CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FROM CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 100 631 211 li^l Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924100631211 DICTIONARY / OF SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PARTIES, AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT RIVINGTONS E-onBon Waterloo Place 2I);;fotti High Street SEambri'Dec Trinity Street [An Rights reserved.^ DICTIONARY SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PARTIES AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT • EDITED BY THE REV. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, M.A., F.S.A. EDITOR OF THE "DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY," AND THE "ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER," ETC. ETC. ' ' Let both grow together until the Harvest. [MATTH. xiii. 30.] *' Lis eorum fides nostra est." [HILAR, de Trinii. \. 26.] RIVINGTONS HonUon, ©3;forli, anb Cambrttige f874 A CLASSIFIED TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTS JEWISH SECTS Pharisees Sadducees Essenes TherapeutBB Hemerobaptlsts Karaites ]Masbot]iEsaiis Nazareeans GenistsB MeristSB Mendeeans Gorttiseans HEATHEN RELI- GIONS Brahmins Buddhists Parsees Yezeedees IVEahometans Brahmoo Somaj HEEETICS REFERRED TO IN THE New Testament False Christs False Apostles Simoniaus Judaizers Gnostics Nicolaitanes Alexander Demas Diotrephes Hermogenes Hymenseus Philetus Phygellus E ARLY HERETICS, be- tween THE Apostolic Age and the End op THE PeEBECUTIOUS OP THE Chdrch, a.d. 313 DosithEeans \ Menandrians \ [^ d. Nazarenes Cerinthians 70-120] [A.D. 70-120] [a.d. 120-130] [A.D. 130-140] [A.D. 138-158] [A.D. > 160-170] Docetee Bbionites Ophites Adamites, or Prodicians Sethians Cainites Cleohians Basilidlans Satuminians Carpocratians IMarcelliuians Cerdonians Marcionites Liucianists Apellianists Valentinians Heracleonites IVEarcosites Colorbaslaus Seoundians Florinlans Quartodeci- mans Bncratites Tatianists Severlans Hydropara- statse Arohontics Apotactics Hermogenians Seleucians Montanists Theodotians Tertullianists Artemonites Bardesanians AscodrugjrtSB Noetians Praxeans Melchisedechians Arabici Sabellians [a.d. 220] Blchasaites [a.d. 224] Origenists [a.d. 250] Novatians [a.d. 261] Audians [a.d. 264-326] Manlchseans [a.d. 280] Samosatenes [a.d. 280] IVIetangismonitsB Artotyritae .^^ ASCltBB > Meletian Schism [a.d. 306] [A.D. 170-200] I [A.D. 206] LATER HERETICS, be- Aphthartodo- ^ tween THE Cessation cetsB Gaianitee OP THE Persecutions Actistetes, or AND 'THE Establish-- CtistolatrsB Phthartolatra9, MENT OP Mahometan- Severians, or V [A.D. / 620-600] ism IN THE East [a.d. Theodosians SIS-'ZOO] Xenaians Theopaschites Arians \ Triphysites Eusebians Tritheists, or Semi-Arians Philoponists Aetians Cononites Anomceans, or Damianists / Eunomians Monothelites Acacians \ [A.D. / 320-350] Paulicians Eudoxians Athingani ^ 7th Centuby Psathyrians Agynians Photinians Agoniclites ' Aeria,ns Donatists Circumcellions MEDIEVAL SECTS Marcellians / AND HERESIES IMacedonians, > or Pneumato- Adalbertines machi Adamites Luoiferians Adoptionists ApoUinarians Albanenses SynusiastEB Albigenses Bonosians Amalricians CoUyridians \ [A.D. 1 360-400] Apostolicals Jovinianists Athocians Buchites, or Bagnolenses IVEessalians Barlaamites Hypsistarians Baruli Antidicomari- Beghards anltes Bogomiles Tropitse J Bohemian Brethren Nestorians [a.d. 428] Brethren of the Free Butychians [a.d. 448] Spirit Pelagians \ Calixtiues Hieracites Capuciati Helvidians Clementines Bsaianltes Dancers Barsanians I [-^ „ Davidists Barsanuphites | 460-600] Boniaus Bunomio-Theo- Flagellants phronians Fraticelli Theosebites Gueux Timotheans / Henricians lilonophysites, or Jaco- Hesychasts bites [A.D. 451] Hussites Acephali [a.d. 482 Joachimltes VI A Classified Table of the Principal Contenls JosepTiistae Lollards Men of Understanding Ortlibenses Pasagians Pastoureux Paterini Paulicians Perfect! Petrobrusians Petro-Joannites Porretanists Stedingers Taborites Tanchelmians Thondraclans ■Waldenses ■WTiite Bretliren CONTINENTAL SECTS OP Eeformation and LATER Date. Abecedarians, or Zwickau Prophets Adiaphorlsts Adrianists Ambrosians Amsdorflans Amyraldists Anabaptists Angelic Brothers Apostoolians Arminians Bacularii Bourignonists Brugglenians Calvinlsts Cameronites Camlsards Christo Sacrum CoUegiants Convulsionaries Comarists Familists Flemings Gomarists Hattemists Huguenots Hutites Ilhiminati Komthalites Labadists Lutherans Majorists Martinlats Melchiorists Mennonltes Michelhahnites Mommiers Moravians Old Lutherans Osiandrians Pietists Psychopannychltes Puccianites Pueris Similes Eeformed Church, or German Calvinists Rosenfelders Saint Simonians Schwenckfeldians Servetians Sionites Synergists Theophilanthropists Ubiquitarians UckewaUists United Evangelical Church Verschoorists Waterlanders Wilhelmlans Zwinglians ENGLISH SECTS [Long Extinct] Anabaptists Alascans Enthusiasts Familists Fifth Monarchy Men Grindletonians Hetheringtonian s Nonjurors Banters Se-Baptists Seekers Separatists Semi-Separatists Traskites Wilkinsonians [Chief existing Sects] [See also p. viii.] Roman Catholics [a.d. 1670J Independents, or Congre- gationalists [a.d. I6l(i| Baptists, or Particular Baptists [A.D. 16S3] Quakers [a.d. 1650] Presbyterians [a.d. 1062] General or Unitarian Baptists [A.D. 1691] Unitarians [a.d. i719] Huntingdon Connexion [A.D, 1748] Moravians [a.d. 1749] Nevs- Connexion General Baptists [A.D. 1770] Swedenborgians [a.d, i783] Wesley an Methodists [a.d. 1792] New Connexion Metho- dists [A.D, 1797] Primitive Methodists [a.d. 1810] Bryanites, or Bible Chris- tians [A.D. 1815] Plymouth Brethren [a.d. 1830] Irvingites [a.d. 1831] United Methodist Free Church [a.d. 1857] [AU the English sects named below are very insignificant in numbers, and some of them are nearly extinct] Seventh-Day Baptists Muggletonians Southcottians Independent or Calvin- " istic Methodists Jumpers Shakers Socinians Universalists Bourneans Coglers Peculiar People " Christians " Free Gospel Christians Freethinklng Christians New Christians Original Christians Primitive Christians Protestant Christians United Christians Christian Association Christian Brethren Christian Disciples Christian Israelites Christadelphians SCOTTISH SECTS [See also p. 009] Scottish Kirk Cameronians [a.d. 1672] Secession Kirk, or Asso- ciate S3Tiod [A.D. 1733] Burghers Antiburghers Old Light Burghers New Light Burghers New Light Antiburghers Old Light Antiburghers Relief Synod United Secession Protesters Besolutioners Original Burghers Original Seceders United Original Seceders Morisonians Free Kirk [a.d. 1843] United Presbyterians [a.d. 1847] Sweet Singers The Men Nonjurors [Presbyterian] Moderates Buchanites Scottish Baptists Marrow Men Campbellites, or Rowites Daleites Glassites Sandemanians Wilkinsonians Smytonites Haldanites AMEKICAN SECTS [lilost of the Sects which are to he found in Europe arc also to he found in America. The following list contains some among those which are of native growth] African Episcopal Metho- dists Campbellites, or Disciples of Christ, or Reformed Baptists, or Reformers Christian Connexion Conferentie Party Cumberland Presbyter- ians Darrelites Evangelical Association, or Albrecht Brethren Hard-SheU Baptists Harmony Society Hicksites Hopkinsians Jerkers and Barkers Jumpers Keithians, or Quaker Baptists KnipperdoUings Methodist Episcopal Church Methodist Protestant Church Methodist Reformed Church Methodist Society Mormons The New Bom New Lights, or Randall- ites, or Free Will Bap- tists, or General Pro- visioners New School Presbyter- ians Old School Baptists Old School Presbyterians Ornish Church Perfectionists, Bible Com- munists, or Free Lovers Bestorationists Rogerians Separates ShakerSf .. Six Principle Baptists Spiritualists Tunkers, Dunkers, Breth- ren, or Tumblers United Brethren in Christ Universalists Wakemanites Wllburites Wilkinsonians, or Univer- sal Friends Zion Wesley Methodists Zoarites RUSSIAN SECTS [Rascholniks, or Kerjaki] Bezpopoftschins Bezslovestni A Classified Table of the Principal Contents Vll Dlaconoftsohins Yedinovertzi, or Blago- Hoadly Leibnitz Duohobortzl slovenni Low Churchmen Spinoza Bpefanoftschins High Churchmen Hobbes Ikonobortzi CHURCH PARTIES Broad Churchmen Kant Isbranlki, or Roschol- schlkl ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE r*l y^ I 1 ^~\ -'X "T /^ mTT /^ TT j'^ TTm Hume KhUsti FOLLOWING Articles SCHOOLS OP THOUGHT Martlnists Iconoclasts ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE Atheists Deists Sceptics Malakanes, or Istineeye Christiana Separation of East and "West FOLLOWING Articles Morelstschiki Berengarius Origenists Pantheists Materialists Rationalists Freethinkers BncyclopEedlsts Martlnists Netovtschins, or Spasova Paschasius Eadbertus Alexandrian School Soglasia Peremayanoftschins Philipoftschins Amoldists Lollards Ultramontanists Antioch, School of Eclectics Mystics Pomorane, or Feodosians Galileans Plotinus Socialists Hegelians Popoftschins Roman Catholics Neo-Platonists Sabatniki German Catholics Schoolmen Nominalists Samochrischtchlna Old Catholics Skoptzi Puritans ReaUsts Mohnists Starovertzi, or Old Be- Covenanters Friends of God Jansenists lievers Strig'olniks Scottish Kirk Nonconformists Bacon, Roger Quletists Syncretists Uniates Nonjurors Descartes Pietists Wjetkaers, or Tschemo- Iiatitudinarians Geulincx Rosicruclans boltzi Bangorian Controversy Malebranche Theosophists Vlll Genealogy of Chitrch Parties and Sects rjl H O W W CO I— I 1-3 12; I— I w o w H Ph O fi -< W I— I H Ph M o p^ W o W I— I C5 1^ O O 1 Acacians Acacians him receive it" [Matt. xix. 12], and "With- out holiness no man shall see the Lord " [Heh. xii. 14]j and their argument ran thus: Christ must have preached some new virtue, or have performed some praiseworthy action not com- manded in the Old Testament. Did He come to teach the fear of God ? This is contained in the Law. "Was it to condemn envy, covetousness, and the like % This was done iu the Old Testa- ment. He could not, therefore, have any other view but to preach continence to the world, prac- tising HimseK that chastity without which ever- lasting Ufe could not he attained [Epiphan. adv. Hmres. lib. ii. torn. 2, p. 710]. They also con- demned the use of meat, as having been created by the devil and not by God [Philaster, cap. 84] : to which later writers add that, while admitting the Godhead of the Father and the Son, they held the Holy Ghost to be merely a created Being. Led perhaps by the similarity of some of their views, Philaster connects the Abstinentes with the Gnostics and Manich»ans, and Baronius [in Annal. ad arm. 288] identifies them with the HiBRAOITES. ACACIANS. Three broad lines can be drawn among the various subdivisions into which Arian- ism branched about the middle of the fourth cen- tury. [1.] Semi-Arians, of whom Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicaea were the leaders. [2.] The Anomoeans (avo/^otoi), or Ultra-Arians, fol- lowers of Aetius and his pupil Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicum. [3.] Between these two extremes rose the Acacians, a third party, who would neither allow any approximation to the orthodox doctrine of the Homoousion, nor yet admit that the Second Person in the Trinity was a mere creature, on the level of all other created beings. They derived their name from Acacius, who suc- ceeded Eusebius as Bishop of Ceesarea in Pales- tine [a.d. 338], a person possessed of many of the qualifications necessary for the leadership of a party. He was strong and active, a fluent speaker, and evinced his regard for learning by taking great pains to increase his predecessor's library [Tillemont, Mem. vol. xv. 458, edit. Brux. 1707]. At the same time he was ex- tremely unscrupulous and fickle : at first a furious Arian under Constantius, who sheltered him from the decree of deposition passed by a ma- jority of the Semi-Arian Council held at Sardica [a.d. 347], he became a CathoKc under Jovian, and veered round to Arianism once more under Valens. He was prominently concerned in the banishment of Liberius and the substitution of the antipope Felix [a.d. 355-358], after whose expulsion a sentence of deposition was passed against him at Seleucia [a.d. 359], and re- peated at the Council of Lampsacus [a.d. 365], which he only survived for about a twelve- month. The Acacians as a body partook of the chame- leon character of their teacher, and the shifts were various by which they attempted to sustain their indeterminate position between the Semi- and the Ultra- Arians. Their end would be ob- tained at one time by an intellectual subterfuge, 2 at another time by the abolition of the terms of technical theology. In A.D. 363, on the ascent of the orthodox Jovian to the throne, they attended a synod held at Antioch under Meletius, and agreed to sign the Nicene Creed, with a mental reservation to the ejBfect that the expression " consubstantial" or " co-essential" meant no more than begotten of the Father's essence, and therefore like Him in essence. Four years previously, at Seleucia in Isauria [a.d. 359], they had attempted to banish the term ovcrla altogether, with its compounds o/iooijo-tov and o/jioiova-iov, and asked to be allowed to adopt a formula of belief in God's only Son, without any further qualification as to His nature ; rejecting " consubstantial " as not found in Holy Scripture, and the phrase dvd/toiov tw TLarpi, as equally defenceless. On being further pressed, they allowed the Son to be like the Father, but seemed to prefer the absence of closer definition. But if the Son was like the Father, in what, asked the orthodox party, did the resemblance consist 1 Was it merely a resemblance in re- spect of will ? or was it a resemblance of a stiU. more unreal character, like that of a statue to the original, which involves no inherent element of identity 1 The answer of the Acacians to these questions must be discovered from the creed which was promulgated on that occasion, the precise terms of which have been preserved : "We confess and believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. " We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of Him without any pas- sion (diraOm), before aU ages, the God Word, God of God, Only-begotten, Light, Life, Truth, Wisdom, Virtue, by Whom all things were made which are in Heaven and earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe Him to have assumed flesh of the Blessed Virgin at the end of the world to put away sin, and that He was made man, that He suffered also for our sins, rose again, and having ascended into Heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the quick and dead. " We believe also in one Holy Spirit, Whom our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ called the Para- clete, and promised that He would send the same on His Apostles after His departure. Whom He both truly sent, and by Him doth sanctify the faith- ful in the Church, who are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. _ But whosoever preach anything beyond what is contained in this Creed the Catholic Church considers them as aliens." [Epiphan. Hmres. Ixxiii.] The following forty-three bishops subscribed to the above Creed :— Acacius, Bishop of Csesarea, Basil of Ancyra, Mark of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatian, Uranius of Tyre, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, ZoUus of Larissa in Syria, Seras of ParEetonium in Libya, Paul of Emessa, Eustathius of Epiphania, Irenseus of Tripolis in Phoenicia, Eusebius of Seleucia in Syria, Eutychian of Patara Accaophori Acuanites in Lyoia, EustatHus of ' Pinara and Didyma, Basil of Caurica in Lydia, Peter of Hippus in Palestuie, Stephen of Ptolemais in Libya, Eudoxius, ApoUonius of Oxyrinclius, Theoctistus of Ostracine, Leontius of Lydia, Theodosius of Philadelphia, Phoehus of Polychalanda in Lydia, Magnus of Themisi in Phrygia, Evagrius of Myti- lene, Cyrion of Doliche, Augustus of Euphra- tesia, Pollux of the second province of Libya, Panciatius of Pelusium, Philicadus of Augus- tada in Phrygia, Serapionof Antipyrgum in Libya, Eusebius of Sebaste in Palestine, Heliodorus of Sezusa in Pentapolis, Ptolemy of Thmuis AugustonisB, Angarus of Cyrus Euphrasia, Exere- sius of Gerasa, Arabion of Adrai, Charisius of Azotus, Elissseus of DiocletianopoUs, Germanus ofPetrse, and Barochius of Arabia. [Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. i. 306. Tillemont, M&moires, torn. vi. 304, Paris edit. Mcephorus, Eccles. Hist. lib. ix. Epiphanius, Hmres. Ixxiii.] ACGAOPHOEI. A sect of heretics which used water instead of wine for the Holy Esoha- rist has this name given to it by Timotheus Pres- byter, and he traces their origin to the followers of Tatian, or the Encratites. But he adds that they were also called Hydroparastatae, and hence " Ac- caophori " is supposed to be merely a misreading for Sacoaophoei. [Timoth. Presb. in ed. Com- befisian. Auct. nov. Mil. Patr. Grceco-Latin. ii. 451. Coteler. Mon. eccl. Grcec. i. 776. Ittig, De Heresiarcli. IT. xii. 13.] ACEPHALI [d— Ke<^aAij]. L The Mono- physite Acepliali. In the year a.d. 482, while "the Monophysite and Monothelite controversies were raging, the Emperor Zeno issued his famous letter of attempted reconciliation entitled the Hbnotioon. Peter Mongus, who had been the bitter opponent of, and had been excommunicated by Proterius, a former bishop of Alexandria [a.d. 457], was informed that he might be elevated to that see, then vacant by the expulsion of John Talaia, on the two conditions of admitting the Proterians to communion and subscribing the Henoticon. On Peter's assent to these conditions, most of the Catholics submitted to his jurisdic- tion ; but the Ultra-Eutychians still clinging to their denial of the two natures in Christ, and stiU bitterly hostile to the Council of Chalcedon, withdrew themselves, and formed a sect which, either from having no one conspicuous leader, or fiom the absence of bishops to head the move- ment, was called the sect of the Acephali. These Acephali broke up into the three sects of Anthropomobphitbs, Baesanuphists, and Esaianists, but all remained separate from the body of the Monophysites for about three hun- dred years, though stUl retaining the distinctive name of the original sect. The Acephali were, however, gradually absorbed by the Jacobites (as the Monophysites were called in later times), a,nd ceased to exist as a separate sect at the beginning of the ninth century. IL The Nestorian Acephali. The title of Acephali was also applied to those who would not adhere to John, Patriarch of Antioch, and Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the condemnar 3 tion of ISTestorius at the General Council of Ephesus [a.d. 431]. III. llie followers of Severus the Monophysite, Bishop of Antioch, who added to the Trisagion the words " Who was crucified for us," and who was deprived of his see and retired to Alexandria [a.d. 518]. IV. All priests refusing allegiance to their diocesans, or suffragan bishops rebelliag against their metropolitans. [For further information about the Alexandrian Acephali, consult Pseudo-Jerome, de Hceres. 43 ; Isidore, 67 ; Honorius, 82 ; Leontius, Lib. de Sectis, art. v. ; Gibbon's Rom. Empire, vi. 32. There is also a lengthy refutation of their doc- trines by Eusticus Diaconus, contra Acephalos prcefatio, incerto interprete.'] ACCEMIT^ [d— Kotjuaojuai]. The name of "the Sleepless," or "Watchers," was given to an Eastern monastic order founded by Alexander, himself a Syrian monk, under the auspices of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople [a.d. 428-430]. Bar- onius puts the date rather later, and ascribes their foundation to a person named MarceUus in the middle of the fifth century [Bar. Ann. 459, ex actis Marcelli aptid Suriuni], but the earlier date is more generally received. The Accemitas did not, as their name would imply, literally abstain from aU. sleep, but divided themselves into three "watches," each carrying on their devo- tions for eight hours, so that an uninterrupted round of worship rose perpetually from their monastery. They became famous both for their special sanctity and, notwithstanding that a sus- picion of heresy attached to their founder Alex- ander, for their rigid orthodoxy. In a.d. 484, when Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was condemned by Felix in synod for holding com- munion with Peter Mongus, Bishop of Alexandria, the Acoemitse sided with the Pope against their own bishop. This order afterwards obtained the name of Studites, from Studius, a rich Eoman noble of consular dignity, who went to Constan- tinople during the episcopate of Gennadius, and erected a cloister especially for them [Niceph. Hist. Eccl. XV. 23]. In later days the AcoemitEe were believed to have inclined to Nestorianism. ACTISTETES. A section of the Julianists, who took their name from the Greek word by which a being is defined as uncreated [oktjo-tos], in opposition to the CTiSTOLATRiE. The Actistetes maintained that after the Incarnation Christ ought not to be spoken of as a created Being, even in respect of His human nature ; thereby con- tradicting the words of the Nicene Creed, " koJ ivavdpunrriaavTa," " et Homo factus est," " and was made Man." This dogma was, in reality, a form of the elder heresy of the Dooet^, for since a Being wholly uncreated must be wholly God, hence the reality of our Lord's human nature was a doctrine as incompatible with the belief of one sect as it was with that of the other. [Dorner's Person of Christ, II. i 131, Clark's transl.] ACUANITES. The Manichees were so caUed in the time of Epiphanius, from their leader in Adelphians it is Tincertain wlietlier this expression means that no two of them ever ate in common, or whetlier they only declined to break bread ■with those who did not belong to their own sect. St. Augustine informs us, that while holding the divinity of the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, they rejected that of the Holy Spirit [Aug. de Hceres. 71], on which, and other points, they engaged in a controversy with the bishops of Ephesus. AI)ELPHIAN"S. One of the num erous names given to the different branches of the Mbssalians or EncHiTES, which sprang up in the East during the fourth century, and all of which, in various ways, laid great stress on the necessity of inces- sant prayer to banish evil, and unite the soul to God. The Adelphians are so-called from their leader, Adelphius, a Galatian by birth, who is mentioned as being excluded from a synod held at Syda [c. a.d. 368] against the Messalians. They were eventually banished from Syria into Pamphyha, where they succeeded in making a limited number of converts. They [1] rejected the Eucharist and other ordinances ; and [2] objecting to manual labour, indulged in long sleeps and visions, whence they shared with the Euchites the title of " Enthusiastse;" [3] like the Lampetians, Marcianists, Choreutae, and other branches of the Euchites, they treated Sunday as a fast-day, a practice condemned by many writers, and finally forbidden by the fifty-fifth canon of the council of Trullo [a.d. 692]. In a conference which took place between Elavianus, Bishop of Antioch, and Adelphius [a.d. 381], the latter allowed that he rejected baptism, and asserted that grace could only be obtained, and that demons could only be expelled, by incessant prayer. The scriptural authority for this was the text, "Men ought always to pray and not to faint" [Luke xviii. 