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
Plurality of Voices The Heterodox affirm on the contrary that the Meletians being re-united to the Catholicks after the Death of Alexander fifty-four Bishops of Egypt took an Oath to elect by common consent his Successor but that seven among them broke their Oaths and chose Athanasius without the Participation of the rest Some even assure that the Voices were divided and the Election not being made quick enough Athanasius shut himself up with two Bishops into St. Denys's Church and caused himself to be consecrated maugre the other Bishops who made the Church-doors be broken open but too late the Ceremony being over Hereupon they Excommunicated him but having strengthn'd his Party he wrote in the Name of the City to the Emperor to give him Notice of his Election which was approv'd by this Prince who believ'd these Letters came effectually from the Magistracy of Alexandria There may have been Passion on the side of the Heterodox but heating our selves as we do for the Truth as well as for Errour and upholding sometimes the right side by indirect ways we may admit of some things which the Heterodox say and not blindly receive whatever the Orthodox relate It seems about this time Constantin made his Constitution a Euseb in ejus vit lib. III. c. 64. against the meetings of all Hereticks wherein he forbids them to assemble either in publick or private gives their Chappels to Catholicks and confiscates the Houses wherein they are found to meet performing their Devotions Eusebius adds that the Emperors Edict moreover contain'd that all Heretical Books should be seiz'd on and that Constantin's threatnings obliged a great number of Hereticks and Schismaticks to range themselves on the side of the Orthodox Church But some doing of it sincerely and others by force the Bishops applied themselves carefully to distinguish them and receiv'd only into the Church those who were real Converts The Arians had been ruin'd by particular Edicts so that all Heresies seem'd to be abolished in the Roman Empire But Constantin who had at first slighted the subject of the Dispute between Arius and Alexander as consisting only of different Expressions and who afterwards had considered it as a Point of the greatest Importance return'd again to a good Opinion of Arius whether he acted according to his present Interests or that he suffered himself to be led by those who were most about him or that in fine he really chang'd his Opinion a Socrat. lib. 1 c. 25. ex Ruffin Constantia Sister of Constantin and Widow of Licinus had among her Domesticks a Priest a friend to Arius who held the same Opinions as he did and who perswaded this Princess that Arius held not those Opinions he he was charged with in the manner as they were usually express'd that Alexander had accused him through Envy because he was esteem'd by the People and that the Council had done him wrong Constantia who much confided in this Priest easily believ'd him but dared not speak her Mind to the Emperour and being fall'n dangerously sick all that she could do before she died was to recommend this Priest to her Brother as a man highly vertuous and much devoted to the service of her Family A while after she died and this Priest having gotten the favour of Constantin held to him the same Discourse telling him That if he pleas'd to admit Arius to come before him and to explain his Opinion he would find that at bottom his Doctrin was the same as that of the Council which condemn'd him Constantin surpriz'd at the oddness of this Discourse answer'd That if Arius would sign the Nicexe Creed he would let him come into his Presence and would send him honourably to Alexandria This Priest having assured him of it Constantin sent Word to Arius to come to Court and Arius not daring at first to do it the Emperor wrote a Note to him in which he ordered him to come immediately at his Charge Arius obeyed this reiterated Order and being come to Constantinople with Enzoius they presented to the Emperor a Confession of their Faith wherein they barely said They believ'd that the Son was begotten of the Father before all Ages and that the Reason who is God had made all things as well in Heav'n as in Earth Constantin was fully satisfi'd with this Declaration so that either he had chang'd his Mind or giv'n small Attention or little comprehended the sense of the Nicene Creed However it was it appears by the Sequel That the Arian Bishops came by Degrees into favor and that the Emperor treated Arius with great kindness and permitted him to return to Alexandria It 's not punctually known when Arius was re-call'd but it 's certain he had been already when Eusebius and Theognis were which hapned three years after the Council of Nice in the year 328 according to the relation of Philostorgus (a) Lib. 3. cap. 18. these two Bishops wrote from the place of their Banishment a Letter wherein they complain (b) Socr. lib. 1. cap. 14. That they had been condemn'd without being heard altho their conduct had been approved of in the Council where having well examin'd the word Consubstantial they had in fine approved of it They added they had only refused to Anathematize Arius because they knew he was not such a one as he was described and seeing this was acknowledg'd by his being recalled it could not be just that they who suffered only on his account should remain in Exile after his Revocation This Letter was directed to the principal Bishops whom Eusebius and Theognis entreated to interceed for them with the Emperor In speaking of the Repeal of Arius they directly attribute it to these Bishops Your Piety say they has thought fit to