he might heal him, he said to them : "Your son does not require my interposition; restore to your masters the ox you have stolen, and he will be healed." And the result was even as had been predicted, for the ox was restored and the malady of the child removed. It is said that, when Ammon died, Antony saw his spirit ascending into heaven and surrounded by heavenly beings, singing hymns; Antony regarded this wonderful spectacle with intense amazement, and on being questioned by his companions as to the cause of his evident astonishment, he did not conceal the matter from them. A short time after, certain persons came from Scitis, bringing the intelligence of Ammon's death; and the hour in which they stated this event to have taken place was precisely that which had been indicated by Antony. Thus, as is testified by all good men, each of these holy persons was blessed in a special manner: the one, by being released from this life; the other, by being accounted worthy of witnessing so miraculous a spectacle as that which God showed him, for Antony and Ammon lived at a distance of many days' journey from each other, and the above incident is corroborated by those who were personally acquainted with them both.

I am convinced that it was likewise during this reign that Eutychius embraced philosophy. He fixed his residence in Bithynia, near Olympus. He belonged to the sect of the Novatians,2 and was a partaker of divine grace; he healed diseases, and wrought miracles, and the fame of his virtuous life induced Constantine to seek his intimacy and friendship. It so happened that, about this period, a certain person, who was suspected of plotting against the emperor, was apprehended near Olympus, and imprisoned. Eutychius was besought to intercede on his behalf with the emperor, and, in the meantime, to direct that the prisoner's chains might be loosened, lest he should perish beneath their weight. It is related that Eutychius accordingly sent to the officers who held the man in custody, desiring them to loosen the chains; and that, on their refusal, he went himself to the prison, when the doors, though fastened, opened of their own accord, and the bonds of the prisoner fell

Or Eutychianus. Comp. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 13.

2 On the person of Novatus, see Euseb. Eccl. Hist. b. vii. ch. 8, and Socrates, b. iv. ch. 28.

A. D. 324.]

THE ARIAN HERESY.

35

off. Eutychius afterwards repaired to the emperor, who was then residing at Byzantium, and easily obtained a pardon, for Constantine esteemed him too highly to refuse his requests.

I have now given in few words the history of the most illustrious professors of the monastic philosophy. If any one desires further or more exact information, he will find it in the numerous works on the subject which have been issued.

CHAP. XV.-THE ARIAN HERESY, ITS ORIGIN; ITS PROGRESS, AND THE CONTENTION WHICH IT OCCASIONED AMONG THE BISHOPS.

ALTHOUGH, as we have shown, religion was in a flourishing condition at this period, yet the Church was disturbed by sore contentions; for under the pretext of piety and of seeking the more perfect knowledge of God, certain questions were agitated, which had not, till then, been examined. Arius 1 was the originator of these disputations. He was an elder of the Church at Alexandria in Egypt, and was at first a zealous supporter of truth, yet upholding at the same time the innovations of Melitius. Eventually, however, he abandoned these opinions, and was ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of2 Alexandria, who afterwards cast him out of the Church, because he reprehended the conduct of this prelate in preaching against the Meletians, and in rejecting their baptism. After the martyrdom of Peter, Arius asked forgiveness of Achillas, and was restored to his office as deacon, and afterwards elevated to the presbytery. Alexander, also, held him in high repute. He was a most expert logician, but perverted his talents to evil purposes, and had the audacity to preach what no one before him had ever suggested, namely, that the Son of God was made out of that which had no prior existence, that there was a period of time in which He existed not; that, as possessing

See the parallel account of the rise and growth of Arianism in Socrates, b. i. ch. 5 to 9.

2 In the Acta of Peter Martyr, (which are so ancient that they are quoted by Justinian,) it is asserted that Arius was excommunicated on account of his perverse opinions, and not, as Sozomen here says, because he sided with the Meletians. As Valesius remarks, it is somewhat strange that neither Alexander nor Athanasius make any mention of this excommunication of Arius by Peter.

