251, ex-sumed the appellation of Cathari, that is, communicated Novatian and his adherents. the pure; and what was still more, they reNovatian, therefore, founded a new sect, baptized such as came over to them from in which he was the first bishop. This sect the Catholics; for, such influence had the had many adherents who were pleased with error they embraced upon their own minds, the severity of its discipline; and it con- that they believed the baptism of those tinued to flourish in many parts of Chris-churches which re-admitted the lapsed tendom until the fifth century. The could not impart to the subjects of it reprincipal coadjutor of Novatian in this mission of sins. schism was Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage, who fled to Rome during the heat of this controversy, in order to escape the wrath and the condemnation of Cyprian his bishop, with whom he had a violent quarrel.3 1 The Greeks always write his name Novatus or Navatus; but the Latins generally write it Novatianus, perhaps to distinguish him from Novatus of Carthage, the names being really the same.-Mur. [Eusebius writes it Noονάτος. Η. 2 These traits of character he perhaps owed to the Stoic philosophy, to which some have supposed him addicted. See Walch, ubi supra p. 125.-Schl. 3 The student will find an account of this sect, and of the disturbances excited both in Carthage and Rome, in Milner's Hist. of the Church, cent. iii. chap. ix. and x.; and in Burton's Lect. on the Ecc. Hist. &c. vol. ii. P. 327, &c. But a more full and accurate detail is given by Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. pages 497 and 503, and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. p. 220, &c. -R. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. xliii.; Cyprian, in various of his epistles, as Ep. 49, 52, &c.; Albaspinæus, Observat. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. xx. xxi.; Orsi, De Crimi num Capital. inter Veteres Christ. Absolutione, p. 254, &c.; Kenckel, De Haresi Novatiana, Strasburg, 1651, 4to [also Mosheim, Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. pages 512-537, and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. pages 185-288.-Schl. [And Neander, Kirchenges. vol. 1. part i. pages 387-407.-Mur. |