treat him gently and to recal him A Learned man (c) Valesius ad locum observes in this place that Eusebius and Theognis attribute to the Bishops what the Emperor had done seeing it was he that had recalled Arius and that the Ecclesiastical Historians attribute likewise sometimes to the Emperor the actions of the Bishops as when Socrates says that the Council of Nice forbad Arius his return to Alexandria whereas it was the Emperor But in truth the Emperor did then few things of his own pure motion being only the Church men's Tool which falls out but too often even among the greatest Princes The Letter of Eusebius and Theognis produced the affect which they hoped from it They were recalled with Theonas and Secondus who would sign nothing The two first being returned to their Bishopricks drove out thence those who had gotten into their Sees when they were sent to their places of banishment They are charged with having immediately after sought out ways to make Athanasius undergoe the same punishment which they came from suffering by getting it told the Emperor that he had been elected in a manner little canonical and with endeavouring to induce the same Athanasius both by Prayers
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
An Historical VINDICATION OF THE Naked Gospel Recommended to the Vniversity of Oxford Printed in the Year 1690. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Design of this Work is of no less Importance than to discover the Naked Truth as far as 't is possible after the Destruction of such infinite Numbers of Volumes by the Barbarity of former Ages The little Fragments and Gleanings whereof that accidentally escap'd the Flames and Fury of those Times tho' dispers'd up and down yet do still afford some Light to a perspicacious Erquirer and indeed give such a Landskip of things as the Ruins now at Athens Carthage and Rome do of those Majestick Cities We may still plainly see how the simple Primitive Chastity of the Gospel was defil'd with the Ceremonies and the vain Philosophy of the Pagans How Platonic Enthusiasm was impos'd upon the World for Faith Mystery and Revelation by cloyster'd Ecclesiasticks Qui omnia quae putabant Christianismo conducere Biblijs interseruerunt as any one may collect from Erasmus Scaliger Grotius Cappellus and F. Simons who had compar'd Manuscripts Their dogmatical Contradictions in Councils their silly Quarrels their frequent changes in Opinion their childish trifling in Words their Inconstancy Pride and other Passions are laid open as the Source of publick Troubles and common Calamities We may justly lament with Joseph Scaliger the cruel Suppression of the old Books that were in the hands of the Fathers for if we had them now in our Libraries Nous verrions des belles choses says that Prodigy of Learning who in another place complains Nihil fuit erga bonas literas injuriosius veteribus Christianis si voluissent haberemus tam praeclara But considering how they handed things down to us Je ne me ferois jamais Chrestien a lire les Peres Ils ont tant de Fadaises Scalig. In our own time we have seen the same Phrenzy acted over again Academick Inquisitors like supream infallible Tribunals burning Articles and Books afterwards embracing and practising the very same expelling and recalling canting and recanting after the manners of their Fore-fathers who veer'd about with every Wind and were very angry that the Laity would not believe things against their Sense and Reason as the Woman would have had her Husband against his own Eyes What! Believe your Eyes before your own sweet Wife The most considerable Parts of the present Vindication are I. The History of Plato's Trinity II. The Arian Controversie III. Of the Nicene Council IV. Of the Athanasian Creed V. Of the Quarrels and Divisions of the Churches Which take as follows A Modest and Historical VINDICATION c. THat this work may be clear and instructive 't is thought necessary to observe Method and Order of Time which are the chief lights in Historical Controversies Therefore we will begin with the most learned Bishop of the Primitive Church Eusebius was born in Palestine and perhaps at Caesarea (a) Ap. Socrat. lib. v. c. 8. for he says in the beginning of his Letter to the Christians of that City That he was there baptized and instructed in the Christian Faith He was born towards the end of the third Century though we cannot find exactly the year of his Birth He began early to apply himself to Learning especially to Divinity as it sufficiently appears in his Writings wherein may be seen that he had carefully read all sorts of Books and that all the Christian Writings whether Greek or Latin were well known to him He had the advantage of the curious Library which the Martyr Pamphilius his particular Friend had collected at Caesarea (b) Hieron Ep. ad Chron Heliod Antipater Bostrensis in concil Nicaen 11. Act. 5. It 's affirm'd That being become Bishop of this City he entreated Constantine who passed through it and who had bid him ask some favour in behalf of his Church That he would permit him to make a search into all the publick Registers to extract the Names of all the Martyrs and the time of their Death However he has committed Faults enough in Chronology as Joseph Scaliger and a great many other learned Men have observed and especially in relation to Martyrs as Mr. Dodwel has lately shewn in his Dissertation de paucitate Martyrum But it was no easie matter to escape these kind of Faults in such a work as his Ecclesiastical History which was the first of that sort that was ever undertaken the Primitive Christians taking no care of the History of their Times Eusebius is