THat this work may be clear and instructive, 'tis 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 [Page 2]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) An [...]. 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 [Page 4]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 Ʋniverse, &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 [Page 6]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 [Page 7]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 cap. 3. ad 8. but especially in the Book which is intitled of the three Hypostases, which are the three Principles of all things. Here's whereunto his Doctrin may be reduced.

• I. There are three Principles: The Being, the Spirit, or the Reason of the Being, and the Soul of the World, which is the Reason of the Spi­rit. There is also, according to him, a Reason of the Soul of the World, but it is a Reason obscure; [...].
• II. The Being has begotten the Reason, not by an act of his will, or by a decree, but by his nature, as fire begets heat, or as the sun produces light. The Reason has also begotten the Soul of the World, and perhaps termed Father in this respect.
• III. These three Hypostases differ in number, altho' there be a most strict union between them; which makes, that one may say at the same time, that they are different, and that they are the same thing. The first is more excellent than the second, and the second more ex­cellent [Page 8]than the third.
• IV. The terms which Ploti­nus uses, are worth observing.
  • 1. He calls not only essence ( [...]) after Plato, the nature of the being, of the reason and of the soul of the World, but he likewise uses the word [...], matter, and says, that the matter of the one is more perfect than that of the other. Having pretended that Parmenides had said before Plato, that there are three Principles, he ex­presses himself in these terms: Parmenides holds like­wise the Opinion of the three Natures.
  • 2. It's obser­vable, that the word hypostasis ( [...]) signifies two things with this Philosopher; first, the existence of a thing, considered abstractedly; and in the second place, the thing it self which exists, as it's taken in the Title of this Book, of the three Hypostases, which are the Principles of all things, [...], and in the Title of the third Book of the same En­neade, of intelligent Beings.
  • 3. As he says, That the Reason is the Father of the Soul, he says likewise, that the Reason begets, and makes the Soul; for we must observe, that in this matter, Plato and his Disciples use indifferently the words, to beget, to make, to pro­duce, &c. and that begotten and made, is the same thing here, in their mouths. We need only read Plato's Ti­maeus.
  • 4. Plotinus says, that the Father and the Rea­son are one and the same thing [...], because they coexist and for sake not one another. He says, that the Su­pream Being, and whose essence consists in existing, in a manner wholly particular, has begotten by his Nature the Spirit, and that he cannot be without him, no more than a luminous body can be without light.

The Spirit on his part, whose essence consists in having perpetually a lively conception of the Being, cannot exist ( [...]) without this. They cannot be [Page 9]separated ( [...]) one from the other, because there is nothing between them, as there is nothing be­tween the Spirit and the Soul. 5. He says, that that which is begotten, resembles ( [...]) its cause just as the Light resembles the Sun. 6. He says, that the Spirit is the Image ( [...]) of the Be­ing, as the Soul is the Image of the Spirit.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Eighth Book against Julian, cites a passage of Porphyry, out of his Third Book of the Philosophical History, whence it appears That the Platonists disputed among themselves, whe­ther there could be more than three Hyposta­ses in the Divinity; Plato, saith Porphyry, has taught, that the Divine Essence may extend it self even to three Hyposta­ses; to wit, the Supream Divinity, or the good it self; after it, the Creator, who is the second; and the Soul of the World, which is the third, &c. But there are Men who pretend, that we must not reckon the very good, or good it self, among the things which he has produced, and that being of a perfect simplicity, and incapable of ac­cidents, he has communion with nothing: so that it is by the Spirit that we must begin to reckon the Trinity [...], &c.

However, Porphyry's Master, whom we have al­ready cited, seems (a)Ennead. V. lib. 8. c. 12. to say, that there may be more than three Hypostases, in these remarkable words:

God has begotten an excellent Being, and has brought forth all things in him. This production has cost him no pain, for pleasing himself in what he beg at, and finding his productions good, he has retained them all in himself, tempering his brightness and theirs. Those which have there remain'd being more excellent, there's only his only Son ( [...]) Jupiter who has appear'd without, by whom [Page 10]as by the supream Son of the Divinity, and as in an Image, one may see what the Father is, and the Brethren which have remained in the Father, [...].

The Platonists likewise used, in speaking of the U­nion which they conceiv'd to be between the different Orders of their Divinities, the Terms of [...], of different Essence, and [...], Co-essential. By the first, they denote the different sorts of Beings, and by the second, what is of the same kind. Here's a Proof taken out of Jamblichus, in his Book of the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Sect. 1. ch. xix. He speaks of the manner after which the Superiour Gods are united to the Inferiour, according to the Platonic Philosophy: The Divinities, says he, of the second Order, turning themselves towards the first intellectual Beings, and the first giving to the second, the same Essence, ( [...]) and the same Power; this entertains their Ʋnion. What we call Ʋnion in the things which are of different kinds, ( [...]) as the Soul and the Body, or which are divers Species, ( [...]) as material things; or which are o­therwise divided, this Ʋnion, I say, happens to 'em from superiour things, and destroys it self at a certain time. But the more we elevate our selves to superiour things, and to the Identity ( [...]) of the first Beings, and in regard of the Species, and in regard of the Essence; when we ascend from the parts to the whole, the more we acknowledge the Ʋnion ( [...]) which is eternal, and the more we see what is the Ʋnion properly so called, and the Model whereon all the rest have been form'd, and that it hath about it, and in it self, the Diversity ( [...]) and the Multiplicity.

