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
reckoned three numerical Essences It seems that Sabellius wou'd acknowledge but one whom he call'd the Father the Son or Holy Spirit in divers regards It 's said that some others had maintain'd the same thing before and after him as Noet and Beryllus of Botsra A while after Sabellius appear'd Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch who was as we have said of the Ebionites Sentiment in relation to our Savior's Divinity Altho' the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used in the Platonic Philosophy to signifie what is of the same kind as has been observ'd already and as may be seen in Bull 's Defence Nicene Council Sect. 2. ch 1. Yet the Council which met at Antioch to condemn Paul of Samosatia condemn'd likewise this term But it 's hard to find in what sense it was taken because the Acts of this Council are lost and we know nothing of them but by what St. Athanasius and some others extreamly interessed to uphold this word have said in their Disputes against the Arians If we believe them the Fathers of the Council of Antioch said that the Father and the Son were not consubstantial in the same sense wherein we say that two pieces of Mony made of the same Metal are consubstantial because that these pieces suppose a praeexistent matter of which they have been both form'd whereas the Father and the Son do not suppose the like substance Paulus Somosatenus said that if the Son had not been made God we must suppose that he is of the same kind of effence as that of the Father and that thus there must have been an anterior substance to the one and to the other of which they must have been form'd St. Athanasius assures us (a) In lib. de Syn. Arim. c. Seleue. II. p. 919. Seq that the term of homoousios was condemn'd at Antioch in as much only as it might include the Idea of a matter anterior to things which we call coessentials These are the chief heretical Opinions touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ which appear'd before the Council of Nice As for the Fathers which are respected as Orthodox they have not varied from the Expressions of the Platonists and as these have sometimes said that the Reason is different from the Supream Being and sometimes that they are both one The Fathers have exprest themselves in the same Terms The Platonists have said That the Father could not be without the Son nor the Son without the Father as the Light could not be without the Sun nor the Sun without Light and the Fathers have said the same thing Both one and the other have acknowledged that the Reason has existed before the World and that she has produced it and as Plato speaks in his Timaeus and Plotinus in his Enneades of the Generation of Reason as if the good it self had produced it to create and govern the World So the Fathers have said that the Son hath proceeded in some manner from the Father before the Creation of the World to manifest himself to men by his Production and that hence it is that the Scripture calls him the Son of God and his First born Sometimes they say there was a time in which the Son was not sometimes that he was from Everlasting as well as the Father sometimes they affirm they are equal and elsewhere they say the Father is greatest Some of 'em believe that the Father and Son are two Hypostases two Natures two Essences as appears from the Passage of Pierius related by (a) Cod. CXIX Photius others deny it To bring Instances of all this would be too great an Enlargement for this Place and there being enough to be seen in Bulls Book which we have already cited If it be demanded at present what Ideas they fixt to these Expressions it cannot be affirm'd that they have been clear First because whatever endeavours are used to understand what they say a man can get no distinct Notion thereof and secondly because they acknowledge themselves that it is a thing incomprehensible All that can be done on this occasion is to relate the Terms which they have used to the end that it may be seen how they have heretofore express'd themselves on this matter However learned Men have given themselves a great deal of trouble to explain the Passages of the Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice without considering that all their Explications are fruitless seeing the Fathers in acknowledging that what they said was incomprehensible acknowledged at the same time that they fix'd no Idea on the Terms they used unless such as were general and confused Had the matter staid here there had never been such great Disputes on the Sentiments of the Ancients touching this Mystery seeing the Dispute doth not so much lie on the Terms they have used as the Ideas they have fastned to them which cannot be reduced to any thing that is clear Sometimes they use Terms which seem perfectly to agree with those which have been used since but there is found in some other places of their Works Expressions which seem to overthrow what they had said so that one cannot form any Notion of what they thought Lactantius for Example answers thus to the Heathens who ask'd the Christians how they said they acknowledged but one God seeing they gave this Name to the Father and to the Son (a) Instit lib. 4. cap. 29. pag. 403. Ed. Oxon. When we call the Father God and the Son God we do not say that each of them is a different God and we do not separate them because the Father cannot be without the Son nor the Son separated from the Father He cannot be called Father without his Son nor the Son be begotten without his Father Seeing then that the Father makes the Son and that the Son is made the one and the other has the same Intellect one only Spirit and one only Substance VNAVTRIQVE MENS VNVS SPIRIT VS VNASVBSTANTIA These are Words which seem to be decisive and had Lactantius held to these Expressions he had never been accused of Heterodoxy but if he be question'd what he means by the Word Vnus whether it be a Numerical Vnity or an Vnity of Consent and Resemblance he will appear determin'd to this latter Sense (a) Ib. p. 404. When any one says he has a Son whom he dearly loves and who dwells in the House and under the governing Power of his Father although the Father grants him the Name and Authority of a Master yet in the Terms of Civilians here is but one House and one Master So this World is but one House belonging to God and the Son and the Father who inhabit the World and who are of one Mind Unanimes are one only God the one being as the two and the two as the one And this ought not to appear strange seeing the Son is in the Father because the Father loveth the Son and the Father is in the
