and made a Discourse in Latin wherein he represented That he had no greater Affliction than the Divisions he observ'd among Christians exhorting the Bishops very earnestly to Peace An Interpreter afterwards turn'd the Speech into Greek for the Eastern Bishops understood not Latin Although it seems that Business was prepared in particular Assemblies before hand yet there arose at first a great Controversie and Constantine had the patience to hear long Contests wherein he exercised the Office of Moderator in endeavouring to accord those whose Sentiments or Expressions appear'd remote in upholding the Arguments which seem'd to him weak and in giving Praises to such who seem'd to speak well Eusebius of Cesarea long held our against the use which they would (a) Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. c. Theod. lib. i. cap. 12. make of the Word Consubstantial He offered another Confession of Faith wherein it was omitted and wherein he call'd the Son barely God born of God Light of Light Life of Life only Son first born of all Creatures begotten of his Father before all Worlds The Emperor approv'd this Confession of Faith and exhorted the Fathers of the Synod to follow it in adding thereto only the Word Consubstantial Afterwards the Confession was read which had been drawn up with this Word the Terms of which have been already recited Anathema's were joyn'd thereto against those who should use on this Occasion other Terms than those of the Holy Scripture which must be understood with an Exception of those which the Council thought fit to confecrate This Proposition was particularly condemn'd That the Son existed not before he was begotten Eusebias and others requested That the Terms of the Symbol and Anathema's might be explain'd 1. It was said That the Word Begotten was used and not made because this last Word expresses the Production of Creatures to which the Son has no likeness being of a Substance far more excellent than they begotten by the Father in an incomprehensible manner 2. As for the Word Consubstantial it is proper to the Son not in the sense wherein it is taken when we speak of Bodies or mortal Animals the Son being Consubstantial with the Father neither by a Division of the Divine Substance of which he possesses a part nor by any change of this same Substance The meaning of which is only this That the Son has no Resemblance with the Creatures which he has made but that he is in all things like to his Father by whom he has been begotten or that he is not of another Hypostasis or Substance but of that of the Father 3. Those were condemn'd who said that the Son was not before he was born seeing that he existed before his corporal Birth and even before his divine Generation according to Constantin's Argument (a) These Words of Eusebius's Letter are not to be found but in Theodoret Socrates having retrenched them For before said he that he was actually begotten he was in Power in his Father in a manner unbegotten the Father having been always Father as he is ever always King and Saviour and all things in his Power being eternally in the same Condition It will perhaps seem that this is pure Arianism and that this is to deny the Eternity of the Son but we must observe that in the Style of that time to exist before the World and to be eternal is the same thing seeing that to prove his Eternity this Passage is cited (b) Vid Ep. Alexandri Ep. In the Beginning was the Word and it sufficed to shew that he was begotten before there was any time So that we must not reject these Words as suppositious meerly for this Reason and it is so ordinary to find hard Expressions in those who attempt to explain in any sort this incomprehensible Mystery that if one might hence judge of them one would be apt to declare them all Hereticks which is to say to anathemize the greatest part of the Ancients Besides this St. Athanasius who (a) De. Deret Nican Tom. l. pag. 251. openly treats Eusebius as an Arian makes allusion to one part of this passage and draws thence a consequence which Eusebius without doubt would not have owned which is that the Arians believed that the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not exist before his corporal Birth After these explications Eusebius subscribed as he himself testifies in the Letter above recited (b) Athanas ibid. altho ' he had refused it the day before The long and formal opposition which he had made against the word Consubstantial caused it to be suspected that there was want of sincerity in this subscription In fine Arius and his Party were anathematized and all their Books condemned and particularly a Poem which Arius had entituled Thalia Most of the Arian Bishops subscribed after Euesebius his example to this confession of Faith and the Anathema's after the explications above mentioned Yet there were some of 'em who refused at first to sign (a) Socr. lib. l. cap. 8. the principal of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis of Nice Maris of Calcedon Theonas of Marmarica and Secondus of Ptolemaida They were