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
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
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
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
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
he could not engage Alexander to forget what had past to speak no more of this Controversie and to receive Arius into Communion The quarrels every day grew hotter and the People were seen to range themselves some taking Arius side others Alexanders and the Comedians being Gentiles this gave them occasion to make a Sport of Christian Religion on their Theaters Each side treated one another with the odious Name of Heretick and endeavour'd to shew that the Sentiments of the opposite Party overthrew the Christian Religion but it appears that neither the one nor the other Party could yet perswade the Emperor seeing he wrote to Alexander and to Arius a long Letter of which Hosius Bishop of Cordovia was the bearer wherein he equally chides them He says he found that the Controversie (a) Apud Euseb de vit Const cap. 64. Seq Socrat lib. 1. c. 7. had begun in this manner That Alexander having demanded of each of his Priests what they thought of a passage of Scripture or rather on an idle sort of Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arius inconsiderately answer'd what he should have thought or rather conceal'd if he had thought it That from thence had come his Excommunication and the Division of the People And therefore he exhorted them to a mutual pardoning of one another and to receive his Opinion which was That it had been better not to have troubled the Ecclesiasticks with this Question and that those who were ask'd it should have held their Tongues because the matter concern'd what was equally incomprehensible to both Parties and which serv'd only to raise Disturbances among the People He could not conceive how for a Question of very small Importance and in which if they well understood one another they would find they agreed in the main they should make such a bustle and divide themselves in so scandalous a manner I do not say this adds he as if I would constrain you to think the same thing on a most vain Question or however you will please to call it For one may without dishonouring the Assembly and without breaking the Communion be in different Sentiments in such inconsiderable things We have not all the same Wills in all things neither are we all of us of the same temper of Body and Humors The Emperors Letter says Socrates gave them admirable Advice and full of Wisdom but the Mischief was grown too great and neither the Emperors Endeavours nor his Authority who brought the Letter to Alexandria could appease it Alexander had taken care to write every where to hinder the spreading of Arius his Opinions We have still a long Letter which he wrote to the Bishop of Constantinople wherein he vehemently inveighs against the Arian Faction and endeavours to render it odious in saying That Arius maintain'd that the Son was of a Nature capable of evil as well as of good although it actually remain'd without sin and that it was for this that God had chosen him for his eldest Son He proves the Eternity of the Son and that he was not extracted from nothing because he was in the beginning and that all things have been made by him Yet he holds that the Son has been begotten and that only the Father is without Generation although that the Subsistence or Substance of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be incomprehensible to the Angels themselves and that there is none but melancholy Persons who can think of comprehending it He afterwards shews that the manner after which Jesus Christ is the Son of God is infinitely more excellent than the manner after which Men are seeing he is so by his Nature we only by Adoption He accuses Arius with following the Doctrin of Ebion and Artemas and for having imitated Paul of Samosatia Bishop of Antioch whose Doctrin had been embraced by Lucien Martyr who by reason of this had separated himself from the Communion of three following Bishops of this City He joyns to him three Bishops of Syria who seem to have been Paulinus Eusebius and Theodotus and reproaches them with using Passages which relate to the Humiliation of Christ to attack his Divinity and to have forgotten those which speak of the Glory of his Nature such as this is The Father and I are one which the Lord says adds he not to denote that he is the Father nor to say that two Natures in respect of the manner of existing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are but one but because the Son is of a Nature which exactly keeps the Paternal Resemblance being by his Nature like to him in all things the unchangeable Image of his Father and a Copy of this Original He afterwards defends himself largely against the Consequence which Arius drew from his Adversaries Sentiments which consisted in accusing them for denying the Generation of the Son in making him Eternal He affirm'd That there is an infinite difference between the Creation of the World and the Generation of the Son although this last be wholly incomprehensible and that he cannot explain it In the mean time the Division increased so greatly among the People that in some places it came to a Sedition wherein the very Statues (a) Euseb de vit Cons lib. 3. c. 4. of the Emperor were thrown down who appear'd to favour the Arians because he would have 'em tolerated There was moreover the Controversie about Easter the one denying that it should be celebrated at the same time as the Jewish and the others affirming it but this contest had not produced a Schism as Arianism had done Constantin seeing that these Letters had been fruitless thought there was no better way to allay these controversies than to call a Council from all Parts of the Roman Empire It was perhaps Hosius who gave him this advice at least if we may believe Philostorgus (a) lib. 1. c. 7. the Bishop of Alexandria being gone to Nicomedia there assembled some Bishops of his opinion with whom Hosius and he consults to find out means to set up their opinion and to make that of Arius condemned and a little while after the Emperor call'd a Council at Nice a Town of Bithynia (b) Euseb in vit Const lib. 3. c. 6. This was in the year 325 and to the end that nothing might hinder the Bishops from coming Constantin took on himself the charges of their journey The Histori ans are not agreed in reference to the number of e'm some setting down more than 300 (c) Eustathius of Antioch says there were 270. Theod. 1. Constantin 300 Socr. 11.9 Eusebius 250 vit Const lib. 3. c. 9. S. Athanans 318. and others less We must not wonder at this diversity seeing there are few passages in Ecclesiastical History wherein appears more confusion and neglect than in the History of this famous Council And there fore have we been obliged to extract what we are going to say out of divers Historians because none of the Ancients has