a b (1.) He calls them divine scriptures. He ever asserts his own opinion upon the ground of their authority, and chargeth his adversaries with opposing and contracting the same divine scriptures. The doctrines which he maintains to be true, he says, are apostolical, which we teach and preach, and for which we are ready to die. (2.) Other passages to the like purpose are such as these: We believe in one only unbegotten Father, giver of the law, and the prophets, and the gospels, Lord of the patriarchs, and apostles, and all holy men.' Afterwards, We also confess, as the divine scriptures teach, one Holy Spirit, who renewed both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New.' He thinks, that the hypostasis of the Son may be above the comprehension of evangelists, and even of angels. Having cited some texts of the Old Testament, and St. Paul's epistles, he proceeds, And in the gospel it is written.' (3.) I have not observed in Alexander quotations of any books, beside those of the Old and the New Testament. But representing in strong terms the perverseness of his adversaries, Arius and his adherents, he says: They have no regard to the wisdom and piety of ancient writings, nor ⚫ to the unanimous consent of our colleagues in the doctrine concerning Christ. By ancient writings, I suppose he means those of early Christians, near the days of the apostles: for which he seems to have had, and justly, a high respect. Nevertheless they were not esteemed decisive, and of authority in matters of religion. If they had been so, they would have been frequently quoted by him. CHAP. LXIX. ARIUS, AND HIS FOLLOWERS. I. His history. II. His works. III. His character. IV. The rise and occasion of the Arian controversy. V. The opinions of Arius and his followers. VI. Divisions among them, and their numerous councils and creeds. VII. Their want of moderation. VIII. Their testimony to the scriptures. IX. Arian writers: 1. Acacius. 2. Aetius. 3. Anonymous author of a Commentary upon the Book of Job. 4. Another author of a Discourse in Augustine. 5. Asterius. 6. Basil of Ancyra. 7. Eunomius. 7. Eunomius. 8. Eusebius of Emesa. 9. Eusebius of Nicomedia. 10. Euzoius. 12. Lucius. 13. Maximin. 14. Philostorgius. 15. Sabinus. 16. Theodore, bishop of Heraclea. 17. Ulphilas. 11. George of Laodicea. I. THE history of the Arian controversy may be learned not only from Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozomen, and other ecclesiastical historians, but likewise from Arius himself, Alexander and Athanasius, principals in the debate. n It began, as some think, in the year* 316, others about' 319: whereas Baronius placed it as early as 315, agreeably to Orosius, as he thought. But Basnage and others say, that the beginning of Arianism is put by that author in 317. Cave likewise thinks, that Arius was not known as an heresiarch, until after 315, though he speaks of him as flourishing about that year. • Εντολής τε εσης εν ταις θείαις γραφαις. ap. Socr. p. 10. Α. & passim. ὁ Και ταυτα λείονίες, και αναπλυσσονίες τας θείας γραφας, πολλακις ανείρεψαμεν αυτες, ap. Socr. p. 12. C. - Ποια δε παρά τας γραφάς εφευρονίες λαλέσιν, εςι ταυία. Ap. Soc. p. 10. D. τας θειας-συναναιρανίες γραφας. ap. Th. p. 10. D. και ταις γραφαις εμπαροινωνίες. ib. p. 11. Β. 4 Ταυλα διδασκομεν, ταυτα κηρυσσομεν, ταυία της εκκλησίας τα αποστολικα δοίμαία, ὑπερ ὧν καὶ ἀποθνησκομεν. Ap. Th. p. 19. A. B. ανθρωπος, και τες της χρηματίζωσης καινης παιδευίας θειες. Ιb. 1 Ου καλᾔδεσεν αυτός ή των αρχαίων γραφων φιλοθεος σαφηνεία εδε ή των συλλει ερίων σύμφωνος περί Χρισε ευλάβεια. ib. p. 16. C. Vid. ib. B. * Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 308. 1 Tillem. T. vi. Les Ariens. Art. 2. & Note i. • A. 317. n. v. Conf. eund. A. 321. n. ix. & Pagi Ann. 315. n. vi. vii. P Capitque, ut volunt, ab anno 315, tamquam hæresiarcha, innotescere, quod tamen paulo serius mihi contigisse videtur, paucis ante synodum Nicanam annis. Cav. H. L. in Ario. Barnard de Varenne says, that Arius did not open himself fully, till the year 319, when he knew that he had several bishops and presbyters on his side. Epiphanius informs us, it was said, that Arius was a native of Libya: he does not speak positively. Constantine seems to mean Alexandria, when he speaks of sending back Arius to his own country. It is now commonly said, that his father's name was Ammonius: and indeed, Arius sent his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia by oned Ammonius, whom he calls father. But in what sense he useth the word, may be questioned, as has been already observed by * Basnage. с Sozomen says, that Arius was made deacon by Peter, but was afterwards excommunicated by the same bishop, for not approving of his treatment of Meletius and his adherents. When Peter had suffered martyrdom, Achillas not only forgave Arius, and admitted him deacon again, but ordained him presbyter. After whose death, he was also for a time much esteemed by Alexander. g h It is universally agreed, that Arius was presbyter of Alexandria, and