The Antiquities of the British Churches, Book · Chapter 4 (1 of 3)

The Antiquities of the British Churches · Book · Chapter 4 (1 of 3)

p. 145CHAP. IV. Of the Faith and Service of the British Churches.

THE Faith of the British Churches enquired into.

The Charge of Arianism considered.

The true State of the Arian Controversie, from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum.

Some late Mistakes rectified.

Of several Arian Councils before that of Ariminum.

The British Churches cleared from Arianism after it.

The Number and Poverty of the British Bishops there present.

Of the ancient endowment of Churches before Constantine.

The Privileges granted to Churches by him.

The Charge of Pelagianism considered.

Pelagius and Celestius both born in these Islands.

When Aremorica first called Britain.

What sort of Monk Pelagius was.

No probability of his returning to Britain.

Of Agricola and others spreading the Pelagian Doctrine in the British Churches.

Germanus and Lupus sent by a Council of Gallican Bishops hither to stop it.

The Testimony of Prosper concerning their being sent by Coelestine consider'd.

Of Fastidius a British Bishop.

London the chief Metropolis in the Roman Government.

Of Faustus originally a Britain. But a Bishop in Gaul.

The great esteem he was in.

Of the Semipelagians and Praedestinatians.

Of the Schools of Learning set up here by the means of Germanus and Lupus.

Dubricius and Iltutus the Disciples of St. German.

The number of their Scholars, and places of their Schools.

p. 146Of the Monastery of Banchor, and the ancient Western Monasteries, and their difference, as to Learning, from the Benedictine Institution

Of Gildas his Iren, whether an Vniversity in Britain.

Of the Schools of Learning in the Roman Cities, chiefly at Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople, and the Professours of Arts and Sciences, and the publick Libraries there.

Of the Schools of Learning in the Provinces, and the Constitution of Gratian to that purpose: extending to Britain.

Of the publick Service of the British Churches; The Gallican Offices introduced by St. German.

The Nature of them at large explained, and their Difference from the Roman Offices, both as to the Morning and Communion Service.

The Conformity of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the ancient British Offices, and not derived from the Church of Rome, as our Dissenters affirm.

THE Succession of the British Churches being thus deduced from their original to the times of the Christian Emperours, it will be necessary to give an account of the Faith and Service which were then received by them.

And it is so much the more necessary to enquire into the Faith of the British Churches, because they are charged with two remarkable Heresies of those times, viz. Arianism and Pelagianism; and by no less Authority than that of (a)(a)Gild. Epist. p. 12.Gildas and (b)(b)Bed. l. 1. c. 8, 10, 17.Bede.

The Charge of Arianism is grounded upon the universal spreading of that Heresie over the World, as Bede expresses it, and therefore to shew how far the British Churches were concerned, we must search into the History of that Heresie, from the Council of Nice to the Council of Ariminum, where the British Bishops were present.

It is confidently affirmed by a late (c)(c)R. & L. …art. 1. p. 354.Writer, That the Arian Faction was wholly supprest by the Nicene Council, and all the Troubles that were made after that were raised by the Eusebians, who were as forward as any to anathematize the Arians, and all the Persecutions were raised p. 147by them, under a Pretence of Prudence and Moderation; That they never in the least appear'd after the Council of Nice in behalf of the Arian Doctrine, p. 374.but their whole fury was bent against the word foreign and Athanasius; That in the times of Constantius and Constans the Cause of Arius was wholly laid aside by both Parties, p. 415.and the onelyonly Contest was about the word foreign; That the Eusebian Cause was not to restore Arianism, but to piece up the Peace of the Church by comprehending all in one Communion, p. 468.or by mutual forbearance.

But if it be made appear, that the Arian Faction was still busie and active after the Nicene Council; that the Contest about foreign was with a design to overthrow the Nicene Faith; that the Eusebians great business was, if possible, to restore Arianism; then it will follow, that some Mens hatred of Prudence and Moderation is beyond their skill and judgment in the History of the Church: and the making out of these things will clear the History of Arianism to the Council of Ariminum.

But, before I come to the Evidence arising from the Authentick Records of the Church, it will not be unpleasant to observe, that this very Writer is so great an Enemy to the design of Reconcilers, that it is hardly possible, even in this matter, to reconcile him to himself. For, he tells us, that the most considerable Eusebians in the Western Churches, viz. Valens, Ursacius,p. 484. and their Associates had been secret Arians all along; that the word Substance was left out of the third Sirmian Creed, p. 508.to please Valens and his Party; who, p. 510.being emboldned by this Creed whereby they had at length shaken off all the Clogs that had been hitherto fasten'd on them to hinder their return to Arianism, moved, at the Council at Ariminum, that all former Creeds might be abolished, and the Sirmian Creed be established for ever. Doth this consist with the Arian Factions being totally supprest by the Council of Nice, and none ever appearing in behalf of the Arian Doctrine after; and the Eusebians never moving for restoring Arianism, but onelyonly for a sort of Comprehension and Toleration? In another place he saith, (d)(d)R. & L. Part. 2. p. 3.the Eusebians endeavoured to supplant the Nicene Faith, though they durst not disown it. And was the Arian Faction then totally supprest while the Eusebians remained? These are p. 148the Men whom he calls the old Eusebian Knaves;p. 4. And for the Acacians, he saith, when they had got the Mastery, Part. 1. p. 528.they put off all disguise, and declared for Arianism. Is it possible for the same person to say, that after the Nicene Council, they never appeared in behalf of the Arian Doctrine in the Eastern and Western Churches; and yet, When they put off their disguise, they declared for Arianism? What is this but appearing openly and plainly for the Arian Doctrine? And if we believe so good an Authour as himself, their Contest after the Council of Nice was so far from being merely about the word foreign, that he frequently saith, that Controversie did take in the whole Merits of the Cause, as will appear from his own words in several places. As when he speaks of the Council of Nice, p. 358.he saith, The whole Controversie was reduced to the word Consubstantial; which the Eusebians at first refused to admit, as being no Scripture word, but without its admission, nothing else would satisfie the Council, and good reason they had for it, because to part with that word after the Controversie was once raised, would have been, to give up the Cause; for it was unavoidable, that if the Son were not of the same substance with the Father, he must have been made out of the same common and created substance with all other Creatures; and therefore when the Scriptures give him a greater Dignity of Nature than to any created Being, they thereby make him of the same uncreated Substance with the Father; so that they plainly assert his Consubstantiality, though they use not the word. But when the Truth itself was denied by the Arian Hereticks and the Son of God thrust down into the rank of created Beings, and defined to be a Creature made of nothing, it was time for the Church to stop this Heresie, by such a Test as would admit of no Prevarication; which was effectually done by this word; and, as cunning and shuffling as the Arians were, they were never able to swallow or chew it, and therefore it was but a weak part of the Eusebians to shew so much zeal against the word, when they professed to allow the thing; For if our Saviour were not a mere p. 149Creature, he must be of the same uncreated substance with the Father, because there is no middle between created and uncreated Substance; so that whoever denied the Consubstantiality could not avoid the Heresie of Paulus Samosatenus, which yet the Arians themselves professed to defie; for if he were a mere Creature, it is no matter how soon, or how late he was created.

