1111 (return) [ This exposition of the doctrine of Plato appears

to me contrary to the true sense of that philosopher’s writings.

The brilliant imagination which he carried into metaphysical

inquiries, his style, full of allegories and figures, have misled

those interpreters who did not seek, from the whole tenor of his

works and beyond the images which the writer employs, the system

of this philosopher. In my opinion, there is no Trinity in Plato;

he has established no mysterious generation between the three

pretended principles which he is made to distinguish. Finally, he

conceives only as _attributes_ of the Deity, or of matter, those

ideas, of which it is supposed that he made _substances_, real

beings.

According to Plato, God and matter existed from all eternity.

Before the creation of the world, matter had in itself a

principle of motion, but without end or laws: it is this

principle which Plato calls the irrational soul of the world,

because, according to his doctrine, every spontaneous and

original principle of motion is called soul. God wished to

impress _form_ upon matter, that is to say, 1. To mould

matter, and make it into a body; 2. To regulate its motion,

and subject it to some end and to certain laws. The Deity, in

this operation, could not act but according to the ideas

existing in his intelligence: their union filled this, and

formed the ideal type of the world. It is this ideal world,

this divine intelligence, existing with God from all

eternity, and called by Plato which he is supposed to

personify, to substantialize; while an attentive examination

is sufficient to convince us that he has never assigned it an

existence external to the Deity, (hors de la Divinité,) and

that he considered the as the aggregate of the ideas of God,

the divine understanding in its relation to the world. The

contrary opinion is irreconcilable with all his philosophy:

thus he says (Timæus, p. 348, edit. Bip.) that to the idea of

the Deity is essentially united that of intelligence, of a

_logos_. He would thus have admitted a double _logos;_ one

inherent in the Deity as an attribute, the other

independently existing as a substance. He affirms that the

intelligence, the principle of order cannot exist but as an

attribute of a soul, the principle of motion and of life, of

which the nature is unknown to us. How, then, according to

this, could he consider the _logos_ as a substance endowed

with an independent existence? In other places, he explains

it by these two words, knowledge, science, and intelligence

which signify the attributes of the Deity. When Plato

separates God, the ideal archetype of the world and matter,

it is to explain how, according to his system, God has

proceeded, at the creation, to unite the principle of order

which he had within himself, his proper intelligence, the

principle of motion, to the principle of motion, the

irrational soul which was in matter. When he speaks of the

place occupied by the ideal world, it is to designate the

divine intelligence, which is its cause. Finally, in no part

of his writings do we find a true personification of the

pretended beings of which he is said to have formed a

trinity: and if this personification existed, it would

equally apply to many other notions, of which might be formed

many different trinities.

This error, into which many ancient as well as modern

interpreters of Plato have fallen, was very natural. Besides

the snares which were concealed in his figurative style;

besides the necessity of comprehending as a whole the system

of his ideas, and not to explain isolated passages, the

nature of his doctrine itself would conduce to this error.

When Plato appeared, the uncertainty of human knowledge, and

the continual illusions of the senses, were acknowledged, and

had given rise to a general scepticism. Socrates had aimed at

raising morality above the influence of this scepticism:

Plato endeavored to save metaphysics, by seeking in the human

intellect a source of certainty which the senses could not

furnish. He invented the system of innate ideas, of which the

aggregate formed, according to him, the ideal world, and

affirmed that these ideas were real attributes, not only

attached to our conceptions of objects, but to the nature of

the objects themselves; a nature of which from them we might

obtain a knowledge. He gave, then, to these ideas a positive

existence as attributes; his commentators could easily give

them a real existence as substances; especially as the terms

which he used to designate them, essential beauty, essential

goodness, lent themselves to this substantialization,

(hypostasis.)—G.

We have retained this view of the original philosophy of

Plato, in which there is probably much truth. The genius of

Plato was rather metaphysical than impersonative: his poetry

was in his language, rather than, like that of the Orientals,

in his conceptions.—M.]

12 (return) [ The modern guides who lead me to the knowledge of

the Platonic system are Cudworth, Basnage, Le Clerc, and Brucker.

As the learning of these writers was equal, and their intention

different, an inquisitive observer may derive instruction from

their disputes, and certainty from their agreement.]

The arms of the Macedonians diffused over Asia and Egypt the

language and learning of Greece; and the theological system of

Plato was taught, with less reserve, and perhaps with some

improvements, in the celebrated school of Alexandria. 13 A

numerous colony of Jews had been invited, by the favor of the

Ptolemies, to settle in their new capital. 14 While the bulk of

the nation practised the legal ceremonies, and pursued the

lucrative occupations of commerce, a few Hebrews, of a more

liberal spirit, devoted their lives to religious and

philosophical contemplation. 15 They cultivated with diligence,

and embraced with ardor, the theological system of the Athenian

sage. But their national pride would have been mortified by a

fair confession of their former poverty: and they boldly marked,

as the sacred inheritance of their ancestors, the gold and jewels

which they had so lately stolen from their Egyptian masters. One

hundred years before the birth of Christ, a philosophical

treatise, which manifestly betrays the style and sentiments of

the school of Plato, was produced by the Alexandrian Jews, and

unanimously received as a genuine and valuable relic of the

inspired Wisdom of Solomon. 16 A similar union of the Mosaic

faith and the Grecian philosophy, distinguishes the works of

Philo, which were composed, for the most part, under the reign of

Augustus. 17 The material soul of the universe 18 might offend

the piety of the Hebrews: but they applied the character of the

Logos to the Jehovah of Moses and the patriarchs; and the Son of

God was introduced upon earth under a visible, and even human

appearance, to perform those familiar offices which seem

incompatible with the nature and attributes of the Universal

Cause. 19

13 (return) [ Brucker, Hist. Philosoph. tom. i. p. 1349-1357. The

Alexandrian school is celebrated by Strabo (l. xvii.) and

Ammianus, (xxii. 6.) Note: The philosophy of Plato was not the

only source of that professed in the school of Alexandria. That

city, in which Greek, Jewish, and Egyptian men of letters were

assembled, was the scene of a strange fusion of the system of

these three people. The Greeks brought a Platonism, already much

changed; the Jews, who had acquired at Babylon a great number of

Oriental notions, and whose theological opinions had undergone

great changes by this intercourse, endeavored to reconcile

Platonism with their new doctrine, and disfigured it entirely:

lastly, the Egyptians, who were not willing to abandon notions

for which the Greeks themselves entertained respect, endeavored

on their side to reconcile their own with those of their

neighbors. It is in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon that

we trace the influence of Oriental philosophy rather than that of

Platonism. We find in these books, and in those of the later

prophets, as in Ezekiel, notions unknown to the Jews before the

Babylonian captivity, of which we do not discover the germ in

Plato, but which are manifestly derived from the Orientals. Thus

God represented under the image of light, and the principle of

evil under that of darkness; the history of the good and bad

angels; paradise and hell, &c., are doctrines of which the

origin, or at least the positive determination, can only be

referred to the Oriental philosophy. Plato supposed matter

eternal; the Orientals and the Jews considered it as a creation

of God, who alone was eternal. It is impossible to explain the

philosophy of the Alexandrian school solely by the blending of

the Jewish theology with the Greek philosophy. The Oriental

philosophy, however little it may be known, is recognized at

every instant. Thus, according to the Zend Avesta, it is by the

Word (honover) more ancient than the world, that Ormuzd created

the universe. This word is the logos of Philo, consequently very

different from that of Plato. I have shown that Plato never

personified the logos as the ideal archetype of the world: Philo

ventured this personification. The Deity, according to him, has a

double logos; the first is the ideal archetype of the world, the

ideal world, the _first-born_ of the Deity; the second is the

word itself of God, personified under the image of a being acting

to create the sensible world, and to make it like to the ideal

world: it is the second-born of God. Following out his

imaginations, Philo went so far as to personify anew the ideal

world, under the image of a celestial man, the primitive type of

man, and the sensible world under the image of another man less

perfect than the celestial man. Certain notions of the Oriental

philosophy may have given rise to this strange abuse of allegory,

which it is sufficient to relate, to show what alterations

Platonism had already undergone, and what was their source.

Philo, moreover, of all the Jews of Alexandria, is the one whose

Platonism is the most pure. It is from this mixture of

Orientalism, Platonism, and Judaism, that Gnosticism arose, which

had produced so many theological and philosophical

extravagancies, and in which Oriental notions evidently

predominate.—G.]

14 (return) [ Joseph. Antiquitat, l. xii. c. 1, 3. Basnage, Hist.

des Juifs, l. vii. c. 7.]

15 (return) [ For the origin of the Jewish philosophy, see

Eusebius, Præparat. Evangel. viii. 9, 10. According to Philo, the

Therapeutæ studied philosophy; and Brucker has proved (Hist.

Philosoph. tom. ii. p. 787) that they gave the preference to that

of Plato.]

16 (return) [ See Calmet, Dissertations sur la Bible, tom. ii. p.

277. The book of the Wisdom of Solomon was received by many of

the fathers as the work of that monarch: and although rejected by

the Protestants for want of a Hebrew original, it has obtained,

with the rest of the Vulgate, the sanction of the council of

Trent.]

17 (return) [ The Platonism of Philo, which was famous to a

proverb, is proved beyond a doubt by Le Clerc, (Epist. Crit.

viii. p. 211-228.) Basnage (Hist. des Juifs, l. iv. c. 5) has

clearly ascertained, that the theological works of Philo were

composed before the death, and most probably before the birth, of

Christ. In such a time of darkness, the knowledge of Philo is

more astonishing than his errors. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. s. i.

c. i. p. 12.]

18 (return) [ Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore _miscet_.

Besides this material soul, Cudworth has discovered (p. 562) in

Amelius, Porphyry, Plotinus, and, as he thinks, in Plato himself,

a superior, spiritual _upercosmian_ soul of the universe. But

this double soul is exploded by Brucker, Basnage, and Le Clerc,

as an idle fancy of the latter Platonists.]

19 (return) [ Petav. Dogmata Theologica, tom. ii. l. viii. c. 2,

p. 791. Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. s. i. c. l. p. 8, 13. This

notion, till it was abused by the Arians, was freely adopted in

the Christian theology. Tertullian (adv. Praxeam, c. 16) has a

remarkable and dangerous passage. After contrasting, with

indiscreet wit, the nature of God, and the actions of Jehovah, he

concludes: Scilicet ut hæc de filio Dei non credenda fuisse, si

non scripta essent; fortasse non credenda de l’atre licet

scripta. * Note: Tertullian is here arguing against the

Patripassians; those who asserted that the Father was born of the

Virgin, died and was buried.—M.]

Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part II.

The eloquence of Plato, the name of Solomon, the authority of the

school of Alexandria, and the consent of the Jews and Greeks,

were insufficient to establish the truth of a mysterious

doctrine, which might please, but could not satisfy, a rational

mind. A prophet, or apostle, inspired by the Deity, can alone

exercise a lawful dominion over the faith of mankind: and the

theology of Plato might have been forever confounded with the

philosophical visions of the Academy, the Porch, and the Lycæum,

if the name and divine attributes of the _Logos_ had not been

confirmed by the celestial pen of the last and most sublime of

the Evangelists. 20 The Christian Revelation, which was

consummated under the reign of Nerva, disclosed to the world the

amazing secret, that the Logos, who was with God from the

beginning, and was God, who had made all things, and for whom all

things had been made, was incarnate in the person of Jesus of

Nazareth; who had been born of a virgin, and suffered death on

the cross. Besides the general design of fixing on a perpetual

basis the divine honors of Christ, the most ancient and

respectable of the ecclesiastical writers have ascribed to the

evangelic theologian a particular intention to confute two

opposite heresies, which disturbed the peace of the primitive

church. 21 I. The faith of the Ebionites, 22 perhaps of the

Nazarenes, 23 was gross and imperfect. They revered Jesus as the

greatest of the prophets, endowed with supernatural virtue and

power. They ascribed to his person and to his future reign all

the predictions of the Hebrew oracles which relate to the

spiritual and everlasting kingdom of the promised Messiah. 24

Some of them might confess that he was born of a virgin; but they

obstinately rejected the preceding existence and divine

perfections of the _Logos_, or Son of God, which are so clearly

defined in the Gospel of St. John. About fifty years afterwards,

the Ebionites, whose errors are mentioned by Justin Martyr with

less severity than they seem to deserve, 25 formed a very

inconsiderable portion of the Christian name. II. The Gnostics,

who were distinguished by the epithet of _Docetes_, deviated into

the contrary extreme; and betrayed the human, while they asserted

the divine, nature of Christ. Educated in the school of Plato,

accustomed to the sublime idea of the Logos, they readily

conceived that the brightest _Æon_, or _Emanation_ of the Deity,

might assume the outward shape and visible appearances of a

mortal; 26 but they vainly pretended, that the imperfections of

matter are incompatible with the purity of a celestial substance.