1]. But according to the Adelphian theory, the eflicacy of prayer depended solely on its length or intensity, not on the Being to Whom it was addressed; and the devotions of the Jew, the heretic, the infidel, and the sinner, were of equal avail. It was supposed that each man at his birth inherited, along with the human nature derived from Adam, the servitude of evil demons, and that after they had been driven out by incessant prayer, the Holy Spirit would come, signifying its presence in a visible and sensible fashion, freeing the body from all fear of illness, and the mind from all inclination to sin, so that there was no longer any need of fasting to keep the body in subjection, or of any doctrine to strengthen, or, as the Adelphians would say, to fetter the sold. A man once fully possessed by this Divine influence, not only imagined himself free from all iU, but could foresee future events, and obtain a clear vision of the Trinity. ADESSENAEIA^S. A controversial desig- nation (adopted by Prateolus, in his Elenchus Hceretieorum) for the Lutherans of the sixteenth century, who maintained that Christ is really and truly present (adesse) in the Holy Eucharist, but denied that His presence involved the transub- stantiation of the elements in the sense of JRoman 6 Adiaphorists theologians. The term was intended to include aU who hold the Eeal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, « in," " with," or " under the form of," the bread and the wine, but to exclude all who hold that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is merely His figurative presence " in the heart " (or devotional thoughts) of the faithful receiver. [Impanators.] But it is a mistake to suppose that there was ever an organized sect bearing the name of Adessenarians. ADIAPHOEISTS. A name given to Mel- anchthon and his party, on account of their maintaining that many customs and doctrines for and against which the stricter Lutherans con- tended were not worth contending about, being things that were in themselves indifferent (dSM£<^opa). The " Adiaphoristic controversy" originated in theyear 1548, when Maurice, theElector of Saxony, began his rule by calling an assembly of Lutheran divines together at Leipsic, to consider whether or not they should adopt the Interim which the Emperor Charles V. had imposed upon his sub- jects. Luther had now been dead for nearly two years, and Melanchthon had become the leading theologian of the Lutheran party in Germany. His great desire was for peace and the cessation of controversy; and thus, on the one hand, he wished to hold out a hand to the Calvinists by toning down Luther's dogmatism as regarded the doctrine of the Eucharist, while, on the other, he desired to draw nearer to the Church by treating as in- different some doctrinal points which Luther had considered essential, and by a return to its ancient customs. At the Leipsic conference, it was de- cided that "in rebus medii generis, sen Adia- phoris" the Emperor might be obeyed and his "Interim" accepted: and the decision at which Melanchthon and his friends arrived is thus called "The Leipsic Interim." Among the Adiaphora they included the Eucharistic vest- ments, the elevation of the host and its accom- panying ceremonies, the use of choral services and of intonation by the oflSciating clergyman, the use of Latin in Divine service, the observance of Saints' days, the use of Extreme Unction, the Primacy (as distinguished from the Supremacy) of the Pope, and lastly the doctrine of salvation by faith alone without good works. The Leipsic In- terim of Melanchthon was thus only a modified form of that proposed by the Emperor at Augsburg, and the platform which it offered for reunion with the Church was hateful to the stricter Lutherans. . The " Anti-Adiaphorists " were led by Flacius Illyricus, a man who inherited no small portion of Luther's controversial fire and energy, and they thus acquired the name of "Elacians," as the Adia- phorists did that of " Philippists " from Melanch- thon. _ Endless discussions were raised [1] as to the essential or non-essential character of the customs and doctrines above enumerated, and [2] as to the lawfulness of giving up or of adopting even any that were allowed to be non-essential for the sake of concession to the enemies of "the truth," that IS of Lutheranism. These controversies lasted long after the Interim itself had faUen to the Adimanthus ground, to give rise to others not less bitter. [Amsdobfians. Synergists]. ADIMAI^THUS is referred to by Nicephorus, the ecclesiastical historian, as one of the three principal foUowers of Manes. He lived about A.D. 270, and -wrote a book to prove that the doctrines taught in the Gospels and Epistles were opposed to those of the ancient law and of the prophets, which was confuted by St. Augustine in his treatise Gontra Adimantmn, Manichcei disciptilum. [Aug. 0pp. ix. 153, ed. Bened.] ADMONITIONISTS. A party of the Puritans was so called on account of an " Admonition to the Parliament," in twenty-three chapters, which was printed in the j'ear 1572. This "Admoni- tion " called for a reconstruction of the Church of England on the most extreme Puritan platform, and is characterized even by so moderate a writer as Soames as a " mass of encroaching intolerance, captiousness, inaccuracy, envy, and scurrility." It was composed principally by two London clergymen named Field and Wilcox, who were imprisoned for it as a Ubel. Whitgift wrote a reply to it, which was answered by Cartwright. The Admonitionists established a secret conven- ticle at Wandsworth, which was the first Presby- terian community set up in England. [Neale's Hist. Puritans, i. 285, ed. 1732. Soames' Eliza- lethan Hist. 163. Hooker's Ecd. Pol. III. vii. 4. Brook's Memoir of Cartwright, ch. iii. Strype's Life of Whitgift.'] ADOPTIONISTS. This is the name of a sect which arose in Western Christendom towards the close of the eighth century, their distinctive theo- logical tenet being that Jesus Christ, as far as His Manhood is concerned, was the Son of God the Father by adoption. Their doctrine has been very generally supposed to have been a revival in the West of the ancient error of the Bonosians, condemned at the Council of Capua [a.d. 389], or of ]!^estorianism condemned at the third CEcumenical Coimcil of Ephesus [a.d. 431]. Such was the opinion of Pope Adrian, who described Elipandus as the successor of Nostorius in his circular letter to the orthodox bishops of Spain [a.d. 785], and the following passages from the Fathers have been quoted as containing an antici- patory condemnation of Adoptionism. St. Cyril of Jerusalem [a.d. 348-386] said that " Christ is the Son of God by nature, begotten of the Father, and not by adoption" [Oateeh. lect. xi.]. St. Ambrose [a.d. 374-396], that " we do not speak of an adopted son as a son by nature, but we do say that a son by nature is a true son" [de Incarnat. viii.]. St. Augustine [a.d. 395-430], that "we to whom God has given power to become His sons are not begotten of His nature and substance, as ' His Only-Begotten,' but are adopted by His love; the Apostle often using the word for no other purpose than to distinguish the Only- Begotten from the sons by adoption" [Aug. de Consens. Evang. ii. 3]. St. Hilary of Aries [a.d. 429-449], that " the Son of God is not a false God, or God by adoption, or God by metaphor (nee adoptivus nee connunoupatus), but true God" 7 Adoptionists [Hilar, de Trin. v. 5] ; and the eleventh Council of Toledo [a.d. 675] clearly laid down the same doctrine : " This Son of God is His Son by na- ture, not by adoption." It is plain from these quotations that the idea of adoption underlay many errors on the subject of Christ's Person, from the earlier times up to the seventh century, and yet it has been the tendency of modern criti- cism to disconnect Adoptionism from them. The reason for this wUl be seen if we first consider in what sense the earlier heretics held adoption, and then contrast their teaching with the fully syste- matized dogma of the Adoptionists themselves. The Gnostics were in a certain sense Adoptionists. They universally held the Manhood of Christ to have been of transient and unessential significance, but invented different theories about the reason why the Man Christ deigned to adopt it as His habitation. The Cerinthians imagined that, by reason of His wisdom, virtue and purity, the Man Jesus became worthy of such adoption and of the title Son of God. The Basilidians taught that, though not free from our common sinful nature, Jesus was arbitrarily selected by the eternal and divine decree to receive Christ, and that Christ coming into Him at the time of His baptism, puri- fied Him and rendered Him a perfect organ for the purposes of the Divine revelation. The Valen- tinians went further, and argued that the pre- eminent degree of wisdom and virtue possessed by the Man Jesus presupposed a previous and God- bestowed endowment, and that therefore, by a supernatural birth, He was fitted for adoption as the receptacle of the Divine element in Christ. Bonosus of Sardica [a.d. 390] regarded Christ as a mere adopted man. Migetius, reviving SabeUianism in Spain in the eighth century, taught that the Divine Wisdom or Logos adopted the Person of Jesus for an incarnate manifestation, just as God the Father had assumed the form of David, and the Holy Ghost that of St. Paul. Nestorius denied the identity or unity of the Person of Christ, in Whom the two natures, the Divine and human, were united. He denied the truth that the Eternal Son of God was conceived and bom. Mary was the mother of Christ, not the mother of God (Xpto-TOTOKos not Ocoto'kos) ; the two natures were to be distinctly separated, and he admitted only a junction by indwelling of the Deity, not a perfect union in one Person. It seemed to him that the real duality of the wills and natures could only be established at the price of a duality of personalities, a human subject being required for the human, as a Divine subject was for the Divine nature. He forgot that Divine mysteries are not to be explained or rejected on the ordinary principles of human reasoning. And whether or not the premisses of two essenti- ally different natures and wills render the con- clusion of the existence of two persons in one Christ logically unavoidable, at least such a conclusion was inconsistent with Holy Scripture, and would be necessarily rejected by the orthodox Church, whether presented to mankind in the form of Nestorianism in the fifth, or of Adoptionism in the eighth century. We are now brought to Adoptionists the difficult question as to wlietlier there was any connection dootrinally or historically between the latter and any of the former, and, if so, in what that relationship consists. Four views of the relation of Adoptionism to preceding heresy have been held by various theologians, [a] By contemporaries Adoptionism was regarded as identical with, and therefore merely a revival of, Nestorianism. [6] Others have regarded it as an un vanquished remainder, or as a lineal descendant, slightly altered and dis- figured, of the ancient Eastern heresies, [c] More modern writers {fi.g., Walchius in the last century) would regard it as differing rather verbally than essentially from the Catholic doctrine ; or \d\ as the first proof of awakening intellectual energy in a barbarian nation, by which the logical inconsistency of the orthodox teaching on the sub- ject of the two natures in Christ was discovered, and by which an attempt was made to avoid it. None of these aspects are entirely just. The intellectual activity of Spain during pre- ceding centuries, especially on theological ques- tions, had been far too great to allow us to regard Adoptionism as the undisciplined exercise of a newly awakened interest in questions of Christian controversy. The labours of Adrian I., Charlemagne, Alcuin, and others, to suppress it, equally preclude us from believing that it was merely a superficial deviation from the truth, and that the whole contest which raged in Christian Europe at the close of the eighth and beginning of the ninth centuries, might have been solved by explanation of the grammatical terms employed. Again, an examination of the doctrines of Eli- pandus and Felix wiU present to us points which intrinsically disconnect them from those of Nes- torius, and a glance at the preceding ecclesiastical contentions in Spain will shew us the guK that historically separates the two, while they also negatively prepare the way for the distinctive features of Adoptionism. In the first place, the contact of the Spanish Church with the Arianism of the Goths and the amalgamation which took place between the Spanish population and the Germanic tribes would naturally pave the way for disputes about the Manhood and Divinity of Christ. Secondly, the protracted contest with PrisciUianism, with Sabellianism, with the Monophysites (condemned at the eleventh and fourteenth councils of Toledo), and with the Monothelites (condemned at the sixth General Council at Constantinople), would aU equally tend to give prominence to the dis- tinction of the two natures in the one Person of Christ. One of the primary objects of the Adop- tionists was, legitimately enough, to insist on the real Humanity of our Lord ; but their anxiety on this point led them to make use of arguments which implied a human person equally with a human nature, and so assimilated their doctrine to Nestorianism. Although, therefore, there was a sufficient superficial resemblance between these two to account for the Pope branding the Spanish bishops with the imputation of the older here-sy, (especially if we make aUowance for the diffic'ilty 8 Adoptionists of obtaining correct information, and for the acrimony which too often accompanies polemical theology,) we must accurately distinguish them, and on the following points : — [a] The Adoptionists had no objection to the term 06otoko9 as applied to the Blessed Virgin, which epithet had been expressly rejected by the Nestorians. [5] While the Nestorians laid special stress on there being two Persons in Christ, the former pro- tested against the doctrine of the duality of Persons, as was even allowed by their opponents [Paulinus, i. 48], and in their memorial to Charle- magne they acknowledged the unity of Persons in plain terms : but they seem to have meant by this the juxtaposition of two distinct personal Beings, in such a way that the Son of God should be recognised as the vehicle of all predicates, but not in so close a manner as to amount to the absorption or almost transubstantiation of the human personality into the Divine Person, as was taught by the orthodox party.i [c] They taught that Christ assumed human- ity, while the Ifestorians spoke of Christ owing His exaltation to His virtue. The real error of the Adoptionists lay in dwell- ing too strongly on certain aspects of the truth. They appealed to the repeated decisions of the Church against Monophysitism and Monothelit- ism ; and maintained that the principle of duality, vifhich had already been recognised in the asser- tion of two natures and two wills in Christ, ought to be carried into the sphere of the person- ality. But here the Church stopped : she had hitherto been gradually unfolding the dualistic view, but the German councils unanimously re- fused to allow the principle to be pushed into a region where it would apparently lead them back to the long vanquished error of Nestorius. If the Adoptionists were right, in what sense was Jesus the Son of God ? Felix answered that the Father, Who was a Spirit, could not produce the Humanity of Christ from Himself [lib. iii. cap. 7] ; that Christ could not be the natural Son of God in the same sense in which He was the natural Son of David [lib. i. 12] ; and that to press the unity of Persons (which he still claimed to believe in), so far as to call Him, both in His divine and human nature, strictly Son of God, was to confound the Creator and the creature, the Word and the flesh. Him Who assumed and that which is assumed ; and that therefore Christ in His human nature is only "Nuncupative Deus" [hb. iii. 17]. In support of this argument, he appealed to such passages as "the Head of Christ is God" [1 Cor. xi. 3] ; to Christ's own admission that He Himself did not know the hour of judgment [Markxiii. 32] ; that none was good save God only [Mark x. 18]. 1 The Council of Frankfort [iii. 2] appealed to the following words of Pasohasius :— " In Christo gemina substantia sed uon gemina persona est quia persona per- sonam consumere potest, substantia vero substantiam non potest, siquidem persona res juris est, substantia res, naturae." Alcuin wrote, " In adsumptione caruis a Deo persona perit hominis, non natura " [c. Felic. ii. 121. Adoptionists Adoptionists How, he asked, if the man assumed by the Son of God was really the Son of God, could such expressions have any meaning at all ? This ques- tion is met by the rejoinder that difficult pas- sages of Scripture must not be thus isolated, but interpreted by reference to the general teaching of the Bible. The texts alleged by Felix must receive an interpretation not inconsistent with other passages where Christ is plainly called the Son of God : " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son" [John iii. 16] ; " God Sending His own Son in the likeness of sin- ful iiesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh " [Eom. viii. 3] ; " He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us aU. " [viii. 32] ; "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law " [Gal. iv. 4] ; " God sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" [1 Johniv. 9]. Those writers on Adoptionism who would re- duce the point at issue to a mere question of words, have asked whether adoption and assump- tion may not mean the same thing ; for it has always been considered orthodox to say that Christ assumed our human nature. The answer to which is, that FeHx spoke not of an assumed human nature, but of an assumed man ; and secondly, that he spoke of two births in our Lord's life — the assumption of the man at the moment of conception by the Blessed Virgin Mary, the adoption of that man at the time of His baptism, thus distinguishing between the two. " He Who is the second Adam received these two generations ; for in so far as He is man, our Eedeemer embraced and contains within Him- self the first, which is according to the flesh, and the second, which is spiritual, and takes place by adoption ; the first, which He took upon Him- self, by being bom of a virgin ; the second, which he began at His baptism and continued by His resurrection from the dead." ^ The oppon- ents of Adoptionism urged that this teaching in- volved two Persons in Christ ; also, that if Christ, as to His humanity, was not the proper Son of God, His mediatorial position was endangered, and the distance between Him and Christians was increased. To refuse therefore to attribute a separate personality to the Son of Man was no more than an act of justice to the Son of God, and no interference with the reality of the humanity. To all of which Felix rejoined that the duality of Persons was no more or less in- volved in his teaching than it was, logically speak- ing, implied in the previous decisions in favour of the two natures and the two wills, and that to designate Christ, as to His humanity, the proper Son of God, was to destroy the condescension of the Incarnation, and to rob it of its chief attrac- tiveness for Christians. His view, however, in- • "Qui est secundus Adam aocepit has geminas genera- tiones, primam videlicet quse secundum carnem est, secundam vero spiiitalem quse per adoptionem lit, idem redemptor noster secundum hominem complexus in semel ipso continet primam videlicet quam suscepit ex virgine nascendo, secundam vero quam initiavit in lavacro a mortuia resurgendo." [Felix, lib. ii. 16.] 9 Tolved two distinct lines, that of the Son of Man and Son of God, running in a harmonious parallel together, and either each possessing a separate personality (which the Adoptionists denied) or else reducing the personality to a mean- ingless and unsubstantial abstraction, a mere for- mal link between two essentially uncoalesoing natures. Such a unity of Person is very different from that taught in the older creeds, and defended on the analogy of the union of soul and body: " For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." Alcuin works out this analogy with great force. He asks, " H every man is the proper son of his father — if so, we are reminded that men are not sons of their fathers as to the soul, but only as to the flesh ; and therefore, if it is not allowable to designate the entire Christ as the proper Son of God, by parity of reasoning, no man can be called the son of his father." Again, he asks, " Does a man adopt his own son, or a stranger \ " The answer is obviously, " a stranger." At what time then was Christ in that position with reference to God % and when did God, out of affection or necessity, condescend to the act of adoption ? The whole question, whether, notwithstanding the reality of His human nature, the Son of Man can be strictly called the proper Son of God, depends on the further question, whether that which pro- perly pertains to a substance must always be of the same substance as that to which it pertains. This Alcuin answers in the negative, maintaining that something which is of a difierent substance from another thing may possess as its property this other thing, in such a manner that, for the sake of this real and substantial relationship between the two, the latter may become a predi- cate of the former, and that therefore the Son of Man may be properly called the Son of God, and the Son of God identified as to Person with the Son of Man.^ Having thus described the doctrines of the Adoptionists, and the principal arguments by which they were supported and refuted, we pro- ceed to give some account of the history of the sect. History of the Adoptionists. — The originators of the theory of adoption, and the leaders of the Adoptionist movement, were Elipandus, Arch- bishop of Toledo, and Felix, Bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia, who both flourished towards the close of the eighth century. In the year 783, the Archbishop wrote to Felix to ask his opinion about the Sonship of Christ, and the latter in his answer said, that as to His divinity, Christ was by nature and truly the Son of God ; but that as man He was the Son of God in name and by adoption. Unfortunately neither letters are extant, so that we have no power to refute on intrinsic evidence the conjecture made by some historians, that their object was, by lowering the human character of Christ, to pave the way for a union between Christians and Mohammedans.