immediately Excommunicated by the Council and were to be sent afterwards as well as Arius into Exile by Constantin The Council wrote a circular Letter (b) Socr. lib. l. Cap. 9. to the Churches of Egypt denoting to 'em in what sort they had carried themselves in the business of Arius and what had been ordered touching Melece the Schismatical Bishop and the observation of Easter Constantin wrote also to the Church of Alexandria to assure it that after a full and mature examination Arius had been condemned by the common consent He greatly vaunted of the moderation and learning of the Bishops making no mention of their quarrels according to the Custom observed in publick Acts and such like occasions where every thing is supprest which may give an ill opinion of the Decrees of these kinds of Assemblies In another Letter directed to the Bishops and Churches he enjoyns the name of Porphyrus to be given to Arius and his followers to be called Porphyrians This Porphyry was a famous Platonist who had written against the Christian Religion and whose Books Constantin had caus'd to be burnt Lucas Holstenius has written his Life which is to be found at the end of the Book of the Abstinence of Animals Constantin design'd to declare hereby Arius an Enemy to the Christian Religion and not in any manner reproach him with being a Platonist touching the Trinity seeing Constantin did not disapprove as we have seen the sentiments of Plato It 's true the Arians have been upbraided with their too great application to the reading of this Phylosopher and other Heathen Authors Revera de Platonis et Aristophanis sinu says St. Jerom (a) Advers Lucif T. 2. p. 142. in episcopatum alleguntur Quotus enim quisque est qui non apprime in his eraditus sit Accedit ad
fashion The Arian Bishops offended with this Book had begun to examin it when they were as yet at Jerusalem but having been obliged to pass over to Constantinople they had only enjoyned Marcellus to alter his Opinion according to the Stile of that time He promist he would burn his Book but having not done it and even refusing to do it his affair was reassumed at Constantinople and he was deposed Eusebius of Cesarea wrote two Books expresly against him wherein he criticizes his work and three others which he entituled of Ecclesiastick Theology wherein he establisht the opinions which he thought Orthodox touching the Divinity and refuted those of Marcellus and divers other Hereticks Marcellus was afterwards (a) Socr. lib. II. 20. Sozom lib. II. cap. 29. reestablisht in the Synod of Sardica because he affirmed his expressions had been misunderstood and being an Enemy to the Arians he insinuated Himself into the Friendship of Athanasius who perhaps was surpriz'd by the Equivocal Expressions used by Marcellus It 's certain that if we may judge of him by the Fragments which Eusebius cites he scarcely knew what he would say himself or else he conceal'd his Opinions under obscure terms lest he should fall into trouble After that Athanasius had been sent into Exile (a) id lib. I. c. 27. seq Arius had returned to Alexandria but his presence being likely to cause a disorder by reason of the great number of those who followed the sentiments of Athanasius the Emperor recalled this Priest to Constantinople and to assure himself entirely of his belief of which the Orthodox still doubted he offered him the Nicene Creed to sign which he did without ballancing and moreover swore he was of that opinion A report ran that he had hid under his Arm a Writing which contain'd his Opinion and that he barely swore he believ'd what he had wrote but there is no great certainty to be expected in what his Enemies say of him Perhaps he thought like Eusebius of Cesarea that one might give to the words of the Creed a sense which amounted to his sentiment although he wisht they had made use of other terms What the Fathers of Nice said more than he consisting in in something absolutely incomprehensible perhaps moreover he counted that for nothing However Alexander Bishop of Constantinople refused to receive him into Communion although the Emperor had ordered him to do it and a great number of Bishops and of the People urged him to it Besides this the Arian Bishops were preparing to hold a Council to examin afresh the question agitated at Nice and had markt a day in which they were to meet to discourse about it and to conduct Arius into the Church maugre Alexander In this extremity knowing not how to maintain his refusal the History tells us that he shut himself up in a Church call'd Peace and set himself very devoutly to pray to God not that he would convert Arius or that he would discover to himself the Truth but that if the opinion of Arius was true he himself might not see the day set apart to discourse of it or that if his own belief were true Arius who was the cause of so great mischiefs might be punisht for his Infidelity A Prayer so little charitable and whence might be seen that this Bishop was more concern'd for his reputation than the Truth fail'd not of being heard