commonly called the Son of Pamphilius whether he was really his Son as some affirm or his Nephew according to the opinion of others or in fine as most believe by reason of the great Friendship between them This Pamphilius was of Beryte in Phenicia and Priest of Caesarea he held Origen's Opinions for whom he wrote an Apology of which there remains to us but a part of it in Latin among the Works of Origen and St. Jerome He made it in Prison where he was put in the year 307 under the Emperour Decius and where Eusebius did not forsake him He could write only the first five Books having been hindred from finishing (a) Photius cod CXVIII this Work by the Death which he suffered for the Gospel two years after he had been thrown into Prison But Eusebius finish'd it in adding thereto a sixth Book and publish'd it after his Death Pamphilius had for Master Pierius (b) Id. Cod. CXIX Priest of Alexandria who likewise suffered Martyrdom and was also of Origen's Opinion whose Assiduity and Eloquence he imitated which got him the name of second Origen It 's not amiss here to relate the Judgment which Photius makes of his Works He advances several things says he remote from those which are at present establish'd in the Church perhaps ac-cording to the Custom of the Anoients Yet he speaks after a pious manner of the Father and the Son excepting that he assures us They have two Essences 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two Natures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the words Essence and Nature as it appears by what precedes and follows in this Passage for that of Hypostasis and not in the sense of the Arians But he speaks of the Holy Spirit in a dangerous manner for he attributes to him a Glory inferiour to that of the Father and the Son yet he was Catechist of Alexandria under the Patriarch Theonas who was consecrated in the year 282. Pamphilius being dead as has been said Eusebius retired to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre his Friend where he was witness (a) Lib. 8. c. 7. as he tells us himself of several Martyrdoms the History of which he has left us in his Book of the Martyrs of Palestine From thence he went into Egypt where he found the Persecution yet more violent and where he was thrown into Prison But this Persecution having ceased he was set at Liberty and a while after elected Bishop of Cesarea after the
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
death of Agapius It 's not certainly known in what year this Election was made but at least he was already Bishop when Paulinus dedicated a stately Church in the City of Tyre which he had built there which was in the year 316 in the 10th year of Constantin's Reign for it was the custom of the Christians (b) Anâ—… Diss bypat par 11. c. 3. n. 12 13. as well as of the Pagans to consecrate their Churches in the time of the Decennales of the Emperours or of any other Solemnity Eusebius recites a fine Oration spoken at this Dedication (c) Lib. x. c. 4. and tho' he does not say that it was he himself that spoke it yet the style of this Oration and the modest manner after which he mentions him that made it gives one reason to believe that he has suppress'd his name only through Modesty One might imagine that he was then but Priest were it not manifest that it was very rare in that Age for Priests to speak in publick where there were Bishops present It was about this time that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria had a bickering with one of his Priests named Arius touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ which gave Birth to Arianism Eusebius having had a great share in the Disputes of Arianism we cannot recount his Life without writing the History of it and to know wherein consisted these Disputes we must necessarily ascend higher and enquire what Principles of Philosophy were in use in that time among the Christians and how they came to be introduced This is so necessary a Digression as will appear in the Sequel that it 's to be supposed the Reader must approve of it There was never any Philosopher that made himself so famous as Plato and no Books read with more pleasure than his whether from the Subjects and lofty Thoughts found therein on by reason of the Elegancy and Nobleness of their Style which never any Philosopher could equalize He was born under the Reign of Artaxerxes Sirnam'd Long-hand 426 years before Christ and died aged fourscore years in the time when Philip of Macedon made himself to be fear'd of all Greece Alexander his Son having made himself master of Asia which his Successors divided among them one may reasonably believe that the Sciences of the Greeks there establish'd themselves with their Empire and their Customs Ptolomy the Son of Lagus one of Alexander's Successors undertook to collect into his Library of Alexandria all the Books he could find and drew thither several learned men of Greece (a) Vid. Hody de 70. Int. c. 9. He was learned himself and omitted nothing for the inspiring into his Sons the love of Learning His Son Philadelphus march'd in this respect in his Fathers steps as all those who have any knowledge in the History of this Prince do well know The Syrian Monarchs seem likewise to have cultivated the Sciences seeing that Suidas relates that Euphorion of Chalcis in Eubea Poet and Philosopher was Library-keeper of Antiochus the great two hundred years before our Saviour's time Plato was too famous then and his Works in too great esteem not to have had Place in these Libraries One may also believe that Asia which was then full of Greek Philosophers wanted not Platonists Among the Opinions of Plato there are