While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the

Docetes invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that,

instead of issuing from the womb of the Virgin, 27 he had

descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect

manhood; that he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of

his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their

impotent rage on an ury phantom, who _seemed_ to expire on the

cross, and, after three days, to rise from the dead. 28

20 (return) [ The Platonists admired the beginning of the Gospel

of St. John as containing an exact transcript of their own

principles. Augustin de Civitat. Dei, x. 29. Amelius apud Cyril.

advers. Julian. l. viii. p. 283. But in the third and fourth

centuries, the Platonists of Alexandria might improve their

Trinity by the secret study of the Christian theology. Note: A

short discussion on the sense in which St. John has used the word

Logos, will prove that he has not borrowed it from the philosophy

of Plato. The evangelist adopts this word without previous

explanation, as a term with which his contemporaries were already

familiar, and which they could at once comprehend. To know the

sense which he gave to it, we must inquire that which it

generally bore in his time. We find two: the one attached to the

word _logos_ by the Jews of Palestine, the other by the school of

Alexandria, particularly by Philo. The Jews had feared at all

times to pronounce the name of Jehovah; they had formed a habit

of designating God by one of his attributes; they called him

sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Word. _By the word of the Lord

were the heavens made_. (Psalm xxxiii. 6.) Accustomed to

allegories, they often addressed themselves to this attribute of

the Deity as a real being. Solomon makes Wisdom say “The Lord

possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of

old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever

the earth was.” (Prov. viii. 22, 23.) Their residence in Persia

only increased this inclination to sustained allegories. In the

Ecclesiasticus of the son of Sirach, and the Book of Wisdom, we

find allegorical descriptions of Wisdom like the following: “I

came out of the mouth of the Most High; I covered the earth as a

cloud;... I alone compassed the circuit of heaven, and walked in

the bottom of the deep... The Creator created me from the

beginning, before the world, and I shall never fail.” (Eccles.

xxiv. 35- 39.) See also the Wisdom of Solomon, c. vii. v. 9. [The

latter book is clearly Alexandrian.—M.] We see from this that the

Jews understood from the Hebrew and Chaldaic words which signify

Wisdom, the Word, and which were translated into Greek, a simple

attribute of the Deity, allegorically personified, but of which

they did not make a real particular being separate from the

Deity.

The school of Alexandria, on the contrary, and Philo among

the rest, mingling Greek with Jewish and Oriental notions,

and abandoning himself to his inclination to mysticism,

personified the logos, and represented it a distinct being,

created by God, and intermediate between God and man. This is

the second _logos_ of Philo, that which acts from the

beginning of the world, alone in its kind, creator of the

sensible world, formed by God according to the ideal world

which he had in himself, and which was the first logos, the

first- born of the Deity. The logos taken in this sense,

then, was a created being, but, anterior to the creation of

the world, near to God, and charged with his revelations to

mankind.

Which of these two senses is that which St. John intended to

assign to the word logos in the first chapter of his Gospel,

and in all his writings? St. John was a Jew, born and

educated in Palestine; he had no knowledge, at least very

little, of the philosophy of the Greeks, and that of the

Grecizing Jews: he would naturally, then, attach to the word

_logos_ the sense attached to it by the Jews of Palestine.

If, in fact, we compare the attributes which he assigns to

the _logos_ with those which are assigned to it in Proverbs,

in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus, we shall see

that they are the same. The Word was in the world, and the

world was made by him; in him was life, and the life was the

light of men, (c. i. v. 10-14.) It is impossible not to trace

in this chapter the ideas which the Jews had formed of the

allegorized logos. The evangelist afterwards really

personifies that which his predecessors have personified only

poetically; for he affirms “_that the Word became flesh_,”

(v. 14.) It was to prove this that he wrote. Closely

examined, the ideas which he gives of the logos cannot agree

with those of Philo and the school of Alexandria; they

correspond, on the contrary, with those of the Jews of

Palestine. Perhaps St. John, employing a well-known term to

explain a doctrine which was yet unknown, has slightly

altered the sense; it is this alteration which we appear to

discover on comparing different passages of his writings.

It is worthy of remark, that the Jews of Palestine, who did

not perceive this alteration, could find nothing

extraordinary in what St. John said of the Logos; at least

they comprehended it without difficulty, while the Greeks and

Grecizing Jews, on their part, brought to it prejudices and

preconceptions easily reconciled with those of the

evangelist, who did not expressly contradict them. This

circumstance must have much favored the progress of

Christianity. Thus the fathers of the church in the two first

centuries and later, formed almost all in the school of

Alexandria, gave to the Logos of St. John a sense nearly

similar to that which it received from Philo. Their doctrine

approached very near to that which in the fourth century the

council of Nice condemned in the person of Arius.—G.

M. Guizot has forgotten the long residence of St. John at

Ephesus, the centre of the mingling opinions of the East and

West, which were gradually growing up into Gnosticism. (See

Matter. Hist. du Gnosticisme, vol. i. p. 154.) St. John’s

sense of the Logos seems as far removed from the simple

allegory ascribed to the Palestinian Jews as from the

Oriental impersonation of the Alexandrian. The simple truth

may be that St. John took the familiar term, and, as it were

infused into it the peculiar and Christian sense in which it

is used in his writings.—M.]

21 (return) [ See Beausobre, Hist. Critique du Manicheisme, tom.

i. p. 377. The Gospel according to St. John is supposed to have

been published about seventy years after the death of Christ.]

22 (return) [ The sentiments of the Ebionites are fairly stated

by Mosheim (p. 331) and Le Clerc, (Hist. Eccles. p. 535.) The

Clementines, published among the apostolical fathers, are

attributed by the critics to one of these sectaries.]

23 (return) [ Stanch polemics, like a Bull, (Judicium Eccles.

Cathol. c. 2,) insist on the orthodoxy of the Nazarenes; which

appears less pure and certain in the eyes of Mosheim, (p. 330.)]

24 (return) [ The humble condition and sufferings of Jesus have

always been a stumbling-block to the Jews. “Deus... contrariis

coloribus Messiam depinxerat: futurus erat Rex, Judex, Pastor,”

&c. See Limborch et Orobio Amica Collat. p. 8, 19, 53-76,

192-234. But this objection has obliged the believing Christians

to lift up their eyes to a spiritual and everlasting kingdom.]

25 (return) [ Justin Martyr, Dialog. cum Tryphonte, p. 143, 144.

See Le Clerc, Hist. Eccles. p. 615. Bull and his editor Grabe

(Judicium Eccles. Cathol. c. 7, and Appendix) attempt to distort

either the sentiments or the words of Justin; but their violent

correction of the text is rejected even by the Benedictine

editors.]

26 (return) [ The Arians reproached the orthodox party with

borrowing their Trinity from the Valentinians and Marcionites.

See Beausobre, Hist. de Manicheisme, l. iii. c. 5, 7.]

27 (return) [ Non dignum est ex utero credere Deum, et Deum

Christum.... non dignum est ut tanta majestas per sordes et

squalores muli eris transire credatur. The Gnostics asserted the

impurity of matter, and of marriage; and they were scandalized by

the gross interpretations of the fathers, and even of Augustin

himself. See Beausobre, tom. ii. p. 523, * Note: The greater part

of the Docetæ rejected the true divinity of Jesus Christ, as well

as his human nature. They belonged to the Gnostics, whom some

philosophers, in whose party Gibbon has enlisted, make to derive

their opinions from those of Plato. These philosophers did not

consider that Platonism had undergone continual alterations, and

that those who gave it some analogy with the notions of the

Gnostics were later in their origin than most of the sects

comprehended under this name Mosheim has proved (in his Instit.

Histor. Eccles. Major. s. i. p. 136, sqq and p. 339, sqq.) that

the Oriental philosophy, combined with the cabalistical

philosophy of the Jews, had given birth to Gnosticism. The

relations which exist between this doctrine and the records which

remain to us of that of the Orientals, the Chaldean and Persian,

have been the source of the errors of the Gnostic Christians, who

wished to reconcile their ancient notions with their new belief.

It is on this account that, denying the human nature of Christ,

they also denied his intimate union with God, and took him for

one of the substances (æons) created by God. As they believed in

the eternity of matter, and considered it to be the principle of

evil, in opposition to the Deity, the first cause and principle

of good, they were unwilling to admit that one of the pure

substances, one of the æons which came forth from God, had, by

partaking in the material nature, allied himself to the principle

of evil; and this was their motive for rejecting the real

humanity of Jesus Christ. See Ch. G. F. Walch, Hist. of Heresies

in Germ. t. i. p. 217, sqq. Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. ii. p

639.—G.]

28 (return) [ Apostolis adhuc in sæculo superstitibus apud Judæam

Christi sanguine recente, et _phantasma_ corpus Domini

asserebatur. Cotelerius thinks (Patres Apostol. tom. ii. p. 24)

that those who will not allow the _Docetes_ to have arisen in the

time of the Apostles, may with equal reason deny that the sun

shines at noonday. These _Docetes_, who formed the most

considerable party among the Gnostics, were so called, because

they granted only a _seeming_ body to Christ. * Note: The name of

Docetæ was given to these sectaries only in the course of the

second century: this name did not designate a sect, properly so

called; it applied to all the sects who taught the non- reality

of the material body of Christ; of this number were the

Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Ophites, the Marcionites,

(against whom Tertullian wrote his book, De Carne Christi,) and

other Gnostics. In truth, Clement of Alexandria (l. iii. Strom.

c. 13, p. 552) makes express mention of a sect of Docetæ, and

even names as one of its heads a certain Cassianus; but every

thing leads us to believe that it was not a distinct sect.

Philastrius (de Hæres, c. 31) reproaches Saturninus with being a

Docete. Irenæus (adv. Hær. c. 23) makes the same reproach against

Basilides. Epiphanius and Philastrius, who have treated in detail

on each particular heresy, do not specially name that of the

Docetæ. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. vi.

c. 12,) and Clement of Alexandria, (l. vii. Strom. p. 900,)

appear to be the first who have used the generic name. It is not

found in any earlier record, though the error which it points out

existed even in the time of the Apostles. See Ch. G. F. Walch,

Hist. of Her. v. i. p. 283. Tillemont, Mempour servir a la Hist

Eccles. ii. p. 50. Buddæus de Eccles. Apost. c. 5 & 7—G.]

The divine sanction, which the Apostle had bestowed on the

fundamental principle of the theology of Plato, encouraged the

learned proselytes of the second and third centuries to admire

and study the writings of the Athenian sage, who had thus

marvellously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries

of the Christian revelation. The respectable name of Plato was

used by the orthodox, 29 and abused by the heretics, 30 as the

common support of truth and error: the authority of his skilful

commentators, and the science of dialectics, were employed to

justify the remote consequences of his opinions and to supply the

discreet silence of the inspired writers. The same subtle and

profound questions concerning the nature, the generation, the

distinction, and the equality of the three divine persons of the

mysterious _Triad_, or _Trinity_, 31 were agitated in the

philosophical and in the Christian schools of Alexandria. An

eager spirit of curiosity urged them to explore the secrets of

the abyss; and the pride of the professors, and of their

disciples, was satisfied with the sciences of words. But the most

sagacious of the Christian theologians, the great Athanasius

himself, has candidly confessed, 32 that whenever he forced his

understanding to meditate on the divinity of the _Logos_, his

toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the

more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote,

the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts. In every step

of the inquiry, we are compelled to feel and acknowledge the

immeasurable disproportion between the size of the object and the

capacity of the human mind. We may strive to abstract the notions

of time, of space, and of matter, which so closely adhere to all

the perceptions of our experimental knowledge. But as soon as we

presume to reason of infinite substance, of spiritual generation;

as often as we deduce any positive conclusions from a negative

idea, we are involved in darkness, perplexity, and inevitable

contradiction. As these difficulties arise from the nature of the

subject, they oppress, with the same insuperable weight, the

philosophic and the theological disputant; but we may observe two

essential and peculiar circumstances, which discriminated the

doctrines of the Catholic church from the opinions of the

Platonic school.

29 (return) [ Some proofs of the respect which the Christians

entertained for the person and doctrine of Plato may be found in

De la Mothe le Vayer, tom. v. p. 135, &c., edit. 1757; and

Basnage, Hist. des Juifs tom. iv. p. 29, 79, &c.]

30 (return) [ Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium heræticorum

condimentarium factum. Tertullian. de Anima, c. 23. Petavius

(Dogm. Theolog. tom. iii. proleg. 2) shows that this was a

general complaint. Beausobre (tom. i. l. iii. c. 9, 10) has

deduced the Gnostic errors from Platonic principles; and as, in

the school of Alexandria, those principles were blended with the

Oriental philosophy, (Brucker, tom. i. p. 1356,) the sentiment of

Beausobre may be reconciled with the opinion of Mosheim, (General

History of the Church, vol. i. p. 37.)]

31 (return) [ If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (see Dupin,

Bibliothèque Ecclesiastique, tom. i. p. 66,) was the first who

employed the word _Triad_, _Trinity_, that abstract term, which

was already familiar to the schools of philosophy, must have been

introduced into the theology of the Christians after the middle

of the second century.]

32 (return) [ Athanasius, tom. i. p. 808. His expressions have an

uncommon energy; and as he was writing to monks, there could not

be any occasion for him to _affect_ a rational language.]

