been compleat in his relations As to the diversity observable among the Historians on the same facts we have followed either the most ancient or those which have appeared most probable Eusebius who was present at the Council has past very lightly over the Circumstances of this History apparently lest he should either offend the Arians or the Orthodox This affair has never been since discoursed of with an entire disinterest reports having been often related as certain facts In a word there has never any thing hapned whereunto one may apply with more reason these words of Tacitus Maxima quaeque ambigua sunt dum alij quoquomodo audita pro compertis habent alij vera in contrarium veriunt et gliscit utrumque posteritati Eusebius vaunts very much of the Bishops which were here but Sabinus (a) Socrat. l. 7. a Macedonian Bishop of Heraclea a Town of Thrace treats them as Ignoramusses in his collection of Councils There was likewise a great number of Priests and Deacons who came in Company with the Bishops The Council opened the 14th of June and therein were regulated several things which we shall not here take notice of designing only to remark what past in relation to the principal question therein decided to wit Arianism Assoon as ever the Bishops were arrived they made particular Assemblies without discountenance and sent for Arius (a) Sozom. l. 17. 19. to them to inform themselves of his opinions After they had heard from him what he thought some of 'em were for condemning all sorts of novelties and to content themselves in speaking of the Son in the same terms their predecessors had used and others affirm'd that the opinions of the Ancients were not to be received without examining There were seventeen Bishops according to Sozomen (b) ib. cap. 20. who favoured Arius his new explications the chief of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia Eusebius of Cesarea Menophantes of Ephesus Patrophilus of Scythopolis Theognis of Nice Narcissus of Neroniadas Theonas of Marmarica and Secondus of Ptolemeida These Bishops drew up a Confession of Faith (c) Theoder lib. 1. c. 7. ex Athanasio according to their sentiments but they had no sooner read it in the Assembly but it was cryed out upon as false 't was torn in pieces and they were reproacht with it as Persons who would as they said betray the Faith and the Godhead of Christ A Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia wherein he exprest his thoughts had the same lot In fine a Creed was undertaken to be made wherein the opinions contrary to those of Arius were established It was immediately observ'd that the new ways of speaking which the Arians used were to be condemned That the Son had been extracted from nothing that he was a Creature that there was a time wherein he was not c. and Scripture Phrases were to be used such as these Only begotten Son the Word Power Wisdom of the Father the brightness of his Glory and character of his Power The Arians having shew'd that they were ready to admit a Confession exprest in these terms the Orthodox Bishops feard lest they should expound these terms in an ill sense And therefore they were for adding that the Son is of the Substance of the Father because this is that which distinguishes the Son from the Creatures Hereupon the Arians were askt whether they acknowledged That the Son is not a Creature but the Power the only Wisdom and Image of the Father that he is Eternal and like to the Father in all things in sine true God The Heterodox haven spoken among themselves believ'd that these expressions might very well agree with the notion they had of the Divinity of the Son and denoted they were ready to receive them In fine it being observ'd that Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Letter which was read rejected the Term of Consubstantial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was thought that the Orthodox Doctrin could not be better express'd and all Equivocation excluded than in making use of it and so much the rather in that the Arians seem'd to be afraid of it This Circumstance is owing to St. Ambrose (a) Lib. 3. de fid ad Grat. cap. ult whose Words are these Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediae Episcopus Epistola sua prodidit dicens si verum inquit Dei filium increatum dicimus homoousion Consubstantialem cum Patre incipimus confiteri Haec cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nicoeno hoc verbum in tractatu sidei posuerunt Patres quod viderunt Adversariis esse formidini ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsum nefandae caput Haereseos amputarent The Orthodox conceiv'd then their Sentiment touching the Divinity of the Son in these Terms (b) Socr. lib. 1. c. 8. We believe in one only Lord Jesus Christ Son of God only Son of the Father that is to say of the Substance of the Father God born of God Light of Light true God born of the true God begotten not made Consubstantial with the Father The Arians in vain complain'd that these Words were not to be found in Scripture They were told that those they were wont to use were no more there neither being wholly new whereas it was near six-score years since that several Bishops had used the Word Consubstantial The Fathers of the Council during this Time were not so busied in vanquishing the Arians and in making several Regulations but that they remembred their private grudges Several Church-men says Sozomen (a) Lib. 1. c. 1◠as if they had been assembled to prosecute their particular Affairs as it commonly happens thought this a fit time to get those punish'd who had offended them Each of 'em presented Requests to the Emperor wherein they accused one or other and signified the wrong they had done them This hapning every day the Emperor set one a part in which they were every one of 'em to bring his Grievance The day being come the Emperor took all their Requests and caused 'em to be thrown into the Fire and exhorted them to a mutual Forgiveness according to the Precepts of the Gospel He afterwards enjoyn'd them to labour in clearing up the Points of Faith of which they were to be Judges and a fixt day wherein the Question of the Consubstantiality should be decided The day appointed (a) Euseb vit Const lib. 3. c. 10. being come Constantine convocated all the Bishops into an Hall of the Palace where he had caus'd Chairs to be set on both sides The Bishops entred first and the Emperor came in afterwards and did not sit down at the Head of the Assembly on a gilded Seat which he caused to be there placed till the Bishops by Signs had giv'n him leave Being set down Eusebius of Cesarea who was at his Right Hand harang'd him and thank'd him for the care he had taken to preserve the Purity of the Catholick Faith Constantin afterwards began to speak
