end that their Councils were called with a Design to overthrow that of Nice that they had written against them as Arians that the Eusebians joined with the Meletians onely for the sake of Arianism that the Persons sent by the Council of Tyre into Egypt were Arians and therefore declared Enemies and whatever their pretences were nothing but the advancing Arianism lay at the bottom Were so many Bishops guilty of so gross a Mistake who had certainly greater opportunity of knowing and skill in judging the Men and their Designs than the most quick sighted Person of our Age can have It would be endless to recite all the passages in Athanasius his Apology and Epistles and Discourses of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia to prove that the Eusebians carried on the Arian Design since a great part of them is spent in the proof of it But we are told with confidence enough that the Synod of Alexandria in their Synodical Epistle do not in the least accuse the Eusebians of Arianism but onely of holding Communion with them i. e. with the Arians This cannot but seem strange to any one that will be at the pains to peruse that excellent Epistle And even in that page it is expresly said their violent and malitious proceedings against Athanasius were on purpose to discourage others from daring to oppose Arianism and this with a particular design to introduce that Heresie Could any Man be thought to take so much pains to set up a Doctrine they had no kindness to i. e. Would any but secret Arians endeavour to set up Arianism unless we suppose them such Tools to be made use of by others to doe their business and then to be laid aside But the Eusebians were no such mean Politicians for they were at the top of business having all the advantages and opportunities to carry on their own ends and therefore we have all the Reason in the World to conclude them secret Arians who were at so much trouble to lessen the Credit of the Opposers of Arianism Which they lookt on as one of the most effectual means to introduce it And although they did not openly declare themselves in behalf of the Arian Doctrine after the Council of Nice which had been to hinder their own Design in the time of Constantine yet they made use of all the Methods which bad Men do to carry on their ends viz. by false Insinuations lying pretences and all manner of malitious proceedings against those who stood in their Way as is most notorious in the case of Athanasius After the Death of Constantine we are told that all the Councils under Constantius that are commonly accounted Arian have as fully and clearly condemned Arianism as the Nicene Council it self It is true they could not digest the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but otherwise as for the whole Scheme of Arianism they have in all their Creeds anathematized it with all clearness and fulness of Expression This is somewhat strange Doctrine for one who pretends to have read Athanasius who hath taken so much pains to lay open the juggling of the Arian Faction in all those Councils and one would think by this manner of Writing such a Man took a particular pleasure in contradicting him For in his Book of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia he saith none of the Councils under Constantius could be brought to anathematize the Arian Heresie as the Council of Nice did He saith that Constantius himself was an Arian Heretick and that his chief Design in all those Councils was to take away the force of the Council of Nice He saith indeed they were not such Fools to own this but this was the true Reason of all the Councils they called and the disturbance they made to the great Scandal of the Christian World Nay he saith that in all their Councils they never once mention'd the Arian Heresie as an evil thing and if any Heresies were mention'd the Arian was excepted which the Nicene Council anathematized and they received with great kindness such as were known to be Arians which is an Argument that the calling these Councils was not for establishing the Truth but for overthrowing the Council of Nice And to shew what Constantius his own Mind was he observes that when he came to die he would be baptized by none but Euzoius who had been several times deposed for Arianism and he there affirms that Constantius continued an Arian to the last As to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about which so much stir was made he takes notice that all the offence that was taken at it was by the Arians and the true Cause was because it struck at the root of their Heresie And as to the word Substance he wonder'd they should so vehemently oppose it when themselves confessed the Son was from the Father for either he must be from something without him or something within him distinct from his Substance or he must be of the Substance of the Father or they must make the Word and the Son to be no real Substance but mere Names and so they did not really believe what they expressed And he farther shews that no other way of speaking doth sufficiently express the Difference between the Son of God and his Creatures which are onely the effects of God's Will From whence he concludes that the opposition to these Terms whatever was pretended was from a dislike of the Doctrine established in the Council of Nice For if it had been a mere doubt about the signification of the words they ought to have explained their own sense and withall to have condemned the Arian Heresie It cannot be denied that there were some who agreed in the Substance of the Doctrine with the Council of Nice but yet disliked the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to these Athanasius confesses them to be Brethren as long as they acknowledged the Son not to be a Creature nor to be from another Substance distinct from the Father And among these he reckons Basilius of Ancyra whose Doctrine he doth not seem to dislike provided that to the similitude of Substance in the Son they add his being of the Substance of the Father And in this sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were two great Arguments these used against the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first was that it implied a Partition or Division of the Divine Substance as a Son among Men is said to be of the same Substance with his Father but so as that there is a Division of the same common Nature in the several individuals To this Athanasius answers That the Divine Generation must not be apprehended like the humane but our Conceptions of God must be agreeable to the Divine Nature and therefore we must not imagine the Son of God to be of the