I. A chosen society of philosophers, men of a liberal education

and curious disposition, might silently meditate, and temperately

discuss in the gardens of Athens or the library of Alexandria,

the abstruse questions of metaphysical science. The lofty

speculations, which neither convinced the understanding, nor

agitated the passions, of the Platonists themselves, were

carelessly overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the

studious part of mankind. 33 But after the _Logos_ had been

revealed as the sacred object of the faith, the hope, and the

religious worship of the Christians, the mysterious system was

embraced by a numerous and increasing multitude in every province

of the Roman world. Those persons who, from their age, or sex, or

occupations, were the least qualified to judge, who were the

least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning, aspired to

contemplate the economy of the Divine Nature: and it is the boast

of Tertullian, 34 that a Christian mechanic could readily answer

such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages.

Where the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference

between the highest and the lowest of human understandings may

indeed be calculated as infinitely small; yet the degree of

weakness may perhaps be measured by the degree of obstinacy and

dogmatic confidence. These speculations, instead of being treated

as the amusement of a vacant hour, became the most serious

business of the present, and the most useful preparation for a

future, life. A theology, which it was incumbent to believe,

which it was impious to doubt, and which it might be dangerous,

and even fatal, to mistake, became the familiar topic of private

meditation and popular discourse. The cold indifference of

philosophy was inflamed by the fervent spirit of devotion; and

even the metaphors of common language suggested the fallacious

prejudices of sense and experience. The Christians, who abhorred

the gross and impure generation of the Greek mythology, 35 were

tempted to argue from the familiar analogy of the filial and

paternal relations. The character of _Son_ seemed to imply a

perpetual subordination to the voluntary author of his existence;

36 but as the act of generation, in the most spiritual and

abstracted sense, must be supposed to transmit the properties of

a common nature, 37 they durst not presume to circumscribe the

powers or the duration of the Son of an eternal and omnipotent

Father. Fourscore years after the death of Christ, the Christians

of Bithynia, declared before the tribunal of Pliny, that they

invoked him as a god: and his divine honors have been perpetuated

in every age and country, by the various sects who assume the

name of his disciples. 38 Their tender reverence for the memory

of Christ, and their horror for the profane worship of any

created being, would have engaged them to assert the equal and

absolute divinity of the _Logos_, if their rapid ascent towards

the throne of heaven had not been imperceptibly checked by the

apprehension of violating the unity and sole supremacy of the

great Father of Christ and of the Universe. The suspense and

fluctuation produced in the minds of the Christians by these

opposite tendencies, may be observed in the writings of the

theologians who flourished after the end of the apostolic age,

and before the origin of the Arian controversy. Their suffrage is

claimed, with equal confidence, by the orthodox and by the

heretical parties; and the most inquisitive critics have fairly

allowed, that if they had the good fortune of possessing the

Catholic verity, they have delivered their conceptions in loose,

inaccurate, and sometimes contradictory language. 39

33 (return) [ In a treatise, which professed to explain the

opinions of the ancient philosophers concerning the nature of the

gods we might expect to discover the theological Trinity of

Plato. But Cicero very honestly confessed, that although he had

translated the Timæus, he could never understand that mysterious

dialogue. See Hieronym. præf. ad l. xii. in Isaiam, tom. v. p.

154.]

34 (return) [ Tertullian. in Apolog. c. 46. See Bayle,

Dictionnaire, au mot _Simonide_. His remarks on the presumption

of Tertullian are profound and interesting.]

35 (return) [ Lactantius, iv. 8. Yet the _Probole_, or

_Prolatio_, which the most orthodox divines borrowed without

scruple from the Valentinians, and illustrated by the comparisons

of a fountain and stream, the sun and its rays, &c., either meant

nothing, or favored a material idea of the divine generation. See

Beausobre, tom. i. l. iii. c. 7, p. 548.]

36 (return) [ Many of the primitive writers have frankly

confessed, that the Son owed his being to the _will_ of the

Father.——See Clarke’s Scripture Trinity, p. 280-287. On the other

hand, Athanasius and his followers seem unwilling to grant what

they are afraid to deny. The schoolmen extricate themselves from

this difficulty by the distinction of a _preceding_ and a

_concomitant_ will. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. vi. c. 8,

p. 587-603.]

37 (return) [ See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. ii. c. 10, p.

159.]

38 (return) [ Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.

Plin. Epist. x. 97. The sense of _Deus, Elohim_, in the ancient

languages, is critically examined by Le Clerc, (Ars Critica, p.

150-156,) and the propriety of worshipping a very excellent

creature is ably defended by the Socinian Emlyn, (Tracts, p.

29-36, 51-145.)]

39 (return) [ See Daille de Usu Patrum, and Le Clerc,

Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. x. p. 409. To arraign the faith of

the Ante-Nicene fathers, was the object, or at least has been the

effect, of the stupendous work of Petavius on the Trinity, (Dogm.

Theolog. tom. ii.;) nor has the deep impression been erased by

the learned defence of Bishop Bull. Note: Dr. Burton’s work on

the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene fathers must be consulted by

those who wish to obtain clear notions on this subject.—M.]

Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part

III.

II. The devotion of individuals was the first circumstance which

distinguished the Christians from the Platonists: the second was

the authority of the church. The disciples of philosophy asserted

the rights of intellectual freedom, and their respect for the

sentiments of their teachers was a liberal and voluntary tribute,

which they offered to superior reason. But the Christians formed

a numerous and disciplined society; and the jurisdiction of their

laws and magistrates was strictly exercised over the minds of the

faithful. The loose wanderings of the imagination were gradually

confined by creeds and confessions; 40 the freedom of private

judgment submitted to the public wisdom of synods; the authority

of a theologian was determined by his ecclesiastical rank; and

the episcopal successors of the apostles inflicted the censures

of the church on those who deviated from the orthodox belief. But

in an age of religious controversy, every act of oppression adds

new force to the elastic vigor of the mind; and the zeal or

obstinacy of a spiritual rebel was sometimes stimulated by secret

motives of ambition or avarice. A metaphysical argument became

the cause or pretence of political contests; the subtleties of

the Platonic school were used as the badges of popular factions,

and the distance which separated their respective tenets were

enlarged or magnified by the acrimony of dispute. As long as the

dark heresies of Praxeas and Sabellius labored to confound the

_Father_ with the _Son_, 41 the orthodox party might be excused

if they adhered more strictly and more earnestly to the

_distinction_, than to the _equality_, of the divine persons. But

as soon as the heat of controversy had subsided, and the progress

of the Sabellians was no longer an object of terror to the

churches of Rome, of Africa, or of Egypt, the tide of theological

opinion began to flow with a gentle but steady motion towards the

contrary extreme; and the most orthodox doctors allowed

themselves the use of the terms and definitions which had been

censured in the mouth of the sectaries. 42 After the edict of

toleration had restored peace and leisure to the Christians, the

Trinitarian controversy was revived in the ancient seat of

Platonism, the learned, the opulent, the tumultuous city of

Alexandria; and the flame of religious discord was rapidly

communicated from the schools to the clergy, the people, the

province, and the East. The abstruse question of the eternity of

the _Logos_ was agitated in ecclesiastic conferences and popular

sermons; and the heterodox opinions of Arius 43 were soon made

public by his own zeal, and by that of his adversaries. His most

implacable adversaries have acknowledged the learning and

blameless life of that eminent presbyter, who, in a former

election, had declared, and perhaps generously declined, his

pretensions to the episcopal throne. 44 His competitor Alexander

assumed the office of his judge. The important cause was argued

before him; and if at first he seemed to hesitate, he at length

pronounced his final sentence, as an absolute rule of faith. 45

The undaunted presbyter, who presumed to resist the authority of

his angry bishop, was separated from the community of the church.

But the pride of Arius was supported by the applause of a

numerous party. He reckoned among his immediate followers two

bishops of Egypt, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and (what may

appear almost incredible) seven hundred virgins. A large majority

of the bishops of Asia appeared to support or favor his cause;

and their measures were conducted by Eusebius of Cæsarea, the

most learned of the Christian prelates; and by Eusebius of

Nicomedia, who had acquired the reputation of a statesman without

forfeiting that of a saint. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were

opposed to the synods of Egypt. The attention of the prince and

people was attracted by this theological dispute; and the

decision, at the end of six years, 46 was referred to the supreme

authority of the general council of Nice.

40 (return) [ The most ancient creeds were drawn up with the

greatest latitude. See Bull, (Judicium Eccles. Cathol.,) who

tries to prevent Episcopius from deriving any advantage from this

observation.]

41 (return) [ The heresies of Praxeas, Sabellius, &c., are

accurately explained by Mosheim (p. 425, 680-714.) Praxeas, who

came to Rome about the end of the second century, deceived, for

some time, the simplicity of the bishop, and was confuted by the

pen of the angry Tertullian.]

42 (return) [ Socrates acknowledges, that the heresy of Arius

proceeded from his strong desire to embrace an opinion the most

diametrically opposite to that of Sabellius.]

43 (return) [ The figure and manners of Arius, the character and

numbers of his first proselytes, are painted in very lively

colors by Epiphanius, (tom. i. Hæres. lxix. 3, p. 729,) and we

cannot but regret that he should soon forget the historian, to

assume the task of controversy.]

44 (return) [ See Philostorgius (l. i. c. 3,) and Godefroy’s

ample Commentary. Yet the credibility of Philostorgius is

lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, by his Arianism; and in

those of rational critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his

ignorance.]

45 (return) [ Sozomen (l. i. c. 15) represents Alexander as

indifferent, and even ignorant, in the beginning of the

controversy; while Socrates (l. i. c. 5) ascribes the origin of

the dispute to the vain curiosity of his theological

speculations. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol.

ii. p. 178) has censured, with his usual freedom, the conduct of

Alexander.]

46 (return) [ The flames of Arianism might burn for some time in

secret; but there is reason to believe that they burst out with

violence as early as the year 319. Tillemont, Mém. Eccles. tom.

vi. p. 774-780.]

When the mysteries of the Christian faith were dangerously

exposed to public debate, it might be observed, that the human

understanding was capable of forming three district, though

imperfect systems, concerning the nature of the Divine Trinity;

and it was pronounced, that none of these systems, in a pure and

absolute sense, were exempt from heresy and error. 47 I.

According to the first hypothesis, which was maintained by Arius

and his disciples, the _Logos_ was a dependent and spontaneous

production, created from nothing by the will of the father. The

Son, by whom all things were made, 48 had been begotten before

all worlds, and the longest of the astronomical periods could be

compared only as a fleeting moment to the extent of his duration;

yet this duration was not infinite, 49 and there _had_ been a

time which preceded the ineffable generation of the _Logos_. On

this only-begotten Son, the Almighty Father had transfused his

ample spirit, and impressed the effulgence of his glory. Visible

image of invisible perfection, he saw, at an immeasurable

distance beneath his feet, the thrones of the brightest

archangels; yet he shone only with a reflected light, and, like

the sons of the Romans emperors, who were invested with the

titles of Cæsar or Augustus, 50 he governed the universe in

obedience to the will of his Father and Monarch. II. In the

second hypothesis, the _Logos_ possessed all the inherent,

incommunicable perfections, which religion and philosophy

appropriate to the Supreme God. Three distinct and infinite minds

or substances, three coëqual and coëternal beings, composed the

Divine Essence; 51 and it would have implied contradiction, that

any of them should not have existed, or that they should ever

cease to exist. 52 The advocates of a system which seemed to

establish three independent Deities, attempted to preserve the

unity of the First Cause, so conspicuous in the design and order

of the world, by the perpetual concord of their administration,

and the essential agreement of their will. A faint resemblance of

this unity of action may be discovered in the societies of men,

and even of animals. The causes which disturb their harmony,

proceed only from the imperfection and inequality of their

faculties; but the omnipotence which is guided by infinite wisdom

and goodness, cannot fail of choosing the same means for the

accomplishment of the same ends. III. Three beings, who, by the

self-derived necessity of their existence, possess all the divine

attributes in the most perfect degree; who are eternal in

duration, infinite in space, and intimately present to each

other, and to the whole universe; irresistibly force themselves

on the astonished mind, as one and the same being, 53 who, in the

economy of grace, as well as in that of nature, may manifest

himself under different forms, and be considered under different

aspects. By this hypothesis, a real substantial trinity is

refined into a trinity of names, and abstract modifications, that

subsist only in the mind which conceives them. The _Logos_ is no

longer a person, but an attribute; and it is only in a figurative

sense that the epithet of Son can be applied to the eternal

reason, which was with God from the beginning, and by _which_,

not by _whom_, all things were made. The incarnation of the

_Logos_ is reduced to a mere inspiration of the Divine Wisdom,

which filled the soul, and directed all the actions, of the man

Jesus. Thus, after revolving around the theological circle, we

are surprised to find that the Sabellian ends where the Ebionite

had begun; and that the incomprehensible mystery which excites

our adoration, eludes our inquiry. 54

47 (return) [ Quid credidit? Certe, _aut_ tria nomina audiens

tres Deos esse credidit, et idololatra effectus est; _aut_ in

tribus vocabulis trinominem credens Deum, in Sabellii hæresim

incurrit; _aut_ edoctus ab Arianis unum esse verum Deum Patrem,

filium et spiritum sanctum credidit creaturas. Aut extra hæc quid

credere potuerit nescio. Hieronym adv. Luciferianos. Jerom

reserves for the last the orthodox system, which is more

complicated and difficult.]

