IV. PART II.

to the empire of imagination and the dictates of CENT. sense, rarely follows the middle way in the search of truth, or contemplates spiritual and divine things with that accurateness and simplicity, that integrity and moderation, which alone can guard against erroneous extremes.

Among those who fell into such extremes by their inconsiderate violence in opposing the Arian system, Apollinaris the younger, bishop of Laodicea, may be justly placed, though otherwise

a

man of distinguished merit, and one whose learned labours had rendered to religion the most important services. He defended strenuously the divinity of Christ against the Arians; but, by indulging himself too freely in philosophical distinctions and subtilties, he was carried so far as to deny, in some measure, his humanity. He maintained, that the body which Christ assumed, was endowed with a sensitive, and not a rational, soul; and that the Divine Nature performed the functions of reason, and supplied the place of what we call the mind, the spiritual and intellectual principle in man. And from this it seemed to follow, as a natural consequence, that the Divine Nature in Christ was blended with the human, and suffered with it the pains of crucifixion and death itself [c]. This great man was led astray, not only by his love of disputing, but also by an immoderate attachment to the Platonic doctrine, concerning the two-fold nature of the soul, which was too generally adopted by the divines of this age; and which, undoubtedly, perverted their judgment in several respects, and led them to erroneous and extravagant decisions on various subjects.

E e 4

Other

[c] However erroneous the hypothesis of Apollinaris may have been, the consequences here drawn from it are not entirely just for if it is true, that the human soul does not, in any respect, suffer death by the dissolution of the body, the same must hold good with respect to the divine nature.

:

CENT.

PART II.

Other errors, beside that now mentioned, are IV. imputed to Apollinaris by certain ancient writers; but it is not easy to determine how far they deserve credit upon that head [d]. Be that as it will, his doctrine was received by great numbers in almost all the eastern provinces, though by the different explications that were given of it, its votaries were subdivided into various sects. It did not, however, maintain its ground long; but, being attacked at the same time by the laws of the emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned, it sunk, by degrees, under their united force.

Marcellus

XVIII. Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, in Galaof Ancyra. tia, may be ranked in the same class with Apollinaris, if we are to give credit to Eusebius of Casarea, and the rest of his adversaries, who represent his explication of the doctrine of the Trinity as bordering upon the Sabellian and Samosatenian errors. Many however are of opinion, that Eusebius of Cæsarea and the bishop of Nicomedia, who bore the same name, represented with partiality the sentiments of Marcellus, on account of the bitterness and vehemence which he discovered in his opposition to the Arians, and their protectors. But though it should be acknowledged, that, in some particulars, the accusations of his enemies carried an aspect of partiality and resentment, yet it is manifest, that they were far from being entirely groundless. For, if the doctrine of Marcellus be attentively examined, it will appear, that he considered the

Son

[d] See Basnage's Historia Hæresis Apollinaris, published a second time by Voigt, in his Bibliotheca Hæresiologica, tom. i. fascic. i. p. 1–96. and improved by some learned and important additions. See also tom. i. fascic. iii. and p. 607. of this latter work. The laws that were enacted against the followers of Apollinaris, are extant in the Theodosian Code, tom. vi. p. 144. See an account of Apollinaris, and his Heresy, in the English edition of Bayle's Dictionary, at the arti cle Apollinaris.

IV. PART II.

Son and the Holy Ghost as two emanations from CENT. the Divine Nature, which, after performing their respective offices, were to return again into the substance of the Father; and every one will perceive, at first sight, how incompatible this opinion is with the belief of three distinct Persons in the Godhead. Besides this, a particular circumstance, which augmented considerably the aversion of many to Marcellus, as also the suspicion of his erring in a capital manner, was his obstinately refusing, towards the conclusion of his life, to condemn the tenets of his disciple Photinus [e].

