There he broached his opinions that Christ was a mere man, or at least that he had not a divine nature, (for it is not certain that he denied his miraculous conception); for which he was expelled from the church by Victor bishop of Rome, (fl. 192— 202). Dr. S. seems to regard Theodotus as a man of very little weight or stability; and he is altogether unwilling to associate Artemon with him. He supposes that Theodotus appealed to the opinions of Artemon, in order to procure credit for his own. If this be well founded, it would seem probable that Artemon had lived at Rome, or at least that his party were, or had been, in some consideration and influence there.

The reader who wishes for more minute information respecting Theodotus, is referred to Euseb. Hist. Ecc. V. 28. Theodoreti Haeret. Fab. Lib. II. 5. Philastrius de Haeres. cap. 50. August. de Haeres. cap. 33. Epiphanius, Haeres. L. IV. Also the Appendix to Tertull. de Praescrip. Haeret. Among the modern writers, Walch, Historie der Ketz. I. 548 seq. Lardner, Hist. of Heret. p. 364 seq., particularly the former, may be consulted with satisfaction.

It may not be uninteresting to remark, at the close of this notice, that Samuel Crellius (ob. 1632), the celebrated Unitarian, who wrote a book to explain away the testimony of John respecting the Logos, assumed the fictitious name of Artemonius (an Artemonite), in order to avoid the prejudices which the name of Socinian would have to encounter. In so doing, Crellius took it for granted that Artemon was of the same sentiment that Theodotus maintained; a position that Dr. S. by no means admits. TR.]

Soon after the Godhead of Christ began in the Christian churches to be presented in a more strictly doctrinal shape, Artemon declared himself against it as an innovation, out of fear, as it would seem, that it was an approach to polytheistic Paganism. The passage concerning this which Eusebius has quoted from an unknown writer (Hist. Ecc. v. 28), cannot be understood otherwise than as referring to the commencement of a more definite doctrinal development.* It would betray such a degree of ignorance and prejudice in Artemon, as the tes

* That the writer quoted here was the Roman presbyter Caius [see on p. 334 above], I would not positively assert; nor does it appear to me to be satisfactorly determined, that Artemon is to be sought for in Italy rather than elsewhere.

timony of even his adversaries will not allow us to ascribe to him, had he intended to deny that in hymns and hortatory discourses the divinity of Christ had been often and long asserted. But in a strictly didactic form, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was probably beginning to appear in apologetic writings and others of a similar nature, at a time near to that in which Artemon lived.

Inasinuch now as this man inclined to the side of cool and deliberate consideration, so it may be naturally supposed, that the views and phraseology in question with respect to the divine nature of Christ, were regarded by him as harmless assertions, so long as they were limited merely to the expression and communication of internal feeling; but when they came to be employed in strictly didactic discourse, where exact definitions were to be made out, then he objected to these and the like declarations. In case such didactic assertions had in this way but recently begun to come into use, Artemon could notwithstanding those older expressions in hymns and hortatory discourses, still say, that the practice of declaring Christ to be God had commenced in his time.* Certainly the word θεολοrnoat which is employed, has reference to a strictly didactic use; and it is testified, moreover, in respect to Artemon, that he laid great stress upon logical definitions of religious expressions, and on this account he subjected the meaning of passages in the Scriptures to a logical investigation, when a strictly doctrinal use was to be made of them.‡

It appears moreover, that as he did not in his School, neglect the knowledge of scientific matters on the one hand, so on the

Theodoret (Haeret. Fab. II. 4) represents him as merely saying, that this practice had commenced since apostolic times.

[ See the manner in which this word is employed by Theodoret, in reference to Artemon, on p. 333 above. Osoλoyśw properly means, to act as a sóloyos, i. e. to speak of God and divine things; and so Dr. S. would seem to understand it here. But Theodoret affirms that Artemon said, that "after the Apostles' time some began ɛoloγῆσαι χριστὸν, οὐκ ὄντα θεόν,” which I cannot well interpret except by translating it, Some began to call Christ God, who is not God; and in this way the word Jɛoloyέw is often employed in the fathers. Tr.]

[ It will be seen by this remark, that Dr. S. applies to Artemon and his School, what Euesbius says in a doubtful way, as mentioned on p. 333 above. TR.]

other he examined in a critical way the text of the Scriptures; and this, without feeling obliged to follow any particular dogmatic views, i. e. he did this in such a way as to act the part of a mere philologist. We see therefore in his case, that a historical and critical taste, which is so indispensable in theologizing, inclined him to doctrinal doubts of a kind like those which afterwards frequently, and sometimes predominantly, developed themselves. There was this difference, however, between his case and the one last mentioned, viz., that the fear of Jewish superstition was in after times the more common feeling; while in the case before us, when return to Paganism was yet quite a possible thing, the fear which developes itself is that of exchanging Christianity for heathen polytheism.

