THE LIVES OF Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, AND Prudentius the Christian Poet: Containing an Impartial Account of their LIVES and WRITINGS, Together with Several Curious Observations upon Both. ALSO A Short History of Pelagianism.  
Written Originally in French By Monsieur Le CLERC; And now Translated into English.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Baldwin, at the Oxford Arms in Warwick-Lane, 1696.   

Advertisement.  
'TIS thought that the following Lives will not be Unacceptable to the Public. The Author of 'em, who is well known by his Writings, justly complains, that those who have hitherto written the Lives of the Fathers, have not done it with such an Impartiality as is required from those who writ for the sake of Truth. Indeed, it must be confessed that Panegyrics of all sorts are very Numerous, and that a True and Faithful Account of the Lives and Doctrine of the Fathers is very Necessary. This Author will have it, that he hath distinguished himself from other Writers in his Lives of some Fathers, and professes a great Sincerity. This, I think, is more than sufficient to recommend the Reading of this Work.  
But besides, it contains several Judicious Observations, and Critical Remarks upon the Lives and Opinions of the Fathers, very useful, especially to those who apply or design to apply themselves to that Study. I think that the Fathers were far from being Infallible, but I am none of those who despise the Study of their Writings. I confess, it doth not require a Dull and Narrow-Spirited Reader, who may grow the worse for it: But an Ingenious and Judicious one may make a good use of it, as will appear by the following Lives, which may also give some Light to the late Disputes concerning the Holy Trinity.  
I shall further add, That the Fathers, whose Lives Monsieur Le Clerc hath written, are some of the most Famous. Every body knows that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, were very Learned Men; and that Gregory Nazianzen was one of the greatest Orators the Christians had in his time. Eusebius having been much concerned in the Arian Disputes, it was necessary to give a large Account of those Controversies, which makes the Life of that Father so much the more Curious and Useful. In short, the Reader will find here the Lives of some of the most Celebrated Fathers who lived in the most famous Ages of Christianity, written with great Exactness and Impartiality; and they are, I think, sufficient to give a Notion of the Fathers.  
I must not forget that Monsieur Le Clerc hath taken care to show what Philosophy those Fathers did especially apply themselves to. This is a very Necessary Enquiry; and those that are not sensible of its usefulness, will be easily convinced of it, when they come to read the followinging Lives.  
'Twas also thought fit to print the History of Pelagianism, tho' very short, together with these Lives; because several Gentlemen may be desirous to have in their own Tongue an Impartial Account of that Controversy, which formerly made so great a Noise in the Christian World.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 9 Line 9 read Hypotyposes; p. 10. l. 4. of the r. of those; p. 16. l. 28. r. Stoics; p. 18. l. 28. r. Invisible; p. 32. l. 22. r. Writings; p. 50. l. 2. r. Months; p. 58. l. 4. r Pedagogue; p. 64. l. 13. r. Pamphilus, (and so elsewhere;) p. 67. l. 6. r. Year of; p. 72. l. 27. perhaps, add is; p. 73. l. 24. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; p. 78. l. 12. for contained r. understood; p. 79. l. 20. r. those; p. 81. l. 1. in speaking, deal in; p. 84. l. 12. r. gave; p. 85. l. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; p. 86. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 105. l. 29. r. his Works; p. 110. l. 7. deal a, and r sport of the; ibid. l. 17. r. Cordova; p. 113. l. 2. r. Lucian; p. 117. l. 4. r. Nicomedia; p. 130. l. 4. r. Bysantium; p. 133. l. 7. r. Licinius, p. 135. l. 24. r. fit to; p. 137. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; p. 142. l. 18. r. Arsenius; p. 146. l. 16. r. being come to; p. 151. l. 9 r. any thing else; p. 161. l. 18. r. Personas; ibid. l. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, add signifies; p. 167. l. 13. there is, add in; p. 173. l. 26. undeniable, add Testimony; p. 176. l. 31. r. Aegina; p. 183. l. 3. r. patiently; p. 193. l. 9 r. Individuums; p. 207. l. 24. r. used the Valentinians; p. 212. l. 17. related, add all; p. 213. l. 17. r. breaking into; p. 220. l. 28. r. seized; p. 226. l. 26. r. Prosopopeïa; p. 234 l. ult. r. acknowledged; p. 249. l. 9 r. Judgement; p. 254. l. 20. Deity, and is; p. 265. l. 20. r. in a full; p. 268. l. 24. deal 'em; p. 282. l. 19 r. Prodicus; p. 283. l. 25. r. such an Art; p. 290. l. 17. r militiae; p. 292. l. 28. r. Darkness; p. 293. l. ult. r. Mentem; p. 295 l. 9 r. Judicature; p. 301. l. 2. r. piceasque; p. 304. l. 18. r. ingenuously; p. 305. l. 14. r. perire; p. 307. l. 23. Ninivites, add were not; ibid. l. 27. r. that People; p. 312. l. 19 r. Cyprians; p. 313. l. 17. r. foveis; p. 317. l. 10. Image, add was; p. 321. l. 2. Nature is, add of; p. 321. l. 14. r. Conditor; p. 325. l. 19 r. moras; ibid. l. 21. r. murmureth; p. 326. l. 25. r. it is; p. 327. l. 7. r. languente; p. 333. l. 12. Quadrants, r. tetrastics; ibid. l. 15. r. whereof; p. 336. l. 14. r. Damietta; p. 338. l. 27. deal not; p. 363. l. penult. r. facultatum; l. seq. r. exilium; p. 368. l. 1. r. nullum.   

The Life OF Clemens Alexandrinus.  
ALthough those that are able to read the Fathers in the Original Tongues, are but few; yet there are a great many who ought to have some Notions of their Lives and Writings, because they are  made use of in the Controversies which divide Christians. The Teachers of the Church of Rome omit nothing to make Men believe, that the Fathers were of their Opinion; because they believe, that it is not lawful to reject a Doctrine grounded upon the Testimony of the greatest part of the Fathers. When they quote a Passage, which they think to be agreeable to their Notions, they don't fail to say, As a Holy Father said well. But if One objects to them some words which they cannot well get rid of: They answer, That 'twas only his private Opinion; and reject it as an Error.  
The greatest part of the Protestants do not lay down the Consent of the Fathers, as a Principle of their Faith; but as for the rest, many of their Authors seldom make any other use of them, when they cite 'em, than the Roman Catholics.  
Hence it is, that in the Ecclesiastical Histories of both Parties, such Places as seem proper to confirm the Opinion and Practices received  amongst us, are carefully observed: Whereas such things as are thought to be Defective in their Conduct and Doctrine, are only mentioned by the buy. They persuade themselves that the Fathers, especially those of the First Centuries, held all the Opinions, which are looked upon as Essential where they live; and then they think themselves obliged to heap up Praises upon 'em; and excuse, as much as they can, the Defects which are observed either in their Writings or Lives: So that instead of writing their History, they writ, without being ware of it, their Panegyric or Apology. Hence it is, that they who read such Books, believe that the Ancients were Men of vast Learning, and extraordinary Holiness. From whence they conclude, that if they have ill treated any Body, they must needs have had some great Reasons for it; and that they were far either from unfaithfully relating, or ill confuting the Opinions of Heretics. They think themselves obliged to imitate their manner of Reasoning and Acting, without much troubling themselves whether it be agreeable to the Precepts of the Gospel, or not. Thus it comes to pass, that we have no Histories of the First Centuries, that are faithful enough; and do not make such a Use of those Histories as we ought to make.  
I am far from thinking that I can cure so inveterate a Disease, nor is it the Design of this Work: But at least, I think myself obliged to avoid, as much as I can, the Way of those, who give the Public Partial Panegyrics, when Sincere and Impartial Histories were expected from them. I have endeavoured to practise this in The History of Pelagianism,; and I shall yet endeavour to do it in the Life of Clemens, which I am going to write in few words.  
TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS, famous for his Learing towards the End of the Second Century, was born at Athens, according to some Authors, who believe they can reconcile this Opinion with the Opinion of those who call him Alexandrinus, by saying that Athens was the Place of his Birth; and that he got the Surname of Alexandrinus, because of his long stay at Alexandria. But his Style, though florid enough, is often obscure and intricate, and doth not much relish the Neatness and Elegancy of the Athenian Writers. However, it is certain that he begun his Studies in Greece, continued them in Asia, and ended his days in Egypt.  
It appears, that he was not content to be instructed only by one Master, but that he traveled much to hear many, and so to get a more exact and full knowledge of the Christian Religion, as well as to improve in Humane Learning. His Masters had been Disciples of the Apostles, or had conversed with some Disciples of those Holy Men, as it appears by his manner of speaking of them, though he doth not express himself very clearly.  
He says, 
* Str●m. l. 1. p. 274. Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 11. reads this place somewhat differently, upon which Valesius may be consulted.  That his Writings, composed without Art, are an Image and a Picture of those lively Discourses of the Happy Men, and truly worthy of Esteem, whom he had the Honour to hear. The one (as he goes on) whom I saw in Greece, was of the jonick Sect. I have seen two in Calabria, one of whom was a Coelo-Syrian, and the other an Egyptian. I met two more in the East, one of whom was an Assyrian; and the other, with whom I conversed in Palestine, was of a Jewish Extraction: This latter was the first in Merit. I stayed in Egypt, where he had hid himself, to look for him. He was, as the Proverb says, A true Sicilian Bee. He gathered the Flowers scattered (if one may so say) in the Meadows of the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, by the means whereof he filled the Souls of those that heard him with a pure Knowledge. Those Men having preserved the true Tradition of the Blessed Doctrine, immediately after the Holy Apostles, St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and St. Paul, as a Child who keeps what he hath learned of his Father (Although there are Few like them) have lived to our time, by the Will of God, to shed into our Hearts the Seed which they had received of the Apostles their Predecessors.  
'Tis of great moment to know what Master an Author had, to understand his Opinions right; for then, as , the Disciples did particularly stick to the Method of their Masters; and explained Religion, as much as they could, according to the Principles of that Philosophy which they had learned of them. Thus the Schoolmen, who were Peripatetics, explained Divinity by Aristotle's Principles; and Divinity is handled after the Cartesian way, where Des-Cartes Philosophy is admitted.  
Wherefore the Learned Men of our Age have endeavoured to guests, who were those of whom Clemens speaks. It appears, by my Translation of the words of that Father, that he had five Masters; but Valesius allows him but four, because he follows the Reading of Eusebius. One can't positively affirm which is the best; but I may say, that the Interpreters who took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Proper Name, have done it without reason. 'Tis not likely that Clemens, who doth not tell the Names of the other, whom he acknowledges for his Masters, should name this. Antiquity affords no Man whose Name was jonick, and that Name may denote the Sect of Philosophy to which that first Master of Clemens did especially apply himself. Thales and Anaximander, Philosophers of Miletus, a Town of jonia, were the Heads of it.  
Clemens Alexandrinus speaks well of those two Philosophers in his Writings: Thales (says he in one place) 
* Strom. l. 1. p. 300.  was a Phaenician, as Leander and Herodotus say. He is the only Man who seems to be conversant with the Egyptian Prophets, and we do not read that any one hath been his Master, etc. Anaximander, a Milesian, and Son of Praxidamus, succeeded Thales, and had Anaximenes, Son of Eurystratus, a Milesian also, for his Successor. Anaxagoras of Clazomenes, Son of Hegesibulus, came after him; he removed his Auditory from jonia to Athens, and had Archelaus, Socrates 's Master, for his Successor.  
Elsewhere he says, That Thales 
* Strom. l. 5. p. 595.  being asked what God is? He answered, That which hath neither a Beginning nor an End. And that another having asked him, whether Men can hid their Actions from God? How can that be, answered he, since they cannot so much as hid their Thoughts from him?  
Speaking of Anaximander, Archelaus, and Anaxagoras, Philosophers of the same Sect, he says, That the former hath established 
† Admen. ad Gent. p. 43.  the Infinite for the First Being; and that the other two said that the Spirit governed the Infinite.  
The Principles of those Philosophers may be seen more at large in Diogenes Laertius: and one may easily perceive, that some of them do well enough agree with those of the Jews and Christians; as, That whatever is upon the Earth came out of the Water; That the Night was before the Day; That most Men are Wicked; That to live Justly, we must not do what we blame in others; That Heaven is our true Native Country, etc. 'Tis not therefore incredible, that a Philosopher of that Sect should have embraced Christianity, and been the first Master of Clemens Alexandrinus.  
All that can be said against it, is, that the Succession of the Philosophers of the jonick Sect ended in Archelaus, Master of Socrates. But although there were no Masters of that Philosophy, who did immediately succeed one another; yet it doth not follow but there might be some Philosophers, in several places, who followed the Opinions of Thales, and his first Disciples. Thus Diogenes Laertius says, in his Preface, that the Italic Sect, of which Pythagoras was the Head, ended in Epicurus; although there hath been some Pythagoraean Philosophers many Ages after Epicurus. No Body ought to wonder that we should say, that a Christian followed a certain Sect of Philosophy, because it is only to be understood inasmuch as he thought it agreeable to Christianity. Thus Justin Martyr was a Platonic; and Pantaenus, Clemens' Master, 
* Euseb. l. 5. c. 10.  was a Stoic.  
The Name of the second, whom he saw in Great Greece, or Calabria, is altogether unknown. Some 
† Vales. ad Euseb.  believe that the Assyrian was Tatianus, a Philosopher and Disciple of Justin Martyr; and others, 
‖ Baron. ad Ann. 185.  Bardesanes of Edessus in Syria, who had been a Valentinian, and never wholly laid aside the Opinions of that Sect.  
As for him who was of Jewish Origin, some believe he might be Theophilus' Bishop of Caesarea, although History doth not say that he descended from Jewish Parents. Wherefore, others conjecture that he was one Theodotus, whose Doctrine Clemens Alexandrinus had expounded in his Hypotypoles, or Institutions of the Christian Religion; from whence it is that the Abridgement of that Work, which is to be found at the end of Clemen's Works, is entitled Extracts of the Eastern Doctrine of Theodotus. But some ascribe those Extracts to Theodotus Byzantinus, a Currier by Trade, but a learned Man, who was Excommunicated by Pope Victor, in the Year CXCIV. because he taught, that Christ was but a mere Man.  
last: The last of Clemens' Masters, whom he prefers before all the other, and to whom he applied himself, was Pantaenus. Eusebius is of opinion, that Clemens means Him, in the latter part of that Passage which I have citedout of him. Indeed, Pantaenus taught in Egypt, when Clemens settled himself there; and this latter called him his Master 
* Euseb. l. 5. c. 11.  in his Hypotyposes.  
Pantaenus' Native Country and Parents are not known; but 'tis certain that he applied himself much to the Study of Philosophy, especially that of the Stoics, perhaps being moved with the severe Manners and Maxims of the Philosophers, which did well enough agree with those of the Ancient Christians.  
There had been 
* Vid. Euseb l. 5. c. 10. & Hieron. in Script. Eccl.  long before, nay, if some Authors are to be believed, ever since St. Mark the Evangelist, a Public School at Alexandria, where the Catechumeni were taught; which Employment was bestowed only upon Men of Learning, and an Exemplary Life. Pantaenus was entrusted with it, and taught a long time in that City, Viva Voce, and by Writing. He wrote some Commentaries upon the Scripture, of which there are only some words extant 
† Clemens. p. 808.  in the Extracts of the Eastern Doctrine of Theodotus, wherein Clemens Alexandrinus speaks thus: Our Pantaenus, says, that the Prophets do commonly express themselves by the Aorist, and use the Present Tense instead of the Future and Preterite Tenses.  
'Tis likely that Pantaenus was a Catechist, when Clemens came to Egypt; and that he studied some time under him, before he succeeded him. He applied himself there, as he did elsewhere, to the Study of Philosophy, although he was far from taking for Philosophers All those that went by that Name. 
‖ Strom. l. 1. p. 315.  We do not (says he) indifferently receive All manner of Philosophy, but that only of which Socrates says in Plato; The same thing which is observed in Mysteries, is also to be found in Philosophy; Many carry the Thyrsus, but Few are truly inspired with the Spirit of Bacchus. Socrates did thereby obscurely intimate, That Many are Called, but Few Elected: For afterwards he adds, That the Latter are, in his Judgement, those who have applied themselves to Philosophy as they ought to do.  
Clemens would not stick wholly to any Sect, lest he should take for Philosophers such as perhaps had only the Outside of 'em, but followed that manner of Philosophising which was then called Eclectick, that is to say, the Method of those, who chose, out of all the Opinions of the Philosophers, those which seemed the most rational to them, and made a System of them for their Private Use. 
* Vid. Laertium in Proem. & Suidam.  Potamon of Alexandria, who lived in the time of Augustus, was the first that practised that manner of Philosophising. Clemens could not choose a more commodious One for a Christian Philosopher, because there is not one Philosopher of whom all the Dogmata are agreeable to the Gospel; although a System, that will come up very near to that of the Christian Doctrine, may be made by collecting out of All the Philosophers what they said agreeably to the Light of Nature, or some ancient Traditions current almost through the whole World.  
Clemens himself teaches us thus much; and assures us, that he applied himself to the Eclectick Philosophy, for the same Reason that I have alleged. Having said, That God had sent Philosophy to Men; 
* Strom. l. 1. p. 288.  he adds, That he means neither that of the Stoics, nor that of the Platonics, nor that of the Aristotelians. But (says he) I give that Name to the Truths which those Sects have maintained, and which may lead to Justice and Piety. I don't call the False Opinions of Men, Divine Things. He says elsewhere, 
† P. 299.  That the Barbarian and the Greek Philosophy took the Fragments of the Eternal Truths which it contains, not out of Bacchus' Mythology, but from the Reason which did always exist. He that would join again, what hath been divided, and would make a Private System out of it, might be sure of Knowing the Truth.  
A like Thought is to be met with in Lactantius, who assures us, 
‖ Inst. l. 6. c. 7.  That it is an easy thing to show that the Whole Truth was divided among the several Sects of Philosophers; and if any one would collect the Truth's scattered among the Sects, and gather them into One Body, he would not certainly disagree from the Christians. Quod si extitisset aliquis, qui veritatem sparsam per singulos per sectasque diffusam colligeret in unum ac redigeret in corpus, is profectò non dissentiret à nobis.  
Afterwards he says, That no Body could do it, but by a Divine Revelation; but that if it should happen, as it were by chance, that any one did it without that help, nothing would be more certain than that Philosophy: and although he could not defend himself by the Authority of Revelation, Truth would maintain itself only by its own Light.  
Afterwards he blames those who stick to One Sect, so as to embrace all its Opinions, and condemn all other Sects, being ready to dispute against all the Doctrines which they have not learned of their Masters. That Design, of collecting whatever the Philosophers said that was agreeable to the Gospel, is undoubtedly a fine one, and may very much conduce to convince Men of the Truth of the Christian Religion. But to do it successfully, 'tis necessary to understand both Philosophy and the Christian Religion well, and to confine one's self to clear and undeniable Articles, such as those that are Practical, and some few Speculative ones. The Heterodox of that time had introduced into the Christian Religion, for want of Consideration, an infinite number of Philosophical Doctrines, which have no relation with those of the Gospel.  
Thus the Carpocratians 
* Strom. l. 3. p. 430.  believed, as Clemens testifies, That it was lawful to Lie promiscuously with all Women; and did actually do it, when they had supped in a great Company, and put out the Candles. They fell into this Conceit, because Plato would have Women to be Common in his Commonwealth; and because they had wrested several Places of the Scripture, to make them agree with that Opinion. But Clemens is of opinion, that they understood neither the Scripture nor Plato well. This latter meant only this, he thinks, That there should be no Maid in the Commonwealth, but to whom All the Citizens might indifferently pretend; although if she had been Betrothed to any Man, others could no more hope to Marry her. I could easily show, that Clemens doth not explain well Plato's Meaning, if this was a fit place for it.  
The Marcionites, 
† Ibid. p. 431, & 465, & seq.  who said that Matter and Nature are Bad, and condemned Marriage, came by their Opinion, so contrary to that of Carpocrates, by Explaining some Passages of Scripture, by the Platonic Principles. Because the Scripture often describes the Miseries of this World, and praises Continency, they fancied that the Sacred Writers had the same Notions of this Life and Generation, or Birth, that Heraclitus and Plato had. Those Philosophers believed, that the Souls did exist before the Bodies, into which they are sent only to be punished for the Sins which they had committed in another Life: So that, to speak properly, Birth should be called Death, rather than a Beginning of Life; and Death Life, because when we are born, our Souls are thrown into the Prison of the Body, out of which they are set at liberty when we die. Hence it is that those Philosophers, and many Poets after 'em, said, That 'twas better not to be born, than to come into the World; and to die in Childhood, than to live many Years. Hence it is also, that some times they speak vehemently enough against the Use of Marriage; because, in their opinion, it did only conduce to build a Prison for some Unfortunate Soul, which was thrown into the Body that was produced.  
The Valentinians had also learned what they said concerning the Generation of their Aeones, of Hesiod, as it will appear by comparing the Beginning of his Theogonia with the Doctrine of the Valentinians, as it is reported by St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius, who do not fail to upbraid them with their having taken their Doctrine from that Poet. 'Tis likely they confounded Hesiod's Doctrine with that of the Holy Scripture, because of some small resemblance that is between 'em. I could easily show, that Hesiod, by the Marriages between the Chaos, Darkness, Light, Heaven, Earth, Air, etc. meant only, that there is some Relation or Connexion between the Things which he joins, and that 'twas this that gave him occasion to Marry them together: But my Business is only to show, by the Example of the ancient Heretics, that the Primitive Christians made a great use of the Heathen Philosophy, and that many have perverted it, as Clemens hath observed in several places.  
As for him, although he professed to follow the Method of the Eclectics, and take out of every Sect what he thought fit; yet he was more inclined to the Stoic Philosophy, because Pantaenus his last Master, and whom he esteemed most, as we have seen, preferred that Sect before others. Wherefore 'tis observed, that Clemens hath a close and harsh Style, and that he affects some Paradoxes, and to use New Words; Characters whereby the Stoic, and those that studied in their Schools, were known. Stoicorum (says 
* In Bruto, c. 31.  Tully) adstrictior est oratio, aliquantóque contractior quàm aures populi requirunt. 
* De Fin. lib. 4.  Nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata: at quanta conantur? Mundum hunc omnem oppidum esse unum, etc. Pungunt quasi aculeis, interrogatiunculis angustis. Those that understand Greek, and have read something of Clemens, may have easily observed all this in his Style. There are many Paradoxes in his Paedagogus; for instance, he maintains (Book 3. Chap. 6.) That none but a Christian is Rich. A Paradox much like that of the Stoics, who said the same thing of their Wise Man. Those Philosophers expressed themselves thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That the Wise Man only is Rich: And Clemens made no other Alteration in it, but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wise Man, into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Christian. The Reasons which he makes use of to prove his Assertion, are not very different neither from those of the Stoics, as may be seen by comparing what he says with Cicero's Explication of that Stoical Maxim, in his Paradoxes.  
The Study of Heathen Authors produced in Clemens milder Thoughts with respect to them, than those which Christians have had since. He observes in many places, 
† Strom. l. 1. p. 314.  That whatever they say, is not false: And citys, to prove it, St. Paul's Discourse to the Athenians, Act. 17. where that Apostle tells 'em, That he preaches to them the same God, to whom they had erected an Altar, with this Inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD; the same God of whom Aratus had said, that We are his Offspring. Clemens believes, that St. Paul approved what was Good in the Inscription of that Altar, and in those words of Aratus; and gave 'em only a clearer Knowledge of the True God, whom they already perceived, without knowing Him well. He elsewhere 
* Strom. l. 6. p. 635.  quotes a Book which was ascribed to St. Peter, and was entitled, ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ ΠΕΤΡΟΥ, The Preaching of St. Peter. It appears, that Clemens made no doubt but that Book was St. Peter's: From whence one may conjecture, that there was nothing in it that was inconsistent with the Orthodox Opinions of that time; and that, if we had it, we might look upon it as the Work of a Good Christian. The Place which Clemens quotes out of it, is too remarkable to be omitted here, since we may know from it what many Ancients, who have not been charged with Idolatry, thought of the Heathens: Know that there is but One God (said St. Peter in that Book) who gave a Beginning to All Things, and is able to make 'em End; who is Invinsible, and seethe all things; who is shut up within no Bounds, and contains all things; who wants nothing, and whom all things stand in need of, since they exist by Him; who is Incomprehensible, Eternal, and Incorruptible; who was not made, but made all things by his Powerful Word, that is, by his Son, according to the Spiritual Interpretation put upon the Scripture. Afterwards he adds (as Clemens goes on,) Worship that God, not as the Greeks do, because Honest Men among the Greeks Worshipped the same God with us, but without perfectly Knowing Him as those who have received the Doctrine of his Son. He doth not say, Do not worship the God whom the Greeks worship; but, Do not worship him as the Greeks do, Changing only the Manner of the Worship, but preaching no other God: He himself explains what he means, adding, For being led by their Ignorance, and not knowing God as perfectly as we do, they make Statues of those things which God gave them for their use, viz. Wood, Stone, Copper, Iron, Gold and Silver; and instead of employing those things for their use, they themselves worship 'em. Besides, they worship Beasts, which God gave them for their Food, the Birds of the Air, the Fishes of the Sea, the Creeping Creatures of the Earth, Wild and  Beasts, as well as Weasels, Rats, Dogs and Monkeys. They sacrifice to Men, what they should eat; and offering Dead Things to the Dead, as to Gods. they prove Ungrateful to the True God, and so deny his Existence. And that it may appear that We and the Greeks Know the True God, though in a different manner, he goes on thus; Worship not God neither as the Jews; for fancying that They only know God, they do not perceive that they worship Angels and Archangels, the Months, and the Moons; for if the Moon does not appear, they do not observe the Sabbath which they call First, nor the New Moon, nor the Days of Unleavened Bread, nor any Holy Day. Lastly, he concludes, saying; As for you, Learn the Just and Holy Doctrine which we teach you; observe it, and worship God after a new manner, through Jesus Christ. For we read in the Scripture, that God said, I make a new Covenant with you, different from that which I made with your Fathers upon Mount Horeb. He hath given us a New Covenant; for both that of the Jews and Greeks is old; and We, who worship him after a Third and New manner, are Christians. He clearly shows (as Clemens adds) That one and the same God was known to the Greeks, after the manner of the Heathens; to the Jews, after the Jewish manner; and to Us, after a New and Spiritual manner. He shows further, That the same God who gave the Two Covenants, is He who gave Philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified amongst 'em, etc. As God was pleased to save the Jews, by giving them some Prophets; so he hath raised among the Greeks the most Honest Men, whom he hath distinguished from the Vulgar, according as they were capable of receiving his Benefits, to perform the part of PROPHETS amongst 'em in their own Tongue. We learn this not only from St. Peter's Preaching, but also from St. Paul, when he says, Take some Greek Books acknowledge that the Sibyl teaches but One God, and the Things that are to come. ' Read Hydaspes, and you'll find that he hath writ much more clearly concerning the Son of God; and that he said, that many Kings would arm themselves against Jesus Christ, that they would hate him, and those that are called by his Name, etc. As the Preaching of the Gospel came in its time, so the Law and the Prophets were given to the Barbarians in their time, and Philosophy to the Greeks, which accustoms the Ears to the Preaching of the Gospel. Clemens speaks after the same manner in several other places; and testifies clearly enough, that Philosophy 
* Vid. Casab. Exercitat. 1. in App. Baron.  was among the Greeks, what Prophecy was among the Hebrews; and that God hath always given equally to all Men the Means necessary to be saved: Which was also the Opinion of several other Greek Fathers.  
