vinity. But as what was said in describing these related wholly to our present subject, we cannot select from it, and therefore must refer to it.-Possibly, the Ebionites might think of nothing, with regard to the Messiah, but that he was to be a temporal Prince, and a mere man.-The Nazarenes might be more impressed with the notions of the Logos, and the Son of God (John i. 49.) being the same with the "King of Israel," or Messiah.

We might mention, as before, some Christians, who seem to have mixed Oriental and Judaical notions: Cerinthus and Carpocrates may perhaps be mentioned in this class. It was not uncommon, amongst the early Heretics, to make a difference between Jesus and Christ: and some made two. Christs even on Jewish principles, one suffering, another triumphant: Pearson on the Creed, p. 371, 1st. edit.—And we may, lastly, repeat a remark on the difference between those, who held two Principles, and those who held one; that the former used to deny the humanity of Christ, and the latter, his Divinity.

We have now finished our references to the Appendix of the first book; it relating only to the early Heretics.

6. We pass on to the Arians.-Arius seems to have been an African: he is placed in 316; it is well known, that he was a presbyter at Alexandria ; a man of parts, and of commanding appearance, though affable; particularly ready at dispute. The name of his Bishop, that is, the Bishop of Alexandria in his time, was Alexander: by degrees, Arius got into a dispute with this Alexander, concerning the nature and dignity of the Son of God; which spread, till the whole Christian world was involved

in

Appendix to Book i. Sect. 21. See also Lardner's Works, vol. VII. p. 20,

in it: Constantine ordered the Council of Nice, in order to settle it; but without effect: he has been reckoned too partial on the orthodox side, though his Epistle before mentioned shews some moderation: other Emperors favoured the Arians, but moderation was but little practised in those days. We have already taken a slight view of Arianism from the Council of Nice down to the present time: we may just add the name of Dr. Price, as Dr. Priestley's Letters to him give that description of Arianism, which is most recent.

b

As to the Doctrines of Arius, I do not see, that we can learn them better than from two Epistles of his own, written with great care, the one to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, who was of his own way of thinking, complaining of persecution, and mentioning the particular opinions, on account of which he suffered ;-the other to his own diocesan, Alexander, apologizing for himself and his doctrines, which had probably been misrepresented. This latter is signed by fourteen others as well as Arius.

That there should have been so much acrimony and virulence in the Arian controversy, and so much misery arising out of it, seems the most strange when we observe, how very near Arius comes to the truth, and reflect, that the difference between the orthodox and him relates to a thing, of which we have not distinct ideas. He seemed to think, that, if the Son could in any sense be called by that name, or could be said to have been begotten, the Father must have existed before him: i. e. there must have been some time, when the Father was and the Son was not he was willing to put

b Art. i. Sect. 6.

с

Epiphanius, Hær. 69. mentioned by Lardner, Works,

vol. IV.

put that time as far back as any one pleased; he would call the Son ἀχρόνως γεννήθεις, πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, and the Nicene Creed only says, begotten before all worlds ;” πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ; we do not conceive Christ to be unbegotten; only as we want ideas, we do not dare to reason, or make the least variation in what the Scripture seems to represent. The same may be observed of the reasoning of Arius, when he says, that, as Christ came from the Father, if he was consubstantial with him, a part of the Father must have left the rest; he must be divisible. A saying accommodated to inferior intellects is not to be taken or used as a plain saying not accommodated, to which we have adequate ideas.-Indeed Arius does call the Son a Creature, or Krioμα, but then he says, that he is not on a footing with other creatures; going probably upon the text, which calls Christ" the first-born of every creature' :and besides, it seems to be indifferent to him, whether he uses the word γέννημα, οι κτίσμα, he uses them promiscuously ; κτίσμα τοῦ θεον τέλειον, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ὡς ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων, γέννημα, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ὡς ἓν τῶν γεννημά Twv.-And, though he had not used any word but creation, yet the difference between his creation before all ages, and our generation "before all worlds," would not be great to those, who estimated ideas by their distinctness: it needed not surely to have been a cause of war and persecution.-But we are now only concerned with History;-we see then, that Arius and his followers denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, but acknowledged his pre-existence.

