Page images
PDF
EPUB

a

under these tests stands firm and fails not, is to be received and treasured as that great body of God's truth, which forms one of the especial gifts that He came in our nature to bestow on us; and all that falls beneath their weight, or even yields to their pressure, is to be cast aside as false and worthless.

And surely these tests are all fulfilled in that Creed, the doctrines of which the great Bishop S. Athanasius was God's chief instrument in building up and maintaining; surely the result of those heresies which, assailing Christ himself, had for their ultimate object the overthrow of His faith and Church, has been to prove unanswerably that in this we have a certain and enduring standard of truth and a balance by which to weigh the belief of all; and if the doctrines of any particular teacher, be he who he may, ancient or modern, be found to vary from it, with such we must use no half measures—as we regard our own hope and standing in God's sight, we must at once reject it.

It is by this test that we propose to try the faith of Eusebius. The charge that has been brought against him is that of Arianism -does his system of belief lay him open to it or not? And since there may be, and in fact have been, different opinions as to the degree of guilt attaching to one who is accused of holding this heresy, and as it seems to us that an accurate knowledge of its real source and essence is necessary to the forming a correct conclusion, we will endeavour briefly to show not only what Arianism is, but whence it derived its origin.

The origin of Arianism has been frequently attributed to an erroneous interpretation of Scripture; because the supposed authors of this heresy were professedly within the pale of the Christian Church, however widely they departed from her doctrine; and in consequence the greater number of writers, (among whom, if we are not mistaken, would be found Dr. Lee, who have treated of the subject, agree in regarding its followers as in the main Christians, though such as cannot be denied to have based their opinions on

This view of the case has, however, we conceive, more of charity in it than of truth. Arianism undoubtedly tried to support its cause by an appeal to the Scriptures, but Scripture interpretation never was the source from which it originally sprang. Of its chief doctrines some indeed (as we shall shortly endeavour to show at more length) may be traced to the times of the Apostles themselves, and the first spread of the Gospel, (but these were held by men who, so far from being members of the Christian Church, were among its most bitter opponents ;) whilst others are to be found in the various religious systems which had been rife in the East, and especially at Alexandria, even before the advent of our Lord. Not that we would assert that there was any one body or NO. LXVIII.-N. S.

error.

A A

system of doctrines, such as Arianism afterwards proved to be, in existence and operation thus early; to say so would be palpably absurd; but we conceive that the principal tenets of that heresy, (although some of them differed greatly, to say, the least, from others,) were seized upon by Arius and his followers from different sources, to give colour and consistency to their assertions, and that, under pretence of authority, (for these, like all other heretics, were especially anxious to avoid the charge of teaching novelties,) they might the better advance towards the attainment of their ultimate object, the destruction of that fundamental truth of Christianity, the true Godhead of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And it is not a little remarkable, in connexion with this opinion, that Marcellus, one of Eusebius' opponents, of whom we shall see more hereafter, accuses him (whether rightly or otherwise is not now the question) of believing, not with Christians though mistaken ones, but with oi Ewlev, i.e. as he had before specified, with Valentinus and Hermes; Narcissus, an Arian and one of Eusebius' coadjutors, being conjoined in the same passage with Marcion and Plato. Alexander of Alexandria, too, Arius' Bishop, ascribes the opinions avowed by him to Ebion, Artemas and Paul of Samosata, whilst more than one modern-e. g. Bishop Bull' and Tillemont-have agreed in taking the same view of the case, viz. that the heresy in question (and we might perhaps add all those which vexed the early Church as well) is of extra and not of intra-ecclesiastical origin. It should be remembered, too, that the question of the Messiahship was originally one of persons. The Jews would at first have given it to John the Baptist; and after the ascension of Christ it was claimed by Simon Magus," Dositheus, Barchochebas,' and perhaps some others, e.g. Apollonius of Tyana ; but the first step in any attempt to deprive Christ of that office, (whether made practically, as by Simon Magus through his false miracles and the like, or only doctrinally, as by Arius and the Arians,) must be to disprove the source of it--His true Divinity; but whenever this was done, there, it is plain, was to be found, in germ and essence, the after heresy of Arius.

Arius originally began his attack on the faith, in opposition 1 Eusebius contra Marcellum, lib. i. c. 4. pp. 26, 27. We quote throughout from Bishop Montague's edition of this work which is subjoined to that of the Demonstration,' published at Paris, 1628.

Theodoret, Hist. b. i. c. 3. Schulz, Halle, 1769.
Defence, sect. iii. c. 1. § 16.

On Simon the Magician.
* S. Epiphanius, Her. xxi. $ 7. Theodoret, Hær. fab. i. 1.