Clemens therefore believed that the Greeks had no good Doctrine but what they took from the Barbarians, especially from the Jews, and the Sacred Books, which he endeavours to prove in a thousand places; and 'tis well known, that it was the common Opinion of the Fathers, who undertook to censure the Philosophy of the Greeks. The Jews said also the same thing, as it appears from a Passage of Aristobulus a Peripatetic, who is said to have been Tutor to Ptolemy Philometor, and who speaks thus: Plato did also follow our Laws, and hath showed, that he had studied them well. Now before Demetrius' time, nay, before the Empire of Alexander, and that of the Perfians, they were translated by others (than the Septuagint) as well as the History of what happened to the Hebrews, our Fellow-Citizens, at their departure from Egypt, of what remarkable things they did and saw; and how they took possession, by their strength, of the Land of Canaan; and how the whole Law was given: so that it is manifest, that the Philosopher whom I have mentioned, took several things from it; for he was a Man of great Learning, as well as Pythagoras, who hath inserted several of our Opinions into his Doctrine. But this Author is suspected, for several Reasons; and being the only Man who hath mentioned a Translation made before the Empire of the Persians, one may justly doubt whether this is not a Jewish Fable. However, it appears, that in the time of this Author, whether he be Genuine or Supposititious, the Jews charged the Heathens with having stolen the best things they had out of the Holy Books.  
'Tis very likely that the Greeks had learned many things of the Eastern Nations, as of the Egyptians and Babylonians; for they themselves 
* Vid. Diogen. Laert. Proem. & ad illud Intt.  confess it. But if this Matter was fully examined, one might perhaps find, that many things were clearly spoken of in Greece, before the Jews spoke of 'em after the same manner; and that the latter began to express themselves as the Greeks only since they conversed with them. I could allege some Proofs of this Conjecture, at least, as strong as all those which the Fathers have alleged to prove the contrary. But because I should too much wander from the chief Subject in hand, I shall not undertake this Matter. Perhaps, some time or other, I shall publish a Dissertation about it.  
I had rather observe here, That although Clemens doth often charge the Greek Philosophers with Theft; yet he believed that God had given them part of their Knowledge by the Ministry of Inferior Angels, whereas he instucted the Christians by the Ministry of his Son. 
* Strom. l. 7. p. 702.  The Lord of all Men, of the Greeks as well as the Barbarians, persuades those that will believe in Him: For he doth not force him to receive Salvation, who may choose and do what is in his power, to embrace the Hope which God offers him. 'Tis He who gives Philosophy to the Greeks, by the Ministry of Inferior Angels, 
† Ibid. l. 1. p 309.  (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) For the Angels have been long ago dispersed among the Nations, by the Command of God; but the Opinion of those that Believe, is the Gift of the Lord. Afterwards he proves at large, in the same place, that God is the Saviour of the Heathens, as well as the Jews.  
As to the Ministry of Angels, to reveal Philosophy to the Greeks, Clemens, and those who have been of the same Opinion, came by it partly by reason of what Socrates said concerning his Daemon, who warned him of several things, and of whom 
‖ Ibid. l. 1. p. 311, & 334.  Clemens seems to speak, in such terms as may make one believe that he was persuaded that Socrates spoke the Truth. And this agrees well enough with the Opinion of the same Father, and several others, who believed, after several Heathen Philosophers, that every Man had a Tutelar Angel, who might sometimes advise him.  
After what hath been said, 'tis no wonder that Clemens should ascribe a kind of Prophecy 
* Ibid. l. 5. p. 601.  to Plato, especially if it be considered, that the words of that Philosopher suit Jesus Christ so well, that the Condition which the Saviour of the World was reduced to, when he was nailed to the Cross, can scarce be better described now. He 
† De Rep. l. 2. p. 423. ed. Ficin.  describes a Perfect Virtue; and says that one might bestow that Name upon the Virtue of a Just Man, who yet should be accounted a Wicked, for being a strict Observer of Justice; and who, notwithstanding the ill Opinion which the World should have of him, would walk on in the way of Virtue even to Death, although he should be Whipped, although he should suffer several Torments, and be kept in Chains; although his Eyes should be burnt out with a red-hot Iron; although he should be exposed to all sorts of Misery, and at last be Crucified.  
However, Clemens did not equal the Heathen Philosophy to the Doctrine of Christ. He acknowledges, that before his coming into the World, it was only, as it were, a Degree and Preparation to Christianity; and that the Philosophers could only be looked upon as Children, if compared to the Christians. He thought that Faith was Necessary, since the Gospel had been published through the whole World. 
* Strom. l. 7. p. 704.  The Saviour (says be) having given his Commands to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, hath shut up Unbelief until his Coming; in which time, whosoever doth not believe in Him, is without Excuse.  
All the Books of Clemens are full of these Sentiments; and he defends them every where so clearly, and so fully, that it plainly appears, that in his time those Opinions were not (at least so commonly) looked upon as dangerous; for it is not likely that they would have made him a Catechist, after his Master Pantaenus, or bestowed so many Praises upon him, as they have done since, if he had been looked upon as a Man infected with dangerous Opinions. St. Chrysostom maintained the same thing, concerning the Salvation of Heathens, in his 38th. Hom. upon St. Matthew.  
'Twas necessary to observe, in few words, those Opinions of Clemens; because, without it, several places of his Writings cannot be understood; and because 'twas upon this account that he kept whatever he thought to be Rational in the Doctrine of the Heathens, rejecting only what seemed to him False, or inconsistent with the Doctrines of the Gospel, or what had been blamed by Christ and his Apostles. Thus All the Greek Philosophers, even those who were for a Fate, having believed that Men are Free by their Nature, and can abstain from doing Evil, as they are able to apply themselves to Virtue: And Christ and his Apostles having not undertaken to take them off from this Opinion, Clemens openly maintains, That Men have a liberty of Doing Evil, or Abstaining from it. 
* Strom. l. 1. p. 311.  Neither Praises (says he) nor Censures, nor Rewards nor Punishments are Just, if the Soul hath not the power of Sinning or not Sinning, and if Sin is Vnvoluntary. The Pagans knew nothing of what was called since, Original Sin: And Clemens observing, that the Sacred Writers do not upbraid the Heathens with their Ignorance in this Matter; nor teach them, that even Newborn Children deserve the Fire of Hell; he denies that Children are any ways corrupted. The  Heretics, who condemned Marriage, faid, amongst other Reasons, That Men did only thereby bring Polluted Children into the World, 
† Ibid. l. 3. p. 468, 469.  since David says of himself (Psal. 51.) That he was conceived in Sin, and shapen in Iniquity. And Job maintains (chap. 14. ver. 4, 5.) That none is free from Pollution, even though he should live but one Day. Hereupon Clemens exclaims thus; Let them tell us how a Child new-bown hath sinned; or, how he who hath done nothing yet, is fallen under Adam 's Curse. Afterwards, he explains that Passage of David, as if the Prophet had meant only, that he was descended from Eve, who was a Sinner.  
It must be further observed, That a Man with such a Disposition of Mind, could scarce avoid believing that the Philosophers were of the same Opinion with the Apostles, as soon as he perceived some Likeness between their Terms. Thus Plato having spoken of the Three Chief Deities whom he acknowledged (
* In the Life of Eusebius.  as I shall show elsewhere) in Terms like those that were used by the Primitive Christians, speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Clemens believed that the Doctrine of that Philosopher was the same with that of the Christians. I think (says 
† Strom. l. 5. p. 598.  he) that Plato understood nothing else by it but the Holy Trinity; and that the Third Being mentioned by him, is the Holy Spirit, as the Second is the Son, by whom all things were made according to his Father's Will. Wherefore, when he speaks of Christ's Divinity, he doth not describe it otherwise than the Platonics did the Reason. 
* Strom. l. 5. p. 598.  The Nature of the Son (says he) is the most Perfect, the most Holy; that which hath the greatest share in the Empire and Government, and the most like Him who only is Almighty. 'Tis that Excellent Nature which governs all things according to the Father's Will, which Rules the World well, which Acts by an Unexhausted and Unwearied Power, and which sees the most secret Thoughts. The Son of God never leaves the Post from which he sees all things: He is neither divided nor separated; he doth not go from one place to another; he is every where, and is confined within no Bounds. All Spirit, All Paternal Light, All Eye; he sees all things, understands all things, knows all things, and dives, by his Power, into the Powers themselves. To that Paternal Reason, who hath received that Holy Administration, the whole Army of Angels and GOD'S is subjected, because of Him who put them under him.  
Clemens had another Opinion concerning the Humane Nature of Christ; which perhaps he entertained, lest he should make the Body of Christ inferior to that of the Gods of Homer. The Gods of that Poet, 
† Iliad. 1. vers. 342.  neither eaten Bread, nor drank Wine. And Our Lord, according to 
* Paed. l. 1. p. 202.  Clemens, needed no Milk when he came into the World, and was not nourished with Meat, which he took only out of Condescension, and which did not undergo the same Change in his Body, which it does in ours. Hence it is, that 
† Vid. Diss. P. Allix. de Sanguine Christi.  Origen his Disciple believed that Christ had no Blood, but a Liquor like that which Homer ascribes to his Gods, and calls ΙΧΩΡ.  
Plato says, in several places, that God inflicts no Punishment upon Men, but for their Good, and not at all out of mere Vengeance. Which 
‖ Paed. l. 1. p. 116. & Strom. l. 4. p. 536.  Clemens observes, so as to make one believe that he approves it. Plato said further, That the Souls are purged with Fire in another Life; and that after they have been purged, they are restored to their former state. 
* Strom. l. 5. p. 549, 592.  Clemens believed that the Apostles had the same Thoughts, when they spoke of a Fire which is to consume the World. And 
† Vid. Huet. Orig. l. 2. quaest. 11.  Origen his Disciple concluded from those Principles, That the Devils and Damned Men should be one day delivered from their Sufferings.  
The Apostles describe the Place wherein Wicked Men shall be tormented, under the Notion of a Lake of Fiery Brimstone: They use the same word with the Pagans, to denote the State of the Souls after Death, viz. ΑΔΗΣ: They say, that Men descend into it, and that Christ descended into it. This was enough to make Clemens exclaim thus: 
* P. 592.  What? was Plato ignorant of the Rivers of Fire, and the Depth of the Earth, which the Barbarians call Gehenna, and which he Prophetically (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) named Tartarus? He hath mentioned Cocytus, Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and such like Places where Wicked Men are punished, that they may be mended. Clemens did also believe, with most of the Ancient Fathers, 
† Strom. l. 6. p. 637, & seq.  That Christ did really descend into Hell, and preached there to the Damned Souls, of which he saved those that would believe in Him.  
I could allege many other Instances, whereby it would appear, that Clemens explained the Opinions of the Christians, by the like Doctrines which he found in the Philosophers. But the  Examples will suffice to those who have neither Time nor the Means to read that Author. Those who will consult the Original, will find enough of themselves.  
One may further learn one thing from thence, which most of those who apply themselves to the reading of the Fathers, do not much mind; and without which, 'tis almost impossible to understand them well, in an infinite number of places: viz. That before One gins seriously that Study, the Heathen Philosophers, especially Plato, must be carefully read. Without this, One can't well apprehend what Grounds they go upon, nor successfully examine the strength of their Reasonings, nor guess how they came by so many Opinions that are so different from those which are now entertained in our Schools.  
Now to return to the Life of Clemens: The Ancients do unanimously say that he succeeded Pantaenus in the Office of Catechist. He performed it with success; and many Great Men came out of his School, as Origen, and Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem.  
His Method of Instructing the Catechumeni, consisted in teaching them what was Good in the Heathen Philosophy, and so leading them by degrees to Christianity; which they more readily embraced, when they had relished many of those Maxims derived from the Light of Nature, and scattered in the Writing of the Philosophers, whom they saw every Body had a great Respect for, than if they had been roughly told, that they ought to renounce all their Opinions, and look upon the rest of Mankind, not only as Men that were guilty of Error, but that had said nothing that was True. 
* Strom. l. 1. p. 278.  As Ploughmen do not cast the Seed into the Ground, but when they have watered it; so (says Clemens) we draw out of the Writings of the Grecians, wherewith to water what is earthly in those whom we instruct, that they may afterwards receive the Spiritual Seed, and be able to make it easily spring forth.  
In effect, the Light of the Gospel supposes that of Nature, and doth not destroy it. We don't find that Christ and his Apostles undertook to give us a complete System of all the Doctrines that have some relation with Religion; they supposed that we were already provided with several Thoughts received in all Nations, upon which they reasoned: else they should have, for Example, exactly defined all Virtues, which they have not done, because they found in the Minds of all Men some Ideas, which, though imperfect, yet were most true. So that they were content to add what was wanting in them, or to take from them what ill Customs might have unfitly added to 'em.  
Besides the Office of Catechist, Clemens was promoted to the Priesthood, in the Beginning, as 'tis thought, of the Empire of Severus; because Eusebius, writing the Events of the Year CXCU. gives Clemens the Title of Priest. About that time he began to defend the Christian Religion against Heathens and Heretics, by a Work which he entitled Stromata, of which I shall speak hereafter; because in that Work, according to a Chronological Supputation, 
* Lib. 1. pag. 336.  he doth not go higher than the Death of Commodus: From whence 
† Lib. 6. cap. 6.  Eusebius concluded, that he compiled it under the Empire of Severus, who succeeded that Emperor.  
Severus being exasperated against the Christians. 
‖ Vid. Dodwel. Diss. Cyp. XI. §. 41, & seq.  perhaps because of a Rebellion of the Jews, with whom the Heathens confounded those who professed Christianity, began to persecute them violently. That Persecution having begun at Antioch, went as far as Egypt, and forced many Christians to leave the Places of their Abode, wherein they were too well known, to give way to the Violence of the Persecution.  
This seems to have given Clemens occasion to prove, that it was lawful to run away in time of Persecution. 
* Strom. l. 4. p. 503, & seq.  Having said, that Martyrdom cleanses from all Sins, and exhorted those who are called to it, to suffer it; he observes. That we ought to show, as well by our Manners as our Words, that we are persuaded of the Truth of the Christian Religion. Afterwards he explains that place of the Gospel, When they persecute you in this City, flee ye unto another. The Lord (says he) doth not command us to fly, as if to be Persecuted was an 
* That Reasoning is grounded upon the Principles of the Stoics, who denied that Pain was an Evil.  Evil; and doth not bid us avoid Death by flying, as if we ought to fear it. He will not have us to engage or help any Body to do ill, etc. Those who do not obey, are rash, and expose themselves, to no purpose, to manifest Dangers. If he who kills a Man of God, sins; he who presents himself before a Judge's Tribunal, is also guilty of his own Death, etc. He helps, as much as lies in him, the Wickedness of him who persecutes him. If he exasperates him, he is really the cause of his own Death, just as if he had exasperated a Wild Beast that devoured him.  
A little while after the Apostles, some had been seen to look for Martyrdom: but some having challenged the Executioners, and having scandalously fallen short of Christianity, at the sight of the Torments, that Conduct 
† Vid. Dodwel. Diss. Cyp. XII▪ § 49.  was found dangerous; and those who willingly offered themselves to Martyrdom, were Condemned, as it appears by many Passages of the Ancients, and that of Clemens, which I have just now quoted.  
As we ought not to avoid Martyrdom, when it cannot be done without renouncing Christianity, or a Good Conscience; so we ought to preserve our Lives as long as we can, whilst 'tis likely that we do Christians greater service, by prolonging it if we fly, than by losing it for the sake of Truth, by staying in those Places where the Persecution rages, and which we may come out of, without ceasing to profess the Truth.  
Those who blame, or make some difficulty to justify some Protestant Ministers, who came out of a Kingdom, wherein they could not stay without imminent Danger, if they continued to perform their Functions; should before prove, that such a Conduct would have been more advantageous to Christianity, than their Retreat. Methinks the Solution of that Question, which hath been lately moved, viz. Whether they did well to retire? depends upon this.  
Clemens seems about that time to have left Alexandria, since we read that he made some stay at Jerusalem with Alexander, who a little while after was Bishop of that City, and to whom he dedicated his Book entitled, The Ecclesiastical Rule against those who follow the Opinions of the Jews. Whilst he stayed there, he was very useful to that Church, as it appears by a Letter of Alexander to the Church of Antioch, of which Clemens was the Bearer, 
* Euseb. l. 6. p. 11.  wherein that Bishop says, That he was a Man of great Virtue, as the Church of Antioch knew, and would know it again; and that being at Jerusalem, by an Effect of God's Providence, he had confirmed and increased the Church of God there.  
From Antioch, Clemens returned to Alexandria, where 'tis not known how long he lived. All that can be said, is, that he survived Pantoenus at least some Years; and that he was not Old when he writ his Stromata, since he himself 
* Strom. l. 1. p. 274.  says, That he made them, to serve him as a Collection in his Old Age, when his Memory should fail.  
History is silent concerning his Death; but we may believe that his Memory was Blessed at Alexandria, if we consider those words of the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom I have just now mentioned, who, in a Letter to Origen, says, 
† Euseb. ib. c. 14.  That they both acknowledged for Fathers those Blessed Men who went out of this Life before them, and with whom they should be in a short time, viz. the Blessed Pantoenus, and Pious Clemens, of whom he had received great Help.  
Amongst the many Works which Clemens wrote, there are but Three extant that are considerable. The First is, An Exhortation to the Heathens: Wherein he confutes their Religion, and endeavours to persuade them to embrace Christianity. The Second is entitled Paedagogus: In which he directs the Manners of Young Men, and gives them some Rules to live like Christians; wherein he mixes some Maxims extremely severe, and very remote from our Customs. The Third is, his Stromata, that is to say, Hang; which he entitled so, 
* Ibid. l. 1. p. 276. l. 4. p. 476. & l. 7. p. 766.  because of the Variety of Matters which he handles in it.  
He shows what Conformity there is between several Opinions of the Heathen Philosophers, and those of the Jews and Christians: He Censures what was Bad, as he thinks, in the Heathen Philosophy; Defends and Explains the Christian Religion; Refutes the Heretics; and shows every where a great Erudition. But he observes little or no Order, as he himself says at the End of the Seventh Book. He takes occasion from one thing to pass to another, without framing any Plan of what he is to say, and without having any other Design but to collect the most useful things he had learned by Study and Meditation.  
His Style in this latter Work, is more harsh than in the two foregoing one's, wherein, notwithstanding, there is more Affectation, than Elegancy and Neatness. He pretends that he had some Reason for it: But there are Two great Inconveniences in such a Method. The First is, That for want of Order, not only the strength of the most solid Proofs is not perceived, but also an Author confounds himself, often repeats the same thing, and heaps up an infinite number of Arguments which prove nothing. The Second is, That a Carelessness of Style, often makes what one says unintelligible; for 'tis not only Elegancy, but Clearness, that is wanting in it.  
Now, an Affected Obscurity in Difficult Matters, as those are which Clemens treats of, is so much the more to blame; because 'tis no easy thing to be understood, even in Matters that are clear of themselves, if One does not express himself neatly. As we are to speak, only to be understood; so there is nothing can excuse an Author for not speaking clearly, but an absolute impossibility of expressing himself better. And indeed we are apt to believe, that those who have an Obscure Style, have no clear Head; and that they speak so, because they do not apprehend things more clearly than they speak 'em.  
'Tis true, that the affected Ornaments of a farfetched Eloquence ought to be despised; but Clearness cannot be reckoned among those Ornaments.  
It must needs be confessed, that there are but few Fathers, whose Writings are not liable to the same Observation with those of Clemens. Most of 'em, whilst they excuse themselves for not being Eloquent, do whatever they can to appear so after their way, as may be seen by a thousand high strokes, and strained Metaphorical Expressions, which their Writings are full of; and we see but few, who thought that the greatest care a Writer should take, consists in exciting in the Minds of his Reader clear Ideas of what he says, by using Words without any Equivocation.  
There is extant besides, an Homily of Clemens, entitled, What Rich Man is Saved? It was printed in Greek and Latin, by Combefis, at Paris 1672; and at Oxford, 1683: With several other Greek and Latin Fragments. Those who took care of the Germane Edition (at Colen, 1688.) of Clemens' Works, should have printed it with the rest of his Works; it would have made their Edition more considerable, which otherwise is not much more valuable, as those that use it will find. They have only followed the Paris Edition, 1641, without adding any thing to it, except New Faults.  
There is, at the End of the Volume, An Abridgement of the Doctrine of Theodotus, and of the Doctrine called Eastern in Valentinus' time. The greatest part of it is only an Interpretation of some Places of the Holy Scripture, which some think to have been taken out of the Eighth Book of Clemens Alexandrinus' Hypotyposes, (as I have already observed.) 
* Lib. 6. cap. 14.  Eusebius tells us, that he had interpreted the Holy Scripture after a compendious manner in that Work, without omitting (says he) the Disputed Writings, as St. Judas 's, and the other Catholic Epistles, St. Barnabas 's Epistle; St. Peter 's Apocalypsis; and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he assures to he St. Paul 's, etc.  

† God. CIX.  Photius, who had seen that Work, says also, that the Design of it was, to Explain the Holy Scripture; but he accuses the Author of maintaining, That Matter is Eternal; That the different Forms which it receives, are imparted to it by virtue of I know not what Decrees; That the Son is in the number of Things Created; That there hath been Many Worlds before Adam; That Eve was form out of him, after another manner than what the Scripture relates; That the Angels having been conversant with some Women, had Children by them; That the Reason was not made Flesh, tho' it seemed so to Men; That there are Two Reasons of the Father, the least whereof appeared to Men, and was made Flesh.  
If we had those Books still, we might perhaps more clearly know that they are only some Platonic Doctrines, some of which Photius did not well understand, because of the Equivocation of the Terms; and the other were not in Clemens' time looked upon as Impieties, as they have been since Systems of Divinity were compiled among Christians.  
In the first Ages, when no Systems were entertained in the Schools, and explained to the Youth, as they are now, every one Philosophized, as well as he could, upon Matters of Speculation; and explained Speculative Doctrines according to the Philosophy he had learned: Except some Opinions, which either because they had made a great Noise, or for some other Reasons were condemned by the Bishops, they were very free in their Thoughts. If any one doubted of it, he might convince himself of the Truth thereof, by the strange Opinions which have been entertained by some of the Fathers, who were ranked among the Orthodox, and for which they were not censured in their time. One may see many Examples of it in the Fourth Chapter of Dallaeus' Book de Vsu Patrum; which, notwithstanding the Panegyrists of Antiquity, will always be accounted a Good Book by those that know Antiquity. Such was, for Example, St. Hilary's Opinion, who believed that Christ felt no Pain when he was scourged.  
But Photius suspects that the Heretics corrupted the Works of Clemens; and Ruffinus had the same Thoughts, as it appears by his Apology for Origen, which is in the iv Tome of St. Jerom's Works. Yet if there was no more in them, than what Photius citys, there would be no reason to believe that they were much corrupted, though it cannot be absolutely denied. The reason of it is, that whatever that learned Patriarch may say, those very Opinions, if well understood, are to be found in the other Works of Clemens, and are agreeable to the Principles which he follows every where.  
1. He approves 
* Strom. l. 5. p. 599.  clearly enough the Opinion of Heraclitus, who believed that the Matter of the World is Eternal; and he shows that he esteems him, for having distinguished the Matter of the World from its Form; the first whereof is immutable, and the second subject to change.  
2. As to the Reasons why Matter receives certain Forms, Photius knew no more of it than Clemens.  
3. If Clemens had said that the Supreme Reason was Created (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) one aught to observe, that 
† See the Life of Eusebius.  to Create, Produce, Beget, signify the fame thing in Plato; and that it doth not follow from thence, that he believed the Reason was Begotten or Produced out of Nothing.  
4. It was Plato's Opinion, That the Form of the World doth altogether change in a certain number of Years; and that many such Changes happened before the Revolution in which we are, began. One may read his Politicus concerning this, wherein he maintains, that the Revolution of all the Stars, must cause an Universal Change in the World. Thus, in his Opinion, what was said, That Men had their Original from the Earth; happened in the Beginning of a Revolution. 