^ " Alcuin, 0pp. i. p. 921. ' Johannes Marianna, Histor. Hisp. lib. vii. cap. 8 ; Baronius, Annul. Ecoles, ann. DCCXLIV. tom xiii. p. 260. Adoptionists Tlie new theory ■was vigorously propagated. While Felix disseminated it in Septimania, Elipandus was advocating it in letters to his diocese, and tried to win over, among others, Adosinda, widow of Silo, king of Galitia, who, after her hushand's death, had taken the veil. She however remained firm in the Catholic faith, and induced the learned theologians of the day to remonstrate with him, among whom were Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and Beatus, Abbot of the monastery of VaUiscava, both Asturians, the latter of whom was charged by Elipandus with gross immorality. The confutation of Adoption- ism was continued by Paulinus of Aquileia, Benedictus of Anien, Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, and Alcuin, friend and preceptor of Charlemagne, who both personally con- futed Felix, and also composed seven books against him, four books against Ehpandus, and various letters on the subject addressed to Charle- magne, Elipandus, the monks of Gothia (ad monachos Gothiae), and the brothers of Lyons (ad fratres Lugdunenses). Pope Adrian I. also [a.d. 785] wrote a letter to the orthodox bishops in Spain, warning them against the new doctrines, which the following passage proves him to have considered akin to Nestorianism :— " The melancholy news has reached us from your land, that certain bishops resident there, namely, Ehpandus and Ascarius, with other con- federates, do not hesitate to call the Son of God an adopted Son, a blasphemy which no previous heretics have dared to enounce, unless it be that perfidious Nestorius, who confessed the Son of God to be a mere man. Wherefore by no means let such deadly poison insinuate itself into your neighbourhoods, or defile your love." ^ Still the doctrine went on spreading, until it became necessary to make it the subject of con- cOiar condemnation. This was first done at the smaU Council of Narbonne [a.d. 788 or 791], again at the Synod of Eatisbon in Germany [a.d. 792], where Charlemagne presided in person, and before whom Felix first defended, then abjured and anathematized his own error ; ^ but being still suspected, he was sent to Eome under the charge of a certain Angilbertus, and there imprisoned, until he consented to swear before the Eucharist on St. Peter's tomb that he renounced his former opinions as heretical. Upon this assurance he was allowed to return to his diocese in Spain j but before he had been there long, he retracted his re- cantation and disseminated his former errors, until in A.D. 794 Charlemagne desired Alcuin to under- take a formal refutation of the Adoptionists. Alcuin requested that the book of Felix and the 1 Epist. xcvii. p. 818, edit. Duchesne. ' The proceedings at Eatisbon are thus described by Saxo, a poet of the period :— " Atque suum scriptis defendere dogma libellis Omni quo potuit stndio cuvavit et arte. Hinc ad catholioi deductus principis aulam, Idem regino nam tnm hiemavit in urbe, A multis ibi prsesulibus synodoque frequenti Est auditus et errorem docuisse nefandum Convictus." [Bouquetus, Rerum Gallicarum et Franeicarwm Scriptor. torn. V. p. 156]. 10 Adoptionists whole subject might be submitted to the Pope, Paulinus of Aquileia, and other eminent bishops. This appears to have been done at the Council of Frankfort in the same year. Felix was once more condemned; and the orthodox doctrine was solemn- ly reasserted in these words, " That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be .called the Son of God, not an adopted and strange Son, but a true and proper" (non adoptivus sed verus, non alienus sed proprius). This condemnation was repeated at Friuli [a.d. 796], at Eome under Pope Leo III. [a.d. 799], at Aix-la-Chapelle [a.d. 799]. At the latter council Felix argued for six days with Alcuin, was convinced, and once more retracted his heresy. But he was not again trusted to return to Urgel, but placed under the charge firstly of Leodrad, then of his successor Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, where he died a.d. 818. Elipandus could have no rule of faith imposed upon him, because he lived under the Saracens in Spain, and he was suffered to remain till his death in undisturbed possession of his see. History of Adoptionis^n after the death of Felix. — The tenets of the Adoptionists did not, how- ever, become extinct on the death of Felix, for CEcumenius, in the following century, plainly ascribed adoption to Christ. In the eleventh century this view was not supported by any name of note. In the twelfth century it has been ascribed to Euthy- mius Zigabenus, mainly in consequence of certain loose expressions discovered in his writings : to Tolmarus, abbot of a monastery in Franconia, as appears from his controversy with Adamus and Gerhohus, dean and superior of the monastery of Eeichsberg. During this and the following centuries the subject was constantly debated by the Schoolmen, and chiefly by the following : — Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Durandus a S. Portiano, Johannes Major, Johannes de Barsolis, Eichard Fitz-Ealph, Petrus Areclus, Jacobus Ahnainus, &c. They unanimously rejected the theory of adoption as taught by Felix and Eli- pandus, but some of them allowed the use of the term with certain modifications and explanations, which virtually reduced the whole discussion to a logomachy.^ , In the seventeenth century, Georgius Calixtus, a theologian of the Academy of Helmstadt, broxight out a book in which he attempted to prove that 'For example, Buns Scotus said,— " Sancti negarunt Christum esse filium adoptivum propter hsereticos qui solum dixerunt eum filium adoptivum et non naturalem ; de yirtute tamen vocis potest Christus dioi filius adoptivus Dei, sicut unus alius homo quia prius natiu-a habuit naturam, quam ordinatur ad hsreditatem et sic fuit sufficienter extraneus." Durandus a S. P. said, "Christum dici posse adoptivum, cum additamento, in quantum homo est filium adoptivum Spiritus Sancti." Johannes Major rejected the proposition, "Christus secundum quod homo est est filius Dei adoptivus" as heretical, but held the following to be orthodox :—" Christus secundum humanitatem habet adoptionem." [^orhisvas, Instruct. Theol. lib. vi. cap. 7, sec. 7. See also Thorn. Aquin. iii. quses. 23, art. 4]. AdrianistcB Aerians Pope Hadrian and the Council of Frankfort were wrong in their condemnation of the Adoptionists, whose view he defended on these among other grounds : — " That it ought to he allowed Divine adoption was more excellent than human adop- tion, and might he free from those conditions which human infirmity might render necessary in the latter ; hence, that God hy virtue of His in- finite power might unite more closely to Himself than man could the Son Whom He wished to adopt." He was opposed hy Dorscheus, a theologian of Strashurg [a.d. 1649], Conradus Dannhaverus, and Adamus Quenstedius. A controversy on the same point, and ahout the same time, was carried on hetween Dannhaverus and Johannes Eein- bothius, president of Schlesvig-Holstein, and the Adoptionist theory found its last advocate in Johannes Tobias Major, a theologian of the Uni- versity of Jena [a.d. 1656]. The Socinian heresy, that Jesus Christ is mere m£in according to His substance, and that he began to exist no otherwise than by the birth he received of the Virgin Mary, together with the various modifications of this doctrine held by modem sects, are the descendants of Arianism and other early heresies, and must be in no way confused with Adoptionism. [For a fuller treatment of this subject, see Walchius, Historia Adoptianorum, Gottingen, 1755, 8vo; Domin. Colonia, Histoire Litter. de la ville de Lyon, ii. 79 ; Schroeckh, Kirchen- gesch. xx. p. 459 ; Gommentar. in Thomam, by Gabriel Vasquez, p. 96, Ingolst. 1606, fol.] ADEIANIST^. A sect is thus named by Theodoret as one of those which sprung from " the bitter root " of the Simonian heresy. But nothing further is known of their history, and both Valesius and Ittigius consider that " Adri- anistse" is a misreading for "Menandrianistse." [Theod. Hcer. fab. i. 1.] ADEIANISTS. An obscure sect of Dutch Anabaptists, so named after Adrian Hamsted. Among other Anabaptist heresies they denied the miraculous conception of our Lord by the Virgin Mary. Hamsted was minister of the Dutch sectaries in London, and was deposed by Grindal, Bishop of London, in the beginning of the year 1561. A form of recantation, stating his heretical tenets, is printed in Strype's Annals of the Beformation, but it was not signed by Hamsted, who was excommunicated by Grindal, and went abroad [Strype's Ann. Eef. i. 176 ; Grindal's Works, 243]. He seems to have organ- ized a small community in Holland, which was called after his name. ADEUMETIANS. The monks of Adrume- tum, in the North African province of Byzacene, misinterpreted St. Augustine's anti-Pelagian doc- trine, especially that contaiued in his 1 94th Epistle, into Atitinomian conclusions respecting grace and predestination, and are thus sometimes considered as the first Pbedestinaeiaws. .ffiLUEUS. The surname, or rather "nick- name," of a schismatical patriarch of Alexandria, Timotheus. .(Elurus, who for many years was the 11 leader of the Monophysite party there and at Constantiaople in the middle of the iifth century. [TiMOTHEANS.] ./ESCHINES. [Cat^schinians.] ^TEENALES. This name was given by Danseus, in his edition of Augustine's treatise de Hmresibus, to a sect which is numbered as the sixty-seventh in that work, and as the eightieth in Philaster. It was their distinctive tenet that the world will remain for ever in its present con- dition, even after the second coming of our Lord. St. Augustine remarks that PhUaster gives neither the name of the sect nor of its originator. The author of Prmdestinatus mentions the same tenet as that of a sect which he names Satanniani, from one Satannius, but this name was sometimes given to the EucHiTES. \Prmdest. Hceres. Ixvii.] AEEIANS. An Arian and Presbyterian sect of the fourth century, formed about a.d. 360-370, by Aerius of Pontus, or Armenia Minor. Aerius and Eustathius were Arian monks and fellow- students. Both becoming candidates for the bishopric of Sebaste in Armenia Minor, Eusta- thius was preferred, and he ordained Aerius priest, placing him over the hospital of Pontus. But Aerius, dissatisfied, gave up his preferment, and set himseK to traduce Eustathius, charging him with avarice and hoarding. He then affirmed himself to be Eustathius' equal, and asserted that there was no difference, by the Word of God, betwixt a priest and a bishop. He left the Church, and allured a great number of followers, who re- treated into the wUd fastnesses of the country and formed a sect Aerius was alive when Epi- phanius wrote, a.d. 374-6 ; but his sect does not appear to have spread wide or lasted long. The utmost which can be said from Augustine's notice of it is, that "we may be apt to think that he knew of some such people at the time of writing his book of Heresies in the year 428 " [Lardner, Works, iv. 181; Epiph. IftJsr. Ixxv.; Aug. Hcer. liii.]. Philaster, however, states that there were many of them in Pamphylia. Of the distinctive tenets of the Aerians, the foremost, the denial of the episcopal order, is heretical. Hooker writes \Eccl. Pol. VII. ix. 2], " Surely if heresy be an error falsely fathered upon Scriptures, but indeed repugnant to the truth of the Word of God, and by the consent of the universal church, in the councils, or in her contrary uniform practice throughout the whole world, declared to be such, and the opinion of Aerius in this point be a plain error of that nature, there is no remedy ; but Aerius, so schis- matioally and stiffly maintaining it, must ever stand where Epiphanius and Augustine have placed him." [Presbttebianism.] As the forerunner of the Presbyterians, the case of Aerius is fre- quently quoted in modern times. The Aerians also objected to pray for the dead, but we have not sufficient data to form a correct judgment as to the true character of Aerius' teaching on this point. Prayer for the dead may be refused from principles clearly heretical, as, e.g., from a denial of the communion of saints j or the refusal may proceed from a sense of an Aetians Aetians undue extension of the range and purpose of such, prayer, from a sense of abuses connected with the practice, and of dangers thought to ac- company it. It may he thus a measure of pru- dence, with or without sufficient grounds, but not involving heresy. [Dict. of Theol.] From Epiphanius' statements, Aerius appears to have been influenced by the thought that men might be tempted to neglect repentance and good works, in reliance on the prayers of the Church for them after their death, and to have been driven to the extreme of denying altogether the efficacy of such prayer, instead of ascertaining its true Hmits and purpose. The third error of the Aerians was a schis- matical breach of the discipline of the Church. It was pretended that set fasts were Jewish, and brought men under a yoke of servitude. Fasting was not rejected altogether, but Christian liberty was not to be abridged by the appointment of times. " They gloried," Epiphanius says, " in fasting on the Lord's Day; " and it is probable that the Christian liberty they claimed shewed itself, as it usually does, in wiKul opposition to established order. Lardner's comment on this point is worth notice : "Not but that they would sometimes fast on the fourth day of the week as others do ; however, they said, they did it not as bound thereto, but only of their free vriU, which last particular is sufficient to shew, that what Epiphanius says of their choosing to fast on the Lord's Day is a calumny, and an unrighteous aggravation of their principle" \Works, iv. p. 180]. It is difficult to see how this conclusion flows from the premisses. Philaster [cap. 72] states the Aerians to have been Encratites. Augustine remarks that Epi- phanius does not attribute to them any such ab- stinence. Epiphanius indeed states the direct contrary. But he states that Aerius advocated the renunciation of property [aTrora^/av KTjpva-cra, Indie. III. vi.], and as the Apotactites were in general Encratites, Philaster was not unnaturally led into the error. AETIANS. A name of the Anomcean sect of Arians which was given to them from Aetius, the first promulgator of their distinctive tenets. Aetius was the son of a military officer settled at Antioch in Coelo-Syria, who died while Aetius was stiU a youth, leaving his widow and her son in extreme poverty. After some time spent in servitude to the wife of a vine-dresser, Aetius learned to work in metals, rising from the posi- tion of a travelling tinker to that of a goldsmith. Forsaking the latter trade, he learned some rudi- ments of medical practice under a quack doctor, and studied afterwards, in a more legitimate way, in the schools of medicine at Antioch, where he soon set up as a physician. About a.d. 331, the death of his mother set him free to follow an inclination for theological studies, to which he seems to have been attracted by some success in disputation in the medical schools, where his talents led to his being engaged as the paid ad- vocate of certain theories not generally received by the profession. He was taken in hand by 12 Paulinus, the second bishop of Antioch of that name, who was a follower of Ariusj but the pupil outran the master so rapidly, that on the death of the bishop he was driven from Antioch, and had to resume his old trade as a goldsmith at Ana- zarbus. Here his powers of disputation attracted the notice, first of a professor of grammar, whose pupil he became, and afterwards of the Arian bishop of Anazarbus, whose name was Athanasius. From thence the restless Aetius went to Tarsus, continuing his studies under a priest named Antonius ; and when the latter was made bishop, the former returned to his native city, to carry them further under another priest named Leon- tius. For a short time he studied at Alexandria, but Leontius being made Bishop of Antioch, he returned thither, and was ordained deacon by him in the year 350. This ordination was not in- tended, however, to qualify Aetius for the or- dinary ministrations of the Church, but simply to place him in a better position for propagating his views ; and the remonstrances of the laity of Antioch were so strong, that Leontius was com- pelled to retract what he had done, by deposing Aetius from the diaconate, when the latter was again driven from Antioch. In the year 358, Eudoxius became Bishop of Antioch, and Aetius once more returned there, having meanwhile declined to accede to a propo- sition made to him at Alexandria, that he himself should be raised to the episcopal office. He had now a number of followers, and had acquired sufficient importance to lead the older Arians to oppose him before the Arian Emperor Con- stantius, who eventually banished him to Am- blada in Pisidia. The apostate Julian, who was a personal friend of Aetius, recalled him from exile, and he was made a bishop at Constantinople about A.D. 363. For the following four years he was driven from one place to another, being hated by the Arians for the logical precision with which he developed their heresy into its conse- quences, but his death, in the year 367, seems to have taken place at Constantinople. The sect of Arians founded by Aetius were more commonly known by the name of Euno- mians, from his disciple Eunomius. But the principles of the heresy were very distinctly stated by Aetius himself, in a treatise which has been preserved by Epiphanius [Epiph. HcBres. Ixxvi. c. 11]. This work consists of a short preface and forty-seven theses or propositions, the general purport of which is, that the Second and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity are entirely different in substance and will (dvd/xo 6ov) from the First Person, Who alone (he alleges) is possessed of the true quality of Deity, dyevvjyo-ta, or " ingenerate- ness." Eunomius endeavoured to formalize a system of Christian theology and morals on this distinctive principle, but the theories of Aetius acquired for him the name of " the Godless " ['A^eos], and his Antinomianism in theory and practice were too notorious to be contradicted. Several special misbeliefs are traced up to Aetius and his immediate followers, but the truth ia that he repudiated aU mystery in religion, and Agapeti^ Agnoetce made theology a mere matter of intellectual reasoning, without any real dependence on revela- tion. Such principles would naturally lead to the rejection of nearly every Christian doctrine as soon as it came under consideration. [Socrat. Hist. Eccl. ii. 35. Sozom. Hist. JEcd. iii. 1.5, iv. 12. Theodor. Hist. Eccl. ii. 24. Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. iii. Epiph. Hmres. Ixxvi.] AGAPEMONITES. [Prinoeitbs.I AGAPETiE, OR DILECT^. I. A sect which rose in Spain towards the close of the fourth century, during the reign of Theodosius, deriving its name from a certain Agape, who with her husband Elpidius were its reputed founders. They rejected the institution of marriage, and as a substitute allowed the most unrestrained inter- course and familiarity between both sexes, who, on the principle that " to the pure all things are pure" [Tit. i. 15], were allowed to share the same room and even the same couch. They also re- jected the ordinance of fasting, indulging in fes- tive and uproarious living, asking why they should "abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which be- lieve and know the truth " [1 Tim. iv. 3]. St. Jerome thus indignantly alludes to them in a letter addressed to Eustochium [Lih. de Custod. Virg.'\ : " It is a shame even to allude to the true facts. "Whence did the pest of the Agapetae creep into the Church? Whence is this new title of wives without marriage rites ? Whence this new class of concubines ? I will infer more. Whence these harlots cleaving to one man 1 They occupy the same house, a single chamber, often a single bed, and call us suspicious if we think anything of it. The brother deserts his virgin sister, the virgin despises her unmarried brother, and seeks 'a stranger, and since they pretend to be aiming at the same object, they ask for the spiritual consolation of each other, that they may enjoy the pleasures of the flesh." In another place [Ad Ctesiphontem], S. Je- rome, after enumerating Nicolas of Antioch led astray by the prostitute Helena, Marcion by a woman unnamed, ApeUes by Philomena, Mon- tanus by Prisca and Maximilla, mentions Agape as drawing Elpidius into heresy, and being by him the spiritual progenitor of PriseiUian (suc- cessoremque suum Priscillianum habuit). II. The title of Agapetse is also applied more generally to those monks or clergy who, under pretence of pure love, cohabited with the virgins or widows of the Church. This custom, fre- quently condemned in the patristic writings, be- came a very common one. It was defended by the text, " Have we not power to lead about a sister 1 " &c. [1 Cor. ix. 5], which St. Jerome ex- plains [Contra Jovin. lib. i. cap. 14] of sacred women who ministered to the Apostles of their substance. One of the charges laid against Paul of Samosata at his deposition by the Council of Antioch [a.d. 270], was that of adopting himself and allowing his clergy to adopt too great and scandalous intimacy with women who were not relations, and who were hence called crvvd- u-aKToi or " subintroductse." The custom, how- 13 ever, appears to have been a persistent one, for it sui'vived the condemnation of many councils, such as the first and second Councils of Carthage [a.d. 348-397, canons 3, 25] ; the second Coun- cil of Aries [a.d. 451, can. 3] ; Essone [a.d. 517, can. 20] ; and was only finally abolished by the fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III. [a.d. 1215]. AGINEISTSES. [Agionitbs]. AGIONITES. An obscure sect of En- ORATITES, condemned with the Eustathians and others of a similar character at the Council of Gangra, which was held at some time between A.D. 860 and a.d. 380. Perhaps the name was assumed by the Eustathians in some form based on the word ayios, q. d. "Puritans." AGNOETiE. A sect of the fourth century was sometimes called by this name on account of a peculiar opinion which they maintained respect- ing the Omniscience of God. They were a branch of the Eunomians, which struck off under the leadership of Theophronius [Ednomio-Theo- PHRONtANs]. AGNOET^ [dyvoea]. A school of Alexan- drian Monophysites, who, confusing the two Ifatures of our Lord, attributed to Him the human defect of imperfect knowledge. This opinion was developed by the Severianist and Julianist controversy which divided the Mono- physites, about A.D. 520. Timothy having suc- ceeded Dioscorus as Patriarch of Alexandria, en- deavoured to effect a compromise between the Julianist Aphthartodocetae and the Severianist Phthartolatrse or CoTrupticolee, privately lean- ing, however, to the latter as regarded his own opinions. An answer given by the Patriarch Timothy to a deacon named Themistius, led the latter to maintain the conclusion, that if the body of Christ was corruptible (subject, that is, not to the corruption of the grave, which the Severianists did not believe, but to the decay arising from the wear and tear of life), then He must also have been so far subject to the defects of human nature that His very knowledge of the present and the future was imperfect, and there were, therefore, some things of which He was ignorant. The Scriptural proof of this doctrine was rested on our Lord's question respecting the body of Laza,rus, " Where have ye laid him ? " [John xi. 34] ; and on His saying respecting the day of judgment, " Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father " [Mark xiii. 32]. The patriarch himself repudiated this conclusion, but a school of theorists grew up under the leadership of Themistius, and from the adoption of this conclusion as their distinctive tenet became known as Agnoetse, or assertors of ignorance. The heresy of this opinion lies in the fact that, starting in Eutj'chianism, it thus attributes igno- rance to the Omniscient Word. Some of the Fathers used language which attributed growth of knowledge, and therefore a preceding defect of knowledge, to the human soul of Christ, but they did so while holding most emphatically the Agoniclites distinction between His Human and His Divine Natures [Dict. o/Theol., Ignorance of Christ]; such a distinction being as empbatically repudi- ated by the Agnoetes. The heresy was opposed by Eulogius