« PreviousContinue »
pray for the forgiveness of his sins. These are properly Antinomlans. There are others who renounce these notions, and many of those advanced by Dr. Crisp, who yet have been denominated by their opponents Antinomians, Indeed it has been too common in controversies concerning the doctrines of grace, even where the difference has been far from extreme, for one side to call their opponents Antinomians, and the other Arminians. Each may hold principles the consequences of which may be thought to lead, or may really lead in theory, to the alleged issue: but though it be just to point out the legitimate consequences of a principle with a view to evince the true nature of it, yet candour forbids the ascribing of any thing to a person beyond what he perCelves or a WOWS. Some of the chief of those whose writings have been considered as favouring Antinomianism are,Crisp, Richardson, saltmarsh, Eaton, Town, Hussey, &c. These have been answered by Gataker, Sedgwick, Bull, Williams, Beart, &c. To which may be added, “Bellamy's Letters and Dialogues between Theron, Paulinus, and Aspasio,” with his “Essay on
* Bailey's Dictionary, * T)ictionary of Arts and Sciences, vol. i. p. 167.
the Nature and Glory of the Gospel;” and, though not written in a controversial way, “Edwards on Religious Affections.” ANTITACTAF, of Ayrırarrow, to oppose, a branch of the Gnostics, who held that God, the creator of the universe, was good and just ; but that one of his creatures had created evil, and engaged mankind to follow it in opposition to God; and that it is the duty of mankind to oppose this author of evil, in order to avenge God of his enemy.* ANTITRINITARIANS, a general name given to all those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and particularly to the Arians and Socinians.# APELLAEANS, a denomination in the second century, so called from Apelles, a disciple of Marcion. They affirmed that Christ, when he came down from heaven, received a body, not from the substance of his mother, but from the four elements; which at his death he rendered back to the world, and so ascended into heaven without a body. With the Gnostics and Manichees, they held two principles ; a good and a bad God. They asserted that the prophets contradicted each other, and denied the resurrection of
vol. ii, See Antitactae.
the body. They erased that passage of Saint John which says, Every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” APHTHARTODOCITES, a denomination in the sixth century; so called from the greek apúaprès, incorruptible, and 20xsw, to judge ; because they held that the body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and not subject to death. They were a branch of the Eutychians.# See Eutychians. APOCARITAES, a denomination in the third century, sprung from the Manicheans. They held that the soul of man was of the substance of God.[ APOLLINARIANS, a denomination in the fourth century, who were the followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea. He taught that Christ's person was composed of a union of the true divinity and a human body, endowed with a sensitive soul; but deprived of the reasonable one, the divinity supplying its place. He added that the human body, “united to the divine spirit, formed in Jesus Christ one entire divine nature. §
APOSTOLICS, a denomination in the twelfth century, who had at their head one Gerard Saggarel of Parma. They were so called, because they professed to exhibit in their lives and manners the piety and virtues of the holy apostles. They held it unlawful to take an oath, renounced the things of this world, and preferred celibacy to wedlock.]] AQUARIANS, a denomination in the second century, who, under pretence of abstinence, made use of water instead of wine in the eucharist.T See Encratites. ARABICI, so called because they sprung up in Arabia in the year 207. It is uncertain who was their author. They denied the immortality of the soul, believed that it perished with the body; but maintained at the same time, that it was to be again recalled to life with the body, by the power of God.” ARCHONTICS, a denomination which appeared about the year 175; so called because they held that archangels created the world. They denied the resurrection of the
* Broughton, vol. i. p. 58.
f Ibid. Ib. p. 60,
§ Formey's Ecclesiastical History vol. i. p. 79, | Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 457. Dufresnoy's Chron, Tables, vol. ii. p. 239.
“I Dictionary of Arts and
Sciences, vol. i. p. 178,
body. They maintained, that the God of sabaoth exercised a cruel tyranny in the seventh heaven; that he engendered the devil, who begot Abel and Cain of Eve. These tenets they defended by books of their own composing, called, “The Revelation of the Prophets,” and “The Harmony.”