* Pag. 175.  'Tis what (as he goes on) our Predecessors said, who lived at the End of the foregoing Change, and were near the following, as well as those who were born in the Beginning of this. The Stoics believed also the same thing, as 
† Strom. l. 5. p. 549.  Clemens reports, who doth not seem to dislike their Opinion, and fails not to confirm it by the Authority of Plato.  
5. The same Philosopher thought that the First Men were Androgynes, and had Four Feet, Two Heads, and so with the other Members, but that God divided them afterwards into Two, (as may be seen in his Feast.) Some Rabbins have said something like it, and grounded their Opinion upon this, That 'tis said, That God 
‖ Vid. Breschith Rabath, in sect. VIII.  Created Man Male and Female. This seems to be only an ingenious Fancy, not an Opinion which those Authors did seriously entertain. It may be, that Clemens took some delight in making some Reflections upon Plato's Opinion, with so much the greater freedom, because, perhaps, he believed, as his Disciple Origen, that there was abundance of Allegories in the Beginning of Genesis.  
6. As for the Angels that were in Love with Women, Clemens 
* Pad. l. 3. p. 222. Strom. l. 3. p. 450. l. 5. p. 550.  says, in more than one place, that he thought the same thing; and most of the Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers have explained so the Beginning of the Sixth Chapter of Genesis. Photius cannot blame that Opinion, without censuring, at the same time, all Antiquity; but 'tis his Custom to treat ill the most Ancient Authors, when he finds in them some Opinions that were not received in his time, or some Expressions which he doth not think energick enough to express such Thoughts as, in his judgement the Ancients should have had; because 'twould have been an Heresy, not to think so, in his time.  
7. The Incarnation being a Mystery which we do not comprehend, and Clemens' Style not being, for the most part, very clear, he might have expressed himself so as not to be well understood by Photius; which is so much the more easy to believe, because that Patriarch commonly explains the Thoughts of the Ancients agreeably to the Opinions and Ways of Speaking of his time.  
The Writings of the Ancients are full of Equivocal Terms, which they use in such a sense, as they had no more in the following Ages. Terms which signifying Spiritual and Obscure Things, and very compounded Ideas, must necessarily be difficult to understand; because they took no care to Define them, and make an exact Enumeration of the Ideas which they fixed to them. Perhaps it did not so much as come into their Mind, that this was very necessary to be well understood. At least One may observe, that when they endeavour to explain themselves about those Obscure Matters, they use Terms as Obscure as the foregoing.  
8. One may observe an Example of it, concerning the Two Reasons mentioned by Photius. Those who will carefully read the Second Tome of Origen upon St. John, may observe, that he establishes a First or Supreme Reason, which is Christ's Divinity; and many Inferior Reasons, which are made according to the Image of the Precedent. It might be said, in that sense, that None but the Second Reasons became Flesh, because none but they animate Humane Bodies; for although the First was united to the Humane Nature of Christ, it did not supply the Place of a Soul.  
So that although Clemens had said what Photius pretends, yet he could not be charged with Heresy upon that account: But he did not say so, as appears by the Passage which Photius himself quotes out of him: The Son is called Reason, as well as the Paternal Reason; but 'tis not that which was made Flesh: Nor is it the Paternal Reason neither, but a Divine Power (which is, as it were, an Emanation of that same Reason) which became Spirit (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and is come into the Hearts of Men. By those Terms, The Son, we must not understand the Only Begotten Son of God, but the Man; as it clearly appears by what follows. Clemens, perhaps, called him only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; because he might have before clearly enough denoted whom he meant by that word. Photius, who did not well apprehend the Meaning of that Passage, might easily mistake the Series of that Discourse: As the Jesuit Schottus, otherwise a Learned Man, was altogether mistaken in the Latin Translation of those Words, as one may presently observe, by comparing it with mine.  
Lastly, We have a Latin Work 
* In Bibliot. Pat.  ascribed to Clemens, and entitled, Commentariola in Primam Canonicam S. Petri, in Epistolam Judae, & Tres Epistolas S. Joannis Apostoli. There is indeed several things in those Notes, which do not differ from Clemens' Doctrine; but we can't know whether they are an entire Translation of part of the Hypotypoles, or only some Extracts corrected according to the Interpreter's mind.  
'Tis well known, that when the Latins translated some Greek Writings, they were very apt to make such Alterations in them as they thought fit, (as Ruffinus hath been upbraided with it.) Nay, there is no need to look so far for Examples of that ill Custom, since we have one with relation to part of Clemens' Hypotyposes, of which Cassiodorus speaks thus: 
* Lib. 1. de Just. Diu. Script.  Clemens Alexandrinus explained, in the Athenian Language, the Canonical Epistles, that is, the First Epistle of St. Peter, the First and Second of St. John, and that of St. James, wherein there is many subtle things; but also some unwarily spoken, which we have caused to be so translated into Latin, as to take away what might give scandal; that his Doctrine thus purified, might be more safely read. Vbi multa quidem subtiliter sed aliqua incautè locutus est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis, purificata doctrina ejus securior posset hauriri.  
Clemens also composed Five Tracts, which are lost: 1. The Rule or Canon of the Church, against those that followed the Opinions of the Jews. 2. Concerning Easter. 3. Concerning III Speaking. 4. Some Disputes about Fasting. 5. An Exhortation to Patience, directed to the Neophytes.  
Having thus made some Particular Remarks upon every one of his Works, and some General Ones on that Occasion; what remains, is only to take notice of Three Things.  
1. He often citys Suppositious Writings, as if they had been acknowledged by every Body, as one may observe by that Place of St. Peter's Preaching, which I have alleged; and another of St. Paul, which seems to have been taken out of the Book of his Travels; upon which Eusebius and St. Jerome may be consulted.  
Which may make one believe, that the great Reading of that Learned Man, gave him no refined Palate. One need not be a great Master of this sort of Learning, to perceive, that what he citys out of them, doth not suit the Style of the Apostles, and is not agreeable to their Principles. It cannot be doubted, but that they believed, that the God whom the Jews worshipped, was the True God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who says so himself.  
Nor can the Jews be charged with having served the Angels, the Month, and the Moon, with any probability; and the Reason which the Author of St. Peter's Preaching gives for it, is so ridiculous, that none but such as will be deceived, can be deceived by it. 'Tis true, that some 
* Huet. in Orig. T. 2. p. 212.  Learned Men have otherwise explained that Accusation which that Author lays upon them; but one may easily see, by what follows, that he understood it in a more simple manner than they do.  
However, that Book being manifestly Supposititious, 
† Ibid. T. 14. in Joan.  Origen dealt much more prudently than his Master; since being to refute Heracleon a Valentinian, who drew some Consequences against the Old Testament, from those pretended words of St. Peter, he gins with saying, That one should inquire whether that Book is truly St. Peter ' s? whether it is not Supposititious? whether it be not Interpolated? and than he shows, that the Jews worshipped the Creator of the World.  
But 'tis the Custom of many Ancients, to make use of all sorts of Arguments and Books, to bring over Men to their Opinions. If any should use the same Method now, they would presently be accused of Simplicity, or want of Honesty: But every Age hath its Customs. However, 'tis certain, that the Rules of Good Sense have always been the same; and 'tis not less certain, that Great Learning makes not a Man more Exact and Judicious, according to that famous Maxim of Heraclitus, which Clemens citys some where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. Clemens is wont to explain the Scripture Allegorically, without making his Allegories look likely, as 'twas the ordinary Custom of the Ancients. One may see what Huetius says concerning the Origin of Allegories, in his Origeniana, lib. 2. chap. 2. qu. 14. But if one carefully reads what Clemens says of it in the Fifth Book of his Stromata, where he doth somewhat enlarge upon this Matter, one may easily perceive, that that which chief induced him to believe that the Holy Scripture is full of them, is, because the Egyptians and the Greeks were wont to hid the Secrets of their Philosophy under some Emblems and Fables. 'Tis true, that the Jews had the same Thoughts, even before the Coming of Christ. 'Tis true also, that in the remotest Times, that Nation expressed herself not only by clear Words, but also by symbolical Actions, as it appears by several places of the Old Testament. However, there is not one Example, by which it appears, that they designed to hid the Doctrines of the Jewish Religion; which, on the contrary, they express very clearly, and after a simple manner.  
There are but some few places of the History of the Beginning of the World, which may be turned into Allegories with some likelihood; and only with respect to some Circumstances, which do not at all concern the Essential part of the History, nor belong to the Worship of God, Good Manners, or the Doctrines, without which they could not serve God, nor be Good Men, according to the Law. In all the rest of the History of the Hebrews, there is nothing that looks like an Allegory, every thing in it is simple and easy to be understood; which makes one believe, that those that wrote it, were no Allegorists; and that if there is any thing in the most ancient Events of the History of Mankind, that may be understood that way, the Hebrews took that turn, only because Tradition, or the Memoirs upon which they wrote, were so worded.  
It doth not appear, that they designed to Philosophise, or teach any Doctrines of Natural Philosophy, either clearly or obscurely; and those Places wherein Philo endeavours to find some Philosophical Doctrines, are so violently wrested, that any Body may see the Sacred Writers never thought of what he makes them say.  
Indeed, if we reflect upon the Origin of Allegories among the Heathens, we shall find that they came out somewhat late: And when the Philosophers undertook to give an Account of the Fables, or ancient Histories of the Gods, that is, to save the Honour of their most ancient Historians, who were accused of having absurd Notions of so excellent Natures, as those of the Gods were; so they were obliged to make those, whom those scandalous Histories offended, believe, that the Poets meant quite another thing than what they said, and from thence comes the word Allegory. For a 
* Heracl. Pont. Alleg. Hom. pag. 412. Ed. Amstelod. Westenianae.  Discourse, which taken in its proper sense (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies quite another thing than what is meant by it, is properly an Allegory. Thus some Histories were turned into Allegories among the Grecians, lest they should believe that the Gods of Greece had been only Vicious Men.  
The Jews, who had never applied themselves to the Study of Critics and Philosophy, were no sooner among the Greeks, but they admired that Method of Explaining Religion; and made use of it to explain the Sacred Writings after a manner more agreeable to the Taste of the Heathens; as may be seen by the Example of Philo, who explains all the Old Testament after the Platonic way. Nay, they went so far, as to explain Allegorically not only such Places as might have some difficulty, but also the clearest and plainest, without so much as excepting those which concern Manners, and which being literally understood, contain a most excellent sense for the Conduct of one's Life; nor the plainest Histories, and from which one may draw most useful Instructions, without looking for any other sense, but that which offers itself to the Mind. Philo is full of such like Examples.  
The Christians imitated the Jews afterwards, and were not contented to explain the Old Testament Allegorically: They did the same with respect to the New, though neither Christ nor his Apostles have proposed any Doctrine after an Emblematic manner, but what they explained clearly enough, to save the trouble of seeking its meaning, by having recourse to Allegories, in which there is no certainty. For it must be confessed, that according to that Method, if the Sacred Writers had said quite another thing than what they said, or, if you will, the quite contrary; yet one might find as good a sense in them, as those, that will try it, will presently observe. Hence it is, that the Pagan's themselves, who had been the Contrivers of that strange way of interpreting ancient Books, could not abide that the Christians should make use of it; as the Christians in their turn laughed, at the strained Interpretations of the Heathens. Nay, some Pagans, more quicksighted than others, thought they were ridiculous. Wherefore, the Christians and the Jews would have done much better to keep close to the Letter, than to use so uncertain a Method to defend the Holy Scripture against the Pagans.  
3. Although several Opinions of Clemens Alexandrinus may justly be accounted Erroneous; yet if we consider every particular Opinion which he held, and is no more admitted amongst us, we shall observe, That some of them are looked upon as Erroneous, only because the contrary Opinions have been introduced, I know not how, into most Schools, though Men have had no New Light concerning them. As soon as a Famous Man hath maintained a Doctrine, without being contradicted by Men of an Equal Reputation or Authority, or even without any Opposition; such a Doctrine takes root so well, that Men use themselves, by degrees, to look upon the contrary Opinion as an Error, without knowing why.  
Opinions are often introduced as Customs, which own their Beginning to the Example of some few Persons, whom others imitate. They so affect men's Mind, that any other besides those which he follows, seem to him ridiculous. A Garment which is not commonly seen, seems Extravagant, though it was Fashionable in former Times: The same may be said of an Opinion which is grown old, it is disliked, because no Body follows it at present. For Example, 
* Paed. l. 1. p. 101.  Clemens believed, that Angels had Bodies: And it was also the Opinion of 
† Vid. Origeniana Huetii, l. 2. c. 2, 5.  Origen, and most of the Fathers. Yet that Opinion is branded as an Error, without any Reason: For although the Scripture teaches us, that Spirits have neither Flesh nor Bones, and that Angels are Intelligences; yet it says no where, that they are not clothed with Bodies. There hath been no Revelation since upon that Matter, nor have we found out any convincing Reason that can persuade us the contrary. Notwithstanding, 'tis commonly said that 'tis an Error, because the Schoolmen have said so. I confess, that the Fathers, who have ascribed Bodies to the Angels, have alleged no evident Reason to prove it: But all that could be concluded from thence, is, that They affirmed a thing which They knew not no more than We.  
Thus we should have suspended our Judgement, and affirmed nothing concerning a Subject which was equally unknown to us. Such a Suspension suited not with the Dogmatics, who can hardly confess that they know not all things; and believe 'tis the part of a Witty Man, to Determine himself speedily upon all sorts of Questions. Indeed, without this, 'tis not possible to frame a System as complete as it ought to be, to be accounted a Learned Man: And it would be a shameful thing to confess, that a Thousand Questions might be asked upon every Article; which could not be answered, if one should say nothing but what one knows. The same Principle may be applied to several other Doctrines of Clemens; concerning which, 'twere better ingeniously to confess one's Ignorance, than to condemn some Opinions about which we are in the dark.  
Hence it is, that notwithstanding those Opinions, some Ancients have bestowed many Encomium's upon him. 
* Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 13.  Eusebius says, That his Books are full of Useful Learning. 
† Cat. Scrip. Eccles. & in Ep. ad Magnum Orat. T. 2.  St. Jerom says, That he hath writ very fine Works, full of Learning and Eloquence, which he took out of the Holy Scripture, and Profane Authors. And elsewhere, Clemens (says he) Priest of the Church of Alexandria, the most Learned of our Authors, in my judgement, wrote Eight Books of Stromata; as many of Hypotyposes; a Book against the Pagans; and Three Volumes, entitled the Paedagouge. Is there any thing in his Books, but what is full of Learning, and taken from the bottom of Philosophy? Cyril of Alexandria affirms, in his VIth. and VIIth. Books against Julian, That he was a Man of wonderful Learning, who dived to the bottom of Greek Learning, with such an Exactness as few before him could attain to. 
* Haeret. Fab. l. 1. c. 6.  Theodoret says, That that Holy Man surpassed all others by the extent of his Learning.  
What hath been said, is sufficient to have a Notion of the Doctrine of Clemens; I shall only add a word concerning the Cologne Edition, 1688. Two sorts of Faults may be observed in it, whereof some are Common to it, with many other Editions of the Books of the Ancients; and the other are Particular to it.  
As to the First, one may observe, That the Editions wherein there is no Distinctions and Paragraphs, want a thing which seems not to be of great moment in itself, but yet doth very much conduce to the understanding of an Author. The Beginning of a new Section, is as it were an Advertisement to the Reader, who only by casting his Eye upon a Page, sees how many Arguments, and what Matter it contains. Else the want of distinct Paragraphs doth somewhat confound the Mind, and forces the Reader to be more attentive to understand what he reads, and to look for a Connexion where there is none, or confound two Arguments. Now, one should always endeavour to lessen, as much as can be, the Trouble of the Reader, who takes Pains enough to understand the Things themselves.  
Paragraphs produce, in some respects, the same effect as the Distinction of Chapters; which cannot be neglected, without breeding Confusion. 'Tis true, the Ancients often neglected to divide their Books or Discourses into certain Parts: But if it be well considered, the want of Order in many of their Writings, was the true cause of that Neglect. 'Twas easier to pass from one subject to another, by reason of some small Connexion that was between 'em, or confusedly to write down a crowd of Thoughts, than to reduce 'em into a certain Order: as it would be more easy to heap up the Materials of a House, than to give every one of them its due place. Those who desire some Examples of Books without Order, need only cast their Eyes upon Seneca or Tertullian, who both said, with a great deal of Enthusiasm, whatever came into their Mind, scarce ever having a Notion of any Order, which they designed to follow. If those Authors were printed so as to divide their Reasonings by Paragraphs, they might be much better understood.  
The other Fault, which those that take care of the Editions of Ancient Authors, often commit, is, that they do not distinguish in a different Character the Quotations from the Words of the Author: From whence it comes to pass, that those who do not read them attentively, ascribe to one Author what belongs to another. This Dr. Cave hath done, in his English Life of Clemens Alexandrinus, which hath been very useful to me in the writing of this. Clemens, in the abovementioned place, concerning the Philosophy which he approves, citys Socrates, who, in Phaedo, applies to the Philosophers this Proverb, which was used in the Mysteries, There are many who carry the Thyrsus, but few that are truly filled with the Spirit of Bacchus. 
* P. 380. Ed. Ficin.  Socrates adds immediately after, These, as I believe, are only those who applied themselves to Philosophy as they ought to do, OF the Number whereof I have endeavoured to be, as much as I could, etc. The whole Passage being in Roman Characters, Dr. Cave thought that those words, Of the Number whereof, etc. were Clemens'; whereas they are Socrates' as may be seen in Plato, and even by reading the rest of the Page wherein Clemens citys 'em. If the whole Passage had been printed in Italic Letters, Dr. Cave would not have mistaken it: Which ought not to seem strange to those who know, that to write the Life of an Author, collected out of several places, so many things must be heeded all at once, that 'tis a hard matter not to confound one's self.  
Besides, by distinguishing the Matters by Paragraphs, and Quotations by different Characters, those who have read an Author, may more easily find out again such places as they want; which is no small Advantage.  
As to the Edition of Cologne, there are Three Index's; the first, of the Places cited by Clemens; the second, of the Contents; and a third, of Greek Words and Phrases, either worthy of Observation, or such as that Author hath used in a particular Sense. If those Index's were Complete and Correct, they would be undoubtedly very useful; but they are neither: There is a great many Faults in the Numbers, and the Sense of Clemens is often misrepresented in them. That Passage of Job, There is none but is polluted, is referred to the 25th. Chapter of his Book, whereas 'tis in the 14th. There is in the Index, Peccato originali infectae omnium animae & corpora, 468. d. On the contrary, Clemens confutes that Opinion in that place; but Sylburgus, or another who made that Index, in all probability, thought of what Clemens should have said, in his judgement, rather than what he did really say.  
There is besides a Fourth Index before the Book, which contains a Catalogue of the Authors cited by Clemens; but the Pages in which they are cited being not marked, 'tis altogether useless.  
'Twere to be wished, for the Commonwealth of Learning, not only that Kings were Philosophers, or Philosopher's Kings; but also, that Printers were Learned Men, or Learned Men Printers; and that we might see again the Age of the Manutius' and Stephen's, to give us good Editions of the Writings of the Ancients, and make that Study more Easy, which is Difficult enough of itself, without increasing the Difficulties by our own Negligence.   

The Life OF EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Caesarea.  
THE same Reason that induced me to give the Public the Life of Clemens Alexandrinus, obliges me to give an Account of that of Eusebius of Caesarea. It will be so much the more Curious to those who cannot consult the Originals, because there happened more Remarkable Things in Eusebius his time, than in Clemens', and because the former was in a Higher Station than the latter.  
Eusebius was born in Palestine, and perhaps at Caesarea; at least 
* Ap. Socrat. l. 5. c. 8.  he seems to intimate, in the beginning of his Letter to the Christians of that City, That he was Instructed in the Christian Faith, and Baptised there. He was Born towards the End of the Third Century, though we cannot find exactly the Year of his Birth. He began early to apply himself to Learning, especially to Divinity, as it sufficiently appears in his Writings, wherein may be seen, that he had carefully read all sorts of Profane Authors; and that all the Writings of the Christians who wrote in Greek, and those of the Latin, that were translated into that Tongue, were known to him. He had the advantage of the curious Library which the Martyr Pamphilius, his particular Friend, had collected at Caesarea. It's affirmed, 
* Hieron. Epist. ad Chron. & Heliod. Antipater Bostrencis in Concil. Nicaen. II. Act. 5.  That being become Bishop of this City, he entreated Constantine (who passed through it, and who had bid him ask some Favour in behalf of his Church, that he would permit him to make a search into all the Public Registers, to extract the Names of all the Martyrs, and the Time of their Death. However, he has committed Faults enough in Chronology, as Joseph Scaliger, and a great many other Learned Men have observed; and especially in relation to Martyrs, as Mr. Dodwel has lately shown in his Dissertation de Paucitate Martyrum. But it was no easy Matter to escape these kind of Faults in such a Work as his Ecclesiastical History, which was the first of that sort that was ever undertaken; the Primitive Christians taking no care of the History of their Times.  
Eusebius is commonly called the Son of Pamphilius: Whether he was really his Son, as some affirm; or his Nephew, according to the Opinion of others; or in fine, as most believe, by reason of the great Friendship between them. This Pamphilius was of Beryte in Phoenicia, and Priest of Caesarea; he held Origen's Opinions, for whom he wrote an Apology, of which there remains to us but a part of it in Latin, among the Works of Origen and St. Jerome. He made it in Prison, where he was put in the Year 307, under the Emperor Decius, and where Eusebius did not forsake him. He could write only the five first Books, having been hindered from finishing 
* Phot. Cod. CXVIII.  this Work, by the Death which he sustered for the Gospel, two years after he had been thrown into Prison. But Eusebius finished it, in adding thereto a sixth Book, and published it after his Death. Pamphilius had for Master 
† Id. Cod. CXIX.  Pierius Priest of Alexandria, who likewise suffered Martyrdom, and was also of Origen's Opinion, whose Assiduity and Eloquence he imitated; which got him the Name of Second Origen. It's not amiss here to relate the Judgement which Photius makes of his Works:  
He advances several things (says he) remote from those which are at present established in the Church, perhaps according to the Custom of the Ancients: Yet he speaks after a pious manner of the Father and the Son, excepting that he assures us, that they have Two Essences (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) and Two Natures (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) using the words Essence and Nature, as it appears by what precedes, and follows in this Passage, for that of Hypostasis, and not in the sense of the Arians. But he speaks of the Holy Spirit in a dangerous and impious manner; for he attributes to him a Glory inferior to that of the Father and the Son.— Yet he was Catechist of Alexandria, under the Patriarch Theonas, who was Consecrated in the Year 282.  
Pamphilius being dead, as has been said, Eusebius retired to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, his Friend; where he was Witness, as he tells us 
* L. 8. c. 6.  himself, of several Martyrdoms, the History of which he has left us, in his Book of the Martyrs of Palestine. From thence he went into Egypt, where he found the Persecution yet more violent, and where he was thrown into Prison. But this Persecution having ceased, he was set at liberty, and a while after elected Bishop of Caesarea, after the Death of Agapius. It's not certainly known in what Year this Election was made, but at least, he was already Bishop, when Paulinus dedicated a stately Church in the City of Tyre, which he had built there, which was in the Year 316, in the 10th. of Year Constantine's Reign; for it was the Custom of the Christians, 
* Ant. Pagi Diss. Hypat. par. 2. c. 3. n. 12, 13.  as well as of the Pagans, to Consecrate their Churches in the time of the Decennales of the Emperors, or of any other Solemnity. Eusebius recites a fine Oration, spoken at this Dedication; 
† L. 10. c. 4.  and though he does not say, that it was he himself that spoke it, yet the Style of this Oration, and the modest Manner after which he mentions him that made it, giveth one reason to believe, that he has suppressed his Name only through Modesty. One might imagine, that he was then but Priest, were it not manifest, that it was very rare, in that Age, for Priests to speak in public, where there were Bishops present.  
It was about this time, that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria had a bickering with one of his Priests named Arius, touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which gave birth to Arianism. Eusebius having had a great share in the Disputes of Arianism, we cannot recount his Life, without writing the History of it: And to know wherein consisted these Disputes, we must necessarily ascend higher, and inquire what Principles of Philosophy were in use in that time among the Christians, and how they came to be introduced. This is so necessary a Digression, as will appear in the Sequel, that it's to be supposed the Reader must approve of it.  
There was never any Philosopher that made himself so Famous as Plato, and no Books read with more Pleasure than his, whether from the Subjects, and lofty Thoughts found therein, or by reason of the Elegancy and Nobleness of their Style, which never any Philosopher could equalise. He was born under the Reign of Artaxerxes, surnamed Long-hand, Four hundred twenty six Years before Christ, and died aged Fourscore Years, in the time when Philip of Macedon made himself to be feared of all Greece. Alexander his Son having made himself Master of Asia, which his Successors divided among them; one may reasonably believe, that the Sciences of the Greeks there, established themselves with their Empire, and their Customs.  
Ptolemy the Son of Lagus, one of Alexander's Successors, undertook to collect into his Library of Alexandria all the Books he could find, and drew thither several Learned Men of Greece. 
* Vid. Hody de LXX. Int. c. 9  He was Learned himself, and omitted nothing, for the inspiring into his Sons the love of Learning.  
His Son Philadelphus marched, in this respect, in his Father's steps, as all those who have any knowledge in the History of this Prince, do well know. The Syrian Monarches seem likewise to have cultivated the Sciences; seeing that Suidas relates, that Euphorion of Chalcis in Eubea, Poet and Philosopher, was Library-keeper of Antiochus the Great, Two hundred Years before our Saviour's time. Plato was too famous then, and his Works in too great esteem, not to have had place in these Libraries. One may also believe, that Asia, which was then full of Greek Philosophers, wanted not Platonists.  