of Alex- andria in a treatise " Of the two Natures of Jesus Christ" \_BiU. Pair. GaUand. xii. 300], and he went so far as to say that the Fathers had allowed the doctrine of a growth in Christ's knowledge by way of oeconomy in dealing with the Arians. Afterwards the opponents of the Agnoetians ex- tended this idea of oeconomy even to our Lord's own words, saying that He appeared not to know for the sake of His disciples. The Agnoetian heresy obtained a permanent footing as an opinion, but it does not appear that it led to the formation of any sect distinct from the general body of the Monophysites. AGONICLITES [d, ydi/i), kAivm]. A fanatical sect of the seventh and eighth centuries, whose distinctive tenet was the condemnation of kneeling as the attitude of prayer. They are said also to have used dancing as a devotional custom. They were condemned by a synod of Jerusalem, A.D. 726. AGONISTICL The distinctive name of " Contenders" was given by the Donatists to the violent bands which roamed about Africa under the pretence of winning converts to that schism, but in reality gratifying their own desires for rapine, cruelty, and lust. They are said to have appeared first iuA.D. 317 [TiUemont, vi. 96], and are more familiarly known by their other titles of Catrophites, Circuiti, CircumceUions, Corophites, and (at Eome) Montenses. [Circumcellions.] AGYNIANS [a, ywij]. One of the many later offshoots of Manichaeism, assigned to the latter part of the seventh century [a.d. 694]. Its adherents, as their name implies, held no inter- course with women, pretending that God was not the author of, and did not sanction, marriage. AITKENITES. A party in the Church of England which owes its origin to Eobert Aitken, who had been a Wesleyan preacher previous to his ordination, and subsequently to it became a High Churchman ; being Vicar of Pendeen in Cornwall from 1849 until his death in July 1873. The distinctive feature of Aitkenism is indicated by these two circumstances, it being a combina- tion of Methodist peculiarities with the ritual and the sacramental theology of the High Church school. The doctrines of sensible conversion and assurance of salvation are strongly maintained by the Aitkenites ; and their belief in these doctrines leads them to supplement the services of the Church with prayer-meetings of an excited char- acter, similar to those which were held by "Wesley in the early days of his movement. The object of Mr. Aitken and his followers seems to have been the development of "Wesley's original prin- ciples in the High Church direction which they were disposed to take in the first year or two of his preaching. There is, consequently, no likeli- hood of their following "Wesley's example in originating a sect ; and Aitkenism will probably find its place and level in the Church of England 14 Albigenses as a home mission movement, in the same way that a simUar movement has done in Erance. ALASCANS. A name given to the foreign Protestants in London during the reign of Edward YI. It was derived from John Laski, or k Lasco, a Polish refugee of noble birth, who had adopted the negative theology of Zwingli during a resi- dence at Zurich. For some years k Lasco was minister of a congregation at Embden in Friesland, but being invited to London by Cranmer, he lived with the Archbishop at Lambeth for six months, and was then made superintendent of the " foreign churches" (German, Belgian, French, and Italian) in London, the principal one being the church of the Austin Friars in Broad Street. A Lasco was a forward partizan of Puritanism, opposing the use of the surplice, kneeling at Communion, &c., and it is believed that he in- fluenced the later opinions of Cranmer in the same direction as regards the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. The German congregations were dispersed at the accession of Queen Mary, and some portions of them settled at Embden, under 'k Lasco, who, however, soon forsook them, and after a sojourn at Frankfort, returned to Poland, where he died in 1560. A full account of the Alascan liturgy will be found in the British Magazine, vol. xv. 614, and xvi. 127. It is distinctly ZwingJian, ALBANENSES. A small medieval sect of the Cathari, which took its name from the city and diocese of Albi in Piedmont, then forming part of the archbishopric of Aries. They were a por- tion of that influx of heresy by which the moun- tainous districts of Italy, Switzerland, and France, were overrun in the twelfth century, the Mani- ch^an character of which indicates an Eastern origin. The Albanenses maintained a phase of Manichsean duahsm evidently derived from the Persian system, alleging that there are two co- eternal First Causes, the one being the God of light, God the Father of the orthodox creed, and the other the Prince of darkness, who was the maker of aU material things. They held a theory that no living thing created by God was mad^ to perish; a doctrine which led them to Antino- mianism, and which also made it a sin in their eyes to take the life of any animal. The sect was subdivided into the adherents of Balazinansa, Bishop of Verona, and those of John de Lugio, Bishop of Bergamo. It seems to have been confined to Venetian Lombardy, the district in which it originated, but was also associated with the Albigenses. 'The two sects are often con- founded with each other, and very probably they were actually amalgamated under the com- mon name of Albigenses. Eeiner numbers them at about five hundred only. [Eaynerus Sachonus, Sunima de Gatharis et Leonistis, in Martene's Thes. Anecd. v. 1761-8, and Gretser's Summary, entitled Eeinerus contr. Waldens. in Bill. Max Lugd. XXV. 267, 269.] ALBATI ["White Brethren.] ALBIGENSES. "Under this name are com- prised the numerous varieties of Manichsean heretics who are found in Southem France and Albigenses Nortliern Italy in the twelftli and tliirteenth centuries. Ttie name does not seem to be con- temporaneous with the appearance of the heresy in Europe, not being found in the earlier synodi- cal decrees against it; but these heretics are certainly so called in a worlc of Stephanus de Borbone written about a.d. 1225. It seems to have become the popular designation, about that date, of many differing sects whom the theolo- gians of the age generically termed Manichseans ; and it was probably derived, as will be shewn more at length presently, from one of the districts of Languedoc of which the city of Albi, anciently called Albiga, where a council was held against themin A.D. 1176, was the principal town. [Gretser. Fref. in Luc. Tudens. adv. Albig. error., Bibl. Max. Lugd. xxv. 190, a.] The Albigenses were also called Gazari (a corruption from the name Cathari), Bulgarians, Publicians, and by an almost infinite number of other local names. Like aU the Manichtean bodies, the Albigenses are distinguished by a more or less complete dualistic creed, and by the identification of the persons of the Duality with spirit or good, and matter or evil; lite most of those bodies, they condemned the Old Testament as the work of the evil being, denied the lawfulness of marriage, and divided aU their members into two classes of superior and inferior hohness. Manichsean ideas had indeed found their way into Europe as early as the beginning of the eleventh century, but the sects had been weak in the number of adherents, doubtful and disunited in their creed and practices. They had been frequently, and still remained to a great extent, confounded with various sects of pure anti-sacerdotalists, like the followers of Waldo of Lyons [Waldensbs], and of mad com- munists like the worshippers of Eon. [Eonians.] From Bulgaria, where Paulician Maniohseism [Paulicians] had been established since the seventh century, the heretical ideas slowly per- meated Europe. So general was this infiltration in the eleventh century, that there is hardly a western or northern country in which we do not find a disturbance traceable to this source. But the cold and phlegmatic temper of these regions was fatal to the oriental mysticism of Mani, upon which the new heresy was originally founded; while feudal and oligarchical institutions were ill-suited to the democratic spirit of the Pauli- cianism from which it was immediately derived. In England, Northern France, and Germany, the Manichsean revolt was easily subdued; but in Southern France, Provence, and Italy, the case was different. In these last named countries, Manichseism in its earlier stage seems, in a great measure, from different causes, to have escaped notice. In Southern France and Provence this was probably due to the more urgent character of the anti-sacerdotal revolt; in Italy, to the absorbing interest of the struggle between the Papal and the Imperial powers. Italy, too, was favourably situated for the dissemination of the heresy, in consequence of its proximity to Bosnia and the other provinces which bounded the home of Paidician Manichaeism, and the increasing 15 Albigenses intercourse brought about by the Crusades mater- ially assisted this dissemination. Here the last of the three great waves of Manichsean opinion, which in the third, the seventh, and the eleventh centuries respectively, threatened to desolate Christianity, beaten back from the rest of Europe, for the most part was poured. Here the heresy, elsewhere overpowered, was consolidated and de- veloped, until, in the middle of the twelfth century, it burst out in that form to which the famous title of the " Albigensian" has been attached. There were many circumstances — ^traditions, situation, climate — predisposing the South of France to admit the influence of a heresy like Mani- chseism. Septimania, which included Languedoc and Provence, and therefore the greater part of the Tolosan suzerainty, had, during four centuries of its early history, submitted without reluctance to the domination of Arian Goths or infidel Saracens. During the centuries immediately preceding the Manichsean revolt, the inhabitants had been accustomed to the demoralizing spectacle exhibited by the flourishing courts of the infidel princes of Spain. Sufficiently near to find polite inter- course with the Mohammedans agreeable, while they were too far removed to dread Mohammedan hostility, they had learnt to be tolerant when the rest of Europe was bigoted. Italy, and in par- ticular Lombardy, was next to Toulouse in its forbearing temper. The Paulician Manichseism which had broken out first in Northern Europe in the neighbourhood of the emporia of the Eastern trade, at a very short interval had appeared in Italy, that province of the Western Empire nearest to the Bulgarian frontier. The outbreak, though, as has been mentioned, for the time success- fully crushed in the North, in the South had the effect, not only of exciting many new leaders of heretical opinion, but of awaking the dormant Manichseism of central Italy. The connection between Italy and Provence was of long stand- ing; and Languedoc, united, for a time at least, under the same lordship, was further con- nected by a community of participation in the Eomanesque institutions and language. It was in the the independent cities of Italy that the dying institutions of Paganism had lingered longest ; it was in such towns that Manichseism was earliest revived ; and that this revival was a genuine rehabilitation of a dead heresy, is evi- denced by the fact, that the old tenets which had been discarded by the Paulician heretics from the seventh to the tenth centuries, are found flourish- ing in Provence and Italy in the tweKth. But if Italy was foremost in the revival of Manichse- ism, it is with the suzerainty of Toulouse that its connexion was most famous and fatal. That suzerainty, which comprised almost the whole of the ancient province of Narboiinensis, with the south-eastern parts of Aquitania Prima, had been, at the commencement of the eleventh century, the scene of St. Bernard's most famous triumph over the anti-sacerdotalists, and the ground so broken received the seed of the new heresy with wonderful rapidity. Nor was the Church in Albigenses these provinces capable of any considerable re- sistance, for the influence of their clergy was then at the lowest point that it has anywhere reached in the history of Christianity. A luxu- rious country, civUizod beyond its age, almost wholly independent of the French kuig at Paris, (in the preceding century it had absolutely ignored his existence), Languedoc enjoyed an almost licen- tious freedom, at a time when the rest of Europe was held in the strongest grasp of an almost universal military despotism. It was in this country, so predisposed by circum- stance to receive the poison, that the streams of heretical opinion were appointed to meet. South- wards, from Treves, Cologne, Besanjon — west- wards, from below the Pennine Alps — northwards, from Tuscany and the States of the Church — the flow of heretical opinion converged upon Tou- louse. The most fruitful and important district of the Tolosan Count was the Albigeois, or that surrounding Albi, a town on a tributary of the Garonne, and the modern capital of the department of the Tarn ; and it is from this territory that the name Albigensian, now so famous, has by a some- what obscure process been derived. The first mention of these Manichaean, or (as they are frequently called) Arian heretics of this district, is found in the records of the Council of Tours, which took place a.d. 1163. The fourth canon of that Council is entitled, "ut cuncti con- sortium Albigensium hEereticorum fugiant." The canon itself then describes them, calling them however Cathari and Paterini, the names under which, until the middle of the next century, they are invariably known. It is worthy of remark, that the name " Albigensian " occurs only in one other record of the twelfth century, a letter, nomi- nally, to his clergy, from Bishop Odo of Paris, dated a.d. 1190, but conceived in terms which smack of modern authorship. In a.d. 1165, a council was held at Lombferes, near Albi, where the heretical opinions were condemned, but the name not unnaturally does not there occur. It is from this council that many learned authors, including Mosheim, are inclined to derive the distinctive title of Albigenses. A more probable hypothesis derives the name from the fact that the Albigeois was the chief seat of the heresy, a fact however which rests on insufficient evidence. The word Albigensian is certainly absent from the series of condemnations which extend from the middle of the tweKth to the middle of the thirteenth century. These, commencing with the Council of Tours in a.d. 1163, carry the chain of anathema through the councils presided over by Alexander III., Lucius II., and Innocent III. ; but they contain no use of this word in other than a geographical sense. The third Lateran of Alexander III. is thus precise in its terms — " Quia in Gasconia Albigesia et partibus Tolosanis et aliis locis ita haereticorum quos aUi Catharos alii Paterinos alii Publicanos . . . appellant . . . invaluit damnata perversitas." Of the names applied to the Albigensian sectaries. Publican! is a manifest corruption of Pauhciani, and had been in common use for a 16 Albigenses century. Of the other terms, "Cathari" or " Puritans," was, in default of more differential nomenclature, employed to express all the anti- sacerdotal bodies, whether Manichsean or otherwise, who claimed peculiar sanctity, and "Paterini" (variously spelt Patareni and Patrini), sponsors or fatherHngs, originally a term of reproach flung by the secular at the regular clergy, was well adapted to the Manichsean despisers of marriage. The details of the process, during which the name Albigeois acquired the sense in which it is sub- sequently, and has now for so many centuries, been applied, to the heretics of Languedoc and Provence, are not discoverable with certainty. The name was probably given to the war by the lay invaders, not to the heresy by the priestly invaders of Toulouse. It is a significant fact, that the first crusade against this development of modern Manichseism was directed against the inhabitants of Albi, whose feudal lord defended his vassals against the attack. Besides, when, a quarter of a century later, the great crusade of Innocent commenced, the large fertile district contiguous to the frontier of Guienne, within or adjacent to which lay Toulouse and the principal towns of the invaded district, would be likely to attract much attention from crusaders, mostly from Northern and Eastern France, aliens in blood, speech, and usage. Such men might readily borrow for the title of their crusade the name of one of the principal scenes of their operations with which they were familiar, and so in suc- ceeding years it might come to pass, that the name thus given to the crusade might be trans- ferred to the heresy which was its cause. This theory derives much support from the fact, that the earliest use of the word in the broader meaning refers it to the Albigensian crusade, and not to the Albigensian heresy. The word first began to be applied to the heresy (but not commonly) in the latter half of the thirteenth century, about which time a second council was held at Albi, under the patronage of the Domini- can inquisition. In the edict of the Council of Alexander III. (the third Lateran, a.d. 1179) is preserved the first authentic statement, though by an enemy, of this heresy. From it we learn, that the heretics (hereafter to be called Albigensians), besides their assertion of the duaUstio principle, rejected the Lord's Supper j disowned the Old Testament, its law and its God ; denied the resurrection of the body, salvation by faith, the efficacy of infant baptism (chiefly on Pelagian grounds) ; declared capital punishment, oaths, and marriage unlawful; forbade the use of churches, ritual, and the pay- ment of tithes to the clergy, and taught that no female soul in a future state retained femi- ninity. In the year prior to this council Ray- mond v., the reigning Count of Toulouse, had appealed to Alexander for pontifical assistance. A commission of five of the most distinguished prelates, with the sanction of the Kings of France and England, proceeded to the assistance of the count. In their report they describe the whole land as in the possession of the heretics. But Albigenses the condemnation of papal and provincial coun- cils -was of little efficacy in Toulouse, nor was the persecution which Eaymond set on foot more efficacious. A crusade, undertaken by Henry of Clairvaux against the Albigeois, was rendered wholly nugatory by the protection which the Viscount of Bezi^res and his great vassal the Count of Albi afforded to the heretics. In vain did Eaymond, through the last twenty years of his reign, burn the bodies and confiscate the goods of the heretics; in vain were ecclesiastical cen- sures poured out against these Cathari in succes- sive and continuous imprecation. Florence, Brescia, Bergamo, Milan, in Italy; Montpellier, Carcassonne, Albi, Toulouse, in France; each continued to hold flourishing communities pro- fessing Albigensian opinions. Toulouse, with its great subordinate fiefs, including besides those that have been mentioned, Beziferes, Poix, Queray, and Narbonne, was wholly given to the heretics. So completely had the country come into their possession, so fearless were they in the enjoyment of their freedom, that they possessed their own burial-grounds, and subsidized their own clergy. They divided the sect into classes, under the title of Consolati, or Perfect, and Poederati, or Auditors. The voluptuous Tolosan nobles (and most of the Tolosan nobles-were voluptuous) had probably little religion of any kind ; but the dis- cipline of the federate or auditor, which sufficed the ambitious youth of Augustine, was not a severe or ascetic rule. The devout, on the other hand, found their account in the religious excite- ment of the new and daring opinions, and in an asceticism which surpassed the utmost severity of which the degraded priesthood of the country was capable, while the consolation in death, administered by the "perfect," whose title to confidence lay only in his holy life, seemed to them to have more than all the value of priestly absolution. The vast increase in the numbers of the sect induced a more widely ex- tended organization. Bishops, with two coadju- tors, the one holding the title of eldest, the other of youngest son, administered to the accumulating need of the congregations. They are alleged to have possessed a complete system of churches, sixteen in number, representing the communities of Prance, Italy, and Bulgaria ; and there is reason for beheving that their ministers received ordinar tion, or, at any rate, first appointment, from the more important stations in the Italian cities. The old Zoroastrian controversy of the first causes, which had divided Persia in the hour of the birth of Maniohseism, again appeared, in this the hour of its dissolution, and the Bagnolensian and the Albanensian camps respectively sustained the cause of the single and double origin of existence. Albi itself, and the heretical Church of Provence, supported the theory of the single origin. How deeply imbued with the heretical opinion was the whole country may be gathered from the fact, that in one assembly, held in the year 1204, four of the most noble Provenjales, numbering among them Esolarmonde, the sister of the great Count of Poix, were publicly received into the 17 Albigenses heretical community. On their admission into the ranks of the Perfect, these ladies made solemn pro- mise to touch no meat, eggs, or cheese, but to eat only vegetables and fish ; neither to swear nor to lie ; to abstain from all carnal intercou.rse, and to keep troth to their sect unto the death. Even Inno- cent admits their virtue, but, like Leo and CyrU, he held their practice of virtue but a wile of the devil to betray the orthodox. Within a few months of his accession, Innocent commenced proceedings. He wrote fijst to the Archbishop of Auch, then to all the great prelates and nobles of the country, urging them to exterminate the heresy, offering them for the use of their swords the blessings of the Church and the possessions of the heretics. This first appeal was wholly in- effectual : the nobles would not act against their vassals, and the clergy were powerless. The Pope sent legates, chosen from the monastic orders, first Eeiner and Guy, subsequently Peter of Castelnau, Eaoul, and Arnold of Citeaux ; these last the most bigoted Churchmen of that age of bigots. Eight years passed of ineffectual preaching, in the exaction of vain promises and idle protestations. The cities promised, and the nobles, but neither cities nor nobles would act against inoffensive citizens, against faithful vas- sals. The Pope called on the count himself to interfere. Eaymond VI., who, heretic as he is alleged to have been, was certainly no Maniohsean, (he had three wives alive at the commencement of the crusade), dallied with the papal mandate ; the legates were exacting, and after a short struggle the inevitable end arrived, and he was excommunicated. The pretext was the murder of Peter of Castelnau, a crime of which the count was entirely innocent. The legates, who had by this time obtained some influence owing to the austerities which, by the advice of Dominic, they had sedulously practised, and thus gained the reputation of sanctity, obtained through the death of Peter the prestige of a martyrdom. The Pope issued to the king and great nobles of Iforthern France a public caU to vengeance, while his emissaries privately urged Eaymond's vassals to revolt, the death of Peter becoming the signal