ANTHROPOMORPHITES or ANTHROPIANS,--fancied that God had a human body. They grounded their opinion upon a passage in the book of Genesis, in which God says-Come let us make man to our own image and likeness; also upon all the other passages of holy writ which attribute hands, eyes, feet and other human parts, to Almighty God. (Nicephorus, 1. 11, c. 14, l. 13, c. 10, Ittig. de Hær.) This heresy began to show itself as early as the fourth age, and re-appeared at the commencement of the tenth. The tenth century, branded with great reason for its peculiar ignorance and stupidity, was incapable of producing any errors but such as this. Men's intellects were too dull to conceive any thing which could not be represented under corporcal forms. Angels were supposed to be in fact-men with wings, as seen in paintings on the walls of churches; and the more ignorant sort imagined, that every thing passed in much the same way above, as here below. Some believed that St Michael celebrated mass in the presence of the divine Majesty every Monday; and on that account, they frequented his church on this day rather than on any other. (Hist. Literaire de France, 1. 5, p. 10.)

ANTIMARIANITES, or Antidicomarianites-a name given to those who denied the virginity of the mother of our Blessed Redeemer, and pretended that she had other children by Joseph, because it is said in the gospel, that Jesus Christ had some brethren. (See HELVIDIUS. Epiph. Hær. 78.)

ANTINOMIANS-a term importing-enemies of the law. See AGRICOLA, their first author.

ANTIOCHIANISM, or the schism of Antioch-continued upwards of eighty years. Its origin was as follows:-The Arians having expelled Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, intruded Eudoxius into his see. Eudoxius was a bigotted Arian; and numbers of zealous catholics still adhered to Eustathius. After his death, upon Eudoxius's being translated to Constantinople, much party-work and intrigue ensued at Antioch in the nomination of a new bishop; till all at length agreed to raise Meletius to the episcopal dignity. Meletius, in his sermons, reprobated Arianism, and was banished in consequence. The Arians then chose Euzoius, a furious stickler of their party; and those catholics who were attached to Meletius, from that period began to hold their assemblies apart. Thus was Antioch divided into three distinct parties; that of the catholics who acknowledged Eustathius for their lawful pastor, and refused to communicate either with the Arians, or with the catholics attached to Meletius; because they considered him as intruded by the Arian faction: the second party consisted of the latter description of

catholics; and the third was that of the Arians. On the accession of Julian the apostate to the empire, the exiled catholic prelates were suffered to return from banishment; and Lucifer of Cagliari, one of that number, and legate to the pope, taking Antioch in his way, ordained Paulinus bishop; conceiving, that the catholics attached to Meletius would readily join themselves to Paulinus. He was disappointed of his expectations; and the schism was perpetuated-though without any real difference in doctrinal points, till the year 339.

The ANTITACTE-were heretics who deemed it a part of duty to practise whatever was prohibited in holy scripture. They were a branch of Cainites, and made their first appearance about the year 160. Their morality was of a piece with their impious and abandoned principles. (See CAINITES. Thedoret, Hær. I. 1. c. 16. Ittigius de Hær. sect. 2, c. 16.

Bibl. Aut. Eccles. sec. 2, art. 6.)

ANTITRINITARIANS-are all those, in globo, who deny the mystery of the most Blessed Trinity.

Revelation informs us, that there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,-existing in one divine substance. In this consists the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. The union of the three persons in one only individual substance, simple and uncompounded, includes the whole difficulty of this mystery. The mystery itself is denied two ways;-either by supposing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are not three persons, but different names only, given to the self-same thing;-or, by supposing that these three persons are three distinct substances. The abbot Joachim; some Socinian ministers; Sherlock, Whiston, and Clark, imagined it equally impossible, not to recognise in the sacred writings-the existence of three divine persons, and to unite them in one simple and individual substance. Hence they erroneously concluded the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be three distinct substances. Sabellius, on the other hand, and Praxeas, with Servetus and Socinus, maintained it inconsistent with reason and revelation, to suppose the existence of a plurality of substances in the Godhead, or to unite in one simple substance three persons essentially distinct. This false idea led them to deduce an inference equally erroneous:—that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were not persons, but mere denominations attributed to the divinity, in order to characterise its various operations ad extra. Hence the Antitrinitarians are of two kinds ;-the Tritheists, who contend that the three divine persons are so many distinct substances; and the Unitarians, who maintain that the three persons are

merely different denominations of the same divine substance. The brevity which we have prescribed to ourselves in this smalltreatise, will not allow us to enter into the intricacies of theological discussion concerning this incomprehensible mystery of the christian religion, handed down to us from the primitive ages of the church as a fundamental article of faith. (See ARIANS and MACEDONIANS.) We will beg leave only to observe, that the church has invariably condemned-both those who believed the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be merely three different denominations of the divine substance; and those who maintained them to be three distinct substances. Whence it plainly follows, that the church has always maintained the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as we do at this day. Catholic divines have solidly refuted the Socinian objections against this mystery. Among others, the great Bossuet and Petavius may be read with satisfaction upon the subject. Our English theolo gians too, have many of them eminently distinguished themselves in the defence of this grand point of christian doctrine. (See particularly Isaaci Barrow opuscula.)

