communication between the Supreme God and the world, or at least its Creator. These were emanations from the Deity; and they appear, when their office was discharged, to have been restored to the Pleroma, to the presence of Him who sent them-these beings were called Eons. Among them a very high rank, possibly the highest, was assigned to Christ; but from this point the Gnostics broke off into two different and almost opposite theories: many imagined that Jesus was a mere man, and maintained that the æon Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism and left him immediately before his crucifixion, so that Christ was not, in fact, subjected to pain and death; while others held that the body, with which Christ appeared to be invested, was not really human and passible, but unsubstantial or æthereal, or at least immaterial: these last were called Docetæ. At the same time, both parties alike misunderstood that which the Church considered to be the peculiar doctrine and object of Christianity; for they agreed in believing that the mission of Christ had no further intention than to reveal the knowledge of the true God; they denied the resurrection and the final judgment, and by explaining away the death of Christ they deprived his religion of the doctrine of the Atonement. From the above brief and very general outline of the Gnostic Heresies -which differed again widely from each other in many subordinate opinions-we perceive how very far they were removed from the precincts of reason and truth. Indeed, they retained so much more of Gnosticism than they assumed of Christianity, that it was only in the ancient and very broad acceptation of the term that they could be fairly denominated Heresies, and thus we are less disposed to censure the severity of those Fathers who refused them the name of Christian. For however cautious we should be in withholding that appellation from those whose errors are founded on the mere perversion of reason, we may safely disclaim our fraternity with men, who substitute for the fundamental doctrines and the clearest truths of the Gospel, wild visions and theories which have not any ground or existence, except in vain and lawless imagination. We shall do well to conclude this subject in the words of Le Clerc—one o the most rational and faithful among our historical guides. I am weary of the Valentinians, (thus he begins his account of the year 145,) and so I imagine are my readers; but the history of the second century is so erammed with them, and the Fathers, both of those and of later times, so often refer to them, that it is necessary to expose monstrous opinions, which in themselves do not merit one moment's attention.' In truth, their principal, if not their only claim on our attention, is, that the Books of the New Testament appear to contain some allusions to them, which it is our duty to examine and understand *. II. We have just observed, that among the earliest corrupters of the Christian doctrines, there were some who disputed the human nature of Christ. It appears to us equally clear there were also others who denied his divinity. The oldest and perhaps the most numerous among these were the Ebionites. Tertullian considers them as a sect of Judaizing Christians, named from their founder Ebion, who strictly maintained the observance of the ceremonial law, and rejected the miraculous Ebionites. Any one desirous of more ample details respecting the Gnostic Heresies may safely consult the learned author in the Encycl. Britan., pp. 24, 25, 26. F conception and the divine nature of the Saviour.* Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, (book iii. c. xxvii.) describes them in these words :— The Ebionites were so called from the poverty and meanness with which they dogmatized concerning Christ; for they considered him as a mere man born of the connexion of a man and Mary. And they thought too that the ceremonial law (voμxǹ Opŋokéia) was to be followed; as neither faith in Christ, nor the life led through that faith, was sufficient for salvation. But there were others bearing the same appellation, who escaped the extravagant absurdity of these former, since they did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit. But neither did these, acknowledging his pre-existence, and that he was Logos and Sophia, (the Word and the Wisdom,) turn entirely away from the unrighteousness of the former, chiefly because they too were careful about the bodily service (σωματικὴν λάτρειαν) of the law. These then did not receive the epistles of the apostle, calling him an apostate from the law, and only used the gospel according to the Hebrews; but they observed Sunday in commemoration of the resurrection, keeping the Jewish sabbath.†' This description agrees in all material points with the account of Tertullian; and without proceeding to deeper investigation, we may safely infer from it two historical truths-that the peculiar opinions of the Ebionites were confined (or nearly so) to the Jewish converts-and that they were neither wholly nor in part the doctrines of the ante-Nicene Church. It is well known that the high antiquity of the opinions of the Ebionites has been held by some to be an evidence of their truth; but the same inference might be drawn, with the same reason, respecting the delusions of the Phantastics, which had at least as early an origin. The Ebionites probably arose after the publication of three of the gospels. The Gnostic errors of the Docetæ may even havet preceded the preaching of the Apostles; they were certainly contemporary with it. Again, if it be admitted that the Apostles were the interpreters of God's word, and if it be not proved that the sect of the Ebionites was founded by any one of them, and if it be certain that the fathers who subsequently directed the Church, and explained its doctrine, did invariably disclaim that sect, we may fairly conclude, that its opinions were neither favourably received, nor at all commonly adopted. On the other hand, it is endeavoured, by confounding the Ebionites with the Gnostic Heretics, to make them in some degree accountable for all the absurdities of the latter; and these, it is truly urged, had all a tendency to the opposite extreme, to spiritualize the body rather than to degrade the divine nature of Christ. And it is hence inferred, that it was Jesus alone to whom the Ebionites attributed a human nature, while * De Prescript. Heret. c. 33.; De Virgin. Veland. c. 6. Quam utique Virginem fuisse constat, licet Ebion resistat.' De Carne Christi, c. 14. 