seeing that the next morning which was Sunday or the same day at night as Arius went to the Church accompani'd by those of his Party or in some other place for the Historians vary in passing by the Market of Constantin he had so great occasion to go to ease himself that he was forced to betake himself to the common Privies where instead of finding ease he evacuated his Bowels and thus died suddenly Since that time Passengers were commonly shew'd these places of easement and no body dared sit down on the same place where Arius sat 'T is said that a Rich Arian to abolish the memory of it bought afterwards this Place of the Publick and there built an House It 's thus that Rufinus Socrates and Sozomen relate the last Events of the life of Arius But St. Athanasius says that (a) in Epst ad Serapionem having been recalled by the solicitations of those of his Party he offered his Confession of Faith to the Emperor and swore that he did not believe any thing else after which those that protected him would introduce him into the Church at his going out of the Emperors Palace but that he died without having been received into Communion (b) De. Valvis A Learned Man is of Opinion in this matter That the Arius who was received into Communion at Jerusalem was a Priest of the Party of the famous Arius and not he himself who had already died out of the Communion of the Church for without this it must be said that Athanasius has been mistaken But were it granted him that this Bishop was mistaken in speaking of a Man whom he every moment orewhelmed with injuries it cannot be found strange especially not having been at Constantinople then when what he relates must have hapned One may farther say that Athanasius has related by way of abridgment and little exactly what he had heard say of Arius and that he regarded him as an excommunicated Person having been only received by a Council whose Authority Athanasius would not acknowledge it consisting principally of Persons whose opinions had been anathematized at Nice It is far more natural thus to interpret this passage of Athanasius than to reject wholly as false an History so circumstanc'd as that of the latter years of the life of Arius in respect of certain facts which the Historians which we have already cited had no interest to alter Arius being dead apparently of a sudden death peradventure by Poyson which may have given occasion to the Tragical manner in which the Historians mention it the Disputes started on his occasion dyed not with him (a) Sozâ—m lib. II. c. 31. Those who were of Athanasius's Party at Alexandria besought of God his return in the Publick Prayers and ceased not to importune the Emperor to make him be recalled Constantin was oblig'd to write to the People of that Town a Letter wherein he upbraided them for their Lightness and Folly and enjoyns the Ecclesiasticks to remain quiet and wherein he declares he would not recall Athanasius whom he treats as a seditious Person and one who had been condemned by a Council He answers likewise to Anthony the Hermit That he could not slight the Judgment of the Council of Tyre because that supposing some among the Bishops were passionate yet it is not probable that so great a number of Wise and Learned Bishops should all of 'em act by passion and that Athanasius was an Insolent Proud and Troublesom Fellow Constantin wrote these Letters but a little time before his death which hapned in the year 337 the circumstances of which may be seen in his life writ by Eusebius Yet we must remember that this is rather a Panegyrick than an uninterest History whence it is that he says nothing of the death of his two Wives and the eldest Son of this Emperor whom he had put to death thro' jealousy or revenge Eusebius was always of the Arians side Yet Socrates has undertaken to justifie him (b) Socr. lib. II. c. 21. and so do's Dr. Cave seem to do thinking himself thereto obliged thro' Christian Charity whereas the love of truth should oblige all Historians never to vary from iâ— But it is this pretended charity which extends it self only to Fathers which are respected as Orthodox which has been the cause that we have in a manner only Panegyricks of the Ancients wherein their defects are ever supprest when they cannot be covered with the mask of some Vertues Eusebius as it appears by the conduct he held at the Council of Nice was a dextrous Person who did not scruple to subscribe to terms which were not pleasing to him provided he could expound them in a sense according to his mind tho' little conformable to that of those who set them up For in fine a Man must shut his Eyes touching what he says in his Letter to the Church of Cesarea not to see that he understood otherwise the terms of the Symbol than Athanasius did He was a great admirer of Origen several of whose opinions may be seen in his life he lived not long after Constantin for he dyed in the year 340. St. Jerome in several places calls him Signifer et Princeps Arianorum Speaking of the great Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea Athanasius in his banishment wrote a Creed at Rome which he presented to a Council sitting there yet that Creed was not publish'd till above three hundred years after in the Toletan Council as Baronius himself owns neither can any one tell us what that was for that which passes commonly amongst us under the name of the Athanasian Creed and is read in our Churches was drawn up by God knows who as Vossius de Tribus Symbolis Camerarius and Ell. du Pin in his B. des Aut. Eccles do ingenuously confess For how durst Athanasius make a new Creed after the Nicene Besides no Writer of that time mentions it no not Athanasius himself It seems to have been broach't above 600 years after that age in which time a profound ignorance had overspread Christendom however the Eastern Churches would never own it no not at this day See more in the above mentioned learned Authors Constantin being dead Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia a refin'd Courtier soon made himself Master of Constantius and all the Grandees of the Palace in whom he rooted his beloved Arianism being assisted by Constantia's Priest the Empress was soon gain'd over and the Roman Empire became for the most part Arian Athanasius being condemn'd not only by many Eastern but also by several great Western Councils Afterwards they fell so to Logger-heads that the Western Church excommunicated the Eastern and the Eastern return'd the same Complement upon the Western and there we 'll leave them FINIS
hoc quod Ariana haeresis magis cum sapientia seculi facit et argumentationum rivos de Aristotelis fontibus matuaetur Thus the Orthodox and Hereticks equally approved the sentiments of Plato each of them apparently explaining them according to his Hypothesis Constantin further ordered in the fame Letter to burn all Arius his Books to the end that not only his perniâ—ions Doctrin be destroyed but that there remain no monument of it to posterity He likewise declared that if any one concealed any of his Books and did not bring them to be burnt he should be put to death after it had been proved upon him There is moreover another Letter of this Emperor wherein he enjoyns all Churches to celebrate Easter according to the Canons of the Council Eusebius and Theognis either effectually believing that the Creed of the Council might admit an Arian sense (a) Soctat lib. 1. cap. 14. or affrighted by the Emperors severity offered to sign the Creed but refused to anathematize Arius affirming that opinions were attributed to him which he never did one Eusebius so ordered by the means of his Friends about the Emperor (b) ex Epist Const ad Nicomed ap Theal lib. 1. cap. 20. that what he desired was granted him which is to say that they were contented with his subscription to the Creed Theognis and Maris did as much and the Letter of the Council to the Churches of Egypt mentions only Theonas and Secondus who had absolutely stood out Phylostorgus likewise acknowledges (a) lib. 1. cap. 8. 9. that all the Arian Bishops subscribed except two and reproaches the rest with their insincerity in that they had explain'd after the Arian fashion the terms of the Council by the advice of Constantia the Emperors Sister He adds that Secondus setting out to go into his Exile said to Eusebius you have subscribed Eusebius that you might not be banisht but for my part I believe what God has revealed to me which is that you shall be carried into Exile before the year comes about Arius if we believe the Orthodox had not the Courage to resolve on Banishment with Secondus and Theonas He pretended a desire to be better instructed and sought an occasion of conferring with Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria (b) Athan. T. 1. p. 111. whose Acts are still extant If this Relation be true one may conjecture That Arius designedly defended himself but ill the better to yield to his Adversaries Reasons as he did to obtain his Grace He acknowledges at the end of this Conference the Equality and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father after which he shews himself entirely reclaim'd from his Error The Fathers of the Council receiv'd him as a Penitent without setling him in his Employ and the Emperor only forbad him to go to Alexandria Euzoius and Achillas collegues of Arius were also pardoned and St. Jerome adds (a) In Lucifer p. 145. T. 2. to them eight Bishops of which he names but three and one Priest Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis of Nice Saras Priest of Lybia and Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea It appears from the sequel of the Dialogue that the Arians denied that the Bishops of their Party were reconciled at Nice but St. Jerom grounds himself on the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council which yet he had not then at hand excusing himself from naming the four other reconciled Bishops by a Rhetorical Figure reliqui quos enumerare longumest There needed not so much time for to set down four names but without doubt he did not remember them The first who sign'd