not any more remarkable than those which he had touching the Divinity the Prae-existence and Immortality of the Soul He held that there is only one Supream Spiritual and Invisible God whom he calls The Being or the Being it self the very Being The Father and cause of all Beings c. He placed under this supream God an inferiour Being which he calls Reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Director of things present and future the Creator of the Vniverse c. In fine he acknowledged a third Being which he calls the Spirit or Soul of the World He added That the first was the Father of the second and that the second had produced the third We may consult hereupon his Timoeus to which we should adjoyn his II. and VI. Letter In the second which is directed to Denys who complained that Plato had not sufficiently instructed him touching the first Nature or first Being this Philosopher thus expresses himself Every thing is about the King of all things and every thing is because of him he is the cause of all good things The things of the second Order are about the second the things of the third are about the third He calls this a Riddle forbids Denys to speak of it before the ignorant enjoyns him to burn his Letter as soon as he has read it and protests he will never write again of this matter In his sixth Letter he enjoyns Hermias Erastus and Corisca to swear in taking to witness the God who is the Director of things present and future and the Lord who is the Father of this Director and of this Cause The Obscurity which he affects in this occasion lest he should draw on him the Rage of the Superstitious Populace hinders us from understanding what he would say unless we collate together all the Passages wherein he speaks of the Divinity and consult his Interpreters and Disciples Here 's how one of 'em (a) Hierocles de provid apud Photium Cod. CCLI explains his his Masters meaning Plato believed that God the Creator sustains the visible and invisible World which was made out of nothing That his Will suffices to make Beings exist That by the conjunction of a corporal Nature and another incorporal he has made a most perfect World which is double and single at the same time in which one may distinguish the high the middle and the low That he calls high the Heavenly Beings and the Gods The middle the Aethereal Intelligences and good Demons which are the Interpreters and Messengers in what relates to the good of men The low the terrestrial Intelligences and the Souls of men or men Immortal That the superiour Beings govern the inferiour but that God who is the Creator and Father of 'em reigns over all and that this paternal Empire is nothing else but his Providence by which he gives to every sont of Being what belongs to it We may hereby understand what Plato calls the things of the second and third Order We shall not busie our selves in seeking from whom Plato might have learnt this Doctrin whether from the Caldeans or from the Old Testament as some of the Fathers have believ'd Altho' Plato's Disciples are agreed with their Master in respect of these three Principles yet there is to be found in their Writings divers Enquiries touching their nature and divers ways of speaking which are not to be seen in those of this Philosopher who never dared to write all he thought on this subject Plotinus particularly who liv'd in the beginning of the third Century has treated of them in several places of his Enneades (a) Praesertim En. V. lib. 1. a
Curcellaeus Huetius c. observ'd But it is fit we should take notice of one thing which is that Bull who has writ Prolixly on this matter has not a word of the Numerical and Specific Vnity without which a man cannot comprehend what the Fathers mean nor draw any Conclusions from them against the Hereticks Yet when they say there are three Hypostases or three Essences or three Natures he constantly takes it as if they said there are three Modifications in one only Numerical Essence He supposes that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature signifie manners of existing of one Numerical Essence only because that without this those who have thus spoken of it would not have been Orthodox or of the Opinion at present receiv'd which the Council must have approv'd of seeing other wise it would not have been admitted as it is He supposes on the contrary for the same Reasons that when the Fathers deny there are three Hypostases they do not barely mean that there are not three Essences of different kinds but that there are not three in number But others will deny there is any place where the Words Nature and Essence can be taken for what we at this day call Personality which is to say for a Modification and that it appears from the Passages which he cites that the Fathers held the Numerical Vnity And this was the condition of the Christian Church when the quarrels of Arius disturb'd it Whence may be seen that it was no hard matter for the two Parties to cite Authorities of the Ancients whose Equivocal Expressions might be interpreted in divers Senses The Obscurity of the Subject the vain Subtilty of humane Understanding which would know every thing the Desire of appearing able and the Passion which mingles it self in all Disputes gave Birth to these Controversies which for a long time tore Christianity into pieces Arius being a Priest of Alexandria about the year 3 8 undertook as it seems to explain more clearly the Doctrin of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which had been till that time taught in the Christian Church under the Veil of those Terms which we have recited He said that to beget in this Subject was nothing else but