And therefore it is not be imagined that the Eusebians should really believe the Consubstantiality of the Son, and yet so vehemently oppose the use of the word. Would any Men of common sense, who did believe the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be turned into the very Body and Bloud of Christ, set themselves with all their force and interest to overthrow the term of Transubstantiation? So, if the Eusebians did believe the Son of the same Substance with the Father, to what purpose should they caball so much as they did all the Reign of Constantius, to lay aside the word foreign; If it be said, It was by way of Comprehension, to take in dissenting Parties: then it is plain they were really dissenting Parties still, and consequently did not differ onelyonly about the Vse of a word; but about the Substance of the Doctrine. And as those who do believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, are for the Vse of the word; and those who believe it not, would not have the word imposed; so it was in all the Councils under Constantius, those who chiefly opposed the word Consubstantial, did it, because they liked not the Doctrine; and those who contended for it, did it, because they knew the Doctrine was aimed at under the Pretence of laying aside an unscriptural word. And the same Author tells us from St. Hilary, p. 484.the Consequence of shutting out the word foreign was, that it must be decreed either that the Son was a Creature made out of nothing, or out of another substance uncreated and distinct from the Divine Nature. And when he gives an account of the Council of Seleucia, held at the same time with that of Ariminum, he saith,p. 520. They brake into two Parties, of the Acacians, who defied the Council of Nice and all its Decrees, and the old Eusebians, who pretended to stick onelyonly at the word Consubstantial: and p. 150upon their Appeal to the Emperour, there are these two things remarkable. 1. That those who were for laying aside all discriminating words were Arians of the highest sort,p. 522. viz. Aëtians, who held the Blasphemy of Dissimilitude. 2. That those who were for retaining the word Substance went on this Ground, That if God the Son exist neither from nothing nor from any other substance, then he must be of the same substance with the Father. p. 524.Which was the very Argument, he saith, approved by the Council of Nice for settling the word foreign. This is a sufficient Argument to me, that those who from the Council of Nice did chiefly oppose that word, did it with a Design to overthrow the Doctrine of the Son's being of the same substance with the Father. Which will more fully appear by a brief deduction of the Arian History from the Council of Nice to that of Ariminum; not from modern Collections, but from the best Writers about that time.

The Arian Faction finding themselves so much overvoted in the Council of Nice, that they despaired to carry any thing there by fair means; betook themselves to fraudulent Arts, hoping thereby to hinder either the passing or the executing any Decree against them. At first, they endeavoured to blind and deceive the Council by seeming to profess the Orthodox Faith, but they made use of such ambiguous Forms of words as might serve their ends, by couching an Heretical Sense under a fair appearance of joining in the same Faith with the rest. (e)(e)Athanas. de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. p. 921.(f)(f)Theod. l. 1. c. 8.This being discovered by the more sagacious Defenders of the old Christian Faith, they at length fixed upon the term foreign as the onelyonly effectual Test to discriminate the Arians from others; and when they had used their utmost skill and endeavour to keep this Test from passing, and found they could not prevail, they bethought themselves of another way to keep the Faction alive, although the Heresie might seem at present to be totally supprest. And that was, by suffering Arius and his two fast Friends, Secundus and Theonas, to be condemned by the Council, and to be banished by the Emperour; but the chief Heads of the Faction, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice, with others, p. 151resolved upon an Expedient to clear themselves, and yet to keep up the Faction; which was, by subscribing the Confession of Faith, and denying to anathematize Arius and his Followers. This is plain from the Epistle of Eusebius and Theognis, extant in (g)(g)Socr. l. 1. c. 14.Socrates and (h)(h)Soz. l. 2: c. 16.Sozomen, wherein they own their Subscription to the Decree of Faith, but declare, That they utterly refused to subscribe the Anathema against Arius and his Adherents; because they did not believe them guilty of the Heresie charged upon them; as they found both by Writing and Conversation with them. This Epistle was written by them during their Banishment, in order to their return to their Bishopricks, from which they had been driven by Constantine's own Order; and the Reason of it is given is his Epistle to the Church of Nicomedia, viz. (i)(i)Theod. l. 1. c. 20.for communicating with the Arians whom he had caused to be removed from Alexandria for their Heresie and Disturbance of the Peace of the Church there; and the same Account is given of it in the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt extant in (k)(k)Athanas. Apol. p. 727.Athanasius. Which shews their Resolution to keep up the Faction in spite of the Council of Nice: For if they had any regard to the Decree there past, they would not have presumed to have communicated with those who were expresly anathematized by the Council; and had very hardly escaped it themselves, as Constantine there upbraids them in his Epistle. But, upon this notorious Contempt, they were deposed from their Bishopricks, and sent into Banishment; where they grew very uneasie, and resolved upon any Terms to be restored; knowing that if they continued there, the Faction was indeed in Danger to be wholly supprest: and, for that end, they wrote that submissive Letter to the leading Bishops, promising an universal Compliance upon their Restauration. And the main ground they built their Hopes upon, was, because Arius himself upon his submission was recalled; as they declare in the end of that Epistle.

Which Intrigue was carried on by (l)(l)Socr. l. 1. c. 25.(m)(m)Soz. l. 2. c. 27.a secret Arian, Chaplain to Constantia, the Emperour's Sister, recommended to the Emperour at her Death; who, being received into Favour, whisper'd into his Ear very kind things concerning Arius and his Adherents; p. 152adding, that they were unjustly banished, and that the whole Controversie was nothing but a Pique which the Bishop of Alexandria had taken against one of his Presbyters, for having more Wit and Reputation than himself; and that it would become Constantine, in point of Honour and Justice, to recall Arius, and to have the whole matter examined over again. Upon this, Arius is sent for, and bid by the Emperour to set down his Confession of Faith plainly and honestly; which is extant in the Ecclesiastical Historians, under the Name of Arius and Euzoius, and was framed in such a specious manner, as made the Emperour believe that Arius was indeed of the same Mind with the Nicene Fathers, onelyonly leaving out the word Consubstantial. But he would not undertake to determine himself, whether he should be received into Communion upon this; but he referr'd the whole matter to the Bishops then met a Jerusalem; who, faith Sozomen, unanimously approved this Confession of Faith, and wrote a Circular Letter upon it for receiving Arius and his Adherents into Communion; notwithstanding the peremptory Decree of the Council of Nice to the contrary. Which Epistle is extant in (n)(n)Athanas. Apol. p. 801. & Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. p. 899, 891.Athanasius, who looks on it as the first Blow given to the Authority of the Council of Nice; And he understands it of that Arius, who was Author of the Heresie, and not of the other Arius, as some modern Writers do.

And here, Athanasius saith, they began to open their Design in favour of the Arian Heresie, which till then they had concealed. For they knew that Work was not to be done at once; but this was a good step towards the lessning the Authority of the Nicene Council; which being once removed, the Faction did not question they should be able to set up Arianism speedily. They were not so plain hearted to declare presently for what they aimed at; nor to put it to the Vote, whether the Nicene Faith should be destroyed or not. For that, having the great Advantage of so publick a Settlement, and such a general Consent of the Christian World, it was not to be overthrown at once, nor by open violence, but to be taken in pieces by degrees; and the generality were to be cheated into Arianism, under p. 153other pretences and insinuations. And the first thing was, to persuade the World, that the Arians had been hitherto misunderstood, and their Doctrine misrepresented by such factious and busie Men as Athanasius, and a few others, therefore it was absolutely necessary to weaken the Authority of the Council, as being influenced by a small number of Men who overswayed the rest; Neither was it safe to begin with the Matter of Faith, for that would give too great an Alarm; but it was a much more plausible way to bring the Arians into Communion, as being much misrepresented and not owning the Doctrines which the Athanasian Party did charge them with, and being once joined in Communion together, it would be fit to lay aside all Terms of Discrimination, as tending to Faction; especially such as were lately set up, to put a distinction between the Arians and others. And when these things were done by other Councils, the Authority of the Council of Nice would fall to the Gound, and, as they supposed, the Nicene Faith together with it. But such D…signs could not be carried on so secretly and subtilly, but the wiser sort suspected what was doing,p. 891 as Athanasius saith; and therefore they soon called another Council at Antioch, where they made vehement Protestations to the contrary. We, say they, are no followers of Arius; for, being Bishops, how can we follow a Presbyter? As though the World could be deceived by such pitifull Reasonings. But after they declare, That they embraced none but the ancient Faith, but withall confess they had received Arius to Communion; and then make a Profession of their Faith very agreeable to that of Arius and Euzoius, delivered to Constantine; wherein they assert the Coeternity of the Son with the Father, but leave out his being of the same Substance. But fearing this would not give satisfaction, they added another, wherein they owned (o)(o)Ath. p. 892.the Son to be God of God, Lord of Lord, the unchangeable Image of his Deity, Substance, Will, Power and Glory: but after, they express themselves more fully, when they say, they believe three distinct hypostases and an unity of consent; which overthrows the Nicene Faith, it being built on the unity of Substance and not of Will. It cannot be denied, that the crude expressions p. 154of Arius in the first Heat of the Controversie were here rejected, viz. that there was a time before the Son was, or that he was a Creature like other Creatures; for they knew these expressions would not then be born; and therefore they were forced to refine Arianism to the utmost degree, to make it pass down the better, till the prejudice against it by the Council of Nice were wholly removed. To which end they set forth several other Confessions of Faith to prevent the suspicion of what they aimed at; but these were in the time of Constantius.

