i|aB Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/ariansoffourthceOOnewmrich THE ARI ANS THE FOURTH CENTURY BY JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN li Fret not thyself because of the ungoiily, neither be thou envious against the evil doers. For they shall soon 1 ■'" out down like the grass, and be witheied even as the green herb* '*;uV.thou thy trust in the LOKD, and be doing good ; dwell in the land, aiil wjrily thou shalt be fed. Psalm xxxvii. 1—3 <^^^-^ S£ VEN TH J: DITI ON. jhiveesitt: LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO, AND NEW YORK: i; EAST 16™ STREET I. 1890. St 1 5 s-o J^^S''< TO THR REV. JOHN KEBLE, FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, PKOFESSOR OF POETRV IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. FROM HIS AFFECTIONATE FRIEND A.N'D SERVANT J. n. N. A I ADVERTISEMENT. The follov/ing work was written in the early part of last year, for Messrs. Rivington's "Theological Library ;" but as it seemed, on its completion, little fitted for the objects with which that publication has been undertaken, it makes its appearance in an independent form. Some apology is due to the reader for the length of the introductory chapter, but it was intended as the opening of a more extensive under- taking. It may be added, to prevent mistake, that the theological works cited at the foot of the page, are referred to for the facts, rather than the opinions they contain; though some of them, as the " Defensio Fidei Nicenae," evince gifts, moral and intellectual, of so high a cast, as to render ii a privilege to be allowed to sit at the feet of their authors, and to receive the words, which they have been, as it were, commissioned to deliver. [October, 1833.] ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION. A VERY few words will suffice for the purpose of explain- ing in what respects the Third Edition of this Volume differs from those which preceded it. Its text has been relieved of some portion of the literary imperfections necessarily incident to a historical sketch, its author's first work, and written against time. Also, some additions have been made to the foot-notes. These are enclosed in brackets, many of them being merely references (under the abbreviation " Ath. Tr.") to his anno- tations on those theological Treatises of Athanasius, which he translated for the Oxford Library of the Fathers. A few longer Notes, for the most part extracted from other publications of his, form an Appendix. The Table of Contents, and the Chronological Table have both been enlarged. No change has been made any where affecting the opinions, sentiments, or speculations contained^ in the original edition, — though they are sometimes expressed with a boldness or decision which now displeases him ; — except that two sentences, which needlessly reflected on the modern Catholic Church, have, without hurting the context, been relegated to a place by themselves at the end of the Appendix. April, 1S71. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART I. DOCTRINAL. CHAPTER I. SCHOOLS AND PARTIES IN AND ABOUT THE ANTE-NICENB CHURCH, IN THEIR RELATION TO THE ARIAN HERESY. PAGE Section I. — The Church of Antioch . . . . i 1. Historical connexion of Arianism with the Anti- ochene School : — Paulus, Bishop of Antioch, deposed for heresy . 3 The Martyr Lucian 6 His disciples the first Arians 7 2. Judaism of Antioch : — Revival of the fortunes of the Jews .... 10 Patronized by successive Emperors. ... 10 Their influence upon the populace and the Schools of Syria . . . . . . .11 3. Quarto-decimans : — Of the Proconsulate 13 Of Syria 15 Of central Asia Minor 16 Betraying or encouraging a Judaistic spirit . . 18 4. Judaizers indirectly leading to Arianism : — Mosaic rites 19 Cerinthians and Ebionites , . . . .20 Nazarenes . o ..... 21 Corroborative facts 22 Vlll. Table of Contents, Section II. — The Schools of the Sophists 1. Disputative skill of Arians : — As of Paulus of Samosata And of the disciples of Aristotle 2. Disputation cultivated in the Christian Schools Axioms taken from logic and mathematics School of Artemas. . . . • 3. Tradition losing force : — Contempt of predecessors . . # ^ Symbol of faith indispensable . . « Unwillingness of the Church to impose It Section III. — The Church of Alexandria , 1. Its missionary and political character : — Its local position Its exoteric teaching .... Catechetical system . . . • Public preaching Relative influence of separate Gospel truths Example of Scripture to guide us . 2. The Disciplina Arcani, or secret teaching : — Scripture the storehouse, not the organ of teachi Nor Apologists an organ, as not authoritative The secret teaching consistent with the rudimen Not arbitrary, but an apostolical tradition Not derogatory to the authority of Scripture Terminating with the rise of the Councils 3. The Allegorical method : — National with the Egyptians . Adopted by Greek philosophy Natural to the human mind . Familiar to inspired writers Scripture uses of it . Safeguards necessary, canons for its use Caution of Scripture as to it . Traditionary keys for it . Alexandrian use of it , • 4. The Economy : — Used by Alexandrians in Scripture difficulties PAOK -5 tal. Table of Contents, IX. Sanctioned by St. Paul . • Exemplified by the Fathers . Theory and dangerousness of it As leading to deceit Divine economies . . Scripture economies • • False economies The Dispensation of Paganism :— Paganism in one aspect divine As found in Genesis and Job . And so taught by the Fathers Corollaries from this doctrine . As regards infidelity and apostasy And the cultivation of pagan literature Abuse of the doctrine Platonism : — Its influence on the language of theology Pagan tradition of a Trinity . Platonic Trinity .... How far adopted by the School of Philo By the Alexandrian Fathers . Instances ..... Apology for them . , For Orieen Section IV. — The Eclectic Sect , , 1. Its characteristics : — Its principla and origin . , • Ammonius, its founder . Its connexion with neologism . Its contrast with it . Later than Origen .... Though an excrescence of his school 2. Its uncongeniality with Arianism :— As mystical ..... As not disputative . • • • As not Judaic . . • • As Platonistic . . . . • Table of Contents. 3. Its serviceableness to Arianism, as opposed to theo logical mysteries .... And to formal dogmas, &c. No historical evidence of its aiding Arianism Its success in Syria Section V. — Sahellianism • I. Its history : — Its characteristic doctrine In Proconsular Asia : Noetus In Rome : Praxeas . In Africa : Sabellius In Phrygia : Montanists. First form, Patripassian . Second form, Emanative Its influence on the language Of Dionysius of Alexandria Of Gregory of Neocsesarea On the use of the Homousion Recapitulation of the whole Chapter 2. of Catholics :- III 113 114 115 116 117 117 117 118 118 121 124 125 128 129 130 CHAPTER II. THE TEACHING OF THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH IN ITS RELA- TION TO THE ARIAN HERESY. Section I. — On the principle of the formation and impo- sition of Creeds . . . . . .133 I. Knowledge of the Christian doctrine a privilege to be sought after : — As being not a subjective opinion, but the truth . 134 And reserved and concealed by the early Church . 135 From reverence . . . . . . '135 Unlike the present state of religion . Contrary temper of heresy : — For instance, in the Gnostics . , And still more, in the Arians . Examples Defenceless state of Catholics . 137 138 139 140 141 Table of Contents. xi. 3. Text of Scripture not a sufficient protection to the revealed dogma : — Implicit faith , . . . Action of the intellect upon it . The mind tranquillized thereby Attempted comprehensions Fail to secure the truth . And to make it a bond of fellowship Hence the necessity of Creeds, with what limitations Section II. — The Scripture doctrine of the Trhiity The position of the matter of evidence : — In the Old Testament commenced . Completed in the New .... Inference to be made thence . . • The word Perso?i Section III. — The Ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity 1. Our Lord considered as the Son of God :— The term " Son" denotes His derivation. . . 158 And therefore His dissimilarity to all creatures . 159 Passages from the Fathers . . . . .160 He who is born of God is God .... 161 In like manner He Is ** Radiance from the Sun'* . 162 Hence, on the other hand, a subordination of the Son to the Father 163 As explained b}^ Bull and Petavius. . , ,164 Ministration of the Son and Spirit . • , , 166 Abuse of the term " Son" . •« * * 167 Leading to materiality and ditheism . , , 167 2. Our Lord considered as the Word of God : — The term "Word" corrects the abuse of the term " Son," as teaching His co-eternity with God . 