the Council among the Orthodox was Hosius Bishop of Cordova afterwards Vitonius and Vincent Roman Priests sent by Sylvester after them the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem and in fine the other Bishops Those who favour the Pretensions of the Church of Rome say That Hosius sign'd in Quality of Legat from the Bishop of that City but the most ancient Historians have not a Word of it The Council ending the 25th of August Constantin took his farewel of them in a very fine Harangue (a) Euseb in vit ejus wherein he exhorted the Fathers to thoughts of Peace and to a mutual Forbearance but which was of little Effect as will appear by the Sequel Thus ended this famous Council the Circumstances of which would be better known to us if the fear of offending great Persons the Zeal of some the Passion of others and the Respect which Posterity has had for the Decisions of so famous an Assembly had not hindred contemporary Authors from writing the History with exactness and the Disengagement remarkable in good Historians and retain'd those who have liv'd since from saying what they knew perhaps that was disadvantagious St. Athanasius in a little Treatise already cited and where he seems at first to be willing to enter on this History transported by the Zeal of which he was full falls on Controversie and Invectives when one might expect him ready to relate Circumstances Sozomen says That he did not dare to relate the Creed of Nice (a) Lib. 1. c. 20. because some of his pious and learned Friends in this matter advised him to suppress the things which the Initiates and the Priests alone should understand and that according to their Council he had conceal'd what was to be kept silent A while after the Emperor (b) Sozom. lib. 1. c. 25. being to celebrate the Feast of his Vicennales which is to say of the twentieth Year of his Empire invited the Bishops to Byzantia which he thought of re-establishing in giving it the new Name of Constantinople where he magnificently treated them and made each of 'em a-part a Present after which they return'd to their Bishopricks It seems that it was about this time that he wrote very obliging Letters to Eusebius of Cesarea (c) Socr. lib 1. cap. 9. in giving him order to procure him fifty Copies fairly written of the Holy Scripture As to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis his Friend they were no sooner return'd into their Bishopricks but they began again to Preach publickly Arianism (d) Ex. Epi. Const ad Nicom l. and receiv'd into their Communion some Persons of Alexandria who had been thence expelled for this Opinion Constantin advertised of this sent them into Exile three Months after the Council and establish'd at Nicomedia one Amphion for Bishop and Chrestus at Nice Thus was Secondus's Prediction accomplish'd and Insincerity punished Two Months after Alexander Bishop of Alexandria died which occasion'd great Disturbances in that City The Orthodox (a) Sozom. II. 17. Philost III. 11. say that Athanasius Deacon of this Church whom Alexander had brought along with him to Nice by reason of his Knowledge had been denoted several times by this Bishop for his Successor but that he had hid himself a little before his Death for fear of being Elected and that having been found he was chosen by a
should present himself to this Synod which consisted of his principal Enemies Yet Constantin having threatned him with Banishment if he refused he therefore appeared and justified himself of the Accusation touching the Arm of Arsinius by bringing in this Person into the midst of them and deriding his Accusers It 's said moreover That a Woman being introduced into the Assembly accused him for having dishonoured her after she had entertain'd him in her House although he knew she had made a Vow of Virginity But it appeared that she did not so much as know Athanasius seeing she took one Timotheus a Priest for him who pretended to be the Bishop of Alexandria The business of the broken Chalice and the mis-using the Priests was a little more difficult Athanasius began by an Appeal from Eusebius of Nicomedia and the rest of the Bishops of his Party He afterwards said That he whose Chalice was pretended to have been broken and whose Name was Ischyras was not a Priest However without any regard to these Reasons there were sent some Arian Bishops to take Informations against him at Alexandria with Ischyras his Accuser but he protested highly against this Proceeding and went to Jerusalem where the Emperour was In the mean time the Informations from Egypt were receiv'd and Athanasius being loaded with them he was deposed in his Absence and forbid to go to Alexandria Arsenius having been admitted into Communion by the Council and made Bishop of Hypsyle a Town of Egypt subscrib'd to the Deposition of Athanasius although he had justifi'd him in reference to one of the Accusations brought against him The Sentence of the Council bore that he had slighted the Emperors Orders and made the Assembly wait for him in an indecent manner That he came to Tyre with