6 Ittigius de Hæresibus, Sæc. 1.c. 5.83. Brucker, vol. ii. De Philosophia Judaica, p. 679, § 9, and others.

1 Mosheim de Rebus, Sæc. 2. $ 13. History, Cent. 2, c. i. $ 11, and others.

6

to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, (who, as Socrates says, had been explaining too curiously the Unity of the Divine Trinity, or, according to Theodoret, who had been insisting that the Son of God was of one substance with the Father, Soc. i. 5, Theodoret, i. 1') by denying the Eternity of Christ, and saying that He had His existence é oùk Övtw—that there was a time when He was not—that He was a creature—and the like; from whence he proceeded to that conclusion which formed his real object-the denial, namely, of His Consubstantiality, and so of His true and supreme Divinity.

The heresy, thus broached, was soon found to consist of two chief elements or phases. There was Arianism proper, as it is termed, or mere psilanthropism, which afterwards became connected more peculiarly with the names of Aëtius and Eunomius; and there was a Dualism, such as differed in no essential respect from the semi-Arian doctrine subsequently adopted by Basil of Ancyra and his school. The former taught, as its name imports, that Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, was a mere man; the latter had for its distinctive feature the denial, not that He was in some sense God, the only-begotten, existing before time, for all this it asserted, but that He was the same God as the Father.

Such is the division adopted by our own Bishop Bull, in his Defence of the Nicene Faith ;'>

• Scilicet duæ fuere imprimis Ariomanitarum classes : alii fatebantur quidem Filium ex ipsâ Patris hypostasi, peculiari modo natum fuisse, non, ut cæteræ creaturæ, ex nihilo factum; sed negabant tamen Filium ex Patris substantiâ progenitum; virtutem tantummodo aliquam paternam illum esse existimantes, non paternæ essentiæ åtoppolav. Alii ne ex ipso Patre peculiari modo genitum esse Filium faterentur, eum plane ex non existentibus factum, ut cæteræ creaturæ, rotunde pronuntiârunt-Priores illi, SemiAriani dicti fuere.'--Sect. ii. chap. 9. § 11.

And so Petavius, (De Trinitate, lib. i. cap. 10. § 1;) for his after threefold classification is not really opposed to this idea, as it is plain that the two last named by him, Homæusians and Homeans, differ rather in terms than in ideas; the former indeed, as retaining the word oo la which the latter altogether repudiate, may be deemed perhaps the least heretical of the two.

And the same is put most clearly by Mr. Newman in his invaluable work on the Arians :

• It will be found that this audacious and elaborate sophistry could not escape one of two conclusions ;-either the establishment of a sort of poly.

And see Mr. Newman's · Arians,' p. 222; Fleury, book x. $ 28; S. Alexander of Alexandria's letter to his namesake of Constantinople, Theodoret, History,

b. i. c. 3;

his encyclical letter, Socrates, b. i. c. 6; Arius to S. Alexander, S. Epiphanius, Her. Ixix. p. 733 ; S. Athanasius to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Oxford Translation of S. Athanasius' Historical Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 139 ; Arius tó Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theodoret, Hist. b. i. c. 5.

5

theism, or, as the more practical alternative, that of the mere humanity of Christ; i. e. either the superstition of paganism, or the virtual atheism of philosophy. If the professions of the Arians are to be believed, they confessed our Lord to be God—ýpns Ocòs, yet at the same time to be infinitely distant from the perfections of the one eternal Cause. Here at once a ditheism is acknowledged; but Athanasius pushes on the admission to that of an unlimited polytheism. “If,” he says, “the Son were an object of worship from His transcendant glory, then every subordinate being is bound to worship his superior.” But so repulsive is the notion of a secondary God, both to reason, and much more to Christianity, that the real tendency of Arianism lay towards the sole remaining alternative, the humanitarian scheme.'—P. 249.

In accordance with the humanitarian type of his heresy, we find Arius denying the coeternity of the Son of God'His existence before His creation - His natural identity with the Father, or His consubstantiality,' as it is termed-and His knowledge of His essence; and he asserts Him to be a creature, κτίσμα-a work, ποίημα - produced from nothing, εξ ουκ όντων —mutable, TPÉTITOS—and the like. In its dualism he confesses Him to be the only-begotten and immutable, (although on this the opinions of the same school differed at different times) begotten before all ages, and (as we have seen) perfect, (πλήρης,) God.

I See S. Ambrose, De Fide, lib. iii. cap. 8. § 58. •Filius non infidelibus datus est, sed fidelibus. Nobis datus est, non Photinianis; illi enim non datum nobis Dei Filium dicunt esse, sed ab initio inter nos natum-nobis datus est, non Sabellianis, illi enim nolunt Filium datum, eundem asserentes Patrem esse quem Filium---nobis, non Arianis; et ipsi enim non habent Filium pro salute datum, sed pro infirmitate transmissum : non habent consiliarium, quem putant futura nescire, non habent Filium, quem sempiternum non putant.'-So Socrates, book i. chap. 5. Sozomen, book i. chap. 15.

? This was afterwards more peculiarly the doctrine of Aëtius and Eunomius.Philostorgius, the Arian historiin, praising Eusebius (of Cæsarea) for other things, says that he errs περί την ευσέβειαν when he holds όγνωστον το θείον και ακατάληatov.- History, book i. chap. 2.