I return therefore to the Reign of Constantine, which excellent Prince (p)(p)Soz. l. 3. c. 1.would suffer no alteration to be made in the Nicene Faith in his time; and therefore the Secret Arians were forced to great dissimulation and hypocrisie, and to carry on their design under other pretences. So (q)(q)Theod. l. 1. c. 5, 7.Theodoret saith, That Eusebius and his Party outwardly complied in the Council of Nice out of fear; and he applies to them the saying of the Prophet, This People honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And elsewhere he saith, (r)(r)l. 1. c. 19.The Arians in the Council subscribed to the Nicene Faith, that being in Sheeps clothing, they might devour like ravening Wolves. (s)(s)Soz. l. 2. c. 21.Sozomen saith, It was reported that Eusebius and Theognis, after their return from Banishment, corrupted the Person to whom the Subscriptions of the Council of Nice were committed, and rased out their own Names; and then openly declared against the Son's being of the same Substance with the Father: and that even to Constantine himself. But that doth not seem credible to me. It being much more probable, which (t)(t)Socr. l. 1. c. 23.Socrates relates, viz. That Eusebius and Theognis having recover'd the possession of their Churches upon their return from Banishment had frequent access to the Emperour, who honoured them as his Converts; and under that Pretext of embracing the Nicene Faith, did more mischief than otherwise they could have done: and so made a very great Disturbance in the Church: which he imputes partly to their love of Arianism, and partly to their hatred of Athanasius: but the latter, as Athanasius at large proves, was on the account of the former.

p. 155For, it being their Design to introduce Arianism, without owning it, next to their lessning the Authority of the Council of Nice, the most effectual means they could think of was, by all possible Arts, to blacken and render odious, those Persons who most vigorously defended the Nicene Faith. And from hence began the great quarrel against Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, and Athanasius. As to the former, he gives an Account in the Fragment of a Homily extant in (u)(u)Theod. l. 1. c. 8.Theodoret, what shuffling the Arians used in the Council of Nice to preserve their Bishopricks; and, for that Reason, subscribed to the Decree of Faith; and so, having escaped the Censures they deserved, they did sometimes secretly, sometimes openly, propagate the Opinions there condemned. One of their great Arts, he faith, was to decline such as well understood the Controversie, and made it their business to oppose them. And so Eustathius himself found to his sorrow. For, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his Party, meeting together at Antioch, whom (w)(w)Theod. l. 1. c. 21.Theodoret expresly calls the Arian Faction, they there proceeded to the deposing Eustathius, upon the Accusation of an infamous Person suborned to that purpose, and afterwards prevailed with Constantine to banish him; which being done, Theodoret saith,c. 22. There was a Succession of Bishops, who were secret Arians, as of Eulalius, Euphronius and Flaccillus; and that was the Reason the Orthodox Party then separated themselves, and were called Eustathians. (x)(x)Socr. l. 1. c. 23.Socrates and (y)(y)Soz. l. 2.21.Sozomen confess, that the quarrel about Arianism was renew'd soon after the Council of Nice both in Egypt and in Bithynia, Hellespont and Constantinople. But Socrates saith, It was begun about the word foreign, which was indeed the Pretext of the Quarrel, but the true Ground was Arianism. Socrates, being a Man not throughly versed in these Matters, blames both sides, for contending about they knew not what; both agreeing in the same Doctrine, and yet not agrèeing among themselves. But he did not penetrate into the depth of the Arians Designs, as Theodoret, a Man of far greater Judgment and Learning did. And he proves from Eustathius, an eminent Bishop of that time, and one present in the Council of p. 156Nice, that Arianism lay at the bottom; and that they complied at first onelyonly out of Fear, but had the same hatred to the true Faith they ever had; but after the Council they durst not so openly shew it. (z)(z)Soz. l. 2. c. 18.Sozomen saith, the Arian Party charged those who asserted Christ of the same Substance with the Father (as the Council of Nice had determined) with Sabellianism and Blasphemy; and the followers of the Nicene Faith charged the others with Idolatry and Innovation; as asserting three distinct Gods as to Substance, c. 19.when the Council had declared the Son of the same Substance with the Father. And he ingenuously confesseth, that it was generally believed that Eustathius was deposed at Antioch for adhering to the Nicene Faith; and declaring himself against the Arian Party then prevailing in the East.

Who finding such success in their first attempt on Eustathius, they next proceed against Athanasius, the other great Champion of the Council of Nice. They (a)(a)Athan. Apol. 2. p. 725, 726.had conceived an inveterate hatred against him for his great zeal and activity in that Council, but their rage brake forth, after they heard that he succeeded Alexander in the See of Alexandria. Eusebius of Nicomedia was his mortal Enemy, who was removed to be near the Court, (though against the Canons;) yet he brake through all, thereby to have opportunity to fill the Emperour's Mind with Jealousies and Suspicions of all those that opposed them, and especially of Athanasius. And (b)(b)Socr. l. 1. c. 27.Socrates gives the true Reason of the great Spite against Athanasius, viz. that unless he were removed, there was no hopes of the Arian Doctrine prevailing: which he there confesses was the thing the Eusebians aimed at. And now they thought such a Snare was laid for Athanasius, which it was hardly possible for him to escape. For, upon Arius his Submission, they advise Constantine to send him to Alexandria, there to be received by Athanasius, as the onelyonly way to put an end to all the Disturbances of the Church. Away goes Arius with the Emperour's Command to Athanasius: Who, according to their imagination, (c)(c)Soz. l. 2. c. 18. c. 22.refusing to admit him, being anathematized by the Council, as the (d)(d)Athanas. Apol. p. 778.first Broacher of a dangerous Heresie, they easily p. 157exasperated the good Emperour against him, as a seditious and turbulent Person; and so plied him with one Accusation upon another, that at last Constantine sent for him to appear before him upon an Information against him of no less than Treasonable Practices. But upon a full hearing of the Matter by the Emperour himself, (e)(e)Socr. l. 1. c. 27.he was acquitted, and sent back with Marks of his Favour and vindication of his Innocency; in an Epistle to the People of Alexandria, part of which is extant in (f)(f)Soz. l. 2. c. 22.Sozomen and (g)(g)Theod. l. 1. c. 27.Theodoret, but at large in (h)(h)Athanas. Apol. p. 779.Athanasius. One would think this should have discouraged his Enemies from any farther Prosecution of him; but these Eusebians were Men of restless, ambitious, implacable Spirits, that scrupled no means to compass their ends, which they thought they could never doe, unless they could blast the Reputation of Athanasius. To this end, they laid a most malitious design against him. First, (i)(i)Soz. l. 2. c. 24.they draw in the (k)(k)Athanas. Apol. p. 777.Meletian Party in Egypt to join with them; who hoped to get their ends one upon the other afterwards; but at present they were willing to join together against their common Enemy; for so Athanasius was accounted by them. And (l)(l)Socr. l. 2. c. 22.Eusebius promised the Meletians great favour at Court, if they would manage the business against Athanasius: which they undertook; and by their means so many Complaints were brought against Athanasius to the Emperour, that he was forced for the general Satisfaction, to appoint a Council at Tyre, which was according to the Eusebians desire, where things were managed with so little regard to Justice or common Honesty, that, after he had plainly cleared himself as to the main Accusations, he yet found they were resolved to condemn him; and therefore he privately withdrew from thence to the Imperial Court,c. 25. to acquaint the Emperour with the horrible Partiality there used. Upon (m)(m)Socr. l. 1. c. 11.this he writes a very smart Letter to them, and requires them to come speedily to him, (n)(n)Athan. Apol. …03.to give him an account of their violent Proceedings. They send a select Number of their Party to Court with Eusebius of Nicomedia in the Head of them, who there quit all the Accusations brought against Athanasius at Tyre, and start a new p. 158one which touched the Emperour in a very tender part, viz. That he had threatned to hinder the bringing Corn from Egypt to Constantinople; which was in effect to threaten the starving his beloved City; which nettled the Emperour so much, that it transported him beyond his usual Temper, and immediately he gave order for banishing Athanasius into Gaul. Not long after Constantine died, but before his death, saith (o)(o)Theod. l. 1. c. 32.Theodoret, he gave order for the recalling Athanasius, to the great regret of Eusebius of Nicomedia then present.