48 (return) [ As the doctrine of absolute creation from nothing

was gradually introduced among the Christians, (Beausobre, tom.

ii. p. 165- 215,) the dignity of the _workman_ very naturally

rose with that of the _work_.]

49 (return) [ The metaphysics of Dr. Clarke (Scripture Trinity,

p. 276-280) could digest an eternal generation from an infinite

cause.]

50 (return) [ This profane and absurd simile is employed by

several of the primitive fathers, particularly by Athenagoras, in

his Apology to the emperor Marcus and his son; and it is alleged,

without censure, by Bull himself. See Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect.

iii. c. 5, No. 4.]

51 (return) [ See Cudworth’s Intellectual System, p. 559, 579.

This dangerous hypothesis was countenanced by the two Gregories,

of Nyssa and Nazianzen, by Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus,

&c. See Cudworth, p. 603. Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Universelle, tom

xviii. p. 97-105.]

52 (return) [ Augustin seems to envy the freedom of the

Philosophers. Liberis verbis loquuntur philosophi.... Nos autem

non dicimus duo vel tria principia, duos vel tres Deos. De

Civitat. Dei, x. 23.]

53 (return) [ Boetius, who was deeply versed in the philosophy of

Plato and Aristotle, explains the unity of the Trinity by the

_indifference_ of the three persons. See the judicious remarks of

Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Choisie, tom. xvi. p. 225, &c.]

54 (return) [ If the Sabellians were startled at this conclusion,

they were driven another precipice into the confession, that the

Father was born of a virgin, that _he_ had suffered on the cross;

and thus deserved the epithet of _Patripassians_, with which they

were branded by their adversaries. See the invectives of

Tertullian against Praxeas, and the temperate reflections of

Mosheim, (p. 423, 681;) and Beausobre, tom. i. l. iii. c. 6, p.

533.]

If the bishops of the council of Nice 55 had been permitted to

follow the unbiased dictates of their conscience, Arius and his

associates could scarcely have flattered themselves with the

hopes of obtaining a majority of votes, in favor of an hypothesis

so directly averse to the two most popular opinions of the

Catholic world. The Arians soon perceived the danger of their

situation, and prudently assumed those modest virtues, which, in

the fury of civil and religious dissensions, are seldom

practised, or even praised, except by the weaker party. They

recommended the exercise of Christian charity and moderation;

urged the incomprehensible nature of the controversy, disclaimed

the use of any terms or definitions which could not be found in

the Scriptures; and offered, by very liberal concessions, to

satisfy their adversaries without renouncing the integrity of

their own principles. The victorious faction received all their

proposals with haughty suspicion; and anxiously sought for some

irreconcilable mark of distinction, the rejection of which might

involve the Arians in the guilt and consequences of heresy. A

letter was publicly read, and ignominiously torn, in which their

patron, Eusebius of Nicomedia, ingenuously confessed, that the

admission of the Homoousion, or Consubstantial, a word already

familiar to the Platonists, was incompatible with the principles

of their theological system. The fortunate opportunity was

eagerly embraced by the bishops, who governed the resolutions of

the synod; and, according to the lively expression of Ambrose, 56

they used the sword, which heresy itself had drawn from the

scabbard, to cut off the head of the hated monster. The

consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was established by

the council of Nice, and has been unanimously received as a

fundamental article of the Christian faith, by the consent of the

Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant churches. But

if the same word had not served to stigmatize the heretics, and

to unite the Catholics, it would have been inadequate to the

purpose of the majority, by whom it was introduced into the

orthodox creed. This majority was divided into two parties,

distinguished by a contrary tendency to the sentiments of the

Tritheists and of the Sabellians. But as those opposite extremes

seemed to overthrow the foundations either of natural or revealed

religion, they mutually agreed to qualify the rigor of their

principles; and to disavow the just, but invidious, consequences,

which might be urged by their antagonists. The interest of the

common cause inclined them to join their numbers, and to conceal

their differences; their animosity was softened by the healing

counsels of toleration, and their disputes were suspended by the

use of the mysterious _Homoousion_, which either party was free

to interpret according to their peculiar tenets. The Sabellian

sense, which, about fifty years before, had obliged the council

of Antioch 57 to prohibit this celebrated term, had endeared it

to those theologians who entertained a secret but partial

affection for a nominal Trinity. But the more fashionable saints

of the Arian times, the intrepid Athanasius, the learned Gregory

Nazianzen, and the other pillars of the church, who supported

with ability and success the Nicene doctrine, appeared to

consider the expression of _substance_ as if it had been

synonymous with that of _nature;_ and they ventured to illustrate

their meaning, by affirming that three men, as they belong to the

same common species, are consubstantial, or homoousian to each

other. 58 This pure and distinct equality was tempered, on the

one hand, by the internal connection, and spiritual penetration

which indissolubly unites the divine persons; 59 and, on the

other, by the preëminence of the Father, which was acknowledged

as far as it is compatible with the independence of the Son. 60

Within these limits, the almost invisible and tremulous ball of

orthodoxy was allowed securely to vibrate. On either side, beyond

this consecrated ground, the heretics and the dæmons lurked in

ambush to surprise and devour the unhappy wanderer. But as the

degrees of theological hatred depend on the spirit of the war,

rather than on the importance of the controversy, the heretics

who degraded, were treated with more severity than those who

annihilated, the person of the Son. The life of Athanasius was

consumed in irreconcilable opposition to the impious _madness_ of

the Arians; 61 but he defended above twenty years the

Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when at last he was

compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to

mention, with an ambiguous smile, the venial errors of his

respectable friend. 62

55 (return) [ The transactions of the council of Nice are related

by the ancients, not only in a partial, but in a very imperfect

manner. Such a picture as Fra Paolo would have drawn, can never

be recovered; but such rude sketches as have been traced by the

pencil of bigotry, and that of reason, may be seen in Tillemont,

(Mém. Eccles. tom. v. p. 669-759,) and in Le Clerc, (Bibliothèque

Universelle, tom. x p. 435-454.)]

56 (return) [ We are indebted to Ambrose (De Fide, l. iii.)

knowledge of this curious anecdote. Hoc verbum quod viderunt

adversariis esse formidini; ut ipsis gladio, ipsum nefandæ caput

hæreseos.]

57 (return) [ See Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. ii. c. i. p.

25-36. He thinks it his duty to reconcile two orthodox synods.]

58 (return) [ According to Aristotle, the stars were homoousian

to each other. “That _Homoousios_ means of one substance in

_kind_, hath been shown by Petavius, Curcellæus, Cudworth, Le

Clerc, &c., and to prove it would be _actum agere_.” This is the

just remark of Dr. Jortin, (vol. ii p. 212,) who examines the

Arian controversy with learning, candor, and ingenuity.]

59 (return) [ See Petavius, (Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. iv. c.

16, p. 453, &c.,) Cudworth, (p. 559,) Bull, (sect. iv. p.

285-290, edit. Grab.) The _circumincessio_, is perhaps the

deepest and darkest he whole theological abyss.]

60 (return) [ The third section of Bull’s Defence of the Nicene

Faith, which some of his antagonists have called nonsense, and

others heresy, is consecrated to the supremacy of the Father.]

61 (return) [ The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and

his followers chose to compliment the Arians, was that of

_Ariomanites_.]

62 (return) [ Epiphanius, tom i. Hæres. lxxii. 4, p. 837. See the

adventures of Marcellus, in Tillemont, (Mém. Eccles. tom. v. i.

p. 880- 899.) His work, in _one_ book, of the unity of God, was

answered in the _three_ books, which are still extant, of

Eusebius.——After a long and careful examination, Petavius (tom.

ii. l. i. c. 14, p. 78) has reluctantly pronounced the

condemnation of Marcellus.]

The authority of a general council, to which the Arians

themselves had been compelled to submit, inscribed on the banners

of the orthodox party the mysterious characters of the word

_Homoousion_, which essentially contributed, notwithstanding some

obscure disputes, some nocturnal combats, to maintain and

perpetuate the uniformity of faith, or at least of language. The

consubstantialists, who by their success have deserved and

obtained the title of Catholics, gloried in the simplicity and

steadiness of their own creed, and insulted the repeated

variations of their adversaries, who were destitute of any

certain rule of faith. The sincerity or the cunning of the Arian

chiefs, the fear of the laws or of the people, their reverence

for Christ, their hatred of Athanasius, all the causes, human and

divine, that influence and disturb the counsels of a theological

faction, introduced among the sectaries a spirit of discord and

inconstancy, which, in the course of a few years, erected

eighteen different models of religion, 63 and avenged the

violated dignity of the church. The zealous Hilary, 64 who, from

the peculiar hardships of his situation, was inclined to

extenuate rather than to aggravate the errors of the Oriental

clergy, declares, that in the wide extent of the ten provinces of

Asia, to which he had been banished, there could be found very

few prelates who had preserved the knowledge of the true God. 65

The oppression which he had felt, the disorders of which he was

the spectator and the victim, appeased, during a short interval,

the angry passions of his soul; and in the following passage, of

which I shall transcribe a few lines, the bishop of Poitiers

unwarily deviates into the style of a Christian philosopher. “It

is a thing,” says Hilary, “equally deplorable and dangerous, that

there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines

as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are

faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain

them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected, and received,

and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total

resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute

for these unhappy times. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new

creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have

done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we

defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves,

or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one

another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.”

66

63 (return) [ Athanasius, in his epistle concerning the Synods of

Seleucia and Rimini, (tom. i. p. 886-905,) has given an ample

list of Arian creeds, which has been enlarged and improved by the

labors of the indefatigable Tillemont, (Mém. Eccles. tom. vi. p.

477.)]

64 (return) [ Erasmus, with admirable sense and freedom, has

delineated the just character of Hilary. To revise his text, to

compose the annals of his life, and to justify his sentiments and

conduct, is the province of the Benedictine editors.]

65 (return) [ Absque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majore

parte Asianæ decem provinciæ, inter quas consisto, vere Deum

nesciunt. Atque utinam penitus nescirent! cum procliviore enim

venia ignorarent quam obtrectarent. Hilar. de Synodis, sive de

Fide Orientalium, c. 63, p. 1186, edit. Benedict. In the

celebrated parallel between atheism and superstition, the bishop

of Poitiers would have been surprised in the philosophic society

of Bayle and Plutarch.]

66 (return) [ Hilarius ad Constantium, l. i. c. 4, 5, p. 1227,

1228. This remarkable passage deserved the attention of Mr.

Locke, who has transcribed it (vol. iii. p. 470) into the model

of his new common-place book.]

It will not be expected, it would not perhaps be endured, that I

should swell this theological digression, by a minute examination

of the eighteen creeds, the authors of which, for the most part,

disclaimed the odious name of their parent Arius. It is amusing

enough to delineate the form, and to trace the vegetation, of a

singular plant; but the tedious detail of leaves without flowers,

and of branches without fruit, would soon exhaust the patience,

and disappoint the curiosity, of the laborious student. One

question, which gradually arose from the Arian controversy, may,

however, be noticed, as it served to produce and discriminate the

three sects, who were united only by their common aversion to the

Homoousion of the Nicene synod. 1. If they were asked whether the

Son was _like_ unto the Father, the question was resolutely

answered in the negative, by the heretics who adhered to the

principles of Arius, or indeed to those of philosophy; which seem

to establish an infinite difference between the Creator and the

most excellent of his creatures. This obvious consequence was

maintained by Ætius, 67 on whom the zeal of his adversaries

bestowed the surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring

spirit urged him to try almost every profession of human life. He

was successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling

tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a theologian,

and at last the apostle of a new church, which was propagated by

the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. 68 Armed with texts of

Scripture, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of

Aristotle, the subtle Ætius had acquired the fame of an

invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or

to convince. Such talents engaged the friendship of the Arian

bishops, till they were forced to renounce, and even to

persecute, a dangerous ally, who, by the accuracy of his

reasoning, had prejudiced their cause in the popular opinion, and

offended the piety of their most devoted followers. 2. The

omnipotence of the Creator suggested a specious and respectful

solution of the _likeness_ of the Father and the Son; and faith

might humbly receive what reason could not presume to deny, that

the Supreme God might communicate his infinite perfections, and

create a being similar only to himself. 69 These Arians were

powerfully supported by the weight and abilities of their

leaders, who had succeeded to the management of the Eusebian

interest, and who occupied the principal thrones of the East.