Thus constructed and fitted out, the vessel of Artemon sailed, to be sure, sufficiently near to the Jewish coast. Theodoret testifies of him, that he preserved pure and unadulterated the doctrine of μovaoyia; but still in such a way, according to his view, as would infringe upon the Christian economy, oixovoμiav, [i. e. the doctrines respecting the Godhead which are peculiar to the Gospel.]

I would not venture, however, to assert that Artemon suffered shipwreck as to this part of Christian belief; for it is only the Nazaraean view of this subject which appropriately constitutes that species of Christianity which returns back to Judaism. Artemon appears to have developed his views respecting the Godhead of the Redeemer, only in such a way as was adapted to express his aversion to every thing, which could in the most distant manner seem to be like polytheism. We may suppose his case to have been such, from the fact that the opinions of Paul of Samosata are sometimes traced back to him ;* and also from the fact that he did, in the most explicit manner, hold to the birth of Christ from a virgin, and that Jesus was not to be placed on a level with the prophets, but above them. Here, we have, in the perfect freedom of Jesus' human nature from sin, and in the more elevated measure of influence from the divine Logos, or from the exhibitions of the Spirit in Jesus,† some

* E. g. in Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. II. 8. Augustin, de Haeres. XLIV.

Even the sect of Melchisedeciani were no more than a shoot from the School of Artemon. What they taught of the relation of Christ to Melchisedek, was only the result of their mode of interpreting the VOL. V. No. 18.

43

thing on which true faith in the absolute sufficiency of redemption may at least take hold, although it cannot here find a basis for support which is entirely satisfactory.

But inasmuch as Theodotus of Byzantium is mentioned as sympathizing in belief with Artemon; and by some, moreover, he is regarded as the teacher of Artemon, while others do not admit that there was any connection between them in the same school or sect; so, (because this is not the proper place for the investigation of such a point), I must content myself by saying, in order to justify what I have already suggested, that I agree to the latter opinion." Moreover I do not think that unworthy of credit which is said of Theodotus, viz., that he came to his peculiar views in consequence of making little of denying Christ, which was so characteristic of the Gnostics; or at least, that he was forced to a public declaration and propagation of his views in regard to Christ, by the infamy which ensued upon his thoughtless step [of renouncing Christianity in the time of persecution]. With this agrees very well the story, that Theodotus, in order to gain credit again as a true confessor, endeavoured to make himself the visible head or leader of a party. The basis of this may be true, although that part of the story which has reference to the chastisement by angels may be false and visionary. Nay, I would even go still further; I must believe, that through the paucity of historic materials, that has happened which often takes place, viz., a confounding of things together which are diverse; so that many of the arguments which Epiphanius ascribes to Theodotus, belong rather to Artemon and his School. To the latter only can I ascribe arguments

epistle to the Hebrews, which of course was accommodated to the ground-work of their own system. Their design no doubt was to shew, that their stand-point was purely Christian, and was at a great remove from Judaism.

* Theodoret (ut supra) definitely designates him as the Head of another goatgia (brotherhood).

[ See the account usually given of this, on p. 334 above. TR.] [The anonymous author whom Eusebius quotes (see p. 333 above), mentions that Natalis, the chosen bishop of the Theodotians, was chastised by angels for his presumption in accepting office conferred by such a party; and that he was thus brought to repentance; and moreover, that he shewed the marks of the blows to the bishop of Rome, in order to move him to forgiveness. Eusebius does not say whether he himself gives any credit to this or not. TR.]

of a critical and logical character; and to him should I assign the learned scholars whose names are worth preserving, rather than to the frivolous oxureus (cobler or shoemaker) of Byzantium.

If now we make proper distinctions among the dissimilar elements which are so variously treated by ancient historians, we may find, in those early times, a phenomenon which has often been repeated in the church. Artemon is a leader of those, in whom a deeply-rooted earnestness produces efforts to check all harsh and easily perverted expressions respecting what is of a wonderful nature in our creed, and to keep such expressions away from the region of scientific theology; and of course of those whose favourite object it is, to introduce and render current the more moderate kind of expressions respecting such subjects.

To such views of the importance of moderate and limited expressions, does the unreflecting spirit of skepticism in many easily attach itself; for they are ready to admit nothing but what is the merest and most common matter of fact, and no where do they manifest any desire for what belongs to the wonderful, nor appear to possess any capacity to relish it. It is a favourite contrivance of this class of persons, to lean on such or such a prop, and to represent themselves as belonging to this or that party. Such people, in my opinion, have in Theodotus a leader; and it usually happens to them, as it did to him; for he came by such pretences to be so confounded with Artemon, that to the latter was ascribed the blame which belonged to the former; while on the other hand, Theodotus took on himself a part of the merit which could properly be ascribed only to Ar

temon.

3. Creed of Praxeas.

[INTRODUCTION. Of Praxeas we find little that is of a personal nature in the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Tertullian says that he was of Asia: Ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit homo; cont. Prax. cap. 1. The story among the ancients concerning him was, that he had been thrown into prison on account of his stedfast adherence to the Christian faith; and that this circumstance greatly added to the credit which he had among the churches.

The time in which he made his appearance at Rome, was probably when Victor was bishop there (A. D. 192-202).