to produce whence he concluded that the Divinity of Jesus Christ had been extracted out of nothing by the Father Here 's how he expresses himself in a Letter which he wrote to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia We make Profession to a a Ap Theod. lib. 1. cap. 5. believe that the Son is not without Generation and that he is not a part of that which is unbegotten nor of any other Pre existent matter whatever but that by the Will and Council of God he has been perfect God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all Time and Ages that he is his only Son and that he is not subject to change that before he was begotten or created he was not Arius was counted an able Logician b b Sozoâ—… lib. 1. c. 15. and was in good esteem with his Bishop Alexander but speaking freely his mind he drew on him the hatred of one Melece c c Epiphan in Haet LXIX Bishop in Thebaida who had caus'd a Schism in Egypt although he did not much vary from the common Opinions only because he would not receive into Communion the Priests who had fall'n in the Dioclesian Persecution but after a long Pennance and would have them for ever depriv'd of their Office One may say the History of this in St. Epiphanius who accuses him for having an affected Devotion and taking up a particular way of living to make himself admired by the People Arius had moreover another Enemy named Alexander and Sirnamed a a Philost lib. 1. c. 4. Baucalas who was also an associate Priest with him He joyned himself to Melece to complain to the Bishop of Alexandria that Arius sowed a new Doctrin touching the Divinity of our Saviour Christ He could the better spread his Opinions in that having a particular Church at Alexandria committed to his Care He preach'd there what he thought fit b b Epiph. Sozom. He drew such a great number of People into his Opinions that there were 700 Religious Votaries who had embraced them and consequently a greater number among the ordinary People It 's said that he was a man of large shape of a severe Countenance yet of a very agreeable Conversation Alexander thought that in a matter wherein one might easily equivocate it were best to let the two Parties explain themselves to the end it might appear that he had accorded them more by Perswasion than Force He brought the two Parties to a Conference in demanding of them the Explication of a Passage of Scripture in the Presence of the Clergy of his Church but neither one nor the other of these Parties would yield endeavouring only to vanquish Arius his Advensaries maintained that the Son is of the same essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Father and that he is eternal as he is and Arius pretended that the generation denoted a beginning There was another meeting called as fruiless as the first in respect of the dispute but by which it seems Alexander who had before not any precise determined sentiment on this matter was induced to embrace the opinion of Arius his adversaries He afterwards commanded this Priest to believe the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to abandon the opposite opinion But it being seldom known that Men yield obedience to these kind of Injunctions Arius remained still in the same opinion as well as several other Bishops and Ecclesiastics who had approved of it Alexander angry at his not being obey'd excommunicated him with all those of his party and oblig'd him to depart out of Alexandria There were among others five Priests of this City and as many Deacons of the same Church besides some Bishops of Egypt as Secondus and Theonas To them were joyned a great number of People some of which did in effect approve the doctrin of Arius and others thought that he had been condemned with too high an hand without entring into the discussion of the controversy After this severity the two Parties endeavoured to make their opinions and conduct be approved by Letters which they sent every where They exposed not only their reasons but endeavoured to render odious the opposite Party by the consequences they drew from their opinions and in attributing to them strange expressions Some Bishops as Eusbius of Nicomedia exhorted Alexander to reconcile himself with Arius and others approv'd his Conduct and advised him not to receive him into communion till he retracted The letters of Alexander and Arius are too considerable to be disregarded Here 's then the sum of them Arius wrote to (a) ap Ephiph in Hes LXIX Theodor. lib. 1. C. 5. Eusebius of Nicomedia to entreat his Protection against Alexander who had excommunicated him and driven
him out of Alexandria because he could not grant him that the Father and the Son are coeternal that the Son coexists with the Father without generation having been always begotten and not begotten at the same time without letting it be imagined that the Father has existed so much as one moment before the Son He added that Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea Theodotus of Laodicea Paulinus of Tyre Athanasius of Anazarba Gregory of Beryta and Aetius of Lydia condemning the sentiments of Alexander had been likewise struck with an Anathema as well as all the eastern People who were of the same opinions except Philogonius Bishop of antiach Hellanicus of Tripoly and Macarias of Jerusalem one of which said that the Son was an Eruclation the other a Projection and the other that he was not begotten no more than the Father To this Arius added the explanation of his opinion which we have already related The Bishop (a) Sozom. II. of Nicomedia having receiv'd this Letter call'd a Synod of his province of Bythinia which wrote circular Letters to all the Eastern