Porphyry had ask'd, whether a kind of Being is form'd, ( [...]) mixt with our Soul and Di­vine Inspiration, which made the Prophets able to foresee the future. Jamblichus (a) Sect. 3. c. 21. an­swer'd, [Page 11] no; and gives this reason for it; which is, that when one only thing is form'd of two, the whole is of one and the same Species, of the same Nature, and Co essential, ( [...]) and that this does not happen in the case propo­sed by Porphyry.

One may see hereby, the Subtilty with which the Platonists handled these Matters, and the Terms they used. But we should take notice of two things, in endeavouring to form to our selves an Idea of their Sentiments. The first, that we must not always sup­pose they had a clear and distinct knowledge of what they would say themselves, and that they saw all the consequences of their Opinions: So that it would be perhaps in vain, to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment, touching the three Principles of all things, because, perhaps they themselves conceiv'd not clearly what they said; at least, their Style is so different on this Occasion, from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings, wherein they speak of things which they may know, that it is apparent, they contain'd not the subject of the three Principles, like an infinite of others, which they have known how to express in an even, clear, and elegant manner. The second thing we should observe, is, That in so difficult a matter, we must content our selves with what they say po­sitively, without attempting to draw far-fetch'd Con­sequences from their Principles, which we cannot un­derstand but by halfs; otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them, such Notions as they never had. Neither must we endeavour to reconcile in so abstract­ed a subject, the contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrin, nor conclude, that they could not mean things in such a manner, because then they must contradict themselves. It was the custom of these [Page 12]Philosophers to affect certain apparent Contradictions, in using the same Terms in divers Senses. Besides, its obvious enough to imagine, that they may have some­times contradicted themselves, on a subject whereof they had no distinct Idea.

These two Remarks were necessary to prevent the questions which might be offer'd on these matters, and to shew that in writing the History of these Doctrins, one should keep wholly to Facts, and the Terms of the Authors we treat of.

A second Opinion of the Platonists, which has made a great noise in the World, is that of the Prae existence of Souls, in places above the Moon, (b)Vid. Plato's Timoeus. of the faults which they may have there commit­ed; of their banishment from these happy Abodes, to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bo­dies, according to the different merits of these Souls; in fine, of their return into places whence they drew their Original. We shall not trouble our selves to ex­plain this Doctrin, because it belongs not to the Rela­tion in hand, having only made mention of it, for a particular Reason which will appear in its Place.

The Kings of Egypt and Syria, having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia, the Jews, who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms, and who were oblig'd to converse with them, learnt of them their Opinions; and made no difficulty of embracing those, which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion. Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonic Doctrins; they believ'd therefore, that these Doctrins might be true, and re­ceiv'd them so much the more easily, in that they thought, they might hereby defend their Religion a­gainst the Pagans, and make them rellish it the better. Plato every where affirm'd the Unity of the supream [Page 13]Being, yet without denying that there are other Be­ings, which may be called Gods; to wit, the Angels, which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Te­stament. And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews better rellish the Opinions of this Philosopher.

But we should give some particular Proofs of this▪ The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, was plainly of the Opinion of the Prae existence of Souls, as it appears from these Words of the viii Ch. 19, & 20 verses, For I was a witty Child, and had a good Spirit. Yea, rather being good, I came into a Body undefiled. The same Author has used the Word, [...], Reason, in some places, where Plato would have used it, were he to have said the same thing. Thus in the 18 ch. 15, 16, v. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites, he says, Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven, out of thy Royal Throne, as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction, and brought thine unfeigned Commandment, as a sharp Sword, and standing up, fill'd all things with Death; and it touched the Heav'n, but it stood upon the Earth. In the ix Ch. 1 v. He says, that God has made all things by his Reason. It cannot be alledg'd, that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner, seeing that Philo, who liv'd a little while after our Saviour, is full of the like Expressions, as several of the learned have observ'd. It's known that this Author has so well imitated Plato, that he has been call'd the Jewish Plato. He believ'd that there was one only supream God, as all the rest of the Jews do, whom he calls, TO ON, the being through Excellency: But he far­ther acknowledged a Divine Nature, which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ, the Reason, as well as Plato; and another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World. His [Page 14]Writings are so full of these manners of speaking, that there is no need of offering Instances.

The Jews were of these Opinions when our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World; and this is per­haps the Reason why we find, accordingly as it has been observ'd by several learned Men, several Plato­nic Phrases in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of St. John.