Let any one now judge, whether in Constantine's time the Arian Faction were wholly supprest; and whether Eusebius and his Party were men that onelyonly pretended to Prudence and Moderation; Who made use of the most malitious, unjust, abominable means, to suppress the chiefest Opposers of the Arian Faction? What will not such men say to serve a turn, who dare to tell the World, That the Eusebians were no less Enemies to the Arians than to the orthodox, and that it is a great and common Mistake, that Eusebius was the ringleader of the Arian Faction? If it be a Mistake, others have it from Athanasius, and it is hard to believe that man ever read (p)(p)Athan. Apol. 2. p. 777.Athanasius his Writings, who dare say the contrary. All the Bishops of Egypt in their Synodical Epistle from Alexandria charge the (q)(q)Athanas. Apol. 2. p. 727, 728.Eusebians with a restlese desire to promote Arianism; and affirm, that their malitious prosecution of Athanasius was for no other end; that their Councils were called with a Design to overthrow that of Nice,p. 731. that they had written against them as Arians; that the Eusebians joined with the Meletians onelyonly for the sake of Arianism; that the Persons sent by the Council of Tyre into Egypt were Arians, and therefore declared Enemies;p. 733. and whatever their pretences were, nothing but the advancing Arianism lay at the bottom. p. 736.Were so many Bishops guilty of so gross a Mistake, who had certainly greater opportunity of knowing, and skill in judging the Men and their Designs than the most quick sighted Person of our Age can have? It would be endless to recite all the passages in Athanasius his Apology, and Epistles, and Discourses of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, to prove that the Eusebians carried on the Arian Design, since a great p. 159part of them is spent in the proof of it. But we are told, with confidence enough, that the Synod of Alexandria, in their Synodical Epistle, do not in the least accuse the Eusebians of Arianism, but onelyonly of holding Communion with them, i. e. with the Arians. This cannot but seem strange to any one that will be at the pains to peruse that excellent Epistle. And even in that page, it is expresly said, (r)(r)Athan. Apol. 2. p. 738.their violent and malitious proceedings against Athanasius were on purpose to discourage others from daring to oppose Arianism; and this with a particular design to introduce that Heresie. Could any Man be thought to take so much pains to set up a Doctrine they had no kindness to? i. e. Would any but secret Arians endeavour to set up Arianism? unless we suppose them such Tools to be made use of by others to doe their business, and then to be laid aside. But the Eusebians were no such mean Politicians; for they were at the top of business, having all the advantages and opportunities to carry on their own ends; and therefore we have all the Reason in the World to conclude them secret Arians, who were at so much trouble to lessen the Credit of the Opposers of Arianism: Which they lookt on as one of the most effectual means to introduce it. And although they did not openly declare themselves in behalf of the Arian Doctrine, after the Council of Nice; which had been to hinder their own Design, in the time of Constantine; yet they made use of all the Methods which bad Men do to carry on their ends; viz. by false Insinuations, lying pretences, and all manner of malitious proceedings against those who stood in their Way; as is most notorious in the case of Athanasius.

After the Death of Constantine we are told, that all the Councils under Constantius that are commonly accounted Arian, have as fully and clearly condemned Arianism, as the Nicene Council it self; It is true, they could not digest the Word foreign; but otherwise, as for the whole Scheme of Arianism, they have in all their Creeds anathematized it with all clearness and fulness of Expression. This is somewhat strange Doctrine for one who pretends to have read Athanasius, who hath taken so much pains to lay open the juggling of the Arian Faction in p. 160all those Councils; and, one would think, by this manner of Writing, such a Man took a particular pleasure in contradicting him. For in his (s)(s)Athanas. de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. p. 873.Book of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, he saith, none of the Councils under Constantius could be brought to anathematize the Arian Heresie, p. 870.as the Council of Nice did. He saith, that Constantius himself was an Arian Heretick, and that his chief Design in all those Councils was, p. 889.to take away the force of the Council of Nice. He saith indeed, they were not such Fools to own this, p. 874.but this was the true Reason of all the Councils they called and the disturbance they made, p. 870.to the great Scandal of the Christian World. Nay,p. 874. he saith, that in all their Councils they never once mention'd the Arian Heresie as an evil thing: and if any Heresies were mention'd, the Arian was excepted, which the Nicene Council anathematized; and they received with great kindness such as were known to be Arians; which is an Argument that the calling these Councils was not for establishing the Truth, but for overthrowing the Council of Nice. And to shew what Constantius his own Mind was,p. 907. he observes, that when he came to die he would be baptized by none but Euzoius, who had been several times deposed for Arianism; and he there affirms, that Constantius continued an Arian to the last. As to the word foreign about which so much stir was made,p. 909. he takes notice, that all the offence that was taken at it, was by the Arians; and the true Cause was, because it struck at the root of their Heresie. And, as to the word Substance, he wonder'd they should so vehemently oppose it, when themselves confessed, the Son was from the Father; for either he must be from something without him, or something within him distinct from his Substance, or he must be of the Substance of the Father; or they must make the Word and the Son to be no real Substance, but mere Names; and so they did not really believe what they expressed. And he farther shews,p. 910. that no other way of speaking doth sufficiently express the Difference between the Son of God and his Creatures; which are onelyonly the effects of God's Will. From whence he concludes,p. 914. that the opposition to these Terms, whatever was pretended, was from a dislike of the Doctrine established in the Council of Nice. For if it had been a mere doubt about the signification of the words, p. 161they ought to have explained their own sense, p. 915.and withall to have condemned the Arian Heresie.

It cannot be denied that there were some who agreed in the Substance of the Doctrine with the Council of Nice, but yet disliked the term foreign; as to these Athanasius confesses them to be Brethren;ibid. as long as they acknowledged the Son not to be a Creature, nor to be from another Substance distinct from the Father. And among these he reckons Basilius of Ancyra;p. 916. whose Doctrine he doth not seem to dislike, provided that to the similitude of Substance in the Son they add his being of the Substance of the Father. And in this sense the foreign comes to the same with the foreign. There were two great Arguments, these used against the term foreign; The first was, that it implied a Partition or Division of the Divine Substance, as a Son among Men is said to be of the same Substance with his Father, but so, as that there is a Division of the same common Nature in the several individuals. To this Athanasius answers, That the Divine Generation must not be apprehended like the humane; but our Conceptions of God must be agreeable to the Divine Nature; and therefore we must not imagine the Son of God to be of the Substance with the Father, after the same manner that the Son of Man is. For, as he is the Son, so he is the Word and Wisedom of the Father: and the internal Word or Conception in Man is no divisible part of himself; but lest the Notion of Word should seem to destroy his real Subsistence, therefore the Notion of Son is added in Scripture to that of Word; that we may know him to be a living Word and substantial Wisedom. So that when we say, the Son is consubstantial to the Father, we understand it not by way of Division, as among Bodies, but abstracting our Minds from all corporeal things, we attribute this to the Son of God, in a way agreeing to the Divine Nature, and mean by it, that he is not produced by his Will as the Creatures are, nor merely his Son by Adoption; but that he is the true Eternal Son of God; by such an emanation as Splendour from Light, or Water from the Fountain. And therefore when they interpreted the term Son in a p. 162way agreeable to the Divine Nature, he wonders they should stick so much at the word Consubstantial, which was capable of the same Interpretation. The second Objection was, That those who condemned the Samosatenian Heresie, rejected the word foreign. In answer to this,p. 918. Athanasius shews, that the word was so much used and allowed in the Christian Church before the Samosatenian Heresie was heard of, that when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused to Dionysius of Rome, for rejecting it; the Council thereupon was so much concerned, that the Bishop of Rome wrote their sense to the Bishop of Alexandria about it, he returns an Answer, wherein he owns all the sense contained under it, as appears by his Epistle in Athanasius; but for those who opposed Paulus Samosatenus, he saith, they took the Word in a corporeal sense, as if it implied a distinct Substance from the Father; But, saith he, those who condemned the Arians saw farther into this matter; considering that it ought not to be applied to the Divine Nature as it is to corporeal Substances; and the Son of God not being a Creature, but begotten of the Substance of the Father; therefore with great Reason they used the word foreign, as being most proper to express the Sense of the Christian Church against the Arian Heresie;p. 920, 921. as he shews there at large.

