his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria; in his letter to the former, he says *, "Our fentiments and doctrines are, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part "of the unbegotten in any manner, nor out of any fubject matter, but that by "will and counfel he fubfifted before times and ages, perfect God, the only ་ begotten, immutable; and that before he was begotten or created, or decreed "or established, he was not, for he was not unbegotten; we are perfecuted because "we fay, the Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning; for this we are perfecuted, and because we say, that he is of things that did not exist (that is, "out of nothing;) so we say, that he is not a part of God, nor out of any subject"matter; and for this we are perfecuted." And in his letter to his bishop, he thus expreffes himfelf", "We acknowledge one God, the only unbegotten; "that this God begat the only begotten Son before time, by whom he made "the world, and the rest of things; that he begot him not in appearance, but "in reality; and that by his will he fubfifted, immutable and unalterable, a perfect creature, but as one of the creatures, a birth, but as one of the births We fay, that he was created before times and ages, by the will of God, and "received his life and being from the Father; so that the Father together appoint"ed glories for him; -The Son without time was begotten by the Father, and "was created and established before the world was; he was not before he was begotten, but without time was begotten before all things, and fubfifted alone "from the alone Father; neither is eternal nor co-eternal, nor co-unbegotten "with the Father, nor had he a being together with the Father." What he held is alfo manifest from his creed', which he delivered in the following words, "I believe in one eternal God, and in his Son whom he created before the world, "and as God he made the Son, and all the Son has, he has not (of himself,) he "receives from God, and therefore the Son is not equal to, and of the fame dignity with the Father, but comes fhort of the glory of God, as a workmanship; and is less than the power of God. I believe in the holy Ghost, "who is made by the Son." 66 66 The Arians were fometimes called Aetians, from Aetius, a warm defender of the doctrine of Arius, and who stumbled at the fame thing that Arius did; for he could not understand, the historian fays, how that which is begotten could be co-eternal with him that begets; but when Arius diffembled and figned that form of doctrine in the Nicene Synod, Aetius took the opportunity of breaking. off from the Arians, and of setting up a distinct fect, and himself at the head of them. These were after called Eunomians, from Eunomius, a difciple of Actius; he is faid to add to and to exceed the blafphemy of Arius; he with great bold & Apud Theodoret. Eccl. Hift. 1. 1. c. 5. Apud Epiphan. Hæres. 69. nefs 1 Apud Athanaf. in Nic. concil. contr. Arium difput. p. 81, 82. * Socrat.Eccl. Hift. I. 2. c.35. Theodoret. Eccl. Hift. 1. 2. c. 29. ness renewed the heresy of Aetius, who not only after Arius afferted that the Son was created out of nothing, but that he was unlike to the Father". Hence the followers of these men were called Anomoans. There was another fect called Nativitarians, who were a fucker or branch that fprung from the Eunomians, and refined upon them; these held that the Son had his nativity of the Father, the beginning of it from time; yet being willing to own that he was co-eternal with the Father, thought that he was with him before he was begotten of him, that is, that he always was, but not always a Son, but that he began to be a Son from the time he was begotten. There is a near approach to the sentiments of these in fome of our days. The Arians were alfo called Macedonians, from Macedonius a violent perfecutor of the orthodox, called Homooufians ", who believed that the Son is of the fame fubftance with the Father; but this man afterwards becoming bishop of Conftantinople, refused to call him a creature, whom the holy fcripture calls the Son; and therefore the Arians rejected him, and he became the author and patron of his own fect; he denied the Son was confubftantial with the Father, but taught, that in all things he was like to him that begat him, and in exprefs words called the Spirit a creature, and the denial of the deity of the holy Spirit is the dif tinguishing tenet of his followers. 