Árius, nor yet more to be rejected, since prejudice and tiality were very prevalent on both sides.

par

A. D. 330. The Nicene council by its determinations A. D. 325. could not appease the dissensions. Great were the contests and the quarrels in Ægypt between the Arians and the Athanasians, and the Homoousian writers so represent the affair, as to favour the latter, and to condemn the former in all points.

This year a tumult was raised at Antioch on account of the controversy.

A. D. 335. Athanasius was condemned by a council held at Tyre, for having obtained the see of Alexandria by unjustifiable methods, and for other and worse misdemeanours, if Philostorgius may be credited, ii. 11. This historian, though a favourer of the Arian cause, yet freely censures Arius where he thought him reprehensible, and therefore might be a fair relator of other points.

In the following year Athanasius was accused again by the same bishops who had condemned him at Tyre, and who were now assembled at Constantinople, and the emperor Constantine banished him into Gaul.

About this time died Arius, by a wonderful judgment of God, as his adversaries afterwards said. But quarrels ran so high in those days, that there is no confiding in the reports of either party.

A. D. 341. Athanasius, who had been honourably recalled from banishment by Constantine the younger, was condemned and deposed by the council of Antioch, consisting of about a hundred bishops, of whom a third part were Arians, and Gregory of Cappadocia was put in his place,

Julius, bishop of Rome, called a council, and acquitted Athanasius, and condemned the council of Antioch. Athanasius then returned to Alexandria.

• Macedonius was appointed bishop of Constantinople, and Hermogenes the præfect endeavoured to put him in possession, and to drive out Paul; but Hermogenes was

* See the remarks of Pagi, in Socrates, p. 84. not. a.

1 Who came in like a tyrant, and committed many outrages.

murdered by the Athanasian populace, who wanted to have Paul for their bishop.

The Arians, in their council at Antioch, had made a creed, and left out the duoooo5. After this they proposed a new confession of faith, which was said to have been the creed of Lucian the martyr m, who was of the same senti ments which were afterwards held by Arius, as Alexander of Alexandria and Philostorgius testify.

In this creed the Arians, avoiding the word Consubstantial, call the Son ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον της θεός τητος, οὐσίας τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα, καὶ πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως Gime

mutabilem et conversioni non obnoxium ad divinita tem quod attinet, essentiæ vero, consilii, et potentiæ Patris immutabilem imaginem, primogenitum omnis crea

turæ

• Valesius translates aπagánλantov nullatenus discre ἀπαράλλακτον pantem;' but though the word is often to be found in that sense, it signifies also immutabilem.' This induces me to think that they had a mind to draw up a creed in expres sions which might be approved by both parties", an expedient often practised in this controversy.

A. D. 347. Constans called a council at Sardica. Three hundred and seventy bishops were assembled, and most of them being Homoousians, Athanasius was acquitted. But the Arian prelates, withdrawing themselves, met at Philippi, and there made contrary decrees, which also were called Sardicansian. Nor would Athanasius have been recalled to Alexandria, if Constantius, moved by the threatening letters of his brother Constans, and for the sake of peace, had not given his consent to it, two years after the council of Sardica.

Lucian was highly honoured by the Arians, and some of the most celebrated bishops of that party, as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris, Theognis, Leontius, &c. are said to have been his disciples. Philostorgius relates that the body of this martyr was brought to Nicomedia by a dolphin, the very dolphin, I suppose, who carried Arion upon his back, and who had the same affection for saints as for musicians.

n This confession of faith is Catholic, says Du Pin, although the word Consubstantial' be not in it. B. E. ii. p. 325.

• A. D. 350.° A council was held at Sirmium, in which Photinus was condemned. The bishops who met there were almost all of them Arians P, yet were their canons received like those of other councils.

'A. D. 357. Many Homoousians were banished, and amongst them Liberius, bishop of Rome, and other bishops. Liberius, after having remained two years in banishment, subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius, and published a confession of faith, in which, leaving out the word ouooucos, he declared the Son to be like the Father in all things.

At this time the Arians began to be distinguished and divided. Part of them were Homoiousians, and part Anomœans. The first said that the Son was altogether oμoovo os, of like substance with the Father; the second, that he was aóμoos, unlike, or different, or unequal. Such was the difference between the Arians, if we may trust to the accounts of antient writers.

In the council of Ancyra, the Anomoans were condemned, and it was decreed that two councils should be called, one for the Eastern churches, at Seleucia, another for the Western, at Ariminum.

'A. D. 359. At Seleucia, the Homoiousians and the Anomoans contended: the latter were overpowered.