Among the Opinions of Plato, there are not any more remarkable, than those which he had touching the Divinity, the Praeexistence and Immortality of the Soul. He held that there is only One Supreme, Spiritual and Invisible God, whom he calls The Being, or, The Being itself, The Very Being, The Father and Cause of all Being's, etc. He placed under this Supreme God an Inferior Being, which he calls Reason (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) The Director of Things Present and Future, the Creator of the Universe, etc. In fine, he acknowledged a Third Being, which he calls the Spirit or Soul of the World. He added, That the First was the Father of the Second, and the Second had produced the Third. We may consult hereupon his Timoeus, to which we should adjoin his TWO, and VI Letter. In the second, which is directed to Dionysius, who complained, that Plato had not sufficiently instructed him touching the First Nature, or First Being, this Philosop thus expresses himself: Every thing is about the King of all things, and every thing is because of Him: He is the cause of all good things: The things of the Second Order, are about the Second: the things of the Third are about the Third. He calls this a Riddle; forbids Dionysius to speak of it before the Ignorant; enjoins him to burn his Letter as soon as he has read it, and protests he will never write again of this Matter. In his Sixth Letter, he enjoins Hermias, Erastus and Corisca to swear, in taking to witness, The God who is the Director of things present and future; and the Lord, who is the Father of this Director, and of this Cause. The Obscurity which he affects in this occasion, lest he should draw on him the Rage of the Superstitious Populace, hinders us from understanding what he would say; unless we collate together all the Passages wherein he speaks of the Divinity, and consult his Interpreters and Disciples. Here's how one of 'em 
* Hierocles de Provide. apud Photium. Cod. CCLI.  explains his Master's meaning: Plato believed, That God the Creator sustains the Visible and Invisible World, which was made out of Nothing; That his Will suffices to make Being's exist; That by the Conjunction of a Corporal Nature, and another Incorporeal, he has made a most Perfect World, which is Double and Single at the same time, in which one may distinguish the High, the Middle, and the Low; That he calls High, the Heavenly Being's, and the Gods; the Middle, the Aetherial Intelligences, and Good Daemons, which are the Interpreters and Messengers in what relates to the Good of Men; The Low, the Terrestrial Intelligences, and the Souls of Men, or Men Immortal; That the Superior Being's govern the Inferior; but, that God, who is the Creator and Father of 'em, Reigns over All; and, That this Paternal Empire is nothing else but his Providence, by which he gives to every sort of Being what belongs to it.— We may hereby understand what Plato calls the things of the Second and Third Order. We shall not busy ourselves in seeking from whom Plato might have learned this Doctrine, whether from the Chaldeans, or from the Old Testament, as some of the Fathers have believed.  
Although Plato's Disciples are agreed with their Master, in respect of these Three Principles; yet there is to be found in their Writings divers Inquiries touching their Nature, and divers Ways of Speaking, which are not to be seen in those of this Philosopher, who never dared to write all he thought on this Subject. Plotinus particularly, who lived in the Beginning of the Third Century, has treated of thein in several places of his 
* Praesertim En. V l. 1. a. c. 3. ad 8.  Enneades, but especially in the Book which is entitled, Of the Three Hypostases, which are the Three Principles of all things. Here's whereunto his Doctrine may be reduced.  
1st. There are Three Principles: the Being, the Spirit, or the Reason of the Being; and the Soul of the World, which is the Reason of the Spirit. There is also, according to him, a Reason of the Soul of the World; but it is Reason obscure (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)  
2dly. The Being has begotten the Reason; not by an Act of his Will, or by a Decree, but by his Nature; as Fire begets Heat, or as the Sun produces Light. The Reason has also begotten the Soul of the World, and perhaps termed Father in this respect.  
3dly. These Three Hypostases differ in Number, although there be a most strict Union between them; which makes, that one may say at the same time, that they are different, and that they are the same thing. The First is more Excellent than the Second, and the Second more Excellent than the Third.  
4thly. The Terms which Plotinus uses, are worth observing.  
1. He calls not only Essence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) after Plato, the Nature of the Being, of the Reason, and of the Soul of the World; but he likewise uses the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Matter; and says, that the Matter of the one is more perfect than that of the other. Having pretended that Parmenides had said before Plato, that there are Three Principles; he expresses himself in these terms; Parmenides holds likewise the Opinion of the Three Natures.  
2. It's observable, that the word Hypostasis (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies two things, with this Philosopher; first, the Existence of a thing, considered abstractedly; and in the second place, the thing itself which exists, as it's taken in the Title of this Book, of the Three Hypostases, which are the Principles of all things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Title of the Third Book of the same Enneade, of Intelligent Being's.  
3. As he says, That the Reason is the Father of the Soul; he says likewise, That the Reason begets and makes the Soul. For we must observe, that in this matter, Plato and his Disciples use indifferently the words, to Beget, to Make, to Produce, etc. and that Begotten and Made, is the same thing here, in their mouths. We need only read Plato's Timoeus.  
4. Plotinus says, That the Father and the Reason are one and the same thing (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) because they coexist and forsake not one another. He says, that the Supreme Being, and whose Essence consists in Existing, in a manner wholly particular, has begotten by his Nature the Spirit; and that he cannot be without him, no more than a Luminous Body can be without Light.  
The Spirit on his part, whose Essence consists in having perpetually a lively conception of the Being, cannot exist (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) without this. They cannot be separated (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) one from the other, because there is nothing between them, as there is nothing between the Spirit and the Soul.  
5. He says, That that which is begotten, resembles (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) its Cause, just as the Light resembles the Sun.  
6. He says, That the Spirit is the Image (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Being, as the Soul is the Image of the Spirit.  
St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Eighth Book against Julian, citys a Passage of Porphyry, out of his Third Book of the Philosophical History, whence it appears, that the Platonists disputed among themselves, whether there could be more than Three Hypostases in the Divinity: Plato (saith Porphyry) has taught, That the Divine Essence may extend itself even to Three Hypostases; to wit, the Supreme Divinity, or the Good itself; after it, the Creator, who is the Second; and the Soul of the World, which is the Third, etc. But there are Men who pretend, that we must not reckon the very Good, or Good itself, among the things which he has produced; and that being of a perfect Simplicity, and incapable of Accidents, he has Communion with nothing: so that it is by the Spirit that we must begin to reckon the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
However, Porphyry's Master, whom we have already cited, seems 
* Ennead. V lib. 8. cap. 12.  to say, that there may be more than Three Hypostases, in these remarkable words:  
God has begotten an excellent Being, and has brought forth all things in Him. This Production has cost him no Pain; for pleasing himself in what he begat, and finding his Productions good, he has retained them all in Himself, tempering his Brightness and theirs. Those which have there remained being more excellent, there's only his only Son (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Jupiter who has appeared without, by whom, as by the Supreme Son of the Divinity, and as in an Image, one may see what the Father is, and the Brethren which have remained in the Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The Platonists likewise used, in speaking of the Union which they conceived to be between the different Orders of their Divinities, the terms of (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of different Essence; and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Coessential. By the first, they denote the different sorts of Being's; and by the second, what is of the same kind. Here's a Proof taken out of Jamblichus, in his Book of the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Sect. 1. ch. 19 He speaks of the Manner after which the Superior Gods are united to the Inferior, according to the Platonic Philosophy: The Divinities (says he) of the Second Order turning themselves towards the First Intellectual Being's, and the First giving to the Second the same Essence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the same Power; this entertains their Union. What we call Union in the things which are of different Kind's (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as the Soul and the Body, or which are divers Species (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as Material things, or which are otherwise divided; this Union, I say, happens to 'em from Superior things, and destroys itself at a certain time. But the more we elevate ourselves to Superior things, and to the Identity (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the First Being's, and in regard of the Species, and in regard of the Essence; when we ascend from the Parts to the Whole, the more we acknowledge the Union (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which is Eternal, and the more we see what is the Union properly so called, and the Model whereon all the rest have been formed, and that it hath about it, and in itself, the Diversity (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Multiplicity.  
Porphyry had asked, Whether a kind of Being is formed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) mixed with our Soul and Divine Inspiration, which made the Prophet's able to foresee the Future. 
* §. 3. c. 21.  Jamblichus answered, No: and gives this Reason for it; which is, That when One thing is formed of Two, the Whole is of one and the same Species, of the same Nature, and Coessential (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) and that this does not happen in the case proposed by Porphyry.  
One may see hereby the Subtlety with which the Platonists handled these Matters, and the Terms they used. But we should take notice of two things, in endeavouring to form to ourselves an Idea of their Sentiments. The first, That we must not always suppose they had a clear and distinct Knowledge of what they would say themselves, and that they saw all the Consequences of their Opinions: So that it would be perhaps in vain, to endeavour to draw out of their Writings a clear Idea of their Sentiment, touching the Three Principles of all things; because, perhaps they themselves conceived not clearly what they said; at least, their Style is so different on this occasion, from that which is observable in the Passages of their Writings, wherein they speak of things which they may know, that it is apparent, they contained not the subject of the Three Principles, like an infinite of others, which they have known how to express in an even, clear and elegant manner.  
The Second thing we should observe, is, That in so difficult a Matter, we must content ourselves with what they say positively, without attempting to draw far-fetched Consequences from their Principles, which we cannot understand but by halves; otherwise we are in danger of attributing to them such Notions as they never had. Neither must we endeavour to reconcile, in so abstracted a Subject, the Contradictions which seem to appear in their Doctrine; nor conclude, that they could not mean things in such a manner, because than they must contradict themselves. It was the Custom of these Philosophers, to affect certain apparent Contradictions, in using the same Terms in divers Senses. Besides, its obvious enough to imagine, that they may have sometimes contradicted themselves, on a Subject whereof they had no distinct Idea.  
These two Remarks were necessary, to prevent the Questions which might be offered on these Matters; and to show, that in writing the History of these Doctrines, one should keep wholly to Facts, and the Terms of the Authors we treat of.  
A Second Opinion of the Platonists, which has made a great noise in the World, is that of the Preexistence of Souls, in places above the Moon, 
* See Plato's Timoens.  of the Faults which they may have there committed; of their banishments from these happy Abodes, to come to inhabit in differently disposed Bodies, according to the different Merits of these Souls; in fine, of their return into places whence they drew their Original. We shall not trouble ourselves to explain this Doctrine, because it belongs not to the Relation in hand; having only made mention of it, for a particular Reason which will appear in its place.  
The Kings of Egypt and Syria, having carried the Sciences of the Greeks into Asia, the Jews, who were in great numbers in these two Kingdoms, and who were obliged to converse with them, learned of them their Opinions; and made no difficulty of embracing those, which did not appear to 'em contrary to their Religion. Their Books containing nothing inconsistent with sundry of the Platonic Doctrines; they believed therefore that these Doctrines might be true, and received them so much the more easily, in that they thought they might hereby defend their Religion against the Pagans, and make them relish it the better. Plato every where affirmed the Unity of the Supreme Being, yet without denying that there are other Being's which may be called Gods, to wit, the Angels, which is agreeable to the Expressions of the Old Testament. And this is apparently one of the things which made the Jews better relish the Opinions of this Philosopher.  
But we should give some particular Proofs of this: The Author of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, was plainly of the Opinion of the Preexistence of Souls, as it appears from these words of chap. 8. ver. 19, 20. For I was a witty Child, and had a good Spirit: Yea, rather, being good, I came into a Body undefiled. The same Author has used the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Reason, in some places, where Plato would have used it, were he to have said the same thing. Thus in chap. 18. ver. 15, 16. in speaking of the Deliverer of the Israelites, he says, Thy Almighty Reason descended from Heaven, out of thy Royal Throne, as a fierce Man of War into the midst of a Land of Destruction, and brought thine unfeigned Commandment, as a sharp Sword; and standing up, filled all things with Death; and it touched the Heaven, but it stood upon the Earth. In chap. 9 ver. 1. he says, That God has made all things by his Reason. It cannot be alleged, that he has been the only one of the Jews that has spoke in this manner; seeing that Philo, who lived a little while after Our Saviour, is full of the like Expressions; as several of the Learned have observed. It's known that this Author has so well imitated Plato, that he has been called the Jewish Plato. He believed that there was One only Supreme God, as all the rest of the Jews do, whom he calls TO ON, the Being through Excellency. But he further acknowledged a Divine Nature, which he calls ΛΟΓΟΣ, the Reason; as well as Plato: And another whom he calls likewise the Soul of the World. His Writings are so full of these manner of speaking, that there is no nead of offering 
* Vid. Defence. Fid. Nicen. §. 1. c. 1. & §. 16, 17.  Instances.  
The Jews were of these Opinions when Our Saviour and his Apostles came into the World: And this is perhaps the Reason why we find, accordingly as it has been observed by several learned Men, several Platonic Phrases in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of St. John.  
It's well known, that Amelius the Platonic Philosopher, having read the beginning of this Gospel, remarked, that this Apostle spoke like Plato. In effect, this Philosopher might have said, according to his Principles, The Reason was in the beginning with God. She it is who hath made all things, who is Life, and the Light of Men, etc. We find several Passages in Philo, like to this. This Jewish Philosopher calls Reason, the Priest, the Mediator between God and Men, the Eldest Son of God, etc. Wherein it is observable, that he mixes his Jewish Notions, with the manners of Speaking of Plato. He has likewise used in one place, the term Paraclete 
* De Vit. Mos. p. 521. Edit. Gen. Graeco-Lat. , Intercessor, in speaking of the Reason: It was necessary (said he) that the Highpriest who is to offer Sacrifices to the Father of the World, should have for Intercessor— him of his Sons, whose Virtue is the most perfect, for to obtain the Pardon of Sins, and abundant Graces. He had said, 
* Quod Det. Pot. Insid. p. 137.  that Moses denoted by the Manna, and by the Rock of the Desert, the same Reason: The Prophet (says he) calls elsewhere this Rock, Manna; a name which signifies the same thing, to wit, the Divine Reason, the most Ancient of Being's. Our Saviour Christ calls himself, Paraclete, in St. John, chap. 14.16. when he promises his Apostles to send them another Paraclete. He says likewise, that he is the True Bread, in opposition to the Manna, which could be no more than a Shadow of it. And St. Paul says, that the Stone of the Desert, was Christ, 1 Cor. 10.4. These ways of speaking which are found, in St. John, to be the True Bread, the True Vine; and which denote, that he to whom they are applied, is able to produce in men's Spirits as much Efficacy, in another kind of things, as the Bread and Wine produce in the Body: These ways of speaking, I say, were particular to the Platonists, as has been observed elsewhere.  
We might give several other Examples of Platonic Phrases, to be met with in the New Testament: But it will be sufficient to remark here, That the Apostles apply to our Saviour Christ, Passages of the Old Testament, which Philo had applied to the Reason; and that this Jewish Philosopher has given to this same Reason most of the Titles which the Apostles have given to Jesus Christ.  
The Pagans, who had then embraced the Gospel, and who were in some measure versed in the Heathen Philosophy, remarking this resemblance of Terms, persuaded themselves that the Apostles believed the same things, in respect of these Matters, as the Platonic Jews and Pagans. And this seems to be that which drew several Philosophers of this Sect into the Christian Religion, and given such a great Esteem to the Primitive Christians, for Plato. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says, 
* Pag. 48. Edit. Col. An. 1686.  That Jesus Christ was known in part by Socrates; for the Reason was and is still the same which is in every Man: It is She that has foretold the Future by the Prophets; and who being become subject to the same Infirmities as we, has instructed us by herself.— He says moreover, 
† Pag. 51. ●●●sd. edit.  That the Opinions of Plato, are not remote from those of Jesus Christ. And this has made likewise St. Augustine to say, That if the ancient Platonists were such as they were described, and were to rise again, they would freely embrace Christianity, in changing 
‖ De. Ver. Rel. c. 3. Vid. & Ep. LVI.  some few Words and Opinions,— which most of the late Platonists, and those of his time had done: Paucis mutatis verbis atque sententiis, Christiani fierent, sicut plerique recentiorum, nostrorumque temporum Platonici fecerunt.  
Tertullian affirms, in his Apology, 
* Cap. XXL  That when the Christians say, That God has made the Universe by his Word, by his Reason, and by his Power; they speak only after the sage Heathens, who tell us, That God has made the World by his (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Word, or Reason.  
Clemens Alexandrinus has likewise believed that Plato held the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity (as I have observed in the Life of that Father.)  
Origen against Celsus, does not deny, but that Plato spoke the truth, in speaking of 
† Lib. 6. pag. 270, & 280.  God, and of his Son: He only maintains, that he did not make such a just Use as he ought of his Knowledge. He does not say, that the Foundation of the Christian Doctrine is different in this from that of Plato, but that this Philosopher had learned it from the Jews.  
Constantine, in his Harangue to the 
‖ Cap. IX.  Saints, after having praised Plato, in that he was the first Philosopher who brought Men to the Contemplation of Intellectual Things, thus goes on: He has spoken of a First God, who is above all Essences, wherein he has done well. He has likewise submitted to him a Second, and has distinguished Two Essences in number, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) the Perfection of the one being the same as that of the other; and the Essence of the Second God taking his Existence from the First. For it is He who is the Author and the Director of all things, being Above All. He that is after him, having executed his Orders, attributes to Him, as to the Supreme Cause, the Production of the Universe. There is then but One, to speak properly, who takes care to provider for All, to wit, the Reason, who is God, and who has set all things in their Order. This Reason being God, is likewise the Son of God; for who can call 〈◊〉 otherwise; without committing a great Fault? He that is the Father of all things, is justly said to be the Father of his own proper Reason. HITHERTO 〈◊〉 TO HAS SPOKE LIKE A WISE MAN. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) but he has varied from the Truth, in introducing a multiplicity of Gods, and in giving to each of 'em his Form.— We might cite several other such like Passages, whereby one might see, that several among the Fathers of the first three Centuries, have believed that the Opinion of Plato, and that of the Apostles, was the same.  
If we consider, that the Question here, is about things of which we have naturally no Idea; and which is even Incomprehensible, supposing Revelation; and of which one can only speak in metaphorical and improper Language, it will then appear to us no wonder, if since the Apostles times, there have arose several Opinions on this Subject. Thus the Ebionites are charged to have denied the Pre-existence of Our Saviour's Divinity, and to have held that he was only a mere Man. These Ebionites have remained a long time, seeing that not only Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus do mention them, but St. Jerom seems to take notice that they were in his time. It's affirmed, That Artemon, under the Emperor Severus, and Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, under the Emperor Aurelius, maintained the same Opinions.  
Cerinthus, on the contrary, held the Pre-existence of the Reason, which he called the Christ; and affirmed, that she had descended on Jesus, in the form of a Dove, when he was Baptised; and that she ascended up into Heaven, when he was Crucify'd. It is indeed very difficult to affirm, that this was precisely the Opinions of these Heretics, because we have nothing remaining to us of them, and that we cannot fully trust those who speak of 'em only with detestation, seeing it might easily be, that their great Zeal has hindered them from well comprehending them. And this is a Remark which we must make, in respect of all the Ancient Heretics, whose Opinions are denoted to us only from the Writings of their Adversaries.  
About the Middle of the Third Century, Sabellius of Ptolemaïs' in Lybia, produced a new Opinion, which was condemned in Egypt, and afterwards every where. He was charged with 
* Synod. Const. ap. Theod. l. 5. c. 9 Damas' is apud eundem, c. 11.  confounding the Hypostases, and for denying the Properties which distinguish the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost; and for having said, That the Father is the same as the Son. Whereas Plato and his Followers reckoned Three Numerical Essences. It seems, that Sabellius would acknowledge but One, whom he called the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit, in divers regards. It's said that some others had maintained the same thing before and after him, as Noet and Beryllus of Botsra.  
A while after Sabellius, appeared Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, who was (as we have said) of the Ebionites Sentiment, in relation to our Saviour's Divinity. Although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used in the Platonic Philosophy, to signify what is of the same kind, as has been observed already, (and as may be seen in Bull's's Defence of the Nicene Council, §. 2. chap. 1.) Yet the Council which met at Antioch, to Condemn Paul of Samosotia, Condemned likewise this Term. But its hard to find in what sense it was taken, because the Acts of this Council are lost, and we know nothing of them, but by what St. Athanasius, 
* Vid. Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. §. 2. c. 1. & §. 10, & seq.  and some others extremely interessed to uphold this word, have said in their Disputes against the Arians. If we believe them, the Fathers of the Council of Antioch said, that the Father and the Son were not consubstantial, in the same sense wherein we say that two pieces of Money made of the same Metal are consubstantial, because that these pieces suppose a pre-existent Matter, of which they have been formed: Whereas the Father and the Son do not suppose the like substance. Paulus Samosatenus said, that if the Son had not been made God, we must suppose that he is of the same kind of Essence as that of the Father; and that thus there must have been an anterior substance to the one and to the other, of which they must have been formed. St. Athanasius assures us, 
† In lib. de Syn. Arim. & Seleu. Tom. 1. p. 919, & seq.  that the term of Homoousios was condemned at Antioch, in as much only as it might include the Idea of a Matter anterior to things which we call Coessentials.  
These are the chief Heretical Opinions touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which appeared before the Council of Nice. As for the Fathers, which are respected as Orthodox, they have not varied from the Expressions of the Platonists; and as these have sometimes said, that the Reason is different from the Supreme Being; and sometimes, that they are both one. The Fathers have expressed themselves in the same terms. The Platonists have said, That the Father could not be without the Son, nor the Son without the Father; as the Light could not be without the Sun, nor the Sun without Light: And the Fathers have said the same thing. Both one and the other have acknowledged that the Reason has existed before the World, and that she has produced it; and as Plato speaks in his Timaeus, and Plotinus in his Enneades, of the Generation of Reason, as if the Good itself had produced it, to create and govern the World: So the Fathers have said, that the Son hath proceeded in some manner from the Father, before the Creation of the World, to manifest himself to Men by his Production; and that hence it is that the Scripture calls him the Son of God, and his Firstborn.  
Sometimes they say there was a time in which the Son was not; sometimes, that he was from Everlasting as well as the Father; sometimes they affirm they are Equal; and elsewhere they say the Father is Greatest. Some of them believe that the Father and Son are two Hypostases, two Natures, two Essences, as appears from the passage of Pierius, related by 
* Cod. CXIX.  Photius; others deny it. To bring Instances of all this, would be too great an Enlargement for this place; and there being enough to be seen in Bull's Book which we have already cited.  
If it be demanded at present, what Ideas they fixed to these Expressions; it cannot be affirmed that they have been clear. First, Because whatever Endeavours are used to understand what they say, a Man can get no distinct Notion thereof. And, Secondly, Because they acknowledge themselves, that it is a thing Incomprehensible. All that can be done on this occasion, is to relate the Terms which they have used, to the end that it may be seen how they have heretofore expressed themselves on this Matter. However, learned Men have given themselves a great deal of trouble to explain the Passages of the Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice, without considering, that all their Explications are fruitless; seeing the Fathers, in acknowledging, that what they said was Incomprehensible, acknowledged at the same time, that they fixed no Idea on the Terms they used, unless such as were general and confused.  
Had the Matter stayed here, there had never been such great Disputes on the Sentiments of the Ancients, touching this Mystery; seeing the Dispute doth not so much lie on the Terms they have used, as the Ideas they have fastened to them, which cannot be reduced to any thing that is clear. Sometimes they use Terms which seem perfectly to agree with those which have been used since; but there is found in some other places of their Works, Expressions which seem to overthrow what they had said; so that one cannot form any Notion of what they thought.  
Lactantius, for Example, answers thus to the Heathens, who asked the Christians, how they said they acknowledged but One God, seeing they gave this Name to the Father, and to the Son? 
* Instit. l. 4. c. 29. p. 403. Ed. Oxon.  When we call the Father God, and the Son God, we do not say that each of them is a different God: And we do not separate them; because the Father cannot be without the Son, nor the Son separated from the Father: He cannot be called Father, without his Son; nor the Son be begotten, without his Father. Seeing then that the Father makes the Son, and that the Son is made, the one and the other has the same Intellect, One only Spirit, and One only Substance; una VTRIQVE MENS, VNUS SPIRITUS, una SUBSTANTIA.— These are Words which seem to be decisive; and had Lactantius held to these Expressions, he had never been accused of Heterodoxy: But if he be questioned what he means by the word Vnus, whether it be a Numerical Unity, or an Unity of Consent and Resemblance, he will appear determined to this latter sense: 
* Ib. p. 104.  When any one (says he) has a Son whom he dearly loves, and who dwells in the House, and under the governing Power of his Father, although the Father grants him the Name and Authority of a Master; yet, in the terms of Civilians, here is but one House, and one Master. So this World is but one House belonging to God; and the Son and the Father who inhabit the World, and who are of one Mind (Vnanimes) are One only God; the One being as the Two, and the Two as the One. And this ought not to appear strange, seeing the Son is in the Father; because the Father loveth the Son, and the Father is in the Son, by reason of his faithful Resignation to his Father's Will; and that he does nothing, nor never did do any thing, unless what the Father has willed, or commanded him.— We may read further, the 6th. Chap. of the 4th. Book, which gins thus; God, who has conceived and produced all Things, before he began this curious Work of the World, begat a Spirit Holy and Incorruptible, that he might call him his Son. Although he has produced infinite others, whom we call Angels, for his Ministry; yet he has vouchsafed to give the Name of Son to his Firstborn, who is clothed with the Virtue and Majesty of his Father.— That which is particular in this, is, That though Lactantius says, That the Son is Coeternal with the Father; yet he says, there was a time when he was not: 
* L. 2. c. 9 in Ed. Betuleii.  Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit auctorem suum; sic ineffabiliter Pater genuisse credendus est Coaeternum. De Matre natus est qui ante jam fuit; de Patre qui aliquando non fuit. Hoc fides credat, intelligentia non requirat, ne aut non inventum putet incredibile, aut repertum non credat singular. It's true, this Passage is not to be found in some Manuscripts; and that several learned Men have fancied that some fly Heretic has corrupted Lactantius' Works: But in other places, wherein all the Manuscripts do agree, Lactantius expresses himself after the same manner: And it may be replied, with as much likelihood, that it has been the Orthodox Revisors who have cut off what they thought not fit to be made public.  
