Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

3

was the sentiment of the Ebionites, and in them it was condemned by early writers; yet as their pretension to the name of Christians was not admitted, it is not to be expected thatTM it would so deeply engage the attention of the primitive divines, as when it appeared in the Church.

The name of Praxeas has been mentioned, and his followers, who were called Patripas-sians, because they asserted that God the Father suffered. These were Unitarians of another stamp. According to Tertullian, this man, as the leader of a Heresy, was excommunicated by Zepherinus, who succeeded Vic-> tor in the see of Rome. Both he, and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, declare, that the followers of Praxeas, and all Unitarians, should renounce their errors, and be re-bap-> tized, before they could be received into the Church. It was decreed, in a council of African Bishops, that all Heretics should be re-baptized.>>

Paul, of Samosata, was one of the higher order of Bishops. He presided over the Metropolitan Church of Antioch. He affected, in his appearance, the splendor of a monarch. In his manners, there was a levity which little be came his profession as an Ecclesiastic, yet calculated to attach the unprincipled and im moral to his person and doctrine. With great arrogance, he taught the simple humanity of Christ.

! H 2

↑ Jam. Vind. Vol. II. page 2811

Dr. Gregory says, "Several councils of Bishops were convened on occasion of this Heresy; and by their decrees, Paul was degraded from the Episcopal dignity."*

By the testimony of Eusebius, it appears, that the first council, which was assembled on this occasion, could not convict him of the Heresy laid to his charge, on account of his duplicity. But afterwards, when he appeared more open, a council was assembled, which consisted of seventy or eighty Bishops. Eusebius says also, "And the leader of the Heresy at Antioch was discovered, and by all mani festly convicted of another doctrine than that which is preached by the whole Catholic Church under Heaven." No mention is made of any errors, for which he was deposed, except that of denying the divinity of Christ.-Eusebius gives this reason why the council that degraded him was called: "Because it was universally reported of Paul, that he had departed from the truth."

Thus the three principal leaders of the Unitarian doctrine, in the second and third centuries, were excommunicated. But were those of the laity, who adhered to their doctrine, also cast out of the Church? We cannot say they were formally excommunicated; but it is evident, that they were treated as persons who had forfeited the character of Christians. We have seen, that it was decreed in a council of

* Christian Church, vol. I, page 136.

Jam. Vind. vol. II, page 417.

African Bishops, that all Heretics should renounce their errors, and be re-baptized, before they could enjoy the privileges of the Church. We have direct testimony, that this was required of the followers of Paul. In one of the canons of the council of Nice, it was ordained, that the Paulianists (so the followers of Paul were denominated) who returned to the Catholic Church, should, without exception, be rebaptized. It appears, that this canon included laymen, as well as others, from the following clause: "If any of them have, in time past, been of the number of the clergy; if they shall appear to have been free from blame, i. e. as to their moral character, being re-baptized, let them be ordained by a Bishop of the Catholic Church."*

If the Churches deemed it necessary that such, on a renunciation of their errors, should be re-baptized, they were undoubtedly consid ered as having forfeited the privileges of Church members, and treated as excommunicated persons.

From this short survey, it certainly appears, that the primitive Christians were alarmed at the appearance of the Unitarian doctrine, and they took very decisive measures to arrest its progress, as an evil of most pernicious tenden cy. The part which they acted, proves the utter abhorrence with which they contemplated a sentiment, which affects the whole system of Christianity.

* Jam. Vind. vol. II, page 416.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Arian doctrine

IN the primitive ages of the Church, as in

[ocr errors]

modern times, there were a variety of names, and some circumstantial differences; but the most material to our present inquiries, and indeed those into which all other sects may, with some small variation, be resolved, were the Unitarians, which have been already considered, the Arians, and the Pelagians. These were prominent sects, which, among the ancients, dissented from the orthodox. Other names there were, yet they were but different modifications of these three denominations.

[ocr errors]

It will

be made to appear, in the progress of this. Treatise, that among the moderns, those who reject the doctrine of salvation by Grace, come within one of these descriptions..

Let us first inquire into the origin and natureof the Arian scheme: and secondly, how it was considered and treated at the time of its first appearance..

1. The Arian doctrine received its name from Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria. He

divulged the sentiment about the year of our Lord 300. It is said, that Alexander, the Bishop of that city, in a discourse upon the Trinity, in the presence of his Presbyters, said, that there was an unity in Trinity. Arius, one of his Presbyters, replied, that such language savored of Sabellianism; and likewise, that if the Father begot the Son, there must have been a beginning of the Son's existence, and conse-quently a time when he was not. This account Dr. Priestley has quoted from Socrates.

Be this as it may, it is agreed, by Ecclesias tical writers, that Arius and his followers propagated, for substance, the following senti-ments: That the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings, whom God the Father had created out of nothing that he was a dependent being, created by the will of the Father, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and in dignity..

Those arguments which support the divinity of Christ, in opposition to the Socinian scheme, will have equal weight against the followers of Arius. There is indeed no essential difference in the consequences which result from them. Dr. Mosheim says, that the opinion of Arius, concerning the Son of God, was connected with other sentiments which were very different from those commonly received among Christians; though, he adds,.

« AnteriorContinuar »