It's well known, that Amelius the Platonic Philo­sopher, having read the beginning of this Gospel, re­marked, that this Apostle spake like Plato. In effect, this Philosopher might have said, according to his Principles, The Reason was in the beginning with God, and was God: She it is who hath made all things, who is life, and the light of Men, &c. We find several Passages in Philo, like to this. This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason, the Priest, the Mediator between God and Men, the eldest Son of God, &c. wherein it is observa­ble, that he mixes his Jewish Notions, with the man­ners of speaking of Plato. He has likewise used in one Place the Term, Paraclete, (a)De Vit, Mos. p. 521. Edit. Gen. Graeco. Lat Inter­cessour, in speaking of the Reason: It was necessary▪ said he, that the High Priest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World should have for Intercessour — him of his Sons, whose Vertue is the most perfect, for to obtain the pardon of Sins, and abundant Graces. He had said, (b) [...]uod det. pot. insid. p. 137. that Moses denoted by the Manna, and by the Rock of the Desert, the same Reason: The 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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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 at (que) sententiis, Christiani fierent, sicut pleri (que) recentiorum, nostrorum (que) temporum Platonici fecerunt. Tertullian affirms in his Apology, (a)C. XXI. that when the Christians say, That God has made the Ʋniverse 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 [Page 17]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 Ʋniverse. 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 [Page 18]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 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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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; ƲNAƲTRIQƲE MENS, ƲNƲS SPIRIT ƲS, ƲNASƲB­STANTIA. These are Words which seem to be [Page 22]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 Ʋnus, whether it be a Numerical Ʋnity, or an Ʋnity 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 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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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 Ʋnity 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. Ʋt 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 [Page 26]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 Ʋnity; 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 Ʋnity.

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) Sozo [...]. 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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]letters of Alexander and Arius are too considerable to be disregarded; Here's then the sum of them.

Arius wrote to (a)ap. Ephiph. in Hes. LXIX. & Theodor. lib. 1. C. 5. Eusebius of ‘ Nicomedia, to en­treat his Protection against Alexander who had excommunicated him and dri­ven him out of Alexandria, because he could not grant him, that the Father and the Son are coeternal; that the Son coexists with the Father without generation, having been always begotten, and not begotten at the same time, without letting it be imagined that the Fa­ther has existed so much as one moment before the Son.’ He added, that Eusebius Bishop of Ce­sarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, A­thanasius of Anazarba, Gregory of Beryta, and Aetius of Lydia, condemning the sentiments of Alexander, had been likewise struck with an Anathema, as well as all the eastern People who were of the same opi­nions, except Philogonius Bishop of antiach, Hel­lanicus of Tripoly, and Macarias of Jerusalem, one of which said that the Son ‘was an Eruclation, the other a Projection, and the other that he was not begotten, no more than the Father. To this A­rius added the explanation of his opinion, which we have already related.’

The Bishop (a)Sozom. II. of Nicomedia having receiv'd this Letter call'd a Synod of his province of Bythinia, which wrote circular Letters to all the Eastern Bishops to induce them to receive Arius into communion, as maintaining the truth, and to engage Alexander to do as much. We have still a Letter of Eusebius to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, wherein he not only entreats Paulinus to inter­ceed for Arius; but wherein he exposes and defends his sentiments with great clearness. He says he has [Page 31]never heard there were two Beings without Generation, nor that the one has been parted into two, but that this single Being had begotten another, not of his Substance, but perfectly like to him, although of a different Nature and Power; That not only we cannot express by Words the beginning of the Son, but that it is even incomprehensible to those intellectual Beings, which are above men, as well as to us. To prove this, he cites the 8th of the Proverbs, God the Lord possess'd me in the beginning of his Ways, before his Works of old, I was set up from Everlasting, and he has begotten me before the Moun­tains were brought forth. He says, that we must not search into the Term of Begetting any other Signification than that of Producing, because the Scripture does not only use it in Reference to the Son, but moreover, in speaking of Creatures; as when God says, I have be­gotten Children; and I have brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.

But these Letters not having had the Success which Arius expected, he sent to get leave of Paulinus, of Eusebius, and Patrophilus Bishop of Scythopolis, to gather those who were of his Opinion into a Church, and to exercise among them the Office of a Priest, as he was want to do before, and as was done at Alexandria. These Bishops having Convocated the other Bishops of Palestine, granted him what he de­manded, but ordered him however to remain subject to Alexander, and to omit nothing to obtain Com­munion with him.

There is extant a Letter of Arius, directed to this Bishop, (a)Apud Epiph. II. and written from Nicodemia, which contains a Confession of Faith, ac­cording to the Doctrin which Arius af­firm'd that Alexander himself had taught him; where­in, after having denoted his Belief touching the Fa­ther, [Page 32]which includes nothing Heterodox; he adds, That he hath begotten his only Son before the times Eter­nal; that it is by him, that he has made the World; that he has begotten him, not only in Appearance, but in Re­ality; that this Son subsists by his own Will; that he is unmoveable; that he is a Creature of God that is per­fect, and not as other Creatures; that he is a Production, but not as other Productions; nor as Valentinian said, a Projection of the Father; nor as Manes affirm'd, a Consubstantial Part of the Father; nor as Sabellius called him, a Son Father; ( [...]) nor as Hieracas spake, a Lamp lighted by a Lamp, or a Torch divided into two; That he did not exist before he was begotten, and became a Son; that there are three Hypostases (that is to say, different Substances) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the Father is before the Son, although the Son was created before all Ages. Arius adds, That Alexander had several times preach'd this Doctrin in the Church, and refuted those who did not receive it. This Letter is Sign'd by six Priests, seven Deacons, and three Bishops, Secondus of Pentapolis, Theonas of Lybia, and Pistus whom the Arian Bishops had Establisht at Alexandria.