a great multitude of People and endeavour'd to make a Disturbance there That he had for sometime refused to purge himself of the Crimes said to his Charge and uttered Injuries to divers Bishops That he would not submit to their judgment That he was convicted of breaking a Chalice by the Informations made against him at Alexandria Thus was Athanasius condemned by his Enemies who were his Judges as Arius had been anathematiz'd by Alexander his Predecessor and several other Bishops who had declared themselves against him before the Convocation of the Council The same usage has been observ'd in all the Assemblies of Bishops which have met since the Clergy having this Advantage above the Laity that they can be both Judges and Parties After the Deposal of Athanasius the Emperor wrote to the Fathers of the Council to repair as soon as possible to Jerusalem to celebrare the Dedication of the Church of the Apostles which was now finished Where being arriv'd they were magnificently receiv'd and made several Orations for the greater Solemnity of the Festival which hapned to be very luckily in the same year in which the Tricennales of the Emperor (a) In the Year 335. were to be celebrated which is to say the 30th year of his Reign Eusebius (b) In vit Const lib. iv 46 33. particularly made several Harang's before the Emperor who took a great deal of pleasure in hearing them insomuch that he would hear standing a long Oration which this Bishop made on the holy Sepulchre Eusebius well remembers this Honour the Emperor did him and the Praises he gave to his Oration touching Easter and carefully inserts in the Life of Constantin all the Letters he had receiv'd from the Emperor perhaps not out of Acknowledgment but rather to do himself Honour (a) Baronius ad bac tempora as has been reproach'd him The Bishops assembled at Jerusalem (b) Socr. lib. l. c. 33. having ended the Dedication of the Church which Constantin had newly built and there receiv'd into Communion Arius and Euzoius on the Emperors Recommendations Eusebius and Theognis say that Arius had been kindly receiv'd by the Bishops but in no sort that he was received into Communion which was perhaps for some years refused him to try his Sincerity Afterwards they wrote to the Church of Alexandria that she might receive them and be assured she would enjoy hence-forward a full Tranquility Envy having been driv'n out thence by the Deposal of Athanasius (a) Sozom. lib. II. 28. In the mean time this Bishop had gotten to Constantinople to complain to the Emperor of what he had suffered but he could obtain no Audience of him all that he could be heard to say was That he entreated the Emperor to cire to Constantinople the Bishops which were at Jerusalem to have another Examination of his Affair Constantin wrote to Jerusalem and complains in his Letter that in a time wherein the Barbarians began to acknowledge the true God The Christians who would be thought to have the My steries of God in their keeping for he durst not say that they kept them labour'd only to entertain Divisions and hatred among them not to say for the Destruction of Mankind And therefore he desired that the Bishops assembled at Jerusalem would meet at Constantinople to examine once for all the Affair of Athanasius and put some end to it This Letter being come to Jerusalem some of the Bishops return'd to their Dioceses and others to Constantinople These last perswaded according to some Authors (a) Id. the Emperor that Athanasius had effectually broken a Chalice or according to others (b) Socr. lib. 1. cap. 35. that he had threatned to stop the Convoy of Provisions which went every year from Alexandria to Constantinople of which three Bishops were Witnesses The Emperor provoked by these Accusations ordered him to retire to Treves a Town of the Belgick Gaule where he remain'd about two years The Bishops who were met at Constantinople (c) id cap. 36. deposed after this Marcellus of Ancyra as being fall'n into the opinion of Paul of Samosatia One Asterius who had taught Rhetorick in Cappadocia having embraced the Christian Religion had wrote some Books wherein he spake of the Divinity of the Son in the same terms as Arius Marcellus undertook to refute them but far from establishng the Pre-existence of the Son he denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ existed before his Birth or at least exprest himself in such a manner that one might believe he regarded the Reason or the Word not as a being that has his particular Existence but as I know not what kind of accident such as is the word or the found which is made in speaking He also very ill treated (a) Euseb cont Marcel lib. l. c. 4. in the same Book several Arian Bishops as the two Eusebius's Paulinus and Narcissus He charged likewise Origen for expounding the Holy Scripture according to the notions of heathen Philosophers and especially according to those of Plato from whom Marcellus affirmed he had taken his Doctrin of Principles which is to say of the Holy Trinity of which he had treated after the Platonick