‹ Four hundred bishops were assembled at Ariminum, of whom about a fourth part were Arians; where, after much wrangling and many delays, most of them subscribed to a creed, in which it was only said that the Son of God was not a creature, like other creatures.

'A. D. 360. Macedonius, who was driven away from Constantinople, is said to have published his notions concerning the Holy Ghost. With the rest of the Arians, he denied the consubstantiality of the Son, and only said that he was like the Father; but he positively affirmed that the Holy Ghost was TOTO created.' His successor was Eudoxius, an Anomoan, who had been bishop of Antioch, on whose removal great dissensions arose at Antioch. Some followed Eustathius, who had been deposed in the

VOL. II.

• A. D. 351. Cave. See Socr. ii. 29. and the notes.

year 330. Others joined themselves to Meletius, who had been ordained by the favourers of Eudoxius, and who had deserted Arianism; whilst a third party, who were Arians, shunned them both, and had Euzoius for their bishop,

A. D. 363. The Arians, the Semiarians, (so they called the Homoiousians,) and the Consubstantialists, were quarrelling and contending every where, particularly in the eastern parts, and the emperor Valens favoured and supported the Arians.

Gregory and Basil, who had led a monastic life, left their retirement, to oppose the progress of Arianism.' Le Clerc, Compend. Hist.

A. D. 364. Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, a man much esteemed for learning and piety, gave rise to a new sect. He thought, perhaps, that, Christ being one, it was impossible that two persons could be so united in him as to make one person. Thence (as some say) he concluded, that in Christ the Aóyos supplied the place of a human soul. It is to be supposed that the Arians either were of the same opinion, or came into it and adopted it. Theodoret says, Simon, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, &c. acknowledged Jesus Christ to be God, but said that he was only man in appearance; the Arians held that the Word in Christ supplied the place of a soul. Apollinaris taught that the Word was united to a living body ", but a body not animated with a reasonable soul; Photinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Paul of Samosata, said that Christ was a mere man.' Epist. 104.

This may suffice for a summary account of the Athanasian and Arian controversy, during the first forty

years.

The Pagans who were by-standers in the times when this controversy was so warmly agitated, could not be much edified, or much disposed to embrace Christianity, when they saw its professors at such implacable variance. This made Ammianus Marcellinus say, that no wild beast was so cruel an enemy to man as most of the Christians were to each other. Julian, says he, knew their quarrelsome temper,

n

Σῶμα ἔμψυχον corpus præditum anima sensitiva.

* nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum, expertus.' xxii. 5.

The Alexandrians, a people naturally satirists, jesters, and buffoons, and the most quarrelsome and seditious of all mankind, those I mean who were Pagans, were highly entertained with these debates, and made them the subject of constant ridicule and drollery in their theatres. Euseb. Vit. Const. ii. 61. They were doubtless of the same opinion with Shaftsbury and his facetious disciples, that Ridicule is the only test of truth.'

For an instance of their national temper and turn of mind, when king Agrippa came to Alexandria, A. D. 38. the Alexandrians, who hated him because he was a Jew, and envied him because he was a king, contrived to set up a rival against him. They took a poor mad-man, who used to run naked about the streets, and hung a mat over his shoulders by way of robe, and put a paper diadem on his head, and a cane in his hand. When they had thus equip ped him, they set him up on a bench in the most conspicuous place in the city; some with sticks on their shoulders stood round him as his guards; others knelt down before him, bringing informations or complaints, or begging favours, whilst all the populace shouted, and called him Royal Master. Philo in Flacc. p. 970. ed. Par.

Elias Cretensis, in his Commentaries on Gregory Naz. p. 316. says that the Alexandrians Ethnicum quendam hominem insigniter impudicum, veste detracta, pudendisque nudatis, in antistitis solio collocarunt, tanquam si antistes aliquis foret. Ille vero doctoris larvam præ se ferens, in religionem Christianam invehebatur, comico eam risu exsibilans, et contrariam ei doctrinam proponens.'

He took this from Theodoret : Quendam ex suo numero notissimæ turpitudinis, qui una cum veste pudorem simul exuerat, nudum sicut natus erat, in ecclesiæ solio collocantes, concionatorem infamem adversus Christum sa

• The Romans were fond of purchasing Alexandrian boys for slaves, because they were spritely, witty, and extremely impudent. See Statius Silv. ii. i. 72. and v. v. 66. and the commentators.

The poet Claudian was an Alexandrian, and his works are generally either panegyrics or satires; but he shines most in the latter, as appears from his two books against Eutropius.