From these passages of Athanasius it appears that there was a third Party then in the Church distinct from the Nicenists and the Eusebians. The former would by no means yield to any relaxation of the Council of Nice; because they evidently saw that this Design was carried on by those who made it their business under that pretence to introduce Arianism, who were the Eusebians. But there were others extremely concerned for the Peace of the Church, and on that account were willing to let go the term foreign, hoping the Doctrine might be secured by other expressions; and this facility of theirs gave the greatest advantage to the Eusebian Party in all their Councils, who continually almost overreached and outwitted them, under the pretence of Accommodation. For by this Artifice they gained their Votes, and when they had them, made p. 163use of them merely to serve their own Designs; as appears by the Account the Historians give of the management of the Arian Affairs under the Reign of Constantius.

(t)(t)Socr. l. 2. c. ….Socrates saith, that immediately after the death of Constantine, Eusebius and Theognis, the Heads of the Arian Faction, apprehended it now to be a convenient season for them to throw down the Nicene Faith, and to set up Arianism; and to this purpose they endeavoured to hinder Athanasius from returning to Alexandria. But first they gained the Eunuchs and Court-favorites, then the Wife of Constantius himself, to embrace Arianism:l. 2. c. 26. and so the Controversie of a sudden spread into the Court, Camp, Cities and all Places of the East; (for the Western Churches continued quiet during the Reign of Constans, to whose share all the Western Provinces in a short time fell.) After the Death of Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, the two Parties openly divided in the Choice of a Successour;c. 6. the one chusing Paulus, and the Arians, Macedonius; this nettled Constantius, who coming to Constantinople calls a Council of Arian Bishops, who depose Paulus, and set up Eusebius of Nicomedia; who presently falls to work, going with the Emperour to Antioch, where, under the pretence of a Dedication, as is observed in the precedent Chapter, a Council of ninety Bishops was assembled; but the Design was, saith Socrates, c. 8.to overthrow the Nicene Faith. Here they made some Canons to ensnare Athanasius (of which before.) As to the matter of Faith, they durst not openly propose the nulling the Council of Nice; but they gained this great Point, That the Matters of Faith might be discussed after it, and so they set open the Gate for New Councils which by degrees might establish the Arian Heresie.

(u)(u)Soz. l. 3. c. 1.Sozomen saith, that after the death of Constantine the secret Arians began to shew themselves more openly; among whom Eusebius and Theognis especially bestirr'd themselves to advance Arianism. He agrees with Socrates as to the spreading of it in the Court and elsewhere; and in the other particulars, to the Council at Antioch; but he saith,…. 5. they framed their Confession of Faith in such ambiguous terms, that neither Party p. 164could quarrel with the Words. But they left out any mention of the Substance of Father and Son, and the word Consubstantial; and so in effect overthrew the Council of Nice.

This is that Confession of Faith, which the Council in Isauria called (w)(w)Athanas. de Synod. p. 904.the Authentick one made at Antioch in the Dedication. But it was not so Authentick but they thought good to alter it; and some months after sent another to Constans to explain themselves more fully;p. 895. whereby they reject those who said, the Son was made of Nothing or of another Hypostasis, and not from God. Who could imagine these to have been any other than very sound and orthodox Men? Especially when three years after, they sent a larger Confession of Faith into the Western Parts for their own Vindication, wherein they anathematize those who held three Gods, or that Christ was not God, or that he was begotten of any other Substance besides God, &c. But that there was juggling under all this appears, because, as Athanasius observes, they were still altering their Forms; for this again was changed several times at Sirmium, before they resolved upon that which was to be carried to the Council of Ariminum. And although the difference in the matters of Faith as delivered by them seem'd now very nice and subtile, yet they were irreconcilably set against the Council of Nice and all that adhered to it. Which was a plain Evidence that they concealed their sense under ambiguous words, or that they saw it necessary at present to seem orthodox, that so they might the better set aside the Council of Nice; which being once effected, it would be an easie matter to set up Arianism, which was the thing they designed.

This Intrigue was not discovered fully till after the Council of Ariminum, but was certainly carried on all along by the Eusebian Party, who without these Artifices could never have deceived the Eastern Bishops, who joined with them till they more openly declared themselves in the Council of Seleucia; and then the difference was not between the Acacians and Eusebians, as some have weakly conjectured, but between the old Eusebians, who now appear'd to be Arians under the Name of Acacius, and the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra, p. 165who stuck chiefly at the word foreign; of whom Athanasius speaks before. Now to draw in these Men, and to hold them fast, who had great sway in the Eastern Churches, the Eusebians were forced to comply in words with them, and in all probability to suffer them to draw up these Creeds, provided onelyonly that they left out the Nicene Decree and Anathema's, which would doe their business at last. So that the Eusebians were forced to the utmost Dissimulation and Hypocrisie, to be able to carry on the Arian Design in the Eastern and Western Churches. But whatever their Words and Pretences were, their Actions sufficiently manifested their Intentions. For they set themselves with the utmost violence against all who constantly adhered to the Council of Nice, and openly favoured and preferr'd all the declared or secret Friends to Arianism. They caused Athanasius to be banished a second time from Alexandria, and appointed Gregory in his Place, who continued there, saith (x)(x)Theod. l. 2. c. 4.Theodoret, with great Cruelty for six years, and then was murthered himself by the Alexandrians; but that seems to have been a mistake for George of Cappadocia, who succeeded him. For (y)(y)Athan. ad solit. vit. agen. p. 823.Athanasius saith, he died a natural death; but he at large describes the horrible Persecution both of the Clergy and Laity then in Egypt, p. 816.who would not comply with the Arians;p. 817. for his business was to set up Arianism, as Athanasius saith. After his Death, Constantius finding so little success in those violent courses, sends for Athanasius with great earnestness to come to him;p. 823. and gives him free Liberty to return to Alexandria; and solemnly swears to him, he would never more receive any Calumnies against him; and writes several Letters on his behalf:p. 825. and one very kind one to himself after the death of his Brother Constans, who was a true Friend to Athanasius; and then his greatest Enemies courted him, and begg'd his Pardon for what they had done; being forced to it by the violence of the Torrent against him: and even Vrsacius and Valens, two warm Men of the Eusebian Party, p. 826.publickly recanted what they had done against him, without his seeking, and then anathematized the Arian Heresie. But this was done while Constans was alive, p. 166and so great a Number appeared in the Western Churches on his side; but Constans being dead, the Eusebian Party persuade Constantius, to take heart once more and to try what he could doe to restore Arianism; then Valens and Vrsacius recant their recantation,p. 828. and lay it all on the Fear of Constans; and now to shew the Emperour's zeal for Arianism, p. 829.the publick allowance is taken from Athanasius and his Party, and given to the Arians;ibid. and the Magistrates threatned, if they did not communicate with them; and not onelyonly the People banished that refused, but the Bishops were summoned to appear in the Courts and were there told, they must immediately subscribe or lose their Places. But all this while Toleration was granted to all but to the followers of the Council of Nice. And thus all Places were fill'd with Tumult and Disorder, and the People forced their Bishops to the Tribunals for fear of being punished themselves. And the Reason of this Violence was, because the Arian Heresie was so much hated by the People, and they hoped by this means to bring them to own it.p. 830. Heraclius, the Emperour's Lieutenant, declared in his Name, that Athanasius was to be cast out, p. 846.and the Churches given to the Arians; and required the People to receive such a Bishop as he should send, viz. George of Cappadocia, a violent Arian. But the tragical Account of all the Persecutions, which the orthodox Christians then underwent in Egypt, from these Men of Prudence and Moderation is at large set down by Athanasius himself; and in the concurrent Testimony of the People of Alexandria; so that nothing seems to have been more violent and cruel in the Heathen Persecutions than was acted then under Syrianus and Heraclius in Egypt. And that it was wholly for the sake of Arianism, Athanasius evidently proves by this Argument, That if a Man were guilty of never so great Crimes, if he professed himself an Arian, he escaped; but if he were an Opposer of Arianism the greatest Innocency could not protect him.p. 810, 811.