Alexander (a)Socrat. lib. 1. c. 6. wrote on his side circular Letters, wherein he sharply censures Eusebius of Nicomedia, in that he protected Arius, and recomended him to others. He joyns to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated, and ex­plains their Doctrin, wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius Letters, touching the beginning which he attributes to the Son; he says moreover that this Priest maintain'd that the Son is one of the Creatures, that we cannot call him the Reason and Wisdom of the Father but improperly, seeing that he him­self has been produced by the Reason and Wisdom of God; [Page 33]that he is subject to change, as other intelligent creatures; that he is of another Essence than God; that the Father is incomprehensible to him, and that he knows not himself what is his proper substance; that he has been made for our sakes, to serve God as an Instrument in creating us, and that without this, God had never begotten him Alex­ander adds, That having assembled near an hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia, they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers, by reason of his Opinions. He afterwards comes to prove his, and shews

• first, The Eternity of the Son by this Passage of St. John, In the Beginning was the Reason.
• 2. That he cannot be reckoned among the Creatures; because the Father says of him in the 45. Ps. My heart has uttered (eructavit) a good Word.
• 3. That he is not unlike the Essence of the Fa­ther, of which he is the perfect Image, and the Splendor, and of whom he says, He that has seen me, has seen the Father.
• 4. That we cannot say, there was a time in which he was not, seeing that he is the Reason, and the Wisdom of the Father; and that it will be absurd to say, there was a time in which the Father was without Reason and Wisdom.
• 5. That he is not subject to change, because the Scripture says, He is the same yesterday and to day.
• 6. That he was not made because of us, seeing St. Paul says, that it is because of him, and by him that all things are.
• 7. That the Father is not incomprehensible to the Son, seeing he says, As the Father knows me, so I know the Father.

This Letter wherein Eusebius of Nicomedia is ex­treamly ill treated, shockt this Bishop to the utmost Point, and having great access to the Court, because Constantine made then his abode at Nicomedia, this occasion'd divers Bishops to be at his Devotion; but he could not engage Alexander to forget what had past, to speak no more of this Controversie, and to [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 [Page 37]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 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 [Page 38]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, [Page 39]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; 'twas 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 Church­men, [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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, [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 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 perni­ [...]ions Doctrin be destroyed, but that there remain no [Page 46]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 [Page 47] 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, [Page 48]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 [Page 49]Name of Constantinople, where he magnificently treated them, and made each of 'em a-part a Present, after which, they return'd to their Bishopricks. It seems, that it was about this time, that he wrote very ob­liging Letters to Eusebius of Cesarea, (c)Socr. lib 1. cap. 9. in giving him order to procure him fifty Co­pies fairly written, of the Holy Scripture.

As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis his Friend, they were no sooner return'd into their Bishopricks, but they began again to Preach publickly Arianism, (d)Ex. Epi. Const. ad Ni­com. l. and receiv'd into their Communion some Persons of Alexandria, who had been thence expelled for this Opinion. Constantin advertised of this, sent them into Exile, three Months after the Council, and establish'd at Ni­comedia one Amphion for Bishop, and Chrestus at Nice. Thus was Secondus's Prediction accomplish'd, and In­sincerity punished.

Two Months after, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, died, which occasion'd great Disturbances in that City. The Orthodox (a)Sozom. II. 17. Philost. III. 11. say, that Athanasius, Deacon of this Church, whom Alexander had brought along with him to Nice, by reason of his Knowledge, had been denoted several times by this Bishop, for his Successor, but that he had hid himself a little before his Death, for fear of being Elected, and that having been found, he was chosen by a Plurality of Voices.

The Heterodox affirm, on the contrary, that the Me­letians being re-united to the Catholicks, after the Death of Alexander, fifty-four Bishops of Egypt took an Oath, to elect by common consent his Successor, but that seven among them broke their Oaths, and chose Atha­nasius, without the Participation of the rest. Some even assure, that the Voices were divided, and the Election not being made quick enough, Athanasius shut himself [Page 50]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 aEuseb. 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 [Page 51]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. aSocrat. 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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]it was he that had recalled Arius; and that the Ec­clesiastical Historians attribute likewise sometimes to the Emperor the actions of the Bishops, as when Socrates says that the Council of Nice forbad Arius his return to Alexandria, whereas it was the Empe­ror. But in truth the Emperor did then few things of his own pure motion, being only the Church men's Tool, which falls out but too often, even among the greatest Princes.

The Letter of Eusebius and Theognis produced the affect which they hoped from it. They were recalled with Theonas and Secondus who would sign nothing. The two first being returned to their Bishopricks, drove out thence those who had gotten into their Sees, when they were sent to their places of banishment. They are charged with having immediately after sought out ways to make Athanasius undergoe the same punishment, which they came from suffering, by getting it told the Emperor, that he had been e­lected in a manner little canonical, and with endea­vouring to induce the same Athanasius both by Pray­ers and threatnings, to permit Arius to return to Alex­andria. However they could not then accomplish their purpose; and we shall see in the sequel the bick­erings which they had with this Bishop.

