the warming ( Jaλó), and the periphery (rò megıpegeius oxñua.) But it is difficult to determine how far he applied the one or the other of these characteristics to the persons of the Trinity, and carried out the analogy in all its particulars. According to Athanasius, iv. 25, he also referred to the variety of gifts coming from the one Spirit, as illustrative of the Trinity. He explained the thing itself from the Divine economy; God is called Father as the creator of the world, and as legislator; he is called Son in relation to the work of redemption, and Holy Spirit as the sanctifier of man; hence the charge of the orthodox (Athan. iv. 25. Basil. ep. 210, 214. 235. Aug. tract. in Joh. § 3,) that Sabellius had adapted the doctrine of the Trinity merely to the wants of the present world (gis ràs inάorore xgeías.) These three different modes of the Divine manifestation (according to Athanasius, iv. 13.) he regarded as a λarúvoda, or ixreiddar of it. But it is difficult to ascertain the precise distinction which he made between these different modes of manifestation and the "monas" (unity), the airsoc whom he called viorárag (Athan. de syn. 16.), and the relation in which the unity stands to those modes of manifestation, and to the Father in particular. To judge from some passages quoted by Athan. iv. 25, he seems to have considered the terms Targ and óvas identical, while elsewhere (iv. 13.) the Father, who is designated óvs, forms a part of the Trinity, comp. Dorner, p. 706, ss. The Logos also occupies a peculiar position in the system of Sabellius. While, in his opinion, the Trinity only exists in relation to the world, the creation of the world is brought about by the Logos, to whom Sabellius, like the earlier writers, applies the predicates város and Topogós, see Dorner, p. 711, ss. On the entire system of Sabellius, as well as on the sense in which he used the terms Toowov and oμoovoros, see Schleiermacher, 1. c. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. 1. 200, ss. Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 3, p. 1019, ss. [translat. ii. p. 276, ss.] Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse, vol. i. p. 184, ss. As regards the historical appearance of Christ, it must be admitted, that its theological significance is not impugned by Sabellius, inasmuch as he regards the Saviour as the immediate manifestation of God. But Christ possesses personality only by his appearance in the flesh. That personality neither existed previous to his incarnation, nor does it continue to exist in heaven, since that Divine ray which had been incorporated in Christ, has returned to God. Nevertheless, Sabel

lius seems to have expected the second coming of Christ (Schleiermacher, p. 174.) According to Epiphanius, the opinions of Sabellius were principally spread in Mesopotamia. and in the vicinity of Rome. A sect of Sabellians, properly so called, did not exist.

(2) Paul, a native of Syria, bishop of Antioch from the year 260, was charged with heresy at several synods, and at last removed from his office (269-272.) Of his dispute with the presbyter Malchion a fragment is preserved by Mansi, vol. i. p. 1001, ss. Comp. the different accounts given by Epiph. 65. 1, and Euseb. vii. 27. The writers on the history of doctrines vary in their opinions respecting the relation in which he stands to either Sabellianism, or to the Unitarianism of the Artemonites. (See Euseb. v. 28, ab init.) comp. Schleiermacher, p. 389, 99. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 204. Augusti, p. 59. Meier, Dogmengesch. p. 74, 75. Dorner, p. 40, supposes the difference between Sabellius and Paul of Samosata to have consisted in this, that the former thought that the whole substance of the Divine being, the latter that only one single Divine power, had manifested itself in Christ. Trechsel (Geschichte des Antitrinitarismus, vol. i. p. 81.) adopts the same view. At all events, we can hardly expect any serious and persevering attempts at a doctrinal system from a man whose vanity is unquestionable. Though the charge that he countenanced Jewish errors, in order to obtain favour with the Queen Zenobia, is unfounded (Neander, i. 3, p. 1009.) [translat. ii. p. 270.] yet it is quite probable that the vain show he made of his principles as a free-thinker was in full accordance with his ostentatious character. In later times the terms Sabellianism and Samosatianism were frequently confounded. But more generally, those who denied all distinction between the persons of the Trinity, were called IIargitasoiavoi in the West, and Zaßeλavoí in the East. Comp. Athanasius de Synod. 25. 7.

§ 89.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Arianism.

The system of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, forms a striking contrast with that of Sabellius. Arius, in en

deavouring to define the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, carried the idea of a subordination of the one to the other, and, in the first place, of the Son to the Father, so far as to represent the former as a creation of the latter.(1) This opinion, which he sought to promulgate at Alexandria, met with the most decided opposition on the part of Alexander, bishop of that city.(2) This contest, which was at first merely a private dispute, gave rise to a controversy, which exerted greater influence upon the history of doctrines than all former controversies, and was the signal for an almost endless succession of subsequent conflicts.