Eusebians should really believe the Consubstantiality of the Son and yet so vehemently oppose the use of the word Would any Men of common sense who did believe the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be turned into the very Body and Bloud of Christ set themselves with all their force and interest to overthrow the term of Transubstantiation So if the Eusebians did believe the Son of the same Substance with the Father to what purpose should they caball so much as they did all the Reign of Constantius to lay aside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If it be said It was by way of Comprehension to take in dissenting Parties then it is plain they were really dissenting Parties still and consequently did not differ onely about the Vse of a word but about the Substance of the Doctrine And as those who do believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation are for the Vse of the word and those who believe it not would not have the word imposed so it was in all the Councils under Constantius those who chiefly opposed the word Consubstantial did it because they liked not the Doctrine and those who contended for it did it because they knew the Doctrine was aimed at under the Pretence of laying aside an unscriptural word And the same Author tells us from St. Hilary the Consequence of shutting out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was that it must be decreed either that the Son was a Creature made out of nothing or out of another substance uncreated and distinct from the Divine Nature And when he gives an account of the Council of Seleucia held at the same time with that of Ariminum he saith They brake into two Parties of the Acacians who defied the Council of Nice and all its Decrees and the old Eusebians who pretended to stick onely at the word Consubstantial and upon their Appeal to the Emperour there are these two things remarkable 1. That those who were for laying aside all discriminating words were Arians of the highest sort viz. Aëtians who held the Blasphemy of Dissimilitude 2. That those who were for retaining the word Substance went on this Ground That if God the Son exist neither from nothing nor from any other substance then he must be of the same substance with the Father Which was the very Argument he saith approved by the Council of Nice for settling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is a sufficient Argument to me that those who from the Council of Nice did chiefly oppose that word did it with a Design to overthrow the Doctrine of the Son 's being of the same substance with the Father Which will more fully appear by a brief deduction of the Arian History from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum not from modern Collections but from the best Writers about that time The Arian Faction finding themselves so much overvoted in the Council of Nice that they despaired to carry any thing there by fair means betook themselves to fraudulent Arts hoping thereby to hinder either the passing or the executing any Decree against them At first they endeavoured to blind and deceive the Council by seeming to profess the Orthodox Faith but they made use of such ambiguous Forms of words as might serve their ends by couching an Heretical Sense under a fair appearance of joining in the same Faith with the rest This being discovered by the more sagacious Defenders of the old Christian Faith they at length fixed upon the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the onely effectual Test to discriminate the Arians from others and when they had used their utmost skill and endeavour to keep this Test from passing and found they could not prevail they bethought themselves of another way to keep the Faction alive although the Heresie might seem at present to be totally supprest And that was by suffering Arius and his two fast Friends Secundus and Theonas to be condemned by the Council and to be banished by the Emperour but the chief Heads of the Faction Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice with others resolved upon an Expedient to clear themselves and yet to keep up the Faction which was by subscribing the Confession of Faith and denying to anathematize Arius and his Followers This is plain from the Epistle of Eusebius and Theognis extant in Socrates and Sozomen wherein they own their Subscription to the Decree of Faith but declare That they utterly refused to subscribe the Anathema against Arius and his Adherents because they did not believe them guilty of the Heresie charged upon them as they found both by Writing and Conversation with them This Epistle was written by them during their Banishment in order to their return to their Bishopricks from which they had been driven by Constantine's own Order and the Reason of it is given is his Epistle to the Church of Nicomedia viz. for communicating with the Arians whom he had caused to be removed from Alexandria for their Heresie and Disturbance of the Peace of the Church there and the same Account is given of it in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt extant in Athanasius Which shews their Resolution to keep up the Faction in spite of the Council of Nice For if they had any regard to the Decree there past they would not have presumed to have communicated with those who were expresly anathematized by the Council and had very hardly escaped it themselves as Constantine there upbraids them in his Epistle But upon this notorious Contempt they were deposed from their Bishopricks and sent into Banishment where they grew very uneasie and resolved upon any Terms to be restored knowing that if they continued there the Faction was indeed in Danger to be wholly supprest and for that end they wrote that submissive Letter to the leading Bishops promising an universal Compliance upon their Restauration And the main ground they built their Hopes upon was because Arius himself upon his submission was recalled as they declare in the end of that Epistle Which Intrigue was carried on by a secret Arian Chaplain to Constantia the Emperour's Sister recommended to the Emperour at her Death who being received into Favour whisper'd into his Ear very kind things concerning Arius and his Adherents adding that they were unjustly banished and that the whole Controversie was nothing but a Pique which the Bishop of Alexandria had taken against one of his Presbyters for having more Wit and Reputation than himself and that it would become Constantine in point of Honour and Justice to recall Arius and to have the whole matter examined over again Upon this Arius is sent for and bid by the Emperour to set down his Confession of Faith plainly and honestly which is extant in the Ecclesiastical Historians under the Name of Arius and Euzoius and was framed in such a specious manner as made the Emperour believe that Arius was indeed of
