[1: Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iii. c. 63, 64, 65,
66.]
[2: After some examination of the various opinions of
Tillemont, Beausobre, Lardner, &c., I am convinced that Manes did
not propagate his sect, even in Persia, before the year 270. It
is strange, that a philosophic and foreign heresy should have
penetrated so rapidly into the African provinces; yet I cannot
easily reject the edict of Diocletian against the Manichaeans,
which may be found in Baronius. (Annal Eccl. A. D. 287.)]
[3: Constantinus enim, cum limatius superstitionum
quaeroret sectas, Manichaeorum et similium, &c. Ammian. xv. 15.
Strategius, who from this commission obtained the surname of
Musonianus, was a Christian of the Arian sect. He acted as one
of the counts at the council of Sardica. Libanius praises his
mildness and prudence. Vales. ad locum Ammian.]
[4: Cod. Theod. l. xvi. tit. 5, leg. 2. As the general
law is not inserted in the Theodosian Code, it probable that, in
the year 438, the sects which it had condemned were already
extinct.]
[5: Sozomen, l. i. c. 22. Socrates, l. i. c. 10. These
historians have been suspected, but I think without reason, of an
attachment to the Novatian doctrine. The emperor said to the
bishop, "Acesius, take a ladder, and get up to heaven by
yourself." Most of the Christian sects have, by turns, borrowed
the ladder of Acesius.]
[6: The best materials for this part of ecclesiastical
history may be found in the edition of Optatus Milevitanus,
published (Paris, 1700) by M. Dupin, who has enriched it with
critical notes, geographical discussions, original records, and
an accurate abridgment of the whole controversy. M. de Tillemont
has bestowed on the Donatists the greatest part of a volume,
(tom. vi. part i.;) and I am indebted to him for an ample
collection of all the passages of his favorite St. Augustin,
which relate to those heretics.]
[7: Schisma igitur illo tempore confusae mulieris
iracundia peperit; ambitus nutrivit; avaritia roboravit.
Optatus, l. i. c. 19. The language of Purpurius is that of a
furious madman. Dicitur te necasse lilios sororis tuae duos.
Purpurius respondit: Putas me terreri a te . . occidi; et occido
eos qui contra me faciunt. Acta Concil. Cirtenais, ad calc.
Optat. p. 274. When Caecilian was invited to an assembly of
bishops, Purpurius said to his brethren, or rather to his
accomplices, "Let him come hither to receive our imposition of
hands, and we will break his head by way of penance." Optat. l.
i. c. 19.]
[8: The councils of Arles, of Nice, and of Trent,
confirmed the wise and moderate practice of the church of Rome.
The Donatists, however, had the advantage of maintaining the
sentiment of Cyprian, and of a considerable part of the primitive
church. Vincentius Lirinesis (p. 532, ap. Tillemont, Mem.
Eccles. tom. vi. p. 138) has explained why the Donatists are
eternally burning with the Devil, while St. Cyprian reigns in
heaven with Jesus Christ.]
[9: See the sixth book of Optatus Milevitanus, p.
91-100.]
[10: Tillemont, Mem. Ecclesiastiques, tom. vi. part i.
p. 253. He laughs at their partial credulity. He revered
Augustin, the great doctor of the system of predestination.]
[11: Plato Aegyptum peragravit ut a sacerdotibus
Barbaris numeros et coelestia acciperet. Cicero de Finibus, v.
25. The Egyptians might still preserve the traditional creed of
the Patriarchs. Josephus has persuaded many of the Christian
fathers, that Plato derived a part of his knowledge from the
Jews; but this vain opinion cannot be reconciled with the obscure
state and unsocial manners of the Jewish people, whose scriptures
were not accessible to Greek curiosity till more than one hundred
years after the death of Plato. See Marsham Canon. Chron. p. 144
Le Clerc, Epistol. Critic. vii. p. 177-194.]
[A: 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
Divinite,) 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 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, 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: 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.]
[13: 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: Joseph. Antiquitat, l. xii. c. 1, 3. Basnage,
Hist. des Juifs, l. vii. c. 7.]
[15: For the origin of the Jewish philosophy, see
Eusebius, Praeparat. Evangel. viii. 9, 10. According to Philo,
the Therapeutae studied philosophy; and Brucker has proved (Hist.
Philosoph. tom. ii. p. 787) that they gave the preference to that
of Plato.]
[16: 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: 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: 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: 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 haec 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.]
[20: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 Docetae 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
(aeons) 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 aeons 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: Apostolis adhuc in saeculo superstitibus apud
Judaeam Christi sanguine recente, et phanlasma 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 Docetae 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
Docetae, 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 Haeres, c. 31) reproaches Saturninus with
being a Docete. Irenaeus (adv. Haer. 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 Docetae. 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. Buddaeus de Eccles.
Apost. c. 5 & 7 - G.]
[29: 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: Doleo bona fide, Platonem omnium heraeticorum
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: If Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (see Dupin,
Bibliotheque 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: 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.]
[33: 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 Timaeus, he could never understand that mysterious
dialogue. See Hieronym. praef. ad l. xii. in Isaiam, tom. v. p.
154.]
[34: Tertullian. in Apolog. c. 46. See Bayle,
Dictionnaire, au mot Simonide. His remarks on the presumption of
Tertullian are profound and interesting.]
[35: 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: 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: See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. ii. c. 10, p. 159.]
[38: 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: See Daille de Usu Patrum, and Le Clerc,
Bibliotheque 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.]