They detested, perhaps with some affectation, the impiety of

Ætius; they professed to believe, either without reserve, or

according to the Scriptures, that the Son was different from all

_other_ creatures, and similar only to the Father. But they

denied, the he was either of the same, or of a similar substance;

sometimes boldly justifying their dissent, and sometimes

objecting to the use of the word substance, which seems to imply

an adequate, or at least, a distinct, notion of the nature of the

Deity. 3. The sect which deserted the doctrine of a similar

substance, was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of

Asia; and when the leaders of both parties were assembled in the

council of Seleucia, 70 _their_ opinion would have prevailed by a

majority of one hundred and five to forty-three bishops. The

Greek word, which was chosen to express this mysterious

resemblance, bears so close an affinity to the orthodox symbol,

that the profane of every age have derided the furious contests

which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the

Homoousians and the Homoiousians. As it frequently happens, that

the sounds and characters which approach the nearest to each

other accidentally represent the most opposite ideas, the

observation would be itself ridiculous, if it were possible to

mark any real and sensible distinction between the doctrine of

the Semi-Arians, as they were improperly styled, and that of the

Catholics themselves. The bishop of Poitiers, who in his Phrygian

exile very wisely aimed at a coalition of parties, endeavors to

prove that by a pious and faithful interpretation, 71 the

_Homoiousion_ may be reduced to a consubstantial sense. Yet he

confesses that the word has a dark and suspicious aspect; and, as

if darkness were congenial to theological disputes, the

Semi-Arians, who advanced to the doors of the church, assailed

them with the most unrelenting fury.

67 (return) [ In Philostorgius (l. iii. c. 15) the character and

adventures of Ætius appear singular enough, though they are

carefully softened by the hand of a friend. The editor, Godefroy,

(p. 153,) who was more attached to his principles than to his

author, has collected the odious circumstances which his various

adversaries have preserved or invented.]

68 (return) [ According to the judgment of a man who respected

both these sectaries, Ætius had been endowed with a stronger

understanding and Eunomius had acquired more art and learning.

(Philostorgius l. viii. c. 18.) The confession and apology of

Eunomius (Fabricius, Bibliot. Græc. tom. viii. p. 258-305) is one

of the few heretical pieces which have escaped.]

69 (return) [ Yet, according to the opinion of Estius and Bull,

(p. 297,) there is one power—that of creation—which God _cannot_

communicate to a creature. Estius, who so accurately defined the

limits of Omnipotence was a Dutchman by birth, and by trade a

scholastic divine. Dupin Bibliot. Eccles. tom. xvii. p. 45.]

70 (return) [ Sabinus ap. Socrat. (l. ii. c. 39) had copied the

acts: Athanasius and Hilary have explained the divisions of this

Arian synod; the other circumstances which are relative to it are

carefully collected by Baro and Tillemont]

71 (return) [ Fideli et piâ intelligentiâ... De Synod. c. 77, p.

1193. In his his short apologetical notes (first published by the

Benedictines from a MS. of Chartres) he observes, that he used

this cautious expression, qui intelligerum et impiam, p. 1206.

See p. 1146. Philostorgius, who saw those objects through a

different medium, is inclined to forget the difference of the

important diphthong. See in particular viii. 17, and Godefroy, p.

352.]

The provinces of Egypt and Asia, which cultivated the language

and manners of the Greeks, had deeply imbibed the venom of the

Arian controversy. The familiar study of the Platonic system, a

vain and argumentative disposition, a copious and flexible idiom,

supplied the clergy and people of the East with an inexhaustible

flow of words and distinctions; and, in the midst of their fierce

contentions, they easily forgot the doubt which is recommended by

philosophy, and the submission which is enjoined by religion. The

inhabitants of the West were of a less inquisitive spirit; their

passions were not so forcibly moved by invisible objects, their

minds were less frequently exercised by the habits of dispute;

and such was the happy ignorance of the Gallican church, that

Hilary himself, above thirty years after the first general

council, was still a stranger to the Nicene creed. 72 The Latins

had received the rays of divine knowledge through the dark and

doubtful medium of a translation. The poverty and stubbornness of

their native tongue was not always capable of affording just

equivalents for the Greek terms, for the technical words of the

Platonic philosophy, 73 which had been consecrated, by the gospel

or by the church, to express the mysteries of the Christian

faith; and a verbal defect might introduce into the Latin

theology a long train of error or perplexity. 74 But as the

western provincials had the good fortune of deriving their

religion from an orthodox source, they preserved with steadiness

the doctrine which they had accepted with docility; and when the

Arian pestilence approached their frontiers, they were supplied

with the seasonable preservative of the Homoousion, by the

paternal care of the Roman pontiff. Their sentiments and their

temper were displayed in the memorable synod of Rimini, which

surpassed in numbers the council of Nice, since it was composed

of above four hundred bishops of Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul,

Britain, and Illyricum. From the first debates it appeared, that

only fourscore prelates adhered to the party, though _they_

affected to anathematize the name and memory, of Arius. But this

inferiority was compensated by the advantages of skill, of

experience, and of discipline; and the minority was conducted by

Valens and Ursacius, two bishops of Illyricum, who had spent

their lives in the intrigues of courts and councils, and who had

been trained under the Eusebian banner in the religious wars of

the East. By their arguments and negotiations, they embarrassed,

they confounded, they at last deceived, the honest simplicity of

the Latin bishops; who suffered the palladium of the faith to be

extorted from their hand by fraud and importunity, rather than by

open violence. The council of Rimini was not allowed to separate,

till the members had imprudently subscribed a captious creed, in

which some expressions, susceptible of an heretical sense, were

inserted in the room of the Homoousion. It was on this occasion,

that, according to Jerom, the world was surprised to find itself

Arian. 75 But the bishops of the Latin provinces had no sooner

reached their respective dioceses, than they discovered their

mistake, and repented of their weakness. The ignominious

capitulation was rejected with disdain and abhorrence; and the

Homoousian standard, which had been shaken but not overthrown,

was more firmly replanted in all the churches of the West. 76

72 (return) [ Testor Deum cœli atque terræ me cum neutrum

audissem, semper tamen utrumque sensisse.... Regeneratus pridem

et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi

exsulaturus audivi. Hilar. de Synodis, c. xci. p. 1205. The

Benedictines are persuaded that he governed the diocese of

Poitiers several years before his exile.]

73 (return) [ Seneca (Epist. lviii.) complains that even the of

the Platonists (the _ens_ of the bolder schoolmen) could not be

expressed by a Latin noun.]

74 (return) [ The preference which the fourth council of the

Lateran at length gave to a _numerical_ rather than a _generical_

unity (See Petav. tom. ii. l. v. c. 13, p. 424) was favored by

the Latin language: seems to excite the idea of substance,

_trinitas_ of qualities.]

75 (return) [ Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus

est. Hieronym. adv. Lucifer. tom. i. p. 145.]

76 (return) [ The story of the council of Rimini is very

elegantly told by Sulpicius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p.

419-430, edit. Lugd. Bat. 1647,) and by Jerom, in his dialogue

against the Luciferians. The design of the latter is to apologize

for the conduct of the Latin bishops, who were deceived, and who

repented.]

Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part IV.

Such was the rise and progress, and such were the natural

revolutions of those theological disputes, which disturbed the

peace of Christianity under the reigns of Constantine and of his

sons. But as those princes presumed to extend their despotism

over the faith, as well as over the lives and fortunes, of their

subjects, the weight of their suffrage sometimes inclined the

ecclesiastical balance: and the prerogatives of the King of

Heaven were settled, or changed, or modified, in the cabinet of

an earthly monarch. The unhappy spirit of discord which pervaded

the provinces of the East, interrupted the triumph of

Constantine; but the emperor continued for some time to view,

with cool and careless indifference, the object of the dispute.

As he was yet ignorant of the difficulty of appeasing the

quarrels of theologians, he addressed to the contending parties,

to Alexander and to Arius, a moderating epistle; 77 which may be

ascribed, with far greater reason, to the untutored sense of a

soldier and statesman, than to the dictates of any of his

episcopal counsellors. He attributes the origin of the whole

controversy to a trifling and subtle question, concerning an

incomprehensible point of law, which was foolishly asked by the

bishop, and imprudently resolved by the presbyter. He laments

that the Christian people, who had the same God, the same

religion, and the same worship, should be divided by such

inconsiderable distinctions; and he seriously recommends to the

clergy of Alexandria the example of the Greek philosophers; who

could maintain their arguments without losing their temper, and

assert their freedom without violating their friendship. The

indifference and contempt of the sovereign would have been,

perhaps, the most effectual method of silencing the dispute, if

the popular current had been less rapid and impetuous, and if

Constantine himself, in the midst of faction and fanaticism,

could have preserved the calm possession of his own mind. But his

ecclesiastical ministers soon contrived to seduce the

impartiality of the magistrate, and to awaken the zeal of the

proselyte. He was provoked by the insults which had been offered

to his statues; he was alarmed by the real, as well as the

imaginary magnitude of the spreading mischief; and he

extinguished the hope of peace and toleration, from the moment

that he assembled three hundred bishops within the walls of the

same palace. The presence of the monarch swelled the importance

of the debate; his attention multiplied the arguments; and he

exposed his person with a patient intrepidity, which animated the

valor of the combatants. Notwithstanding the applause which has

been bestowed on the eloquence and sagacity of Constantine, 78 a

Roman general, whose religion might be still a subject of doubt,

and whose mind had not been enlightened either by study or by

inspiration, was indifferently qualified to discuss, in the Greek

language, a metaphysical question, or an article of faith. But

the credit of his favorite Osius, who appears to have presided in

the council of Nice, might dispose the emperor in favor of the

orthodox party; and a well-timed insinuation, that the same

Eusebius of Nicomedia, who now protected the heretic, had lately

assisted the tyrant, 79 might exasperate him against their

adversaries. The Nicene creed was ratified by Constantine; and

his firm declaration, that those who resisted the divine judgment

of the synod, must prepare themselves for an immediate exile,

annihilated the murmurs of a feeble opposition; which, from

seventeen, was almost instantly reduced to two, protesting

bishops. Eusebius of Cæsarea yielded a reluctant and ambiguous

consent to the Homoousion; 80 and the wavering conduct of the

Nicomedian Eusebius served only to delay, about three months, his

disgrace and exile. 81 The impious Arius was banished into one of

the remote provinces of Illyricum; his person and disciples were

branded by law with the odious name of Porphyrians; his writings

were condemned to the flames, and a capital punishment was

denounced against those in whose possession they should be found.

The emperor had now imbibed the spirit of controversy, and the

angry, sarcastic style of his edicts was designed to inspire his

subjects with the hatred which he had conceived against the

enemies of Christ. 82

77 (return) [ Eusebius, in Vit. Constant. l. ii. c. 64-72. The

principles of toleration and religious indifference, contained in

this epistle, have given great offence to Baronius, Tillemont,

&c., who suppose that the emperor had some evil counsellor,

either Satan or Eusebius, at his elbow. See Cortin’s Remarks,

tom. ii. p. 183. * Note: Heinichen (Excursus xi.) quotes with

approbation the term “golden words,” applied by Ziegler to this

moderate and tolerant letter of Constantine. May an English

clergyman venture to express his regret that “the fine gold soon

became dim” in the Christian church?—M.]

78 (return) [ Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iii. c. 13.]

79 (return) [ Theodoret has preserved (l. i. c. 20) an epistle

from Constantine to the people of Nicomedia, in which the monarch

declares himself the public accuser of one of his subjects; he

styles Eusebius and complains of his hostile behavior during the

civil war.]

80 (return) [ See in Socrates, (l. i. c. 8,) or rather in

Theodoret, (l. i. c. 12,) an original letter of Eusebius of

Cæsarea, in which he attempts to justify his subscribing the

Homoousion. The character of Eusebius has always been a problem;

but those who have read the second critical epistle of Le Clerc,

(Ars Critica, tom. iii. p. 30-69,) must entertain a very

unfavorable opinion of the orthodoxy and sincerity of the bishop

of Cæsarea.]

81 (return) [ Athanasius, tom. i. p. 727. Philostorgius, l. i. c.

10, and Godefroy’s Commentary, p. 41.]

82 (return) [ Socrates, l. i. c. 9. In his circular letters,

which were addressed to the several cities, Constantine employed

against the heretics the arms of ridicule and _comic_ raillery.]

