"I. The bishops by whom Paul was condemned, in their epistle, preserved by Eusebius say: First, That fie denied his God and Lord: tov eeoi' tavTov Kai Ki'pioi/ lip- vuvixi-i'uv (p. 2S0). Secondly, That before the bishops, as- sembled in council, he would not acknowledge that the Son (if (Jod di'scendedfrnm lieareii : toi/ vuw rov Otov t? ov- pav.w MiTaAtAi.-eim. Thirdly, That he distinctly said Jemix VhiiHt ortiiinafi'd on earth: At^ei '\riauvv Xpioror kh- Ttaiei. Fourthly, That he went over to the abominable heresy of Artenias. What the heresy of Artemas was, with which they tax Paul, is a question of doubt and un- certainty. 1 shall therefore pass by this charge, and con- sider oidy tlie others: in which, doubtless, the cliief error of Paul was included, and that error which was the cause of so much odium against him. From these charges it is evident that he would not acknowledge Jesti^ Christ to be both God and man; or he denied that Jesus Christ was a ))erson— if I may so s&y—foniponiidedu[ God and man. For when lie said the .Son of God did not dencend fr<mi heaven, hut originated on the earth, what could he mean but that Christ was a viere man, thoutrh divinelv begot- ten of the Virgin Mary? And what could thebislu)ps mean, when they taxed him with deiiiiinij hin God and Lord, but that he divested Christ of his diviniti/, or de- nied that a divine person received the man Christ into union with himself? From the same charges it also ap- pears that he called the man Christ the Son of God; and this, nndonliledly, because he was supernaturally pro- duced from the Viigin Mary. For he denied that the Sn,i. of God desi-cnded from, heaven; and as this, most certainly, must be understood as referring to Chrint, it is manifest
that he applied the title Son of God to the man Christ. This alone is a sufficient refutation of the error of those will) believe what Marins ^Mercatm- asserts (De A nathema- ti.smis Sestorii, in his Oj>p. ii, l-'S), that Pazil of Samosata represented Christ as beiini a man, born like other 7>ien of two parents. Yet we have a better witness for confuting this error in Paul himself, who distinctly says (Questio V,
iu the liiblioth. Patr.xi, 280), 'Inaom o ■yewnien- U vri/n'/ua- T09 aycov Kai Mupiaf ts iTupirtiiov. — That the bishops,
whose charges we are cous.ilering, did him no injustice, he himself makes manifest. For all his ten qiiestions now extant, whether addressed to Dionysius or to another per- son, have one sole aim, namely, to evince, by means of various texts of Scripture brought together, that Christ was a mere man, and destitute of any divinity ; or, what amounts to the same thing, to confute the belief that the divine and human natures united in Christ produced one person. It is therefore not necessary to produce the tes- timony of others among the ancients to the same point. Yet 1 will add that of Simeon Betharsamensis, a cele- brated Persian, near the beginning of the Gth century, whose testimony I regard as of more value than that of all the Greek and Latin fathers. In his epistle on the heresy of the Nestorians (in Jos. Sim. Assemani's Bihlio- theea Oriental, i, 34T) he says: 'Paulus Saraosatenns de beata Maria h.'ec dicebat: ^^ Stuhim hominem genuit Ma- ria, nee post partum virgo permansit. Christum aulem appellavit creatum, factum, mortalem et filium (Dei) ex gratia." De se ipso vero dicebat: "Ego quoque si volu- ero, Christns ero, qiiiim ego et Cliristus unius, ejusdemque simus naturce." ' These statements accord perfectly with the allegations of the bishops, and with the character of Paul, wao was rash and extravagant. Epiphanius also {Ua'res. Ixv, 617) says of him that he gave himself the ap- pellation of Clirist; a declaration which is elucidated by the quotatiini from the Persian Simeon.
" II. The six bishops of the Council of Antioch, in their letter to Paul before sentence was pronounced upon him, while they state their own doctrine respecting God and Christ, condemn some errors of tlieir adversary. In the first place, they say it could not be endured that he should
inculcate vlov to5 eeoS eeoi' jui/ thai Tipi) Kara/ioAr.s Koafxav, and &VO eeoiif KitTa^7tX\eii2rai, ttii' o uio? Tot Qeov Btos- ki|- tiuaanjM (Bihlioth. Patr. xi, 303). The bishops speak less definitely than could be wished; in consequence, per- haps, of'lhe studied obscurity of Paul, who did not wish his real sentiments to be distinctly known. Yet it is not ditlicult to see whither tend the sentiments they attribute to him. First, he acknowledged that there is sometliiiv) iu-God, which the Scriptures call the Son of God. He there- fore supposed that there are two Sons of God — the one by grace, the man Christ : the other bg nature, who existed long before the other Son. Secondly, He denied that the latter Sun of God v<as God anterior to the creation of the world. Thirdly, Consequently he held that tiris Sun of God became God at the time the world was created. These statements appear confused, and very different from the common apprehensions; but they will admit of elucida- tion. Paul meant to say that the energg—oi; if any pre- fer it, the Divine energij — which he denominated the Son of God, was hidden iii God, before the creation of the world; but that, in a sense, it issued out from God, and began to have some existence exterior to God, at the time God formed the created universe. Fourthly, Hence he inferred that (p. 710) those profess two Gods (or speak of two as in the |)lace of the one God) whoproclaimthe Son of God to be God; but undonbtedly, considering what pre- cedes, the limitation should be added, before the creation of the world. His belief was that theg divide the one God into two Gods, who make the Son of God to have existed as d i)crson, distinct from the Father, before the founda- tion of the world. He did not deny, as we have seen, that the Son of God was, in some sense, made God at the time the world was created.— From all this we learn that Paul denied the eternal generation of the Son of God, and also his personal di!<lii'ietaess from the Father; and he supposed that when God was abont to create the world he sent out from himself a certain energy, which is called the Son of God, and also God, although it is nothing dis- tinct froiii God. These ideas may be further illustrated by the subsequent charge of the bishops; in which they not obscurely tax Paul with representing God the Fiither as creating the world by the \\'ord (un iu' iVt'ii'i- kui iirt- ari'iuK ux'VTTooTt'tToi) as bg an iiistriiinent, and bii intelligence, having no separate exi.tience or porsonalitg. For it hence appears that by the Son or Word of God, he understood the divine wisdom (tiriaTlutm) : which, bePire the world was created, h;ul been at rest in God, and hidden during numberless ages: but now, when the supreme God form- ed the iJiirpiTse of creating the world, it exhibited its powers, and, as it were, cniiie out from the bosom of the Father; or, in other words, it manifested its pi-escnce by discriminating', actiu'j, and operating. From that time onward it is called, thousrh fitiur.-itively, the Son of God, because it proceeded forth fmm «iod. Just as a son does fiom his parents; and also Gml, because it is essentially God, and can be conceived of as separate from him only bv an abstraction of the mind. In perfect accordance with these views are the statements of other ancient writ- ers. Thus Epiphauius {Uteres. Ixv, COS) states the seuti-