But this was not the Case of Egypt alone, but in other Places, The best Qualification for a Bishop was to stand well inclined to Arianism;p. 812. as Athanasius affirms. p. 167But otherwise, though the Persons were never so well deserving; one fault or other was found with them to cast them out: So, saith he, it was with Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch; a Man famous for his Piety and Zeal, yet because he appeared against Arianism, feigned Accusations are brought against him, and he is ejected with his Clergy, and none but favourers of Arianism placed in their room; and the like Examples he brings at Laodicea, Tripolis, Germanicia, Sebustea, Hadrianople and many other places; insomuch that a considerable Bishop scarce any where appear'd against Arianism, but they found some pretence or other to put him out, and where they could alledge no other Cause, they said,p. 813. It was the Pleasure of Constantius. But their dealing with Paulus, the Bishop of Constantinople, was very remarkable. He being chosen by the Anti-Arian Party, and standing in the Way of Eusebius of Nicomedia, whose heart was set upon that Bishoprick, being so near the Imperial Court, he first procured Paulus his Banishment to Pontus, then he was sent in Chains to Singara of Mesopotamia, thence to Emesa, thence to Pontus, thence to Cucusus, where he was at length strangled by the Eusebian Party, as Athanasius saith, he had it from the Persons there present. But although Macedonius who succeeded at Constantinople were of a temper violent enough, as (z)(z)Soz. l. 4. c. 2.Sozomen shews, yet (a)(a)Theod. l. 2. c. 6.Theodoret observes, that even he was expelled Constantinople, because he would not hold the Son of God to be a Creature; For, although he denied Christ to be Consubstantial with the Father; yet he asserted him to be like the Father in all things, and made the Holy Ghost to be a Creature; by which he seem'd to deny the Son to be so, and therefore could not keep the Favour of the Arian Party, which then governed all in the Eastern Churches; but yet in such a manner, as by no means, yet to declare for Arianism. And therefore Theodoret takes notice,c. 25. that after the death of Leontius, Eudoxius was the first who pulled off his Vizard, and declared openly for Arianism; but Leontius his way was, to promote onelyonly those in the Church, he was before hand sure of, and to suffer no other to come into Orders, by which means, saith he, most of the Clergy were Arians, and p. 168the People still continued sound in the Nicene Faith, till Eudoxius his Persecution began.

This was the miserable Condition of the Eastern Churches under the Prudence and Moderation of the Eusebian Party; but the Western Churches continued quiet and very little disturbed with the Arian Heresie while Constans lived; who was ready, not onelyonly to maintain the true Faith in his own Dominions, but to give his Assistence for the Relief of those who suffer'd in the Eastern Parts. Which was the Reason of the calling of the Council of Sardica by consent of both Emperours, although that happen'd onelyonly to widen and inlarge the Breach. However the Sardican Council had such effect in the Western Parts, as to the business of Athanasius, that as (b)(b)Athanas. p. 826, 839.Athanasius tells Constantius, Valens and Vrsacius, two busie Factours in the Arian Cause, freely own the malitious Intrigue that was carried on in the prosecution of him. The first Council of Milan is supposed by (c)(c)Petav. de Photin. Damn. c. 1.Petavius, to be called the same year that of Sardica ended. But (d)(d)Sirmond. Diatr. de anno Syrm. Synodi.Sirmondus thinks it very improbable there should be two Councils in one year; and therefore he believes it rather to have been the year before: which is the more probable Opinion. This Council of Milan was assembled on the occasion of several Bishops there meeting to wait on the Emperour Constans in order to a General Council, to put things in order in the Christian Church, which the Arian Faction had so much disturbed. While they were there the four Eastern Bishops arrived, with the long Confession made at Antioch, and desire the Western Bishops concurrence with them in it. These express their dislike of any New Confession of Faith, especially after the Nicene; but, since they were so free of their Anathema's at the end of their Confession, they desired them to make short Work of it, to anathematize the Arian Heresie; which they utterly refused to doe, and so discover'd the Juggle of that seeming orthodox Confession. This appears by Liberius his Epistle in the Collection of Church Records in (e)(e)Hilar. Frag. op. p. 414.Hilary's Fragments; in which he tells Constantius, that these four Bishops were so far from anathematizing the Arian Heresie then in order to Peace, that upon being pressed p. 169to doe it, they rose up in a Rage and left the Council. From hence the Western Bishops smelt their Design, however cover'd over with fair Pretences of Peace and Reconciliation. Which they farther discover'd by their own Legates, whom they sent into the East, who made this Offer to the Bishops there, that they would accept of their own Terms of Accommodation, provided, they would but condemn the Arian Heresie, which upon consultation they refused to doe. Upon these plain Discoveries, the Western Bishops could easily see through all their Proposals for Peace; being onelyonly made with a Design to make them betray the Faith. So that as long as Constans lived the Arian Faction could make little or no impression on the Western Churches; but he being soon after taken off by the Treachery of Magnentius, Captain of his Guards; and the whole Empire falling to Constantius upon his Victory over Magnentius, a sudden alteration here happen'd about these Matters. Valens and Vrsacius who had so solemnly retracted their former unjust Sentence of Athanasius, now lay it upon their fear of Constans, and appear in the Head of the Arian Faction, and with them, as (f)(f)Se…. Sulpic. l. 2. p. 403.Severus Sulpicius saith, the two Pannonia's declared for Arianism. And now they having an Emperour to their mind, resolve to lose no time, but carry things on with a mighty violence, and banish all who would not subscribe to the condemning Athanasius. For this stale Pretence must still be made use of to deceive the People and to make way for Arianism; and yet this prevailed so far, that, as Hilary saith, in the Preface to his Fragments, the People wondred what made so many Bishops go into Banishment, rather than condemn one; and the Design of those Fragments is, to shew that the Matter of Faith lay at the bottom of all this violence against Athanasius. Which proceeded so far; that in the Council called at Arles, Paulinus, Bishop of Triers, was for opposing the condemning Athanasius, and desiring the Matters of Faith might first be settled, deposed by the Council and banished by the Emperour. And so great then was the Power of Fear upon them, that some of those very Persons, who had clear'd Athanasius at the Council of Sardica; did now p. 170subscribe to his condemnation; among whom was Vincentius of Capua the Pope's own Legate; as … ad …onstant. p. 692.Athanasius himself confesses. Not long after, Constantius summons another Council at Milan; where, (h)(h)Socr. l. 2. c. 36.Socrates and (i)(i)Soz. l. 4. c. 9.Sozomen say, above three hundred Western Bishops were assembled: Here again the Arian Faction made a great outcry about Athanasius; but Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, and Eusebius of Vercelles, laid open the Design so far as to make the Council be broken up and themselves to be banished by the Emperour's Edict. While the Emperour continued at Milan, Liberius, Bishop of Rome, was summon'd to attend upon him there, in order to his Banishment, if he did not condemn Athanasius; (k)(k)Theod. l. 2. c. 16.Theodoret hath preserved the most material passages that happen'd between them; One whereof is, that if Constantius really designed the Peace of the Church, the first thing was to be a general Subscription of the Nicene Faith; after which other things would more easily be composed. But this would not be hearkned to; and so Liberius was banished; but afterwards he unworthily complied not onelyonly to the Condemnation of Athanasius, but he professed his consent to the Sirmian Creed, as appears by his Epistle in (l)(l)Hilar. in Fragm. p. 426.Hilary's Fragments; for which Hilary bestows his Anathema's very freely upon him. But it is of late pleaded on behalf of Liberius, that he subscribed onelyonly to the first Sirmian Confession in the Council against Photinus which was express against the Arian Heresie. Whereas Hilary (who, I think, knew this matter somewhat better) saith in so many Words, Haec est perfidia Ariana, i. e. that what he subscribed, contained in it the Arian Heresie. But where doth Hilary or any one else say, that Liberius onelyonly subscribed the first Confession of Sirmium, and upon that was restored? Nay, (m)(m)Soz. l. 4. …. 15.Sozomen saith, that Constantius at first required him in terms to renounce the Son's being Consubstantial to the Father: but afterwards they joined together the Confession against Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, with that of Antioch at the Dedication, and to these Liberius subscribed. So that he struck in wholly with the Arian Faction which undermined the Authority of the Council of Nice, and he betray'd the Faith, if he did not renounce p. 171it. The Eudoxians at Antioch, he saith, gave out that both Osius and Liberius had renounced the Nicene Faith, and declared the Son to be unlike the Father: but Liberius clear'd himself by rejecting the Doctrine of the Anomaeans, i. e. the open and professed Arians ▪ and this Vrsacius, Valens and Germinius then at Sirmium were willing to accept of, having a farther Design to carry on in these Parts, which was like to be spoiled by the Anomaeans appearing so openly and unseasonably in the East. And for the same Reason, they were willing to call in that which Hilary calls the Blasphemy of Osius and Potamius, as being too open and giving Offence to the Followers of Basilius of Ancyra in the East. For now the Emperour having banished so many Bishops and struck so much terrour into the rest, thought it a convenient time to settle the Church-affairs to his mind in these Western Parts, and to that end he summoned a General Council; but justly fearing the Eastern and Western Bishops would no more agree now than they did before at Sardica; he appoints the former to meet at Seleucia in Isauria, and the latter at Ariminum; whose Number, saith (n)(n)Sever. Suipic. l. 2.Severus Sulpicius, came to above four hundred, and to the same purpose (o)(o)Soz. l. 4. c. 17.Sozomen. When they were assembled, Valens and Vrsacius acquainted them with the Emperour's good Intentions in calling them together, and as the onelyonly Expedient for the Peace of the Church, they proposed, that all former Confessions of Faith should be laid aside, as tending to dissension; and this to be universally received, which they had brought with them from Sirmium; where it was drawn up by several Bishops, and approved by the Emperour. Upon the reading this New Confession of Faith, wherein the Son is said to be like the Father, according the Scriptures, and the Name of Substance agreed to be wholly laid aside: the Bishops at Ariminum appeared very much unsatisfied; and declared, they were for keeping to the Nicene Faith without alteration; and required of the Arian Party there present to subscribe it, before they proceeded any farther; which they refusing to doe, they forthwith (p)(p)Athanas. ad Afric. p. 934.excommunicated and deposed them, and protested against all Innovations in matters of Faith. And p. 172of these Proceedings of theirs, they send an account by several Legates of their own, wherein they express their Resolution to adhere to the Nicene Faith, as the most effectual (q)(q)Socr. l. 2. c. 37.(r)(r)Sozom. l. 4. c. 18.(s)(s)Theod. l. 2. c. 19.Bar against Arianism and other Heresies; and they add, that the removing of it would open the Breach for Heresie to enter into the Church. They charge Vrsacius and Valens with having once been Partakers of the Arian Heresie, and on that account thrown out of the Church; but were received in again upon their Submission and recantation; but now they say, in this Council of Ariminum, they had made a fresh Attempt on the Faith of the Church, bringing in a Doctrine full of Blasphemies; as it is in Socrates; but in Hilary's Fragments it is onelyonly, that their Faith contained multa perversae Doctrinae; which shews that they looked on the Sirmian Creed as dangerous and heretical. And in the same (t)(t)Hilar. Frag. p. 459.Fragments it appears by the Acts of the Council, that they proceeded against Valens, Vrsacius, Germinius and Caius as Hereticks and Introducers of Heresie; and then made a solemn Protestation, that they would never recede from the Nicene Faith.