169 An-d His office of mediation 169 Passages from the Fathers . . , . .170 k Abuse of the term '^ Word" 171 3. Our Lord considered " of God" and "in God :" 171-2 Passages from the Fathers 173 PAGB 144 146 148 149 153 ?cii. Table of Contents, Passages. . . . . • The "of God" is the " monarchia" Passages . , . Section IV. — Variations in the Ante-Nicene Theological Statements 1. The term " Ingenerate: " — Applied to God ; whether to be predicated of the Son The Anomoean controversy . . . 2. The " Unoriginate :"— Whether to be predicated of the Son < Passages from the Fathers in illustration 3. The " Consubstantial :" — The meaning of " substance" or " being Of " Consubstantial " . . Early use of the term Doctrine of Emanation . Imposed an heretical sense on the term The history of the term "offspring" Rejection of the term "consubstantial Council against Paulus . The Alexandrians keep it 4. The " voluntary generation :" — Its relation to the doctrine of Emanation How it was understood in relation to our Lord 5. The "Word Internal " or " External :" — A term of the Stoics and Platonists. Used by the Fathers The Word's change from Internal to External at the creation ..... A kind of " generation" .... Five Fathers accused of a misconception Passages from them in illustration . by the Section V. — The Arian Heresy I. Contrasted with other heterodox beliefs : — As to its fundamental tenet With that of the Five Fathers. Table of Contents, XJl] 3- Viz. with that of the Eclectics Of Gnosticism. Of PauHanism. And of Sabellianism Its doctrine that: — What has an origin has a beginning What has a beginning is a creation What God willed to be is a creation What is not ingenerate is a creation What is material is a creation. " 0;z/>' -begotten '* means " immediately " Not one of the creatures " is " not creatures" " Before all time " is " before All titles admit of a secondary Its original documents : — Arius to Eusebius . Arius to Alexander . Arius's Thalia Eusebius to Paulinus Alexander to Alexander Alexander's Encyclical Its characteristic qualities Unscriptural . Rationalistic . Versatile . . . Shallow . Evasive . How met at Nicsea • all creation sense like other 203 203 203 204 205 207 208 209 209 210 210 210 211 211 213 215 216 217 218 219 221 222 230 231 234 xlv. Table of Contents, PART II. HISTORICAL. CHAPTER III. THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NIC-EA, IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE. FAGS Section I. — History of the Nicene Council 1. History of Arius : — Before his heresy ....•., 237 Upon it 238 2. Character and position of Constantine : — His view of Christianity ....,, 242 His disappointment at its dissensions . , , 244 His conduct towards the Donatists .... 245 His wish for rehgious peace ..... 246 His letter to Athanasius and Arius. . . . 247 He convokes the Nicene Council .... 249 3. Transactions of the Council : — Disputations 251 Its selection of the test, Homoilsion .... 253 Its creed 254 Dissentients . • • . • . . • 255 Brought over 256 Banishment of Arius 256 Section II. — Consequences of the Nicene Council, 1. The Arians : — Their political and party spirit .... 259 Ingratiate themselves with Constantine . • . 260 Their leaders, Eusebius of Nicomedia , • . 260 And Eusebius of Csesarea 261 Constantia, sister to Constantine • > • • 263 2. The Catholics : — Successful at Nicsea ..•••• 265 Yet their prospects clouded 266 Arius's restoration attempted by Constantine. • 266 At Alexandria • • 267 At Constantinople .....•• 268 The prayers of Bishop Alexander . • • • 269 Death of Arius • • • 270 Table tf Contents, XV. CHAPTER IV, COUNCHS IN THE REIGN OF CONSTANT! US. Section I. — The Eusehans. 1. Character of the Eusebian leaders :— Acacius George .••••• Leontius Eudoxius .••••• Valens ...,•. 2. Their proceedings : — Against Eustathius, &c. . , , They join the Meletians of Egypt , Against Athanasius . . • Hold Councils at Caesarea and Tyre And depose him .... 3. Their Creeds : — Athanasius and other exiles at Rome Roman Council .... Eusebian Council of the Dedication Adopts the creed of Lucian Its second, third, and fourth creeds. Its fifth creed, the Macrostich. Great Council of Sardica. Eusebians leaving it for Philippopolis Acquits and restores Athanasius Recantation of Valens and Ursacius 275 275 276 277 278 280 281 282 282 284 285 285 286 286 287 287 289 289 290 291 Section II. — The Semi-Arians 1. Their doctrine : — Its subtlety and indistinctness. , , , . 297 Its symbol, the Homoeiision . . . • • 297 It considered our Lord to be a true Son . . . 298 Its self-contradictions ..«.,. 299 2. Their leaders : — Men of high character ,»••,. 299 Basil of Ancyra .♦...•. 300 Mark of Arethusa , , , , » , .301 Cyril of Jerusalem ..,,♦,, 302 XV i. Table of Contents, PAGB Eusebius of Samosata • . , . , . 302 On the contrary, Macedonius, the Pneumato- machist 303 3. Their proceedings :— - They start out as a party after Sardica . , 303 Opposed by the Acacians . . . , . 304 Acacian device of only Scripture terms . , , 305 The Acacian Homoeon 306 Section III. — The Athanas'uins. Persecutions. 1. Paulus of Constantinople : — Banished and Mart3'red . , . , , .311 2. Lucius of Hadrianople : — Martyred. , .312 3. Eusebian Council of Sirmium : — Deposes Photinus 314 4. Persecution of the West. Eusebian Council of Aries .... 314 The orthodox Bishops excommunicate Athanasius . 315 Fall of Vincent 315 5. Eusebian Council of Milan J — Condemns Athanasius . , . , , .316 Banishment of Dionysius 317 „ Eusebius of Vercellse . • • 317 Hilary 318 6. Proceedings against Pope Liberius : — His noble conduct 319 His banishment . . .... 319 He is tempted. ....... 321 A comprehension of parties .... 321 His fall . . . . . . . . . 322 He renounces Athanasius and signs a Eusebian creed 322 He afterwards recovers himself .... 323 7. Proceedings against Hosius : — Eusebian Creed offered for his acceptance . » 323 His brave conduct 324 Scourged and racked 325 Table of Contents, xvu. Signs the creed ...»»• Refuses to condemn Athanasius , , • His repentance 8. Proceedings against Athanasius : — The Alexandrians prepare themselves for the trial Recent sufferings Encouraged by the Sardican Council George of Cappadocia, the Eusebian Bishop Irruption of Syrianus into the Church Escape of Athanasius .... Persecution of Egyptian Bishops and people Manifesto of Constantius • • Section IV. — The Anomoeansy I. Rise of the heresy : — Aetius Eunomius .•...., Its history : — They join the Eusebians or Acacians against Semi-Arians At Csesarea And Antioch ...... Semi-Arian Council at Ancyra Appeal of the two parties to Constantius. The Emperor's changes of mind Preparation for an Ecumenical Council . Acacian Council of Seleucia . Acacian Council of Ariminum. Triumph of Arianism throughout the world Disgrace of Aetius . . . . Death of Constantius .... 2. the PAGE 326 327 328 329 331 331 332 337 339 341 341 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 350 351 352 CHAPTER V. COUNCILS AFTER THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS. Section I. — The Council of Alexandria in the reign of Julian. 1. The question of the Arianizing Bishops : — Its difficulty ,' 357 Its solution ••,*•••• 359 XVlll. Table of Cojiteiits, 2. The question of the Succession at Antioch : — Meletius 361 His confession of orthodoxy 362 Lucifer's interference 363 Schism in consequence ...... 364 3.. The question of the hypostasis : — . The term Hypostasis or Persona . • • • 365 Whether three or one 366 Differences among Catholics . . > , . 367 Letter of the Council 370 Section IL — The Ecumenical CdUncil of CoJistantinople in the reign of Theodosius, I. Persecution under Valens : — End of the Semi-Arian heresy .... 377 The reconciliation of its Bishops to the Church , 378 2. Revival of orthodoxy at Constantinople : — Gregory Nazianzen. ...... 380 His proceeding there . . . . . .361 The Arians conform under Theodosius . . . 382 His perplexities ...,,.. 383 Opposition made to him . , , , 4 . 385 He resolves to retire ..,,.» 386 His enthronization ....... 387 His disgust with all parties . . 1 « . 387 3. The Ecumenical Council : — The business before it ..... . 388 Death of its President Meletius • . > • 389 Its proceedings .....«• 390 Resignation of Gregory . . , , , • 391 Its creed . . . . , ..... • 392 Chronological Tablu 39; Note 7)3J<5/^ ^ Co7iteiits. xix. APPENDIX. PACK I, The Syrian School of Theology . . . 403 2, The early doctrine of the divine gennesis . . 416 3» The Confessions at Sirmium . 