Bishops to induce them to receive Arius into communion as maintaining the truth and to engage Alexander to do as much We have still a Letter of Eusebius to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre wherein he not only entreats Paulinus to interceed for Arius but wherein he exposes and defends his sentiments with great clearness He says he has never heard there were two Beings without Generation nor that the one has been parted into two but that this single Being had begotten another not of his Substance but perfectly like to him although of a different Nature and Power That not only we cannot express by Words the beginning of the Son but that it is even incomprehensible to those intellectual Beings which are above men as well as to us To prove this he cites the 8th of the Proverbs God the Lord possess'd me in the beginning of his Ways before his Works of old I was set up from Everlasting and he has begotten me before the Mountains were brought forth He says that we must not search into the Term of Begetting any other Signification than that of Producing because the Scripture does not only use it in Reference to the Son but moreover in speaking of Creatures as when God says I have begotten Children and I have brought them up but they have rebelled against me But these Letters not having had the Success which Arius expected he sent to get leave of Paulinus of Eusebius and Patrophilus Bishop of Scythopolis to gather those who were of his Opinion into a Church and to exercise among them the Office of a Priest as he was want to do before and as was done at Alexandria These Bishops having Convocated the other Bishops of Palestine granted him what he demanded but ordered him however to remain subject to Alexander and to omit nothing to obtain Communion with him There is extant a Letter of Arius directed to this Bishop (a) Apud Epiph. II. and written from Nicodemia which contains a Confession of Faith according to the Doctrin which Arius affirm'd that Alexander himself had taught him wherein after having denoted his Belief touching the Father which includes nothing Heterodox he adds That he hath begotten his only Son before the times Eternal that it is by him that he has made the World that he has begotten him not only in Appearance but in Reality that this Son subsists by his own Will that he is unmoveable that he is a Creature of God that is perfect and not as other Creatures that he is a Production but not as other Productions nor as Valentinian said a Projection of the Father nor as Manes affirm'd a Consubstantial Part of the Father nor as Sabellius called him a Son Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor as Hieracas spake a Lamp lighted by a Lamp or a Torch divided into two That he did not exist before he was begotten and became a Son that there are three Hypostases that is to say different Substances the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and that the Father is before the Son although the Son was created before all Ages Arius adds That Alexander had several times preach'd this Doctrin in the Church and refuted those who did not receive it This Letter is Sign'd by six Priests seven Deacons and three Bishops Secondus of Pentapolis Theonas of Lybia and Pistus whom the Arian Bishops had Establisht at Alexandria Alexander (a) Socrat. lib. 1. c. 6. wrote on his side circular Letters wherein he sharply censures Eusebius of Nicomedia in that he protected Arius and recomended him to others He joyns to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated and explains their Doctrin wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius Letters touching the beginning which he attributes to the Son he says moreover that this Priest maintain'd that the Son is one of the Creatures that we cannot call him the Reason and Wisdom of the Father but improperly seeing that he himself has been produced by the Reason and Wisdom of God that he is subject to change as other intelligent creatures that he is of another Essence than God that the Father is incomprehensible to him and that he knows not himself what is his proper substance that he has been made for our sakes to serve God as an Instrument in creating us and that without this God had never begotten him Alexander adds That having assembled near an hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers by reason of his Opinions He afterwards comes to prove his and shews first The Eternity of the Son by this Passage of St. John In the Beginning was the Reason 2. That he cannot be reckoned among the Creatures because the Father says of him in the 45. Ps My heart has uttered eructavit a good Word 3. That he is not unlike the Essence of the Father of which he is the perfect Image and the Splendor and of whom he says He that has seen me has seen the Father 4. That we cannot say there was a time in which he was not seeing that he is the Reason and the Wisdom of the Father and that it will be absurd to say there was a time in which the Father was without Reason and Wisdom 5. That he is not subject to change because the Scripture says He is the same yesterday and to day 6. That he was not made because of us seeing St. Paul says that it is because of him and by him that all things are 7. That the Father is not incomprehensible to the Son seeing he says As the Father knows me so I know the Father This Letter wherein Eusebius of Nicomedia is extreamly ill treated shockt this Bishop to the utmost Point and having great access to the Court because Constantine made then his abode at Nicomedia this occasion'd divers Bishops to be at his Devotion but
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