The author of the Letters upon what he conceives Essential in Religion is pleased to contradict all christian antiquity, when he pretends that the words-Trinity and Persons-ought to be suppressed, and declares, he looks upon this dogma as perfectly superfluous. Had he been better acquainted with the history of the christian religion and its essence, he would have thought far otherwise. The whole economy of the christian religion supposes this mystery; and the christian cannot know what he owes to God, if he does not know how the three persons of the Blessed Trinity concur in effecting his salvation. Consequently, this mystery was revealed to us-not to be the object of our speculations, but to impress upon our mind more forcibly some idea of the love of God for man And can such an impression-impelling us to fulfil the duties of religion,-be deemed superfluous?

APELLES-was a disciple of the heretic Marcion, towards the middle of the second century. In opposition, however, to his master's doctrine of two principles, he by a kind of instinctfor which he acknowledges himself unable to account-admitted only one. This he conceived to be an eternal and necessary Being. To explain the origin of evil consistently with the ideas which he had formed to himself, he imagined, that this divine Being was totally indifferent with regard to what passed among men; that he had created a multitude of angels, and among the rest, one whom Apelles denominated an Angel of Fire. latter, he supposed, had created our sublunary world upon the model of a higher and more perfect one. But as this Creator happened to be himself not very good, it happened also very

The

naturally, that the world which he produced was not much better, He acknowledged that Jesus Christ was son of the supreme God, and that he descended from heaven in these latter times together with the Holy Ghost, to save those that should believe in him, and to instruct them in the knowledge of heavenly things; as well as to teach them to despise the Creator and all his works. Thus, the doctrine of Apelles had some affinity with that of Marcion. But he did not hold with him, that Christ had assumed a mere phantastic body. However, in order to make him independent of the Creator, he pretended that Jesus Christ had formed unto himself a body composed of parts, which he had borrowed from each of the celestial regions through which he passed in his descent upon earth; and that on his return to the upper world, he had restored to each of the heavens what had been taken thence. Against the absurd errors of Apelles, Tertullian wrote a learned book which is not now extant. Rhodo likewise refuted his system. At the same time he informs us, how he could not help holding in contempt a person, who was unable to allege any proof of his own doctrine; there being nothing more ridiculous than one who wishes to commence teacher of other men, while himself is at a loss how to account for his own eccentric opinions. (Rhodo apud Euseb. 1. 5, c. 13. Epiph. Hær. 44. Aug. Hær. 23. Tert. de Præscript. c. 30, 31. Baron. ad an. 146.)

APELLITES—were the sectarists of Apelles. See last article.

APHTHARTODOCTE-disciples of Julian of Halicarnassus, who pretended that our Redeemer's body was incapable of suffering, and incorruptible: they appeared about the year 365. (Niceph. 1. 17, c. 29. Damascen.)

APOLLINARIS-bishop of Laodicea, after having been one of the most zealous defenders of the consubstantiality of the Son of God, which he had proved against the Arians by an infinite number of passages in holy scripture ascribing to Jesus Christ all the attributes of the divinity,-denied that he had any human soul, and imagined that the divinity had supplied its place. But, observing that our Blessed Redeemer had experienced within himself impressions which could not apply immediately to the divinity, he fancied, that Christ must have had a sensitive soul-agreeably to the Pythagorean system which supposes in man a rational soul, or a pure intelligence not subject to the tumult of the passions; and another, incapable of reason, and merely sensitive.

It is very easy to refute this error; for holy scripture plainly teaches, that Jesus Christ was man; and that he became like to men-in all things saving only sin. (Heb. 4. 15.) It informs

us, that in his childhood he increased in wisdom as he advanced in age. (Luc. ii. 40.) This must be understood, necessarily, of his rational soul: the divinity could not receive any accession of wisdom ;-nor could a soul merely sensitive, acquire new lights. Although this is self-evident, Mr Whiston chose to err with Apollinaris; and asserts that the divinity itself suffered. He affects to recommend his strange opinion to all christians, and pretends it was the doctrine of the fathers who flourished since the council of Nice. But he does not appear to have made many proselytes.

Apollinaris was in universal estimation as one of the first characters of his age, in learning, erudition and piety. Hence we should be very diffident of our own lights, and very tender with regard to the religious errors of our fellow-creatures; since neither science, nor genius, nor piety itself secures us against mistakes.

Apollinaris flourished about the close of the fourth age, under Julian. His heresy was first condemned in the council of Alexandria, held in the year 362 under St Athanasius—after the death of Constantius: it proscribed the heresy; but did not name its author. Pope Damasus also condemned the doctrine of Apollinaris, and afterwards proceeded to his deposition. His sentiments were again examined and anathematized by the second general council at Constantinople. They were refuted by St Athanasius, the two SS Gregories of Nazianzum and Nyssa, Theodoret, and St Ambrose.

APOLLINARISTS-the sectaries of Apollinaris. See last article.

APOSTOLICS-a branch of the ancient Encratites, who boasted their perfect imitation of the apostles. Those petty sects of reformers in the twelfth century, who dispersed themselves over the different provinces of France, were likewise denominated Apostolics. See the articles ALBIGENSES and WALdenses.

These latter sects maintained respectively-errors absolutely irreconcileable with each other, and often adopted contradictory practices. They were all condemned in various councils assembled in order to suppress their errors; which they maintained with such determined obstinacy, under the severest hardships, that Ervin was at a loss to account-how the members of Satan should exhibit as striking instances of constancy in so bad a cause, as the faithful had done in dying for the truth.

The sect of the Apostolics was renewed by a person from the very dregs of the people named Segarel, who to imitate, as he pretended, our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, caused himself to be swathed, rocked in a cradle, and suckled at the breast! He was attended by troops of idle vagabonds, who had all things even to their wives, in common. The punisomen of their