DEATH OF ARIUS.

99

A. D. 335.] impiety. Those who held his sentiments were of opinion that his death was brought about by magical arts. It will not be out of place to quote what Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, stated on the subject. The following is his narrative :—

CHAP. XXX.-ACCOUNT GIVEN BY THE GREAT ATHANASIUS OF THE DEATH OF ARIUS.

66

1

ARIUS, the author of the heresy and the associate of Eusebius, having been summoned before the most blessed Constantine Augustus, at the solicitation of the partisans of Eusebius, was desired to give in writing an exposition of his faith; he drew up this document with great artfulness, and, like the devil, concealed his impious assertions beneath the simple words of Scripture. The most blessed Constantine said to him, 'If you hold any other doctrines than those which are here set forth, render testimony to the truth; but if you perjure yourself, the Lord will punish you,' and the wretched man swore that he held no sentiments except those specified in the document; soon after he went out,2 and judgment was visited upon him, for he bent forwards and burst in the middle. With all men life terminates in death. We must not blame a man, even if he be an enemy, merely because he died, for it is uncertain whether we shall live till the evening. But the end of Arius was so singular that it seems worthy of some remark. The partisans of Eusebius threatened to reinstate him in the church, and Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, opposed their intention; Arius placed his confidence in the power and menaces of Eusebius. It was Saturday, and he expected the next day to be re-admitted into the church. The dispute ran high; the partisans of Eusebius were loud in their menaces, while Alexander had recourse to prayer. The Lord

1μáρrvρa rǹv åλý¤ɛav dóg, i. e. swear by the truth: a common formula among the early Christians. So St. Paul in his Epistles frequently exclaims, "I speak in the truth, I lie not.' Vales.

2 Athanasius gives an account of the end of Arius in his Epistle to Serapion: but it differs in some slight particulars from that which Sozomen and Socrates have given after Rufinus. Valesius considers that Arius died in a state of excommunication, and that the Arius who was received into communion by the synod at Jerusalem was not the same individual with the heresiarch.

was the judge, and declared himself against the unjust. A little before sunset Arius was compelled by a want of nature to enter the place appointed for such emergencies, and here he lost at once both restoration to communion and his life. The most blessed Constantine was amazed when he heard of this occurrence, and regarded it as the punishment of perjury. It then became evident to every one that the menaces of Eusebius were absolutely futile, and that the expectations of Arius were vain and foolish. It also became manifest that the Arian heresy had met with condemnation from the Saviour as well as from the pristine church. Is it not then astonishing that some are still found who seek to exculpate him whom the Lord has condemned, and to defend a heresy of which the author was not permitted by our Lord to be rejoined to the church? We have been duly informed that this was the mode of the death of Arius. It is said that for a long period subsequently no one would make use of the seat on which he died. Those who were compelled by necessities of nature to visit the public place, always avoided with horror the precise spot on which the impiety of Arius had been visited with judgment. At a later epoch a certain rich and powerful man, who had embraced the Arian tenets, bought the place of the public, and built a house on the spot, in order that the occurrence might fall into oblivion, and that there might be no perpetual memorial of the death of Arius."

CHAP. XXXI.-EVENTS WHICH TRANSPIRED IN ALEXANDRIA AFTER THE DEATH OF ARIUS. LETTER OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

THE death of Arius did not terminate the doctrinal dispute which he had originated. Those who adhered to his sentiments did not cease from plotting against those who maintained opposite opinions. The people of Alexandria loudly complained of the exile of Athanasius, and offered up supplications for his return, and Antony, the celebrated monk, wrote frequently to the emperor to entreat him to attach no credit to the insinuations of the Meletians, but to reject their accusations as calumnies; yet the emperor was not convinced by these arguments, and wrote to the Alexandrians, accusing

CONSTANTINE'S LAW AGAINST HERESIES.

101

them of folly and of disorderly conduct. He commanded the clergy and the holy virgins to remain quiet, and declared that he would not change his mind nor recall Athanasius, whom, he said, he regarded as an exciter of sedition, justly condemned by the judgment of the church. He replied to Antony by stating that he ought not to overlook the decree of the synod; for even if some few of the bishops, he said, were actuated by ill-will or the desire to oblige others, it scarcely seems credible that so many prudent and excellent bishops could have been impelled by such motives; and, he added, that Athanasius was contumelious and arrogant, and the author of divisions and seditions. The enemies of Athanasius accused him the more especially of these crimes, because they knew that the emperor regarded them with peculiar aversion. When he heard that the church was split into two factions, of which one supported Athanasius and the other John, he was transported with indignation, and exiled John. This John had succeeded Meletius, and had, with those who held the same sentiments as himself, been restored to communion and reestablished in the clerical functions by the synod of Tyre. His banishment was contrary to the wishes of the enemies of Athanasius, nor could it be revoked by the decrees of the synod of Tyre, for the emperor was inexorable against those who introduced sedition and dissension among the Christians.