for a general crusade. It is said that haK a million of men were gathered for the enterprise. In vain the count performed the most abject penance, and surrendered seven of his principal castles into the hands of the Pope ; in vain he offered to join, and in fact did join, the crusade against his faithful Albigensians. The invaders had for leaders four archbishops, twelve bishops of great sees, and countless abbots, and other digni. taries. The Duke of Burgundy, the Counts of iN'evers and St. Pol, Simon Montfort, the Lord of Amaury in France and Leicester in England, supported the Churchmen. The crusaders' ad- vance was irresistible. Beziferes and Carcassonne were at once stormed, and the inhabitants indis- criminately massacred. In the first quarter of a year five hundred towns and fortresses fell or capitulated, and amongst them Albi. In their more merciful moments, the order was given by the crusading chiefs that those who recanted Albigenses Albigenses should be spared, and those who refused should be burned. Few availed themselves of the former alternative; most boldly confessed their faith, and accepted martyrdom with cheerfulness. The crusaders soon grew tired of leniency. At the great papal Council of Aries, Eaymond was offered terms, so contrived as to make acceptance impossible. The strife was continued, marked with atrocities remarkable even for a religious war. " Slay all, God will know His own," was the saying of the legate Arnold before Beziferes. At Lavaur, the lady paramount was thrown into a well and stones rolled upon her, eight hundred nobles were hanged on trees or hewn in pieces, four hundred of the " perfect " were burned in one pile; the rest, men, women and children, were massacred. The career of Simon de Mont- fort, the only crusading noble base enough to accept the price of blood, was one of unchequered success. In three campaigns he became a sove- reign prince. The arms of Montfort were every- where irresistible. Even the King of Arragon, the victor of Navas de Tolosa, was defeated and killed. The nobles of Toulouse were now strug- gling for existence. Raymond and hie vassals were too weak to protect their subjects ; they were fortunate if they survived themselves. The fourth Lateran of Innocent III. declared the formal spoliation of Eaymond. It is alleged that the Pope was overborne by the cardinals and priests of Montfort's party, by the men who boasted themselves more papal than the Pope himself : at any rate it would seem that the Pope partially repented of his harshness, and offered the Venaissin to the young Raymond as a com- pensation for Toulouse. Meanwhile, Montfort was occupied with the consolidation of his dominion, and with the extirpation of the Albi- genses. But a general insurrection of the whole people in favour of their old rulers compelled him again to take the field. The two counts landed, and were enthusiastically received. Shortly, the old count threw himself into Tou- louse, which defied every effort of Montfort's arms, and before its gates the great crusader at length perished. Innocent had died in a.d. 1216, and though the new crusade preached by his successor, Honorius III., was headed by Louis of France, it accom- plished nothing more than one massacre of Albi- genses, that at Marmande. In a.d. 1 222, the Count Raymond VI. died, and four years later another crusading army descended into Languedoc. But it was no longer a war directed against heretics, enemies of the Christian Church, but against in- habitants who refused to own the suzerainty of the French king. The year a.d. 1229 saw, in the Council of Toulouse and the Treaty of Paris, the destruction both of political independence and of religious liberty. By the council the laity were prohibited from possessing the Scrip- tures. By the treaty, Eaymond VII. promised fealty to the king. He swore besides to render fealty to the Pope, to execute justice on all heretics, and to pay at first two, subsequently one mark for each heretic discovered in his 18 dominions. At the Council of Toulouse a com- plete code of persecution was developed. In every village one clerical and three lay inquisitors were to be appointed ; the property of those on whose lands heretics were found was to be for- feited ; the harbourers of heretics were to be re- duced to personal slavery ; heretics who recanted were to be removed to Catholic cities, to wear two crosses of different colour on their dress, to abjure Albigensian tenets, and to make public con- fession of faith. The suspect were incapable of holding offi.ce, of practising medicine, or of nurs- ing the sick. But even these decrees were con- sidered of dangerous mildness, and were amplified and made more stringent by subsequent councils, which were levelled as well against the true Albigenses or Manichasans, as against the Leon- ist» or Waldenses, many of whom had shared the sufferings of the crusade. The punishments invented for suppressing the Albigensian heresy, and universally adopted by the Inquisition, are historically instructive. For those who recanted, penance and deprivation of all honourable means of life : for those whom they could not convict, perpetual imprisonment : for the guilty, death at the stake. Nor were the in- quisitors backward in enforcing these penalties ; as the holocaust of one hundred and eighty-three persons at Vertus, and numerous other massacres, abundantly testifj^. To Innocent and Honorius belong the credit of establishing, to Gregory is due the glory of having perpetuated, this Inquisition. By him it was handed over to theDominicanFriars, from whom, as possessing a corporate succession, the heritage could not pass away. Their cruel- ties in Toulouse at length provoked an insurrec- tion ; it was appeased by a temporary removal of the Inquisition, but with its return after four years the same cruelties returned, and the same revolt. In this their last struggle the Albigensians fought with fury. They captured the castle of Avignonet, and hewed in pieces "William Arnaud, the great inquisitor, with the four Dominicans and two Franciscans who formed the inquisitorial tribunal at that place. But these successes were of no long duration. Raymond was forced to submit to Saint Louis, and abandonment of the Albigensians was stipulated for in the act of submission. "Within two years of that submis- sion, that is A.D. 1244, Mont Segur, the last refuge of the Albigensians, a strong castle perched on the edge of a ravine in the Pyrenees, to which most of the perfect, with their bishop, had fled, was forced to surrender to the Archbishop of Narbonne, the Bishop of AIM, and the Seneschal of Carcassonne. All the heretics, with their bishop, and the noble Lady Esclarmonde, were burnt alive in a vast enclosure of stakes and straw. In the same year, the Emperor Frederick II., himself a freethinker, published an imperial de- cree for the punishment of the Albigensian here- tics of the empire, under the style of " Cathari," "Paterini," " Albanenses," and "Bagnolenses." The persecution was devised with such political shrewdness and so weU. executed that the heresy was actually stamped out in Southern Europe. In Albigenses fifteen years, at the beginning of tlie fourteenth century, the Tolosan Inquisition, at their various " sermones," or sessions, handed over to death by the civil power twenty-nine of the Albigenses, and punished, with various severity of imprisonment, nearly five hundred others. This activity, it must be borne in mind, was displayed between the years a.d. 1307-1323, sixty years after the heresy had been forcibly suppressed, and a whole cen- tury later than the death of Montfort. Slowly and in secret the last remnant of the Albigensian heresy was strangled by the strong hand of the Inquisi- tion. A few escaped and joined themselves to the Waldenses, attracted more by the comparative security of their Piedmontese homes than from any community of religious opinion. Others, it is said, escaped to Bosnia and the provinces of the Danube, where, favoured more by their obscurity than by any intentional toleration of either eastern or western Eome, they preserved a liarmless and precarious existence; until they were reconciled to the Church in the fifteenth century by the eloquence of the Cardinal Carvalho. The story of the Albigensians (gross heretics as they undoubtedly were) is the shortest, bright- est, and bloodiest in the annals of heresy. Their precocious refinement and civilization, their high moral tone (which their enemies scarcely deny), the unchristian heresy which they themselves are bold to admit, the bloody crusade which com- menced and the bloodier persecution which con- summated their ruin, present features of romantic interest absolutely without parallel. ITor was this course of events less swift than the events themselves are surprising. In the middle of the twelfth century, the Albigensian history com- mences ; in A.D. 1244 the community had ceased to exist. By that date little that was Albigensian survived, unless it was a hatred of Eoman bigotry which even the Inquisition failed to extirpate. It is noteworthy that the country of the Albigenses was also the country of the Camisards. Literature. — ^The original records of the Albi- gensian heresy are unfortunately the )vork en- tirely of orthodox writers, and almost entirely of orthodox ecclesiastics. The most important of these contemporaneous authorities are collected in the Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France [Bouquet, &c., Paris]. They consist of the history of Petrus Sarnensis, Peter of Vaux Cernay, who, in attendance on his uncle, the abbot of that place, was an approving eye-witness of the horrors of the crusade [Bouquet, tom. xix.] ; that of Gulielmus de Podio Laurentii, William of Puy Laurens [Bouquet, tom. xix. xx.] ; that of Beinerius, himself a Catharist or Albigen- sian, but who, being converted to oi-thodoxy, be- came an inquisitor [Bouquet, tom. xviii.] ; and that of the anonymous author of the history of the Guerre des AlUgeois [Bouquet, tom. xviii.]. To these are to be added the controversial treatises : Adversus CatJiaros et Waldenses, by Alanus de Insulis [Masson, Lyons], and by Moneta Cremon- ensis [Eichinius, Eome] ; and the poem written by a troubadour, under the nom de plume of William of Tudela, edited by M. Pauriel, Docvr 19 Alexandrian School ments Historiques inedits [Paris], and entitled La Guerre des Albigeois. This author, whose orthodoxy is unimpeachable, gives the history of the war from A.D. 1209 to 1219. At first he is furious against the heretics; but, as the work progresses, the cruelties practised by the crusaders have the effect of changing him from a staunch partizan into a bitter enemy of their opponents. Besides these more important works, the papal letters of Innocent III. and Acts of CouncUs are to be read passim. The Godex Tolosarue inquisitionis, a record of the work of the Inquisi- tion of Toulouse, from a.d. 1307-1323 [Limborch, Amsterdam], contains an authentic list of sen- tences of that tribunal during those fifteen years. Of modern works on this subject, the Histoire de Languedoc, by MM. Vich et Vaissette [Paris] ; and Sismondi's History of the Crusade against the Albigenses [London], are the most important. Much information is contained in the ecclesiasti- cal histories of Fleury, Mosheim, and Gieseler, though the two former are sometimes ex- ceedingly partial in their views ; as also in Milman's Latin Christianity. It is necessary to observe, that the account of the Albigenses given in Milner's Church History is wholly un- trustworthy. The most valuable learning applied to the many difficulties with which their history abounds is to be found in the Histuire de la Poesie Provengale, by M. Fauriel [Paris], and in Maitland's Facts and Documents connected with the History of the Albigenses and Waldenses. ALEXANDEE. In both of St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy an Alexander is named as one of the worst opponents of his ministry. In the first he speaks of him in association with Hymenseus, as having made shipwreck of the faith, and as having put away the faith and a good conscience [1 Tim. i. 19, 20]. In the second he says " Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil " [2 Tim. iv. 14 ; cf. Acts xix. 33]. There is no reason to believe that two Alexanders are here named, and as the second Epistle to Timothy was written some years after the first, we are led to the conclusion that the opposition to St. Paul, and the " shipwreck " of " the faith,", were of a persistent character. What was the nature of Alexander's heresy is not stated, but the com- bination of immorality and misbelief — the putting away of both faith and conscience — ^points to some form of Gnosticism. That it was heresy of a very antichristian kind is shewn by St. Paul's language in both places. [HYMBN^aiDS.] ALEXANDEIAN SCHOOL. The present article wiU be limited to the Catechetical School. I. When cur Lord bade His disciples baptize in His name. He also commanded that instruc- tion should precede the initiatory rite. Excepting in such abnormal instances as the first converts on the day of Pentecost, and the Ethiopian eunuch, and the gaoler at Philippi, regular instruc- tion was conveyed from the first before the ad- ministration of baptism. In the case of Jews bare admission that Jesus was the Christ might be sufficient; but heathen idolaters needed a longer and more elaborate course of instruction, and a Alexandrian School A lexandrian School necessity tlius arose for a distinct order of catecWsts. At first, perhaps, the ordained and authorized teacher of each church discharged the duty in person ; then, as its boundaries became extended, delegates, whether clerical or lay, were told off for the office ; and even females were not con- sidered ineligible to convey to converts of their own sex the first principles of the Christian faith. In remote districts, catechetical arrangements would be simple in the extreme ; but the large centres of civilization demanded more care and method. St. Paul himself was the first catechist of the Corinthian Church [1 Cor. ix. 19-23 ; iii. 5, 6 ; 2 Cor. x. 16], to be succeeded in due course by others [1 Cor. xv. 1 1]. He instructed widely, but baptized few. Athens and Eome, doubtless, had their systematic exposition of the rule of faith before that rule was confessed in baptism ; but the only Church with respect to such appoint- ments to which we can speak with certainty is the Alexandrian. II. St. Jerome refers the origin of this noted school to St. Mark : " Pantsenus Stoicse sectse phUosophus juxta quandam veterem in Alexandria consuetudinem, ubi a Marco Evangelista semper ecclesiastic! fuere doctores, tantse prudentiae et eruditionis tarn in Soripturis divinis, quam in seculari litteratura fuit " \Gatal. 36]. This same Pantsenus is named by Eusebius, who speaks of the school as of old standing ; €^ a.pxa,lov 'iOovs StSao-KaAci'ov tuv tepQv Aoywv Trap' aurois crvvea- TUTOS, c5 Kal e'ts ijjuSs iraparelvcTai ^H. E. V. 10] ; the origin of the Alexandrian Church being also referred by him to St. Mark \H. E. ii. 16]. The Evangelist would naturally provide for the succession of pure teaching in the Church of his foundation ; and instruction for neophytes, at first simple in the extreme, deepened into those more severe lines of comparative scholarship. Chris- tian and Pagan, which local peculiarities fostered ; thus, milk for babes was gradually replaced by the strong meat for men. The earliest name con- nected with this school is that of Athenagoras, in the middle of the second century, mentioned by Philippus of Sidet in Pamphylia,! -^ a fragment published by Dodwell [Diss, in Iren. 490-514], as the first of a succession of learned teachers. But the writer's authority does not stand high for accuracy, and Eusebius fails to confirm the state- ment, although the way in which the historian mentions Pantaanus at the close of the second century by no means implies that he had no pre- decessor in his ofS.ce. Both Athenagoras and Pantsenus were converts from the ranks of philo- sophy ; and certainly no more useful class of instructors could be found in such a locality than learned converts : for no other men could have so complete a grasp of the various problems that have exercised the human intellect, or so demonstrate the weak points of every philosophical system, whUe they exhibited the spiritual simplicity of the Gospel of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God [1 Cor. i. 24] to every soul that believeth. Eespecting the position of Panteenus there can be no doubt, and from him the following succession may be traced down to the close of the fourth ■ century ; doubtful links in the succession being printed in italics : — Date. Name or Teacheh. Coadjutor. AUTHOKITIES. A.D. 160-181 Athenagoras Philippus Sidetos. „ 181-190 Pantsenua j Euseb. 5". .B. V. 10 ; Hieron. Catal. 36. ( Nicephoras, ff. E. iv. 35 ; v. 18. „ 190-203 Pantsenus Clement ( Euseb. H. E. v. 11 ; vi. 6, 13, 14 ; Hieron. » 203 „ 203-206 Pantasnus, Clement, ) Catal. 18. Origen ) Nicephorus, H. E. iv. 33. ( Photii Bibl. 118. „ 206-211 PantEenus, Clement Origen Eus. S. E. vi. 6 ; Photii Bill 118. „ 231-213 Clement Origen „ 213 Origen j Eus. E. -B. vi. 3 ; Hieron. Catal. 54. ( Phot. A 118 ; Nicephorus, M. E. iv. 33. „ 213-232 Origen Heraclas Eus. ff. E. vi. 16 ; Hieron. Catal. 54. „ 232 Heraclas Eus. H. E. vi. 26. „ 233-265 Dionysius ... ( Eus. H. E. vi. 29 ; Hieron. Catal. 69. Phil. Sidet. ; Niceph. v. 18. Phil. Sidet. ; Photius, B. 118. „ 265-280 Pierius ... Eus. vii. 32 ; Hieron. Catal. 76 ; Nic. vi. 35. Eus. S. E. vii. 32 ; Nio. S.E. vi. 35. „ 280-282 „ 282-290 Pierius Theognostus Achillas Achillas „ 290 Tlieognostua Phil Sidet. „ 290-295 Serapio Phil. Sidet. ; Epiphan. Hair. Ixix. 2. „ 295-312 Peter Martyr ... Phil. Sidet. ; Eus. ff. E. viii. 13. „ 313-320 Arius ... Theodoret, H. E. i. 1. „ 320-330 (Vacanc}') „ 330-340 Macariiis ... Phil. Sidet. ; Sozom, H. E. Iii. 14. „ 340-390 Didymus j Phil. Sidet. ; Socr. H. E. iv. 23. \ Sozom. E. E. iii. 15 ; Ruff. H. E. ii. 7. „ 390-395 Didymua Rhodon 1 „ 395 Khodou ... 1 Teacher of Philip. Sidetes. 20 ^ ToO SiSacr/caXefou toC iv 'A\ciavSpdg. A8i]Vayipa! irpSiTOt ijy^craTo. [Dodw. p. 488.] Alexandrian School Alexandrian School The head, of this school had occasionally a coadjutor or assistant in the work of teaching, the various instances of -which are tabulated ahove. The appointment of the principal teacher was vested in the bishop, as seen in the appointment of Origen by Demetrius [Eus. H. E. vi. 3j Hieron. Catdl. 54] ; and his subsequent deposi- tion [Eus. H. E. vi. 26 ; Hieron. Ep. ad Paul. 29] ; of Arius, who was appointed and also re- moved from the office by Achillas [a.d. 313]. 'AxtAAas . . . 'Apeiov . . . Tov kv 'AXe^- avSpeKf SiBavKakn'ov TrpouTTtjiTiv [Ararsius Papp. Synodii}. i. 1494 ; Theodoret, H. E. i. 2] ; and of Didymus, who received his appointment from Athanasius [Kuffin. H. E. ii. 7]. There appears to have been no endowment of any kind, but the teacher received an honorarium from those who were able to pay for their instruction ; while poorer students were admitted gratis. In some iustances, the teacher having private means, did his work for the pure love of souls, as was the case with Origen [Eus. H. E. vi. 3] ; possibly also with Pierius, who " appetitor voluntarife paupertatis fuit " [Hieron. Catal. 76]. Since the teachers of the Museum received a state stipend, it is quite possible that the catechetical school was placed on a similar footing after the conver- sion of Constantino [Cassiodorus, Prcsf. Iiist div. /Scr.]. The place of instruction appears to have been no public building, but some apartment in the private dwelling of the teacher, or hired for the purpose. The school gradually decayed after the removal of Ehodon, the instructor of Philip, to Sida in PamphyHa, from whence the pupil took his name of Sidetes or Sidensis. III. The spirit of the Museum determined the bearings of the Christian school at Alexandria, but it was chiefly by way of contrast. The Christian teacher could shew a definite creed ; his religion, as a heaven-descended system, was capable of formal proof ; its followers shewed a love for it that was strong as death, and they died in numbers of every age and of both sexes, rather than forswear that love. The heathen teacher, on the other hand, had none of these advantages. He had no creed; his philosophy was an intellectual system without warmth or definite colour ; its highest excellence was the sense of duty that it inculcated. Its teachers may have felt some de- gree t)f enthusiasm for systems that they helped to create ; but their hearers were bound together by no catholic bond of unity, and were ready at any time to modify the teaching of the schools, and eliminate or enlarge, as suited the particular syncretistic taste of the individual. Hence arose a continual clash of jealousy between the Chris- tian and heathen schools of Alexandria. There was sufficient similarity in certain broad features of either system to enhance the bitterness of difierence. The one could scarcely be understood without the other; but they eventually mis- understood each other. The Eclecticism of Philo gave a substratum of mystic thought to both of these schools. [Mystics. Plotinus. Neo- Platonism.] a Platonic realism was common to 21 both that has run as a thread of gold through the speculative efforts of the human race from earliest ages. It is seen to pervade the Hindu system; it gave to Moses the " pattern," or heavenly counterpart of earthly things, in the Mount; and was received traditionally by Plato, rather than evolved by him from the germ. Human thought seems so completely tinged and instinct with the realistic idea, as to suggest its descent by an un- broken tradition, the perpetual voice of living witnesses, from the very cradle of the human race. Each of the trwo schools of Alexandria, Christian and heathen, taught it as an essential aspect of the truth; nor has the teaching ever died out again. The schools of the middle ages, and the philosophy of the Reformation period, were eminently based on Platonic realism, which has supplied also the proper elements from whence Kant and Fichfce and Hegel have distilled over the more subtle spirit of their later philo- sophic creeds. At Alexandria both the heathen and the Christian teacher maintained that the attainment of truth should unite man in spirit and intellect with God ; but their respective methods were in an inverse order. Philosophers held that it was for man to seek after God, «' apa ye •^Xa^ijo-etav avTov [Acts xvii. 27] ; the Christian teacher announced from the revealed Word that God sought man out, and drew him with cords of love to Himself, and to a sense of his high birth- right which had been lost to him in Adam, but found again in Christ. The truth declared that the Good Shepherd sought His erring sheep in the wilderness, it was heathen perversion to say that the animal instinct of the wanderer led it back to its owner. Man, said the Neo-Platonist, must ascend up to the Divine ; but there must first be a descent of the Divine, argued the Christian teacher, before the human principle can be in any sense assimilated to it ; flame touches flame, and is united into one body of glory, but it must first find a nature with which it can coalesce and har- monize. There were principles then in the old philosophy that were not whoUy repugnant to Christianity, and in tanto they offered an im- portant means of approach to the heathen mind, of which the Christian teacher at Alexandria diligently availed himself. Clement professedly