officiated in a church of that city. Theodoret says, he was intrusted with the interpretation of the sacred scriptures, whether Theodoret thereby means, as catechist, or only as preacher in the church allotted to him, is not certain. For it seems to me, that there is no good reason to conclude from these expressions of Theodoret, that Arius had the office of catechist at Alexandria. k Arius's particular opinions being known, and spreading considerably, Alexander convened a council at Alexandria : in which Arius and divers others were' excommunicated, as Socrates says. To the like purpose Alexander himself," in his epistle to Alexander bishop of Byzantium, afterwards called Constantinople. Sozomen says, that "Alexander excommunicated Arius and the clergy that followed him. This sentence was passed upon Arius, as Tillemont thinks, in 319 or 320, or as other learned men, in 320 or 321. It appears to me very difficult to determine the year with certainty. It ought to be observed, that about the year 319, or in some short time after, two synods were held at Alexandria. After the former of which Alexander wrote his letter to his namesake at Constantinople; after the latter, at which were present almost a hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya, he wrote the letter to the bishops of the catholic church in all places. There seems not to have been any long space of time between those two synods and both these letters of Alexander were written a good while before Constantine's letter to the same Alexander and Arius, which was not written before the year 324. So' Pagi, and others. t S Whenever these things were done, Arius, in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, complains heavily of the hard treatment given him by his bishop. He says, he was unjustly persecuted by Alexander for the truth's sake: and that he and his brethren were expelled the city, as impious, for not assenting to the doctrine taught by him. Epiphanius too, expressly says, that" Arius and they who adhered to him, were expelled both the church and the city. Arius being expelled from Alexandria, went into Palestine, to strengthen his interest, Indeed, there were many who favoured him and his cause. Epiphanius says, it was reported, that he drew over to his party seven hundred virgins consecrated to God, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and some bishops. This great increase, or a large part of it, Epiphanius plainly supposes to have been made before Arius was excommunicated. For he says, that Alexander, having summoned his presbyters, and some bishops, and strictly examining the matter, when Arius refused to own the truth, he was expelled the church and city: and with him were excom municated the virgins and the clergy above-mentioned, and a great number of people. Alexander, in his letter to his namesake of Byzantium, which we have in Theodoret, speaks, as if there were many women at Alexandria who sided with Arius: and their zeal is represented by him as very great; though afterwards, to diminish their credit, as it seems, he speaks of the women that had been deceived, as few, or inconsiderable. He owns likewise, that Arius and his friends boasted of having bishops on their side. Alexander complains also of three bishops of Syria, who countenanced them: meaning Eusebius of Cæsarea, Theodotus of Laodicea and Paulinus of Tyre. And at the end of that letter, he mentions by name ten presbyters and deacons at Alexandria, who had been anathematized by him as heretics. d с In the letter to the bishops of the catholic church, preserved in Socrates, Alexander complains of Eusebius of Nicomedia, for patronizing Arius. And moreover mentions twelve presbyters and deacons at Alexandria, and two bishops of that country, who were of that party. Their names are Arius, Achillas, Aithales, Carponas, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladius, Gaius: the bishops are Secundus and Theonas. h Arius, in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, mentions Eusebius of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory and Aëtius by name and refers in general to other bishops of the east, who had been anathematized by Alexander, for teaching the same doctrine that he did, And intimates, that none of the bishops of the east had escaped that censure, except Philogonius, Hellanicus and Macarius. The places where all these were bishops, are afterwards particularly shewn by Theodoret. i Socrates observes, that the evil, which began at Alexandria, soon spread itself all over Egypt and Libya, and the upper Thebais, and at length into other cities and countries. Arius was at Nice when the council met there: his opinions having been condemned, he * was banished by Constantine. By an edict of the same emperor he and his adherents were stig. matized with the opprobrious name of Porphyrians, his books were ordered to be burned, and whoever concealed any of them were to be put to death. m Arius was afterwards recalled; and, as Sozomen