And see the same author, book i. chap. 6:

""Christ is," say they, "as to His nature, mutable and liable to change, as are all rational creatures. Hence, the Word is alien and foreign to the essence of God, and is separated from it-and the Father is inexplicable by the Son-for neither does the Son perfectly and accurately know the Father, nor can He distinctly see Him. The Son knows not His own essence, of what nature it is, for He was made on our account, in order that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; nor would He have existed unless God had willed our creation." Some one accordingly asked them, “whether the Word of God could be changed as the devil had been?" and they feared not to reply, "Yes, He could, for being begotten and created, He is susceptible of change."-S. Alexander's Encyclical Letter on the Arian Heresy.

And these two classes of the heresy seem to have been united also in Eusebius of Nicomedia, the mainstay of the cause, who, writing to a brother Arian, Paulinus the Bishop of Tyre, and praising by the way Eusebius of Cæsarea's 'zeal for the truth,' speaks thus:

There is one Ingenerate, and one truly of Him, not at all begotten of His Essence, or partaking of His Ingenerate nature, or being of His substance, but created altogether different in nature and power; created to a perfect resemblance of the will and power of His Maker; and His beginning, which is inexpressible not only in word but in thought, we believe to be incomprehensible, not by men alone, but by all creatures above men; and this we say not relying on our own opinion, but instructed by Scripture,— that He is created, and founded, and made in Essence, and in immutable and ineffable nature, and in the likeness of His Maker.'

Eusebius then proceeds: We deny that the Son is of the Father,

so as to be any part of Him or of the effluence of His Essence, because if so, He could not be said to be made or founded;' and that, ‘His being said to be begotten is not intended to show that He was so of the Father's nature, and had from Him the Identity of His Essence, because the same term is used not of Him alone, but also of creatures altogether unlike Him in nature, as of men, (Isa. i. 2; Deut. xxxii. 18; Job xxxviii. 28;) showing not that they have their nature from that of God, but that the generation of everything that is made is of His Will-for nothing is of His Essence, &c.-Theodoret, Hist. i. 5.

Of these two divisions of the heresy in question, the particular doctrines which compose the Psilanthropist class have been traced to the early Judaizing Christians, headed by Cerinthus That our Lord, or rather the man Jesus, was merely the son of Joseph and Mary, was held by Cerinthus himself; it may in fact be said to have been the opinion of those who cried out, Is not this the carpenter's son?' (Matt. xiii. 55); that He was begotten of the Father's Will only, and not of His Essence, was professed by the Ebionites: That He was chosen to be the Son by grace and for His mere human virtue-dià

1 Clementine Recognitions, b. iii. § 8. 10.

2

τρόπων ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ ἄσκησιν μὴ τρεπόμενον ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, ételéçaτo, as S. Alexander expresses it, when speaking of the opinion of Arius, was held by Cerinthus,' the Jews of S. Justin Martyr's time, and the Ebionites. This last assertion Petavius traces to Carpocrates, whom Eusebius, from S. Irenæus, ranks among the authors of Gnosticism," and who through Menander and Basilides was connected with Simon Magus; through his son Epiphanes with Valentinus and the Valentinians :—

4

'Mutabilem eundem (Christum) esse dicebat, et in malum posse desciscere, sed præscientiâ tamen ex omnibus exemptum, quod in bono constantem eum fore præviderit Deus. Quod si Paulus aut Petrus aliusve quispiam, tantum ad virtutem et sanctitatem, quantum iste Filius Dei conatum adhiberet, eodem jure nec minus excellenter esse dicique posse Filium, quæ fuit Carpocratis opinio ut Epiphanius ac Theodoretus affirmant.'

9

8

And lastly, the denial that our Lord was the true Son, and Wisdom, and Word of God, which we are apt to connect exclusively with Arianism, seems also of earlier growth. Tillemont convinces us that it was held by, if it did not originate with Cerinthus 10 and, indeed, a passage in S. Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, compared with that of S. Irenæus quoted by Tillemont, might induce us to ascribe its existence to the very earliest date. It is as follows: Εἷς Θεὸς ἔστιν ὃς φανερώσας ἑαύτον δι ̓ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὃς ἔστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος 'AI AIO, (and see the notes of Vossius and Cotelerius on the passage: Patres Apostolici, Cotelerius, vol. ii. p. 18, notes 14, 15: Amsterdam, 1724.)

Its dualistic phase," which was a perversion of the truth, as Psilanthropism was a denial of it,-introducing a second Divinity 'above all creatures,' 'defined,' 'founded,' or 'created' before all time-Himself the Creator of time, even 'God;' but still, in action, power, and essence, inferior to the first and supreme Deity,

1 Tillemont.

2 S. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, p. 267 D. 291 C. 3 S. Epiphanius, Her. xxx. §§ 16-18, pp. 140-142. De Trinitate, b. i. c. 8.

S. Epiphanius, Her. xxvii. § 1.

Cologne, 1686.

Neander, vol. ii. p. 16.