423 4. The early use of usia and hypostasis . . 432 5> Orthodoxy of the faithful during Arianism . 445 6, Chronology of the Councils. . 469 7i Omissions in the text of the Third Edition , . 474 A » f/A,>^ OP THR >j'l:TiyEESIT7' OB- lilPO CHAPTER T. SCHOOLS AND PARTIES IN AND ABOUT THE ANTE- NICENE CHURCH, CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELA- TION TO THE ARIAN HERESY. SECTION L THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH. It is proposed in the following pages to trace the outlines of the history of Arianism, between the first and the second General Councils. These are its natural chronological limits, whether by Arianism we mean a heresy or a party in the Church. In the Council held at Nicaea, in Bithynia, A.D. 325, it was formally detected and condemned. In the subsequent years it ran its course, through various modifications of opinion, and w^ith various success, till the date of the second General Council, held A.D. 381, at Constan- tinople, when the resources of heretical subtilty being at length exhausted, the Arian party was ejected from the Catholic body, and formed into a distinct sect, exterior to it. It is during this period, while it still maintained its hold upon the creeds and the govern- 2 The CImrch of Antioch. [chap. i. ment of the Church, that it especially invites the attention of the student in ecclesiastical history. Afterwards, Arianism presents nothing new in its doctrine, and is only remarkable as becoming the animating principle of a second series of persecutions, when the barbarians of the North, who were infected with it, possessed themselves of the provinces of the Roman Empire. The line of history which is thus limited by the two first Ecumenical Councils, will be found to pass through a variety of others, provincial and patriarchal, which form easy and intelligible breaks in it, and pre- sent the- heretical doctrine in the various stages of its impiety. These, accordingly, shall be taken as car- dinal points for our narrative to rest upon ;^— and it will matter little in the result, whether it be called a history of the Councils, or of Arianism, between the eras already marked out. However, it is necessaiy to direct the reader's atten- tion in the first place, to the state of parties and schools, in and about the Church, at the time of its rise, and to the sacred doctrine which it assailed, in order to obtain a due insight into the history of the controversy ; and the discussions which these subjects, involve, will occupy a considerable portion of the volume. I shall address myself without delay to this, work ; and, in this chapter, propose first to observe upon the connexion of Arianism with the Church of Antioch, and upon the state and genius of that Church in primitive times. This shall be the subject of the present section : in those which follow, I shall consider its relation towards the heathen philosophies and heresies then prevalent ; and towards the Church of Alexandria, to which, though with very little show of SECT. I.] The Church of Antioch, 3 reasoning, it is often referred. The consideration of the doctrine of the Trinity shall form the second chapter. I. During the third century, the Church of Antioch was more or less acknowledged as the metropolis of Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Comagene, Osrhoene, and Mesopotamia, in which provinces it afterwards held patriarchal sway^ It had been the original centre of Apostolical missions among the heathen2 ; and claimed St. Peter himself for its first bishop, who had been succeeded by Ignatius, Theophilus, Babylas, and others of sacred memory in the universal Church, as cham- pions and martyns of the faith^. The secular impor- tance of the city added to the influence which accrued to it from the religious associations thus connected with its name, especially when the Emperors made Syria the seat of their government. This ancient and celebrated Church, however, is painfully conspicuous in the middle of the century, as affording so open a manifestation of the spirit of Antichrist, as to fulfil almost literally the prophecy of the Apostle in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians'^. Paulus, of Samosata, w^ho was raised to the see of Antioch not many years after the martyrdom of Babylas, after holding the episcopate for ten years, was deposed by a Council of eastern bishops, held in that city A.D. 272, on the ground of his heretical notions concerning the nature of Christ. His original calling seems to have been that of a sophist^ ; how he obtained admit- ^ Bingham, Antiq. ix. i. ^ Acts xi., xiii., xiv. * Vide Tillemont, Mem. vol. i. &c. * Vide Euseb. vii. 30, • Mosheim, de Reb. ante Constant, sa-c. iii. § 35. B 2 4 The Church of Antioch. [ciiAr. i. tance into the clerical order is unknown ; his elevation, or at least his continuance in the see, he owed to the celebrated Zenobia^, to whom his literary attainments, and his political talents, may be supposed to have recommended him. Whatever were the personal vir- tues of the Queen of the East, who is said to have been a Jewess by birth or creed, it is not surprising that she was little solicitous for the credit or influence of the Christian Church within her dominions. The character of Paulus is consigned to history in the Synodal Letter of the bishops, written at the time of his condemnation^ ; which, being circulated through the Church, might fairly be trusted, even though the high names of Gregory of Neocsesarea and Firmilian were not found in the number of his judges. He is therein charged with a rapacity, an arrogance, a vulgar ostentation and desire of popularity, an extraordinary profaneness, and a profligacy, which cannot but reflect seriously upon the Church and clergy which elected, and so long endured him. As to his heresy, it is difficult to determine what were his precise sentiments concerning the Person of Christ, though they were certainly derogatory of the doctrine of His absolute divinity and eternal existence. Indeed, it is probable that he had not any clear view on the solemn subject on which he allov/ed himself to speculate ; nor had any wish to make proselytes, and form a party in the • He was raised to the episcopate at the commencement of Odenatus's successes against Sapor (TiUemont, Mem. vol. iv. Chronol.). In the years which followed, he held a civil magistracy with his ecclesiastical dignity; in the temporalities of which, moreover, he was upheld by Zenobia, some years after his formal deposition by the ncighbouiing bishops. (Basnag. Annal. a.d. 269, § 6.) ^ Euseb. Hist vii. 30 SECT. i.J The Church of Antioch. 5 Church^. Ancient writers inform us that his heresy was a kind of Judaism in doctrine, adopted to please his Jewish patroness^ ; and, if originating in this motive, it was not hkely to be very systematic or pro- found. His habits, too, as a sophist, would dispose him to employ himself in attacks upon the Catholic doctrine, and in irregular discussion, rather than in the sincere effort to obtain some definite conclusions, to satisfy his own mind or convince others. And the supercilious spirit, which the Synodal letter describes as leading him to express contempt for the divines who preceded him at Antioch, would naturally occa- sion incaution in his theories, and a carelessness about guarding them from inconsistencies, even where he perceived them. Indeed, the Primate of Syria had already obtained the highest post to which ambition could aspire, and had nothing to labour for ; and having, as we find, additional engagements as a civil magistrate, he would still less be likely to covet the barren honours of an heresiarch. A sect, it is true, was formed upon his tenets, and called after his name, and has a place in ecclesiastical history till the middle of the fifth century ; but it never was a considerable body, and even as early as the date of the Nicene Council had split into parties, differing by various shades of heresy from the orthodox faiths We shall have a more correct notion, then, of the heresy of * Mosheim, de Reb. ante Const. § 35, n. i. [For the opinions of Paulus. vide Athan, Tr. p, 175.] ^ Athan. Epist. ad Monachos, § 71. Theod.Hser. ii. 8. Chrysost. in Joann. Horn. 7, but Philastr. Hser. § 64, says that Paulus docuit Zeno- biam judaizare. * Tillcmont, Mem. vol. iv. p. I2C». Athan. in Arianos, iv. 30. 