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
and threatnings to permit Arius to return to Alexandria However they could not then accomplish their purpose and we shall see in the sequel the bickerings which they had with this Bishop Since the Council of Nice had been distmist and that they had been banisht This usage and the decisions of Nice had but only outwardly allai'd the disputes which lasts still when they were recalled Eusebius assures us that the Bishops of Egypt had been ever since over Head and Ears in quarrels and Socrates says (a) lib. 1. c. 23. that he found from the Letters of the Bishops of those times that some were scandaliz'd at the word Consubstantial examining says he this term with too great application they fell foul on one another and their quarrels did not ill resemble a combat in the dark It appears they sufficiently bespattered one another with calumnies without knowing wherefore Those who rejected the word Consubstantial thought the others hereby introduced the opinions of Sabellius and Montanus and treated them as impious as denying the existence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Son of God On the contrary those who stuck to the word Consubstantial imagining the others would introduce a plurality of Gods had as great aversion as if they would have reestablisht Paganism Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accused Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea for the Nicene Creed Eusebius denied it and charged on the other side Eustathius of Sabellianism thus the Bishops wrote one against another They all accorded in saying the Son has a particular Existence and that there is only one God in three Hypostases yet they could not agree nor remain quiet This is the effect of equivocal terms which were introduced into Christianity without well defining them and the bad custom of most of the Ancients who never speak calmly of these matters who have thought of nothing less than the expressing themselves clearly and who seem to prove they spake sincerely when they testified to believe that the mistery about which they disputed was incomprehensible by expressing themselves thereon in an unintelligible manner Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (a) Socr. lib. 1. cap. 24. accusing of Arianism Eusebius of Cesarea Paulinus of Tyre and Patrophilus of Scythopolis and these Bishops accusing him in their turns of Sabellianism to know who had reason on their side a Synod was assembled at Antioch in 329. the conclusions of which were disadvantagious to Eustathius It consisted of Bishops who had sign'd the Nicene Creed only by force among whom were the two Eusebius's Theognis of Nice Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria Narcissus of Neroniada Aetius of Lydiae Alphaeus of Apamea and Theodorus of Sidon Assoon as ever they arriv'd at Antioch a Woman of ill fame presented her self to 'em with a little Child which she said to have had by Eustathius and desired them to do her right against him as refusing to receive his Child Eustathius made great protestations of his innocency but this Woman having been believed upon her Oath he was deposed (a) Theod. Sozom. some Authors affirmed that the Arian Bishops had suborn'd her to have an occasion for the deposing of Eustathius and that the true cause of his deposal was his adherence to the Nicene Creed Others say it was the pretended Sabellianism of which he was accused and some have contented themselves with saying there were other accusations for which he had been deposed whereupon Socrates (b) loco cit makes this remarkable reflection The Bishops are wont to deal thus with all those whom they depose accusing and declaring them impious without shewing wherein A Bishop was afterwards to be substituted in Eustathius his place and the Arian Bishops cast their eyes on Eusebius of Cesarea But there arose a violent sedition hereupon some willing to retain Eustathius and others accepting Eusebius They had come to Fisticuffs had not the Emperor taken care by sending one of his Officers who appeased the People and made them understand how Eustathius deserv'd to be sent into Exile and in effect he was sent into Thrace However Eusebius did a thing which made him receive very honourable Letters from the Emperor which he has inserted in the life of this Prince which is that according to the Canons he refused to pass from one Church to another Constantin heapt up Praises on him by reason of this refusal and wrote to the Council and the Church of Antioch to let him remain where he was So that instead of Eusebius there was elected Euphronius Priest of Cappadocia whom the Emperor had named with George of Arethusa to the end the Council might choose which they pleased (a) Soc. 1.27 Seq Soz. Theod. Having deposed Eustathius the Arian Bishops labored to procure the return of Arius to Alexandria where Athanasius would not permit him to enter as has been already said They engaged the Emperor to write to this Bishop but Athanasius still defended himself in that he could not receive into the Church those who had forsook the Faith and been excommunicated so that Constantin wrote to him an angry Letter that he should receive into the Church those he ordered him under pain of banishment The obstinacy of this Bishop who would part with none of the advantages which the Council of Nice had granted to his Predecessor against the Meletians had also drawn on him the enmity of these Schismaticks The Council had ordained that Melece should only retain the name of Bishop without exercising any function of his Office and without ordaining any Successor and that those whom he had ordained should have no part in Elections However Melece at his death had ordained one John for his Successor and the Meletian Priests would have the same priviledges as others Athanasius could not consent to any thing of this and equally ill treated the Meletians and Arians This conduct reunited the two parties who had been till that time opposite The Meletians were of the Nicene opinion but by conversing with the Arians they soon entred into their Sentiments and joyn'd together to induce Constantin to accept of several Accusations against Athanasius as having imposed a kind of Tribute on Egypt in ordering it to furnish the Church of Alexandria with a certain number of Linnen Garments in having supplied a certain seditious Person with Mony named Philumenus in having caused a Chalice to be broken overthrown the Table of a Church and burnt the Holy Books for having mis-used several Priests and committed divers Violences in having cut off the Arm of a Meletian Bishop named Arsenius and keeping it to use in Magical Operations Constantin acknowledg'd the Innocency of Athanasius in regard of the two first Accusations and for the rest he refer'd it to an Assembly of divers Bishops which was at Cesarea in Palestine where Athanasius not appearing he was cited to a Synod at Tyre in the year 334 and which consisted of Bishops of Egypt Lybia Asia and Europe Athanasius was in Suspence whether he
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