aimed at embodying all the learning of the day in his Christian teaching ; and the substance of his lectures was termed by him Sr/jw^aTeis — Mis- cellanies. " Quiequid habent homines nostri est farrago libeUi. " IV. The methodical practice of class teaching based upon Scripture caused a wide induction of Scriptural fact, and nearly every book of Scrip- ture is cited in the remains of teachers of this school that have come down to us, Clement of Alexandria and Origen being the principal sources. We may describe the Alexandrian canon from these fragmentary sources, as exactly as from the venerable Codex A. Origen sup- plies us with quotations and lengthened extracts from every book of the present canon ; and he cites the Apocrypha as being of almost equal authority ; the Book of Baruch, however, being Alexandrian School Alogi assigned by him, as by Clement, to Jeremiali. Dionysins and Didymus make a similar use of tlie deutero-oanonical -writings, more especially of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom ; while Clement cites also the fourth book of Esdras. Gnostic con- tempt for the Old Testament perhaps caused the catechist to raise even doubtful books to the canonical level, -where there -was no antecedent objection to their contents. The canon of the Ne-w Testament is similarly confirmed. Of the four Gospels Origen declares that St. Matthe-w's first existed in a Hebre-w form, and that a copy of it -was found by Panttenus in India ; both Origen and Clement term that of St. John the " Spiritual Gospel ; " and they establish the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Epistles, from -whence Athenagoras also quotes. The Epistle to the Hebre-ws is assigned to St. Paul by Pantsnus, Origen, Dionysius, and Didymus, -while Clement adds that it -was -written by him in Hebre-w and translated by St. Luke. The authenticity of the Catholic Epistles, 1 John, 1 Peter and Jude, is affirmed, -without ho-wever denying the authority of the rest : Didymus alone declaring in one place that the second Epistle of St. Peter is interpolated and of no authority, -while he makes use of it, as canonical, in his treatise de Trinitaie. With respect to the Apocalypse, Dionysius -was induced, by internal evidence, as he considered, to refer it to some other author than St. John, -with -whom his predecessors, including Clement and Origen, had al-ways associated it. The labours of Origen on the Sacred Text, as shewn in his Hexapla, would have been in the highest degree valuable, if they had been guided by a sound critical judgment. As it is, the true text of the LXX. has only be- come worse confounded by the very means that were intended to secure it from error. V. The hermeneutical principles of a cate- chetical school must always determine its value. Unfortunately for the Alexandrian School, its principal exponent Clement had learned from Athenagoras and Pantaanus to consider the alle- gorical method of Philo to be the true key for unlocking the hidden sense of Scripture. But he was by no means a type of the rest. Origen, with whom he was associated, followed more closely the plain grammatical method of the Antiochea-n School, and limited the application of allegory by certain rules. Pierius followed in his steps, and Dionysius sought throughout the moral sense of Scripture. Peter and Didy- mus also were almost entirely free from the alle- gorizing tendency of Clement. The truer exegesis of the Antiochean School superseded the alle- gorizing interpretation copied from PhUo. There was nothing peculiar in the dogmatic or positive theology of this school, and space need not be occupied in describing that which was in truth the doctrine of the Church Catholic. The various heads are examined by Guerike in his valuable exercise on the Alexandrian Catechetical School, to which work the reader is referred. [Guerike, de Scliola qum Alexandrice floruit, II. iii. DiOT. o/Thbol. s. v.] 22 ALEXIANS. [LuLLAEDs]. ALMAEIC. [Amalricians]. ALOGI. This name was given by Epiphaniua to those who denied St. John's doctrine concern- ing the Logos, and who consequently rejected St. John's writings. The term was not intended to imply that there was a distinct organized sect so called ; but was adopted to describe a heresy common to not a few sects, and important enough to bring all who held it into one class, theologically considered, although they were formed into several bodies. This is to be noticed because, while some writers of high authority, as Westcott [Introduction to Gospels, p. 240], speak of a sect called Alogi, Lardner [History of Heretics, chap, xxiii.] says that there was never any such heresy, that there was no sect or number of Christians who rejected St. John's Gospel and the Eevelation, and ascribed both to Cerinthus, while they received the other books of the New Testament. The former writer did not intend to assert that all the Alogi were united into one separate body ; the latter cannot be thought to assert that there did not exist the heresy of denying St. John's doctrine. Allowing then that there was, strictly speaking, no separate sect of Alogi, it remains for inquiry whether Lardner, who deals with the Alogi in a somewhat offhand manner, was justified in saying that there was no number of Christians who rejected St. John's Gospel. Philaster [Hmr. Ix.] describes the heresy without using the name. Augustine [Hcer. XXX.] speaks of the name as in use : "Alogi sic vocantur . . . quia Deum Verbum recipere noluerunt, Johannis Evangelium respu- entes." Similarly the author of Prcedestinatus and Isidore of Seville. The two great facts which the CathoKc Chris- tian holds in this matter are the Divinity of the personal Word, and the Incarnation of that Word. "The Word was with God, and was God." " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The rejection of the fonner brings us to the Monarchians, who affirmed that there was no real distinction between the Eather and the Son; the rejection of the second to those who separated the Word from the Christ. Thus Theodotus, who comes next in Epiphanius' cata- logue, denied the Incarnation of the Word, assert- ing Jesus to have been a mere man who received Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit -upon Him in Jordan. Theodotus is said by Epi- phanius to have been an offshoot from the Alogi. But the Arians, though they did not hold St. John's doctrine, yet would not be classed among the Alogi. Eor they did not altogether deny the Logos : they wished to establish that the Son was only the Ad-yos Trpo^opcKos, by which they assigned to Him a beginning; inasmuch as the thought must precede the sound which gives it utterance. Ep)iphanius appears to have confined his new term to those who altogether denied the Logos, and with this view to have made the rejec- tion of St. John's Gospel the test of Alogian doc- trine. The Arians did not reject the fourth Gospel; they tried to explain away the force of its words. Alogi Fabricius states that the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Cerdonians, Theodotians, and Marcionites, re- jected St. John's Gospel. Lardner remarks, " How groundless that supposition is must clearly appear from our accounts of Theodotus, Praxeas, and others of that principle." Now the Ebionites used St. Matthew's Gospel only [Iren. i. 26, iii. 11, 7; Euseb. H. E. iii. 27; Epiph. Hmr. xxx. sec. 3] ; the Cerinthians only St. Matthew [Epiph. Hoer. xxviii. 5 and xxx. 3, 14 ; Philast. Haer. xxxvi.] ; the Cerdonians only St. Luke, and that mutilated [Pseudo-Tert. xvi.] ; the Theodotians rejected St. John's Gospel, if Epi- phanius is to be credited, for he affiliates them to the Alogi, having defined the Alogi by that very rejection \H<^i'- liv.] ; the Marcionites used only St. Luke [Iren. iii. 11, 6; Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 5]. These authorities strengthen each other, par- ticularly with regard to Cerdo and Marcion. In reply to them Lardner urges, with regard to the Ebionites, that St. John is quoted in the Clemen- tine Homilies. To which we answer, that the practice of the writer of the Homilies cannot set aside the evidence of the tenets of the Ebionites in general. It follows only that in this respect the writer did not faithfully represent the school to which he belonged [Lardner, Gredib. xxix. 5]. "With regard to the Cerinthians it is said \Hist. of Her. iv. 6] that PhUaster's evidence is not supported by others and needs not to be much minded, and that Epiphanius argues against Cerinthus from St. John's Gospel, which implies that Cerinthus respected it. Philaster is supported by Epi- phanius, and Epiphanius, writing not in immediate controversy with Cerinthus, but for the benefit of the Church at large, quotes that which the Church received. That Marcion rejected St. John could not of course be denied. Lardner thinks that in this respect he went beyond Cerdo \_Rist. of Her. ix. 4]. But the close resemblance of the doctrines of Cerdo and Marcion, with the teaching of Cerdo, that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, makes it far more probable that the evidence of Pseudo-TertuUian is correct [Iren. i. 27 ; HippoL Ref vii. 25 ; x. 15]. And if the appendix to the De Prmscr. Hoeret. is a translation of Hippolytus' early work, its authority is high. It being thus proved that there were certain sects which rejected St. John's Gospel, there is no reason to doubt Epiphanius' statement that Theodotus followed them in this as he did in the main feature of their doctrine. His argu- ment from a passage in St. John was only an "argumentum ad hominem," drawn from a book which his opponents believed. Epiphanius goes on to state that the Alogi at- tributed not only the Apocalypse, but St. John's writings generally, to Cerinthus. If this state- ment be accepted, it can only be said, that "some theory was necessary to account for the origin of the Gospel, and as one of the Apostle's writings had already been assigned to. Cerinthus, this was placed in the same category, in spite of its doctrinal character" [Westcott, on the Canon, p. 308]. But it IS far more likely that with 23 Alogi Philaster we should limit the statement to the Apocalypse. In the case of these sects, from the Cerinthians downwards, which rejected St. John's Gospel, that rejection was an almost necessary consequence of their doctrine, and was not much considered in and for itself. But when the rejection of the Gospel was used in opposition to other doctrines or practices, it became in itself more noticeable. It came forward into the front of controversy. This was the case when, in opposition to the pre- tensions of the Montanists, it was urged that the fourth Gospel was spurious. It was the con- sideration of this controversy that led Epiphanius to give a distinctive name to those who rejected the Gospel. After describing the Montanists and allied sects, he proceeds to the new heresy of the Alogi. That the Montanists were met by an assertion of the spuriousness of the fourth Gospel, is noticed by Irenaeus [iii. 11, 9]. The passage has been variously interpreted, and is as follows : " Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum Johannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se mis- surum Dominus promisit; sed simul et Evan- gelium, et propheticum repellunt Spiritum. In- felices vere, qui pseudo-prophetse quidem esse volunt, prophetiae vero gratiam repellunt ab Ecclesia : similia patientes his, qui propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum com- municatione se abstinent." Here the comparison made with those who abstain from true com- munion in order to avoid hypocritical communi- cants, shews that they who refused the grace of prophecy did so to avoid false prophets. Conse- quently we must, adopt Gieseler's correction \Gompend. i. p. 150], and read "qui pseudo- prophetas quidem esse volunt." T&ey declare their opponents to be false prophets, and thrust away from the Church the grace of prophecy. The passage written when Irenseus was favour- able, as Neander remarks, to the pretensions of Montanus, is to be referred to those afterwards called Alogi. To interpret the passage of the Montanists has three difficulties. It accuses them of a purpose of frustrating the gifts of the Spirit, when they were claiming the fulness of those gifts ; it makes them say that they wish to be false prophets (if the words are taken ironically, irony requires that we should say, " they wish forsooth to be true prophets ") ; and it entirely mars the pertinency of the closing comparison. That at the time Irenasus wrote [about a.d. 185] he should have regarded the Montanist pretensions favourably is nothing wonderful. Many did so ; and at a later time the Bishop of Eome, probably Victor, was on the point of admitting the Montanists to his com- munion. [Montanists.] Turning to Epiphanius, we find a passage on the same subject \Hae.r. li. cap. 33]. He is speaking of those who rejected the Apocalypse, and who objected that there existed no church at Thyatira; and he meets them by arguing thai Amalricians the state of Thyatira is a fulfilment of St. Jolin's propliecy : "'EvotKijo-ai/rrav yap tootuv «K€icr£ KoX Tbiv Kara ^pvya'S [oi /xei/], SiKtjv Xvkoiv dpira^avTOiv ras Siavoias Tiav aKepaCwv ttuttZv, jMeT'^veyKav ttjv Trocrav ttoXiv eis t7]V avrSiv aipiCTLV, ot Te [ot 8e] dpvovfjievoi, t^v 'AiroKaXv^Lv rov \6yov tovtov els dvarpoTT^v Kax CKeivov Kaipov i See Bentley's Eemarlca on FreethinMng, i. cap. 10. Anthropomorphites eflBgiatum." Melito's followers already named drew the same oonolusion.^ The more common source, however, of Anthropomorphism is, not the depravation of the doctrine of learned and thoughtful men, but the grosser and material notions of the illiterate. Tte difficulty of form- ing the conception of a purely spiritual personality, the strong metaphorical language of the Hebrew Scriptures, the carrying on that language into Christianity, the reproduction of that language to the eye by pictures and images, inevitably occasion an Anthropomorphism in popular Chris- tianity. It is better, doubtless, to have this con- ception of a personal God than to lose the sense of His Personality ; but from time to time the conception, generally indistinct, is defined into a settled dogma. Such was the case with the fol- lowers of the Syrian monk AudsBus. [Audians.] Of Audseus himself little is known, but his fol- lowers, adopting a monastic life, fell into Anthro- pomorphism ; and Epiphanius \H(Br. Ixx.] and Theodoret \iliBt. Ecel. iv. 10] state that he was the first to interpret of outward form the image of God in which man is made. Eecluses, brooding over Scripture imagery, their miuds often in an unhealthy state, are peculiarly liable to such an error.^ The author of Prcedestinatus names Zenon, a Syrian bishop, as a chief opponent of the Audians. Other monks besides the Audian fell from the same cause into the like error. The recluses of Egypt were for the most part Anthropo- morphites [Socr. H. E. vi. 7]. Socrates notices this under the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, when the Anthropomorphite controversy was mixed up with the Origenist controversy, and the discreditable proceedings of Theophilus of Alexandria afforded more matter for history. Origen was a warm defender of the incorporeity of the Divine Nature ; and those who opposed him in matters more doubtful were led by the mere spirit of contra- diction to oppose him in this point too, while Anti-Origenists were often accused without cause of Anthropomorphism. Such a charge was brought against Epiphanius by John of Jerusalem. In the year 399, Theophilus in a paschal epistle denounced Anthropomorphism. The monks who held that opinion rose against him ; he pacified them, not without dissimulation; condemned Origen, and used the fanaticism of the monks and their hatred of Origen to further his own designs. Socrates states that the controversy might have been put to rest if Theophilus had not encouraged it, to revenge himseK upon four monks known as the Long Brothers of Nitria. About the year 433 Cyril of Alexandria wrote against this heresy, still prevailing among the monks of Egypt. After the fifth century. Anthropomorphism appears only among the ruder and more ignorant sections of the Church. The teaching of Origen and other Fathers of the Church destroyed the fundamental misconception by which TertuUian ^ See Eouth's Reliq. Sac. i. 143 ; Liebermann, Instit. Theol. ii. p. 30 ; Pearson's Minor Theol. Works, i. i^ ; Prof. Lightfoot, Comment, on Philipp. note, p. 125. * Cyril's Treatise was occasioned by the reports brought him of the monks of Mount Calamon. 30 Anthropomorphites and Melito had given some occasion for the growth of the heresy among the more educated. Among the untaught, the use of pictures representing the Father Himself in human form has, no doubt, caused an undercurrent of Anthropomorphic opinion in the Church, which has from time to time come to the surface, or has been detected by the vigUanoe of bishops. The most prominent instance of this was in the tenth century, at Vicenza. Eatherius, bishop of Verona, a.d. 939, found his diocese in such ignorance that many of his priests could not say the creed, and many priests and people believed the pictures they were accustomed to see on the walls were true repre- sentations of the court of heaven, of the forms of angels, and of the Most High Himself Eatherius was a reforming bishop, and there can be little doubt that what he discovered and combated at Vicenza passed unnoticed in many other dioceses [Eatherius' Sermons in D'Achery's Spicileg. ii. 294-98, ed. 1657]. Anthropomorphism is not professed in any part of Christendom, although probably popular Christianity is much tinged with it. It has taken refuge among the Mormons. By the rulers of the Church Anthropomorphism, as a popular error, has been left to the correction of the clergy. It is a misinterpretation of the first article of the creed to be dealt with by in- struction, and not requiring the anathemas of councils. It is impossible to form a true con- ception of spiritual substance ; to hold the possi- bility of its existence is beyond many an untrained mind ; faith, love, and obedience are compatible with an indistinct notion that God has arugthereal or luciform body ; and there is danger of driving men into atheism if their error on this point be rudely handled. In a more technically theological manner, An- thropomorphism is denied in the decision that the nature of God is simple. For they who attri- bute any materiality: to God (and materiality is implied in the notion of figure and shape), must hold either that the very essence of Deity is material, or that the nature of God is compounded • — that He is Mind residing in a corporeal vehicle. The former is the worst and most extended form of materialism, and its consequences most impious. The decision that the nature of God is simple denies the latter, and with it the possibility of Anthropomorphism. Accordingly Chrysostom sums up the argument in three pregnant words, o yap Oeos aTrAoCs Kal axrvvderos Koi dcrxi^ytioiTicrTos [Z)e Incomp. D. Nat., Horn, iv.] The fourth Lateran Council determined that in God there is "Una essentia, substantia, seu natura simplex omnino." Whatever be the authority of the fourth Lateran Council, this is undoubtedly a Catholic conclusion. The form (juop^^) of God'is His neces- sary attributes, which are logically distinguishable but not separable from His being ; the image of God is His "Word ; the image of the Word is the true man,3 the mind which is in man, assimilated s Clemens Alex. Protrept. cap. x. p. 82, ed. Klotz. Compare cap. xii. p. 101, eUdva toO GeoO /xeff d/ioiiiffem. And for the perversion of the meaning given to the truth, see Cyril, adv. Anthrop. cap. vl. A n ti-A diaphorists Antidicomarianites to the Divine Word in tlie affections of the soul. ANTI-ADIAPHOEISTS. The rigid Luther- ans, as distinguished from the Melanchthon or Interim party. [Adiaphoeists.] ANTIBUEGHEES. The title assumed hy a body which separated from the Associate Synod, or Secession Kirk, in Scotland, in the year 1746, and which derived its name from its members ob- jecting to the oath imposed upon burgesses in some corporate towns. The statement of their views, and of the cause of the separation, will be found under the head Burghers, which was the title by which the other portion of the dissociated As- sociates was henceforward distinguished. Their number, at the time of the schism, consisted of twentj'-three ministers and elders, as opposed to thirty-two on the other part. As if the ground of diflference involved an article of the Christian faith, they immediately excluded from Church fellowship and communion all who would not at once adopt their view, and deposed and excom- municated all the " Burgher " ministers. The leader in their movement, Mr. Thomas Mair, minister at Orwell, however, a few years after, repented of the part he had taken, and was him- self then ejected by his Antiburgher brethren " as an erroneous person, for maintaining that Christ, in some sense, died for all mankind " [Brown's Rise and Progress of the Secessi.on]. At the time of the separation, the teachers of philosophy and divinity in the Associate Synod happened to espouse the Antiburgher view, and in consequence most of the students went along with them, which for a time gave a preponder- ance in number of ministers to their party. At the close of the last century, the influence of new political principles, derived from the revolutionary spirit of France, gave rise to a discussion on the power assigned to the civil magistrate, as to matters of religion, in the Presbyterian standards of doctrine ; the old Covenanting views were regarded as too strict and intolerant, and as requiring modification to meet the spirit of the times, while the sanction given by them to the principle of Establishments was impugned by advocates of new Voluntaryism. After much discussion, a new " Testimony," or Declaration of Principles, was adopted in 1804, which relaxed the statements of the old " Testimony " on these points. But this change gave rise to a new separation. Dr. Thomas M'Crie (the well-known author of the Life of Knox, &c., who had at his own ordination claimed to sign the Standards with reservations, but had afterwards abandoned his youthful views), in company with three other ministers (Professor Archibald Bruce, author of Free Thoughts on the Toleration of Popery, James Aitken and James Hog), established in August 1806 the " Constitutional Associate Presbytery," so named as claiming to adhere " to the true constitution of the Eeformed Church of Scotland." This body was also popularly called the " Old Light Antiburghers." It_ is remarkable that this obscure party of Scottish Dissenters were strenuous advocates for ^National 31 Establishments, and a pamphlet written by Dr. M'Crie in vindication of their proceedings, is des- cribed as being still a very valuable argument on the Voluntary controversy.