XIX. Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, may, with The sect of propriety, be placed at the head of those whom Photinus. the Arian controversy was the occasion of seducing into the most extravagant errors. This prelate published, in the year 343, his opinions concerning the Deity, which were equally repugnant to the Orthodox and Arian systems. His notions, which have been but obscurely, and indeed sometimes inconsistently represented by the ancient writers, amount to this, when attentively examined; "That Jesus Christ was born of "the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that "a certain divine emanation, or ray (which he "called the word) descended upon this extraordinary man; that, on account of the union of the divine word with his human nature, Jesus "was called the Son of God, nay, God himself; " and that the Holy Ghost was not a distinct person, but a celestial virtue proceeding from the "Deity." The temerity of this bold innovator was chastised, not only by the Orthodox in the councils of Antioch [f] and Milan, held in the

66

66

66

years

[e] See Montfaucon's Diatriba de Caussa Marcelli in Nova Collectione Patrum Græcorum, tom. ii. p. 58; as also Gervaise, Vie de S. Epiphane, p. 42.

[f] According to Dr. Lardner's account, this coun

cil

IV.

PART II

CENT. years 345 and 347, and in that of Sirmium, whose date is uncertain, but also by the Arians in one of their assemblies held at Sirmium, in the year 351. In consequence of all this, Photinus was degraded from the episcopal dignity, and died in exile in the year 372 [g].

The heresy of Macedonius.

XX. After him arose Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, a very eminent Semi-arian doctor, who, through the influence of the Eunomians, was deposed by the council of Constantinople, in the year 360, and sent into exile, where he formed the sect of the Macedonians, or Pneumatomachians. In his exile, he declared with the utmost freedom those sentiments which he had formerly either concealed, or, at least, taught with much circumspection. He considered the Holy Ghost as "a divine energy diffused throughout the "universe, and not as a person distinct from the "Father and the Son [h]." This opinion had many partisans in the Asiatic provinces; but the council assembled by Theodosius, in the year 381, at Constantinople (to which the second rank among the œcumenical, or general councils is commonly attributed), put a stop by its authority to the growing evil, and crushed this rising sect before it had arrived at its full maturity. An hundred and fifty bishops, who were present at this council, gave the finishing touch to what the council of Nice had left imperfect, and fixed, in a full and determinate manner, the doctrine

of

cil of Antioch, in 345, was held by the Arians, or Eusebians, and not by the Orthodox, as our author affirms. See Lardner's Credibility, &c. vol. ix. p. 13; see also Athanas. De Synod. N. vi. vii. compared with Socrat. lib. ii. cap. xviii.

XIX.

[g] Or in 375, as is concluded from Jerome's Chronicle.— Matt. Larroque, De Photino, et ejus multiplici condemnatione. Thom. Ittigius, Historia Photini in App. ad librum de Hæresiarchis avi Apostolici.

[] Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. iv.

IV. PART IL

of three Persons in one God, which is as yet re- CENT. ceived among the generality of Christians. This venerable assembly did not stop here; they branded, with infamy, all the errors, and set a mark of execration upon all the heresies, that were hitherto known; they advanced the bishop of Constantinople, on account of the eminence and extent of the city in which he resided, to the first rank after the Roman Pontiff, and determined several other points, which they looked upon as essential to the well-being of the church in general [i].

XXI. The frenzy of the ancient Gnostics, The Priswhich had been so often vanquished, and in ap cillianists. pearance, removed, by the various remedies that had been used for that purpose, broke out anew in Spain. It was transported thither, in the beginning of this century, by a certain person, named Marc of Memphis, in Egypt, whose converts at first were not very numerous. They increased, however, in process of time, and counted in their number several persons highly eminent for their learning and piety. Among others, Priscillian, a layman, distinguished by his birth, fortune, and eloquence, and afterwards bishop of Abila, was infected with this odious doctrine, and became its most zealous, and ardent defender. Hence he was accused by several bishops, and by a rescript obtained from the emperor Gratian, he was banished, with his followers, from Spain [k]; but was restored, some time after,

by

[i] Socratus. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. viii. p. 624. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. cap. vii. p. 711.

[] This banishment was the effect of a sentence pronounced against Priscillian, and some of his followers, by a synod convened at Saragossa in the year 380; in consequence of which, Idacius and Ithacius, two cruel and persecuting ecclesiastics, obtained from Gratian the receipt abovementioned. See Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. lib, ii. cap. xlvii. p. 283. edit. Leipsick, 8vo.