5 Eccles. Hist. b. iv. c. 7.

7 Tillemont on Valentinus. Burton, Lectures, vol. ii. p. 99.

8 The passages to which Petavius alludes are to be found in S. Epiphanius, Her. xxvii. § 2. Theodoret, Her. fab. i. 5. See also Bp. Bull's Defence, sect. ii. c. 4. § 6.

This subject is treated of by S. Athanasius, de Syn. Nic. § 6. Orat. i. cont. Arianos, § 5. Hooker, book v. c. 52. § 4. Petavius de Trinitate, c. 8. § 1. Bull's Defence, sect. iii. c. 4. § 2; c. 7. § 4, and others.

10 Tillemont. Heresy of Cerinthus.

11 He,' says S. Basil, who affirms that the begotten is of different essence to the begetter, he also introduces two Gods through this diversity, edging in (rapeloάywv) polytheism; for if there is one ingenerate Godhead, and another generate, thou art a teacher of polytheism, opposing the Ingenerate to the Generate, laying down the Essences also as plaiuly contrary to one another-if in truth

resembled the former class of doctrine in that it did not originate an idea, but borrowed, it cannot be doubted, (whether willingly or otherwise,) that which had long been the fundamental one of the religions of the East: which had in a measure received the sanction of Greek philosophy, and had been adopted, at once as the basis of their system and its sanction, by Simon Magus and his Gnostic followers, as is shown by Brucker, vol. ii. p. 675; Mosheim's greater Institutes, sæc. 1, pars ii. c. 5, § 14, and others. Indeed, it has been shown that there was a school, and succession of teachers, which, passing from Persepolis, and taking root in Alexandria, taught this doctrine. It was at the latter city that Simon Magus, and others of the Gnostic leaders, studied, and from thence they carried the same dogma, though with so many additions and alterations as to be, at first sight, scarcely recognisable, into Palestine, Asia, and even Italy. The Clementine homilies profess to detail the journeys, actions, and teachings, of Simon and S. Peter, and to show how the former used the dogma in question, in opposition to Christianity; whilst at the same time, by the place which they ascribe to Christ as 'the true prophet,' in the pretended system of S. Peter, they prove that their author (an Ebionite) was a holder of mere Psilanthropist doctrine, and was, therefore, so far, among the anticipators of the heresy of Arius.

In accordance with this view of the origin of Arianism, we find the fathers continually urging on its professors that their heresy contained no new idea, and tracing its different doctrines to their respective sources. S. Athanasius ascribes its dualism to the Manichees, (Oxford translation, vol. xiii. p. 144;')— its assertion of the Consubstantiality of the Son not with the Father but with angels, and the consequences of that admission to Valentinus. S. Basil connects it by implication with Marcion, who was at least a contemporary of Valentinus, if not, as Tertullian asserts, his master, and who is connected, through Cerdo, with Simon Magus, the Gnostics, and the Dualism of the East.3 'Whoever,' he says, 'teaches two principles proclaims

that of the Father is Ingenerateness, that of the Son Generateness-so that thou teachest not only two Gods, but two contending with each other, and what is worst of all, thou ascribest the contest not to choice but to a difference of nature, which is never able to arrive at peaceful union.' (Homily against the Sabellians, Arians, and Eunomians, vol. ii. p. 192.) (That is, the Arian was in fact a holder of Syrian, or genuine Gnosticism. Neander, vol. ii. Alexandrian and Syrian Gnosis.') See Mr. Newman's note on S. Athanasius' book on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Oxford translation, vol. viii. p. 150, note y.

And see vol. xix. p. 450; and compare his books against Apollinaris―i. § 21, ii. § 3.

2 Oxf. trans. vol. viii. p. 262, and note f. 3 Burton's Lectures, vol. ii. pp. 101, 102.

Bull's Defence, sect. iii. chap. 1. § 16.
Lect. 17.

Polytheism; so also did Marcion, and all who resemble him in wickedness.'1 S. Ambrose refers its polytheistic Trinity to heathen philosophy.

'Nunc videamus quo distant a gentilibus Ariani. Illi deos appellant dispares sexu, dissimiles potestate; isti Trinitatem adserunt differentis divinitatis, et dissimilis potestatis. Illi deorum suorum principium adseverant temporali; et isti Christum coepisse ex tempore mentiuntur. Nonne ex philosophiâ omnem impietatis suæ traxerunt colorem? Illi tamen quod venerantur amplificant; isti Dei Filium creaturam adserunt esse, qui Deus est.'2

Philaster compares Arius with Apelles, the pupil and follower of Marcion, and who teaches as follows:

Ego unum principium esse prædico, quem Deum cognosco, qui Deus fecit angelos, fecit etiam alteram virtutem quem Deum scio esse secundum, qui et virtus Dei est, quæ fecit illum. Hic autem Deus qui fecit mundum, non est, inquit, bonus ut ille qui fecit illum: subjectus aut (autem?) est Deo illi a quo et factus est iste. . . Cujus Ariani nunc consortes sunt atque fautores, sic prædicantes atque sentientes.'3