ARIANS, a denomination in the fourth century, which owed its origin to Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, a man of a subtile turn, and remarkable for his eloquence. He maintaiaed that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of all those beings whom God the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both. in nature and dignity. He added that the holy Spirit was of a different nature from that of the Father and of the Son, and that he had been created by the Son. However, during the life of Arius, the disputes turned principally on the divinity of Christ. Such is the representation which is given of the opinion
of Arius and his immediate followers. The modern defenders of this system, to prove the subordination and inferiority of Christ to God the Father, argue thus:–There are various passages of scripture where the Father is styled the one, or only God. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God. (Matt. xix. 17.)—The Father is styled God with peculiar high titles and attributes. (See Matt. xv. 32. Mark v. 7, &c.) It is said in Ephesians iv. 6, There is one God and Father of all, who is above all.—Our Lord Jesus Christ expressly speaks of another God distinct from himself. (See Matt. xxvii. 46. John xx. 17.)—Our Lord Jesus Christ not only owns another than himself to be God, but also that he is above and over himself. He declares that his Father is greater than he. (See John xiv. 28.) He says he came not in his own, but in his Father's name and authority; that he sought not his own, but God's glory; nor made his own, but God's will his rule. And in such a posture of subjection he came down from heaven into this earth, that it should seem that nature which did pre-exist did not possess the supreme will, even belore it was incarnate.— Christ's saying that he is of the Father, must mean that he is derived from him ; and this necessarily implies that he is neither self-existent nor eternal, as the being derived from must exist before another being can be derived from him.—Christ professes his knowledge to be limited, and interior to the Father's. Of that day knoweth no man; no not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Mark xiii. 32.)—in like manner the apostles declare his subjection to another, not only as his Father, but his God; which is emphatically expressed in calling the most blessed God the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, after his humiliation was over. (See Ephes. i. 17.) And the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. xi. 3.) It is said in 1 Cor. xv. 24, that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; therefore he will be subjected to him, and consequently inferior.—There are various passages of scripture in which it is declared, that all prayers and praises ought primarily to be offered to the Father. See Matt. iv. 10. John iv. 23. Acts iv. 24. 1 Cor. i. 4. Phil. i. 3, 4. The ancient Arians were divided among themselves, and
* Echard's Eccles. Hist, vol. ii. p. 542. t His followers deny that Christ had any thing which could properly by called a divine nature, any other way than as any thing very excellent may by a figure be called divine, or his delegated dominion over the system of nature might entitle bim to the name of God.
torn into factions, which regarded each other with the bitterest aversion. Of these the ancient writers make mention, under the names of SemiArians, Eusebians, Aetians, Eunomians, Acacians, Psatyrians, and others. But they may all be ranked with the utmost propriety into three classes. The first of these were the primitive and genuine Arians, who rejected all those forms and modes of expression which the moderns had invented to render their opinions less shocking to the Nicenians. They taugut simply, that the Son was not begotten of the Father; i. e. produced out of his substance, but only created cut of nothing. This class was opposed by the Semi-Arians, who in their turn were abandoned by the Eunomians, or Anomaeans, the disciples of Aetias and Eunomius. The Semi-Arians held, that the Son was op.osovoso;, i.e. similar to the Father in his essence, not by nature, but by a peculiar privilege. The Eunomians, who were also called Aetians and Exucontians, and may be counted in the number of pure Arians, maintained that Christ was stopov;1%, i. e. unlike the Father in his essence, as well as in other respects. Under this general division were comprehended many subordinate sects, whose subtilties and re
'finements have been but obscurely developed by ancient writers. The opinion of the Arians concerning Christ differs from the Gnostics chiefly in two respects :-(1.) The Gnostics supposed the pre-existent spirit which was in Jesus to have been an emanation from the supreme Being, according to the principles of the philosophy of that age, which made creation out of nothing to be an impossibility. But the Arians supposed the pre-existent spirit to have been properly created, and to have animated the body of Christ, instead of the human soul.-(2.) The Gnostics supposed that the pre-existent spirit was not the maker of the world: but was sent to rectify the evils which had been introduced by the Being who made it. But the Arians supposed that their Logos was the being whom God had employed in making the universe, as well as in all his communications with mankind. Those who hold the doctrine which is usually called Low Arianism, say that Christ pre-existed ; but not as the eternal Logos of the Father,
or as the Being by whom he made the worlds, and had intercourse with the patriarchs, or as having any certain rank or employment whatever in the divine dispensations. As this doctrine had not any existence till late years, and the author of it is unknown, it has not got any specific name among writers. In modern times, the term Arian is indiscriminately applied to those who consider Jesus simply subordinate to the Father. Some of them believe Christ to have been the creator of the world ; but they all maintain that he existed previously to his incarnation, though in his pre-existent state they assign him different degrees of dignity. Hence the terms High and 1,0w Arian.” [See Unitarians of Dr. Price's description. See also Pre-existents.] ARM ENIANS, a division of eastern christians, thus called from Armenia, a country they anciently inhabited.
The principal points in their
doctrine are as follow :—(1.) They assert with the Greeks, concerning the trinity, the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father only—(2.)
Priestley's History of
rly Opinions, vol. iv. p. 168.
Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 1,43, 46. Emlyn's Extracts, pp. 9, 10, 11, 21. Parves's Humble Attempt, pp. 6,7. Theological Repository, vol. iv. p. 276. Doddridge's Lectures, p. 401. Lowman's Tracts, p. 253. Evans's Sketch,