Since the Council of Nice had been distmist, and that they had been banisht. This usage, and the deci­sions of Nice had but only outwardly allai'd the di­sputes, which lasts still when they were recalled. Eusebius assures us that the Bishops of Egypt had been ever since over Head and Ears in quarrels; and So­crates says (a) lib. 1. c. 23. that he found from the Let­ters of the Bishops of those times, that some were scandaliz'd at the word Consub­stantial; examining, says he, this term with too great [Page 54]application, they fell foul on one another, and their quar­rels did not ill resemble a combat in the dark. It ap­pears they sufficiently bespattered one another with calum­nies, without knowing wherefore. Those who rejected the word Consubstantial, thought the others hereby in­troduced the opinions of Sabellius and Montanus, and treated them as impious, as denying the existence ( [...]) of the Son of God. On the contrary those who stuck to the word Consubstantial, imagining the others would intro­duce a plurality of Gods, had as great aversion, as if they would have reestablisht Paganism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accused Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea for the Nicene Creed. Eusebius denied it, and charged on the other side Eustathius of Sabellianism; thus the Bi­shops wrote one against another. They all accorded in saying the Son has a particular Existence, and that there is only one God in three Hypostases; yet they could not agree, nor remain quiet. This is the effect of equivo­cal terms, which were introduced into Christianity without well defining them, and the bad custom of most of the Ancients, who never speak calmly of these matters; who have thought of nothing less than the expressing themselves clearly, and who seem to prove they spake sincerely, when they testified to believe, that the mistery about which they disputed was in­comprehensible; by expressing themselves thereon in an unintelligible manner. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (a)Socr. lib. 1. cap. 24. accusing of Arianism Eusebius of Cesa­rea, Paulinus of Tyre, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis; and these Bishops accusing him in their turns of Sabellianism; to know who had rea­son on their side, a Synod was assembled at Antioch in 329. the conclusions of which were disadvantagi­ous to Eustathius. It consisted of Bishops, who had sign'd the Nicene Creed only by force, among whom [Page 55]were the two Eusebius's, Theognis of Nice, Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria, Narcissus of Neroniada, Aetius of Lydiae, Alphaeus of Apamea, and Theodorus of Sidon. Assoon as ever they arriv'd at Antioch, a Woman of ill fame presented her self to 'em with a little Child, which she said to have had by Eustathius, and desi­red them to do her right against him, as refusing to receive his Child. Eustathius made great protestati­ons of his innocency, but this Woman having been believed upon her Oath, he was deposed; (a)Theod. & Sozom. some Authors affirmed that the Arian Bi­shops had suborn'd her, to have an occasi­on for the deposing of Eustathius; and that the true cause of his deposal was his adherence to the Nicene Creed. Others say it was the pretended Sabellianism of which he was accused, and some have contented themselves with saying there were other accusations, for which he had been deposed, whereupon Socrates (b)loco. cit. makes this remarkable reflection: The Bishops are wont to deal thus with all those whom they depose; accusing and declaring them impious, without shewing wherein.

A Bishop was afterwards to be substituted in Eusta­thius his place, and the Arian Bishops cast their eyes on Eusebius of Cesarea. But there arose a violent sedition hereupon; some willing to retain Eustathius, and o­thers accepting Eusebius. They had come to Fisti­cuffs, had not the Emperor taken care, by sending one of his Officers who appeased the People, and made them understand how Eustathius deserv'd to be sent into Exile, and in effect he was sent into Thrace. However Eusebius did a thing, which made him re­ceive very honourable Letters from the Emperor, which he has inserted in the life of this Prince, which is, that according to the Canons, he refused to pass [Page 56]from one Church to another. Constantin heapt up Praises on him by reason of this refusal, and wrote to the Council, and the Church of Antioch to let him remain where he was. So that instead of Eusebius, there was elected Euphronius Priest of Cappadocia, whom the Emperor had named with George of Are­thusa, to the end the Council might choose which they pleased.

(a)Soc. 1.27. & Seq. Soz. Theod.Having deposed Eustathius, the Ari­an Bishops labored to procure the return of Arius to Alexandria, where Athanasius would not permit him to enter, as has been already said. They engaged the Emperor to write to this Bishop, but Athanasius still defended him­self, in that he could not receive into the Church those who had forsook the Faith and been excommunica­ted; so that Constantin wrote to him an angry Letter, that he should receive into the Church those he or­dered him, under pain of banishment. The obstina­cy of this Bishop, who would part with none of the advantages which the Council of Nice had granted to his Predecessor against the Meletians, had also drawn on him the enmity of these Schismaticks. The Council had ordained that Melece should only retain the name of Bishop, without exercising any function of his Office, and without ordaining any Successor; and that those whom he had ordained should have no part in Elections. However Melece at his death had ordained one John for his Successor, and the Meletian Priests would have the same privi­ledges as others. Athanasius could not consent to any thing of this, and equally ill treated the Meletians and Arians. This conduct reunited the two parties, who had been till that time opposite. The Meletians were of the Nicene opinion; but by conversing with [Page 57]the Arians, they soon entred into their Sentiments, and joyn'd together, to induce Constantin to accept of several Accusations against Athanasius; as hav­ing imposed a kind of Tribute on Egypt, in ordering it to furnish the Church of Alexandria with a cer­tain number of Linnen Garments; in having sup­plied a certain seditious Person with Mony; nam­ed Philumenus; in having caused a Chalice to be broken, overthrown the Table of a Church, and burnt the Holy Books; for having mis-used several Priests, and committed divers Violences; in hav­ing cut off the Arm of a Meletian Bishop, named Arsenius, and keeping it to use in Magical Opera­tions. Constantin acknowledg'd the Innocency of Athanasius, in regard of the two first Accusations; and for the rest, he refer'd it to an Assembly of divers Bishops, which was at Cesarea in Palestine, where Athanasius not appearing, he was cited to a Synod at Tyre, in the year 334, and which con­sisted of Bishops of Egypt, Lybia, Asia, and Europe.