^ On May 18th, 1827, they were united with a body which, with the won- derful power of infinite multiplication possessed by sects, had been formed in 1820 by persons dissatisfied with the union which then took place between the Burgher and New Light Anti- burgher Synods [Burghers], and which was called the " Associate Synod of Protesters ;" the joint societies took the name of " Associate Synod of Original Seceders." They still number twenty- eight congregations, of which two are in Ireland ; in 1838 they had thirty-six congregations. [J. Brown of Haddington, Historical Account of the Secession, 8 th edit. 1802. J. M'Kerrow, Hist, of the Secession. Thomas M'Crie, Life of Dr. M'Crie, 1840. Burghers. Secession.] ANTI-CALVINISTS. [Arminians.J ANTIDICOMAEIANITES. The name given to some heretics who appeared in Arabia, Eome, and elsewhere, in the latter part of the fourth cen- tury. By St. Augustine they are called Antidi- comaritte, and they are spoken of also as Anti- marites and Antimarians. The principle of the heresy is embodied in the word, " Opposers of Mary." They denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, maintaining that she was the natural mother of those who are in the Gospels called the brethren of the Lord. The name was revived for a short period in the 15th century, in regard to the controversy of the Im- maculate Conception of the Virgin. ' ' Aliam prae- terea vLntimaritse nostri (quos eo nomine nuncu- pamus, quod syncerissimse puritati Beatse Marian sint contrarii et oblectantes) rationem adducunt," &c. [Concilium Basilie?ise,A.'D. 1431. Bad's Sum- ma Conciliorum Omnium, Paris, 1675, i. 512.] These views were developed from the teaching of ApoUinaris ; but he can hardly be said to have originated the sect. Epiphanius says that the heretics in question claimed ApoUinaris as their founder, or at least one of his immediate followers [Apollinarians], and he in part admits the claim, for this seems the meaning of the last word in the following passage : ^aal 8e, us avw fioi. €ipTf)Tai, OTi dw' aVTOV tov Trpea^vTOV 'AiroAAtva- ptov e^ij^rjTat, 6 Adyos, rj o/tto tlvidv to)V avrtf fji€iJi,a6t]Tevfj,ivLmv irevre (TTrovSaa-fxaTa a-vveypa^e. Eusebius also has preserved [H. E. i. 7] part of his epistle to Aris- tides on the genealogies of our Lord given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. Fragments from the same venerable, writer are found in Eouth's Reliquice Sacrce [ii. 105, 114], and later oriental writers have ascribed to him commentaries on the Gospels [Asseman, BiU. Or. 129, 158], which statement may possibly be confirmed by the Nitrian MSS. of the National Collection. Doro- theus, who was a presbyter of Antioch [a.d. 290, Eus. H. E. vii. 32], and Luoian, who suffered martyrdom in Mcomedia [a.d. 312], in the perse- cution under Diocletian [Eus. H. E. viiL 13, ix. 6], were zealous promoters of a rational system of Scripture interpretation. The recension of the LXX. translation by Lucian went by his name, and was extensively used in the Eastern churches from Antioch to Constantinople.^ Hesychius ^ Lucianns vir disertisaimus, Antiochenae eccIesisB 35 prepared a similar recension for Alexandria, and a third was extracted from the Hexapla by Euse- bius and Pamphilus. Hence the corruption of the LXX. by the confusion of these three recen- sions has become hopeless. Even Jerome did not fail to note it : " Totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat" [adv. Buff. ii. 27]. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, makes Lucian to have been a follower of Paul of Samosata, and to have adopted his heretical notions [Theod. H. E. i. 3, 4]; but allowance must be made for the statement of a polemical writer, and some indul- gence must also be shewn to the pupd who does not at once confirm the adverse opinion of a censorious world against the master. These two elements, perhaps, are principal factors in the heresy imputed to Lucian. If it had been a well- founded charge, Lucian would scarcely have been honoured as a martyr even by Eusebius, and cer- tainly not by Athanasius, Jerome and Chrysostom, whose panegyric of Lucian is still extant. Meletius, the instructor of Chrysostom, Flavian, Diodorus of Tarsus, CyrU of Jerusalem, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were all of this school. Chrysostom here delivered his homilies De Siatuis, and through his commentaries the sound principle of Antiochian exegesis has become the property of the Church. Gieseler has enlarged the area repre- sented by the school of Antioch so as to include Eusebius of Emesa, ApoUinaris of Laodicsea, and Ephraem of Edessa. They all felt the same kindly influences. [Newman's Arians. Neander, K. Oesch. iii. v. 3, end. Gieseler, K. Oesch. Dictionart of Theology, s. v.'\ ANTITACTICS. The name given by CIp- ment of Alexandria to those who first broached the dualism which characterized the Gnostic heresies. Thus Clement says, "We call them ' Antitactics' or 'Opponents,' who say that God is indeed our Father, and the Father of all things, and that He made all things good ; but that one of those beings whom He HimseK had made sowing tares among the wheat originated evil, of which we being made partakers ourselves become adversaries of God" [Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 4]. This error of the Antitactics is confuted by St. Augustine in his City of God [Aug. De Civ. Dei, xii. 7], but he does not mention them by name. The Antitactics were probably a branch of the Caepocratians, and, like them, were accused of gross immoralities [Theod. Ilcer. Fab. i. 16]. ANTI-P^DOBAPTISTS. The opponents of infant baptism. [Baptists.] ANTITEINITAEIANS. This term is limited to those who deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by opposing to it the tenet of a God without distinction of Persons. Thus if a man, changing the distinction of the three inseparable Persons into a separation, were led to assert that there are three Gods, he would not be classed as an Antitrinitarian, although he does deny the presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quaedam exemplaria Scripturarum Luoianeiv nunoupentur. Feruntur ejus de Me libelli, et breves ad uonnullos epistolae [Hieron. Catal. 77]. Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luoiani Martyris exemplaria pro- bat [adv. Muff. ii.]. A ntitrinitarians Ant it rinit avians doctrine of the Trinity. The correlative term is Unitarian ; an incorrect term, since there can be unity only where there is plurality, and the Unity of God requires the distinction of Persons in the Godhead. The Antitrinitarian principle in early times expended itseK in producing the Sabellian and Arian heresies with their several derived heresies. [MoNAECHiANS.] Between the time of the dis- appearance of the Monarchian sects and the heginning of the sixteenth century there were several heresies regarding the Nature of the God- head and the Three Divine Persons. But the former class, such as the heresies of Gilbert de la Porree, and Joachim, abbot of Flora, which were met in the fourth Lateran Council [a.d. 1215], by the decision that the Nature of God is simple, do not touch the present subject. Again, the con- troversy in the ninth century between Hinomar and Gotteschalc, regarding the words "Trina Deltas" appears to be accidental, and uncon- nected with the progress of thought in the Church at large. It is quite otherwise with the heresies attributed to Eoscellin and Abelard. The scholastic controversies between the No- minalists and Eealists appear to be the chief origin of the later Antitrinitarian sects. Eoscellin was the first great Nominalist, the authoritative interpreter if not the author of the system. He was pressed by Anselm with the argument that his principles led inevitably to Tritheism or Monarchiauism. " If the three Persons are one thing, and not three things, as distinct as three angels or three souls, though one in wiU and power, the Father and the Holy Ghost must have been incarnate with the Son." This heretical conclusion from the Nominalist philosophy was attributed to Eoscellin by John the monk in a letter to Anselm, and used by Anselm (though he admits all the words may not be Eoscellin's own) as the statement against which he wrote his " De Fide Trinitatis" [Gieseler, Compend. iii. p. 281]. The conclusion appeared to follow from Eoscellin's premisses. "When Nominalism became theology, the Three Persons of the Trinity (this was the perpetual touchstone of all systems), if they were more than three words, were individuals, and Tritheism inevitable " [Milman, Lot. Christ, iv. 367, ed. 1867]. It appears that Eoscellin was not able to convict Anselm of a fallacy in this argument, for he accepted the former alternative of the dilemma, and averred that the existence of three Gods might be asserted with truth, however harsh the mode of expression might be. Again, in the controversy between St. Bernard and the great leader of the Nominalists, Abelard, the popular outcry against Abelard was that he introduced three Gods. For Tritheism, it is often said, he was condemned. Yet he was distinctly accused of holding the old Monarchian principle, " that the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are improperly attributed to God, and that they only describe the plenitude of the Supreme Good." The Council of Soissons [a.d. 1121], puzzled perhaps by his dialectics, and unable to determine which of the two heresies 36 resulting (as it was believed) from Nominalism he really held, took the safe course of condemning him for publishing his book without the Pope's authority ; and instead of enjoining him to recant any one specified heresy, compelled him to make a profession, and to utter the comprehensive anathemas of the Athanasian Creed [Fleury, torn, xiv. lib. Ixviii. art. 61 j Natal. Alexand. saec. xii. diss. V. art. vii.] The authority of Anselm, for a while, silenced the dispute among the Schoolmen, but it was again agitated with renewed vigour in the four- teenth century, and from that time ostensibly divided the schools into the two great parties of Nominalists and Eealists. The Nominalists were the Eationalists of the pre-Eeformation Church, and "scattered here and there the seeds of scep- ticism, of disbelief, and of speculative license." And if Nominalism was allowed by its professors (whether rightly or wrongly) to lead to the dilemma of Tritheism or Monarchianism, we have, in those who rejected the former, a party ready to deny the divinity of the Saviour as soon as the pressure of the papal yoke was abated. " Multitudes of freethinkers, who had hitherto been yielding a hoUow and occasional compliance with the ritual institutions of the Church, began to ventilate their theories more publicly, and even went so far as to establish independent organizations with the hope of leavening the whole of "Western Christendom" [Hard wick, Hist, of Reform, p. 271]. Antitrinitarianism then appears to be, not the genuine product of the Eeformation, but the offspring of a school which had existed in the Church for centuries before the Eeformation was dreamt of. And the process we may fairly con- clude from Anselm 's argument to have been a repetition of the process which formed Arianism out of Monarchianism. Adopting the Monarchian principle the rationalists were driven, through their horror of Patripassianism, to deny the divinity of the Saviour. Zanchius, himself an Italian, complained to BuUinger, when writing from Chiavenna, in which place he was minister, of the heterodoxy of his countrymen on these subjects ; and used to say, " Hispania (the birthplace of Servetus) gal- linas peperit, Italia fovet ova, nos jam pipientes pullos audimus" [Hardwick, Hist, of Reform, p. 284]. It may be noticed too that Zanchius, in a letter to Jewel, speaks of his being opposed at Chiavenna by the enemies of discipline, with whom the followers of Servetus united their forces [Zuriah Letters, ser. ii. p. 185]. This may give the true composition of the Antitrinitarian party in the sixteenth century, Italian rationahsts and malcontents of the Eeformation. A preparation such as has been described appears to be sufiacient to account for the simul- taneous appearance in dififerent parts of the Church of teachers of Antitrinitarianism, and for the rapid spread of their opinions. Of these teachers, acting independently, John Denk was one of the earliest. He was a rationalistic Anabaptist. He held the simple manhood of our A ntitrin itarians A n titrinit avians Lord, denying altogether the Atonement, and proposing Jesus Christ simply as a pattern of holy life in which the effects of divine love were exhibited. His doctrines spread in two or three years in the Ehine district, Switzerland, Fran- conia, Suabia, and as far as Moravia. Servetus (through Calvin's interposition) is better known. He was a Spaniard, born a.d. 1509, of Villaneuva in Arragon. From Toulouse, where he was studying civil law, he went to Basle and Strasburg, and put himself in communication with the Eeformers. In 1531 his book De Erroriius Trinitatis was printed, and in the next year also, at Hagenau, Didlogorum de Trinitate Libri Duo. These books raised a great tumult among the German divines, and, circulating in Italy, were much approved by many who had thoughts of leaving the Church of Eome. In 1553 (the year of his execution) he published at Vienne another book of Antitrinitarianism, Clirktianismi Restitutio. The circulation of Servetus' books in Italy leads us to the Italian movement regarding the point in question. At the same moment that the spread of Pro- testantism agitated Germany, literary societies assuming a religious colour arose in Italy [see Eanke's History of the Popes, by S. Austin, i. 135]. Such a society met at Vioenza, in the government of Venice, in the year 1546, to dis- cuss not only the discipline but the doctrine of the Church, and particularly the doctrine of the ■Holy Trinity. The Inquisition interfered. Three members of the society were seized, the rest fled. At Geneva they found already formed a congre- gation of Italian refugees, into which they in- troduced their heretical speculations. John Valentinus Gentilis, George Blandrata, John Paul Alciatus, LseUus Socinus, Matthew Gribaud, were the chief advocates of the Antitrinitarian doctrines.! Upon the spread of these doctrines the Italian Consistory drew up, in 1558, a statement of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity for subscription by their members. Authorities differ as to the number of those who subscribed, and afterwards broke their promise not to do anything directly or indirectly in opposition to the Formula. 'The event un- doubtedly was that the heretical party was broken up. Gentilis,^ after wandering in Dauphin^ and ^ Socinian. authors sometimes write as if this society held and propagated definite Socinian principles. This is an error. See Mosheim, History, cent. xvi. lect. iii. part ii. iv. 1. They only agreed in a general Anti- trinitarianism, and their speculations terminated very differently. See the Sistory of Gentilis (named in the next note), p. 23, et seq. ' The specific charge against Gentilis was this, " That after eight years' preparation to attack the doctrine of the Trinity he did begin openly to teach, that there were in the Trinity three distinct Spirits, differing from each other in numerical essence : amongst which (three Spirits) he acknowledges the Father only to be that infinite God which we ought to worship, which is plain blasphemy against the Son. " Gentilis was accused, as Abelard was, of holding inconsistent propositions, one Monarchian, one Tritheistic. It was said that he affirmed, that the Father alone is that one only God set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures; and that there are in the Trinity Three Eternal Spirits, each of which is by Himself God. The 37 Savoy and Mor.avia, was taken at Berne, and put to death, in 1566, for opposing the doctrine of the Trinity in violation of his oath. Laelius Socinus visited Poland, but would not remain there. He died in Zurich in 1562. Gribaud fled to Fargise, in the Canton of Berne, and died in prison. Blandrata and Alciatus retreated to Poland, where the history of Socinianism centres itself. Into Poland Antitrinitarianism had already been introduced by Spiritus of Holland in the year 1546. Leelius Socinus had, at an earlier visit than that named above, converted to his opinions Francis Lismain, the chaplain of the Queen of Sigismund I. : and at a synod held at Siceminia in 1556, the doctrine of the Trinity was, for the first time, publicly opposed by Peter Gonezius. This party was much strengthened by the arrival, in 1558, of Blandrata and Alciatus. They were honourably received by the Protestants. Blandrata gained great in- fluence, which Calvin's letters of warning could not overcome. There was a difference of opinion, however, even at this time (it widened after- wards), some of the party allowing the miraculous conception of our Lord, and that worship is due to Him, others denying both these points. This difference in some measure checked the spread of the heresy, nevertheless the dissensions between the orthodox and the heretics increased so much, that, in 1565, Gregory Paul, the minister of a Protestant Church in Cracow, petitioned the States assembled in council, to cause a conference to be held for full discussion of the subject. The result of the conference was, that the parties which had up to that time met together in synod separated, and the Antitrinitarians formed a separate society. Toleration was granted them by the States and the Emperor. Eaoow was buUt for them by Siemienius, Prince of Podolia, and became their chief settlement ; but they had conventicles in all the towns and villages of the kingdom, particularly in Cracow, Pinczow, and Lublin. Among them there were not a few shades of opinion, but they gradually formed themselves into three parties, the followers of Lselius Socinus, and the factions of BuduEeus and Famovius. The Socinians held a miraculous conception of our Lord, in virtue of which, although His Divinity was denied. He is the Son of God, and worship is proportionally due to Him. These points were denied by Budnaeus. His principles appeared impious to the main body of the Socinians, and in 1584 he was deposed from his ministerial functions, and publicly excom- municated with all his disciples. Farnovius was nearer to the Arian tenets, holding that Christ had been created by the Father before the world. Council of Soissons was not well qualified to judge Abelard's doctrine: the divines of Berne were little qualified to judge Gentilis. If the history of Benedictus Aretius is to be trusted, they held that the Son is aiVrfffeos, and mistook the subordination of the Son for inferiority of nature [A Short History of Valentinus Gentilis the Tritheist, translated, London 1606, pp. 131, 40-i7. The translation of this history professes to have been made for the benefit of Dr. Sherlock.] Antosiandrians Aphthartodocetce But this history belongs to the article Socin- lANS, which takes up the subject from the time of Faustus Socinus joining the Antitrinitarian body. In the year 1563 Blandrata was invited to Transylvania by Prince John Sigismund. Sup- ported by the favour of the prince, and of his prime minister Petrovitz, and after Sigismund's death by the favour of the Bathori, princes of Transylvania, he boldly and successfully pro- pagated his heresy. In this he was assisted by Francis David, superintendent of the Eeformed in Transylvania, whom he converted from Calvin- ism. But about Tihe year 1574, David adopted the principles of Budnseus, and separated from Blandrata. In 1578 Blandrata invited Faustus Socinus to help him in opposing David. David, not yielding to argument, was summoned before the Diet, and condemned for blasphemy. He died a few months afterwards. In 1579 Socinus went into Poland, and united the Antitrini- tarians. In no other countries of the Continent was Antitrinitarianism established. The attempts made to form settlements in Hungary and Austria were defeated by the opposition both of Catholics and Protestants. The subsequent History of the Continental Socinians and the history of the English sect are given in articles Socinians, Unitarians. ANTOSIANDEIANS. The opponents of Osiander's party. [Osiandeians. Stancaeists.] ANTEIM, PEESBYTEEY OF. A section of the Irish Presbyterians who separated from the main body in the year 1750, from a dis- inclination to subscribe to the "Westminster Con- fession of Faith. They adopted the Arian or " New Light " principles, and, as far as the com- plex nomenclature and singular divergencies of the Presbyterians can be explained without Presby- terian verbosity, may be identified with the Scotch section known as the New Light Burghees. APELLEIANS. [Apellianists.] APELLIANISTS. A Gnostic sect which arose about the middle of the second century in the reign of Antoninus Pius, or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, deriving its name from its founder Apelles. This heretic was originally a disciple of Maroion, but was expelled by the latter from the number of his followers, because he exchanged the rigid continence inculcated by his teaching for licentious indulgence, living with a mistress named PhUumena, whose utterances he supposed to be dictated by a familiar spirit, and whom he regarded as an inspired prophetess. After his expulsion, he became the founder of a distinct sect, which, as might be expected from the laxity of conduct permitted, met with considerable suc- cess, and which was distinguished from its parent stock by the addition of the following new doc- trines — 1. He rejected his master's belief in two co- eternal Gods, or active principles of good and evil, and substituted for it, as some assert, the doctrine of the eternity of matter ; or, as is more probable, its creation by an inferior and 38 hostile deity, who having been himself called into existence by God, was by Him permitted to create the world, and to be the author of all its evils [Aug. de Hcer. c. 23]. 2. He seems to have believed in the exist- ence, sufferings, and death of Christ as the Son of God, only this Christ was not incarnate by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin as the Gospel teaches, nor was He a mere phantom, as Marcion taught, but He was supposed to have descended from heaven in a mysterious manner, and to have contracted a body composed of the four elements — earth, air, fire, and water, which were again dispersed abroad before the soul of Jesus ascended to heaven. 3. A necessary corollary from the last doctrine was a denial of the resurrection of the body, in which he coincided with Marcion and other Gnostic teachers. 4. He accused the prophets of the Old Dis- pensation of inconsistency, and as that could not be the result of Divine inspiration, he attributed it to the same spirit of evil which had created the world ; he also wrote much against the Mosaic law,i spending a great deal of labour in its refutation, and ridiculing it along with the rest of the Bible in a conversation with a certain Ehodon, an Asiatic, which has been preserved by Nicephorus [Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 28, 29]. 5. Lastly, and with the greatest inconsistency, Apelles taught that every one would be saved by remaining firm in the behef which they had once embraced. The ApeUeians are mentioned by St. Cyprian [Ep. Ixxiii. 4] along with the Marcionites and other sects as among those whose baptism was not to be considered valid. [Aug. de Hmres. xxiii. Niceph. Hist. Ecd. iv. 28. Philaster, xlvii. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 12. TertuU. adv. Marc. iv. 17 ; Prcescr. Hmr. xxx.] APELLITES. [Apellianists.] APHTHAETODOCET^. One of the two families into which the Monophysites were divided. From the names of their leaders they were called, in Armenia and its neighbourhood, Julianists ; in Egypt, Gaianitje : the general name Aphthartodocetse being descriptive of their doctrine. As a consequence of the Monophysite tenet that from the union of the two natures in our Lord there resulted only one nature, the Aph- thartodocetse attributed to our Lord's Body as pertaining to that one nature a.4>dap(jla, incor- ruptibility — including in their term 6opd, not only sinful appetites, and the corruption which ordinarily follows death, but also aU innocent physical needs and weaknesses and sufferings, TrdOrj dSiapX-qra. The human nature they con- sidered to have been so essentially united with the Divine nature of the Logos as to have become merged or absorbed in it, and therefore to have become possessed of the inherent and indestruc- tible life of the Logos. It was held, however, that the actions and ^ '0 7^01 'AttcXX^s oJitos uvpta KarA, toC MoiVffias ■fia-i^Tia-e v6iiov [Euseb. Eccles. Hist. v. 13]. Aphthartodocetcs sufferings of our Lord, as told in the Gospels, were real, and not merely in appearance. The seeming contradiction between this and the fore- going statements was obviated by the distinction that those sufferings were voluntarily undergone by our Lord, in the way of an ceconomy or dis- pensation of grace, for the salvation of man, and did not properly belong to the nature of that Body upon which they were inflicted. The term Docetse, which impUes that our Lord's Body was only a phantasm, is not rightly used of the Aphthartodocetse. They doubtless held that our Lord possessed a real and sub- stantial body, made of a woman, although the attributes of humanity had been abolished by the union of the two natures. Yet it was truly said that they held our Lord's Body to be other than it appeared. It appeared to be a human body ; but a body impassible and immutable in itself, neither acting nor feeling as men act and feel, is not a proper human body. The difference of opinion between the Julianists and their opponents the Severians had long existed among the Monophysites, but did not break out into controversy until the deprived Monophysite bishops met at Alexandria about A.D. 520. The heresy of the Aphthartodocetse then spread rapidly. Mention of its outbreak in the Homeritis in the year 549 is made in Assemani, Bihl. Orient. Clementino-Vatic. tom. iii. pars. ii. p. 455 ; where is also a reference to a strange story of the Julianists thinking to con- tinue a succession of bishops by mortmain : " De Sacerdotio quod a Julianistis in urbe Epheso per mortui manum illegitime traditum fuit anno Ghristi 549." Justinian, who had been an eager defender of the Council of Chalcedon, and a persecutor of Monophysitism, in his old age issued an edict [a.d. 563J in favour of Aphthartodocetism. But the doctrine faUed to gain the approval of the Monophysite body. In the eighth or the ninth century they seem to have utterly disappeared from Syria, and in general from Asia, with the exception of Armenia, as also from Egypt. A portion of them, however, pushed their way into Ethiopia and Nubia, where they had a patriarch of their own. The Aphthartodocetse were them- selves divided into two parties, one party main- taining that after the Incarnation Christ ought not to be spoken of as a created being as regards His humanity, but that even as man He should be designated God and Creator, and must there- fore have been a proper object of worship from the very beginning. These were called aKTUTTTfral ; their opponents KTurToXdrpai. [Aotistetes. Ctistolatr^ Leontius, De Seetis, in GaUandii BiU. Pair. tom. xii. Anathema of Julian (directed against the errors which his opponents charged him with) in Assemani in Syriao, and in Latin in Gieseler's Gommentatio qua Monophysitarum varicB . . . opiniones . . . illustrantur, 1838, Gottingse. Gieseler's Gommentatio. Natal. Alex- ander, ssec. vi. dLssert. vi. Dorner On the Person of Ghrist, Clark's transl. div. ii. vol. i. p. 128, et seq.] 39 Apollinarians APOCAEITES. One of the many sects which grew out of the Manichaean heresy. The Apoca- rites appeared for the first time in the reign of Tacitus and the pontificate of Eutychian [c. a.d. 275]. They adopted the greater portion of the Gnostic and Manichsean doctrines, especially hold- ing as their distinctive tenet a belief that man's soul was eternal and uncreated, and of the same substance as God Himself, the only authority for which was the passage in Genesis : " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrUs the breath of life, and man became a living soul " [Gen. ii. 7]. APOCEYPHANS. There were three classes of writings recognised in the early Church. [1.] Canonical, such as having received the imprim- atur of authority, were included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, and were bound to be accepted and believed. [2.] Ecclesiastical, such writings as the Apology of TertuUian, or lihe History of Eusebius, which, having been composed by trust- worthy persons, were generally considered deserv- ing of credit, though not accepted as de fide. [3.] Apocryphal, spurious additions to the gospels and epistles, and lives of saints, which were utterly devoid of authority, and either contained false and ridiculous accounts of miracles, or were written to bolster up some new-fangled doctrine, and attributed for that purpose to names which would ensure acceptance. The title " Apocryphans " did not denote any one sect in particular, but was applied to any such bodies as the Manichseans, Gnostics, Nicolaitanes, or Valentinians, who based their doctrines on apo- cryphal writings in their private possession. The Manichseans, for example, are said to have pos- sessed a spurious life of St. Andrew the apostle ; and Acts of St. John the evangelist, St. Peter, St. Paul, &o. were composed, which were replete with marvels, such as accounts of their conver- sation with various animals, and other trifles. [Philast. De Hceres. Ixxxviii.] APOLLINAEIANS. There are three dis- tinct heresies connected with the name of Apol- linaris. They all relate to the Incarnation of our Lord, and may all be referred to one motive or principle, of which ApoUinaris appears to have been the chief assertor. They are therefore often spoken of as several branches of the ApoUinarist heresy. But when we distinguish them one from the other, that for which ApoUinaris was con- demned must specifically bear his name. At the same time, it is not to be denied, that in his later years he added to that specific heresy one of the other heresies. The three heresies are these : the first holds that the Son of God acquired a body, called human, because it is in the form of man, by conversion of the substance of the Godhead into the substance of flesh ; the second holds that in the Incarnation the two substances are con- founded or blended ; the third that our Lord assumed a human body of the Virgin, but did not assume a human soul, the Divine Nature supplying the place of the soul. This last is in two stages. In the earlier stage it was contended Apollinarians Apollinarians that nothing of the human soul was assumed by the Son of God ; in the latter stage, that with the body He assumed the sensitive soul (c¥"X''i)-< but not the rational soul (voSs), and that the Logos took the place only of the rational soul.i All these agree in denying to our Lord a per- fect humanity. In each case there is something of the human nature lacking. And the common motive and principle to which the three are re- ferrible, is evident from Athanasius' Epist. ad Upietetum, and the two books, Contra Apnl- linariwm. Those who advanced these tenets thought themselves obliged, in order to maintain the perfect sinlessness of our Lord, to deny His assumption of that which they regarded as the primal seat of sin in man. By some the body, by some the body and its sensitive soul, by some the mind or rational soul, was thought the seat of sin, and its assumption therefore denied. The ivavdpiair-qcri's of our Lord was thought to be maintained by His assumption of the remainder of the human nature. In general, accordingly, the third heresy was not combined with the first, for that would deny the JvovS/xuTnjo-ts altogether. There is evidence however which cannot be resisted that Apollinaris in the latter part of his life did so. By the ApolUnarist heresy, however, is understood the third. Here- tics of the second class have their accredited name, Stnusiast^, and they are ranked by Theodoret as an offshoot of the Apollinarists under the title " Polemians." The third class is named by Philaster Teopit^. In the Apollinarist heresy, thus limited by the exclusion of these two sects, the sensitive soul, or part of the soul, is considered to be not merely distinguishable in our conceptions, but really in- dependent of and separable from the rational soul. The -fyxq, that is, is thought to be both distinct and divisible from the vovi. And it is asserted that our Lord, becoming man, assumed of the nature of man only the former ; the Divine Logos supplying, in the God-Man, the place of the latter [Theodoret, Dial. Inconfusus\. From this division of the sensitive from the rational soul, these heretics are called Dimoeritse, as hold- ing a Sifioipia, or two-thirds of the human nature in the Person of our Lord, under which name Epiphanius describes them [Hcer. Ixxvii.]. Apollinaris, of the Syrian Laodiosea, son of a presbyter of the same name, a pupil of a Sophist Epiphanius, reader in the Church of Laodicsea, was made bishop of Laodicsea about a.d. 362. He had distinguished himself in controversy with the Arians, was a friend of Athanasius, and was known for his many theological works [see a list i_ Leo describes three heresies of the Apollinarist sects, omitting that which is above called the second, and counting as two the two stages of the third. "Nee (Deum) ita hominem (dicimus), iit aliquid ei desit, quod ad hunianam certum est pertinere naturam, sive animam, sive mentem rationalem, sive carnem quje non de femina sumpta est ; sed facta de Verbo in carnem converse atque mutate : quae tria falsa et vana ApoUinistarum hsereti- corum tres partes variffi protulerant. Ad chrum . . . Constant. Urbis, A.n. 461" [Harduin, Cone. ii. 331 40 of them in Lardner, Credib. xcv.] Sozomen tells that the occasion of Apollinaris' falling into heresy was resentment against Georgius, bishop of Laodicaea. Georgius separated him from com- munion on account of his intimacy with Athan- asius ; and brought up against him an earlier fault, his presence namely at some Bacchic rites, for which he had been dealt with by Theodotus, Georgius' predecessor [Sozom. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25]. But (not to speak of chronological difl&cul- ties) this deliberate adoption of heresy out of pique or revenge, in no case very probable, is, in the present case, improbable from the character of the man, and negatived by the fact that Apollinaris began by adopting a portion of the Arian creed. The heresy is to be attributed to the workings of a mind which had lost its way amidst the mazes of controversy, and was in some measure misled by erroneous metaphysical theories. Apollinaris held the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in his maintenance against the Arians of the divinity of the Son of God, and his desire to maintain the impecca- bility of Christ, he thought himseK obliged to admit the Arian ^ tenet, that the Logos supplied in Christ the place of the human soul. To take the very nature of man was (it appeared to him) to take a body and soul of fallen humanity.^ This is worked out in Athanasius' argument. The Apollinarists are represented as stating that where there is a true and very man, there is sin, that Christ could not therefore be the complete man, that He used the organized body as an in- strument, that the Word was in that body as a celestial soul in place of the inner man [Athan. Cont Apoll. i 2, 17; ii. 6, 8, 17]. It wiU be observed that Athanasius expressly attributes this doctrine to the Arians. He says that the Arians affirm the Saviour to have taken only the flesh of man, and impiously refer the sense of passion to the impassible Deity \ih. i. 15]. Augustine speaks as unhesitatingly : "Apol- linaristae . . . dicentes sicut Ariani Deum Christum carnem sine anima accepisse" [Hcer. " On this Arian tenet see Pearson On the Creed, p. 160, note +, ed. 1741. That this tenet was held by the Arians is little noticed, nor was it insisted on in the time of the original controversy. In heretics who accounted the Word no other than a superior created Spirit, the error was but little taken into consideration by the Church. [Abian.s.] _ ^ The misconception lies in the supposition that ori- ginal sin is of the very substance of fallen man, whereas it is, on the other hand, not an essential property but a defect. The substantiality of evil in human nature, as now constituted, was held by Marcion and other Gnostics. Those who hold that human flesh, as such, is sinful, must, in order to avoid the impiety that our Lord assumed a sinful body, assert with the Docetse the un- reality of His body ; or with the Synusiastse, that His body was of His eternal substance prepared in Heaven, and coming down from Heaven: a tenet adopted, it will be remembered, by Irving, who maintained that God prepared a body of fallen humanity for His Son. Ihose who hold that original sin is an essential property ot the human soul, to avoid a corresponding impietv, must deny the assumption of the human soul, and make the Word itself take the place of that soul. This the ApoUinansts did. See Mill, Sermons on tU Temp'^ation, notes I and K. Apollinarians Iv.]. In this first stage of Apollinarist heresy the human soul of Christ was altogether denied, and with this stage Athanasius deals. He speaks of the ApoUinarists as adpKa fiovrjv irpoa-ofioXoyovv- T£s [ii. 17], as holding that the ■fvxq, or voepa ^Tjcrts is so essentially the seat of sin [ii. 8], that the Son cannot have assumed it; of the vov's errovpavios €v XpLarip being dvTt Tov 'dau)6ev dvOpwTTov Toi) iv rjfuv [i. 17]. From this extreme position they were driven, and then adopted the Platonic distinction of voCs and Y"^X''? [Socr. Hist. Eccl. ii. 46], allowing that Christ assumed the latter but not the former. " Mentem, qua rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse animse Christi, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum in eo fuisse dixerunt" [Augustine]. To this second stage belongs the narrative of Epiphanius regarding himself, Paulinus and Vitalis. Paulinus was the Bishop of Antiooh, consecrated by Lucifer; Vitalis was a presbyter of Meletius, who joined Apollinaris, and was afterwards made bishop in the sect, from whom the ApoUinarists were called Vitalians by the Antiochenes [Sozom. H. E. vi. 25.] Epiphanius relates that in a confer- ence with these two bishops, Paulinus produced a creed drawn up by Athanasius, which he had him- self signed, that VitaUs, after much cavilling and many questions, avowed his belief that in Christ was the human Y^X'3) ^ot the human vows ; that Christ was perfect man, consisting of a human body and sensitive soul, and the divine nature — that divine nature being in the place of the rational soul [Epiph. Hcer. Ixxvii. 21-25]. Ne- mesius writes in his opening paragraph that the metaphysical tenet was borrowed from Plotinus, and the heretical doctrine raised on its founda- tion.^ Eegarding the metaphysical tenet, it is sufficient to say that it has been rejected by the Church as inconsistent with Christian psychology. Its connection with heresy is evident in other cases as well as the present case. Gregory of Nyssa \Antirrheticus, sect, viii.] remarks what handles it affords to heresy. The heresy, both in its earlier and later form, denies to the Mediator a complete manhood. Christ is no longer God and man, but God and imperfect man, if man at all. The soul is the man, not the outward shape. " Mens cujusque is est quisque." It is the living soul inbreathed from God, in virtue of which the creature, made of the dust of the earth, becomes man. In the first form of the ApoUinarist heresy, it is neces- ^ It may be right to observe that the true human triad is found in the regenerate man, body, soul and spirit, the spirit being a divine principle superadded to the rational soul, the "soul" being both the "anima" and the " mens." See Irenaaus' description of the saved man as a complete man, as well as a spiritual man \a.dv, Hcer. V. 6, 1]. See also Justin Mart. On fht, Res^irrec- Hon, chap. 10. Gieseler writes that Apollinaris was per- haps misled by his aversion to Origen, but does not state the grounds of the aversion. A clear contrariety is found in the two concerning the fundamental proposi- tion of Apollinaris, since Origen makes the voCs and the ^vxfl to be essentially the same, and describes the latter as the former in a state of degeneracy [De Prindp. II. yiii. 3]. On this subject see DiOT. o/Thbol., Spirit. 41 Apollinarians eary to assert that the Son of God, inhabiting a soulless body, becomes man. In which case, it follows directly, that aU the suiferings of the Mediator were borne by the Son Himself as such, that the very nature of the Godhead suffered. In the second form, that which is confessedly the highest part of man is denied to the humanity of the Mediator; and all the sufferings of the Mediator which belong to that highest part are, in like manner as before, attributed to the God- head. In neither case can it be said that the Son of God was made in all things like unto His brethren. In neither case can the highest part of man have fellowship with the sufferings of Christ, and consequently it is left incapara[e of salvation.^ Gregory of Nazianzum, in his letter to IS'ec- tarius, written about the year 387, states from Apollinaris' own writings, that Apollinaris taught that the Flesh of Christ was not assumed from without, but had appertained to the Son from the beginning. In the first Epistle to Cledonius, A.D. 382, he mentions the opinion that the Flesh of Christ had come down from heaven [sect, vi.], and the necessary deduction that the Body of Christ passed through His mother " tan- quam per canalem" [sect. iv.]. This latter state- ment is repeated by other authorities, as by Pope Martin at the Lateran Council, A.D. 649 [act. iii.].^ This evidence cannot be set aside (as Basnage would do) by the assertion that Gregory must have been mistaken in the authorship of the writings he quotes ; and we are constrained to believe that Apolhnaris, after his condemna- tion by the Council, sank deeper than before into heresy, and advanced tenets which altogether destroy the Incarnation of our Lord. Again, Gregory Nazianzen \Ep. i. ad. Cledon.'] states that Apollinaris introduced a scale (as it were) of divinity, asserting the Holy Spirit to be great, the Son greater, the Father greatest. Theodoret repeats the statement, but says, also, that in some writings Apollinaris is orthodox. Considering which, and the testimonies there are to Apollinaris' orthodoxy concerning the Holy Trinity,* it is reasonable to infer that the charge ^ This, which is a legitimate deduction from the pre- misses of Apollinaris, is stated by Theodoret [M. M. v. 3] to have been a part of his teaching. It is simply incred- ible that he admitted and taught it. ^ Gregory of Nyssa begins his Antirrjieticus with the statement that Apollinaris assigned to the Son a certain incarnation, not a proper manifestation in the flesh, in words so doubtful as to leave it uncertain whether he intends to maintain the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, or the existence of a compound substance, lying between the two, neither God nor man, but partaking of the natures of both. With this statement may be com- pared the words of Apollinaris, quoted at the Lateran Council, A.D. 649 : 'Opyavov Kcd rb Kivovv, /dav iritpvKev dTToreXety t^v ivipyeiav &V S^ fda ij iv^pyeLa, /J-ia Kal oicla, fda &pa oiala y^yove tov 'Kdyov Kal ttjs aapKds [Har- duin, Ooncil. ii. 892.] * Vincent. Lirin. Common, cap. 17 ; Leontius, De Sectis, act. iv. These are quoted by Lardner, who refers also to Philostorgins, Suidas, v. Apollinarius. Athanasius assumes that Apollinaris retained the Nicene faith regard- ing the Trinity. See Socrates, M. E. ii. 46. Apollinarians Apostolicals is founded only on statements relating to a subor- dination of office. The charge of Satellianisnii is sufficiently ex- plained by the direct conclusion from the leading Apollinarist tenet, that the ^edrijs of the Son suffered, from which it follows that the Godhead Itself, the deoTtji of the Father, is passible. The Synod of Alexandria, held a.d. 362, by Athanasius and other bishops, returning from banishment after the death of Constantius, de- clared OTi ov o"c3/xa a.^jrv)(OV, ovS' dvalcrdrjTov, ov&' dvorjTov eTx^v 6 Swt^/d. This was before Apol- linaris avowed his heresy, probably before he had adopted it. Epictetus' letter to Athanasius, and Athanasius' reply, mark the outbreak of Apol- linarist heresy, and these were in a.d. 370. The heretical tenet condemned was held by the Arians : and perhaps we are justified in consider- ing that its special condemnation, after so little notice had been taken of it during the Arian troubles, is an example of Athanasius' prescience. He may have foreseen that heresy would take that course. ApoUinaris was condemned in a Eoman synod, A.D. 373.2 There is in Theodoret [H. K v. lOJ an Epistle of Damasus to the Oriental bishops concerning this condemnation. Baronius con- siders it to have been written at the time of the council, Valesius some time after ; but both agree as to the condemnation in the year 373. The epistle speaks in general terms of all who deny the perfect humanity of our Lord. It states that ApoUinaris, as weU as a follower of his, Timotheus, had been deposed. Another synodical letter of Damasus [Theod. H. E. V. 11] belongs probably to the Eoman synod, a.d. 382. It anathematizes what has been defined as the proper Apollinarist heresy. The Council of Constantinople, in its synodi- cal epistle, refers also to a condemnation of the heresy at Antiooh in a.d. 378 or 379. But the decrees of these inferior synods need not be dwelt upon in the presence of the decisions of an (Ecumenical council. At Constantinople, a.d. 381-2, a synodical epistle declared that the Fathers held the doctrine of an entire and perfect • The charge is made by Basil [Ep. eclxv.]. Basil ex- presses a doubt whether the writings on which it is founded were genuine. Neither does he appear to hare been well informed regarding ApoUinaris : he states that he had read but few of his writings {Ep. ocxllv.]. He mentions ApoUinaris frequently in consequence of the report spread by Eustathius that he was a follower of ApoUinaris. ^ The council condemned generally the errors which are more or less connected with the name of ApoUinaris, viz. of those who say [1] that Mary is not fieoTdKos; [2] that the Body of Christ passed through His mother as through a channel ; [3] that the Manhood was first formed and then the Divine Nature superimposed ; [4] that there are two sons : one of God, one of Mary ; [5] that the Divinity worked in Christ, as in a prophet, by grace ; [6] that the Crucified is not to be adored ; [7] that Christ was ad- vanced to the Godhead as a reward of His virtue, or that He was God by adoption ; [8] that Christ on His resur- rection laid aside His Body ; [9] that the Flesh of Christ descended from heaven ; [10] that hope is to be placed in a Christ who is man without a human soul. [See Mausi, under the year 377, to which he assigns the council.] 42 Incarnation : not the oeconomy of an incarnation in which the body lacks either soul or mind. Canon I. anathematizes the ApoUinarists, Canon VII. prescribes the mode of their raception on returning to the Church, namely, by the seal of unction, their baptism being allowed. Lastly, the Definition of Faith made at Chalcedon sets forth, eVa Koi rov avrov X/dicttov, Yiov, Ki5/Dtov, jxovoyevri, kv Svo (f>va-e(riv d(TvyxvT(as, arpeTrras, aStaipe'rMS, d)((opia-T