Lactantius has been long since charged with Heterodoxy; but in this respect, he has been no more faulty than other Fathers, who lived before the Council of Nice, whose Expressions are as different as those of the Platonists, in matter of the Trinity. And this has made Father Peteau and Mr. Huet to charge them with favouring the Arian Sentiments; whilst other learned Men have maintained that they have been far from them. Each of them citys his Passages; which examined apart, seem to decide for him: But when one comes to compare these Passages with one another, it cannot be comprehended how the same Persons could speak so differently. In this comparison, their Expressions are found so obscure, and so full of apparent Contradictions, or real ones, that a Man feels himself obliged to believe that the Fathers had done a great deal better in keeping themselves to the Terms of the Apostles; and to have acknowledged, that they understood them not, than to throw themselves into such Labyrinths, by endeavouring to explain them.  
To show further, That the Expressions of the Fathers are only fit to produce confused Notions, and such as are contrary to those which all Christians at this day hold; we need only read Tertullian, who having said, in his Apology, chap. 21. That the Nature of Reason is Spiritual; adds, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, & prolatione Generatum, & idciro Filium, & Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae, nam & Deus Spiritus est. But what means Prolatione Genitus? The Terms of Unity of Substance, may signify, not only of the same Substance in Number, but moreover, of a like Substance, that is to say, spiritually and equally perfect. And what he adds, seems to favour this last sense; Etiam cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed Sol erit in radio, quia Solis est radius; nec separatur substantia, sed extenditur. The Substance of a Ray, after what manner soever we conceive it, is not the same in Number as that of the Sun: And Tertullian says, that it is the same of the Son; Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus; Thus a Spirit is born of a Spirit, and a God of a God.  Lumen de lumine accenditur, manet integra, & indefecta materiae matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatum mutueris; As when we light one Torch by another, the Light which has lighted the other, remains entire, and without being wasted, although we light several Torches, who have the same qualities. Ita & quod de Deo profectum est, Deus est, & Dei Filius & unus ambo. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus modulo alternum numerum gradu, non statu fecit, & à matrice non recessit, sed excessit; So what proceeds from God, is God, and Son of God, and both are but one; so the Spirit which is born of a Spirit, and the God who is born of a God, makes Two, in respect of Degree, but not in respect of his State; he has not been separated from the Womb, or from his Original, but is gone out of it.  
These Words of Tertullian do not appear at first sight agreeable with Arius' Opinion; but at most, they contain nothing that is clear; for one might have demanded of Tertullian, whether by this Prolation he speaks of, the Reason has existed as Light from a Torch, lighted by another Torch, exists as soon as it is lighted? Should he allow it, he might have been told, that to speak strictly, there must have been Two Gods; seeing that, in fine, two Spirits, though exactly equal, and strictly united, are two Spirits. If this be so, the second Spirit being not formed of the same Numerical Substance, as that of the first, one might say with Arius, that he has been extracted from nothing; and there would be in this regard, nothing but a Dispute about Words, between Arius and Tertullian. But if it be answered for Tertullian, That his Comparison is not good; it will be asked, Why he made use of a Comparison which may lead into Error, especially having said before, that he was of Plato's Opinion touching the Reason? If he meant, that the Father has produced in his proper Substance, without multiplying it, a Modification, in respect of which, one may call the Substance of the Father, Son; why does he say, Spiritus ex Spiritu, ex Deo, Deus? For, to speak properly, the Father has produced neither a Spirit, nor a God, but a new manner of Being in his proper Substance.  
It is further to be observed, That this Comparison is not of Tertullian alone, but of Justin Martyr, and a great number of Fathers besides, before and after the Council of Nice; and that there is no Passage which appears of greater force than that, yet the Equivocation of it is apparent.  
The Fathers have likewise used the term Hypostasis, as well as the Platonists, in two senses; sometimes for the Existence taken in an abstracted manner, and sometimes for the thing itself, which exists. The Equivocation of this Term, and that of the Words, One and Many, which (as has been showed) are taken sometimes from the Unity, and the Plurality Specificials; and sometimes from the Unity and Plurality Numericals', have caused great Controversies among the Fathers, as divers learned Men have 
* Petavius, Curcellaeus, Huetius, etc.  observed. But it is sit we should take notice of one thing, which is, that Bull, who has writ prolixly on this Matter, has not a word of the Numerical and Specific Unity; without which, a Man cannot comprehend what the Fathers mean, nor draw any Conclusions from them against the Heretics. Yet when they say there are three Hypostases, or three Essences, or three Natures, he constantly takes it as if they said, there are three Modifications in one only Numerical Essence. He supposes, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature, signify Manners of Existing of one Numerical Essence, only because that without this, those who have thus spoken of it, would not have been Orthodox, or of the Opinion at present received, which the Council must have approved of, seeing otherwise it would not have been admitted as it is. He supposes, on the contrary, for the same Reasons, that when the Fathers deny there are Three Hypostases, they do not barely mean, that there are not Three Essences of different Kind's, but that they are not Three in Number. But others will deny there is any place, where the words Nature and Essence can be taken for what we at this day call Personality, which is to say, for a Modification; and that it appears from the Passages which he citys, that the Fathers held the Numerical Unity.  
And this was the Condition of the Christian Church, when the Quarrels of Arius disturbed it. Whence may be seen, that it was no hard matter for the two Parties to cite Authorities of the Ancients, whose Equivocal Expressions might be interpreted in divers senses. The Obscurity of the Subject, the vain Subtlety of Humane Understanding, which would know every thing, the Desire of appearing able, and the Passion which mingles itself in all Disputes, gave Birth to these Controversies, which for a long time tore Christianity into pieces.  
Arius being a Priest of Alexandria, about the Year 318, undertook, as it seems, to explain more clearly the Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which had been till that time taught in the Christian Church, under the Veil of those Terms which we have recited. He said, that to beget, in this subject, was nothing else but to produce: whence he concluded, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ had been extracted out of nothing by the Father. Here's how he expresses himself, in a Letter which he wrote to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia: 
* Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 5.  We make profession to believe, that the Son is not without Generation, and that he is not a part of that which is unbegotten, nor of any other Pre-existent Matter whatever; but that by the Will and Council (of God) he has been perfect God (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) before all Time and Ages; that he is his only Son, and that he is not subject to change; that before he was begotten or created, he was not.— Arius was counted an able 
* Sozom. l. 1. c. 15.  Logician, and was in good esteem with his Bishop Alexander; but speaking freely his mind, he drew on him the harred of one 
† Epiphan. in Haer. LXIX.  Melece. Bishop in Thebais, who had caused a Schism in Egypt, although he did not much vary from the common Opinions, only because he would not receive into Communion the Priests who had fallen in the Dioclesian Persecution, but after a long Penance, and would have them for ever deprived of their Office.  
One may see the History of this in St. Epiphanius, who accuses him for having (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) an affected Devotion, and taking up a particular way of living, to to make himself admired by the People. Arius had moreover another Enemy, named Alexander, and Surnamed Baucalas 
‖ Philost. l. 1. c. 4. , who was also an Associate Priest with him. He joined himself to Melece, to complain to the Bishop of Alexandria, that Arius sowed a new Doctrine touching the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. He could the better spread his Opinions, in that having a particular Church at Alexandria committed 
* Epiph.  to his care, he preached there what he thought fit. He drew such a great number of People into his Opinions, that there were Seven hundred Religious Votaries who had embraced them, and consequently a greater number among the Ordinary People. It's said, that he was a Man of large Shape, of a severe Countenance, yet of a very agreeable Conversation.  

† Sozom.  Alexander thought, that in a Matter wherein one might easily equivocate, it were best to let the two Parties explain themselves, to the end it might appear, that he had accorded them more by Persuasion than Force. He brought the two Parties to a Conference, in demanding of them the Explication of a Passage of Scripture, in the Presence of the Clergy of his Church: But neither one nor the other of these Parties would yield, endeavouring only to vanquish. Arius his Adversaries maintained, that the Son is of the same Essence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as the Father, and that he is Eternal as he is; and Arius pretended that the Generation denoted a Beginning. There was another Meeting called, as fruitless as the first, in respect of the Dispute; but by which, it seems, Alexander, who had before not any precise determined Sentiment on this Matter, was induced to embrace the Opinion of Arius his Adversaries. He afterwards commanded this Priest to believe the same thing (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and to abandon the opposite Opinion.  
But it being seldom known that Men yield Obedience to these kind of Injunctions, Arius remained still in the same Opinion, as well as several other Bishops and ecclesiastics who had approved of it. Alexander, angry at his not being obeyed, Excommunicated him, with all those of his Party, and obliged him to departed out of Alexandria. There were, among others, five Priests of this City, and as many Deacons of the same Church, besides some Bishops of Egypt, as Secondas and Theonas. To them were joined a great number of People, some of which did in effect approve the Doctrine of Arius, and others thought that he had been condemned with too high an hand, without entering into the Discussion of the Controversy.  
After this Severity, the two Parties endeavoured to make their Opinions and Conduct be approved by Letters which they sent every where. They exposed not only their Reasons, but endeavoured to render odious the opposite Party, by the Consequences they drew from their Opinions and in attributing to them strange Expressions. Some Bishops, as Eusebius of Nicomedia, exhorted Alexander to reconcile himself with Arius, and others approved his Conduct, and advised him not to receive him into his Communion till he retracted.  
The Letters of Alexander and Arius are too considerable to be here omitted: Here's then the sum of them:  
Arius wrote to 
* Ap. Epiph. in Hes. LXIX. & Theoder. l. 1. c. 5.  Eusebius of Nicodemia, to entreat his Protection against Alexander, who had excommunicated him, and driven him out of Alexandria, because he could not grant him, that the Father and the Son are Coeternal; that the Son coexists with the Father without Generation, having been always begotten, and not begotten at the same time, without letting it be imagined that the Father has existed so much as one Moment before the Son.— He added, That Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarba, Gregory of Beryta, and Aetius of Lydia, condemning the Sentiments of Alexander, had been likewise struck with an Anathema, as well as all the Eastern People who were of the same Opinions, except Philogonius Bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus of Tripoli, and Macarius of Jerusalem, one of which said, That the Son was an Eructation, the other a Projection; and the other, that he was not begotten, no more than the Father.— To this Arius added the Explanation of his Opinion, which we have already related.  
The Bishop 
* Sozom. II.  of Nicomedia having received this Letter, called a Synod of his Province of Bythinia, which wrote Circular Letters to all the Eastern Bishops, to induce them to receive Arius into Communion, as maintaining the Truth, and to engage Alexander to do as much. We have still a Letter of Eusebius to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, wherein he not only entreats Paulinus to intercede for Arius, but wherein he exposes and defends his Sentiments with great clearness. He says, He has never heard there were Two Being's without Generation, nor that the One has been parted into Two; but that this single Being had begotten another, not of his Substance, but perfectly like to him, although of a different Nature and Power: That not only we cannot express by Words the Beginning of the Son, but that is even Incomprehensible to those Intellectual Being's which are above Men, as well as to us.— To prove this, he citys the 8th. of the Proverbs, God the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before is works of old: I was set up from Everlasting, and he has begotten me before the mountains were brought forth. He says, That we must not search in the Term of Begetting, any other signification than that of Producing; because the Scripture does not only use it in reference to the Son, but moreover in speaking of Creatures; as when God says, I have begotten Children, and I have brought them up, but they have rebelled against me.  
But these Letters not having had the Success which Arius expected, he sent to get leave of Paulinus, of Eusebius, and Patrophilus Bishop of Scythopolis, to gather those who were of his Opinion into a Church, and to exercise among them the Office of a Priest, as he was wont to do before, and as was done at Alexandria. These Bishops having Convocated the other Bishops of Palestine, granted him what he demanded, but ordered him however to remain subject to Alexander, and to omit nothing to obtain Communion with him.  
There is extant a Letter of Arius, directed to this Bishop, 
* Apud Epiph. II.  and written from Nicomedia, which contains a Confession of Faith, according to the Doctrine which Arius affirmed that Alexander himself had taught him; wherein, after having denoted his Belief touching the Father, which includes nothing Heterodox, he adds, That he hath begotten his only Son before the times Eternal; that it is by him, that he has made the World; that he has begotten him, not only in Appearance, but in Reality; that this Son subsists by his own Will; that he is unmoveable; that he is a Creature of God that is perfect, and not as other Creatures; that he is a Production, but not as other Productions: Nor as Valentinian said, a Projection of the Father: Nor as Manes affirmed, a Consubstantial Part of the Father: Nor as Sabellius called him, a Son Father (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) Nor as Hieracas spoke, a Lamp lighted by a Lamp, or a Torch divided into two; that he did not exist before he was begotten, and became a Son; that there are three Hypostases (that is to say, different Substances) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the Father is before the Son, although the Son was created before all Ages. Arius adds, that Alexander had several times preached this Doctrine in the Church, and refuted those who did not receive it. This Letter is signed by Six Priests, Seven Deacons, and Three Bishops, Secondus of Pentapolis, Theonas of Lybia, and Pistus whom the Arian Bishops had Established at Alexandria.  
Alexander 
* Socrat. l. 1. c. 6.  wrote on his side Circular Letters, wherein he sharply censures Eusebius of Nicomedia, in that he protected Arius, and recommended him to others. He joins to this the Names of those who had been Excommunicated, and explains their Doctrine, wherein he contents not himself to set down what we have seen in Arius' his Letters, touching the Beginning which he attributes to the Son; he says moreover, that this Priest maintained, that the Son is one of the Creatures; that we cannot call him the Reason and Wisdom of the Father, but improperly, seeing that he himself has been produced by the Reason and Wisdom of God; that he is subject to change, as other Intelligent Creatures; that he is of another Essence than God; that the Father is Incomprehensible to him, and that he doth not so much as know what his proper substance is; that he has been made for our sakes, to serve God as an Instrument in Creating us; and that without this, God had never begotten him. Alexander adds, That having assembled near a hundred Bishops of Egypt and Lybia, they had Excommunicated Arius and his Followers, by reason of his Opinions.— He afterwards comes to prove this, and shows first. The Eternity of the Son, by this passage of St. John, In the Beginning was the Reason. 2. That he cannot be reckoned among the Creatures; because the Father says of him, in the 45th Psalm, My Heart has uttered (eructavit) a good Word. 3. That he is not unlike the Essence of the Father, of which he is the perfect Image, and the Splendour, and of whom he says, He that has seen me, has seen the Father. 4. That we cannot say, There was a time in which he was not, seeing that he is the Reason, and the Wisdom of the Father; and that it will be absurd to say, There was a time in which the Father was without Reason and Wisdom. 5. That he is not subject to change; because the Scripture says, He is the same yesterday and to day. 6. That he was not made because of us; seeing St. Paul says, That it is because of him, and by him, that all things are. 7. That the Father is not Incomprehensible to the Son; seeing he says, As the Father knows me, so I know the Father.  
This Letter, wherein Eusebius of Nicomedia is extremely ill treated, shocked this Bishop to the utmost Point; and having great access to the Court, because Constanstine made then his abode at Nicomedia; this occasioned divers Bishops to be at his devotion: But he could not engage Alexander to forget what had passed, to speak no more of this Controversy, and to receive Arius into Communion. The Quarrels every day grew hotter, and the People were seen to range themselves, some taking Arius' side, others Alexander's; and the Comedians being Gentiles, this gave them occasion to make a Sport of Christian Religion on their Theatres.  
Each side treated one another with the odious Name of Heretic, and endeavoured to show, that the Sentiments of the opposite Party overthrew the Christian Religion; but it appears, that neither the one nor the other Party could yet persuade the Emperor, seeing he wrote to Alexander and to Arius, a long Letter, of which Hosius Bishop of Cordavia was the Bearer, wherein he equally chides them: He says, he found that the Controversy 
* Apud Euseb. de Vit. Const. c. 64. & Seq. & Socrat. l. 1. c. 7.  had begun in this manner; That Alexander having demanded of each of his Priests, what they thought of a Passage of Scripture, or rather, on an idle sort of Question (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) Arius inconsiderately answered what he should not have thought, or rather concealed, if he had thought it, That from thence had come his Excommunication, and the Division of the People. And therefore he exhorted them to a mutual pardoning of one another, and to receive his Opinion, which was, That it had been better not have troubled the ecclesiastics with this Question; and that those who were asked it, should have held their Tongues, because the matter concerned what was equally incomprehensible to both Parties, and which served only to raise Disturbances among the People. He could not conceive, how for a Question of very small importance, and in which, if they well understood one another, they would find they agreed in the main, they should make such a bustle, and divide themselves in so scandalous a manner.  
I do not say this (adds he) as if I would constrain you to think the same thing on a most vain Question, or however you will please to call it. For one may, without dishonouring the Assembly, and without breaking the Communion, be in different Sentiments in such inconsiderable things. We have not all the same Wills in all things, neither are we all of us of the same Temper of Body and Humours.  
The Emperor's Letter (says Socrates) gave them admirable Advice, and full of Wisdom; but the Mischief was grown too great, and neither the Emperor's Endeavours, nor his Authority who brought the Letter to Alexandria, could appease it.  
Alexander had taken care to write every where, to hinder the spreading of Arius his Opinions. We have still 
* Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 4.  a long Letter which he wrote to the Bishop of Constantinople, wherein he vehemently inveighs against the Arian Faction, and endeavours to render it odious, in saying, That Arius maintained, That the Son was of a Nature capable of Evil, as well as of Good, although it actually remained without Sin, and that it was for this, that God had chosen him for his  Son. He proves the Eternity of the Son, and that he was not extracted from Nothing; because he was in the Beginning, and that all things have been made by him. Yet he holds. That the Son has been begotten, and that only the Father is without Generation, although the Subsistence or Substance of the Son (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
† Valesius renders that word in that Letter sometimes Subsistentia, and sometimes Essentia and Substantia, although it be in the same continued Discourse.  be incomprehensible to the Angels themselves, and that there is none but melancholy Persons who can think of comprehending it. He afterwards shows, That the Manner after which Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is infinitely more excellent than the Manner after which Men are; seeing he is so by his Nature, we only by Adoption.  
He accuses Arius with following the Doctrine of Ebion and Artemas, and for having imitated Paul of Samosatia, Bishop of Antioch, whose Doctrine had been embraced by Lucien (Martyr) who by reason of this, had separated himself from the Communion of three following Bishops of this City. He joins to him three Bishops of Syria, who seem to have been Paulinus, Eusebius and Theodotus, and reproaches them with using Passages which relate to the Humiliation of Christ, to attack his Divinity, and to have forgotten those which speak of the Glory of his Nature, such as this is; The Father and I are one: Which the Lord says (adds he) not to denote that he is the Father; nor to say, that two Natures, in respect of the manner of existing (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) are but one; but because the Son is of a Nature which exactly keeps the Paternal Resemblance, being by his Nature like to him in all things, the unchangeable Image of his Father, and a Copy of this Original. He afterwards defends himself largely against the Consequence which Arius drew from his Adversaries Sentiments, which consisted in accusing them, for denying the Generation of the Son, in making him Eternal.— He affirmed, That there is an infinite difference between the Creation of the World, and the Generation of the Son, although this last be wholly Incomprehensible, and that he cannot explain it.  
In the mean time, the Division increased so greatly among the People, that in some places it came to a Sedition, wherein the very Statues 
* Euseb. de Vit. Cons. l. 3. c. 4.  of the Emperor were thrown down, who appeared to favour the Arians, because he would have 'em tolerated. There was moreover the Controversy about Easter, the one denying that it should be celebrated at the same time as the Jewish, and the others affirming it; but this Contest had not produced a Schism, as Arianism had done.  
Constantine, seeing that these Letters had been fruitless, thought there was no better way to allay these Controversies, than to call a Council from all Parts of the Roman Empire. It was perhaps Hosius who gave him this Advice, at least if we may believe 
† L. 1. c. 7.  Philostorgus, the Bishop of Alexandria being gone to Nicomedia, there assembled some Bishops of his Opinion, with whom Hosius and he consults to find out means to set up their Opinion, and to get that of Arius condemned; and a little while after, the Emperor called a Council at Nice, a Town of Bythinia. 
‖ Euseb. in Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 6.  This was in the Year 325; and to the end that nothing might hinder the Bishops from coming, Constantine took on himself the Charges of their Journey. The Historians are not agreed in reference to the Number of 'em, some setting down more than Three hundred, and 
* Eustathius of Antioch, says there were 270. Theod. l. 8. Constantin. 300. Socr. II. 9 Eusebius 252. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 9 S. Athanas. 318.  others less. We must not wonder at this diversity, seeing there are few Passages in Ecclesiastical History, wherein appears more Confusion and Neglect, than in the History of this famous Council. And therefore have we been obliged to extract what we are going to say, out of divers Historians; because none of the Ancients has been complete in his Relations. As to the diversity obserable among the Historians on the same Facts, we have followed either the most ancient, or those which have appeared most probable.  
Eusebius, who was present at the Council, has passed very lightly over the Circumstances of this History apparently, lest he should either offend the Arians, or the Orthodox. This Affair has never been since discoursed of with an entire Dis-interests, Reports having been often related as certain Facts. In a word, There has never any thing happened, whereunto one may apply with more reason these words of Tacitus; Maxima quaeque ambigua sunt, dum alii quoquomodo audita pro compertis habent, alii vera in contrarium vertunt, & gliscit utrumque posteritati. Eusebius vaunts very much the Bishops which were here: But 
† Socrat. l. 7.  Sabinus, a Macedonian Bishop of Heraclea, a Town of Thrace, treats them as Ignoramus's, in his Collection of Councils. There was likewise a great number of Priests and Deacons who came in company with the Bishops.  
The Council opened the 14th. of June, and therein were regulated several things, which we shall not here take notice of, designing only to remark what passed in relation to the principal Question therein decided, to wit Arianism. As soon as ever the Bishops were arrived, they made particular Assemblies without any interruption, and sent for Arius 
* Sozom. l. 7. & 19  to them, to inform themselves of his Opinions. After they had heard from him what he thought, some of 'em were for condemning all sorts of Novelties, and to content themselves in speaking of the Son, in the same terms their Predecessors had used; and others affirmed, that the Opinions of the Ancients were not to be received without examining. There were seventeen Bishops (according to 
† Ib. c. 20.  Sozomen) who favoured Arius his new Explications, the chief of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Menophantes of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognis of Nice, Narcissus of Neroniadas, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secondus of Ptolemais. These Bishops drew up a Confession of Faith 
‖ Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. ex Athanasio.  according to their Sentiments: but they had no sooner read it in the Assembly, but it was cried out upon as false; 'twas torn in pieces, and they were reproached with it, as Persons who would (as they said) betray the Faith and Godhead of Christ. A Letter of Eusebius of Nicodemia, wherein he expressed his Thoughts, had the same lot.  
Afterwards, a Creed was undertaken to be made, wherein the Opinions contrary to those of Arius were established. It was immediately observed, that the new ways of of speaking which the Arians used, were to be condemned. That the Son had been extracted from Nothing; That he was a Creature; That there was a time wherein he was not, etc. And Scripture Phrases were to be used, such as these; That the Son is Only-Begotten, the Reason, Power, Wisdom of the Father, the Brightness of his Glory, and Character of his Power. The Arians having showed that they were ready to admit a Confession expressed in these terms: the Orthodox Bishops feared lest they should expound these terms in an ill sense. And therefore they were for adding, That the Son is of the Substance of the Father; because this is that which distinguishes the Son from the Creatures. Hereupon the Arians were asked, whether they acknowledged, That the Son is not a Creature, but the Power, the only Wisdom and Image of the Father; That he is Eternal, and like to the Father in all things; in fine, True God. The Heterodox having spoken among themselves, believed that these Expressions might very well agree with the Notion they had of the Divinity of the Son, and denoted they were ready to receive them.  
In fine, It being observed, that Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the Letter which was read, rejected the Term of Consubstantial (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) it was thought, that the Orthodox Doctrine could not be better expressed, and all Equivocation excluded, than in making use of it; and so much the rather, in that the Arians seemed to be afraid of it. This Circumstance is owing to 
* Lib. 3. de Bid. ad Grac. cap. ult.  St. Ambrose, whose words are these; Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediae Episcopus, Epistola sua prodidit, dicens; si verum inquit, Dei Filium increatum dicimus, homoousion, Consubstantialem cum Patre incipimus consiteri. Haec cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nicoeno, hoc verbum in tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres quod viderunt Adverfariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipfis gladio ipsum nefandae caput Haereseos amputarent.  
The Orthodox conceived then their Sentiment, touching the Divinity of the Son, in these terms; 
† Socr. l. 1. c. 8.  We believe in one only Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, only Son of the Father; that is to say, of the Substance of the Father, God, born of God, Light of Light, True God, born of the True God, begotten, not made, Consubstantial with the Father.  
The Arians in vain complained, that these words were not to be found in Scripture: They were told, That those they were wont to use, were not there neither, being wholly new; whereas it was near  Years since, that several Bishops had used the word Consubstantial.  