Substance with the Father after the same manner that the Son of Man is For as he is the Son so he is the Word and Wisedom of the Father and the internal Word or Conception in Man is no divisible part of himself but lest the Notion of Word should seem to destroy his real Subsistence therefore the Notion of Son is added in Scripture to that of Word that we may know him to be a living Word and substantial Wisedom So that when we say the Son is consubstantial to the Father we understand it not by way of Division as among Bodies but abstracting our Minds from all corporeal things we attribute this to the Son of God in a way agreeing to the Divine Nature and mean by it that he is not produced by his Will as the Creatures are nor merely his Son by Adoption but that he is the true Eternal Son of God by such an emanation as Splendour from Light or Water from the Fountain And therefore when they interpreted the term Son in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature he wonders they should stick so much at the word Consubstantial which was capable of the same Interpretation The second Objection was That those who condemned the Samosatenian Heresie rejected the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In answer to this Athanasius shews that the word was so much used and allowed in the Christian Church before the Samosatenian Heresie was heard of that when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused to Dionysius of Rome for rejecting it the Council thereupon was so much concerned that the Bishop of Rome wrote their sense to the Bishop of Alexandria about it he returns an Answer wherein he owns all the sense contained under it as appears by his Epistle in Athanasius but for those who opposed Paulus Samosatenus he saith they took the Word in a corporeal sense as if it implied a distinct Substance from the Father But saith he those who condemned the Arians saw farther into this matter considering that it ought not to be applied to the Divine Nature as it is to corporeal Substances and the Son of God not being a Creature but begotten of the Substance of the Father therefore with great Reason they used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being most proper to express the Sense of the Christian Church against the Arian Heresie as he shews there at large From these passages of Athanasius it appears that there was a third Party then in the Church distinct from the Nicenists and the Eusebians The former would by no means yield to any relaxation of the Council of Nice because they evidently saw that this Design was carried on by those who made it their business under that pretence to introduce Arianism who were the Eusebians But there were others extremely concerned for the Peace of the Church and on that account were willing to let go the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoping the Doctrine might be secured by other expressions and this facility of theirs gave the greatest advantage to the Eusebian Party in all their Councils who continually almost overreached and outwitted them under the pretence of Accommodation For by this Artifice they gained their Votes and when they had them made use of them merely to serve their own Designs as appears by the Account the Historians give of the management of the Arian Affairs under the Reign of Constantius Socrates saith that immediately after the death of Constantine Eusebius and Theognis the Heads of the Arian Faction apprehended it now to be a convenient season for them to throw down the Nicene Faith and to set up Arianism and to this purpose they endeavoured to hinder Athanasius from returning to Alexandria But first they gained the Eunuchs and Court-favorites then the Wife of Constantius himself to embrace Arianism and so the Controversie of a sudden spread into the Court Camp Cities and all Places of the East for the Western Churches continued quiet during the Reign of Constans to whose share all the Western Provinces in a short time fell After the Death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople the two Parties openly divided in the Choice of a Successour the one chusing Paulus and the Arians Macedonius this nettled Constantius who coming to Constantinople calls a Council of Arian Bishops who depose Paulus and set up Eusebius of Nicomedia who presently falls to work going with the Emperour to Antioch where under the pretence of a Dedication as is observed in the precedent Chapter a Council of ninety Bishops was assembled but the Design was saith Socrates to overthrow the Nicene Faith Here they made some Canons to ensnare Athanasius of which before As to the matter of Faith they durst not openly propose the nulling the Council of Nice but they gained this great Point That the Matters of Faith might be discussed after it and so they set open the Gate for New Councils which by degrees might establish the Arian Heresie Sozomen saith that after the death of Constantine the secret Arians began to shew themselves more openly among whom Eusebius and Theognis especially bestirr'd themselves to advance Arianism He agrees with Socrates as to the spreading of it in the Court and elsewhere and in the other particulars to the Council at Antioch but he saith they framed their Confession of Faith in such ambiguous terms that neither Party could quarrel with the Words But they left out any mention of the Substance of Father and Son and the word Consubstantial and so in effect overthrew the Council of Nice This is that Confession of Faith which the Council in Isauria called the Authentick one made at Antioch in the Dedication But it was not so Authentick but they thought good to alter it and some months after sent another to Constans to explain themselves more fully whereby they reject those who said the Son was made of Nothing or of another Hypostasis and not from God Who could imagine these to have been any other than very sound and orthodox Men Especially when three years after they sent a larger Confession of Faith into the Western Parts for their own Vindication wherein they anathematize those who held three Gods or that Christ was not God or that he was begotten of any other Substance besides God c. But that there was juggling under all this appears because as Athanasius observes they were still altering their Forms for this again was changed several times at Sirmium before they resolved upon that which was to be carried to the Council of Ariminum And although the difference in the matters of Faith as delivered by them seem'd now very nice and subtile yet they were irreconcilably set against the Council of Nice and all that adhered to it Which was a plain Evidence that they concealed their sense under ambiguous words or that they saw it necessary at present to seem orthodox that so they might the better set aside the Council of Nice