Their ten Brethren whom they sent to Constantius to acquaint him with the Proceedings of the Council, he would not admit to speak with him: For he was informed beforehand by the Arian Party how things went in the Council, at which he was extremely displeased, and resolved to mortifie the Bishops, so as to bring them to his Will at last. He (u)(u)Soz. l. 4. c. 19.sends word to the Council, how much his thoughts were then taken up with his Eastern Expedition, and that these matters required greater freedom of Mind to examine them than he had at such a time; and so commands the Legates to wait at Hadrianople till his Return. The Council perceived by this Message that his Design was to weary them out, hoping at last, as ooTheod. l. 2. c. 19.Theodoret expresses it, to bring them to consent to the demolishing that Bulwark which kept Heresie out of the Church, i. e. the Authority of the Council of Nice. To this smart Message the Council returned a resolute Reply, That they would not recede from their former Decree; but humbly beg leave to return to their Bishopricks before Winter; p. 173being put to great hardships in that strait Place. This was to let the Emperour know how he might deal with them, and he sends a charge to his Lieutenant, not to let them stir till they all consented. And in the mean time effectual means were used with their Legates in the East to bring them to terms; an account whereof we have in (x)(x)Hilar. Frag. p. 452.Hilary's Fragments, which were to null all the former Proceedings, and to receive those who were there deposed to Communion. Which being done, they were sent back to decoy the rest of the Council; who at first were very stiff, but by degrees they were so softned, that they yielded at last to the Emperour's own Terms. The very Instrument of their Consent is extant in Hilary's Fragments, p. 453.wherein they declare their full Agreement to the laying aside the Terms of Substance and Consubstantial in the Creed: i. e. to the voiding the Authority of the Council of Nice, which was the thing all along aimed at by the Arian Party. And (y)(y)Athan. ad Afric. p. 934.Athanasius saith, it was there declared unlawfull to use the word Substance or Hypostasis concerning God.