6 The Church of Ariiioch. [ciiAr. i. Paulus, if we consider him as the founder of a school rather than of a sect, as encouraging in the Church the use of those disputations and sceptical inquiries, which belonged to the Academy and other heathen philoso- phies, and as scattering up and down the seeds of errors, which sprang up and bore fruit in the genera- tion after him. In confirmation of this view, which is suggested by his original vocation, by the temporal motives which are said to have influenced him, and by his inconsistencies, it may be observed, that his inti- mate friend and fellow-countryman, Lucian, who schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposi- tion, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi- Arian, Paulus himself advocating a doctrine which nearly resembled what is commonly called the Sa- bellian. More shall be said concerning Paulus of Samosata presently ; but now let us advance to the history of ;his Lucian, a man of learning2, and at length a martyr, but who may almost be considered the author of Arianism. It is very common, though evidently illogical, to attribute the actual rise of one school of opinion to another, from some real or supposed simi- larity in their respective tenets. It is thus, for instance, Platonism, or again, Origenism, has been assigned as the actual source from which Arianism was derived. Now, Lucian's doctrine is known to have been precisely the same as that species of Ari- ^ He was distinguished in biblical literature, as being the author of a third edition of the Septuagint. Vide Till&mont, Mem. vol. v. p. 202, 203. Du Pin, cent. iii. SECT. I.] The Church of Antioch. 7 anism afterwards called Semi-Arianism^ ; but it is not on that account that I here trace the rise of Arianism to Lucian. There is an historical, and not merely a doctrinal connexion between him and the Arian party. In his school are found, in matter of fact, the names of most of the original advocates of Arianism, and all those who were the most influential in their respective Churches throughout the East : — Arius himself, Euse- bius of Nicomedia, Leontius, Eudoxius, Asterius, and others, who will be familiar to us in the sequel ; and these men actually appealed to him as their authority, and adopted from him the party designation of Collu- cianists^. In spite of this undoubted connexion between Lucian and the Arians, we might be tempted to believe, that the assertions of the latter concerning his heterodoxy, originated in their wish to implicate a man of high character in the censures which the Church directed against themselves, were it not unde- niable, that during the times of the three bishops who successively followed Paulus, Lucian was under ex- communication. The Catholics too, are silent in his vindication, and some of them actually admit his unsoundness in faith^. However, ten or fifteen years before his martyrdom, he was reconciled to the ^ Bull, Baronius, and others, maintain his orthodoxy. The Semi- Arians adopted his creed, which is extant. Though a friend, as it appears, of Paulus, he opposed the Sabellians (by one of whom he was at length betrayed to the heathen persecutors of the Church), and this opposition would lead him to incautious statements of an Arian tendency. Vide below. Section v. Epiphanius (Ancor. 7,^ tells us, that he con- sidered the Word in the Person of Christ as the substitute for a human soul. ^ Theod. Hist. i. 5. Epiph. Ha^r. Ixix. 6. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. i. p. 201. » Theod. Hist. i. 4. 8 The Church of Antioch. [chap. i. Church ; and we may suppose that he then recanted whatever was heretical in his creed : and his glorious end was allowed to wipe out from the recollection of Catholics of succeeding times those passages of his history, which nevertheless were so miserable in their results in the age succeeding his own. Chrysostom's panegyric on the festival of his martyrdom is still extant, Ruffinus mentions him in honourable terms, and Jerome praises his industry, erudition, and elo- quence in writing^. Such is the historical connexion at the very first sight between the Arian party and the school of An- tioch^ : corroborative evidence will hereafter appear, in the similarity of character which exists between the two bodies. At present, let it be taken as a confir- mation of a fact, which Lucian's history directly proves, that Eusebius the historian, who is suspected of Arianism, and his friend Paulinus of Tyre, one of its first and principal supporters, though not pupils of Lucian, were more or less educated, and the latter ordained at Antioch^ ; while in addition to the Arian bishops at Nicaea already mentioned, Theodotus of Laodicea, Gregory of Berytus, Narcissus of Neronias, and two others, who were all supporters of Arianism at the Council, were all situated within the ecclesias- tical influence, and some of them in the vicinity of Antioch^ ; so that (besides Arius himself), of thirteen, who according to Theodoret, arianized at the Council, nine are referable to the Syrian patriarchate. If we continue the history of the controversy, we have fresh « Vide. Tillemont, Mem. vol. v. ' [Vide Appendix, Syrian School.'] " Vales, de Vit. Euseb. et ad Hist. x. i. • Tillemont, Mem. vol. vi. p. 276. s::cT. i.j The Chitrch of Aiifioch. 9 evidence of the connexion between Antioch and Ari- anism. During the interval between the Nicene Council and the death of Constantius (A.D. 325 — 361), Antioch is the metropolis of the heretical, as Alexan- dria of the orthodox party. At Antioch, the heresy recommenced its attack upon the Church after the decision at Nicaea. In a Council held at Antioch, it first showed itself in the shape of Semi- Arian ism, when Lucian's creed was produced. There, too, in this and subsequent Councils, negotiations on the doc- trine in dispute were conducted with the Western Church. At Antioch, lastly, and at Tyre, a suffragan see, the sentence of condemnation was pronounced upon Athanasius. Hitherto I have spoken of individuals as the authors of the apostasy which is to engage our attention in the following chapters ; but there is reason to fear that men like Paulus were but symptoms of a corrupted state of the Church. The histoiy of the times gives us sufficient evidence of the luxuriousness of Antioch ; and it need scarcely be said, that coldness in faith is the sure consequence of relaxation of morals'. Here, however, passing by this consideration, which is too obvious to require dwelling upon, I would rather direct the reader's attention to the particular form which the Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz., that of Judaism^ ; which at that time, it must be * [Vide a remarkable passage in Origen, on the pomp of the Bishops of his day, quoted by Neander, Hist. vol. 11. p. 330, Bohn.] ^ [Lengeike, de Ephrsem. Syr. p, 64. traces the literal interpretation, which was the characteristic of the school of Antioch, to the example of the Jews.] lO The Church of Aiitioch. [chap. i. recollected, was the creed of an existing nation, acting upon the Church, and not merely, as at this day, a system of opinions more or less discoverable among professing Christians. The fortunes of the Jewish people had experienced a favourable change since the reign of Hadrian. The violence of Roman persecution had been directed against the Christian Church ; w^hile the Jews, gradually recovering their strength, and obtaining permission to settle and make proselytes to their creed, at length became an influential political body in the neighbourhood of their ancient home, especially in the Syrian provinces which were at that time the chief residence of the court. Severus (A.D. 194) is said to have been the first to extend to them the imperial favour, though he afterwards withdrew it. Heliogabalus, and Alexander, natives of Syria, gave them new privileges ; and the latter went so far as to place the image of Abraham in his private chapel, among the objects of his ordinary worship. Philip the Arabian continued tov/ards them a countenance, which was converted into an open patronage in the reign of Zenobia. During the Decian persecution, they had been sufficiently secure at Carthage, to venture to take part in the popular ridicule which the Christians excited ; and they are even said to have stimulated Valerian to his cruelties towards the Church^. But this direct hostility was not the only, nor the most formidable means of harassing their religious enemies, which their improving fortunes opened upon them. With their advancement in wealth and im- ' Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. I2* Tillemont, Hist, des Empcr. iii. iv. IF SECT. I.] The CImrch of Antioch. ii portance, their national character displayed itself under a new exterior. The moroseness for which they were previously notorious, in great measure dis- appears with their dislodgment from the soil of their ancestors ; and on their