Prophet says he calls elsewhere this Rock Manna a name which signifies the same thing to wit the Divine Reason the most ancient of Beings Our Saviour Christ calls himself in St. John Paraclete ch xiv 16. when he promises his Apostles to send them another Paraclete he says likewise that he is the true Bread in opposition to the Manna which cou'd be no more than a shadow of it and St. Paul says That the Stone of the Desert was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 These ways of speaking which are found in St. John to be the true Bread the true Vine and which denote that he to whom they are applied is able to produce in mens Spirits as much efficacy in another kind of things as the Bread and Wine produce in the Body these ways of speaking I say were particular to the Platonists as has been observed elsewhere We might give several other Examples of Platonic Phrases to be met with in the New Testament but it will be sufficient to remark here that the Apostles apply to our Savior Christ Passages of the Old Testament which Philo had applied to the Reason and that this Jewish Philosopher has giv'n to this same Reason most of the Titles which the Apostles have giv'n to Jesus Christ The Pagans who had then embraced the Gospel and who were in some measure verst in the Heathen Philosophy remarking this resemblance of Terms perswaded themselves that the Apostles believ'd the same things in respect of these matters as the Platonic Jews and Pagans And this seems to be that which drew several Philosophers of this Sect into the Christian Religion and giv'n such a great esteem to the Primitive Christians for Plato Justin Martyr in his first Apology says that (a) P. 48. Ed. Col. An. 1686. Jesus Christ was known in part by Socrates for the Reason was and is still the same which is in every man It is she that has foretold the future by the Prophets and who being become subject to the same Infirmities as we has instructed us by her self He says moreover (b) P. 51. Ejus ed. That the Opinions of Plato are not remote from those of Jesus Christ And this has made likewise St. Austin to say That if the ancient Platonists were such as they were described and were to rise again they would freely embrace Christianity in changing (c) De Ver. Rel. c. 3. Vid. Ep. IVl. some few Words and Opinions which most of the late Platonists and those of his time have done paucis mutatis verbis atque sententiis Christiani fierent sicut plerique recentiorum nostrorumque temporum Platonici fecerunt Tertullian affirms in his Apology (a) C. XXI that when the Christians say That God has made the Vniverse by his Word by his Reason and by his Power they speak only after the sage Heathens who tell us That God has made the World by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word or Reason Clement Alexandrin has likewise believ'd that Plato held the Doctrin of the blessed Trinity Origen against Celsus does not deny but that Plato spake the truth in speaking of God (b) Lib. 6 p. 276 280. and of his Son he only maintains that he did not make such a just use as he ought of his Knowledge He does not say that the Foundation of the Christian Doctrin is different in this from that of Plato but that this Philosopher had learnt it from the Jews Constantin in his harangue to the Saints (c) Cap. IX after having prais'd Plato in that he was the first Philosopher who brought men to the contemplation of intellectual things thus goes on He has spoken of a first God who is above all Essences wherein he has done well He has likewise submitted to him a Second and has distinguisht two Essences in number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Perfection of the one being the same as that of the other and the Essence of the second God taking his Existence from the first For it is he who is the Author and the Director of all things being above all He that is after him having executed his Orders attributes to him as to the supream cause the production of the Vniverse There is then but one to speak properly who takes care and provides for all to wit the Reason who is God and who has set all things in their order This Reason being God is likewise the Son of God for who can call him otherwise without committing a great fault He that is the Father of all things is justly said to be the Father of his own proper Reason HITHERTO PLATO HAS SPOKE LIKE A WISE MAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he has varied from the truth in introducing a multiplicity of Gods and in giving to each of 'em his form We might cite several other such like Passages whereby one might see that several among the Fathers of the first three Centuries have believ'd that the Opinion of Plato and that of the Apostles was the same If we consider that the Question here is about things of which we have naturally no Idea and which is even incomprehensible supposing revelation and of which one can only speak in metaphorical and improper Language it will then appear to us no wonder if since the Apostles times there have arose several Opinions on this Subject Thus the Ebionites are charged to have denied the Prae-existence of our Savior's Divinity and to have held that he was only a meer Man These Ebionites have remain'd a long time seeing that not only Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus do mention them but St. Jerom seems to take notice that they were in his time It 's affirm'd That Artemon under the Emperor Severus and Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch under the Emperor Aurelius maintain'd the same Opinions Cerinthus on the contrary held the Prae-existence of the Reason which he call'd the Christ and affirm'd that she had descended on Jesus in the form of a Dove when he was Baptiz'd and that she ascended up into Heaven when he was crucifi'd It is indeed very difficult to affirm that this was precisely the Opinions of these Hereticks because we have nothing remaining to us of them and that we cannot fully trust those who speak of 'em only with detestation seeing it might easily be that their great Zeal has hindred them from well comprehending them And this is a Remark which we must make in respect of all the ancient Hereticks whose Opinions are denoted to us only from the Writings of their Adversaries About the middle of the third Century Sabellius produced a new Opinion which was condemned in Egypt and afterwards every where He was charg'd with (a) Synod Const ap Theod lib. 5. c. 9. Damascus apud cundem c. 11. confounding the Hypostasis and denying the Properties which distinguish the Father the Son and Holy Ghost and for having said that the Father is the same as the Son Whereas Plato and his followers
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