Athanasius was in Suspence, whether he should present himself to this Synod, which consisted of his principal Enemies? Yet Constantin having threat­ned him with Banishment if he refused, he there­fore appeared, and justified himself of the Accu­sation touching the Arm of Arsinius, by bringing in this Person into the midst of them, and deriding his Accusers. It's said moreover, That a Woman being introduced into the Assembly, accused him for having dishonoured her, after she had enter­tain'd him in her House, although he knew she had made a Vow of Virginity. But it appeared, that she did not so much as know Athanasius, see­ing she took one Timotheus, a Priest for him, who pretended to be the Bishop of Alexandria.

The business of the broken Chalice, and the mis-using the Priests, was a little more difficult. Athanasius began by an Appeal from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest of the Bishops of his Party. He afterwards said, That he, whose Chalice was pretended to have been broken, and whose Name was Ischyras, was not a Priest. However, without any regard to these Reasons, there were sent some Arian Bishops, to take Informations against him at Alexandria, with Ischyras his Accuser; but he protested highly against this Proceeding, and went to Jerusalem, where the Emperour was. In the mean time, the Informations from Egypt were re­ceiv'd, and Athanasius being loaded with them, he was deposed in his Absence, and forbid to go to Alexandria. Arsenius having been admitted into Communion by the Council, and made Bishop of Hypsyle, a Town of Egypt, subscrib'd to the Depo­sition of Athanasius, although he had justifi'd him, in reference to one of the Accusations brought a­gainst him. The Sentence of the Council bore, that he had slighted the Emperors Orders, and made the Assembly wait for him in an indecent manner; That he came to Tyre with a great multitude of People, and endeavour'd to make a Disturbance there; That he had for sometime re­fused to purge himself of the Crimes said to his Charge, and uttered Injuries to divers Bishops; That he would not submit to their judgment; That he was convicted of breaking a Chalice, by the Informations made against him at Alexandria. Thus was Athanasius condemned by his Enemies, who were his Judges, as Arius had been anathe­matiz'd by Alexander his Predecessor, and several other Bishops, who had declared themselves against [Page 59]him, before the Convocation of the Council. The same usage has been observ'd in all the Assemblies of Bishops which have met since; the Clergy hav­ing this Advantage above the Laity, that they can be both Judges and Parties.

After the Deposal of Athanasius, the Emperor wrote to the Fathers of the Council, to repair as soon as possible to Jerusalem, to celebrare the De­dication of the Church of the Apostles, which was now finished. Where being arriv'd, they were magnificently receiv'd, and made several Orations, for the greater Solemnity of the Festi­val, which hapned to be very luckily, in the same year in which the Tricennales of the Emperor (a)In the Year, 335. were to be celebrated, which is to say, the 30th year of his Reign. Eu­sebius (b)In vit. Const. lib. iv. 46, & 33. particularly made several Ha­rang's before the Emperor, who took a great deal of pleasure in hearing them, insomuch that he would hear standing a long Oration, which this Bishop made on the holy Sepulchre. Eusebius well remembers this Honour the Emperor did him, and the Praises he gave to his Oration touching Easter, and care­fully inserts in the Life of Constantin, all the Let­ters he had receiv'd from the Emperor; perhaps, not out of Acknowledgment, but ra­ther to do himself Honour, (a)Baronius ad bac tempora. as has been reproach'd him.

The Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, (b)Socr. lib. l. c. 33. having ended the Dedication of the Church, which Constantin had newly built, and there receiv'd into Communion Arius and Euzoius, on the Emperors Recommendations. [Page 60] Eusebius and Theognis say, that Arius had been kindly receiv'd by the Bishops, but in no sort, that he was received into Communion, which was, per­haps, for some years refused him, to try his Since­rity. Afterwards they wrote to the Church of Alexandria, that she might receive them, and be as­sured, she would enjoy hence-forward a full Tran­quility, Envy having been driv'n out thence, by the Deposal of Athanasius. (a) Sozom. lib. II. 28. In the mean time this Bishop had gotten to Con­stantinople, to complain to the Emperor of what he had suffered; but he could obtain no Audience of him; all that he could be heard to say, was, That he entreated the Emperor to cire to Constantinople the Bishops which were at Jeru­salem, to have another Examination of his Affair. Constantin wrote to Jerusalem, and complains in his Letter, that in a time wherein the Barbarians began to acknowledge the true God; ‘The Christians, who would be thought to have the My steries of God in their keeping, (for he durst not say that they kept them,) labour'd only to entertain Di­visions and hatred among them, not to say, for the Destruction of Mankind.’ And therefore he desired that the Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, would meet at Constantinople, to examine once for all, the Affair of Athanasius, and put some end to it. This Letter being come to Jerusalem, some of the Bishops return'd to their Dioceses, and others to Constantinople. These last perswaded, according to some Authors, (a)Id. the Emperor, that Athanasius had effectually broken a Cha­lice; or according to others, (b)Socr. lib. 1. cap. 35. that he had threatned to stop the Convoy of [Page 61]Provisions which went every year from Alexandria to Constantinople, of which three Bishops were Wit­nesses. The Emperor provoked by these Accusa­tions, ordered him to retire to Treves, a Town of the Belgick Gaule, where he remain'd about two years.