2dly, The Photinians rofe up much about the fame time the Arians did, for they are made mention of in the council of Nice, but their opinions differ from the Arians. These were fometimes called Marcellians, from Marcellius of Ancyra, whofe difciple Photinus was, and from him named Photinians. He was bishop of Syrmium; his notions were the same with Ebion and Paul of Samofate, that Christ was a mere man, and was only of Mary; he would not admit of the generation and exiftence of Chrift before the world was P. His followers were much the fame with our modern Socinians, and who are sometimes called by the fame name. According to Thomas Aquinas, the Photinians, and fo the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Samofatenians before them, as they held that Chrift was a mere man, and took his beginning from Mary, fo that he only obtained the honour of deity above others by the merit of his bleffed life; that he was, like other men, the Son of God by the Spirit of adoption, and by grace born of him, and by fome likeness to God is in fcripture called God, not by nature, but by fome participation of divine goodness. These herefies were condemned by the feveral councils and fynods held on account of them, and were refuted by various found and valuable writers who Sozomen. Eccl. Hift. 1 6. c. 26. Socrat. Eccl. Hift. 1. 2. c. 38. lived P Theodoret. ibid. 1. 5. c. 11. Socrat. 1. 7. c. 32. • Contr. Gentiles, 1. 4. c. 4. p. 610. • Theodoret. Eccl. Hift. 1 z. c. 6. Sozomen. 1. 4. c. 6. lived in this century: to produce all their teftimonies would be endless; I fhall only take notice of a few, and particularly fuch as refpect the Sonship of Christ. 1. The tenets of Arius were condemned by the council held at Nice in Bythinia, consisting of three hundred and eighteen bishops, by whom was compofed the following creed or agreement of faith, as the hiftorian calls it: "We be"lieve in one God the Father Almighty, the maker of all things, vifible and "invifible; and in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the Son of God, the only begotten, 66 begotten of the Father, that is, out of the substance of the Father, God of "God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstan"tial (or of the fame effence) with the Father, by whom all things are made "which are in heaven and in earth; who for us men, and for our falvation, de"fcended and became incarnate, and was made man and fuffered, and rose again "the third day; ascended up into heaven, and will come to judge the quick " and the dead. And we believe in the holy Spirit. As for thofe that fay, "there was a time when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten "was not, and that he was made of what does not exist (out of nothing), and fay, he was from another fubftance, or effence, or created, or turned, or "changed; the holy catholic and apoftolic church anathematizes." 2. Athanafius was a famous champion for the doctrines of the Trinity, the proper Sonship of Christ, and his eternal generation; to produce all the testimonies from him that might be produced in proof of thofe doctrines, would be to transcribe a great part of his writings; it may be fufficient to give his creed; not that which is commonly called the Athanafian creed, which, whether penned by him is a doubt, but that which stands in his works, and was delivered by him in a personal disputation with Arius, and is as follows; which he calls an epitome of his faith '. "I believe in one God the Father, the almighty, being always God the Father; and I believe in God the Word, the 66 only begotten Son of God, that he co-existed with his own Father; that "he is the equal Son of the Father; and that he is the Son of God; of the same dignity; that he is always with his Father by his deity, and that he contains all things in his effence; but the Son of God is not contained by any, even as "God his Father: and I believe in the holy Ghost, that he is of the effence of "the Father, and that the holy Spirit is co-eternal with the Father and with the "Son. The Word, I say, was made flesh." After this I would only just observe, that Athanafius having faid that the Son was without beginning and eternally begotten of the Father, farther fays, that he was begotten ineffably and inconceivably; and elsewhere he fays", "it is fuperfluous or rather full madness to "call Socrat. Hift. 1. 1. c. 8. • Expofit. fidei, vol. I. p. 394. Contr. Arian. difput. inter opera ejus, vol. I. p. 83. "call in question, and in an heretical manner to ask, how can the Son be eter"nal? or, how can he be of the fubftance (or effence) of the Father, and not "be a part of him?" And a little farther, "it is unbecoming to enquire how "the Word is of God, or how he is the brightness of God, or how God begets, "and what is the mode of the generation of God: he must be a madman that "will attempt fuch things, fince the thing is ineffable, and proper to the na"ture of God only, this is only known to himself and his Son." 3. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, whom Arius opposed, and fhould have been mentioned firft, in an epistle of his to Alexander, bishop of Conftantinople", acquaints him with the opinion of Arius, that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and he that was not before, afterwards exifted, and fuch was he made, when he was made as every man is; and that the Son of God is out of things that are not, or out of nothing; he obferves to him, that what was his faith and the faith of others, was the faith of the apoftolic church: "We be"lieve in one unbegotten Father, and in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the only "begotten Son of God; not begotten out of that which is not, but from "the Father; that exifts, not in a corporal manner by incifion, or defluctions "of divifions, as feemed to Sabellius and Valentinus, but in a manner ineffable "and inexplicable." 66 4. Epiphanius wrote a volume against all herefies, and attempts a confutation of them and with refpect to the Arian herefy, he thus writes; "God exifting, incomprehenfible, has begat him that is incomprehenfible, before all ages and "times, and there is no space between the Son and the Father, but as soon as "you understand a Father, you understand a Son, and as soon as you name "a Father you fhew a Son; the Son is understood by the Father, and the Fa"ther is known by the Son; whence a Son, if he has not a Father? and whence "a Father, if he has not begat an only begotten Son? for when is it the Father "cannot be called a Father, or the Son, a Son? Though fome think of a Father "without a Son, who afterwards comes to a proficiency and begets a Son, and "fo after the birth is called the Father of that Son: the Father who is perfect, "and never wants perfection, making a progress or proficiency in the deity." 5. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in France, wrote against the Arians, and fays many things in oppofition to their tenets, concerning the Sonship of Chrift, and his eternal generation; among others, he fays, "the unbegotten begot a Son "of himself before all time, not from any fubjacent matter, for all things are by "the Son, nor out of nothing, for the Son is from him himself. He begot the only begotten in an incomprehenfible and unspeakable manner, before all "time 66 Apud Theodoret. Hift. 1. 1. c. 4. * Contr. Hæref. 1. 2. tom. 2. hæref. 69. y De Trinitate, 1. 3. p. 23, 24. vid. ibid. de Unitate filii & patris, p. 650. "time and ages, of that which is unbegotten, and fo of the unbegotten, per"fect and eternal Father, is the only begotten, perfect and eternal Son." 6. Fauftinus the prefbyter, wrote a treatise against the Arians; who obferves, that they fometimes ufe the fame words and phrafes the orthodox do, but not in the fame fenfe; they fpeak of God the Father and of God the Son, but when they speak of the Father, it is not of one who truly begets, and when they speak of the Son, it is of him as a Son by adoption, not by nature; and when they speak of him as a Son begotten before the world was, they attribute a beginning to him, and that there was a time when he was not; and fo they affert him to be of things not exiftent; that is, of nothing. He afks", "How is he truly a "Father, who, according to them, does not beget (truly); and how is Chrift "truly a Son, whom they deny to be generated of him?" And again", "How is he the only begotten of the Father, fince he cannot be the only begotten, "other Sons exifting by adoption? but if he is truly the only begotten by the "Father, therefore because he only is truly generated of the Father." And elsewhere, They fay God made himself a Son: if he made him out of nothing, "then is he a creature, and not a Son. What is he that you call a Son, whom you confirm to be a creature, fince you fay he is made out of nothing? there"fore you cannot call him both a Son and a creature; for a Son is from birth, "a creature from being made." And again, "In this alone the Father differs "from the Son, that the one is a Father, the other a Son; that is, that the one begets and the other is begotten; yet not because he is begotten has he any thing less than what is in God the Father, Heb. i. 3." Once more, "God " alone is properly a true Father, who is a Father without beginning and end, "for he did not fometime begin: he is a Father, but he was always a Father, "having always a Son begotten of him, as he is always the true God, conti"nuing without beginning and end." 66 7. Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, gives many teftimonies to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Sonship and generation of Chrift, against the Arians. and Eunomians; among which are the following; "We ought, fays he, to acknowledge one God the Father, without beginning and unbegotten; and "one Son, begotten of the Father; and one Spirit, having fubfiftence from God, yielding to the Father, because he is unbegotten, and to the Son, because he "is begotten; otherwife of the fame nature, dignity, honour and glory." And elsewhere he says, "If you afk me, I will anfwer you again, When was the "Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When did the Spirit proVOL. II. 4 B "ceed? Ibid. c. 7. p. 157. Ed. Oxon. |