[40: 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: 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: 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: The figure and manners of Arius, the character and
numbers of his first proselytes, are painted in very lively
colors by Epiphanius, (tom. i. Haeres. lxix. 3, p. 729,) and we
cannot but regret that he should soon forget the historian, to
assume the task of controversy.]
[44: 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: 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: 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, Mem. Eccles. tom.
vi. p. 774-780.]
[47: Quid credidit? Certe, aut tria nomina audiens tres
Deos esse credidit, et idololatra effectus est; aut in tribus
vocabulis trinominem credens Deum, in Sabellii haeresim incurrit;
aut edoctus ab Arianis unum esse verum Deum Patrem, filium et
spiritum sanctum credidit creaturas. Aut extra haec quid credere
potuerit nescio. Hieronym adv. Luciferianos. Jerom reserves for
the last the orthodox system, which is more complicated and
difficult.]
[48: 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: The metaphysics of Dr. Clarke (Scripture Trinity,
p. 276-280) could digest an eternal generation from an infinite
cause.]
[50: 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: 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, Bibliotheque Universelle,
tom xviii. p. 97-105.]
[52: 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: 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, Bibliotheque Choisie, tom. xvi. p. 225, &c.]
[54: 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.]
[55: 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,
(Mem. Eccles. tom. v. p. 669-759,) and in Le Clerc, (Bibliotheque
Universelle, tom. x p. 435-454.)]
[56: 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 nefandae caput
haereseos.]
[57: See Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. ii. c. i. p.
25-36. He thinks it his duty to reconcile two orthodox synods.]
[58: According to Aristotle, the stars were homoousian
to each other. "That Homoousios means of one substance in kind,
hath been shown by Petavius, Curcellaeus, 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: 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: 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: The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and
his followers chose to compliment the Arians, was that of
Ariomanites.]
[62: Epiphanius, tom i. Haeres. lxxii. 4, p. 837. See
the adventures of Marcellus, in Tillemont, (Mem. 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.]
[63: 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, (Mem. Eccles. tom. vi. p.
477.)]
[64: 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: Absque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majore
parte Asianae decem provinciae, 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: 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.]
[67: In Philostorgius (l. iii. c. 15) the character and
adventures of Aetius 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: According to the judgment of a man who respected
both these sectaries, Aetius 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. Graec. tom. viii. p. 258-305) is
one of the few heretical pieces which have escaped.]
[69: 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: 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: Fideli et pia intelligentia. . . 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.]
[72: Testor Deumcoeli atque terrae 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: 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: 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: Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus
est. Hieronym. adv. Lucifer. tom. i. p. 145.]
[76: 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.]
[77: 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: Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iii. c. 13.]
[79: 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: See in Socrates, (l. i. c. 8,) or rather in
Theodoret, (l. i. c. 12,) an original letter of Eusebius of
Caesarea, 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 Caesarea.]
[81: Athanasius, tom. i. p. 727. Philostorgius, l. i.
c. 10, and Godefroy's Commentary, p. 41.]
[82: 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.]
[83: 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: 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.]
[85: Quia etiam tum catechumenus sacramentum fidei
merito videretiu potuisse nescire. Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacra, l.
ii. p. 410.]
[86: 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: Sulpicius Severus in Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 405,
406.]
[88: 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 Caesarea. See Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. tom. viii. p.
715.]
[89: It is not easy to determine how far the ingenuity
of Cyril might be assisted by some natural appearances of a solar
halo.]
[90: 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.]
[91: 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; quae 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 vehiculariae concideret servos.
Ammianus, xxi. 16.]
[92: Athanas. tom. i. p. 870.]
[93: 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: 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
Haeretico." "De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus."]
[95: Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p. 418-430. The
Greek historians were very ignorant of the affairs of the West.]
[96: 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: 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: Dicebatur enim fatidicarum sortium fidem, quaeve
augurales portenderent alites scientissime callens aliquoties
praedixisse 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.]
[99: 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: See the history of the Fathers of the Desert,
published by Rosweide; and Tillemont, Mem. 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.]
[101: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Eusebius in Vit. Constantin. l. iv. c. 41-47.]
[107: 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: 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 Praetorian praefect.
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: In his return he saw Constantius twice, at
Viminiacum, and at Caesarea in Cappadocia, (Athanas. tom. i. p.
676.) Tillemont supposes that Constantine introduced him to the
meeting of the three royal brothers in Pannonia, (Memoires
Eccles. tom. viii. p. 69.)]
[110: See Beveridge, Pandect. tom. i. p. 429-452, and
tom. ii. Annotation. p. 182. Tillemont, Mem. 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: This magistrate, so odious to Athanasius, is
praised by Gregory Nazianzen, tom. i. Orat. xxi. p. 390, 391.
Saepe 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: 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: 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, ecclesiae Graeciae
doctores in duas partes scinderentur, ingenio, eloquentia,
numero, tantum non aequales, eam partem quae vincere cupiebat
Romam confugisse, majestatemque pontificis comiter coluisse,
eoque pacto oppressis per pontificem et episcopos Latinos
adversariis praevaluisse, atque orthodoxiam in conciliis
stabilivisse. Eam ob causam Athanasius, non sine comitatu, Roman
petiit, pluresque annos ibi haesit.]
[114: 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: 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.]
[116: 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: 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: 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: 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.]
[120: 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: Athanas. tom. i. p. 825-844.]
[122: 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.]
[123: 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 Vercellae, and of
an old life of Dionysius of Milan, published by Bollandus. See
Baronius, A.D. 355, and Tillemont, tom. vii. p. 1415.]
[124: 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 caedit; sed
ventrem palpat. Hilarius contra Constant c. 5, p. 1240.]