The Bishops who were met at Constantinople (c)id. cap. 36. deposed after this Marcellus of An­cyra, as being fall'n into the opinion of Paul of Samosatia. One Asterius who had taught Rhetorick in Cappadocia, having embra­ced the Christian Religion, had wrote some Books, wherein he spake of the Divinity of the Son, in the same terms as Arius. Marcellus undertook to refute them, but far from establishng the Pre-existence of the Son, he denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ ex­isted before his Birth; or at least exprest himself in such a manner, that one might believe he regar­ded the Reason or the Word, not as a being that has his particular Existence, but as I know not what kind of accident, such as is the word, or the found which is made in speaking. He also very ill treated (a)Euseb. cont. Marcel. lib. l. c. 4. in the same Book several Arian Bishops, as the two Eusebius's, Paulinus and Narcissus. He charged like­wise Origen for expounding the Holy Scripture, according to the notions of heathen Phi­losophers, and especially according to those of Plato; from whom Marcellus affirmed, he had taken his Doctrin of Principles, which is to say▪ of the Holy Trinity, of which he had treated after the Platon­ick fashion. The Arian Bishops offended with this Book, had begun to examin it, when they were as yet at Jerusalem; but having been obliged to pass [Page 62]over to Constantinople, they had only enjoyned Marcellus to alter his Opinion, according to the Stile of that time. He promist he would burn his Book, but having not done it, and even refusing to do it, his affair was reassumed at Constantinople, and he was deposed. Eusebius of Cesarea wrote two Books expresly against him, wherein he criticizes his work, and three others which he entituled, of Ecclesiastick Theology, wherein he establisht the opinions which he thought Orthodox touching the Divinity, and refuted those of Marcellus and divers other Here­ticks. Marcellus was afterwards (a)Socr. lib. II. 20. & Soz­om. lib. II. cap. 29. reestablisht in the Synod of Sardica; be­cause he affirmed his expressions had been misunderstood; and being an Enemy to the Arians, he insinuated Himself into the Friendship of Athanasius, who perhaps was surpriz'd by the Equivocal Expressions used by Marcellus. It's certain, that if we may judge of him by the Fragments which Eusebius cites, he scarcely knew what he would say himself, or else he conceal'd his Opinions under obscure terms, lest he should fall into trouble.

After that Athanasius had been sent into Exile, (a)id. lib. I. c. 27. & seq. Arius had returned to Alexandria; but his presence being likely to cause a disorder, by reason of the great number of those who followed the sentiments of Athanasius, the Emperor recalled this Priest to Con­stantinople, and to assure himself entirely of his belief, of which the Orthodox still doubted, he offered him the Nicene Creed to sign, which he did without ballancing, and moreover swore he was of that opinion. A report ran that he had [Page 63]hid under his Arm a Writing, which contain'd his Opinion, and that he barely swore he believ'd what he had wrote; but there is no great certain­ty to be expected in what his Enemies say of him. Perhaps he thought, like Eusebius of Cesarea, that one might give to the words of the Creed a sense which amounted to his sentiment, although he wisht they had made use of other terms. What the Fathers of Nice said more than he consisting in in something absolutely incomprehensible; per­haps moreover he counted that for nothing. However Alexander Bishop of Constantinople refu­sed to receive him into Communion, although the Emperor had ordered him to do it, and a great number of Bishops and of the People urged him to it. Besides this the Arian Bishops were preparing to hold a Council, to examin afresh the question agitated at Nice, and had markt a day in which they were to meet to discourse about it, and to conduct Arius into the Church maugre Alexander. In this extremity knowing not how to maintain his refusal, the History tells us that he shut himself up in a Church call'd Peace, and set himself very devoutly to pray to God, not that he would convert Arius, or that he would discover to himself the Truth, but, that if the opinion of Arius was true, he himself might not see the day set apart to discourse of it; or that if his own belief were true, Arius who was the cause of so great mis­chiefs, might be punisht for his Infidelity. A Prayer so little charitable, and whence might be seen that this Bishop was more concern'd for his re­putation than the Truth, fail'd not of being heard, seeing that the next morning which was [Page 64]Sunday, or the same day at night, as Arius went to the Church accompani'd by those of his Party, or in some other place, for the Historians vary, in passing by the Market of Constantin, he had so great occasion to go to ease himself, that he was forced to betake himself to the common Privies, where instead of finding ease, he evacuated his Bowels, and thus died suddenly. Since that time Passengers were commonly shew'd these places of easement, and no body dared sit down on the same place where Arius sat. 'Tis said that a Rich Arian, to abolish the memory of it, bought af­terwards this Place of the Publick, and there built an House.