The Fathers of the Council, during this Time, were not so busied in vanquishing the Arians, and in making several Regulations, which I shall here omit, but that they remembered their private Grudges. Several Churchmen (says 
* L. 1. c. 17.  Sozomen) as if they had been assembled to prosecute their particular Affairs, as it commonly happens, thought this a sit time to get those punished who had offended them. Each of 'em presented Requests to the Emperor, wherein they accused one or other, and signified the Wrong they had done them. This happening every Day, the Emperor set one apart, in which they were every one of 'em to bring his Grievance. The Day being come, the Emperor took all their Requests, and caused them to be thrown into the Fire, and exhorted them to a mutual Forgiveness, according to the Precepts of the Gospel. He afterwards enjoined them to labour in clearing up the Points of Faith, of which they were to be Judges; and a fixed Day, wherein the Question of the Constubstantiality should be decided.  
The Day appointed 
* Euseb. Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 10.  being come, Constantine convocated all the Bishops into an Hall of the Palace, where he had caused Chairs to be set on both sides. The Bishops entered first, and the Emperor came in afterwards, and did not sit down at the Head of the Assembly on a Gilded Seat which he caused to be there placed, till the Bishops, by Signs had given him leave. Being set down, Eusebius of Caesarea, who was at his Right-hand, harrangued him, and thanked him for the care he had taken to preserve the Purity of the Catholic Faith. Constantine afterwards began to speak, and made a Discourse in Latin, wherein he represented, That he had no greater Affliction, than the Divisions he observed among Christians; exhorting the Bishops very earnestly to Peace. An Interpreter afterwards turned the Speech into Greek, for the Eastern Bishops understood not Latin.  
Although it seems that Business was prepared in particular Assemblies beforehand, yet there arose at first a great Controversy: And Constantine had the patience to hear long Contests, wherein he exercised the Office of Moderator, in endeavouring to accord those whose Sentiments or Expressions appeared remote, in upholding the Arguments which seemed to him weak, and in giving Praises to such who seemed to speak well. Eusebius of Caesarea long held out against the Use which they 
* Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. & Theod. l. 1. c. 12.  would make of the word Consubstantial. He offered another Confession of Faith, wherein it was omitted, and wherein he called the Son barely, God born of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Only Son, Firstborn of all Creatures, Begotten of his Father before all Worlds. The Emperor approved this Confession of Faith, and exhorted the Fathers of the Synod to follow it, in adding thereto only the word Consubstantial.  
Afterwards the Confession was read, which had been drawn up with this Word, the Terms of which have been already recited. Anathema's were joined thereto, against those who should use, on this Occasion, other Terms than those of the Holy Scripture; which must be understood, with an Exception of those which the Council thought fit to Consecrate.  
This Proposition was particularly condemned, That the Son existed not before he was begotten. Eusebius and others requested; That the Terms of the Symbol, and anathemas might be explained. 1. It was said, That the word Begotten, and not Made, was used; because this last word expresses the Production of Creatures, to which the Son has no likeness, being of a Substance far more excellent than they, begotten by the Father in an incomprehensible manner. 2. As for the word Consubstantial, it is proper to the Son, not in the sense wherein it is taken, when we speak of Bodies, or Mortal Animals, the Son being Consubstantial with the Father, neither by a Division of the Divine Substance, of which he possesses a part, nor by any change of this same Substance. The meaning of which is only this, That the Son has no Resemblance with the Creatures which he has made; but, that he is in all things like to his Father, by whom he has been begotten; or, That he is not of another Hypostasis, or Substance, but of that of the Father. 3. Those were condemned, who said, That the Son was not before he was born, seeing that he existed before his Corporal Birth, and even before his Divine Generation, according to Constantine's Argument: 
* These words of Eusebius' Letter are not to be found but in Theodorit, Socrates having retrenched them.  For before (said he) that he was actually Begotten, he was in Power in his Father, in a manner Unbegotten, the Father having been always Father, as he is always King and Saviour, and all things in Power, being eternally in the same Condition.  
It will perhaps seem, that this is pure Arianism, and that this is to deny the Eternity of the Son. But we must observe, that in the style of that time, to Exist before the World, and to be Eternal, is the same thing; seeing, that to prove his Eternity, this Passage is cited, 
* Vid. Ep. Alexandri Ep. Al. supra laudatam.  In the Beginning was the Word: And it sufficed to show, that he was Begotten before there was any Time. So that we must not reject these words as Supposititions, merely for this reason: And it is so ordinary to find hard Expressions, in those who attempt to explain, in any sort, this incomprehensible Mystery, that if one might hence judge of them, one would be apt to declare them all Heretics; which is to say, to anathemamize the greatest part of the Ancients.  
Besides this, † 
* De. Deret. Nicaen. Tom. 1. pag. 251.  St. Athanasius, who openly treats Eusebius as an Arian, makes allusion to one part of this Passage, and draws thence a Consequence which Eusebius, without doubt, would not have owned, which is, That the Arians believed that the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not exist before his Corporal Birth.  
After these Explications Eusebius subscribed, as he himself testifies in the Letter above recited, 
‖ Athanas. ibid.  although he had refused it the day before. The long and formal Opposition which he had made against the word Consubstantial, caused it to be suspected that there was want of Sincerity in this Subscription. In fine, Arius and his Party were anathematised, and all their Books condemned, and particularly a Poem which Arius had entitled Thalia.  
Most of the Arian Bishops subscribed, after Eusebius his Example, to this Confession of Faith, and the anathemas, after the Explication . Yet there were some of 'em who refused at first to sign, 
* Socr. l. 1. c. 1.  the principal of which were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secondus of Ptolemais. They were immediately Excommunicated by the Council, and were to be sent afterwards, as well as Arius, into Exile, by Constantine. The Council wrote a Circular Letter 
† Ib. Socr. l. 1. c. 9  to the Churches of Egypt, denoting to 'em in what sort they had carried themselves in the business of Arius, and what had been ordered touching Melece the Schismatical Bishop, and the Observation of Easter.  
Constantine wrote also to the Church of Alexandria, to assure it, that after a full and mature Examination, Arius had been condemned by the common Consent. He greatly vaunted of the Moderation and Learning of the Bishops, making no mention of their Quarrels, according to the Custom observed in Public Acts, and such like Occasions, where every thing is suppressed which may give an ill Opinion of the Decrees of these kinds of Assemblies.  
In another Letter directed to the Bishops and Churches, he enjoins the Name of Porphyrus to be given to Arius, and his Followers to be called Porphyrians. This Porphyry was a famous Platonist, who had written against the Christian Religion, and whose Books Constantine had caused to be burnt. Lucas Holstenius has written his Life, which is to be found at the end of the Book Of the Abstinence of Animals.  
Constantine designed to declare hereby Arius an Enemy to the Christian Religion, and not in any manner reproach him with being a Platonist, touching the Trinity; seeing Constantine did not disapprove, as we have seen, the Sentiments of Plato.  
It's true, the Arians have been upbraided with their too great application to the reading of this Philosopher, and other Heathen Authors: Revera de Platonis & Aristophanis (says 
* Advers. Lucif. T. 2. p. 142. Ed. Gryph.  St. Jerom) in episcopatum allegentur: Quotus enim quisque est qui non apprime in his eruditus sit? Accedit ad hoc quod Ariana hoeresis magis cum sapientia seculi facit, & argumentationum rivos de Aristotelis fontibus mutuatur. Thus the Orthodox and Heretics equally approved the Sentiments of Plato, each of them apparently explaining them according to his Hypothesis.  
Constantine further ordered, in the same Letter, to burn all Arius' Books; to the end, that not only his pernicious Doctrine be destroyed, but that there remain no monument of it to Posterity.— He likewise declared, That if any one concealed any of his Books, and did not bring them to be burnt, he should be put to death after it had been proved upon him.— There is moreover another Letter of this Emperer, wherein he enjoins all Churches to celebrate Easter, according to the Canons of the Council.  
Eusebius and Theognis either actually believing that the Creed of the Council might admit an Arian fence, 
* Socrat. l. 1. c. 14.  or affrighted by the Emperor's Severity, offered to sign the Creed, but refused to anathematise Arius, affirming that Opinions were attributed to him which he had not. Eusebius so ordered, by the means of his Friends, about the Emperor, 
† Ex. Epist. Const. ad Nicomed. ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 20.  that what he desired was granted him, which is to say, that they were contented with his subscription to the Creed. Theognis and Maris did as much; and the Letter of the Council to the Churches of Egypt mentions only Theonas and Secondus who had absolutely stood out. Philostorgus likewise acknowledges 
* L. 1. c. 8, & 9  that all the Arian Bishops subscribed except two; and reproaches the rest with their insincerity, in that they had explained after the Arian fashion the Terms of the Council, by the Advice of Constantia the Emperor's Sister. He adds, That Secondus setting out to go into Exile, said to Eusebius; You have subscribed Eusebius, that you might not be banished; but for my part, I believe what God has revealed to me, which is, that you shall be carried into Exile, before the year comes about.  
Arius, if we believe the Orthodox, had not the Courage to resolve on Banishment with Secondus and Theonas: He pretended a desire to be better instructed, and sought an occasion of conferring with Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria, 
† Athanas. T. 1. p. 111.  whose Acts are still extant. If this Relation be true, one may conjecture, that Arius designedly defended himself but ill, the better to yield to his Adversaries Reasons, as he did, to obtain his Grace. He acknowledges, at the end of this Conference, the Equality and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; after which, he shows himself entirely reclaimed from his Error. The Fathers of the Council received him, as a Penitent, without settling him in his Employ; and the Emperor only forbade him to go to Alexandria. Euzoius and Achillas, Colleagues of Arius, were also pardoned; and 
* In Lucif. p. 145. T. 2.  St. Jerom adds to them eight Bishops, of which he names but three, and one Priest, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Saras Priest of Lybia, and Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. It appears from the sequel of the Dialogue, that the Arians denied that the Bishops of their Party were reconciled at Nice; but St. Jerom grounds himself on the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council, which yet he had not then at hand, excusing himself from naming the four other reconciled Bishops by a Rhetorical Figure, & reliqui, quos enumerare longum est. There needed not so much time for to set down four Names, but without doubt he did not remember them.  
The first who signed the Council among the Orthodox, was Hosius Bishop of Cordova; afterwards, Vitonius and Vincent, Roman Priests, sent by Sylvester; after them, the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; and, in fine, the other Bishops. Those who favour the Pretensions of the Church of Rome, say that Hosius signed in Quality of Legate from the Bishop of that City, but the most ancient Historians have not a word of it.  
The Council ending the 25th. of August, Constantine took his farewell of them, in a very fine Harangue, 
* Eusch. in Vit. ejus, c. 21.  wherein he exhorted the Fathers to thoughts of Peace, and to a mutual Forbearance; but which was of little effect, as will appear by the sequel.  
Thus ended this famous Council, the Circumstances of which would be better known to us, if the fear of offending great Persons, the Zeal of some, the Passion of others, and the Respect which Posterity has had for the Decisions of so famous an Assembly, had not hindered contemporary Authors from writing the History with the Exactness and Impartiality remarkable in good Historians; and retained those who have lived since, from saying what they knew (perhaps) that was disadvantageous. St. Athanasius, in a little Treatise already cited, and where he seems at first to be willing to enter on this History, transported by the Zeal of which he was full, falls on Controversy and Invectives, when one might expect him ready to relate Circumstances. Sozomen says, That he did not dare to relate the Creed of Nice; 
† L. 1. c. 10.  because some of his pious and learned Friends in this Matter, advised him to suppress the things which the Initiates and the Priests alone should understand, and that according to their Council, he had concealed what was to be kept silent.  
A while after, the 
* Sozom. l. 1. c. 25.  Emperor being to celebrate the Feast of his Vicennales, which is to say, of the Twentieth Year of his Empire, invited the Bishops to Byzantia, which he thought of re-establishing, in giving it the new Name of Constantinople, where he magnificently treated them, and made each of 'em apart a Present; after which, they returned to their Bishoprics. It seems, that it was about this time, that he wrote very obliging Letters to 
† Socrat. l. 1. c. 9  Eusebius of Caesarea, in giving him order to procure him fifty Copies, fairly written, of the Holy Scripture.  
As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis his Friend, they were no sooner returned into their Bishoprics, but they began again to preach Arianism publicly, 
* Ex. Epi. Const. ad Nicom. l.  and received into their Communion some Persons of Alexandria, who had been thence expelled for this Opinion.  
Constantine advertised of this, sent them into Exile, three Months after the Council, and established at Nicomedia one Amphion for Bishop, and Chrestus at Nice. Thus was Secondus' Prediction accomplished, and Insincerity punished.  
Two Months after, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria died, which occasioned great Disturbances in that City. The 
† Sozom. II. 17. Philost. III. II.  Orthodox say, that Athanasius Deacon of this Church, whom Alexander had brought along with him to Nice, by reason of his Knowledge, had been denoted several times by this Bishop for his Successor, but that he had hid himself a little before his death, for fear of being Elected, and that having been found, he was chosen by a Plurality of Voices.  
The Heterodox affirm, on the contrary, that the Meletians being reunited to the Catholics, after the death of Alexander, fifty four Bishops of Egypt took an Oath to elect by common Consent his Successor, but that seven among them broke their Oaths, and chose Athanasius, without the Participation of the rest. Some even assure, that the Voices were divided, and the Election not being made quick enough, Athanasius shut himself up with two Bishops into St. Denies Church, and caused himself to be Consecrated, maugre the other Bishops, who made the Church-doors be broken open, but too late, the Ceremony being over. Hereupon they Excommunicated him; but having strengthened his Party, he wrote in the Name of the City of the Emperor, to give him Notice of his Election; which was approved by this Prince, who believed these Letters came effectually from the Magistracy of Alexandria. There may have been Passion on the side of the Hererodox; but heating ourselves as we do, for the Truth, as well as for Error, and upholding sometimes the right side by indirect ways, it would not be safe to reject whatever the Heterodox say, or blindly receive whatever the Orthodox relate.  
It seems, about this time, Constantine made his Constitution 
* Euseb. in ejus Vit. l. 3. c. 64.  against the Meeting of all Heretics, wherein he forbids them to assemble either in public or private, gives their Chapels to Catholics, and confiscates the Houses wherein they are found to meet, performing their Devotions. Eusebius adds, That the Emperor's Edict moreover contained, that all Heretical Books should be seized on; and that Constantine's Threaten obliged a great number of Heretics and Schismatics to range themselves on the side of the Orthodox Church. But some doing it sincerely, and others by force, the Bishops applied themselves carefully to distinguish them, and received only into the Church those who were real Converts. The Arians had been ruined by particular Edicts, so that all Heresies seemed to be abolished in the Roman Empire.  
But Constantine, who had at first slighted the Subject of the Dispute between Arius and Alexander, as consisting only of different Expressions, and who afterwards had considered it as a Point of the greatest importance, returned again to a good Opinion of Arius; whether he acted according to his present Interests, or that he suffered himself to be led by those who were most about him; or that, in fine, he really changed his Opinion. 
* Socrat. l. 1. c. 25. ex Ruffim.  Constantia, Sister of Constantine, and Widow of Lucinus, had among her Domestics, a Priest, a Friend to Arius, who held the same Opinions as he did, and who persuaded this Princess that Arius held not those Opinions he was charged with, in the manner as they were usually expressed; that Alexander had accused him through Envy, because he was esteemed by the People; and that the Council had done him wrong. Constantia, who much confided in this Priest, easily believed him, but dared not speak her Mind to the Emperor; and being fallen dangerously sick, all that she could do before she died, was to recommend this Priest to her Brother, as a Man highly Virtuous, and much devoted to the Service of her Family. A while after she died, and this Priest having gotten the Favour of Constantine, held to him the same Discourse, telling him, That if he pleased to admit Arius to come before him, and to explain his Opinion, he would find, that at bottom, his Doctrine was the same as that of the Council which condemned him.  
Constantine, surprised at the oddness of this Discourse, answered, That if Arius would sign the Nicene Creed, he would let him come into his Presence, and would send him honourably to Alexandria.  
This Priest having assured him of it, Constantine sent Word to Arius to come to Court; and Arius not daring at first to do it, the Emperor wrote a Note to him, in which he ordered him to come immediately at his Charge. Arius obeyed this reiterated Order; and being come to Constantinople with Euzoius, they presented to the Emperor a Confession of their Faith, wherein they barely said, They belev'd that the Son was begotten of the Father before all Ages; and that the Reason, who is God, had made all things, as well in Heaven as in Earth.  
If Constantine was fully satisfied with this Declaration, either he had changed his Mind, or given small Attention to it, or little comprehended the Sense of the Nicene Creed. However it was, it appears by the sequel, that the Arian Bishops came by degrees into Favour, and that the Emperor treated Arius with great Kindness, and permitted him to return to Alexandria.  
It's not punctually known when Arius was recalled; but it's certain he had been already, when Eusebius and Theoguis were, which happened three years after the Council of Nice, in the Year 328, according to the Relation of 
* L. 3. c. 18.  Philostorgus; these two Bishops wrote from the Place of their Banishment a Letter, wherein they complain, 
† Socrat. l. 1. c. 14.  That they had been condemned without being heard, although their Conduct had been approved of in the Council of Nice, where having well examined the word Consubstantial, they had in fine approved of it.— They added, They had only refused to Anathematise Arius, because they knew he was not such a one as he was described; and seeing this was acknowledged by his being recalled, it could not be just, that they who suffered only on his account, should remain in Exile after his Revocation.— This Letter was directed to the principal Bishops, whom Eusebius and Theognis entreated to interceded for them with the Emperor.  
In speaking of the Repeal of Arius, they directly attribute it to these Bishops; Your Piety (say they) has thought fit treat him gently, and to recall him.  
A learned Man 
‖ Valesius ad locum.  observes in this place, that Eusebius and Theognis attribute to the Bishops what the Emperor had done, seeing it was he that had recalled Arius; and that the Ecclesiastical Historians attribute likewise sometimes to the Emperor the Actions of the Bishops; as when Socrates says that the Council of Nice forbade Arius' return to Alexander, whereas it was the Emperor. But in truth, the Emperor did then few things of his own pure motion, being only the Church-mens Tool; which falls out but too often, even among the greatest Princes.  
The Letter of Eusebius and Theognis produced the effect which they hoped from it. They were recalled, with Theonas and Secondus, who would sign nothing. The two first being returned to their Bishoprics, drove out thence those who had gotten into their Sees, when they were sent to their Places of Banishment. They are charged with having immediately after sought out ways to make Athanasius undergo the same Punishment which they came from suffering, by getting it told the Emperor, that he had been elected in a manner little Canonical, and with endeavouring to induce the same Athanasius, both by Prayers and Threaten, to permit Arius to return to Alexandria. However, they could not then accomplish their purpose; and we shall see in the sequel, the Bicker which they had with this Bishop.  
Since the Council of Nice had been dismissed, and that they had been banished, this Usage, and the Decisions of Nice, had but only outwardly allayed the Disputes, which lasted still when they were recalled. Eusebius assures us, that the Bishops of Egypt had been ever since over head and ears in Quarrels. And 
* L. 1. c. 23.  Socrates says, that he found, from the Letters of the Bishops of those times, that some were scandalised at the word Consubstantial; Examining (says he) this term with too great application; they fell foul on one another, and their Quarrels did not ill resemble a Combat in the dark. It appears, they bespattered one another with Calumnies, without knowing wherefore. Those who rejected the word Consubstantial, thought the others hereby introduced the Opinions of Sabellius and Montanus, and treated them as impious, as denying the Existence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Son of God. On the contrary, those who stuck to the word Consubstantial, imagining the others would introduce a Plurality of Gods, had as great an aversion for it, as if they would have re-established Paganism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accused Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea of corrupting the Nicene Faith. Eusebius denied it, and charged, on the other side, Eustathius with Sabellianism. Thus the Bishops wrote one against another. They all accorded in saying the Son has a particular Existence, and that there is only one God in three Hypostases; yet they could not agree, nor remain quiet.  
This is the effect of equivocal Terms, which were introduced into Christianity, without well defining them; and the bad custom of most of the Ancients, who never speak calmly of these Matters; who have thought of nothing less than the expressing themselves clearly, and who seem to prove they spoke sincerely, when they testified to believe, that the Mystery about which they disputed was Incomprehensible, by expressing themselves thereon in an unintelligible manner.  
Eustathius Bishop of Antioch 
* Socrat. l. 1. c. 24. Theod. l. 1. c. 21. Sozom. l. 1. c. 19  accusing of Arianism Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyre, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis; and these Bishops accusing him in their turns of Sabellianism; to know who had Reason on their side, a Synod was assembled at Antioch, in the Year 329, the Conclusions of which were disadvantageous to Eustathius. It consisted of Bishops who had signed the Nicene Creed only by force, among whom were the two Eusebius', Theognis of Nice, Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria, Narcissus of Neroniada, Aetius of Lydda, Alphaeus of Apamea, and Theodorus of Sidon.  
As soon as ever they arrived at Antioch, a Woman of ill Fame presented herself to 'em with a little Child, which she said to have had by Eustathius, and desired them to do her Right against him, as refusing to receive his Child. Eustathius made great Protestations of his Innocency; but this Woman having been believed upon her Oath, he was Deposed. 
* Theod. & Sozom.  Some Authors affirmed, that the Arian Bishops had suborned her, to have an occasion for the Deposing of Eustathius; and that the true cause of his Deposal, was his adherence to the Nicene Creed. Others say, it was the pretended Sabellianism of which he was accused; and some have contented themselves with saying, there were other Accusations for which he had been deposed. Whereupon † Socrates makes this remarkable Reflection; 
* Loco cit.  The Bishops are wont to deal thus with all those whom they Depose; accusing and declaring them Impious, without showing wherein.  
A Bishop was afterwards to be substituted in Bustathius' Place, and the Arian Bishops cast their eyes on Eusebius of Caesarea. But there arose a violent Sedition hereupon; some willing to retain Eustathius, and others accepting Eusebius. They had come to Fisticuffs, had not the Emperor taken care, by sending one of his Officers, who appeased the People, and made them understand how Eustathius deserved to be sent into Exile, and in effect he was sent into Thrace.  
However, Eusebius did a thing which made him receive very honourable Letters from the Emperor, which he has inserted in the Life of this Prince, which is, that according to the Canons, he refused to pass from one Church to another. Constantine heaped up Praises on him, by reason of this refusal, and wrote to the Council, and the Church of Antioch, to let him remain where he was. So that instead of Eusebius, there was elected Euphronius Priest of Cappadocia, whom the Emperor had named with George of Arethusa, to the end the Council might choose which they pleased.  

* Soc. 1.27, & seq. Soz. 2.27, & seq. Theod. 1.26, & seq.  Having deposed Eustathius, the Arian Bishops laboured co procure the return of Arius to Alexandria; where Athanasius would not permit him to enter, as has been already said. They engaged the Emperor to write to this Bishop; but Athanasius still defended himself, in that he could not receive into the Church those who had forsaken the Faith, and been excommunicated; so that Constantine wrote to him an angry Letter, that he should receive into the Church those he ordered him, under pain of Banishment.  
The Obstinacy of this Bishop, who would part with none of the Advantages which the Council of Nice had granted to his Predecessor against the Meletians, had also drawn on him the Enmity of these Schismatics. The Council had ordained that Melece should only retain the Name of Bishop, without Exercising the Function of his Office, and without ordaining any Successor; and that those whom he had Ordained, should have no part in Elections. However, Melece, at his death, had ordained one John for his Successor, and the Meletian Priests would have the same Privileges as others. Athanasius could not consent to any thing of this, and equally ill treated the Meletians and Arians.  
This Conduct reunited the two Parties, who had been till that time opposite. The Meletians were of the Nicene Opinion; but by conversing with the Arians, they soon entered into their Sentiments, and joined together, to induce Constantine to accept of several Accusations against Athanasius; as having imposed a kind of Tribute on Egypt, in ordering it to furnish the Church of Alexandria with a certain number of Linen Garments; in having supplied a certain seditious Person with Money, named Philumenus; in having caused a Chalice to be broken, overthrown the Table of a Church, and burned the Holy Books; for having misused several Priests, and committed divers Violences; in having cut off the Arm of a Meletian Bishop, named Arsenius, and keeping it to use in Magical Opperations.  
Constantine acknowledged the Innocency of Athanasius, in regard of the two first Accusations; and for the rest, he referred it to an Assembly of divers Bishops which was at Caesarea in Palestine; where Athanasius not appearing, he was cited to a Synod at Tyre, in the Year 334, and which consisted of Bishops of Egypt, Lybia, Asia, and Europe.  
Athanasius was in suspense, whether he should present himself to this Synod, which consisted of his principal Enemies: Yet Constantine having threatened him with Banishment if he refused, he therefore appeared, and justified himself of the Accusation touching the Arm of Arsinius, by bringing in this Person into the midst of them, and deriding his Accusers. It's said moreover, that a Woman being introduced into the Assembly, accused him for having dishonoured her, after she had entertained him in her House, although he knew she had made a Vow of Virginity. But it appeared, that she did not so much as know Athanasius, seeing she took one Timotheus a Priest for him, who pretended to be the Bishop of Alexandria.  
The business of the broken Chalice, and the misusing the Priests, was a little more difficult. Athanasius began by an Appeal from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the rest of the Bishops of his Party. He afterwards said, That he whose Chalice was pretended to have been broken, and whose Name was Ischyras, was not a Priest. However, without any regard to these Reasons, there were sent some Arian Bishops, to take Informations against him at Alexandria, with Ischyras his Accuser; but he protested highly against this Proceeding, and went to Jerusalem, where the Emperor was.  
In the mean time, the Informations from Egypt were received, and Athanasius being loaded with them, he was deposed in his absence, and forbidden to go to Alexandria. Arsenius having been admitted into Communion by the Council, and made Bishop of Hypsyle, a Town of Egypt, subscribed to the Deposition of Athanasius, although he had justified him, in reference to one of the Accusations brought against him. The Sentence of the Council bore, That he had slighted the Emperor's Orders, and made the Assembly wait for him in an indecent manner; That he came to Tyre with a great multitude of People, and endeavoured to make a Disturbance there; That he had for some time refused to purge himself of the Crimes laid to his Charge, and uttered Injuries to divers Bishops; That he would not submit to their Judgement; That he was convicted of breaking a Chalice, by the Informations made against him at Alexandria.  
