Section 847
IV. To the fourth century, in which rose up the: Arians and Photinians
And others, 1 st, The Arians, so called from Arius, a presbyter of the church at Alexandria, in the beginning of this century, who took occasion from some words dropped in disputation by Alexander his bishop, to oppose him, and start the heresy that goes under his name; and though the eternal Sonship of Christ was virtually denied by preceding heretics, who affirmed that Christ did not exist before Mary; in opposition to whom the orthodox affirmed, that he was begotten, of the Father before all worlds; yet Arius was, the first, who pretended to acknowledge the Trinity, that actually and in express words set. himself to oppose the eternal Sonship of Christ by generation; and argued much in the same manner as those do, who oppose it now: for being a man who had a good share of knowledge of the art of logic, as the historian observes,[4457] he reasoned thus: "If the Father begat the Son, he that is begotten, must have a beginning of his existence, from whence it is manifest, that there was a time when the Son was not; and therefore it necessarily follows, that he had his subsistence from things that are not;" or was brought out of a state of non existence into a state of existence. He understood generated in no other sense than of being created or made; and asserted, that he was created by God before time, and was the first creature, and by which he made all others; in proof of which he urged Proverbs 8:22 taking the advantage of the Greek version, which, instead of posse s sed me, reads created me the beginning of his ways. His sentiments will more fully appear from his own words in his epistles to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and to his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria; in his letter to the former, he says,[4458] "Our sentiments and doctrines are, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten in any manner, nor out of any subject matter, but that by will and counsel he subsisted 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 persecuted because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning: for this we are persecuted, 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 persecuted." And in his letter to his bishop, he thus expresses himself,[4459] "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 subsisted, immutable and unalterable, a perfect creature, but as one of the creatures, a birth, but as one of the births—We say, 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 appointed 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 subsisted 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 also manifest from his creed,[4460] 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 same dignity with the Father, but comes short of the glory of God, as a workmanship; and in less than the power of God. I believe in the holy Ghost, who is made by the Son."
The Arians were sometimes called Aetians, from Aetius, a warm defender of the doctrine of Arius, and who stumbled at the same thing that Arius did; for he could not understand, the historian says,[4461] how that which is begotten could be co-eternal with him that begets; but when Arias dissembled and signed that form of doctrine in the Nicene Synod, Aetius took the opportunity of breaking off from the Arians, and of setting up a distinct sect, and himself at the head of them. These were after called Eunomians, from Eunomius, a disciple of Aetius; he is said[4462] to add to and to exceed the blasphemy of Arias; he with great boldness renewed the heresy of Aetius, who not only after Arius asserted that the Son was created out of nothing, but that he was unlike to the Father.[4463] Hence the followers of these men were called Anomcoeans. There was another sect called Nativitarians, who were a sucker or branch that sprung from the Eunomians, and refined upon them; these held that the Son had his nativity of the Father, and 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 some of our days.
The Arians were also called Macedonians, from Macedonius a violent persecutor of the orthodox, called Homoousians,"[4464] who believed that the Son is of the same substance with the Father; but this man afterwards becoming bishop of Constantinople, refused to call him a creature, whom the holy scripture calls the Son; and therefore the Arians rejected him, and he became the author and patron of his own sect; he denied the Son was consubstantial with the Father, but taught, that in all things he was like to him that begat him, and in express words called the Spirit a creature,[4465] and the denial of the deity of the holy Spirit is the distinguishing tenet of his followers.
2dly, The Photinians rose up much about the same time the Arians did, for they are made mention of in the council of Nice, but their opinions differ from the Arians. These were sometimes called Marcellians, from Marcellius of Ancyra, whose disciple Photinus was, and from him named Photinians. He was bishop of Syrmium; his notions were the same with Ebion, and Paul of Samosate, that Christ was a mere man, and was only of Mary; he would not admit of the generation and existence of Christ before the world was.[4466] His followers were much the same with our modern Socinians, and who are sometimes called by the same name. According to Thomas Aquinas,[4467] the Photinians, and so the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Samosatenians before them, as they held that Christ was a mere man, and took his beginning from Mary, so that he only obtained the honor of deity above others by, the merit of his blessed life; that he was, like other men, the Son of God by the Spirit of adoption, and by grace born of him, and by some likeness to God is in Scripture called God, not by nature, but by some participation of divine goodness.