re-appearance as settlers in a strange land, those festive, self-indulgent habits, which, in earlier times, had but drawn on them the animadversion of their Prophets, became their dis- tinguishing mark in the eyes of external observers^. Manifesting a raricorous malevolence towards the zealous champions of the Church, they courted the Christian populace by arts adapted to captivate and corrupt the unstable and worldly-minded. Their pre- tensions to magical power gained them credit with the superstitious, to whom they sold amulets for the cure of diseases ; their noisy spectacles attracted the curiosity of the idle, who weakened their faith, while they disgraced their profession, by attending the worship of the Synagogue. Accordingly there was formed around the Church a mixed multitude, who, without relinquishing their dependence on Christi- anity for the next world, sought in Judaism the promise of temporal blessings, and a more accommo- dating rule of life than the gospel revealed. Chry^os- tom found this evil so urgent at Antioch in his day, as to interrupt his course of homilies on the heresy of the Anomoeans, in order to direct his preaching against the seductions to which his hearers were then exposed, by the return of the Jewish festivals^. In another ■• Vide Gibbon, Hist. ch. xvi. note 6. Chrysost. in Judaeos, i. p. 386 — 388, &:c. ^ Chrysost. in Judaos, i. p. 389, &:c. [Jerome speaks of a law of Valens:— "ne quis' vitulorum carnibus vesceretur, utilitati agricukurae providens, et pessimam judaizantis vulgi emendans consuetudinem/' Adv. Jovinian. ii. 7.] 12 The Church of Antioch. [chap. i. part of the empire, the Council of liliberis found it necessary to forbid a superstitious custom, which had been introduced among the country people, of having recourse to the Jews for a blessing on their fields. Afterwards, Constantine made a law against the inter- marriage of Jews and Christians ; and Constant ius confiscated the goods of Christians who lapsed to Judaism^. These successive enactments may be taken as evidence of the view entertained by the Church of her own danger, from the artifices of the Jews. Lastly, the attempt to rebuild the temple in Julian's reign, was but the renewal of a project on their part, which Constantine had already frustrated, for reinstating their religion in its ancient ritual and country^. Such was the position of the Jews towards the primitive Church, especially in the patriarchate of Antioch ; which, I have said, was their principal place of settlement, and was at one time under the civil government of a Judaizing princess, the most illus- trious personage of her times, who possessed influence enough over the Christian body to seduce the Metro- politan himself from the orthodox faith. But the evidence of the existence of Judaism, as a system, in the portion of Christendom in question, is * Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 6. Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. 14. 7 Chrysost, in Judaeos, iii. p. 435. [Vide Chrysost. in Matth. Horn. 43, where he says that in Julian's time, " they ranged themselves with the heathen and courted their party." He proceeds to say that " in all their other evil works they surpass their predecessors, in sorceries, magic arts, impurities.'' Oxford Transl.,] SECT. I.] The Church of Aiitioch, i J contained in a circumstance which desei-ves our par- ticular attention ; the adoption, in those parts, of the quarto deciman rule of observing Easter, when it was on the point of being discontinued in the Churches of Proconsular Asia, where it had first prevailed. It is well known that at the close of the second century, a controversy arose between Victor, Bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, con- cerning the proper time for celebrating the Easter feast, or rather for terminating the ante-paschal fast. At that time the whole of Christendom, with the exception of Proconsular Asia (a district of about two hundred miles by fifty), and its immediate neigh- bourhood 8, continued the fast on to the Sunday after the Jewish Passover, which they kept as Easter Day as we do now, in order that the Aveekly and yearly commemorations of the Resurrection might coincide. But the Christians of the Proconsulate, guided by Jewish custom, ended the fast on the very day of the paschal sacrifice, without regarding the actual place held in the week by the feast, which imme- diately followed ; and were accordingly called Quarto- decimans^. Victor felt the inconvenience of this want of uniformity in the celebration of the chief Christian festival ; and was urgeiit, even far beyond the bounds of charity, and the rights of his see, in his endeavour to obtain the compliance of the Asiatics. Polycrates, who was primate of the Quarto-deciman Churches, defended their peculiar custom by a state- ment which is plain and unexceptionable. They had received their rule, he said, from St. John and St. ® Euscb. Hist. V. 23 — 25, and Vales, ad loc. • Exod. xii. 6. Vide Tilkmont, Mem. vol. iii. p 629, &:c. 14 The Church of Antioch. |_CHAr. i. Philip the Apostles, Polycarp of Smyrna, Melito of Sardis, and others ; and deemed it incumbent on them to transmit as they had received. There was nothing Judaistic in this conduct ; for, though the Apostles intended the Jewish discipline to cease with those converts who were born under it, yet it was by no means clear, that its calendar came under the proscription of its rites. On the other hand, it was natural that the Asian Churches should be affection- ately attached to a custom which their first founders, and they inspired teachers, had sanctioned. But the case was very different, when Churches, which had for centuries observed the Gentile rule, adopted a custom which at the time had only exis- tence among the Jews. The Quarto-decimans of the Proconsulate had come to an end by A.D. 276 ; and, up to that date, the Antiochene provinces kept their Easter feast in conformity with the Catholic usage ^ ; yet, at the time of the Nicene Council (fifty years afterwards), we find the Antiochenes the especial and solitary champions of the Jewish rule 2 We can scarcely doubt that they adopted it in imitation of the Jews who were settled among them, who are known to have influenced them, and who about that very date, be it observed, had a patroness in Zenobia, and, what was stranger, had almost a convert in the person of the Christian Primate. There is evidence, more- over, of the actual growth of the custom in the Patriarchate at the end of the third century ; which * Tillemont, Mem. vol. iii. p. 48, who conjectures that Anatolius of Laodicea was the author of the change. But changes require predis,pos-. ing causes. ^ Athau. ad Afros, % a. SECT. I.] The Church of Antioch, 15 well agrees with the hypothesis of its being an inno- vation, and not founded on ancient usage. And again (as was natural, supposing the change to begin at Antioch), at the date of the Nicene Council, it was established only in the Syrian Churches, and was but making its way with incomplete success in the ex- tremities of the Patriarchate. In Mesopotamia, Audius began his schism with the characteristic of the Quarto-deciman rule, just at the date of the CounciP ; and about the same time, Cilicia was con- tested between the two parties, as I gather from the conflicting statements of Constantine and Athanasius, that it did, and that it did not, conform to the Gentile custom^. By the same time, the controversy had reached Egypt also. Epiphanius refers to a celebrated, contest, now totally unknown, between one Crescentius and Alexander, the first defender of the Catholic faith against Arianism^. "^ It is true that there was a third Quarto-deciman school, lying geographically between the Proconsulate and Antioch, which at first sight might seem to have been the medium by which the Jewish custom was conveyed on from the former to the latter ; but there is no evidence of its existence till the end of the fourth century. In order to complete my account of the Quarto-decimans, and show more fully their relation to the Judaizers, I will here make mention of it ; though, in doing so, I must somewhat digress from the main subject under consideration. . ' Epiph. Haer. Ixx. $ i. * Athan. ad Afros, supra. Socr. Hist. i. 9, where, by the bye, the Proconsulate is spokein of as conforming to the general usage ; so as clearly to distinguish bet\yeep Jbe two Quarto-deciman schools. ' Epiph. ibid. § 9, 1 6 The Chui%h of Antioch. [chap. i. The portion of Asia Minor, lying between the Pro- consulate and the river Halys, may be regarded, in the Ante-Nicene times, as one