3 See S. Basil against Sabellius, vol. ii. p. 189 E. Benedictine Edition. Paris. 1722. Petavius de Trinitate, lib. i. cap. 8.

4. Bull, Defensio, sect. ii. cap. 4, $ 6. Sane Arius apertè dicere non est veritus, Filium Dei conversioni et mutationi obnoxium, ac pro arbitrii libertate virtutis et vitii capacem fuisse ;' &c. And he proves most triumphantly that S. Justin Martyr, at least, the chief subject of the chapter, held opinions directly contrary to those of Arius.

6 • They declared that Christ was, strictly speaking, the only creature of God, as alone made immediately by Him, and hence called μονογενής, a8 γεννήθεις μόνος Tapà jóvou ; whereas all others were created through Him, as the instrument of Divine power.' – Newman's Arians, p. 227. Dr. Lee considers the use of this term a warrant of the orthodoxy of Eusebius, (Preliminary Dissertation, p. xxvi.) but it is here found that Arius himself uses, nay urges, it.

6 The idea of time depending on that of creation, they were able to grant that He who was employed in forming the worlds, therefore existed before all time, Topd xpbvwv kal aivvwv, not granting thereby that He was from everlasting, but that He was brought into existence, åxpóvws, independent of that succession of second causes, (as they are called,) that elementary system, seemingly self-sustained and self-renovating-to the laws of which, creation itself may be considered as subjected.' — Newman's Arian8, p. 227.

Dicis interdum Deum Christum ; sed ita dic Deum verum, ut plenitudinem ei 'On the question whether Eusebius of Cæsarea were really the brother of Eusebius of Nicomedia or not, see Valesius De Vita Scriptisque Eusebii, p. 9, (Amsterdam, 1695,) and Fleury, book x. § 34 ; both of whom incline to the affirmative.

[ocr errors]

Thus he writes to Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, his chief friend and patron :

• Because Eusebius of Cæsareal thy brother, and Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, and Aëtius, with all the East, asserted that God, ó Ocòs, existed before his Son, axpóvws, they have been anathematized by Alexander;' (whose own doctrine, by the way, against which Arius protests and stirs up Eusebius, was, Ario confitente, the Catholic one of äel o θεός, άει ο Υιός- άμα Πατήρ, άμα Υιός,) we, however, say and teach that the Son is not ingenerate, or a part of the ingenerate, or formed of any subject matter, but that He existed by the will and counsel of the Father before all ages, is perfect God, only-begotten, immutable, and before He was begotten, or created, or defined, or founded ovk ív, for He is not ingenerate.' - Theodoret, Hist. book i. chap. 4.

And the same doctrines are found in Arius' letter to his Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, and in what remains to us of his Thalia ;' of both which, English versions are to be found in the Oxford translation of S. Athanasius' treatises against the Arians,' vol. viii. p. 95, &c.

Lastly, in his creed to Constantine, after the Council of Nice, the heresiarch says, Πιστεύομεν εις ... Κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν

, τον Υιόν αυτού, τον εξ αυτού προ πάντων των αιώνων γεγενήμενον Ocòv Noyov .. Credimus in ... Dominum Jesum Christum Filium ejus (Dei) qui ex eo factus est ante omnia sæcula. Deum verbum.

-Socrates, book i. chap. 26. paternæ divinitatis adsignes ; sunt enim qui dicuntur Dii sive in cælo, sive in ierra. Non ergo perfunctoriè nuncupandus Deus, sed ita ut eandem Divinitatem prædices in Filio quam Pater habet, sicut scriptum est, “Sicut enim Pater vitam habet in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso." Dedit utique quasi Filio per generationem, non quasi inopi per gratiam.'- S. Ambrose de Fide, book iii. chap. 16. § 133. So Petavius, "Deum verum negabant esse Filium, sed participatione duntaxat quemadmodum homines et angeli.'—De Trinitate, book i. chap 8.

2 To the notes on these pieces, we would only add, that Arius calls God the Father, 'the God of the law, and the prophets, and the New Testament;' and he says of Christ, that 'He was begotten not in appearance, ev dóxeno et, but in truth.' Did he insert the former clause, to guard against being thought to agree with that Gnostic dogma, which taught a distinction between the Gods of the Old and New Testament? and by the latter, does he mean that he is not to be thought to hold of the Divine generation of our Lord, what Marcion and some of his disciples held of His human birth, of whom Tertullian says, “Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam generationem.'--De Carne Christi, § 1. At least, the heresy of Arius on the Divine fact in question has, as is well known, precisely that very result; for by lowering it as he does, he deprives it of all its peculiar force and mystery, and therefore in fact destroys it altogether; nor can his phraseology fail to remind us of the opinions of Simon Magus (the parent of all heresy) and his followers, on Christ's crucifixion, who asserted-some, that Simon the Cy renian suffered in His stead; others, that He was crucificd, but not in reality, only év ôóknoet (which latter tenet owes its existence to Simon himself). Hence their appellation of Doceta. S. John has been thought to allude to them in the first chapter and first verse of his first General Epistle.

&4

« PreviousContinue »