But, as if the conduct of the emperor had been guided by passion

instead of principle, three years from the council of Nice were

scarcely elapsed before he discovered some symptoms of mercy, and

even of indulgence, towards the proscribed sect, which was

secretly protected by his favorite sister. The exiles were

recalled, and Eusebius, who gradually resumed his influence over

the mind of Constantine, was restored to the episcopal throne,

from which he had been ignominiously degraded. Arius himself was

treated by the whole court with the respect which would have been

due to an innocent and oppressed man. His faith was approved by

the synod of Jerusalem; and the emperor seemed impatient to

repair his injustice, by issuing an absolute command, that he

should be solemnly admitted to the communion in the cathedral of

Constantinople. On the same day, which had been fixed for the

triumph of Arius, he expired; and the strange and horrid

circumstances of his death might excite a suspicion, that the

orthodox saints had contributed more efficaciously than by their

prayers, to deliver the church from the most formidable of her

enemies. 83 The three principal leaders of the Catholics,

Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Paul of

Constantinople were deposed on various f accusations, by the

sentence of numerous councils; and were afterwards banished into

distant provinces by the first of the Christian emperors, who, in

the last moments of his life, received the rites of baptism from

the Arian bishop of Nicomedia. The ecclesiastical government of

Constantine cannot be justified from the reproach of levity and

weakness. But the credulous monarch, unskilled in the stratagems

of theological warfare, might be deceived by the modest and

specious professions of the heretics, whose sentiments he never

perfectly understood; and while he protected Arius, and

persecuted Athanasius, he still considered the council of Nice as

the bulwark of the Christian faith, and the peculiar glory of his

own reign. 84

83 (return) [ We derive the original story from Athanasius, (tom.

i. p. 670,) who expresses some reluctance to stigmatize the

memory of the dead. He might exaggerate; but the perpetual

commerce of Alexandria and Constantinople would have rendered it

dangerous to invent. Those who press the literal narrative of the

death of Arius (his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy) must

make their option between _poison_ and _miracle_.]

84 (return) [ The change in the sentiments, or at least in the

conduct, of Constantine, may be traced in Eusebius, (in Vit.

Constant. l. iii. c. 23, l. iv. c. 41,) Socrates, (l. i. c.

23-39,) Sozomen, (l. ii. c. 16-34,) Theodoret, (l. i. c. 14-34,)

and Philostorgius, (l. ii. c. 1-17.) But the first of these

writers was too near the scene of action, and the others were too

remote from it. It is singular enough, that the important task of

continuing the history of the church should have been left for

two laymen and a heretic.]

The sons of Constantine must have been admitted from their

childhood into the rank of catechumens; but they imitated, in the

delay of their baptism, the example of their father. Like him

they presumed to pronounce their judgment on mysteries into which

they had never been regularly initiated; 85 and the fate of the

Trinitarian controversy depended, in a great measure, on the

sentiments of Constantius; who inherited the provinces of the

East, and acquired the possession of the whole empire. The Arian

presbyter or bishop, who had secreted for his use the testament

of the deceased emperor, improved the fortunate occasion which

had introduced him to the familiarity of a prince, whose public

counsels were always swayed by his domestic favorites. The

eunuchs and slaves diffused the spiritual poison through the

palace, and the dangerous infection was communicated by the

female attendants to the guards, and by the empress to her

unsuspicious husband. 86 The partiality which Constantius always

expressed towards the Eusebian faction, was insensibly fortified

by the dexterous management of their leaders; and his victory

over the tyrant Magnentius increased his inclination, as well as

ability, to employ the arms of power in the cause of Arianism.

While the two armies were engaged in the plains of Mursa, and the

fate of the two rivals depended on the chance of war, the son of

Constantine passed the anxious moments in a church of the martyrs

under the walls of the city. His spiritual comforter, Valens, the

Arian bishop of the diocese, employed the most artful precautions

to obtain such early intelligence as might secure either his

favor or his escape. A secret chain of swift and trusty

messengers informed him of the vicissitudes of the battle; and

while the courtiers stood trembling round their affrighted

master, Valens assured him that the Gallic legions gave way; and

insinuated with some presence of mind, that the glorious event

had been revealed to him by an angel. The grateful emperor

ascribed his success to the merits and intercession of the bishop

of Mursa, whose faith had deserved the public and miraculous

approbation of Heaven. 87 The Arians, who considered as their own

the victory of Constantius, preferred his glory to that of his

father. 88 Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, immediately composed the

description of a celestial cross, encircled with a splendid

rainbow; which during the festival of Pentecost, about the third

hour of the day, had appeared over the Mount of Olives, to the

edification of the devout pilgrims, and the people of the holy

city. 89 The size of the meteor was gradually magnified; and the

Arian historian has ventured to affirm, that it was conspicuous

to the two armies in the plains of Pannonia; and that the tyrant,

who is purposely represented as an idolater, fled before the

auspicious sign of orthodox Christianity. 90

85 (return) [ Quia etiam tum catechumenus sacramentum fidei

merito videretiu potuisse nescire. Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacra, l.

ii. p. 410.]

86 (return) [ Socrates, l. ii. c. 2. Sozomen, l. iii. c. 18.

Athanas. tom. i. p. 813, 834. He observes that the eunuchs are

the natural enemies of the _Son_. Compare Dr. Jortin’s Remarks on

Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 3 with a certain genealogy in

_Candide_, (ch. iv.,) which ends with one of the first companions

of Christopher Columbus.]

87 (return) [ Sulpicius Severus in Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 405,

406.]

88 (return) [ Cyril (apud Baron. A. D. 353, No. 26) expressly

observes that in the reign of Constantine, the cross had been

found in the bowels of the earth; but that it had appeared, in

the reign of Constantius, in the midst of the heavens. This

opposition evidently proves, that Cyril was ignorant of the

stupendous miracle to which the conversion of Constantine is

attributed; and this ignorance is the more surprising, since it

was no more than twelve years after his death that Cyril was

consecrated bishop of Jerusalem, by the immediate successor of

Eusebius of Cæsarea. See Tillemont, Mém. Eccles. tom. viii. p.

715.]

89 (return) [ It is not easy to determine how far the ingenuity

of Cyril might be assisted by some natural appearances of a solar

halo.]

90 (return) [ Philostorgius, l. iii. c. 26. He is followed by the

author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, by Cedrenus, and by

Nicephorus. (See Gothofred. Dissert. p. 188.) They could not

refuse a miracle, even from the hand of an enemy.]

The sentiments of a judicious stranger, who has impartially

considered the progress of civil or ecclesiastical discord, are

always entitled to our notice; and a short passage of Ammianus,

who served in the armies, and studied the character of

Constantius, is perhaps of more value than many pages of

theological invectives. “The Christian religion, which, in

itself,” says that moderate historian, “is plain and simple, _he_

confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of reconciling

the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished and

promulgated, by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain

curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of

bishops galloping from every side to the assemblies, which they

call synods; and while they labored to reduce the whole sect to

their own particular opinions, the public establishment of the

posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.” 91

Our more intimate knowledge of the ecclesiastical transactions of

the reign of Constantius would furnish an ample commentary on

this remarkable passage, which justifies the rational

apprehensions of Athanasius, that the restless activity of the

clergy, who wandered round the empire in search of the true

faith, would excite the contempt and laughter of the unbelieving

world. 92 As soon as the emperor was relieved from the terrors of

the civil war, he devoted the leisure of his winter quarters at

Arles, Milan, Sirmium, and Constantinople, to the amusement or

toils of controversy: the sword of the magistrate, and even of

the tyrant, was unsheathed, to enforce the reasons of the

theologian; and as he opposed the orthodox faith of Nice, it is

readily confessed that his incapacity and ignorance were equal to

his presumption. 93 The eunuchs, the women, and the bishops, who

governed the vain and feeble mind of the emperor, had inspired

him with an insuperable dislike to the Homoousion; but his timid

conscience was alarmed by the impiety of Ætius. The guilt of that

atheist was aggravated by the suspicious favor of the unfortunate

Gallus; and even the death of the Imperial ministers, who had

been massacred at Antioch, were imputed to the suggestions of

that dangerous sophist. The mind of Constantius, which could

neither be moderated by reason, nor fixed by faith, was blindly

impelled to either side of the dark and empty abyss, by his

horror of the opposite extreme; he alternately embraced and

condemned the sentiments, he successively banished and recalled

the leaders, of the Arian and Semi-Arian factions. 94 During the

season of public business or festivity, he employed whole days,

and even nights, in selecting the words, and weighing the

syllables, which composed his fluctuating creeds. The subject of

his meditations still pursued and occupied his slumbers: the

incoherent dreams of the emperor were received as celestial

visions, and he accepted with complacency the lofty title of

bishop of bishops, from those ecclesiastics who forgot the

interest of their order for the gratification of their passions.

The design of establishing a uniformity of doctrine, which had

engaged him to convene so many synods in Gaul, Italy, Illyricum,

and Asia, was repeatedly baffled by his own levity, by the

divisions of the Arians, and by the resistance of the Catholics;

and he resolved, as the last and decisive effort, imperiously to

dictate the decrees of a general council. The destructive

earthquake of Nicomedia, the difficulty of finding a convenient

place, and perhaps some secret motives of policy, produced an

alteration in the summons. The bishops of the East were directed

to meet at Seleucia, in Isauria; while those of the West held

their deliberations at Rimini, on the coast of the Hadriatic; and

instead of two or three deputies from each province, the whole

episcopal body was ordered to march. The Eastern council, after

consuming four days in fierce and unavailing debate, separated

without any definitive conclusion. The council of the West was

protracted till the seventh month. Taurus, the Prætorian præfect

was instructed not to dismiss the prelates till they should all

be united in the same opinion; and his efforts were supported by

the power of banishing fifteen of the most refractory, and a

promise of the consulship if he achieved so difficult an

adventure. His prayers and threats, the authority of the

sovereign, the sophistry of Valens and Ursacius, the distress of

cold and hunger, and the tedious melancholy of a hopeless exile,

at length extorted the reluctant consent of the bishops of

Rimini. The deputies of the East and of the West attended the

emperor in the palace of Constantinople, and he enjoyed the

satisfaction of imposing on the world a profession of faith which

established the _likeness_, without expressing the

_consubstantiality_, of the Son of God. 95 But the triumph of

Arianism had been preceded by the removal of the orthodox clergy,

whom it was impossible either to intimidate or to corrupt; and

the reign of Constantius was disgraced by the unjust and

ineffectual persecution of the great Athanasius.

91 (return) [ So curious a passage well deserves to be

transcribed. Christianam religionem absolutam et simplicem, anili

superstitione confundens; in qua scrutanda perplexius, quam

componenda gravius excitaret discidia plurima; quæ progressa

fusius aluit concertatione verborum, ut catervis antistium

jumentis publicis ultro citroque discarrentibus, per synodos

(quas appellant) dum ritum omnem ad suum sahere conantur

(Valesius reads _conatur_) rei vehiculariæ concideret servos.

Ammianus, xxi. 16.]

92 (return) [ Athanas. tom. i. p. 870.]

93 (return) [ Socrates, l. ii. c. 35-47. Sozomen, l. iv. c.

12-30. Theodore li. c. 18-32. Philostorg. l. iv. c. 4—12, l. v.

c. 1-4, l. vi. c. 1-5]

94 (return) [ Sozomen, l. iv. c. 23. Athanas. tom. i. p. 831.

Tillemont (Mem Eccles. tom. vii. p. 947) has collected several

instances of the haughty fanaticism of Constantius from the

detached treatises of Lucifer of Cagliari. The very titles of

these treaties inspire zeal and terror; “Moriendum pro Dei

Filio.” “De Regibus Apostaticis.” “De non conveniendo cum

Hæretico.” “De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus.”]

95 (return) [ Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 418-430. The

Greek historians were very ignorant of the affairs of the West.]

We have seldom an opportunity of observing, either in active or

speculative life, what effect may be produced, or what obstacles

may be surmounted, by the force of a single mind, when it is

inflexibly applied to the pursuit of a single object. The

immortal name of Athanasius 96 will never be separated from the

Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, to whose defence he consecrated

every moment and every faculty of his being. Educated in the

family of Alexander, he had vigorously opposed the early progress

of the Arian heresy: he exercised the important functions of

secretary under the aged prelate; and the fathers of the Nicene

council beheld with surprise and respect the rising virtues of

the young deacon. In a time of public danger, the dull claims of

age and of rank are sometimes superseded; and within five months

after his return from Nice, the deacon Athanasius was seated on

the archiepiscopal throne of Egypt. He filled that eminent

station above forty-six years, and his long administration was

spent in a perpetual combat against the powers of Arianism. Five

times was Athanasius expelled from his throne; twenty years he

passed as an exile or a fugitive: and almost every province of

the Roman empire was successively witness to his merit, and his

sufferings in the cause of the Homoousion, which he considered as

the sole pleasure and business, as the duty, and as the glory of

his life. Amidst the storms of persecution, the archbishop of

Alexandria was patient of labor, jealous of fame, careless of

safety; and although his mind was tainted by the contagion of

fanaticism, Athanasius displayed a superiority of character and

abilities, which would have qualified him, far better than the

degenerate sons of Constantine, for the government of a great

monarchy. His learning was much less profound and extensive than

that of Eusebius of Cæsarea, and his rude eloquence could not be

compared with the polished oratory of Gregory of Basil; but

whenever the primate of Egypt was called upon to justify his

sentiments, or his conduct, his unpremeditated style, either of

speaking or writing, was clear, forcible, and persuasive. He has

always been revered, in the orthodox school, as one of the most

accurate masters of the Christian theology; and he was supposed

to possess two profane sciences, less adapted to the episcopal

character, the knowledge of jurisprudence, 97 and that of

divination. 98 Some fortunate conjectures of future events, which

impartial reasoners might ascribe to the experience and judgment

of Athanasius, were attributed by his friends to heavenly

inspiration, and imputed by his enemies to infernal magic.