free will, He was capable of virtue, or of vice; and that He was created and made: to these, many other similar assertions were added in support of the argument. Those who heard these doctrines advanced, blamed Alexander for not opposing opinions which seemed at variance with the faith. But this bishop deemed it more advisable to leave each party to the free discussion of doubtful topics, so that by persuasion, rather than by force, unanimity might be restored; hence he assembled some of his clergy around him, and sat down, as judge, to hear the statements of the contending parties. But it happened on this occasion, as is generally the case in a strife of words, that each party claimed the victory. Arius defended the assertions he had advanced against the Son, but the others contended that he was con-substantial and co-eternal with the Father. The council was convened a second time, and the same points contested, but they came to no agreement amongst themselves. During the debate, Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the other; finally, however, he declared himself in favour of those who affirmed that the Son was con-substantial and co-eternal with the Father, and he commanded Arius to receive this doctrine, and to reject his former opinions. Arius, however, would not be persuaded to compliance, and many of the bishops and clergy considered his statement of doctrine to be correct. Alexander, therefore, ejected him, and the clergy who concurred with him in sentiment, from the Church. Those of Alexandria who had embraced his opinions were the presbyters Aithalas, Achillas, Carpon, Sarmates, and Arius,2 and the deacons Euzoius, Macarius, Julius, Minas, and Helladius. Many of the people, likewise, sided with them; some, because they imagined their doctrines to be of God, others, as frequently happens in similar cases, because they believed them to have been ill-treated and unjustly excommunicated. Such being the state of affairs at Alexandria, the partizans of Arius deemed it prudent to seek the favour of the bishops of other cities; accordingly, they sent a written statement of their doctrines to them, re

1 Valesius remarks that this statement is not supported by the testimony of any other of the Ecclesiastical writers, and accordingly rejects it.

2 In Theodoret, (Eccl. Hist. b. i.) Arius alone is said to have been a presbyter, the rest of those mentioned there, according to Theodoret, were deacons.

A. D. 324.]

THE ARIAN HERESY.

37

questing them that, if they considered such sentiments to be of God, they would signify to Alexander that he ought not to molest them; but that, if they disapproved of the doctrines, they would do well to declare what opinions were necessary to be held on the points in question. This precaution was of no little advantage to Arius and his partizans, for their tenets became thus universally disseminated, and the questions they had started became matters of debate among all the bishops. Some wrote to Alexander, entreating him not to receive the partizans of Arius into communion unless they repudiated their opinions, while others wrote to urge a contrary line of conduct. When Alexander perceived that many who were eminent for their virtues, their piety, or their eloquence, held with the party of Arius, and particularly Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, a man of considerable learning, and held in high repute at the palace, he wrote to the bishops of every church, desiring them not to hold communion with them. This measure only served to increase the violence of the controversy, and, as might have been expected, the contest was carried on more acrimoniously than before. Eusebius and his partizans had often, though without success, entreated Alexander to continue in communion with them; and they considered themselves so much aggrieved by this measure, that they came to a stronger determination than before to support the doctrines of Arius. A synod having been convened in Bithynia, they wrote to all the bishops, desiring them to hold communion with the Arians, as with those making a true confession, and to require Alexander to hold communion with them likewise. As compliance could not be extorted from Alexander, Arius sent messengers to Paulinus bishop of Tyre, to Eusebius Pamphilus, who presided over the church of Cæsarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus bishop of Scythopolis, soliciting permission for himself and for his adherents, as he had already attained the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a church. For it was the custom in Alexandria, as it still is in the present day, that all the churches should be under one bishop, but that each presbyter should have his own church, in which to assemble the people. These three bishops, in concurrence with others

Epiphanius says the same thing of Alexander, but he adds that, according to Dionysius Petavius, the same custom prevailed from a very

who were assembled in Palestine, granted the petition of Arius, and permitted him to assemble the people as before; but enjoined submission to Alexander, and commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and communion with him.

CHAP. XVI.-CONSTANTINE, HAVING HEARD OF THE STRIFE OF THE BISHOPS, AND THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION CONCERNING THE PASSOVER, IS GREATLY TROUBLED, AND SENDS HOSIUS, A SPANIARD, BISHOP OF CORDOVA, TO ALEXANDRIA, TO SETTLE THESE DISPUTES.

AFTER there had been many synods held in Egypt, and the contest had still continued to increase in violence, the report of the dissension reached the palace, and Constantine was thereby greatly troubled; for just at this period, when religion was beginning to be more generally propagated, many were deterred by the difference in doctrines from embracing Christianity. The emperor openly charged Arius and Alexander with having originated this disturbance, and wrote to rebuke them for having made a controversy public which it was in their power to have concealed, and for having contentiously agitated a question which ought never to have been mooted, or upon which, at least, their opinion ought to have been quietly given. He told them that they ought not to have separated from others on account of difference of sentiment concerning certain points of doctrine, and that though they ought to entertain the same views of Divine Providence, yet, that any occasional variation of judgment on minor or doubtful topics ought to be concealed. He exhorted them, therefore, to be of one mind, and to refrain from contention ;. and added, that the dissension had grieved him so exceedingly, that he had renounced his intention of journeying to the East. It was in this strain that he wrote to Alexander and to Arius, reproving and exhorting them both.

Constantine was also deeply grieved at the diversity of opinion which prevailed concerning the celebration of the Passover; for some of the churches in the East, although they did early time at Rome. In support of this assertion he quotes a passage from the epistle of Pope Innocent to Decennius. The passage is curious and valuable, as showing the early origin of the Parochial System.