In which assertion he is followed by Fabricius, his annotator. And many of the moderns have followed in their steps. Petavius considers Arius to be a Platonist in his limitation of the production of the Son to the period immediately preceding the creation, in which work he ascribed to Him the subordinate office of a mere instrument or agent: 'In eâ confessione,' he says, 'planissime constat Germanum Platonicum Arium extitisse." In this he is followed by Brucker; on the other hand see Cudworth's Intellectual System, with Mosheim's note. (Bk. i. chap. 4. § 36.) Baronius follows Alexander of Alexandria in ascribing the heresy to Ebion, Artemas, and Paul of Samosata, A.D. 318, 74. Worm indeed, on the other hand, thinks that Sabellianism is to be considered its parent, or rather the immediate cause of its being broached by Arius when and how it was it is significant that he also acquits Lucian of Antioch of ever having been, in any sense or at any time, heretical. And Colberg, in his elaborate work 'De Origine Hæresium,' considers it to have sprung from Origen-i.e. in its chief dictathat the Son was a creature, and, therefore, essentially inferior

Against Sabellians, Arians and Anomaans, vol. ii. p. 192 B.

2 De Fide, i. 13, § 85.

3 Chap. 47. Heresy of Apelles.

De Trin. i. 8. Would it be beside the question to add, and also a follower of those five ante-Nicene fathers, who are said to have held the same opinion? Petavius in loc. cit.; and see the elaborate note of Mr. Newman on the Nicene formula πριν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν. Oxford translation of S. Athanasius' select Works, vol. viii. p. 272, &c.

De Sabellianismo ante Sabellium conf. pp. 31, 363.

to the Father. And he thinks Eusebius of Cæsarea's motive for urging Pamphilus to begin the apology for that father, which, owing to the martyrdom of Pamphilus, he himself concluded, was a desire to aid the cause of Arianism by ascribing it to him as its author. (Chap. viii. § 2. pp. 248-250.)

But the Arian heresy was, as regards its component doctrines, in existence long before the times of either Origen or Sabellius; and it would seem that Bishop Bull more rightly refers it generally to that Gnostic system which is believed to have been perfected, if not founded, by Simon Magus and his followers. His words are so much to the purpose, that we trust we shall be pardoned for quoting them at length.

'Quæstio utrum Nicænorum Patrum an Arii fides tenenda sit, in hanc tandem desinet; an Apostolorum doctrina, impiorum Gnosticorum, qui Apostolicas Ecclesias turbârunt, figmentis anteferenda sit, nec ne? Puto autem neminem Christianum diu deliberaturum, utram hîc partem sequi debeat. Ut verbo dicam ex iis quæ hactenus disseruimus, manifestum est, quæstionem de verâ Toû λóyou Divinitate atque æternitate, inter Nicænos Patres et Arium disputatam, etiam in primævâ Ecclesiâ, adeoque in ipsà Apostolicâ ætate, controversam fuisse; nempe inter sceleratissimos mortalium Gnosticos, et Catholicos, qui Apostolicæ doctrinæ constanter adhæserunt: illis Arii partes (quod in immortalem hæretici illius honorem dictum sit) tutantibus; his verò Nicænam fidem strenuè defendentibus. Sequantur igitur Ariani duces illos suos, suo periculo; nos Apostolicâ fide contenti erimus.'1

2

In other words, Gnosticism, composed of ancient Dualism, of neo-Platonism, and modern Judaism, had proved from the first the great external and so-called scientific opponent of Christianity. It had lately, however, found means to pass into the Church, through the school of Paul, Bishop of Samosata, who was connected with the Jews and Gnostics of Syria, and held much of their doctrine, whilst Lucian his friend was

'Defence, sect. iii. chap. 1. § 16. See also Waterland's List of Arians before Arius: .e. of those who denied the true divinity of Jesus Christ, vol. iii. p. 537, &c. (1843.) The Judgment of Primitive Churches.'

2 Pagan mythology is not mentioned here, as it does not seem to have been a lasting enemy to Christianity as these other systems were. It was one of mere plurality without unity, and therefore, although the compositions of ante-Nicene fathers, such as S. Justin Martyr, S. Clement of Alexandria, and others, against it, would show that it was undoubtedly, in its degree, an antagonist, it could never have been a really powerful one. It stood, as it appears, merely by its supposed antiquity, and when that was disproved, it speedily fell.

3 That Arianism, or Gnostic dogmata under that name, was the immediate offspring of the school of Paul of Samosata, has been clearly shown by Mr. Newman, in his work on the Arians, chap. i. sect. 1; and see Cave's Life of S. Athanasius, section ii. § 1. In his invaluable notes to his translations of the select pieces of S. Athanasius, the former author has shown, from time to time, both the points of divarication in the opinions of different heresiarchs, and also how they again united. This double phenomenon may be accounted for in some measure, by the fact that their peculiar tenets had often existed before them in time. Thus vol. viii. p. 41, he points out how and where Paul of Samosata