96 (return) [ We may regret that Gregory Nazianzen composed a

panegyric instead of a life of Athanasius; but we should enjoy

and improve the advantage of drawing our most authentic materials

from the rich fund of his own epistles and apologies, (tom. i. p.

670-951.) I shall not imitate the example of Socrates, (l. ii. c.

l.) who published the first edition of the history, without

giving himself the trouble to consult the writings of Athanasius.

Yet even Socrates, the more curious Sozomen, and the learned

Theodoret, connect the life of Athanasius with the series of

ecclesiastical history. The diligence of Tillemont, (tom. viii,)

and of the Benedictine editors, has collected every fact, and

examined every difficulty]

97 (return) [ Sulpicius Severus (Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 396)

calls him a lawyer, a jurisconsult. This character cannot now be

discovered either in the life or writings of Athanasius.]

98 (return) [ Dicebatur enim fatidicarum sortium fidem, quæve

augurales portenderent alites scientissime callens aliquoties

prædixisse futura. Ammianus, xv. 7. A prophecy, or rather a joke,

is related by Sozomen, (l. iv c. 10,) which evidently proves (if

the crows speak Latin) that Athanasius understood the language of

the crows.]

But as Athanasius was continually engaged with the prejudices and

passions of every order of men, from the monk to the emperor, the

knowledge of human nature was his first and most important

science. He preserved a distinct and unbroken view of a scene

which was incessantly shifting; and never failed to improve those

decisive moments which are irrecoverably past before they are

perceived by a common eye. The archbishop of Alexandria was

capable of distinguishing how far he might boldly command, and

where he must dexterously insinuate; how long he might contend

with power, and when he must withdraw from persecution; and while

he directed the thunders of the church against heresy and

rebellion, he could assume, in the bosom of his own party, the

flexible and indulgent temper of a prudent leader. The election

of Athanasius has not escaped the reproach of irregularity and

precipitation; 99 but the propriety of his behavior conciliated

the affections both of the clergy and of the people. The

Alexandrians were impatient to rise in arms for the defence of an

eloquent and liberal pastor. In his distress he always derived

support, or at least consolation, from the faithful attachment of

his parochial clergy; and the hundred bishops of Egypt adhered,

with unshaken zeal, to the cause of Athanasius. In the modest

equipage which pride and policy would affect, he frequently

performed the episcopal visitation of his provinces, from the

mouth of the Nile to the confines of Æthiopia; familiarly

conversing with the meanest of the populace, and humbly saluting

the saints and hermits of the desert. 100 Nor was it only in

ecclesiastical assemblies, among men whose education and manners

were similar to his own, that Athanasius displayed the ascendancy

of his genius. He appeared with easy and respectful firmness in

the courts of princes; and in the various turns of his prosperous

and adverse fortune he never lost the confidence of his friends,

or the esteem of his enemies.

99 (return) [ The irregular ordination of Athanasius was slightly

mentioned in the councils which were held against him. See

Philostorg. l. ii. c. 11, and Godefroy, p. 71; but it can

scarcely be supposed that the assembly of the bishops of Egypt

would solemnly attest a _public_ falsehood. Athanas. tom. i. p.

726.]

100 (return) [ See the history of the Fathers of the Desert,

published by Rosweide; and Tillemont, Mém. Eccles. tom. vii., in

the lives of Antony, Pachomius, &c. Athanasius himself, who did

not disdain to compose the life of his friend Antony, has

carefully observed how often the holy monk deplored and

prophesied the mischiefs of the Arian heresy Athanas. tom. ii. p.

492, 498, &c.]

In his youth, the primate of Egypt resisted the great

Constantine, who had repeatedly signified his will, that Arius

should be restored to the Catholic communion. 101 The emperor

respected, and might forgive, this inflexible resolution; and the

faction who considered Athanasius as their most formidable enemy,

was constrained to dissemble their hatred, and silently to

prepare an indirect and distant assault. They scattered rumors

and suspicions, represented the archbishop as a proud and

oppressive tyrant, and boldly accused him of violating the treaty

which had been ratified in the Nicene council, with the

schismatic followers of Meletius. 102 Athanasius had openly

disapproved that ignominious peace, and the emperor was disposed

to believe that he had abused his ecclesiastical and civil power,

to prosecute those odious sectaries: that he had sacrilegiously

broken a chalice in one of their churches of Mareotis; that he

had whipped or imprisoned six of their bishops; and that

Arsenius, a seventh bishop of the same party, had been murdered,

or at least mutilated, by the cruel hand of the primate. 103

These charges, which affected his honor and his life, were

referred by Constantine to his brother Dalmatius the censor, who

resided at Antioch; the synods of Cæsarea and Tyre were

successively convened; and the bishops of the East were

instructed to judge the cause of Athanasius, before they

proceeded to consecrate the new church of the Resurrection at

Jerusalem. The primate might be conscious of his innocence; but

he was sensible that the same implacable spirit which had

dictated the accusation, would direct the proceeding, and

pronounce the sentence. He prudently declined the tribunal of his

enemies; despised the summons of the synod of Cæsarea; and, after

a long and artful delay, submitted to the peremptory commands of

the emperor, who threatened to punish his criminal disobedience

if he refused to appear in the council of Tyre. 104 Before

Athanasius, at the head of fifty Egyptian prelates, sailed from

Alexandria, he had wisely secured the alliance of the Meletians;

and Arsenius himself, his imaginary victim, and his secret

friend, was privately concealed in his train. The synod of Tyre

was conducted by Eusebius of Cæsarea, with more passion, and with

less art, than his learning and experience might promise; his

numerous faction repeated the names of homicide and tyrant; and

their clamors were encouraged by the seeming patience of

Athanasius, who expected the decisive moment to produce Arsenius

alive and unhurt in the midst of the assembly. The nature of the

other charges did not admit of such clear and satisfactory

replies; yet the archbishop was able to prove, that in the

village, where he was accused of breaking a consecrated chalice,

neither church nor altar nor chalice could really exist.

The Arians, who had secretly determined the guilt and

condemnation of their enemy, attempted, however, to disguise

their injustice by the imitation of judicial forms: the synod

appointed an episcopal commission of six delegates to collect

evidence on the spot; and this measure which was vigorously

opposed by the Egyptian bishops, opened new scenes of violence

and perjury. 105 After the return of the deputies from

Alexandria, the majority of the council pronounced the final

sentence of degradation and exile against the primate of Egypt.

The decree, expressed in the fiercest language of malice and

revenge, was communicated to the emperor and the Catholic church;

and the bishops immediately resumed a mild and devout aspect,

such as became their holy pilgrimage to the Sepulchre of Christ.

106

101 (return) [ At first Constantine threatened in _speaking_, but

requested in _writing_. His letters gradually assumed a menacing

tone; by while he required that the entrance of the church should

be open to _all_, he avoided the odious name of Arius.

Athanasius, like a skilful politician, has accurately marked

these distinctions, (tom. i. p. 788.) which allowed him some

scope for excuse and delay]

102 (return) [ The Meletians in Egypt, like the Donatists in

Africa, were produced by an episcopal quarrel which arose from

the persecution. I have not leisure to pursue the obscure

controversy, which seems to have been misrepresented by the

partiality of Athanasius and the ignorance of Epiphanius. See

Mosheim’s General History of the Church, vol. i. p. 201.]

103 (return) [ The treatment of the six bishops is specified by

Sozomen, (l. ii. c. 25;) but Athanasius himself, so copious on

the subject of Arsenius and the chalice, leaves this grave

accusation without a reply. Note: This grave charge, if made,

(and it rests entirely on the authority of Soz omen,) seems to

have been silently dropped by the parties themselves: it is never

alluded to in the subsequent investigations. From Sozomen

himself, who gives the unfavorable report of the commission of

inquiry sent to Egypt concerning the cup. it does not appear that

they noticed this accusation of personal violence.—M]

104 (return) [ Athanas, tom. i. p. 788. Socrates, l. i.c. 28.

Sozomen, l. ii. c 25. The emperor, in his Epistle of Convocation,

(Euseb. in Vit. Constant. l. iv. c. 42,) seems to prejudge some

members of the clergy and it was more than probable that the

synod would apply those reproaches to Athanasius.]

105 (return) [ See, in particular, the second Apology of

Athanasius, (tom. i. p. 763-808,) and his Epistles to the Monks,

(p. 808-866.) They are justified by original and authentic

documents; but they would inspire more confidence if he appeared

less innocent, and his enemies less absurd.]

106 (return) [ Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iv. c. 41-47.]

Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part V.

But the injustice of these ecclesiastical judges had not been

countenanced by the submission, or even by the presence, of

Athanasius. He resolved to make a bold and dangerous experiment,

whether the throne was inaccessible to the voice of truth; and

before the final sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the

intrepid primate threw himself into a bark which was ready to

hoist sail for the Imperial city. The request of a formal

audience might have been opposed or eluded; but Athanasius

concealed his arrival, watched the moment of Constantine’s return

from an adjacent villa, and boldly encountered his angry

sovereign as he passed on horseback through the principal street

of Constantinople. So strange an apparition excited his surprise

and indignation; and the guards were ordered to remove the

importunate suitor; but his resentment was subdued by involuntary

respect; and the haughty spirit of the emperor was awed by the

courage and eloquence of a bishop, who implored his justice and

awakened his conscience. 107 Constantine listened to the

complaints of Athanasius with impartial and even gracious

attention; the members of the synod of Tyre were summoned to

justify their proceedings; and the arts of the Eusebian faction

would have been confounded, if they had not aggravated the guilt

of the primate, by the dexterous supposition of an unpardonable

offence; a criminal design to intercept and detain the corn-fleet

of Alexandria, which supplied the subsistence of the new capital.

108 The emperor was satisfied that the peace of Egypt would be

secured by the absence of a popular leader; but he refused to

fill the vacancy of the archiepiscopal throne; and the sentence,

which, after long hesitation, he pronounced, was that of a

jealous ostracism, rather than of an ignominious exile. In the

remote province of Gaul, but in the hospitable court of Treves,

Athanasius passed about twenty eight months. The death of the

emperor changed the face of public affairs and, amidst the

general indulgence of a young reign, the primate was restored to

his country by an honorable edict of the younger Constantine, who

expressed a deep sense of the innocence and merit of his

venerable guest. 109

107 (return) [ Athanas. tom. i. p. 804. In a church dedicated to

St. Athanasius this situation would afford a better subject for a

picture, than most of the stories of miracles and martyrdoms.]

108 (return) [ Athanas. tom. i. p. 729. Eunapius has related (in

Vit. Sophist. p. 36, 37, edit. Commelin) a strange example of the

cruelty and credulity of Constantine on a similar occasion. The

eloquent Sopater, a Syrian philosopher, enjoyed his friendship,

and provoked the resentment of Ablavius, his Prætorian præfect.

The corn-fleet was detained for want of a south wind; the people

of Constantinople were discontented; and Sopater was beheaded, on

a charge that he had _bound_ the winds by the power of magic.

Suidas adds, that Constantine wished to prove, by this execution,

that he had absolutely renounced the superstition of the

Gentiles.]

109 (return) [ In his return he saw Constantius twice, at

Viminiacum, and at Cæsarea in Cappadocia, (Athanas. tom. i. p.

676.) Tillemont supposes that Constantine introduced him to the

meeting of the three royal brothers in Pannonia, (Mémoires

Eccles. tom. viii. p. 69.)]

The death of that prince exposed Athanasius to a second

persecution; and the feeble Constantius, the sovereign of the

East, soon became the secret accomplice of the Eusebians. Ninety

bishops of that sect or faction assembled at Antioch, under the

specious pretence of dedicating the cathedral. They composed an

ambiguous creed, which is faintly tinged with the colors of

Semi-Arianism, and twenty-five canons, which still regulate the

discipline of the orthodox Greeks. 110 It was decided, with some

appearance of equity, that a bishop, deprived by a synod, should

not resume his episcopal functions till he had been absolved by

the judgment of an equal synod; the law was immediately applied

to the case of Athanasius; the council of Antioch pronounced, or

rather confirmed, his degradation: a stranger, named Gregory, was

seated on his throne; and Philagrius, 111 the præfect of Egypt,

was instructed to support the new primate with the civil and

military powers of the province. Oppressed by the conspiracy of

the Asiatic prelates, Athanasius withdrew from Alexandria, and

passed three years 112 as an exile and a suppliant on the holy

threshold of the Vatican. 113 By the assiduous study of the Latin

language, he soon qualified himself to negotiate with the western

clergy; his decent flattery swayed and directed the haughty

Julius; the Roman pontiff was persuaded to consider his appeal as

the peculiar interest of the Apostolic see: and his innocence was

unanimously declared in a council of fifty bishops of Italy. At

the end of three years, the primate was summoned to the court of

Milan by the emperor Constans, who, in the indulgence of unlawful

pleasures, still professed a lively regard for the orthodox

faith. The cause of truth and justice was promoted by the

influence of gold, 114 and the ministers of Constans advised

their sovereign to require the convocation of an ecclesiastical

assembly, which might act as the representatives of the Catholic

church. Ninety-four bishops of the West, seventy-six bishops of

the East, encountered each other at Sardica, on the verge of the

two empires, but in the dominions of the protector of Athanasius.