country, comprising the provinces of Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia, afterwards included within the Exarchate of C^Esarea ; cind was then marked by a religious character of a peculiar cast. Socrates, speaking of this district, informs us, that its inhabitants were dis- tinguished above other nations by a strictness and seriousness of manners, having neither the ferocity of the Scythians and Thracians, nor the frivolity and sensuality of the Orientals^. The excellent qualities, however, implied in this description, were tarnished by the love of singularity, the spirit of insubordination and separatism, and the gloomy spiritual pride which their history evidences. St. Paul's Epistle furnishes us with the first specimen of this unchristian temper, as evinced in the conduct of the Galatians^, who, dis- satisfied with the exact evangelical doctrine, aspired to some higher and more availing system than the Apostle preached to them. What the Galatians were in the first century, Montanus and Novatian becam.e in the second and third ; both authors of a harsh and arrogant discipline, both natives of the country in question 8, and both meeting with special success in that country, although the schism of the latter Avas organized at Rome, of which Church he was a pres- byter. It was, moreover, the peculiarity, more or less, of both Montanists and Novatians in those parts, to differ from the general Church as to the time of • Sociat. Hist. iv. 28, cf, Epiph. Haer. xlviii. 14 [and xlvii. 1], 7 [Jerome calls the Galatians " ad intelligentiam tardiores, vecordes," and speaks of their " stoliditas baibara," in Galat. lib, ii. pra^f.] ^ Vnljs, ad loc. Sccr. [Philostorg. viii. 15.] SECT. I.] The Chm^ch of Antioch. 17 observing Easter^ ; whereas, neither in Africa nor in Rome did the two sects dissent from the received rule^ What was the principle or origin of this irregularity, does not clearly appear ; unless we may consider as characteristic, what seems to be the fact, that when their neighbours of the Proconsulate were Quarto-decimans, they (in the words of Socrates) "shrank from feasting on the Jewish festival 2," and after the others had conformed to the Gentile rule, they, on the contrary, openly judaized 3. This change in their practice, which took place at the end of the fourth century, was mainly effected by a Jew, of the name of Sabbatius, who becoming a convert to Chris- tianity, rose to the episcopate in the Novatian Church. Sozomen, in giving an account of the transaction, observes that it was a national custom with the Galatians and Phiygians to judaize in their observance of Easter. Coupling this remark with Eusebius's mention of Churches in the neighbourhood of the Proconsulate, as included among the Quarto-decimans whom Victor condemned"^, we may suspect that the perverse spirit which St. Paul reproves in his Epistle, and which we have been tracing in its Montanistic and Novatian varieties, still lurked in those parts in its original judaizing form, till after a course of years it was accidentally brought out by circumstances upon the public scene of ecclesiastical history. If further evidence of the connexion of the Quarto- ^ Socrat. Hist. v. 22. Sozom. Hist. vii. 18. ^ TertuU. de Jejun. 14. Vales, ad Sozom. vii. 18. Socrat. Hist. v. 21. ^ Valesius ad. loc. applies this differently. ^ Socrat. Hist. V. 21. ^ Eusb. Hist, ut supra. c 1 8 The Church of Antioch. [chap. i. deciman usage with Judaism be required, I may refer to Constantine's Nicene Edict, which forbids it, among other reasons, on the ground of its being Jewish^. 4. The evidence, which has been adduced for the exis- tence of Judaism in the Church of Antioch, is not without its bearing upon the history of the rise of Arianism. I will not say that the Arian doctrine is the direct result of a judaizing practice ; but it deserves consideration whether a tendency to dero- gate from the honour due to Christ, was not created by an observance of the Jewish rites, and much more, by that carnal, self-indulgent religion, which seems at that time to have prevailed in the rejected nation. When the spirit and morals of a people are materially debased, varieties of doctrinal error spring up, as if self-sown, and are rapidly propagated. While Judaism inculcated a superstitious, or even idolatrous depen- dence on the mere casualties of daily life, and gave license to the grosser tastes of human nature, it necessarily indisposed the mind for the severe and unexciting mysteries, the large indefinite promises, and the remote sanctions, of the Catholic faith ; which fell as cold and uninviting on the depraved imagina- tion, as the doctrines of the Divine Unity and of implicit trust in the unseen God, on the minds of the early Israelites. Those who were not constrained by the message of mercy, had time attentively to consider thfe intellectual difficulties which were the medium of its communication, and heard but " a hard saying " in what v/as sent from heaven as " tidings of * Theod. Hist, i, 10. SECT. I.] The Church of Antioch, 19 great joy." " The mind," says Hooker, " feeling present joy, is always marvellously unwilling to admit any other cogitation, and in that case, casteth off those disputes whereunto the intellectual part at other times easily draweth. . . The people that are said in the sixth of John to have gone after our Lord to Capernaum . . leaving Him on the one side of the sea of Tiberias, and finding Him again as soon as they themselves by ship were arrived on the contrary side . . as they wondered, so they asked also, ' Rabbi, when camest Thou hither 1 ' The Disciples, when Christ appeared to them in a far more strange and miraculous manner, moved no question, but rejoiced greatly in what they saw . . The one, because they enjoyed not, disputed; the other disputed not, because they enjoyed^. " It is also a question, whether the mere performance of the rites of the Law, of which Christ came as anti- type and repealer, has not a tendency to withdraw the mind from the contemplation of the more glorious and real images of the Gospel ; so that the Christians of Antioch would diminish their reverence towards the true Saviour of man, in proportion as they trusted to the media of worship provided for a time by the Mosaic ritual. It is this consideration which ac- counts for the energy with which the great Apostle combats the adoption of the Jewish ordinances by the Christians of Galatia, and which might seem excessive, till vindicated by events subsequent to his own day 7. In the Epistle addressed to them, the • Ecvlcs. Pol. V. 67. 7 [EuEebius says, that St. Paul detected humanitarianism in the Gal;»ti»a . Judaism. Coutr. Marcell i. i, p. 7.] C 2 20 The Chtirch of Antioch. [chap. i. Judalzers are described as men labouring under an irrational fascination, fallen from grace, and self- excluded from the Christian privileges^ ; when in appearance they were but using, what on the one hand might be called mere external forms, and on the other, had actually been delivered to the Jews on Divine authority. Some light is thrown upon the subject by the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which it is implied throughout, that the Jewish rites, after their Antitype was come, did but conceal from the eye of faith His divinity, sovereignty, and all-sufficiency. If we turn to the history of the Church, we seem to see the evils in actual existence, which the Apostle antici- pated in prophecy; that is, we see, that in the obsolete furniture of the Jewish ceremonial, there was in fact retained the pestilence of Jewish unbelief, tending (whether directly or not, at least eventually) to intro- duce fundamental error respecting the Person of Christ. Before the end of the first century, this result is disclosed in the system of the Cerinthians and the Ebionites. These sects, though more or less infected with Gnosticism, were of Jewish origin, and observed the Mosaic Law ; and whatever might be the minute peculiarities of their doctrinal views, they also agreed in entertaining Jewish rather than Gnostic conceptions of the Person of Christ^. Ebion, especially, is charac- terised by his Humanitarian creed ; while on the other hand, his Judaism was so notorious, that Tertullian does not scruple to describe him as virtually the object of the Apostle's censure in his Epistle to the Gala- tians'. ' Socrat. Hist. v. 22. - » Burton, Bamp. Lect, notes 74. 82. ^ TertuU. de Prapscript. Haerct. c. 33, p, 243* SFXT. I.] The Church of Aiitioch. 