Thus was Athanasius condemned by his Enemies, who were his Judges, as Arius had been anathematised by Alexander his Predecessor, and several other Bishops, who had declared themselves against him, before the Convocation of the Council. The same usage has been observed in all the Assemblies of Bishops which have met since; the Clergy having this Advantage above the Laity, that they can be both Judges and Parties.  
After the Deposal of Athanasius, the Emperor wrote to the Fathers of the Council, to repair as soon as possible to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Dedication of the Church of the Apostles, which was now finished. Where being arrived, they were magnificently received, and made several Orations, for the greater Solemnity of the Festival, which happened to be very luckily, in the same Year in which the Tricennales of the Emperor 
* In the Year 335.  were to be celebrated, which is to say, the 30th. Year of his Reign. 
† In Vit. Const. l. 4.46, & 33.  Eusebius particularly made several Harangues before the Emperor, who took a great deal of pleasure in hearing them, insomuch that he would hear standing a long Oration which this Bishop made on the holy Sepulchre. Eusebius well remembers this Honour the Emperor did him, and the Praises he gave to his Oration touching Easter, and carefully inserts, in the Life of Constantine, all the Letters he had received from the Emperor; perhaps, not out of Acknowledgement, but rather to do himself Honour, 
* Baronius ad haec Tempora,  as he has been reproached with it.  
The Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, 
† Socrat. l. 1. c. 33.  having ended the Dedication of the Church which Constantine had newly built, and there received into Communion Arius and Euzoius, on the Emperor's Recommendation. Eusebius and Theognis say, that Arius had been kindly received by the Bishops; but in no sort, that he was received into Communion: Which was, perhaps, for some years refused him, to try his Sincerity. Afterwards they wrote to the Church of Alexandria, that she might receive them; and be assured, she would enjoy henceforward a full Tranquillity, Envy having been driven out thence, by the deposal of Athanasius. 
‖ Sozom. l. II. 28.  In the mean time, this Bishop had gotten to Constantinople, to complain to the Emperor of what he had suffered; but he could obtain no Audience from him; all that he could be heard to say, was, That he entreated the Emperor to cite to Constantinople the Bishops which were at Jerusalem, to have another Examination of his Affair.  
Constantine wrote to Jerusalem, and complains in his Letter, that in a time wherein the Barbarians began to acknowledge the True God; The Christians, who would be thought to have the Mysteries of God in their keeping, (for he durst not say that that they kept them,) laboured only to entertain Divisions and Hatred among them, not to say, for the Destruction of Mankind.— And therefore he desired that the Bishops assembled at Jerusalem, would meet at Constantinople, to examine once for all, the Affair of Athanasius, and put some end to it. This Letter being to Jerusalem, some of the Bishops returned to their Dioceses, and others to Constantinople. These last persuaded (according to some 
* Sozom. id.  Authors) the Emperor, that Athanasius had effectually broken a Chalice; or (according to 
† Socrat. l. 1. c. 35.  others) that he had threatened to stop the Convoy of Provisions which went every year from Alexandria to Constantinople, of which three Bishops were Witnesses. The Emperor, provoked by these Accusations, ordered him to retire to Triers, a Town of the Belgic Gaul, where he remained about two years.  
The Bishops who were met at Constantinople, 
‖ Id. c 36.  deposed, after this, Marcellus of Ancyra, as being fallen into the Opinion of Paul of Samosatia. One Asterius, who had taught Rhetoric in Cappadocia, having embraced the Christian Religion, had wrote some Books, wherein he spoke of the Divinity of the Son, in the same terms as Arius. Marcellus undertook to refute them; but far from establishing the Pre-existence of the Son, he denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ existed before his Birth; or at least expressed himself in such a manner, that one might believe he regarded the Reason or the Word, not as a Being that has his particular Existence, but as I know not what kind of Accident, such as is the Word, or the Sound which is made in speaking. He also very ill treated, 
* Euseb. count. Marcel. l. 1. c. 4.  in the same Book, several Arian Bishops, as the two Eusebius', Paulinus and Narcissus. He charged likewise Origen, for expounding the Holy Scripture according to the Notions of Heathen Philosophers, and especially according to those of Plato; from whom Marcellus affirmed, he had taken his Doctrine of Principles, which is to say, of the Holy Trinity, of which he had treated after the Platonic fashion.  
The Arian Bishops, offended with this Book, had begun to examine it, when they were as yet at Jerusalem; but having been obliged to pass over to Constantinople, they had only enjoined Marcellus to alter his Opinion, according to the Style of that time. He promised to burn his Book; but having not done it, and even refusing to do it, his Affair was re-assumed at Constantinople, and he was deposed.  
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote two Books expressly against him, wherein he criticizes his Work; and three others, which he entitled, Of Ecclesiastic Theology, wherein he established the Opinions which he thought Orthodox touching the Divinity, and refuted those of Marcellus, and divers other Heretics.  
Marcellus was afterwards 
* Socrat. l. 2.20. & Sozom. l. 2. c. 29.  re-established in the Synod of Sardica, because he affirmed his Expressions had been misunderstood; and being an Enemy to the Arians, he insinuated himself into the Friendship of Athanasius, who perhaps was surprised by the equivocal Expressions used by Marcellus. It's certain, that if we may judge of him by the Fragments which Eusebius citys, he scarcely knew what he would say himself; or else he concealed his Opinions under obscure terms, lest he should fall into trouble.  
After that Athanasius had been sent into Exile, 
† Id. l. 1. c. 27, & sec.  Arius had returned to Alexandria; but his Presence being likely to cause a Disorder, by reason of the great number of those who followed the Sentiments of Athanasius, the Emperor recalled this Priest to Constantinople; and to assure himself entirely of his Belief, of which the Orthodox still doubted, he offered him the Nicene Creed to sign; which he did without balancing, and moreover swore he was of that Opinion. A report ran, that he had hid under his Arm a Writing which contained his Opinion, and that he barely swore he believed what he had wrote; but there is no great certainty to be expected in what his Enemies say of him. Perhaps he thought, like Eusebius of Caesarea, that one might give to the words of the Creed, a sense which amounted to his Sentiment, although he wished they had made use of other terms. What the Fathers of Nice said more than he, consisting in something absolutely incomprehensible; perhaps moreover he counted that for nothing. However, Alexander Bishop of Constantinople refused to receive him into Communion, although the Emperor had ordered him to do it, and a great number of Bishops and of the People urged him to it.  
Besides this, the Arian Bishops were preparing to hold a Council, to examine afresh the Question agitated at Nice, and had marked a day in which they were to meet to discourse about it, and to conduct Arius into the Church, maugre Alexander.  
In this Extremity knowing not how to maintain his Refusal, History tells us, that he shut himself up in a Church called Peace, and set himself very devoutfully to pray to God, not that he would convert Arius, or that he would discover to himself the Truth; but, That if the Opinion of Arius was true, he himself might not see the day set apart to discourse of it:— Or, That if his own Belief were true, Arius, who was the cause of so great Mischiefs, might be punished for his Infidelity.— A Prayer so little charitable, and whence might be seen that this Bishop was more concerned for his Reputation than the Truth, failed not of being heard, seeing that the next Morning, which was Sunday, or the same Day at Night, as Arius went to the Church, accompanied by those of his Party, or in some other Place, (for the Historians vary,) in passing by the Market of Constantine, he had so great occasion to go and ease himself, that he was forced to betake himself to the common Privies, where, instead of finding ease, he evacuated his Bowels, and thus died suddenly. Since that time, Passengers were commonly showed these Places of Easement, and no body dared sit down on the same place where Arius sat. 'Tis said, that a rich Arian, to abolish the memory of it, bought afterwards this Place of the Public, and there built an House.  
It's thus that Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen relate the last Events of the Life of Arius. But St. Athanasius says, that having 
* In Epist. ad Seraptonem.  having been recalled by the Solicitations of those of his Party, he offered his Confession of Faith to the Emperor, and swore that he did not believe any thing. After which, those that protected him, would introduce him into the Church, at his going out of the Emperor's Palace, but that he died (as hath been said) without having been received into Communion. A 
† Valesius.  learned Man is of Opinion in this matter, That the Arius who was received into Communion at Jerusalem, was a Priest of the Party of the famous Arius; and not he himself, who had already died out of the Communion of the Church:— Because without this, it must be said that Athanasius has been mistaken. But were it granted him that this Bishop was mistaken, in speaking of a Man whom he every moment overwhelmed with Injuries, it cannot be found strange, especially not having been at Constantinople then, when what he relates must have happened.  
One may further say, that Athanasius has related, by way of abridgement, and little exactly, what he had heard say of Arius; and that he regarded him as an excommunicated Person, having been only received by a Council whose Authority Athanasius would not acknowledge, it consisting principally of Persons whose Opinions had been anathematised at Nice. It is far more natural thus to interpret this Passage of Athanasius, than to reject wholly, as false, an History so circumstanced as that of the later years of the Life of Arius, in respect of certain Facts which the Historians we have already cited had no interest to alter.  
Arius being dead, apparently of a sudden Death, which may have given occasion to the tragical manner in which the Historians mention it, the Disputes started on his occasion died not with him: 
* Sozom. l. 2. c. 31.  Those who were of Athanasius' Party at Alexandria, besought of God his return, in the Public Prayers, and ceased not to importune the Emperor to make him be recalled. Constantine was obliged to write to the People of that Town a Letter, wherein he upbraided them for their Lightness and Folly, and enjoins the ecclesiastics to remain quiet; and wherein he declares he would not recall Athanasius, whom he treats as a Seditious Person, and one who had been condemned by a Council. He answers likewise to Anthony the Hermit; That he could not slight the Judgement of the Council of Tyre; because that supposing some among the Bishops were Passionate, yet it is not probable that so great a number of Wise and Learned Bishops should all of them act by Passion; and that Athanasius was an Insolent, Proud Troublesome Follow.  
Constantine wrote these Letters but a little time before his Death, which happened in the Year 337, the Circumstances of which may be seen in his Life, writ by Eusebius. Yet we must remember, that this is rather a Panegyric, than an uninterest History; whence it is that he says nothing of the Death of his two Wives, and the Eldest Son of this Emperor, whom he had put to Death, through Jealousy or Revenge.  
Eusebius lived not long after him; he died towards the Year 340, and left in his Place Acacius his Disciple, 
* Socrat. l. 2. c. 4.  who wrote his Master's Life, which we have not.  
I shall not relate what happened afterwards with respect to the Arian Disputes; because I only designed to mention the Events which happened during the Life of Eusebius, or in which he was somewhat concerned. He was always of the Arians side, and St. Athanasius and St. Jerom have accused him of being of their Opinion. In effect, 'tis scarce credible, that if he had been Orthodox, he would have so much favoured Arianism, and given his Consent to the Deposal of St. Athanasius. Yet 
* Ib. c. 21.  Socrates hath undertaken to justify him, by citing some Passages wherein he speaks as the Orthodox did; and several modern Authors have done the same, as Dr. Cave in the Life of Eusebius, which he hath writ in Latin and English. This latter seems to have thought himself obliged to't through Christian Charity; but others are of opinion, that Christian Charity, that is, the Love we ought to have for all Christians, should oblige all Historians to mention such Truths, as make no Alteration in the state of those that are Dead; and are very useful to the Living, who learn thereby to judge sound of things. That pretended Charity, which extends itself only to the Fathers who are looked upon as Orthodox, hath been the cause why we have in a manner only Panegyrics of the Ancients, wherein their Defects are always suppressed, when they cannot be covered with the Mask of some Virtues.  
Eusebius, as it appears by his Conduct at the Council of Nice, was a dextrous Person, which made no scruple to subscribe to Terms which he did not like, provided he could expound them in a sense agreeable to his mind, though little agreeable to that of those who set them up. Indeed, a Man must shut his Eyes, who doth not see, by what he says in his Letter to the Church of Caesarea, that he understood otherwise the Terms of the Creed, than Athanasius (for example) did. So that we ought not to mind the Terms which he uses to accommodate himself to such ways of speaking as were authorized, and which he looked upon as equivocal; but only such places wherein he speaks after a manner altogether opposite to the received Opinions. In his Books De Theologia Ecclesiastica, he explains himself with so great clearness in several places, that if some equivocal Passages may be opposed to them, there is scarce any Citation but what may be eluded. You are afraid (says he to Marcellus, Book. 3. chap. 7.) lest by owning Two Hypostases, you should introduce Two Principles, and destroy the Unity of God. Learn therefore, that there being but One God, without Generation and Beginning, who begot the Son; there is but One Principle, One only Monarchy, and One Reign, since the Son acknowledges the Reign of his Father. For God is the Head of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle says. But you very much fear (say you) lest those who confess that the Father and Son have Two Hypostases, are obliged to acknowledge Two Principles. Learn therefore, that those who maintain that there are Two Hypostases in God, are not obliged to acknowledge Two Fathers, nor Two Sons; but they will only grant, that one of them is Father, and the other Son. So those who admit of Two Hypostases, ought not necessarily to own that there are Two Gods. For we do not say that they are Equal in Honour (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) nor that Both have no Beginning, or are not Begotten; but that the one is without Generation and Beginning, and the other is Begotten, and hath the Father for his Principle. Hence it is that the Son calls his Father his God, when he says, I go to my God, and to your God, etc. wherefore the Church teaches only One, who is the God of the Son, etc. He goes on in the same strain, and declares, that that passage and the like cannot be understood of the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ. These Principles are very different from those of St. Athanasius, who says that there is but One God, though there is Three Persons; 
* In 1. Dial. de Trin. Tom. 2. p. 160. Vid. & Curcellaei Quaternion. Diss. 1.  because those Three Persons are altogether Equal, and there is but One Deity in Kind.  
This is one of the chief things which ought to be observed in reading the Writings of Eusebius: To which must be added, that he was a Disciple of Origen, of whom one may see several Opinions in the Life of Clemens Alexandrinus. It remains only to give a Catalogue of his Works, as I have done in the Life of Clemens. I shall make use of Dr. Cave's Chartophylax, adding to it what I shall think fit.  
1. A Chronicle, or an Universal History: The First Part whereof, which is now very imperfect, contains the Antiquities of almost all Nations, of the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, Egyptians, etc. Eusebius took it from Africanus. The Second, entitled A Chronological Canon, is an Abridgement of the First, and reduces all the Chronology into Decades, from Abraham, to the 25th. year of Constantine: Which makes one believe that that Work was finished a little before the Council of Nice. St. Jerom translated it into Latin, adding several things to it, especially with respect to the Roman History, in which Eusebius was not very well skilled. The Greek Original is lost; and Joseph Scaliger endeavoured to recover it as much as he could, by collecting all the Fragments he found in Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the Chronicle of Alexandria. He caused them to be printed at Leyden, in 1606, with his Notes; but they have been reprinted since at Amsterdam, in 1658, with more Notes.  
2. The Evangelical Preparation, in Fifteen Books, which he published after the Council of Nice, since he citys his Chronological Canons in them. The Design of Eusebius in that Work, is, to confute the Religion of the Pagans, and to prove some Principles of ours by their Philosophers, to dispose 'em to embrace it more easily. He shows therefore, 1st. That the Christians had very good Reasons to renounce the Heathenish Religion, and gives some Abridgements of the Theology of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, and of the Opinions of the Grecians concerning the Beginning of the World, whereby it appears that all of them acknowledged that the World is not Eternal. 2dly. That the Grecians borrowed their Divinity from the Eastern Nations, and that their Gods were only Dead men, whose Graves were turned into Temples, and whose Fabulous History was so ridiculous, that Plato laughed at it. 3dly. That to defend their Fables, they have in vain explained them after an Allegorical manner, a Method whereof he shows the Vanity. 4thly. That the Pagan Oracles contain only the Answers and Cheats of Bad Daemons. 5thly. That nothing was so false, as what the Stoics said concerning Fate. 6thly. That the Opinions and Customs of the ancient Hebrews were very agreeable to the Sentiments of the most rational Pagan Philosophers, especially to those of Plato. 7. That the History of the Hebrews is confirmed by the Testimony of several Heathen Historians. 8thly. That the Grecians took their Philosophy from the Barbarians, especially from the Jews, to whom Plato and the Platonics own what they said concerning their Three Principles, and several other Doctrines which the Greeks admired. 9thly. That the Philosophers had an infinite number of different Opinions, which may easily be confuted the one by the other, as it appears by Eusebius his Essay towards it. One may see by this whole Work, that he was very well versed in Heathen Authors, and had taken care, in his Study, to collect whatever might be of use to prove or confirm the Christian Religion by the Testimony of Philosophers. It affords several Fragments of Authors who are lost, as Sanchoniathon, and several Platonics, out of whom he citys some long Passages.  
3. The Evangelical Demonstration, which contained Twenty Books, is now reduced to Ten. The Author explains in it the Old Jewish Religion, and undertakes to prove by the Prophets the Truth of the Christian Religion. But he grounds all his Arguments upon some Mystical or Allegorical Explications of some Places of the Old Testament, without being able to prove against those who would have denied it, that they ought to be understood so. He lends, if I may so say, his Principles to the Prophets, and then fixes to their Terms the Ideas he had of them, by virtue of those Principles. Thus Book 5. chap. 1. where he explains at large the famous Passage of Solomon concerning Wisdom, God hath begotten me before the Mountains; he finds in the word to Beget, all the Subtleties which the Arians used after the Council of Nice, to explain it according to their Mind, without openly shocking the Orthodox.  
4. The Ten Books of the Ecclesiastical History came out after the preceding, which are cited in them. It gins with Christ, and ends in the Year 324, before the Council of Nice met. One may complain of Eusebius, because he hath inserted several Fables in it, as that of Agbarus, etc. and committed several Faults in Chronology (of which I have already said something.) But one ought to forgive him those Faults, because he is the first who hath composed any Work concerning the Christian History; for he hath preserved a great number of Fragments of ancient Authors whom we have lost, and related their Opinions faithfully enough. Besides, 'tis he chief who can give us some light concerning the Canon of the Books of the New Testament. He dedicated that Book to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, who hath been ranked among the Prelates, who favoured Arius. The neatest Greek Edition we have of this Work, is that of Robert Stephen, in 1544; and the best Translation is that of Valesius, which was printed together with the Greek in Columns, at Paris and Francfort. Yet the Translation of that learned Man is not without Faults. I am persuaded, that the greatest part of them come from mere Inadvertency; but it cannot be doubted that some arise from his understanding the Terms of the Ancients according to the Modern Notions; as when he renders the words of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, which I before mentioned, Duas Personam Vnam esse, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. One cannot allege any place wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what we call  Persona in Divinis, but by supposing that the Ancients ought to think as we do; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signify only Two Natures in Existence; that is, which do not differ in Kind, as a Man and a Horse, but only in Existence, or Number, as Two Men. This Lucas Holstenius observed in a Discourse which Valesius himself caused to be printed at the end of 
* Pag. 199,  Theodoret, Evagrius, etc. wherein he says that this Place must needs be corrupted either by some Heretics or Transcribers, because he knew not how to reconcile it with the Orthodox Opinions.  
5. Of the Martyrs of Palestine. This Book is to be found next to the Eighth of the Ecclesiastical History.  
6. The Book against Hierocles was writ against a Judge of Nicomedia, who, 
* Vid. Lactant. Instit. l. 5. c. 2, 3, 4.  in the time of Dioclesian's Persecution, had composed two Books entitled Philalethes, wherein he compared Jesus Christ to Apollonius Thyaneus. Eusebius hath showed the absurdity of that Comparison, by a short Critic of the Eight Books of the Life of that Philosopher, written by Philostratus. This Hierocles must be distinguished from a Philosopher of the same Name who lived almost a hundred years after, and wrote a fine Commentary upon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras.  
7. I have already spoken of Eusebius his Books against Marcellus, and of the Ecclesiastical Theology. I shall only add here two things: The first is, that R. M. which are seen in the Title, signify Richard Montagu Bishop of Chichester, who first published them. The second is of greater moment, viz. that Eusebius wrote 'em in anger, and not only gives his Adversary no quarter, but besides Disputes with him about things that are clear, and which himself had proved elsewhere. 
* L. 1. c. 4.  Marcellus said, That if we ought to tell the truth about Origen, it must be acknowledged, that he was but just come from the study of Philosophy, when he applied himself to the reading of the Scripture; and that before he understood it well, he betook himself to write sooner than he ought to do, because of his great Learning in the Pagan Sciences; from whence it is that Philosophy made him wander, and that he had writ some things which are not true. For Example (says Marcellus) having his mind full of Plato's Doctrines, and the Difference he teaches between the Principles, he wrote his Book Of Principles, and entitled it so. That Title only was sufficient to make one clearly perceive, that he took from Plato the first Words of his Work, as as well as the Title; for he gins thus, Those who have believed, and those who have been believed, etc. words taken out of Plato's Gorgias.— There is nothing truer than what Marcellus says here; and all who have read something of Origen will grant it. Yet Eusebius answers him in these extremely morose terms; Supposing this were true, there was no need of calumniating Origen for it; since he immediately after adds, that Grace and Truth are by Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ is that Truth. What is there in it that's common to Plato? I never heard that Plato wrote a Book of Principles; and Origen hath not taught the same thing as Plato, concerning those Principles. Origen acknowledged only One Principle, without Generation and Beginning, and above all things, who is the Father of an Only Son by whom all things were made.— One may plainly see, that Eusebius made as if he understood not Marcellus, or that Anger hindered him from understanding him, The Bishop of Ancyra meant only this, viz. that Origen had spoken of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, after the same manner as Plato spoke of the Three Principles of all things, and that he borrowed the word Principle of him, and the first words of his Book wherein he treated of them. Eusebius might have easily apprehended his meaning; and he was so far from believing that Plato was of another Opinion in this matter than the Sacred Writers and Origen, that he he undertakes to prove the contrary at large in his Evangelical Preparation, lib. 11. chap. 13, etc. which are worth the reading. In effect, what he adds concerning the Father and the Son, is equally agreeable to Origen's and Plato's Opinion. Eusebius seems to have followed at this time St. Jerom's Maxim, who ascribes it to him too; as he himself made no scruple to follow it: 
* In Apol. prolib. count. Jou. p. 106, etc. Edit. Gryph.  'Tis one thing to write in order to Dispute, and another to write in order to Teach. In the first Method, the Dispute is very much extended, and one minds only to answer one's Adversary. Sometimes one thing is proposed, and sometimes another: Men argue as they please; speak after one manner, and act after another, etc. In the second, an open and ingenuous Face is necessary, etc. Origen, Methodus, Eusebius, Apollinarius, have writ a great deal against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider what doubtful Arguments and Problems they use to confute some Writings composed by the Spirit of the Devil. And because they are forced to say, not what they think, but what the Dispute requires, (non quod sentiunt, sed quod necesse est,) they contradict the Heathens.— We may see thereby whether we ought always to believe what the Holy Fathers say; and that Eusebius was no Arian, only because he denied it, and used all the terms of the Orthodox. In the Writers of this kind, a word spoken against the common Opinion, proves often more than a hundred places wherein they speak as the Vulgar.  
8. The Letter to those of Caesarea concerning the Nicene Creed, which I have already mentioned.  
9 Of the Places named in the Old Testament, which is a little Geographical Dictionary of the Places mentioned in the Hebrew Books of the Scripture. St. Jerom translated it, and added to it what he thought fit, Jacobus Bonfrerius printed the Original, with St. Jerom's Translation and his own, at Paris, Anno 1659., in Fol.  
10. The Life of Constantine is (as hath been said) rather a Panegyric than a History; and the Style of it also (as Photius hath observed) more florid than that of the other Works of Eusebius, which is somewhat careless. However, there is afterwards a Panegyric of that Emperor in due form, which Eusebius recited Anno 335, at his Tricennales.  
11. An Exposition of the Song of Solomon, printed at Leyden by Meursius, in the Year 1617., in Quarto, with Polychronius and Psellus.  
12. The Lives of the Prophets are ascribed to Eusebius in an ancient Manuscript, and are joined with Procopius his Commentaries upon Isaiah, in Greek and Latin. John Courtier published them at Paris, in 1580, in Fol. Those who have published a new Edition of the Evangelical Demonstration at Cologne, in 1688, would not have done amiss to join those Pieces with it, or to endeavour to get some of those which are not yet printed.  
13. Of that number are Four Books entitled Eclogae Propheticae de Christo, which (as Lambecius says) are in the Library of Vienna, and in that of the Escurial. But 'tis with those two Libraries as with that of Buda: The Keepers of them are so faithful and jealous, that they let nothing come out of them. Labbaeus says, that besides there is some Libraries some Commentaries of Eusebius upon Isaiah, a Discourse upon the Three Days that our Lord remained in the Grave; and two more concerning the Women who went to it, and the Angels they found in it.  
14. We have lost of Eusebius, 1. Some Books concerning the Ecclesiastical Preparations. 2. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Demonstration. 3. Thirty Books against Porphyry, which, in all probability, are the greatest loss we have sustained with respect to the Writings of Eusebius; for we might have learned by them the Objections of the most learned Philosopher of his time, and the Answers of the most learned Bishop of his Age. 4. Some Varieties of the Evangelists. 5. Five Books concerning the Coming of Jesus Christ. 6. Some Commentaries upon the Psalms, of which we have some Fragments in the Catena of the Greek Fathers upon that Book. 7. Of Topical Names. 8. An Apology for Origen, whereof the Sixth Book only (as hath been said) was Eusebius'. 9 Three Books of the Life of Pamphilus, which he mentions in the 11th. Chap. of the Book of the Martyrs of Palestine. 10. An Apology for himself, perhaps a Vindication of himself against those who accused him of following the Opinions of Arius. 11. A Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, which is reported to be in the Library of the Escurial. 12. A Description of a Church of Jerusalem. 13. Of the Feast of Easter. 14. Three Epistles, the First, to Constantia, Constantine's Sister; the Second, to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, for the Re-establishment of Arius; the Third, to a Bishop named Euphration. Some Fragments of those Letters may be found in the Acts of the Second Council of Nice, Act. 5. & 6. 15. An Ancient History, which perhaps is the same with his Chronicle, and is cited by Anastasius Sinaita, as well as a Book dedicated to Marinus.  