CHAP. XXXII.-CONSTANTINE ENACTS A LAW AGAINST ALL HERESIES, AND PROHIBITS THE PEOPLE FROM ASSEMBLING IN ANY PLACE BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THUS THE GREATER NUMBER OF HERESIES DISAPPEAR.

ALTHOUGH the doctrine of Arius was zealously supported by many persons in disputations, a party had not as yet been formed to whom the name of Arians could be applied as a distinctive appellation; for all assembled together as a church and held communion with each other, with the exception of the Novatians, those called Phrygians, the Valentinians, and some few others who adhered to ancient heresies. The emperor, however, enacted a law,2 by which they were forbidden

This would seem to be at variance with the assertion of Alexander, in Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. i. 4.

2 This law is extant in Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 64.

to assemble in their own houses of prayer, in private houses, or in public places, but were compelled to enter into communion with the Catholic church. By means of this law, almost all the heresies, I believe, disappeared. During the reign of preceding emperors, all those who followed Christ, however they might have differed from each other in opinion, received the same treatment from the Greeks, (Pagans,) and were persecuted with equal cruelty. These common calamities, to which they were all equally liable, prevented them from prosecuting any close inquiries as to the differences of opinion which existed among themselves; the members of each party assembled themselves together, and, however few they might have been in number, did not lose their corporate existence.

But after this law was passed they could not assemble in public, because it was forbidden ; nor could they hold their assemblies in secret, for they were watched by the bishops and clergy of their city. Hence the greater number of these sectarians were led, by fear of consequences, to join themselves to the Catholic church. Those who adhered to their original sentiments did not, at their death, leave any disciples to propagate their heresy, for, owing to the restrictions to which they were subjected, they were prevented from teaching their doctrines.

On account either of the absurdity of the heretical dogmas, or of the utter ignorance of those who devised and taught them, the respective followers of each heresy were, from the beginning, very few in number. The Novatians alone, who had obtained good leaders, and who entertained the same opinions respecting the Divinity as the Catholic church, formed a large sect from the beginning, and were not decreased in point of numbers by means of this law; the emperor, I believe, relaxed the rigour of the enactment in their favour, for he only desired to strike terror into the minds of his subjects, and had no intention of persecuting them. Acesius, who was then the bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, was much esteemed by the emperor on account of his virtuous life; and it is probable that it was for his sake that the church which he governed met with protection. The Phrygians suffered the same treatment as the other heretics in all the Roman provinces except Phrygia and the neighbouring regions, for here they had, since the time of Montanus, existed in great numbers, and they are to the present day to be found in that locality.

A. D. 336.]

HERESY OF MARCELLUS.

103

About this time the partisans of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and of Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, began to combat in writing the confession of faith, which had been set forth by the Nicæan council. They did not venture to reject openly the assertion that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, because this assertion was maintained by the emperor; but they drew up another formula of belief, and signified to the Eastern bishops that, with certain modifications, they had reIceived the Nicæan confession of faith. They thus renewed disputes and the agitation of questions which had almost sunk into oblivion..

CHAP. XXXIII.-MARCELLUS, BISHOP OF ANCYRA; HIS

HERESY AND DEPOSITION.

AT the same period, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, was deposed by the bishops assembled at Constantinople, because he had introduced some new doctrines, whereby he taught that the existence of the Son of God commenced when He was born of Mary, and that His reign would have an end; he had, moreover, drawn up a written document wherein these views were propounded. Basil, a man of great learning and eloquence, was invested by the bishops with the government of the church of Galatia. They also wrote to the churches in the neighbouring regions, to desire them to search for the copies of the book written by Marcellus, and to destroy them, and to lead back those who had embraced his sentiments to the Catholic faith. They stated that the work was too voluminous to admit of their transcribing the whole in their epistle, but that they inserted quotations of certain passages in order to prove that the doctrines which they had condemned were there advocated. Some persons, however, maintained that Marcellus had merely propounded a few questions which had been misconstrued by the adherents of Eusebius, and represented to the emperor as formal propositions. Eusebius and his partisans were irritated against Marcellus, because he had not consented to their decrees at the council of Tyre, nor to the regulations which had been made in favour of Arius at

The title of this book is said by Valesius to have been "de Subjectione Filii Dei."