says, in a short time: but was not allowed to go to Alexandria; where indeed he never settled after the council of Nice, though he attempted it. Tillemont says, that Arius was not recalled before the year 330. Other learned men think, he returned from his banishment in 327. It is certain, that Arius and Euzoius did P some time present a confession of faith to Constantine, with which the emperor was satisfied. He was received to the communion of the church by the council of Jerusalem in' 335. A like attempt was afterwards made at Constantinople, but in vain. It is generally said, that he died in a sudden and remarkable manner at Constantinople in the year 336. u t II. It does not appear, that Arius's works were voluminous; though it is probable, that he wrote a good number of letters. We still have an epistle written by him to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and another to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria; and the Confession of Faith, presented by him and Euzoius to Constantine. He also wrote divers little poems, fitted for the use of common people, for promoting his peculiar opinions. A book called Thalia, whether in ° Vid. Pagi Ann. 327. n. iii. iv. Basnag. 327. n. iii. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. viii. p. 308. P Socr. l. i. p. 25, 26. Soz. l. ii. c. 27. Ath. contr. Arian. p. 199, 200. De Synod. p. 734. Soz. 1. ii. c. 27. p. 486. r Tillem. Les Ariens. Art. xxi. Pagi A. 390. n. xiii, xvi. Pagi 340, n. xv. Basnag. Ann. 336. n. iv. Tillem. Les Ariens. Art. xxiv. xxv. Vid. Athanas. Ep. ad Serap. de Mort. Arii. p. 340, 341. Socr. 1. ii. c. 38. Soz. l. ii. c. 29. Thdrt. H. E. 1. i. c. 14. H. F. 1. iv. cap. 1. p. 234. Epiph. H. 69. n. v. Ruf. H. E. 1. i. c. 13. "Ap. Epiph. H. 69. n. vi. Thdrt. I. i. c. v. x Ap. eund. ib. c. vii. viii. y Ap. Socr. I. i. c. 26. Soz. 1. ii. c. 27. p. 485. 2.R с a b verse or prose is not absolutely certain; for there are some fragments of it in Athanasius, which do not appear to be in verse. This book is mentioned by several authors, particularly Socrates and Sozomen; who censure the style of it, as soft and effeminate. But Sozomen honestly owns, that he speaks upon hearsay only, and that he had not seen the book. However, they both say it was condemned by the council of Nice. As Athanasius quotes it several times, he must be supposed to have read it. He speaks of the softness and pleasantry, or buffoonry, with which it was written and perhaps both the fore-mentioned writers, and others likewise, took this character of the book from him. And, possibly, some said as much of Augustine's Psalm or Song upon the Donatists. Beside all these, Tillemont imagines, that Arius also published some work against the heathens in defence of the Christian religion. h III. Arius was very tall, grave and serious, yet affable and courteous. With good natural parts, and no inconsiderable share of secular learning of all sorts, he was particularly distinguished by his skill in logic, or the art of disputing. He had at least the outward appearance of piety. In short, he is represented as a man exceedingly well qualified to form a party, and carry on any enterprize he should engage in. So far as I recollect, his conduct was unblameable; excepting what relates to his zeal for maintaining his supposed errors; and that he is charged with dissembling his real sentiments, upon some occasions, in those difficult circumstances, to which he was reduced by the prevailing power of his adversaries. i 1 I may add here, that he writes with much spirit, and a full assurance of the truth of his opinions; particularly in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he styles orthodox, and he tells that bishop, that he and his friends were unjustly persecuted by Alexander for the truth's sake, which conquers all things: that all the bishops of the east in general had been anathematized by Alexander, except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, whom he calls" ignorant heretics. As for himself, he was not able to endure their impious" doctrine; nor would he ever receive it, though he were to suffer a thousand deaths from those heretics. 6 IV. Socrates gives this account of the rise and occasion of the Arian controversy. ' Alexander,' he says, discoursing one day too curiously concerning the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, in the presence of his presbyters and the rest of his clergy; Arius, one of the presbyters, supposed his bishop to advance the doctrine of Sabellius, and disliking that, he went into an opinion diametrically opposite.' Theodoret too says, that Arius took occasion from things said by Alexander to raise a disturbance. And Constantine likewise, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, first blames the former for putting questions to his presbyters, which he ought not; and then the latter, for inconsiderately uttering notions, that ought to have been buried in silence. Sozomen gives this account: that' Arius had for some time