II. PART II. them comprehensible. Praxeas, a man of genius CENT. and learning, began to propagate these explications at Rome, and was severely persecuted for the errors they contained. He denied any real distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and maintained that the Father, sole creator of all things, had united to himself the human nature of Christ. Hence his followers were called Monarchians, because of their denying a plurality of persons in the Deity; and also Patropassians, because, according to Tertullian's account, they believed that the Father was so intimately united with the man Christ, his Son, that he suffered with him the anguish of an afflicted life, and the torments of an ignominious death. However ready many may have been to embrace this erroneous doctrine, it does not appear, that this sect formed to themselves a separate place of worship, or removed themselves from the ordinary assemblies of Christians [a]. Artemon. XXI. An opinion highly resembling that now Theodotus, mentioned was, about the same time, professed at Rome by Theodotus, who, though a tanner, was a man of profound learning, and also by Artemas, or Artemon, from whom the sect of the Artemonites derived their origin. The accounts given of these two persons, by the ancient writers, are not only few in number, but are also extremely ambiguous and obscure. Their sentiments, however, as far as they can be collected from the best records, amount to this; "That, at the birth of "the man Christ, a certain divine energy, or por"tion of the divine nature (and not the person "of the Father, as Praxeas imagined), united it"self to him." It is impossible to decide with any degree of certainty which of the two was the most ancient, Theo [a] Tertulliani Lib contra Praxeam; as also Petri Wesselingii Probabilia, cap. xxvi. p. 223. PART II. CENT. Theodotus, or Artemon; as also whether they II. both taught the same doctrine, or differed in their opinions. One thing, indeed, is certain, and that is, that the disciples of both applied the dictates of philosophy, and even the science of geometry, to the explication of the Christian doctrine. Hermoge nes. The illiterate sect. XXII. A like attachment to the dictates of a presumptuous philosophy, induced Hermogenes, a painter by profession, to abandon the doctrine of Christianity concerning the origin of the world, and the nature of the soul, and thus to raise new troubles in the church. Regarding matter as the fountain of all evil, he could not persuade himself that God had created it from nothing, by an almighty act of his will; and therefore he maintained, that the world, with whatever it contains, as also the souls of men, and other spirits, were formed by the Deity from an uncreated and eternal mass of corrupt matter. In this doctrine there were many intricate things, and it manifestly jarred with the opinions commonly received among Christians relative to that difficult, and almost unsearchable subject. How Hermogenes explained those doctrines of Christianity which opposed his system, neither Tertullian, who refuted it, nor any of the ancient writers inform us [b]. XXIII. These sects, which we have now been passing in review, may be justly regarded as the offspring of philosophy. But they were succeeded by one in which ignorance reigned, and which was the mortal enemy of philosophy and letters. Montanus. It was formed by Montanus, an obscure man, without any capacity or strength of judgment, and [6] There is yet extant a book written by Tertullian against Hermogenes, in which the opinions of the latter concerning matter, and the origin of the world, are warmly opposed. We have lost another work of the same author, in which he refuted the notion of Hermogenes concerning the soul. II. PART II. and who lived in a Phrygian village called Pe- CENT. puza. This weak man was foolish and extravagant enough to take it into his head, that he was the paraclete or comforter [c], which the divine Saviour, at his departure from the earth, promised to send to his disciples to lead them to all truth. He made no attempts upon the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, but only declared, that he was sent with a divine commission, to give to the moral precepts delivered by Christ and his apostles [c] Those are undoubtedly mistaken, who have asserted that Montanus gave himself out for the Holy Ghost. However weak he may have been in point of capacity, he was not fool enough to push his pretensions so far. Neither have they, who inform us that Montanus pretended to have received from above the same spirit or paraclete, which formerly animated the apostles, interpreted with accuracy the meaning of this heretic. It is, therefore, necessary to observe here, that Montanus made a distinction between the paraclete promised by Christ to his apostles, and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost; and understood by the former, a divine teacher pointed out by Christ, under the name of paraclete, or comforter, who was to perfect the gospel by the addition of some doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast a full light upon others which were expressed in an obscure and imperfect manner, though, for wise reasons, which subsisted during the ministry of Christ; and, indeed, Montanus was not the only person that made this distinction. Other Christian doctors were of opinion, that the paraclete promised by Jesus to his disciples, was a divine ambassador, entirely distinct from the Holy Ghost, which was shed upon the apostles. In the third century, Manes interpreted the promise of Christ in this manner. He pretended, moreover, that he himself was the paraclete, and that, in his person, the prediction was fulfilled. Every one knows, that Mahomet entertained the same notion, and applied to himself the prediction of Christ, concerning the coming of the paraclete. It was, therefore this divine messenger that Montanus pretended to be, and not the Holy Ghost. This will appear with the utmost evidence, to those who read with attention the account given of this matter by Tertullian, who was the most famous of all the disciples of Montanus, and the most perfectly acquainted with every point of his doctrine. CENT. and modern (especially Tertullian) who have professedly written concerning the sects of the early ages. The learned PART II. Mr. Theophilus Wernsdorf, published at Dantzick, in the year 1751, a most ingenious exposition of whatever regards the sect of the Montanists, under the following title: Commentatio de Montanistis Sæculi secundi, vulgo creditis Hæreticis. THI The EXTERNAL CHA Which contains the p pened to the Chur THAT the Chr often as avarice, cr a considerable nu TOL. I. THE THIRD CENTURY. PART I. The EXTERNAL HISTORY of the CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Which contains the prosperous events that happened to the Church during this century. I. THA III. PART I. HAT the Christians suffered in this cen- CENT. tury, calamities and injuries of the most dreadful kind, is a matter that admits of no debate; nor was there, indeed, any period in which they were not exposed to perpetual dangers. For, not to mention the fury of the people, set in motion so often by the craft and zeal of their licentious priests, the evil came from a higher source; the prætors and magistrates, notwithstanding the ancient laws of the emperors, in favour of the Christians, had it in their power to pursue them with all sorts of vexations, as often as avarice, cruelty or superstition roused up the infernal spirit of persecution in their breasts. At the same time, it is certain, that The rights the rights and privileges of the Christians were nities of the multiplied, in this century, much more than Christians many are apt to imagine. In the army, at court, and, indeed, in all the orders of the nation, there was a considerable number of Christians, who VOL. I. lived R and immu increased. |