(1) SOURCES: Arii Epist. ad Euseb. Nicomed. in Epiph. Hær. 69, § 6. Theodoret hist. eccles. i. 4. Epist. ad Alex. in Athan. de synodis Arim. et Seleuc. c. 16, and Ep. hær. 69, § 7. Of the work of Arius entitled Oaksia, only some fragments are preserved by Athanasius.-According to his Epist. ad Euseb. his opinion was : "Οτι ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἐστιν ἀγέννητος, οὐδὲ μέρος ἀγεννήτου κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον, ἀλλ ̓ οὔτε ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς, ἀλλ' ὅτι θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ ποὺ αιώνων, πλήρης θεὸς, μονογενής· ἀναλλοίωτος, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ ἤτοι ὀρισθῇ ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν· ἀγεννητὸς γὰρ οὐκ ἦν. His views are fully settled on the last (negative) point, while he endeavours in the preceding part of the quotation to discover an expression which would give complete satisfaction. "We are persecuted," he continues, "because we say that the Son hath a beginning, while we teach that God is avagxos. We say or i ὅτι ἐξ oùx vrv Boriv, because he is no part of God, nor is he created of any thing already in existence" (he rejects accordingly the theory of emanation, as well as the notion that Christ is made of subject matter.) Comp. the letter to Alex. 1. c. where he defends his own doctrine against the notion of Valentinus concerning a goo, against that of the Manichæans concerning a megos, and lastly, against the opinions of Sabellius; he there uses almost the same phraseology which occurs in the letter to Eusebius. The same views are expressed in still stronger language in the fragments of the aforesaid work Thalia (in Athan. contra Arian. Orat. i. § 9.) : Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς πατὴς ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον γέγονεν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ· οὐκ ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη καὶ αὐτός· οὐκ ἐστιν ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. Κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα·

καὶ οὐκ ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐθεοποιήθη. Οὐκ οἶδε τὸν πατέρα ἀκριβῶς ὁ υἱὸς, οὔτε ὁρᾷ ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα τελείως· καὶ οὔτε συνεῖ, οὔτε γινώσκει ἀκριβῶς ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα· οὐκ ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ἀλλ ̓ ὀνόματι μόνον λέγεται λόγος καὶ σοφία, καὶ χάβιτι λέγεται υἱὸς καὶ δύναμις· οὐκ ἐστιν ἄτρεπτος ὡς ὁ πατὴς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτός ἐστι φύσει, ὡς τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ λείπει αὐτῷ εἰς κατάληψιν τοῦ γνῶναι τελείως τὸν πατέρα. contra Arian. i. § 5 : Εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς (ὁ Θεὸς) δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὲ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινὰ καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱὸν ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι' αὐτοῦ δημιουργήσῃ.—He proves this from the figurative expression, Joel ii. 25. (the Septuagint reads, "the great power of God" instead of "locusts.") Comp. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. 2, p. 767, ss. Dorner, p. 849, ss. Baur, Trinitätl. p. 319, ss., 342, ss.

(2) Concerning the opinion of Alexander, sce his letter to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in Theodoret. hist. eccles. i. 4. and the circular letter ad Catholicos in Socrat. i. 6. Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 203-206. He founds his arguments chiefly on the prologue to the Gospel of John, and shows μerağı πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ οὐδὲν εἶναι διάστημα. All time and all spaces of time are created by the Father through the Son. If the Son had had a beginning, the Father would have been hoyos. The generation of the Son had nothing in common with the sonship of believers. Christ is the Son of God xarà pia. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch. p. 212.

§ 90.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The Doctrine of the Council of Nice.

Münscher, Untersuchung über den Sinn der nicäischen Glaubensformel, in Henkes neuem Magazin, vi. p. 334, ss. Walch, Bibl. symb. vet. Lemg. 1770. 8, p. 75, ss.

The Emperor Constantine the Great, and the two bishops of the name Eusebius (viz. of Cæsarea and of Nicomedia) having in vain endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation between the contending parties, (1) the first general (acumenical) council was held at Nice (A. D. 325), principally through the intervention of the bishop Hosius of Corduba. After several other formulæ ap

parently favourable to Arianism(2) had been rejected, a confession of faith was adopted, in which it was established as the inviolable doctrine of the catholic church, that the Son is of the same essence όμοούσιος) with the Father, but sustains to him the relation in which that which is begotten, stands to that which begets.(3)

(1) Comp. Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Arium Eus. Vita Const. ii. 64-72, and on the attempts of the two bishops to bring about a reconciliation, see Neander, 1. c. p. 783, ss.

(2) One of these is the confession of faith which Eusebius of Caesarea proposed, Theodor. hist. eccles. i. 11, comp. Neander, 1. c. p. 797, ss. It contained the expression: ̔Ο τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴ ἐκ ζωῆς, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάνω των τῶν αἰώνων, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένος. According to Athan. de decret. Syn. Nic. 20, they would at first only decide that the Son of God is εἰκὼν τοῦ πατρὸς, ὅμοιός τε καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος κατὰ πάντα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ αὐτῷ εἶναι ἀδιαιρέτως.

(3) Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐξανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαςκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ· ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ἢ ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτε ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ κτιστὸν ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Athan. epist. de decret. Syn. Nic.

Eus. Cas. ep. ad Caesariens.-Socrat. i. 8. Theodoret, h. e. i. 11. Münscher von Cölln, p. 207-9. Baur, Trinitätl. p. 334, ss. Meier, p. 146, ss. Dorner, p. 849.

Respecting the definitions of the phrases ἐξ οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος comp. Athanasius, 1. c. We find that even at that time a distinction was made between sameness and similarity. The Son is equal to the Father in a different sense from that in which we become like God by rendering obedience to his laws. This resemblance, moreover, is not external, accidental, like that between metal and gold, tin and silver, etc.