Their debates soon degenerated into hostile altercations; the

Asiatics, apprehensive for their personal safety, retired to

Philippopolis in Thrace; and the rival synods reciprocally hurled

their spiritual thunders against their enemies, whom they piously

condemned as the enemies of the true God. Their decrees were

published and ratified in their respective provinces: and

Athanasius, who in the West was revered as a saint, was exposed

as a criminal to the abhorrence of the East. 115 The council of

Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord and schism between

the Greek and Latin churches which were separated by the

accidental difference of faith, and the permanent distinction of

language.

110 (return) [ See Beveridge, Pandect. tom. i. p. 429-452, and

tom. ii. Annotation. p. 182. Tillemont, Mém. Eccles. tom. vi. p.

310-324. St. Hilary of Poitiers has mentioned this synod of

Antioch with too much favor and respect. He reckons ninety-seven

bishops.]

111 (return) [ This magistrate, so odious to Athanasius, is

praised by Gregory Nazianzen, tom. i. Orat. xxi. p. 390, 391.

Sæpe premente Deo fert Deus alter opem.

For the credit of human nature, I am always pleased to discover

some good qualities in those men whom party has represented as

tyrants and monsters.]

112 (return) [ The chronological difficulties which perplex the

residence of Athanasius at Rome, are strenuously agitated by

Valesius (Observat ad Calcem, tom. ii. Hist. Eccles. l. i. c.

1-5) and Tillemont, (Men: Eccles. tom. viii. p. 674, &c.) I have

followed the simple hypothesis of Valesius, who allows only one

journey, after the intrusion Gregory.]

113 (return) [ I cannot forbear transcribing a judicious

observation of Wetstein, (Prolegomen. N.S. p. 19: ) Si tamen

Historiam Ecclesiasticam velimus consulere, patebit jam inde a

seculo quarto, cum, ortis controversiis, ecclesiæ Græciæ doctores

in duas partes scinderentur, ingenio, eloquentia, numero, tantum

non æquales, eam partem quæ vincere cupiebat Romam confugisse,

majestatemque pontificis comiter coluisse, eoque pacto oppressis

per pontificem et episcopos Latinos adversariis prævaluisse,

atque orthodoxiam in conciliis stabilivisse. Eam ob causam

Athanasius, non sine comitatu, Roman petiit, pluresque annos ibi

hæsit.]

114 (return) [ Philostorgius, l. iii. c. 12. If any corruption

was used to promote the interest of religion, an advocate of

Athanasius might justify or excuse this questionable conduct, by

the example of Cato and Sidney; the former of whom is _said_ to

have given, and the latter to have received, a bribe in the cause

of liberty.]

115 (return) [ The canon which allows appeals to the Roman

pontiffs, has almost raised the council of Sardica to the dignity

of a general council; and its acts have been ignorantly or

artfully confounded with those of the Nicene synod. See

Tillemont, tom. vii. p. 689, and Geddos’s Tracts, vol. ii. p.

419-460.]

During his second exile in the West, Athanasius was frequently

admitted to the Imperial presence; at Capua, Lodi, Milan, Verona,

Padua, Aquileia, and Treves. The bishop of the diocese usually

assisted at these interviews; the master of the offices stood

before the veil or curtain of the sacred apartment; and the

uniform moderation of the primate might be attested by these

respectable witnesses, to whose evidence he solemnly appeals. 116

Prudence would undoubtedly suggest the mild and respectful tone

that became a subject and a bishop. In these familiar conferences

with the sovereign of the West, Athanasius might lament the error

of Constantius, but he boldly arraigned the guilt of his eunuchs

and his Arian prelates; deplored the distress and danger of the

Catholic church; and excited Constans to emulate the zeal and

glory of his father. The emperor declared his resolution of

employing the troops and treasures of Europe in the orthodox

cause; and signified, by a concise and peremptory epistle to his

brother Constantius, that unless he consented to the immediate

restoration of Athanasius, he himself, with a fleet and army,

would seat the archbishop on the throne of Alexandria. 117 But

this religious war, so horrible to nature, was prevented by the

timely compliance of Constantius; and the emperor of the East

condescended to solicit a reconciliation with a subject whom he

had injured. Athanasius waited with decent pride, till he had

received three successive epistles full of the strongest

assurances of the protection, the favor, and the esteem of his

sovereign; who invited him to resume his episcopal seat, and who

added the humiliating precaution of engaging his principal

ministers to attest the sincerity of his intentions. They were

manifested in a still more public manner, by the strict orders

which were despatched into Egypt to recall the adherents of

Athanasius, to restore their privileges, to proclaim their

innocence, and to erase from the public registers the illegal

proceedings which had been obtained during the prevalence of the

Eusebian faction. After every satisfaction and security had been

given, which justice or even delicacy could require, the primate

proceeded, by slow journeys, through the provinces of Thrace,

Asia, and Syria; and his progress was marked by the abject homage

of the Oriental bishops, who excited his contempt without

deceiving his penetration. 118 At Antioch he saw the emperor

Constantius; sustained, with modest firmness, the embraces and

protestations of his master, and eluded the proposal of allowing

the Arians a single church at Alexandria, by claiming, in the

other cities of the empire, a similar toleration for his own

party; a reply which might have appeared just and moderate in the

mouth of an independent prince. The entrance of the archbishop

into his capital was a triumphal procession; absence and

persecution had endeared him to the Alexandrians; his authority,

which he exercised with rigor, was more firmly established; and

his fame was diffused from Æthiopia to Britain, over the whole

extent of the Christian world. 119

116 (return) [ As Athanasius dispersed secret invectives against

Constantius, (see the Epistle to the Monks,) at the same time

that he assured him of his profound respect, we might distrust

the professions of the archbishop. Tom. i. p. 677.]

117 (return) [ Notwithstanding the discreet silence of

Athanasius, and the manifest forgery of a letter inserted by

Socrates, these menaces are proved by the unquestionable evidence

of Lucifer of Cagliari, and even of Constantius himself. See

Tillemont, tom. viii. p. 693]

118 (return) [ I have always entertained some doubts concerning

the retraction of Ursacius and Valens, (Athanas. tom. i. p. 776.)

Their epistles to Julius, bishop of Rome, and to Athanasius

himself, are of so different a cast from each other, that they

cannot both be genuine. The one speaks the language of criminals

who confess their guilt and infamy; the other of enemies, who

solicit on equal terms an honorable reconciliation. * Note: I

cannot quite comprehend the ground of Gibbon’s doubts. Athanasius

distinctly asserts the fact of their retractation. (Athan. Op. i.

p. 124, edit. Benedict.) The epistles are apparently translations

from the Latin, if, in fact, more than the substance of the

epistles. That to Athanasius is brief, almost abrupt. Their

retractation is likewise mentioned in the address of the orthodox

bishops of Rimini to Constantius. Athan. de Synodis, Op t. i. p

723-M.]

119 (return) [ The circumstances of his second return may be

collected from Athanasius himself, tom. i. p. 769, and 822, 843.

Socrates, l. ii. c. 18, Sozomen, l. iii. c. 19. Theodoret, l. ii.

c. 11, 12. Philostorgius, l. iii. c. 12.]

But the subject who has reduced his prince to the necessity of

dissembling, can never expect a sincere and lasting forgiveness;

and the tragic fate of Constans soon deprived Athanasius of a

powerful and generous protector. The civil war between the

assassin and the only surviving brother of Constans, which

afflicted the empire above three years, secured an interval of

repose to the Catholic church; and the two contending parties

were desirous to conciliate the friendship of a bishop, who, by

the weight of his personal authority, might determine the

fluctuating resolutions of an important province. He gave

audience to the ambassadors of the tyrant, with whom he was

afterwards accused of holding a secret correspondence; 120 and

the emperor Constantius repeatedly assured his dearest father,

the most reverend Athanasius, that, notwithstanding the malicious

rumors which were circulated by their common enemies, he had

inherited the sentiments, as well as the throne, of his deceased

brother. 121 Gratitude and humanity would have disposed the

primate of Egypt to deplore the untimely fate of Constans, and to

abhor the guilt of Magnentius; but as he clearly understood that

the apprehensions of Constantius were his only safeguard, the

fervor of his prayers for the success of the righteous cause

might perhaps be somewhat abated. The ruin of Athanasius was no

longer contrived by the obscure malice of a few bigoted or angry

bishops, who abused the authority of a credulous monarch. The

monarch himself avowed the resolution, which he had so long

suppressed, of avenging his private injuries; 122 and the first

winter after his victory, which he passed at Arles, was employed

against an enemy more odious to him than the vanquished tyrant of

Gaul.

120 (return) [ Athanasius (tom. i. p. 677, 678) defends his

innocence by pathetic complaints, solemn assertions, and specious

arguments. He admits that letters had been forged in his name,

but he requests that his own secretaries and those of the tyrant

might be examined, whether those letters had been written by the

former, or received by the latter.]

121 (return) [ Athanas. tom. i. p. 825-844.]

122 (return) [ Athanas. tom. i. p. 861. Theodoret, l. ii. c. 16.

The emperor declared that he was more desirous to subdue

Athanasius, than he had been to vanquish Magnentius or Sylvanus.]

If the emperor had capriciously decreed the death of the most

eminent and virtuous citizen of the republic, the cruel order

would have been executed without hesitation, by the ministers of

open violence or of specious injustice. The caution, the delay,

the difficulty with which he proceeded in the condemnation and

punishment of a popular bishop, discovered to the world that the

privileges of the church had already revived a sense of order and

freedom in the Roman government. The sentence which was

pronounced in the synod of Tyre, and subscribed by a large

majority of the Eastern bishops, had never been expressly

repealed; and as Athanasius had been once degraded from his

episcopal dignity by the judgment of his brethren, every

subsequent act might be considered as irregular, and even

criminal. But the memory of the firm and effectual support which

the primate of Egypt had derived from the attachment of the

Western church, engaged Constantius to suspend the execution of

the sentence till he had obtained the concurrence of the Latin

bishops. Two years were consumed in ecclesiastical negotiations;

and the important cause between the emperor and one of his

subjects was solemnly debated, first in the synod of Arles, and

afterwards in the great council of Milan, 123 which consisted of

above three hundred bishops. Their integrity was gradually

undermined by the arguments of the Arians, the dexterity of the

eunuchs, and the pressing solicitations of a prince who gratified

his revenge at the expense of his dignity, and exposed his own

passions, whilst he influenced those of the clergy. Corruption,

the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty, was

successfully practised; honors, gifts, and immunities were

offered and accepted as the price of an episcopal vote; 124 and

the condemnation of the Alexandrian primate was artfully

represented as the only measure which could restore the peace and

union of the Catholic church. The friends of Athanasius were not,

however, wanting to their leader, or to their cause. With a manly

spirit, which the sanctity of their character rendered less

dangerous, they maintained, in public debate, and in private

conference with the emperor, the eternal obligation of religion

and justice. They declared, that neither the hope of his favor,

nor the fear of his displeasure, should prevail on them to join

in the condemnation of an absent, an innocent, a respectable

brother. 125 They affirmed, with apparent reason, that the

illegal and obsolete decrees of the council of Tyre had long

since been tacitly abolished by the Imperial edicts, the

honorable reestablishment of the archbishop of Alexandria, and

the silence or recantation of his most clamorous adversaries.

They alleged, that his innocence had been attested by the

unanimous bishops of Egypt, and had been acknowledged in the

councils of Rome and Sardica, 126 by the impartial judgment of

the Latin church. They deplored the hard condition of Athanasius,

who, after enjoying so many years his seat, his reputation, and

the seeming confidence of his sovereign, was again called upon to

confute the most groundless and extravagant accusations. Their

language was specious; their conduct was honorable: but in this

long and obstinate contest, which fixed the eyes of the whole

empire on a single bishop, the ecclesiastical factions were

prepared to sacrifice truth and justice to the more interesting

object of defending or removing the intrepid champion of the

Nicene faith. The Arians still thought it prudent to disguise, in

ambiguous language, their real sentiments and designs; but the

orthodox bishops, armed with the favor of the people, and the

decrees of a general council, insisted on every occasion, and

particularly at Milan, that their adversaries should purge

themselves from the suspicion of heresy, before they presumed to

arraign the conduct of the great Athanasius. 127

123 (return) [ The affairs of the council of Milan are so

imperfectly and erroneously related by the Greek writers, that we

must rejoice in the supply of some letters of Eusebius, extracted

by Baronius from the archives of the church of Vercellæ, and of

an old life of Dionysius of Milan, published by Bollandus. See

Baronius, A.D. 355, and Tillemont, tom. vii. p. 1415.]

124 (return) [ The honors, presents, feasts, which seduced so

many bishops, are mentioned with indignation by those who were

too pure or too proud to accept them. “We combat (says Hilary of

Poitiers) against Constantius the Antichrist; who strokes the

belly instead of scourging the back;” qui non dorsa cædit; sed

ventrem palpat. Hilarius contra Constant c. 5, p. 1240.]