These heresies were condemned by the several councils and synods held on account of them, and were refuted by various sound and valuable writers who lived in this century: to produce all their testimonies would be endless: I shall only take notice of a few, and particularly such as respect 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 composed the following creed or agreement of faith, as the historian calls it:[4468] "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, 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, consubstantial (or of the same essence) with the Father, by whom all things are made which are in heaven and in earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and became incarnate, and was made man and suffered, 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 those that say, 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 say, he was from another substance, or essence, or created, or turned, or changed; the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematises."
2. Athanasius 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 those doctrines, would be to transcribe a great part of his writings; it may be sufficient to give his creed; not that which is commonly called the Athanasian 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.[4469] "I believe in one God the Father, the almighty, being always God the Father; and I believe in God the Word, the 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 essence; 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 essence 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 Athanasius having said that the Son was without beginning and eternally begotten of the Father, farther says,[4470] that he was begotten ineffably and inconceivably; and elsewhere he says,[4471] "it is superfluous or rather full of madness to call in question, and in an heretical manner to ask, how can the Son be eternal? or, how can he be of the substance (or essence) of the Father, and not be a part of him?" And a little farther, "it is unbecoming to inquire 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 such things, since the thing is ineffable, and proper to the nature of God only, this is only known to himself and his Son."
3. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, whom Arius opposed, and should have been mentioned first, in an epistle of his to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople,[4472] acquaints him with the opinion of Arius, that there was a time when the Son of God wits not, and he that was not before, afterwards existed, and such 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 observes to him, that what was his faith and the faith of others, was the faith of the apostolic church: "We believe in one unbegotten Father—and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; not begotten out of that which is not, but from the Father; that exists, not in a corporal manner by incision, or defluctions of divisions, as seemed to Sabeilius and Valentinus, but in a manner ineffable and inexplicable."
4. Epiphanius wrote a volume against all heresies, and attempts a confutation of them: and with respect to the Arian heresy, he thus writes;[4473] "God existing incomprehensible, has begat him that is incomprehensible, 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 shew a Son; the Son is understood by the Father, and the Father is known by the Son; whence a Son, if he has not a Father? and whence a Father, it 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 some think of a Father without a Son, who afterwards comes to a proficiency and begets a Son, and so 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 Poictiers in France, wrote against the Arians, and says many things in opposition to their tenets, concerning the Sonship of Christ, and his eternal generation; among others, he says[4474] "the unbegotten begot a Son of himself before all time, not from any subjacent 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 incomprehensible and unspeakable manner, before all time and ages, of that which is unbegotten, and so of the unbegotten, perfect and eternal Father, is the only begotten, perfect and eternal Son."
6. Faustinus the presbyter, wrote a treatise against the Arians; who observes, that they sometimes use the same words and phrases the orthodox do, but not in the same sense; they speak 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 so they assert him to he of things not existent, that is, of nothing. He asks, "How is he truly a Father, who, according to them, does not beget (truly)? and how is Christ truly a Son, whom they deny to be generated of him?" And again, "How is he the only begotten of the Father, since he cannot be the only begotten, other Sons existing 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,[4475] "They say 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, since you say he is made out of nothing? therefore you cannot call him both a Son and a creature; for a Son is from birth, a creature from being made." And again,[4476] "In this alone the Father differs from the Son, that the one is a Father, the other a Son; that is 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" (Hebrews 1:3). Once more[4477] "God alone is properly a true Father, who is a Father without beginning and end, for he did not sometime 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, continuing without beginning and end."
7. Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, gives many testimonies to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Sonship and generation of Christ, against the Arians and Eunomians: among which are the following: "We ought, says he,[4478] to acknowledge one God the Father, without beginning and unbegotten; and one Son, begotten of the Father; and one Spirit, having subsistence from God, yielding to the Father, because he is unbegotten, and to the Son, because he is begotten; otherwise of the same nature, dignity, honor and glory." And elsewhere he says,[4479] "If you ask me, I will answer you again, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When did the Spirit proceed? When the Son did not proceed, but was begotten before time, and beyond expression—How can it be proved, that they (the Son and Spirit) are, co-eternal with the Father? From hence, because they are of him, and not after him, for what is without beginning is eternal." And then he goes on to answer the several objections made to the generation of the Son by the Eunomians. Again he says,[4480] "Believe the Son of God, the word that was before all ages begotten of the Father before time, and in an incorporeal manner; the same in the last clays made the Son of man for thy sake, coming forth from the virgin Mary in an unspeakable manner." And elsewhere he says,[4481] "Do you hear of generation? do not curiously inquire how it is. Do you hear that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father? do not be anxiously solicitous how it is: for if you curiously search into the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, I shall curiously inquire into the temperament of the soul and body, how thou art dust, and yet the image of God? How the mind remains in thee, and begets a word in another mind?"
8. Basil, called the great archbishop of Caesarea Cappadocia, wrote a treatise against Eunomius, in which he says,[4482] "As there is one God the Father always remaining the Father, and who is for ever what he is; so there is one Son, born by an eternal generation, who is the true Son of God, who always is what he is, God the Word and Lord; and one holy Spirit, truly the holy Spirit." Again,[4483] "Why therefore, O incredulous man, who dost not believe that God has an own Son, dost thou inquire how God begets? if truly thou askest of God how and where also, as in a place and when as in time; which, if absurd to ask such things concerning God, it will be more abominable not to believe." And a little after he says,[4484] "If God made all out of nothing by his will, without labor, and that is not incredible to us; it will certainly be more credible to all, that it; became God to beget an own Son of himself, in the divine nature, without passion, of equal honor, and of equal glory, a counselor of the same seat, a co-operator consubstantial with God the Father; not of a divers substance, nor alien from his sole deity; for if he is not so, neither is he adorable, for it is written thou shall not worship a strange God. "
9. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, the brother of Basil, wrote against Eunomius, in which we have this passage.[4485] "He (Eunomius) does say, that he (the Son) was truly begotten before the world. Let him say of whom he was begotten: he must say of the Father entirely, if he is not ashamed of the truth; but from the eternal Father there is no separating the eternity of the Son; the word Father "contains a Son."
10. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, after having said many things in opposition to Arius, Sabellius, Phontius, and Eunomius, observes, that "when you speak of a Father, you also design his Son, for no man is a father to himself; and when you name a son, you confess his father, for no man is a son to himself; therefore neither the son can lie without the father, nor the father without the son; therefore always a father and always a son." He has also these words:[4486] "You ask me, how he can be a son if he has not a prior father? I ask of you also, when or how you think the Son is generated? for to me it is impossible to know the secret of generation; the mind fails, the voice is silent; and not mine only, but that of the angels; it is above angels, above powers, above cherubim, above seraphim, and above all understanding, if the peace of Christ is above all understanding (Philippians 4:7), must not such a generation be above all understanding?" And in another place,[4487] "God the Father begat the Word co-eternal with himself and co-omnipotent, with whom he produced the holy Spirit; hence we believe that the substance of the Son and of the holy Spirit existed before any creature, out of all time; that the Father is the begetter, the Son is begotten, and the holy Spirit the holiness and the Spirit of the begetter and the begotten."