21 The Nazarenes are next to be noticed ; — not for tlic influence they exercised on the belief of Christians, but as evidencing, with the sects just mentioned, tlic latent connection between a judaizing discipline and heresy in doctrine. Who they were, and what their tenets, has been a subject of much controversy. It is sufficient for my purpose — and so far is undoubted — that they were at the same time "zealous of the Law" and unsound in their theology^ ; and this without being related to the Gnostic families : a circumstance which establishes them as a more cogent evidence of the real connexion of ritual with doctrinal Judaism than is furnished by the mixed theologies of Ebion and Cerinthus^. It is worth observing that their declension from orthodoxy appears to have been gradual; Epiphanius is the first writer who includes them by name in the number of heretical sects'*. 2 Burton, Bampt. Lect., note 84. , 3 For the curious in ecclesiastical antiquity, Mosheim has elicited the following account of their name and sect (Mosheim de Reb. Christ, ante Constant. Saecul. ii. § 38, 39). The title of Nazarene he considers to have originally belonged to the body of Jewish converts, taken by them with a reference to Matt. ii. 23, while the Gentiles at Antioch assumed the Greek appellation of Christians. As the Mosaic ordinances gradually fell into disuse among the former, in process of time it became the peculiar designation of the Church of Jerusalem ; and that Church in turn throw- ing oflf its Jewish exterior in the reign of Hadrian, on being unfairly subjected to the disabilities then laid upon the rebel nation, it finally settled upon the scanty remnant, who considered their ancient ceremonial to be an essential part of their present profession. These Judaizers, from an over-attachment to the forms, proceeded in course of time, to imbibe the spirit of the degenerate system; and ended in doctrinal views not far short of modern Socinianism. ■* Barton, Bampt. Lect., note 84. Considering the Judaism of the Quarto-decimans after Victor's age, is it impossible that he may have suspected that the old leaven was infecting the Churches of (Vsia ? This 2 2 The ClmrcJi of A^itioch. [chap. i. Such arc the Instances of the connexion between Judaism and theological error, previously to the age of Paulus, who still more strikingly exemplifies it. First, we are in possession of his doctrinal opinions, which are grossly humanitarian ; next we find, that in early times they were acknowledged to be of Jewish origin ; further, that his ceremonial Judaism also was so notorious that one author even affirms that he observed the rite of circumcision^ : and lastly, just after his day we discover the rise of a Jewish usage, the Quarto-deciman, in the provinces of Christendom, immediately subjected to his influence. It may be added that this view of the bearing of Judaism upon the sceptical school afterwards called Arian is countenanced by frequent passages in the writings of the contemporary Fathers, on which no stress, perhaps, could fairly be laid, were not their will explain and partly excuse his earnestness in the controversy with them. It must be recollected that he witnessed, in his own branch of the Church, the rise of the first simply humanitarian school which Chris- tianity had seen, that of Theodotus, Artemas, &c. (Euseb. Hist. v. 28), the 'after of whom is charged by Alexander with reviving the heresy of the judaizing Ebion (Theod. Hist., i. 4) ; [while at the same time at Rome Blastus was introducing the Quarto-deciman rule]. Again, Theo- dotus, Montanus, and Praxeas, whose respective heresies he was engaged in combating, all belonged to the neighbourhood of the Proconsulate, where there seems to have been a school, from which Praxeas derived his heresy (Theod. Haer. iii. 3) ; while Montanism, as its after history shows, contained in it the seeds, both of the Quarto-deciman and Sabellian errors (Tillemont, Mem. vol. ii. p. 199.205. Athan. in Arian. ii. 43). It may be added that the younger Theodotus is suspected of Montanism (Tille- mont. Mem. vol. iii. p. 277). * Philastr. Haer. § 64. [Epiphanius denies that the Paulianists circum- cised. Haer. Ixv. 2. It is remarkable that the Arian Whiston looked favour- ably on the rite. Biograph. Brit. p. 4213.] SECT. I.J The CImrch of Antioch. 23 meaning interpreted by the above historical facts^. Moreover, in the popular risings which took place in Antioch and Alexandria in favour of Arianism, the Jews sided with the heretical party7; evincing thereby, not indeed any definite interest in the subject of dispute, but a sort of spontaneous feeling, that the side of heresy was their natural position ; and further, that its spirit, and the character which it created, were congenial to their own. Or, again, if we con- sider the subject from a different point of view, and omitting dates and schools, take a general survey of Christendom during the first centuries, we shall find it divided into the same two parties, both on the Arian and the Ouarto-deciman questions ; Rome and Alex- andria with their dependencies being the champions of the Catholic tradition in either controversy, and Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, being the strong- holds of the opposition. And these are the two questions which occasioned the deliberations of the Nicene Fathers. However, it is of far less consequence, as it is less certain, whether Arianism be of Jewish origin, than whether it arose at Antioch : which is the point prin- cipally insisted on in the foregoing pages. For in proportion as it is traced to Antioch, so is the charge of originating it removed from the great Alexandrian School, upon which various enemiesof our Apostolical Church have been eager to fasten it. In corroboration of what has been said above on this subject, I here add the words of Alexander, in his letter to the Church of » ^ Athan. de Decret. 2. 27; Seritent. Dionys. 3, 4; ad Episc. ^Eg-. 13; de fug, 2 ; in Arian. iii. 27, and passim. Chrysost. Horn, in Anomoeos and in Judseos. Theod. Hist. i. 4. Epiphan. Haer. Ixix, 79, ' Basnage, Hist, des Juifs, vi. 41, 24 TJie Chn7^ch of Antioch. [chap. I, Constantinople, at the beginning of the controversy ; which are of themselves decisive in evidence of the part, which Antioch had, in giving rise to the detest- able blasphemy which he was combating. "Ye are not ignorant," he writes to the Constanti- nopolitan Church concerning Arianism, "that this rebellious doctrine belongs to Ebion and Artemas, and is in imitation of Paulus of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, who was excommunicated by the sentence of the Bishops assembled in Council from all quarters. Paulus was succeeded by Lucian, who remained in separation for many years during the time of three bishops. . . . Our present heretics have drunk up the dregs of the impiety of these men, and are their secret offspring ; Arius and Achillas, and their party of evil-doers, incited as they are to greater excesses by three Syrian prelates, who agree with them . . . Accordingly, they have been expelled from the Church, as enemies of the pious Catholic teaching ; according to St. Paul's sentence, ' If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema^. ' " * Theod. Hist. i. 4. [Simeon, Bishop of Beth-Arsam, in Persia, a.d. 5^0 — 525, traces the genealogy of Paulianism and Nestorianism from Judaism thus : — Caiaphas to Simon Magus ; Simon to Ebion ; Ebion to Artemon ; Artemon to Paul of Somosata ; Paul to Diodorus ; Diodorus to Theodore ; Theodort to Nestorius. Asseraan. Bibl. Orient, t. i. p. 347.] SECTION ir. THE SCHOOLS OF THE SOPHISTS. As Antioch was the birth-place, so were the Schools of the Sophists the place of education of the heretical spirit which we are considering. In this section, I propose to show its disputatious character, and to refer it to these Schools as the source of it. The vigour of the first movement of the heresy, and the rapid extension of the controversy which it intro- duced, are among the more remarkable circumstances connected with its histoiy. In the course of six yeai*s it called for the interposition of a General Council ; though of three hundred and eighteen bishops there assembled, only twenty-two, on the largest calculation and, as it really appears, only thirteen, were after all found to be its supporters. Though thus condemned by the whole Christian world, in a few years it broke out again ; secured the patronage of the imperial court, which had recently been converted to the Christian faith ; made its way into the highest dignities of the Church ; presided at her Councils, and tyrannized over the majority of her member.