published the doctrines ascribed to him, Alexander taking little notice of the matter: but some blaming him for tolerating such novelties, moved by those complaints, and desiring to act equitably, he appointed a time for hearing the point fairly debated by Arius, and those who opposed him. At which time Arius stood to the things he had advanced and they who opposed him, asserted the Son to be consubstantial and coeternal to the Father. And though another assembly was appointed for debating the point, they could by no means come to an agreement. The point still remained doubtful and undecided, and Alexander himself was at first in some suspense; but at length he declared himself in favour of those who asserted the Son to be consubstantial and coeternal to the Father. If we could rely upon this account, it might afford a great deal of reason to think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Son's Deity, was not fully defined and determined among Christians before the council of Nice; and that there were no small numbers of persons, who held much the same doctrine with Arius. Moreover Arius, in his letter to Alexander, tells him, that his faith was the same he had received from himself, and had often heard him preach. And though there is some difference between them, it seems to me, that the first three accounts, above represented, do confirm this supposition, as well as Sozomen's. V. In the next place I would observe the opinions of Arius and his followers. b Alexander, in his letter to the bishops of the catholic church, represents their opinion in this manner: That they said, God was not always Father. But there was a time when God was not Father: that the word of God was not always, and was made out of nothing: God who was, made him who was not, out of nothing. Therefore there was a time, when he was not. For the Son is a creature and made: nor is he like the Father in essence.' But we may take Arius's opinion from himself. And I think it will appear, that in what is above transcribed from Alexander, he is not misrepresented. For in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia he says: We cannot assent to those expressions, always Father, always Son, at the ⚫ same time Father and Son: that the Son always co-exists with the Father: that the Father has • no pre-existence before the Son, not so much as in thought, or a moment. But this we think and teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten by any means. Nor is he made out of any pre-existent thing: but by the will and pleasure of the Father he existed 'before time and ages, the only begotten God, unchangeable: and that before he was begotten, * or made, or designed or founded, he was not. But we are persecuted, because we say, that the Son has a beginning, and that God has no beginning. For this we are persecuted, and because we say, the Son is out of nothing. Which we therefore say, because he is not a part of God, nor made out of any pre-existent thing.' с d In his letter to Alexander himself, beside many other things, he says, We believe, that 'there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God, the cause of all things, is alone without beginning. The Son, begotten of the Father before time, made before the ages, and founded, was not before he was begotten. Nor is he eternal, or coeternal, 'or begotten at the same time with the Father.' So far from Alexander, and Arius himself. It may be proper to take somewhat also out of other authors. f Epiphanius's Synopsis is to this purpose: The Arians say, that the Son is a creature of • God, and the Holy Ghost the creature of a creature: and that our Saviour took flesh of Mary, ..but not a soul.' g See In his large work he says, they argued, that the Spirit was made by the Son, because the scripture says, "All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” John i. 3. k Of their denying our Saviour to have a soul, that is, an human soul, he speaks several times, and argues against it largely. Athanasius, too, expressly says, that the Arians maintained, that Christ had flesh only, as a covering for his Deity: and that the Word in him was the same as the soul in us. He supposeth them likewise to allow, that the Word, or Deity in Christ, was liable to suffering in the body. Theodoret ascribes to them the same opinion. He again 8 ήν και από σε μεμαθηκαμεν. ap. Εpiph. p. 732. C. ώς και συ αυτος εν μέση τε εκκλησια και συνεδριω πλεισακς της ταυτα εισητησαμενος απηΓορεύσας. ib. p. 733. Α. πώς παρα σε μεμαθήκαμεν, μέση τη εκκλησία κηρύξαντος. ib. C. » Ουκ αει ὁ Θεος Παλης ην. 8κ αει ην ό τε Θε8 Λογος, αλλ' εξ εκ ονίων γε[ονεν· ὁ γαρ ων Θεός τον μη ονία εκ τε μη · ́ovlos weπoinxe. X. X. ap. Socr. p. 10. D. с ο επειδή 8 συμφωνεμεν αυτῳ δημοσια λεβονλι, αει Θεός, αει Υιος, άμα Παλης, άμα Υιος- ε' επινοίᾳ, εν αλόμῳ τινι, Tiosπροαίει ὁ Θεος το για διωκομεθα δε, ότι είπομεν, αρχήν έχει TiBὁ Υἱος, ὁ δε Θεος αναρχος εςιν. και ότι ειπομεν, εξ εκ ονίων 85. x. λ. ap. Epiph. H. 69. n. vi. d Ap. Epiph. ib. n. viii. in. |