11. Jerom the presbyter, and a noted writer in this century, speaking of the Arians says,[4488] "Let them understand, that they glory in vain of the testimony in which Wisdom speaks of being created in the beginning of the ways of God, and begotten and established; for it, according to them, he was created, he could not be begotten or born: if begotten or born, how could he be established and created?" And a little after he says "God, the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a Father according to substance (or essence,) and the only begotten is not a Son. by adoption, but by nature; whatsoever we say of the Father and the Son, this we know is said of the holy Spirit." Here the creed of Damasus might be taken notice of, in which he says, "God has begot a Son, not by will nor by necessity, but by nature;" and in the explanation of it, it is said, "Not because we say the Son is begotten of the Father by a divine and ineffable generation, do we ascribe any time to him, for neither the Father nor the Son began to be at any time; nor do we any otherwise confess an eternal Father, but we also confess a co-eternal Son." Also Ruffinus's exposition of the apostles creed, which stands among Jerom's works, "when you hear of a Father, understand the Father of a Son, the image of his substance; but how God begat a Son do not discuss, nor curiously intrude into the depth of this secret.[4489]
12. The errors of the Photinians were not only confuted by the several above writers, but Photinus himself was condemned by the synod at Syrmium, of which place he had been bishop; and in the formula of faith agreed on therein, among others, are the following articles,[4490] "We believe in one God the Father almighty, the creator and maker of all things—and in his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages—and in the holy Spirit—and as to those that say, that the Son is of things that are not, (or of nothing) or of another substance, and not of God; and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic church reckons them as aliens—If any one dare to say, that the unbegotten or a part of him was born of Mary, let him be anathema: and if any one say that he is the Son of Mary by prescience, and not begotten of the Father before the world, and was with God by whom all things are made, let him be anathema—If any one says, that Christ Jesus was not the Son of God before the world was, and ministered to the Father at the creation of all things, but only from the time he was born of Mary was called Son and Christ, and then received the beginning of deity, let him be anathema, as a Samosatenian."
13. The formulas, creeds, and confessions of faith, made by different persons, and at different places, besides the Nicene creed, and even some that differed in other things from that and from one another, yet all agreed in inserting the clause respecting their faith in Christ, the only begotten Son, as begotten of the father before all ages, or the world was; as at Antioch, Syrmium, Ariminum, Selucia, and Constantinople. [4491]
14. Before the Nicene creed was made, or any of the above creeds, this was an article of faith with the orthodox Christians, that Christ was the eternal begotten Son of God. From the Writings of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century, may be collected a symbol or creed containing the faith of the church, and in which this article is fully expressed;[4492] that Christ "is the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, the true God by whom all things are made;" and which article he strongly asserts and defends; and the creed which he explains, is thought to be the[4493] same which the first and ancient church always professed, and from the beginning; and perhaps is what Eusebius[4494] refers unto, who was bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, when he declared his faith in the council at Nice; our formula, says he, which was read in the presence of our emperor (Constantine) most dear to God, is as we received it from the bishops that were before us; and as when catechized and received the laver (that is, were baptized,) and as we learnt from the divine writings, and is in this manner, "We believe in one God the Father Almighty—and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the only begotten Son, the first-born of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds, by whom all things are made, etc." Nor indeed was the word omoousiov, consubstantial, which expresses the Son's being of the same substance, nature and essence with the Father, a new word,[4495] devised in the council of Nice; for it was in use before,[4496] as Athanasius has proved from the same Eusebius. "The bishops, he says, (that is, those assembled at Nice) did not invent these words of themselves, but having a testimony from the Fathers, so they wrote; for the ancient bishops near a hundred and thirty years before, both in the great city of Rome, and in our city (Alexandria) reproved those that said that the Son was a creature, and not consubstantial with the Father;" and this Eusebius who was bishop of Caesarea, knew, who first gave into the Arian heresy, but afterwards subscribed to the synod at Nice; for being confirmed, he wrote to his own people thus,[4497] "We find, says he, some sayings of the ancient and famous bishops and writers, who use the word consubstantial in treating of the deity of the Father and of the Son." And certain it is, that it is used by Gregory of Neocaesarea,[4498] who lived before the council of Nice, and by the synod at Antioch in their creed,[4499] held A. D. 277.