^ who were orthodox believers. Now, doubtless, one chief cause of these successes is found in the circumstance, that Lucian's pupils were 26 The Schools of the Sophists, [chap. i. brought together . from so many different places, and were promoted to posts of influence in so many parts of the Church. Thus Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis, were bishops of the principal sees of Bithynia ; Meno- phantes was exarch of Ephesus ; and Eudoxius was one of the Bishops of Comagene. Other causes will hereafter appear in the secular history of the day ; but here I am to speak of their talent for disputation, to which after all they were principally indebted for their success. It is obvious, that in every contest, the assailant, as such, has the advantage of the party assailed ; and that, not merely from the recommendation which novelty gives to his cause in the eyes of bystanders, but also from the greater facility in the nature of things, of finding, than of solving objections, whatever be the question in dispute. Accordingly, the skill of a disputant mainly consists in securing an offensive position, fastening on the weaker points of his adver- sary's case, and then not relaxing his hold till the latter sinks under his impetuosity, without having the opportunity to display the strength of his own cause, and to bring it to bear upon his opponent ; or, to make use of a familiar illustration, in causing a sudden run upon his resources, which the circumstances of time and place do not allow him to meet. This was the artifice to which Arianism owed its first successes i. It owed them to the circumstance of its being (in its original form) a sceptical rather than a dogmatic a.vojvr]Cm(Ti yap ws \vcrcn]T7]p€<; kvv€68pa KarttTToXe/xowrat ot 7roA.e/xiot, orav tol^ avrdv iTrXots )^(x)fi€6a /car' avTwv. 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- sion (constibstantial), afterwards adopted as the test at Nicaea ; which the orthodox had employed in the controversy, and to which Paulus objected as open to a misinterpretations. 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^. 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^. But afterwards, when the heresy was arraigned before the Nicene * Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. ii, i. § 9 — 14. ^ Epiph. Hser. Ixix. 2. 7 Socr, i. 5, 6. Theod. Hist. 1. 5. Epiphan. Ikcr. Ixix. 7, 8, Philo- storg. ii, ^. Athan. de Dccret. 16, t SECT. 11.] The Schools of the Sophists. 29 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^ ; 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^. 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 * Petav. Dogm. Theol. t. ii. i. 9 and 10, • ** Omnem vim venenorum suorum in dialectica disputatione consti- tuunt, quae philosophorum sententia definitur non adstruendi vim habere, seci studium destruendi. Sed non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum faceie populum suum." Ambros. de Fide, i. 5. [§ 42.] 30 The Schools of the Sophists, [chap. i. of his profession I. 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^." 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^. Well versed in theological learning, and aware that adroit- ness in debate was the very life and weapon of heresy, Sisinnius proposed to the Patriap:h, 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 the^ themselves now denounced as false doctrine. On the experiment being tried, the heretics would neith-=»r 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^." Abundant evidence, were more required, could be * (TOLCTTy]<> Kttt yoyj^, a juggler. Vide Cressol. Theatr. Rhetor, i. 13. iii. 17. 2 Petav. Theol. prolegom. iii. 3. Baltus, Defense des Perf M. 19. Brucker. vol. iii. p. 288. Cave, Hist. Liteiar. vol. i. 3 Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. Epilog. * Soci. Hist. v. 10. Soz. Hist. vii. 12, SECT. II.] The Schools of the Sophists, 31 added to the above, in proof of the connexion of the Arians with the schools of heathen disputation. The Lwo 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 Arians5 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^. 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 it7. Necessary ^ Petav. Dogm. Theol. supra, Brucker, vol. iii. pp. 324. 352, 353. Epiph. Haer. Ixix. 69. [Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. 2.] ^ The art was called ipLCTTLKi^ ; and the actual discussion, yv/JivacrLa. 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 yvfjivaarTLKOL Xoyot were dyaJVicrrtKOt, in earnest ^ according to Sextus Empiricus, vide Hypot. i. ^S) P- 57> with Fabricius's note.] ' D.)dw. 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^, 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 * Athan. de Decret. 25 and 27. [Me says the same of Marcellus in his defence, Apol. contr. Ar. 47.] sva:t. II. I 7Vie Sc/iools of the Sophists. .*>o duced the same error into their treatment of tlie highest and most r^acred subjeets of tlicology. We are told, that JuHan commenced his opposition to the true faith by defending the heathen side of reHgious questions, in disputing with his brother Gallus^ ; 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 elementaiy 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 geometiy 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 v^'crc 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 ' Qrcg. Nazian,':. O.at iii. 27. 31. [iv. 30] 1.) 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 usmg 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^. 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 geometr>% 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 » Bull, D.f^ns. F. N.ii. i. § lo. I 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. 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"'-, 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 Euscb. Hist. V. 28. ' Epiph. Haer. p. 809. * Euseb. ibid. D 2 ^6 The Schools of the Sophists, [chap. \. 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 theniselves 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^, it is not from any tenderness towards that proud impatience of control in which many exult, as in a virtue : but first, because technicahty and formalism ° Theod. Hist. i. 4. ["Solae in contemptu sunt divinje literse, qua nee suam scholam ncc magistros habeant, et de quibus peritissime disputare se ciedat, qui nunquam didicit." Facund. p. 581. ed. Sirm. ; vide also, P- 565.] ^ ["Non eguistis litera, qui spiritu abundabatis, etc. Ubi sensus conscientise periclitatur, illic litera postulatur." Hilar, dc Syn. 63. Vide the Benedictine note.] SECT. II.] The Schools of the Sophists. 37 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 Pauliis, 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 III. 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 centuiy, 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^, probably of Eusebius of Nicomedia, ' Athan. oe Deer, Nic,8. 20 j ad Monach. 66 ; de Synod. 22. 40 The CIrarch 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^, 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 ' [A.S to the charg-cs made against Petavius, vide Bull; Defens. N. F. prooem. ; Budd. Isagog-. p. 580 ; Bayle, Diet. (Petau.) ; Brucker, Phil. t. i"-P- .^15-] SECT. III.] The Church of Alexaiuhna. 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. 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 Iwangelist, 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^. 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 * Cave, Hist. Litcrar. vol. i. p. So. 42 The Church of Alexandria, [chap, i.- presidency of laymen or inferior ecclesiastics. Athcn- ac^oras, 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'^. 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 of 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 * Philipp. Sidet. fragm. apud Dodw. in Iren, Huct. Origen. SECT. III.] The CJm7xh 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 w^as divulging mysteries beyond the understanding of his brethren ; who, i instead of being masters in Scripture doctrine, were I not yet versed even in its elements, needed the I 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- I tion between the carnal or imperfect and the estab- I lished Christian, which is laid down in that addressed t to the Hebrews. While maintaining that in Christi- anity is contained a largeness of wisdom, or (to use 1 human language) a profound philosophy, fulfilling ' those vague conceptions of greatness, which had led I the aspiring intellect of the heathen sages to shadow forth their unreal systems, he at the same time insists * Hebr. v. ii ; vi. 6. to. aroL^ela r^s 0LPX% "^^^ AoytW tov Oeov, o Trj