Praxeas and Sabellius laboured to confound the Father with the Son," the orthodox party might be excused if they adhered more strictly and more earnestly to the distinction, than to the equality, of the divine persons. But, as soon as the heat of controversy had subsided, and the progress of the Sabellians was no longer an object of terror to the churches of Rome, of Africa, or of Egypt; the tide of theological opinion began to flow with a gentle but steady motion toward the contrary extreme; and the most orthodox doctors allowed themselves the use of the terms and definitions which had been censured in the mouth of the sectaries." After the edict of toleration had restored peace and leisure to the Christians, the Trinitarian controversy was revived in the ancient seat of Platonism, the learned, the opulent, the tumultuous city of Alexandria; and the flame of religious discord was rapidly communicated from the schools to the clergy, the people, the province, and the East. The abstruse question of the eternity of the Logos was agitated in ecclesiastical conferences and popular sermons; and the heterodox opinions of Arius were soon made public by his own zeal and by that of his adversaries. His most implacable adver 43 "The heresies of Praxeas, Sabellius, &c., are accurately explained by Mosheim (p. 425,680-714). Praxeas, who came to Rome about the end of the second century, deceived, for some time, the simplicity of the bishop, and was confuted by the pen of the angry Tertullian. [These are the Monarchian heresies; see below, p. 353.] 42 Socrates acknowledges that the heresy of Arius proceeded from his strong desire to embrace an opinion the most diametrically opposite to that of Sabellius. [For the comprehension of the theological import of the Arian controversy, consult Gwatkin's Arianism, p. 9. "Arianism laid down a merely external, Sabellianism a merely economic, Trinity." As neither satisfied, it "became necessary to fall back on Scripture to revise the idea of a divine personality, and acknowledge not three individuals but three eternal aspects (woσráσeis) of the divine, facing inward on each other as well as outward on the world." The earlier conception of God, so far as distinguished from the world, was one of abstract simplicity; the expulsion of this inadequate conception from the doctrine of the Trinity is the chief result won out of the Arian controversy.] 43 The figure and manners of Arius, the character and numbers of his first saries have acknowledged the learning and blameless life of that eminent presbyter, who, in a former election, had declared, and perhaps generously declined, his pretensions to the episcopal throne." His competitor Alexander assumed the office of his judge. The important cause was argued before him; and, if at first he seemed to hesitate, he at length pronounced his final sentence, as an absolute rule of faith." The undaunted presbyter, who presumed to resist the authority of his angry bishop, was separated from the communion of the church. But the pride of Arius was supported by the applause of a numerous party. He reckoned among his immediate followers two bishops of Egypt, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and (what may appear almost incredible) seven hundred virgins. A large majority of the bishops of Asia appeared to support or favour his cause; and their measures were conducted by Eusebius of Cæsarea, the most learned of the Christian prelates, and by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had acquired the reputation of a statesman without forfeiting that of a saint. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to the synods of Egypt. The attention of the prince and people was attracted by this theological dispute; and the decision, at the end of six years," was referred to the supreme authority of the general council of Nice. proselytes, are painted in very lively colours by Epiphanius (tom. i. Hæres. Ixix. 3, p. 729); and we cannot but regret that he should soon forget the historian, to assume the task of controversy. See Philostorgius (1. i. c. 3) and Godefroy's ample Commentary. Yet the credibility of Philostorgius is lessened in the eyes of the orthodox by his Arianism; and in those of rational critics by his passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance. 45 Sozomen (1. i. c. 15) represents Alexander as indifferent, and even ignorant, in the beginning of the controversy; while Socrates (1. i. c. 5) ascribes the origin of the dispute to the vain curiosity of his theological speculations. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 178) has censured, with his usual freedom, the conduct of Alexander: πpòs ¿ρTǹv ¿¿áπTETAL . . . ὁμοίως φρονεῖν ἐκέλευσε. 46 The flames of Arianism might burn for some time in secret; but there is reason to believe that they burst out with violence as early as the year 319. Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. tom. vi. p. 774-780. Thi potent cause was r 1.st he ected to hesitate, he at kagth Sun as an ablute rule o. in 1.1.45 Jer, 10 presume i to resist ti e a at' orrated from the commun'·. ..f Arius was supported b y Py. He reckoned aric ps of Egypt, seven presto, ay appear almost incre e majority of the bisi, s " r favour his cause; and her Eusebius of Casarea, the mest its, ar 1 by Eusebius of Ni on *utation of statesir an "ha ut Sods in Palestine and Bit vnra is of Egypt. The attention of t' » acted by this theolog, al tist nd of six war, 46 was referred to th. · eral cour of Nice. sively collars, by F plnius it ta i Hr ist he sredi se o folger than c. 3) and God, frov's a rple Conomer iry. 1 is lessened i tecs of the orthogy by ati,”an critics Dy loja sien, bis pron lice, Cras lerasi different stay nig * for some tre in se ret; Ent the re i5 wi; violence as early as the your 3 9. 1 ,,-*,, 1 |