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
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
Son by reason of his faithful Resignation to his Fathers Will and that he does nothing nor ever did do any thing unless what the Father has will'd or commanded him We may read farther the vi Ch. of the iv Book which begins thus God who has conceiv'd and produced all Things before he began this curious work of the World begat a Spirit Holy and Incorruptible that he might call him his Son Although he has produced infinite others whom we call Angels for his Ministry yet has he vouchsafed to give the Name of Son to his only First-born who is cloathed with the Vertue and Majesty of his Father That which is particular in this is that though Lactantius says that the Son is Co-eternal with the Father yet he says there was a time when he was not (a) Lib. 2. c. 9. in Ed. Betuleij Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit auctorem suum sic ineffabiliter Pater genuisse credendus est Co aeternum De Matre natus est qui ante jam fuit de Patre qui aliquando non fuit Hoc fides credat intelligentia non requirat ne aut non inventum putet incredibile aut repertum non credat singulare It 's true this Passage is not to be found in some Manuscripts and that several learned men have fancied that some sly Heretick has corrupted Lactantius Works but in other places wherein all the Manuscripts do agree Lactantius expresses himself after the same manner and it may be replied with as much likelihood that it has been the Orthodox Revisors who have cut off what they thought not fit to be made publick Lactantius has been long since charg'd with Heterodoxy but in this respect he has been no more faulty than other Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice whose Expressions are as different as those of the Platonists in matter of the Trinity And this has made Father Peteau and Mr. Huet to charge them with favoring the Arian Sentiments whilst other learned Men have maintain'd that they have been far from them Each of them cites his Passages which examin'd a-part seem to decide for him But when one comes to compare these Passages with one another it cannot be comprehended how the same Persons could speak so differently In this Comparison their Expressions are found so obscure and so full of apparent Contradictions or real ones that a man feels himself oblig'd to believe That the Fathers had done a great deal better in keeping themselves to the Terms of the Apostles and to have acknowledged that they understood them not than to throw themselves into such Labyrinths by endeavouring to explain them To shew farther that the Expressions of the Fathers are only fit to produce confused Notions and such as are contrary to those which all Christians at this day hold we need only read Tertullian who having said in his Apology Ch. xxi That the Nature of Reason is spiritual adds Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus prolatione Generatum idcirco Filium Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae nam Deus Spiritus est But what means Prolatum genitus The Terms of Vnity of Substance may signifie not only of the same Substance in Number but moreover of a like Substance that is to say spiritual and equally perfect And what he adds seems to favour this last sense Etiam cum radius ex sole porrigitur portio ex summa sed Sol erit in radio quia Solis est radius nec separatur substantia sed extenditur The substance of a Ray after what manner soever we conceive it is not the same in Number as that of the Sun and Tertullian says that it is the same of the Son Ita de Spiritu Spiritus de Deo Deus Thus a Spirit is born of a Spirit and a God of a God Vt Lumen de lumine accenditur manet integra indefecta materiae matrix etsi plures inde traduces qualitatum mutueris as when we light one Torch by another the Light which has lighted the other remains entire and without being wasted although we light several Torches who have the same qualities Ita quod de Deo profectum est Deus est Dei filius unus ambo Ita de Spiritu Spiritus de Deo Deus modulo alternum numerum gradu non statu fecit à matrice non recessit sed excessit So what proceeds from God is God and Son of God and both are but one so the Spirit which is born of a Spirit and the God who is born of a God makes two in respect of Degree but not in respect of his State he has not been separated from the Womb or from his Original but is gone out of it These Words of Tertullian do not appear at first sight agreeable with Arius's Opinion but at most they contain nothing that is clear for one might have demanded of Tertullian whether by this Prolation he speaks of the Reason has existed as Light from a Torch lighted by another Torch exists as soon as it is lighted Should he allow it he might have been told that to speak strictly there must then have been two Gods seeing that in fine two Spirits though exactly equal and strictly united are two Spirits If this be so the second Spirit being not form'd of the same numerical Substance as that of the first one might say with Arius that he has been extracted from nothing and there would be in this regard nothing but a Dispute about Words between Arius and Tertullian But if it be answer'd for Tertullian that his comparison is not good it will be ask'd why he made use of a comparison which may lead into Errour especially having said before that he was of Plato's opinion touching the Reason If he meant that the Father has produced in his proper Substance without multiplying it a Modification in respect of which one may call the Substance of the Father Son why does he say Spiritus ex Spiritu ex Deo Deus For to speak properly the Father has produced neither a Spirit nor a God but a new manner of being in his proper Substance It is farther to be observed that this Comparison is not of Tertullian alone but of Justin Martyr and a great number of Fathers besides before and after the Council of Nice and that there is no Passage which appears of greater force than that yet the Equivocation of it is apparent The Fathers have likewise used the Term Hypostasis as well as the Platonists in two senses sometimes for the Existence taken in an abstracted manner and sometimes for the thing it self which exists The Equivocation of this Term and that of the Words One and Many which as has been shew'd are taken sometimes from the Unity and the Plurality Specificals and sometimes from the Unity and Plurality Numericals have caus'd great Controversies among the Fathers as divers learned Men have a a Petavius
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
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