શ

There is another opinion sometimes ascribed to the Arians, and that is, the opinion, that Christ had not properly an human soul; on this account,

a Col. i. 15.

the

b

the Arians are sometimes joined with the Apollinarians; which will be a sufficient reason why we should mention the Apollinarian Doctrine at this time. Indeed, the word Arian has sometimes been used as a sort of generic term including even Socinians.

Apollinarius (or Apollinaris, for the name is differently written) is placed in the year 362: he is called Bishop of Laodicea, but there is some doubt whether he ever was Bishop. He seems to have been a great man, and a great writer; the loss of his thirty books against Porphyry is particularly lamented; the more, as they seem to have been destroyed merely on account of his solutions of the Incarnation. It seems to have occurred to this eminent man, that, if Jesus was informed by the Word dwelling in him, it was needless for him to have the use of human reason; nay, impossible for a being, who saw and knew as the Son of God, to He investigate slowly after the manner of men. therefore held, that the Logos must, to Jesus Christ, supply the place of an human soul.—I see nothing like folly in the notion taken separately, nor do I find any reason why Lardner should speak of it as a fancy of old age; its weakness consists

in

Lord King on the Creed, p. 181, 182. Pearson on the Creed" He was conceived"-p. 324, 1st edit. see also p. 380, about the Aoyos suffering: Lardner's Works, vol. II. p. 80.

c Mosheim, 17th Cent. end of Chap. vi. This may perhaps be some defence of Voltaire. See Note on Art. i. Sect. 6.

d This is the most common idea, of the doctrine of Apollinarius, but in the Serm. 191. or 236. de Tempore, where the Creed of Pelagius is introduced, that doctrine is described as consisting in this; that the assumed man is only a part of the ordinary natural man, whether deficient in carne, animâ, or sensu. Which agrees with Waterland on the Athanasian Creed.

• Lardner (Works, vol. IV. p. 387.)-only says, "latter part of his life," but at the same time he expresses an irksomeness VOL. II.

U

about

a

in its being inconsistent with some parts of Scripture, which describe Christ as perfect man," in body and mind.-Bishop Pearson makes Arius's notion to be this which we have now described; and that of Apollinarius (as differing from Arius's) to consist in a distinction between the animal and rational soul; but body with animal soul seems to me to mean only the body living. And, when the ancients called the followers of Apollinarius Dimaritæ, I understand them to mean, that the Apollinarians held Christ to be what was really only two thirds of Christ; that is, Body and Aoyos, instead of Body and Soul and Λόγος.

b

Apollinarius seems not then to differ from the Catholics, as to the consubstantiality or pre-existence; but as to both the other points, the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union.

с

Semi-arians are said to have allowed, that Christ was ouoovotos with the Father, but not by nature, only by privilege. We will not be more particular about the followers of Arius, who softened his doctrine, and approached nearer to orthodoxy than their Master.

7. We

about relating the opinion: that is perhaps as a sort of Socinian, or Nazarean: he has written against it; on occasion, probably, of Mr. Whiston's reviving it. See his Works, vol. II. p. 80. Lardner's own notions appear in the same tract or Letter; Works, vol. II. p. 110. lowest line (of text). p. 97. 104. The Word is not a Person, does not mean the Son (97).—The Son and Messiah are the same: the Son was miraculously conceived (99); yet he was a Man (104); but they are very wrong who thought him born of Joseph and Mary (110).-Lardner disapproves Interpretations of professed Socinians as far as he has read them (112), but he has not read much of them; has not read Crellius de Uno Deo Patre (112).

* On Creed, p. 324, 1st edit. p. 160. Fol.

When dipoipía signifies a double portion, there seems to be an idea of dividing the thing between two persons, giving one of them double the other, that is, two thirds of the whole.

Mosheim, Cent. iv. Part 2. Chap. v. Sect. 16.