It's thus that Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen relate the last Events of the life of Arius. But St. Athanasius says that (a)in Epst. ad Serapionem. having been recalled by the solicitations of those of his Party, he offered his Confession of Faith to the Emperor, and swore that he did not believe any thing else; after which those that protected him would introduce him into the Church, at his going out of the Emperors Palace, but that he died, without having been received into Communion. (b)De. Val­vis. A Learned Man is of Opinion in this matter, That the Arius who was received into Communion at Jerusalem, was a Priest of the Party of the famous Arius, and not he himself, who had already died out of the Communion of the Church; for without this it must be said that Athanasius has been mistaken. But were it granted him that this Bishop was mistaken, in speaking of a Man whom he every moment orewhelmed with injuries, it cannot be [Page 65]found strange, especially not having been at Constantinople then, when what he relates must have hapned. One may farther say, that Athanasius has related, by way of abridgment, and little exactly, what he had heard say of Arius, and that he regard­ed him as an excommunicated Person, having been only received by a Council whose Authority Athanasius would not acknowledge, it consisting principally of Persons whose opinions had been ana­thematized at Nice. It is far more natural thus to interpret this passage of Athanasius, than to re­ject wholly as false an History so circumstanc'd as that of the latter years of the life of Arius, in respect of certain facts which the Historians, which we have already cited, had no interest to alter.

Arius being dead, apparently of a sudden death, peradventure by Poyson, which may have given occasion to the Tragical manner, in which the Historians mention it, the Disputes started on his occasion dyed not with him: (a)Soz [...]m. lib. II. c. 31. Those who were of Athanasius's Party at Alexandria, besought of God his return in the Publick Prayers, and ceased not to impor­tune the Emperor, to make him be recalled. Constantin was oblig'd to write to the People of that Town a Letter, wherein he upbraided them for their Lightness and Folly, and enjoyns the Eccle­siasticks to remain quiet, and wherein he declares he would not recall Athanasius, whom he treats as a seditious Person, and one who had been con­demned by a Council. He answers likewise to Anthony the Hermit; That he could not slight the Judgment of the Council of Tyre, because that supposing some among the Bishops were passionate, yet it is not pro­bable [Page 66]that so great a number of Wise and Learned Bi­shops should all of 'em act by passion; and that Athanasi­us was an Insolent Proud and Troublesom Fellow.

Constantin wrote these Letters but a little time before his death, which hapned in the year 337, the circumstances of which may be seen in his life writ by Eusebius. Yet we must remember, that this is rather a Panegyrick than an uninterest History; whence it is that he says nothing of the death of his two Wives, and the eldest Son of this Emperor, whom he had put to death thro' jealousy or revenge. Eusebius was always of the Arians side. Yet So­crates has undertaken to justifie him, (b)Socr. lib. II. c. 21. and so do's Dr. Cave seem to do, thinking himself thereto obliged thro' Christian Charity; whereas the love of truth should oblige all Historians never to vary from i [...]. But it is this pre­tended charity, which extends it self only to Fathers which are respected as Orthodox, which has been the cause that we have in a manner only Panegyricks of the Ancients, wherein their defects are ever sup­prest; when they cannot be covered with the mask of some Vertues.

Eusebius, as it appears by the conduct he held at the Council of Nice, was a dextrous Person, who did not scruple to subscribe to terms which were not pleasing to him, provided he could expound them in a sense according to his mind, tho' little conforma­ble to that of those who set them up. For in fine, a Man must shut his Eyes, touching what he says in his Letter to the Church of Cesarea, not to see, that he understood otherwise the terms of the Symbol, than Athanasius did. He was a great admirer of Origen, several of whose opinions may be seen in his life; he lived not long after Constantin, for he dyed in [Page 67]the year 340. St. Jerome in several places calls him Signifer et Princeps Arianorum; Speaking of the great Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea.

Athanasius in his banishment wrote a Creed at Rome, which he presented to a Council sitting there, yet that Creed was not publish'd till above three hun­dred years after in the Toletan Council, as Baronius himself owns, neither can any one tell us what that was; for that which passes commonly amongst us under the name of the Athanasian Creed, and is read in our Churches, was drawn up by God knows who, as Vossius de Tribus Symbolis, Camerarius, and Ell. du Pin in his B. des Aut. Eccles. do ingenuously confess. For how durst Athanasius make a new Creed after the Nicene? Besides, no Writer of that time mentions it, no not Athanasius himself. It seems to have been broach't above 600 years after that age, in which time a profound ignorance had overspread Christen­dom; however the Eastern Churches would never own it, no not at this day. See more in the above mentioned learned Authors.

Constantin being dead, Eusebius Bishop of Nicome­dia, a refin'd Courtier, soon made himself Master of Constantius, and all the Grandees of the Palace, in whom he rooted his beloved Arianism; being assist­ed by Constantia's Priest, the Empress was soon gain'd over, and the Roman Empire became for the most part Arian, Athanasius being condemn'd not only by many Eastern, but also by several great Western Coun­cils. Afterwards they fell so to Logger-heads, that the Western Church excommunicated the Eastern, and the Eastern return'd the same Complement upon the Western, and there we'll leave them.