It is time now to consider, how far those Churches can be charged with Arianism, whose Bishops were there present and consented to the Decrees of this Council. It is a noted Saying of (z)(z)Hier. c. Lucif.St. Jerome on this Occasion, that the World then groaned and wondered at its being become Arian. Which a late Authour saith, is a passage quite worn out by our Innovatours. Whom doth he mean by these Innovatours? The Divines of the Church of England, who from time to time have made use of it? Not to prove an Apostasie of the Catholick Church from the true Faith; which no Man in his Wits ever dreamt of, but from hence to overthrow the pretended Infallibility of General Councils, or such as have been so called. And notwithstanding the opprobrious Name of Innovatours (which, as we find in those of the Church of Rome, often belongs to those who give it to others) it is very easie to prove, that this one Instance of the Council of Ariminum doth overthrow not onelyonly the Pretence to the Infallibility of General Councils, but the absolute binding Authority of any, till after due examination of the Reasons and Motives p. 174of their Proceedings. For it is apparent by the whole Series of the Story, as I have faithfully deduced it, that the whole Design of the Arian Party was to overthrow the Authority of the Council of Nice; which they were never able to compass by a General Council till this of Ariminum, agreeing as they declared with the Eastern Bishops. So that here was a Consent both of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Council of Ariminum being approved by (a)(a)Soz. l. 4. c. 24.(b)(b)Socr. l. 4. c. 41.(c)(c)Hier. ad Lucif.a Council at Constantinople the same year. What is now to be said, when the Bishops assembled in Council both in the Eastern and Western Churches did effectually, as far as their Decrees went, overthrow the Nicene Council? If it be said, that the Council of Ariminum decreed nothing positively against the Nicene Faith; we are to consider, that the reversing the Decree of the Nicene Council was in effect overthrowing the Faith thereby stablished; And so St. Hierome saith, Tunc Usiae Nomen abolitum est, tunc Nicenae Fidei damnatio conclamata est. And then these words follow, Ingemuit totus Orbis & Arianum se esse miratus est: and if nothing would ever be able to stop out the Arian Heresie but the Nicene Faith, as is confessed; and this Council took away the Authority of that Council, then it at least made way for the introducing Heresie, and left all Men to be Hereticks that had a mind to be so. And so St. Hierome saith, Valens and Vrsacius after the Council boasted, that they never denied the Son to be a Creature, but to be like other Creatures: from whence (d)(d)Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Valent.St. Ambrose takes it for granted, that Christ's being a Creature did pass for good Doctrine in the Council of Ariminum. But we are told, that St. Jerome onelyonly complains of the World's being cheated and trepan'd into Arianism by the Bishops being so weakly overreached and outwitted by an handfull of Arians. Doth not St. Jerome plainly say, the Name of Substance was there laid aside, and the Council of Nice condemned? And could this be a mere Cheat and Trepan to those who were so much aware of it, as to declare at first, they would never give way to it, because they saw the Danger of it; and to renew their Protestations against it, after the Emperour's severe Message to them about it? So that, whatever it was, it could be no p. 175Cheat or Trepan in those who made such Decrees at first, deposed the Arian Bishops, sent such Messages to the Emperour as they did. Which is a plain Demonstration that they saw and knew what they did; and understood the Consequences of it. But they were frighted into this Consent at last. I grant they were so. But what then becomes of the Infallibility of Councils, if mere Fear can make so many Bishops in Council act and declare against their Consciences? If in such Meetings, the Persons were capable of being sway'd by any particular bias, from asserting the Truth, what Security can there be as to Mens Faith from their Authority, any farther than we can be secure they were not influenced by any Temporal Hopes or Fears? So that we are not barely to respect the Definitions of Councils, but to examine the Motives by which they were acted in passing those Decrees; and if it appear, they did act freely and sincerely, and deliver the general sense of the Christian Church, from the beginning, as it was in the Case of the Nicene Council, then a mighty regard ought to be shewed to the Decrees of it; but if Partiality, Interest, Fear, or any other secular Motive be found to sway them in their Debates and Resolutions, then every particular Church is at liberty to refuse their Decrees, and to adhere to those of more free and indifferent Councils. And this was the Case here, as to the Council of Ariminum, if the Church had been absolutely tied up to the Decrees of Councils, however past, there had been an utter Impossibility of restoring the true Christian Faith; for there was no such Council assembled to reverse the Decrees of it; but in every Church, the banished Bishops being returned, not long after, upon the death of Constantius, they took care to settle the true Faith in the Western Churches, by lesser Assemblies of the several Bishops. A remarkable Instance whereof appears in (e)(e)Hilar. Frag. p. 431.Hilary's Fragments, where we find the Gallican Bishops met at Paris, renouncing the Council of Ariminum, and embracing the Nicene Faith. The like we have Reason to believe was done in the British Churches, because in Jovian's time, (f)(f)Athanas. ad Jov. p. 246.Athanasius particularly takes notice of the Britannick Churches, as adhering to the Nicene Faith; p. 176and (g)(g)Hieron. ad. Marcel. ad Euagr.St. Jerome, and (h)(h)Chrysost. Tom. 3. p. 696. Tom. 6. p. 635. Tom. 8. p. 111.St. Chrysostome, several times mention their agreeing with other Churches in the true Faith. Which is a sufficient Argument to clear them from the Imputation of Arianism, which did no otherwise lie upon them, than as they had Bishops present in the Council of Ariminum.

For (i)(i)Sever. Sulpic. l. 2.Severus Sulpicius, speaking of the Care Constantius took to provide Lodging and Entertainment for the Bishops at Ariminum, out of the publick Charge, he faith, their Bishops refused to accept it, onelyonly three out of Britain, not being able to maintain themselves, made use of the publick allowance, rather than be chargeable to their Brethren. Which, he saith, he heard Gavidius their Bishop blame them for; but he rather thinks it a commendation for them, in the first place to have been so poor; and next, that they chose not to be burthensome to their Brethren, but rather to live on the Emperour's charge. This had been better said of any Place, than at the Council of Ariminum, where the Emperour's kindness was a Snare to their Consciences; unless it be said, That the Emperour took greater advantage by their bearing their own Charges, to make them sooner grow weary of staying there; and that if the rest had followed the Example of the Britains, the Emperour might have been weary before them. But how came the British Bishops to be so poor above the rest, who were not onelyonly able to live at their own Charges, but to supply their Brethren? Which shews as much the plenty of the rest, as it doth the poverty of the Britains. What became of all the Endowments of the British Churches by King Lucius? The British History published by (k)(k)Galfr. Mon. l. 2. c. 2.Geffrey of Monmouth saith, That King Lucius gave not onelyonly all the Lands which belonged to the Heathen Temples to the Churches built by him; but added very much to them with many Privileges. The same is said from him by most of our Monkish Historians, whose Authority is no greater than Geffrey's, from whom they derive their Information; onelyonly inlarging it as occasion serves; As Thomas Rudburn doth very particularly for the Church of Winchester, who makes the old Lands of the Flamins to be twelve miles compass about the Town; And King Lucius added, he saith, to the p. 177New Church, all the Suburbs of the City, with the Privilege of Dunwallo Molmutius, i. e. of a Sanctuary. Methinks then the British Bishops, might have been in as good a condition as the rest of their Brethren at Ariminum; unless their Lands were taken away in the Persecution of Dioclesian, as Rudburn seems to intimate, which is all as true, as that Monks continued there from Lucius to the second year of Dioclesian; which was a long time before his Persecution began; or there were any such Monks in the World. But it seems strange, that the British Bishops should be then under such Poverty, when Liberius, in his Conference with Constantius, told him, The Churches were able to bear the Charges of their Bishops in going to Councils, without the publick Carriages. For even before Constantine's time, they had endowments besides the voluntary Oblations of the People, which in great Churches were very considerable. But that there were certain Endowments besides, appears both by the Edicts of Maximinus and Constantine. By that of Maximinus, not onelyonly Houses, but the Lands which belong'd to the Christians, whether seized into the (l)(l)Euseb. l. 9. c. 10.Emperour's hands, or in the Possession of any City, or given or sold, are all commanded to be restored. And that this doth not relate to their private Possessions, but to the publick Revenue of their Churches, will appear by the following Edict of Constantine and Licinius; which in the first place commands all their Churches to be restored; and then is added, because the Christians are known, not onelyonly to have those Places where they assemble, but others, which likewise of Right belong to their Body, i. e. their Churches. For so the Words of the Edict in (m)(m)Lact. de Mort. Persec. c. 48.Lactantius are. (Sed alia etiam habuisse noscuntur ad jus corporis eorum, id est, Ecclesiarum non hominum singulorum pertinentia) These are commanded to be restored, without any delay or dispute. Which is again inforced by another Edict of Constantine to Anulinus extant in (n)(n)Euseb. l. 10. c. 5.Eusebius with the former, and there are mention'd Houses, Gardens, or whatsoever Possessions they had. Those who would have nothing more meant by these Expressions, but some Fields and Gardens, rather than Lands, may consider that when the Church had plentifull Possessions, they were called by no other Names. So p. 178St. (o)(o)Ambros. de trad. Basilic.Ambrose, Agri Ecclesiae solvunt Tributum.) And in another Law of (p)(p)Euseb. vit. Constant. l. 2. c. 39.Constantine directed to the Provincials of Palestine to the same purpose, and with as full and large Expressions; And howsoever they became alienated, the present Possessours were to be satisfied with the mean Profits; But by all means he commands a Restitution to be made, not onelyonly to particular Persons, but to the Churches too. But if the Endowments of Churches were not then considerable, what need so many Edicts for the Restauration of them? But Constantine did not onelyonly take so much care to restore what the Churches had before, but in case there were no Heirs at Law to the Martyrs and Confessours, he bestows their Lands and Goods on the Churches.c. 36. And after this, about four years before the Council of Nice, he published the famous Constitution still extant in the (q)(q)C. Theod. 16. tit. 2. l. 4.Theodosian Code; wherein a full Liberty is given to all sorts of Persons, to leave what they thought fit by Will, to the Catholick Churches of Christians. And this, as Gothofred saith, was the true Donation of Constantine, for, by means of this Law, Riches flowed into the Church, and especially at Rome. For although, as (r)(r)D. 34. de rebus dubiis, l. 20. cum Senat.Paulus saith, by an Edict of M. Aurelius, the Collegia licita, Societies allow'd by the Laws, were capable of receiving Legacies and Estates, yet by the (s)(s)Baldvin. de Leg. Const. p. 23.Laws of the Empire, the Christians were no legal Society to that purpose before: And by a late Constitution of Dioclesian, Societies were excluded from receiving Inheritances without a special Privilege; yet now, by this Law, all those Bars being removed, Riches came in so fast in some Places, that there needed new Constitutions to set bounds to so great liberality.