18, 19. The Ebionites are classed by Mosheim among the Judaizing sects; and Ebion, if he existed at all, was probably a Jew: the numbers and influence of those sects diminished so rapidly during the second century, after the promulgation of Adrian's Edict, and are consequently so little noticed by the fathers of the third and following ages, that it seems unnecessary to bestow a separate notice on them. Le Clerc distinguishes the early from the more recent Ebionites, placing them respectively at ann. 72 and 103. The former he considers, on the authority of Jerome, to have been merely Judaizing Christians-who, as that Father remarks, in their wish to be both Jews and Christians, were neither. Le Clerc considers the Nazarenes to have been the same sect as the early Ebionites, ann. 72. Mosheim (De Reb. Christ. ant. Const. Sec. 1. sect. lviii. and Sec. 11., sect. xxxix., xl. &c.) refers the rise of the Ebionites to the second century. they acknowledged the uncontaminated divinity of Christ. It is possible that there were some, calling themselves Ebionites, who were in fact merely Gnostics. But in the face of our direct authorities we cannot admit the hypothesis in question. What Tertullian and Eusebius* expressly tell us to have been the Ebionitical opinions respecting Christ, we cannot suppose to be meant of Jesus as opposed to Christ. And we feel obliged to believe, that those are as far removed from truth on the one hand, who dispute the early existence of the Unitarian opinions, as those are, on the other, who assert their early reception by the Church; they have existed from the beginning, and from the beginning they have been condemned. Euse Again, the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ, separated from the judaism of the Ebionites, was advanced towards the end of the second century by Theodotus and Artemon; and during the episcopacy of Victor, the former was expelled from the Church of Rome for that error. bius in this place designates him as the father of an impious apostacy,'and in so far as he had divested the old opinion of its judaism, and advanced it nakedly in the very face of the Church, the assertion is true. For any claim, which it may have advanced to a previous existence at Rome, or in any of the European Churches, is sufficiently answered by reference to the writings of Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian, and Clement, and Irenæus, and Melito, by all of whom (says Eusebius) the divinity of Christ is asserted.'+ In the next century the heresy of Artemon (it became more generally known by his name) was revived by Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch. A synod of Bishops, Presbyters and Arlemon. Deacons was convoked at Antioch in the year 269, to take cognizance of the offence; and Eusebius notices the eagerness with which they hurried from all directions against the defiler of Christ's flock.' In a numerous assembly, in his own metropolis, the Bishop found many defenders, but he was at length convicted and sentenced to expulsion from his throne. But as he resisted the execution of the sentence, and as the Church was not yet able to enforce its own judgments, application was made to the Emperor Aurelian, whose authority finally removed the refractory offender.§ These facts are sufficient to prove beyond controversy, that the opinion in question, whatever may have been the zeal or number of its individual supporters, was not at any period acknowledged by the Church. The controversy respecting the nature of Christ's existence on earth, which presently so branched out, as to involve the doc trine of the Trinity as well as the Incarnation, may be said Praxeas. to have first assumed a tangible form under the pen of Praxeas, a writer of the Grecian school. He published his opinions *See also Irenæus L. iii. c. 24, and Epiphanius. Hæres. 30. † ἐν οἷς ἀπᾶσι θεολογεῖται ὁ Χριστός. End of ch. 5. We follow in this statement the authority of Eusebius, and the opinion almost universally received. But it is fair to mention that Dr. Burton ingeniously argues, from a careful examination of contemporary evidence, compared chiefly with the assertions of Athanasius, that 'Paul believed Jesus to be a mere human being, but conceived him to become Christ, by being united to the eternal Logos of God.'-(Bampt. Lect. viii. notes 99. 102.) It does not appear that the contemporaries of the Heretic placed that construction upon his doctrine. And Eusebius (H. E. L. vii. c. 27) expressly says—roúrou dì TaTivä nai χαμαιπετῇ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν διδασκαλίαν φρονήσαντος, ὡς κοινοῦ τὴν Quan avigárov svoμívov, &c. &c. See Mosheim, De R. Christ. ante Const. Sæc. III. sect. 35. This was the first instance of the interference of the secular power in the internal affairs of the Church; and consequently Baronius is warm in his praise of Aurelian― about the year 200 A. D., and was answered very soon afterwards by the great champion of the Church, Tertullian. The opinions of Praxeas (as is natural in a question capable of so much metaphysical subtilty) are variously represented; but the doctrine of the Church is very clearly stated in the following words of his antagonist.† • We believe in one God, but under the following dispensation or economy -that there is also a Son of God, his Word, who proceeded from Him; by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; who was sent by him into the Virgin, and was born of her; being both man and God, the son of man and the son of God, and called Jesus Christ; he suffered, died and was buried, according to the Scriptures; and was raised up again by the Father; and was taken up into Heaven, there to sit at the right hand of the Father; and thence to come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent from Heaven, from his Father, according to his promise, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of the faith of all who believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' Such, according to this author, was the faith handed down in the Church, from the first preaching of the Gospel; and we consider this to be historical truth of no small importance + The heresy of Praxeas was succeeded, (or revived,) in the course of about fifty years, by that of Sabellius. Both proceeded, Sabellius. in appearance, from the difficulty of reconciling the trinity with the unity of the Godhead-in reality, from our human and necessary incapacity to comprehend the nature of the union. But Greek philosophy was too vain to admit any limits to the human comprehension, and too disputatious to quit so fine a field for sophistry as was opened to it by an abstruse and inexplicable question. And certainly that philosophy lost nothing either in minuteness or pertinacity, when it ascended to the climate, and employed the genius of Africans.