"not know whether he was made or not "made*." But in this he was very far indeed from being fingular. Juftin Martyr, Tertullian, and other writers before the council of Nice, having expreffed themselves in the very fame manner with respect to the Holy Spirit.

Origen, however, though condemned by many, did not want able defenders. Athanafius, who wrote in defence of Dionyfius, likewife declared himfelf the advocate of Origen +. Socrates obferves this with re

spect to Athanafius; and says that they who condemn Origen, condemn Athanafius alfot. That Eufebius fhould defend Origen, is not to be wondered at, as he himself lay

* Tertium dignitate et honore poft patrem et filium afferit fpiritum fanctum, de quo cum ignorare fe dicat utrum factus fit an infectus, &c. Opera, vol. 1. p. 440.

+ Syn. Nic. Decretum, Opera, vol. 1. p. 277.

† Αθανασι δε ο της ομουσιε πίςεως υπερασπισης, εν τοις καλα Αρειανών λόγοις, μεγάλη τη φωνη, μαρτυρα της οικείας πίσεως τον ανδρα καλεί, τις εκείνο λογες τοις ιδίοις συναπίων, και λέγων . ο θαυμασης, φησι, καὶ φιλοπονωίαλος Ωριγένης, τηδε περι τε υιε τω θες τη ημέτερα δοξη μαρίύρει, συναιδίον αυτον λεγων τω πατρι, ελάθον εν εαύλες οι λοιδορήσανίες Ωριγένην, βλασφημηνίες και τον επαινείην αυτε Αθανασιον. Hift. lib. 6. cap. 13. p. 329.

under

under the fame fufpicion. As Jerom fays, "Eufebius defends Origen, that is, he

proves him to have been an Arian*." That the writers before Arius had expreffed themselves in such a manner as to give advantage to him and his followers, was generally allowed.

Photius, in giving an account of the writings of Pierius, fays, that "they con"tain many things contrary to the then " established faith of the church, but per

haps after the manner of the ancients +;" meaning, probably, that he expreffed himfelf without fufficient caution and accuracy.

* Sex libros, ut ante jam dixi, Eufebius, Cæfarienfis epifcopus, Arianæ quondam fignifer factionis, pro Origine fcripfit, latiffimum et elaboratum opus: et multis teftimoniis approbavit Originem juxta fe catholicum, id est, juxta nos Arianum effe. Opera, vol. 1. p. 492.

+ Πολλα δε εξω των νυν εν τη εκκλησια καθετηκίων, αρχαιοροπως ισως, αποφαινεται. Cod. 19. p. 300.

SEC

SECTION II.

Of the Tenets of the ancient Arians.

I Shall now confider what were the tenets

which the ancient Arians avowed, or with which they were charged. The prin cipal article, for which no particular authority can be neceffary, was that Arius faid that the Son, logos, or Chrift, was created Ex тwy xx cvwv, or, out of nothing, like other creatures ; and this was certainly very different from the received doctrine. For all those who had the character of orthodox before him, even including Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, held that the logos had always been in the Father, as his proper attribute.

The fecond article in the Arian creed was, that there had been a time when the Son was not. This had frequently been afferted by the orthodox, and at first was, I VOL. IV. O doubt

doubt not, the univerfal opinion, if by the existence of the Son be meant his perfonal exifence, which was fuppofed to have commenced in time; but, as an attribute of the Father, they maintained that he had always exifted.

In the third place, the Arians denied that Chrift had any human foul. This is afferted concerning the Arians in general by Athanafius *, and by Epiphanius+. Theodoret afferts the fame of the Arians and Eunomians f; and fo does Glycas §. It does not appear, from Arius himself that he afferted this; but it is the neceffary

Αρειος δε, σαρκα μονην προς αποκρυφήν της θεότητος ομολογει αντί δε τις εσωθεν εν ημιν ανθρωπο, τελεσι της ψυχής, τον λόγον εν τη σαρκι λεγει γεγονεναι, την τε παθεις νοησιν, και την εξ αδε ανάτασιν, τη θεότητι προσαγειν τολμων. De Adventu Chrifti, Opera, vol. 1. p. 636.

Η Αρναίας ψυχην αυτον ανθρώπειαν ειληφέναι. Hær. 69. Opera, vol. r. p. 743. 771.

† Οι δε τα Αρεις και Ευνομια Φρονωνίες σωμα μόνον ανειληφεναι τον Θεον λόγον φασιν, αυλον δε της ψυχης εν τω σωματι πληρωσαι την χρειαν. Εp. 104. Tom. 4. pt. 2. p. 1174.

§ Των Αρειανων λεγονίων αψυχον είναι την τε κύριε σαρκα. Annales, pt. 3. p. 244.

confequence

confequence of his principles, and it was univerfally adopted by his followers. Indeed, it would have been exceedingly abfurd to suppose that there were two intelligent principles, both created beings, inhabiting the fame body. This, however, is a decifive proof of the novelty of the Arian doctrine. For, as I have obferved, all the ancients, Origen himself included, supposed that there was a proper human foul in Christ, befides the logos.

In after times, fome Arians made conceffions to the orthodox, and on that account were called Semiarians. Thus Auftin fays, that "fome of the later Arians acknowledged that Chrift had no beginning*. The Semiarians in general alfo faid, "that though Chrift was not of the fame "fubftance with the Father, he was of a like fubftance +." "This term, quo, of like

* Unde quidam pofteriores Arriani objecerunt iftam fententiam, faffique funt non ex tempore cœpiffe filium dei. De Trinitate, lib. 6. cap. 1, Opera, vol. 3. p. 326.

† Οι περι Βασίλειον, φημί, καὶ Γεώργιον, και της ημιαρείων ταύλης της αιρέσεως προςαλαι φασιν, 8 λεγομεν ομοδσιον, αλλ' ομοιάσιον. Epiphanius, Hær. 73. Opera, vol. 1. p. 845.