§ Sabellius was an African, and seemingly either Bishop, or Presbyter at Barce, the capital of the Cyrenaica; he denied the distinct personality of the second and third persons of the Trinity, and maintained that a certain energy only, proceeding from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine nature, was united to the son of God, the man Jesus.|| "He was the first to point out, that the imperial authority should be called in to chastise those who did not acquiesce in episcopal decision." Ad anu. 314. Sect. xxxv. We shall have occasion to recur to this subject hereafter. They are chiefly to be divined from the treatise written against Tertullian. It should be mentioned also, that Praxeas had declared very strongly against Montanism, before Tertullian attacked him. To us it is the great use of these controversies, that we learn from them the original doctrine of the Church. Thus during that respecting Paul of Samosata, the Council declared, (as we learn from Athanasius,) 'that the Son existed before all things, and that be did not become God from being human, but that being God he took upon him the form of a servant, and being the Logos he became flesh.' It appears too from the examination of Irenæus' writings against the Valentinians, that that more antient Father maintained, as far as he particularizes them, the same opinions. It has been observed, that Tertullian was the first author who used the words Trinitas and Persona in the theological sense. § See Mosheim, De R. Christ. ante Const. Sæc. III. sect. 33. The different opinions, or rather the different shades of the same opinion, which have been ascribed to Sabellius, are there accurately treated. We perceive how nearly this opinion approaches to the old Gnostic heresy, which considered Christ as an Eon or Divine Emanation united for a time to the man Jesus-but for a time only-the Gnostics withdrew the on before the Crucifixion, and thus avoided the conclusion charged against the Patripassians. And in the same manner he considered the Holy Ghost to be a portion of the everlasting Father. This error, into which he was led by an excessive fear of Tritheism, (the acknowledgment of three Gods,) was liable to the inference, that the Being who suffered on the Cross was in fact the Father; hence his followers were called Patripassians. He was confuted by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. III. We shall not dwell upon the varying shapes of mere frenzy. The deliberate errors of an informed and serious mind, however in appearance remote from reason, always merit some sort of consideration; but the dreams of an ignorant fanatic can have no claims on our time or reflection. Perhaps we should place under this head some of the wilder of those heresies usually called Gnostic; and some would refer to the same origin the opinions of the Manichæan sect; but we shall here confine ourselves to those of the Montanists. About the year 170 A. D., a vain and superstitious enthusiast, named Montanus, began to prophesy in Phrygia and other provinces of Asia Minor-he professed to be the Paraclete or Comforter, the same* who had descended upon the Apostles, and whose return on earth before the second coming of Christ, for the purpose of completing the divine Revelation, was expected by many of the faithful; and his trances, and exstatic raptures, and fanatic ravings, were probably regarded by the credulous and wondering multitude as the surest signs of divine inspiration. Certainly there were many in those regions who followed him; and his success was promoted by his association with two prophetesses, named Maximilla and Priscilla, who confirmed his mission, and shared his spirit. Another cause of the temporary fame of Montanism was the severity of the morality inculcated by it; the strictest celibacy and the most rigid fasts were exacted from the proselytes, and this circumstance threw an appearance of sanctity round the sect, which seems to have deadened the penetration of Tertullian, for he presently professed himself its advocate. To that circumstance perhaps this heresy may be indebted for most of its celebrity; for it was condemned by certain Asiatic councils at the time of its eruption, and it appears to have made very little progress after the second century, and at no time to have found general reception beyond the precincts of its birth-place, though some remains of it subsisted there for two or three ages.† Before we quit the subject of Heresy, we must mention a controversy which divided the Church during the third century, respecting the form of receiving a converted heretic into the number of the orthodox. The Churches of the west‡ were, for the most part, of opinion, that the baptism of Heretics was valid, and that the mere imposition of hands, attended by prayer, was form sufficient to solemnize their introduction within the pale: whereas the less moderate Christians of Asia decided in council, that their admission must be preceded by repetition of baptism; and this decision was approved and enforced by Cyprian in the Churches of Africa. § Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who was at the head of those who held the * See Bishop Kaye on Tertullian, p. 23 et seq. We observe the name of Montanism among the heresies stigmatized in the Theodosian Code. We may account for this greater moderation of the western Churches, by their having escaped some of the most extravagant and revolting among the early heresiesthese, as they chiefly originated in the fanatic imaginations of the east, were for the most part confined to those regions. The council of Carthage held by Cyprian, on this question, was in the year 256. Mosh. Gen. H. c. iii. p. ii. chap. iii, |