15. Father Sirmond, a Jesuit, printed at Paris, in 1643, several Latin Homilies, which two Manuscripts ascribe to Eusebius of Caesarea, and which Valesius thought to be his; but Dr. Cave rather believes they were written by Eusebius of Emesus, a Semi- Arian, who lived towards the middle of the Fourth Century.  
After all, the same may be said of the Cologne Edition (1688) of Eusebius his Evangelical Preparation, and Evangelical Demonstration, etc. as of Clemens Alexandrinus his Works of the same Edition. They have added nothing to the Paris Edition but new Faults. Although Eusebius doth not observe in those Discourses a very exact Order, yet because he divides them into Chapters, one may more easily follow him than Clemens; and in this Edition the Citations are better distinguished from the Words of the Author, than in the Works of the Catechist of Alexandria; for there is some Commas in the Margin of the Passages that are quoted, or they are in Italic Characters. However, there is still some Distinctions of Paragraphs wanting in it, as well as in that of Clemens.   

The Life OF Gregory Nazianzen.  
GREGORY was 
* Vid. Pagi Crit. Baron. ad An. 354, & 368.  born, according to the most exact Chronology, in the Year 300, in a Village of the Second Cappadocia, named Arianzum, near the City of Nazianzum, from whence comes the Surname that is commonly given him. His Father and Mother 
† Greg. Presb. in ejus Vita.  were Persons of Quality, and their Virtue was esteemed by those who knew them, if we may believe their Son, who always speaks of them with great Commendations. He says, that his Father, whose Name was Gregory too, was born of Parents who had I know not what Religion, which did partake of the Heathenish and the Jewish. 
‖ Orat. 19 p. 289.  They had neither Idols nor Sacrifices, but they worshipped Fire and Torches. They kept the Sabbath, abstained from eating the Flesh of certain Beasts, and yet despised Circumcision. They went by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they boasted of worshipping none but the Supreme God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They seem to have taken the Worship of Fire from the Magis of Cappadocia, who went by the Name of 
* Strab. l. 15.  Pyrethes, because of the respect they had for Fire, which they looked upon as the Symbol of the Supreme Deity. But they were not like them in other things. 'Tis a surprising thing, that Gregory, who (as hath been said) denies that they worshipped Idols, and says that his Father was born with those Sentiments, 
† Carm. 1. de rebus suis. v. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  should positively say elsewhere, that he was subject to the Images of Animals. It seems that either his Memory was somewhat weak on this occasion, or his great Zeal made him fall into that Contradiction; unless one had rather excuse him, by looking on what he says of the Idols of Animals, which his Father worshipped, as a Rhetorical Exaggeration, a Figure common enough in Gregory's Style. As for his Mother Nonna, she was born of Christian Parents, who had been careful of her Education, and found her extremely inclined to Piety. Her Son doth also infinitely praise her Parts and Conduct.  
A Woman with such Dispositions could hardly allow that her Husband should profess the Errors of the Hypsistarians. Besides, Gregory was a good-natured and temperate Man; so that tho' he had some erroneous Opinions, yet his Life was unblameable. Nonna was continually urging him to get himself instructed in the Christian Religion; but he could not be persuaded to't, till he had a Dream, which made him resolve upon it. He dreamt that he was singing those words of the Cxxii. Psalms, I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the House of the Lord. That way of Singing, though new, pleased him; and his Wife failed not to take hold of this Opportunity, to persuade him to embrace Christianity.  
It happened at the very same time, that Leontius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, went that way with some other Bishops, in his Journey to Nice, where Constanstine had called a Council. Gregory went to see him, and told him that he had a mind to turn Christian. Leontius caused him to be instructed; and whilst they were instructing him, to admit him amongst the Cathecumeni, he was upon his Knees, without being bid to rise, whereas the Cathecumeni commonly stood whilst they were instructed. Those who were there, observed that Posture, because 'twas the Posture of the Priests, when they were consecrated. And his Son 
* Orat. 19  says, that every Body looked upon it as an Omen of his being some time or other honoured with the Orders of a Priest. Afterwards, as the Bishop of Nazianzum was baptising him, those who stood by, saw him come out of the Water surrounded with Light, and the Bishop could not forbear saying that Gregory should succeed him in his Bishopric; as it happened, when the See of Nazianzum had been vacant for some time. His Son, who relates these two Circumstances, styles them Miracles: And because then, as , every body believed not whatever Churchmen said, he declares that he relates these Wonders only to the Faithful, because none of those great things appear true to profane Men. But a Man that is not profane, can't forbear suspecting, not of want of Sincerity, but of Credulity and Exaggeration, those Rhetorical Souls who take Advantage of every thing. By relating Facts of that nature, when Men think that they say what they have seen, they often say what they have thought, concerning things at which they were surprised; and instead of the undeniable of their Eyes, they give out the doubtful Consequences of a prejudiced Mind. They believe, without any Examination, whatever is advantageous to the Party they have embraced; and whatever is contrary to it, is false, or at least suspected. Those who will read Gregory Nazianzen, without making these Reflections, will run the hazard either of looking upon him as a Man of little Sincerity, or of believing many unlikely Miracles.  
Nonna had but one Daughter in the beginning of her Marriage, if Gorgonia, whom Gregory her Brother mentions in several places, was the first Child she had; 
* Greg. de Vita sua, p. 2.  and she did hearty desire to have a Son. She made a Vow to God to consecrate him to him, if he gave her one; and soon after she had a Dream, in which she saw the Face of the Son she was to have, and learned what should be his Name. Instead of one, she had two; and as soon as they were born, she took great care of their Education, having observed in them some Dispositions which deserved to be cultivated.  
As soon as Gregory came to years, he was sent to Caesarea, 
† Greg. Presb. in Vit. Gr. p. 4, etc.  the Metropolis of Cappadocia, where he was put under the best Masters, to learn Humane Learning; that is to say, to understand the Greek Poets and Orators, and to write well in that Tongue. 'Twas the only thing that was minded in Asia; and the reading of the Pagan Authors who had writ well in that Tongue, was the Study which they applied themselves to. 'Tis thought that about that time Gregory became acquainted with Basil, whose Friendship was so dear to him afterwards. From Caesarea in Cappadocia he went afterwards 
* Orat-10. p. 163.  to Caesarea in Palestine, whereof Eusebius was Bishop. He applied himself there 
† Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Euzoio.  to Declaiming, according to the Custom of that time, under a famous Rhetor named Thespesius. Having stayed some time at Caesarea, he went to Alexandria, which for some Centuries was much celebrated, by reason of the learned Men who were there. His stay there was not useless to him; but he did not think he could be accounted a learned Man, without going to Athens the Mother of Learning.  
Wherefore 
‖ De Vita sua, p. 3, 4. Orat. 19 p. 306, 307.  he embarked on a Ship of the Island of Aegina, which is not far from the City of Athens. Forasmuch as 'twas in the middle of November, he had not a very prosperous Passage. Being near the Isle of Cyprus, his Ship was tossed with a violent Storm for several Days; and Provisions failing, the trouble they were in was attended with Hunger; so that the Seamen would not have been able to do their Duty, had not a Phoenician Ship, which the Wind carried towards them, afforded them some Provisions. Gregory says, that his greatest grief at that time, was, that he was not Baptised. That Thought affected him so much, that he moved the Seamen with Pity, though they were already afflicted enough with the Peril they themselves were in. He made a Vow to God, that he would get himself Baptised, and consecrate himself to God, and the Storm ceased some time after. It seems he was afraid of being damned, if he should die without Baptism; and it being the Opinion of that time, 'tis a wonder that his Father and Mother, whose Piety he doth so much extol, should not take care that he should be Baptised, from his very Childhood. 'Tis true, Baptism might be put off, lest they should fall off from Grace, which they thought God gave to those who received it; or for fear they should be Excommunicated, if they should live after a manner unworthy of those who were Baptised. But those Fears don't take away the Difficulty; since Men are no less in danger of being damned if they live ill, without having received Baptism, than if they dishonour it after they have received it. However, Gregory says that his Parents were warned of the Danger he was in, by a Dream which made 'em pray for him. One of those who were in the same Ship saw also Nonna, Gregory's Mother, walking upon the Sea, and drawing afterwards the Ship to the shore, and then the Storm ceased. They sailed towards Greece, and having passed by Rhodus, at last they arrived at the Isle of Egina, from whence Gregory went to Athens.  
He had not been there long, before 
* Orat. 20. p. 326. Vid. & Olympiad. ap. Photium. Ced. lxxx.  Basil came to it. Then the Friendship which they had begun to contract at Caesarea, did very much increase. Forasmuch as they applied themselves to the same Study, and had the same Inclinations, they grew so intimate Friends, that Gregory says they were but One Soul in Two Bodies. We shall see afterwards what altered that Friendship. The Sophists, or Masters of Rhetoric, who lived at Athens, had every one of them their Faction, and endeavoured by all imaginable means to get Disciples. In order to it, they kept some of their Party in all the Avenues of the City of Athens, and as soon as they saw some Young Men who came to study there, those who happened to be the strongest, seized them, and then lodged them at their Friends. Those who who were able to bring many Disciples to their Master, paid nothing to him; which made the poor Scholars watchful to observe the Strangers who came to Athens. A Young Man being thus got into their hands, some among the Scholars put some Questions to him, and delighted to contradict him, to know whether he had any Wit. Afterwards, they conducted him in a solemn manner to the Public Baths; and those who had taken him, went before him two and two. When he came to the Door, they made as if they were not willing that he should go in, and made a great noise to fright him: yet they soon after let him go in; and when he had washed himself, they they put the Philosophical Cloak upon his Shoulders, which before he was not allowed to wear. Basil was exempted from that Ceremony, because he had made much greater progresses than those who commonly came to Athens to study there; but it doth not appear that Gregory, who relates that, had a like Privilege. I have observed that Custom, though not very considerable in itself; because one may thereby apprehend how much in love they were then with the Sophistical Art, or Rhetoric, and how greedy the Masters were of getting Disciples. One may also perceive thereby, that the Academies of those times were not better regulated than those of our time; and that in all likelihood when the Students left 'em, they were not more improved than they are now.  
The two greatests Sophists that were then at Athens, were Himerius and Proeresius, who both were very much esteemed by the Emperor Julian. The latter being 
* Eunap. Sard. in Vita Proaeres.  an Armenian by Birth, had for that reason in his School all the Youth of Pontus, Cappadocia, Bythinia. and the other Provinces in the neighbourhood of this Country. Which makes one believe that Gregory studied at Athens under him. The same Sophist was so much esteemed, that the Emperor Constans treated him at his own Table, and sent him to Rome with a magnificent Train, where they erected a Statue to him, with this Inscription upon the Pedestal, ROME THE QUEEN OF CITIES, TO THE KING OF ELOQUENCE.  
Basil having received an Honour at Athens, 
* Nazianz. Orat. xx. p. 328.  which was seldom bestowed upon those who went thither, contracted Envy thereby. Some Young Men of Armenia, who had put on the Philosophical Cloak, and were admitted into those Schools. (
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  where they only learned to Prattle) before him, thought themselves bound in Honour to humble that Freshman. They undertook to Dispute with him; but finding him too strong for them, they would have been forced to leave him the Field of Battle, had not Gregory, who seriously believed that the Glory of Athens was concerned in it, come to their help, and made the Combat even on both sides. But he soon after perceived that the Armenians acted out of Envy, which made him side with Basil, who afterwards put his Adversaries to flight. From that time their Friendship took deeper root, and they lived very amicably together. Had it not been for the lucky meeting of such a Friend as Gregory, Basil would have been weary of Athens, where he found not the Learning he hoped to find in it; but Gregory comforted him with his Conversation, and gave him to understand, that it required some time to know throughly all the learned Men of a City, and to be able to judge of them without rashness. Both of them applied themselves to the wisest and most rational of those who studied at Athens, not to those who made the greatest figure, and disputed best. Basil left that City first, from whence he undertook some Travels, and at last retired to Caesarea. Gregory, some time after, returned to Cappadocia, to assist and comfort his Father and Mother in their Old Age. He describes, 
* De Vita sua, p. 4. & alibi.  in more than one place, in a very tender manner, a Separation which cost him many Tears; whereby one may know that Gregory was very tender of, and hearty loved his Friends.  
Gregory had then spent thirty years either in learning or teaching Rhetoric, as he himself says; that is to say, he left Athens towards the Year 354, or 355. It were almost incredible, that having a Father and a Mother very old, he should not have sooner thought to retire and live near them; nor have undertaken to do the Christian Church greater service, than to Study or Teach Rhetoric, 
* Vid. Pagi Crit. Baron. ad An. 354, & 388.  were it not that the whole Series of his Life shows it, (as the Reader will easily perceive by the remaining part of this History.) Julian, who was afterward Emperor, was also there, rather (as Gregory says) to consult the Diviners concerning his Fortune, than to study Philosophy. From that time Gregory began to hope no good thing from him, (as I shall observe, when I come to the Orations he made against him.) After Basil's departure, he applied himself especially to Eloquence, and Declamed with so much Applause, that every body looked upon him as one of the chief Orators of that time. He was not naturally inclined, as he himself says, to that sort of life; and he soon after made his escape from Athens, where he had been detained, as it were, against his will, without taking his leave of any Body. 
† De Vita sua, p. 5, 6. & Orat. x. p. 165.  He loved naturally a quiet life, which made him averse to any manner of life that would have made him too busy. Those who live after that manner, and perform well their Employments, seemed to him to be only useful to others; and those who live altogether in a retreat, seemed to him to be only good for themselves. He wished he might keep a Medium between those two Extremes, and lead a kind of a Monastical life in the midst of the World, without taking upon him any Employment but such as he would have chosen, and without being obnoxious to some troublesome Irregularities, which render the best Employments unpleasant.  
He departed from Athens full of those thoughts, and went to Constantinople by Land. He found there his Brother Caesarius, who came thither by Sea, at his return from Alexandria, where he had studied Physic. 
* Orat. x. p. 164.  He had got so great a Reputation, during the little time that he stayed at Constantinople, that the Emperor would keep him for his Physician, make him a Citizen of Constantinople, and confer upon him the Dignity of a Senator. Though Caesarius was very willing to yield to those Solicitations, yet his Parents Wishes, and his Brother's Exhortations prevailed, and he set out with him to go to Nazianzum. But having stayed there some time, he returned to Constantinople, where it was much more pleasant to live than in a desert Town of Cappadocia. As for Gregory, he was Baptised at Nazianzum, and his Father persuaded him soon after to renounce that quiet life, which he designed to lead, and to take the Orders of a Priest. Gregory, a great while after, could not 
† De Vita sua, p. 6.  forbear naming that Action 
‖ Ep. xi.  of his Father a Tyranny. But the Respect he had for him, and the Troubles that good Men were put to, during the Arian Controversies, wherein his Father himself was concerned, obliged him patient-to bear the yoke that was laid on him.  
Basil had made him 
* Ep. v. Greg.  promise, that when he should leave Athens, he would come and live with him: But Gregory could not be as good as his Word, being obliged to live with his Parents. He invited Basil to come and see him sometimes, but it doth not appear that they were ever long together. Several Persons 
† Orat. xi.  wished that he would take Priests Orders, but afterwards did not oftener frequent the Church of Nazianzum for all that, as he upbraids them with it in one of his Orations, in which, notwithstanding, he praises the Concord and Orthodoxy of that Church. He doth also bestow upon them a considerable Commendation, viz. that they made Piety to consist, not in speaking much of God, but in being silent, and obeying him. If Ancient and Modern Divines had endeavoured to deserve that Praise, Christianity would not have been torn by so many Disputes, nor would it be so now.  
Constantius, in order to allay the Arian Quarrels, if it were possible, called an Oecumenick Council, in the Year 359, which was divided into two Assemblies. The Eastern Bishops were to hold theirs at Seleucia in Isauria; and the Western, at Ariminum, a Town of Romania. The Arians who were at Seleucia 
* Socrat. l. 11. c. 40.  made a Confession of Faith, in which supposing that no unscriptural Term was to be used, and consequently that the word Consubstantial ought not to be used, they only said, that the Son was like the Father, according to the Apostle, who says, That the Son is the Image of the Invisible God. Those who said that the Son was not like the Father, were also condemned in it. Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, drew up that Confession of Faith. The same Acacius, and those of his Party, approved the Confession of Ariminum, which was worded after the same manner. 
† Socrat. l. 11. c. 41. & Sozom. l. 4. c. 29.  They only added to it, that in this matter, the words Substance and Hypostasis aught not to be used; because those words which had caused so many Disputes, were not to be found in the Holy Scripture. In the mean time, the Arians being urged by the Orthodox to say in what that Resemblance of the Father did consist, made it to consist only in the Will: Whereas the others maintained, That the Substance of the Son, though distinct, was altogether like the Substance of the Father. But forasmuch as equivocal Terms were used by both Parties, it gave occasion to those who were not skilled in those Subtleties, to equivocate, and confound two very different Opinions. Gregory's Father was one of those who fell into that Snare; 
* Orat. nineteen. p. 297. & Vit. Greg. p. 11.  he subscribed to the Confessions of Faith of Seleucia and Ariminum: The miraculous Light which appeared at his Baptism, and his Study since that time, had not enlightened his Mind to such a degree, as to make him understand the Arian Controversies. That Action of the Bishop of of Nazianzum alarmed the Monks of Cappadocia, who being full of Zeal for the Consubstantiality, refused to Communicate with the good Man, and got part of the People on their side. 'Tis likely that his Son Gregory was not then at Nazianzum; for he would have hindered his Father from committing a Fault, which he obliged him to acknowledge by a public Recantation.  
Having thus appeased the Monks, Gregory the Son got into the Pulpit, and made the Discourse concerning Peace, which is his XII. Oration, in the presence of his Father, who was not to be compared to him for Eloquence and Learning. 1. He says, That the pleasure he had to see Peace restored to the Church of Nazianzum, had induced him to make that Discourse, whereas before nothing could persuade him to speak. 2. That he had been extremely moved at the Division which had before happened; especially considering the austere and holy Life of the Monks, which he describes by the buy, with great Rhetorical Exaggerations. 3. That Divisions are the cause of all sorts of Mischiefs; and that they had reason to thank God, because that which arose in the Church of Nazianzum was over. 4. That the Church of Nazianzum, which before that last Division, knew not what Schism was, aught to endeavour for the future to enjoy a perpetual Peace. 5. That in the last Discord. Men were so fully persuaded that the Bishop of Nazianzum acted sincerely, and kept the Truth of the Faith, that they upbraided him only with his being imposed upon by equivocal Words. 6. That every thing invites us to Peace; God, Angels, and all Creatures which are maintained by Concord. 7. That the Jews had been happy whilst they were at Peace one with another, but became unfortunate as soon as they were divided. 8. Notwithstanding, that all manner of Peace ought not to be sought after, but that a medium ought to be kept; and that 'tis one's Duty to oppose Heresy with all one's might, when any body prefesses it openly; but that one ought to forbear making a Schism upon mere Suspicions. 
* Pag. 203.  When (says he) that which troubles us, is only a Suspicion, and a Fear grounded upon no Certainty; Patience is more useful than Precipitation, and Condescension more than Passion. 'Tis much better to remain united together, to correct mutually one another, as the Members of the same Body; than to condemn one another by a Schism, before they understand reciprocally one another; or to lose the Trust which they put one in another by a Division, and than to undertake to correct others, not after a brotherly, but tyrannical manner, with Edicts and Laws.— Lastly, Gregory exhorts the Church of Nazianzum to keep the good depositum concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, which he expresses in these terms: 
* Pag. 204.  We worship a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; in the Son we acknowledge the Father, and in the Holy Spirit the Son, etc. Before we join them, we distinguish 'em; and before we distinguish 'em, we join 'em. We don't look upon those Three Things as One (GOD,) for they are not things 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See the Life of Eusebius.  destitute of a distinct Existence, or that have but One Existence, so that our Riches be only in Names, not in Things, and that Three Things be really but One. 'Tis One Thing not in Existence, but in Divinity. We worship an Unity in a Trinity; and that Trinity reunited in the Unity, is all adorable and Royal; it hath but One Throne and Glory; it is all above the World, above Time, Uncreated, etc.  
That Speech, as almost all the Speeches of Gregory, is, 1st. Without any great Order: Thoughts are heaped one upon another, as they came into the Author's Mind; a Defect which almost all the ancient Orators were guilty of, as well as he, and which makes him repeat the same things to no purpose. 2dly. His Reasonings seem too far-fetched, and are not very convincing; as when he says, That the World is preserved by Peace: That's a far-fetched Thought; and the contrary might be said, as indeed some Philosophers have asserted, That the Opposition which is between the several Parts of the Universe, keeps them in the state they are in, because they hinder one another from leaving it. 3dly. The Style of that Oration is too full of Figures, little correct, and even sometimes harsh; all which things often breed Obscurity. However, it must be confessed, that he abounds in noble Comparisons, and happy and Energick Expressions, such as those 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which he uses in that place wherein he condemns the Schism which I have mentioned. He is also full of Ornaments taken out of History, or Heathenish Fables; nay, he speaks sometimes of the later, as the Pagan Philosophers did, without openly rejecting them. Thus, speaking of the Flames of Mount Aetna, he uses this Expression, 
* Orat. iii. p. 86.  whether it be something else, or the blowing of a Giant in torment. Elsewhere, having spoken of the Torments of Tantalus, Ixion, 
† Orat. iv. p. 132.  and Tityus, he adds; whether it be True, or a Eable, which teaches us the Truth under a Fiction. Yet there is no doubt but Gregory looked upon all those things as mere Fables; but the Greek Philosophers, whom he had carefully read, spoke after the same manner. It seems, that the custom of speaking as others did, made Gregory say many things, which he had read in Pagan Authors, without being willing to examine 'em. But he is far from equalling the Neatness, Exactness and Elegancy of Isocrates, whom, they say, he proposed to himself as his Model. I thought myself obliged to set down here, in a few words, what may be said of Gregory's Style, that I may forbear repeating it, when I come to speak of his other Orations. I shall only present the Reader with some Examples of what I have said, when occasion offers.  
I must also observe here, once for all, that Gregory, with respect to Philosophy, followed the Platonic, from which he borrows several terms, which can't be understood without the knowledge of it. Thus, he says, 
‖ Pag. 1●8.  That God is the most Excellent and Highest of all Being's, if one had not rather place him above the Essence, and put in him the Whole Being, since he gives it to other things.— To understand the meaning of those words, to be above the Essence, we must know, that the Platonics established some Chains of Being's, as they worded it; that is, a Series of Being's placed one above another: so that going up by degrees, in that Chain, more excellent Being's did still offer themselves; and at last the Supreme Trinity, which is above all the Essences of those Being's, that is to say, which can't be referred to any particular Species, but contains in itself all their Essences, and therefore can produce 'em. 
* Vid. Proclum. Theol Platon. l. 3. c. 20. & alibi.  Whence it is that those Philosophers say, that the Gods have some Super-essential Qualities. Without the knowledge of that Platonic Doctrine, one can't know Gregory's meaning in the words which I have just now quoted.  
He says in the same Page, That Angels partake first of the Light; That they are enlightened by the True Reason, and that they are some Beams of that Perfect Light.— All those terms are taken from the bottom of Platonism, as I could easily show by explaining them, were it not that I should too much enlarge.  
To return to the Historical part: The Arians being informed of the Division which happened at Nazianzum, took advantage of it, and laughed at the Orthodox. Which gave occasion to Gregory to make the Homily, which is the XIII. amongst his Orations; wherein he shows the Arians, that the Division of Nazianzum having been only by a Mistake, and having not lasted long, they did unjustly insult over that Church. Besides, he shows the advantage which the Orthodox had over the Arians and Sabellians, by comparing the Opinions of those three Societies one with another. Though that Passage is somewhat long, yet I shall set it down here; because those who have not very well studied those Matters, will better understand what was the Opinion of the Orthodox at that time, than they have done from the Passage of the XII. Oration, which I have cited.  

* Pag. 208.  Why (says he) d'ye love Vanity, and look after Lies, by giving (he speaks to the Arians) to the Deity a Nature which is neither One, nor Simple, but Three Natures which are divided and separated, and even contrary, by reason of the Proprieties which the one hath, and the others want; or by establishing One only Nature (he speaks to the Sabellians) but a narrow and streightened one, and which hath not the Propriety of being the Principle of great things, either for want of Power or Will. It should be either out of Envy or Fear, to establish nothing which should equal it in Honour, or oppose it. But by how much God is more Excellent than the Creatures, by so much is it a thing more worthy of the First Cause to be the Principle of a DEITY, than of Creatures, and not to come to the latter but by a DEITY which is between both; than if a Deity 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence comes the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  existed (according to the Arians) because of the Creatures, as it seems to those who are too subtle. If when we confess the Dignity of the Son and Spirit, we acknowledged no Principle of them, or if we referred them to a Principle of another nature, one might have some reason to fear that we dishonour the Deity, or introduce some Gods contrary one to another.— A little lower, he says, That the Unity moved itself, because of its Riches; and that the Number of Two was increased, because the Deity is above Matter and Form, which are the Two Principles which Bodies are made of; That the Trinity is bounded, because of its Perfecton, and surpasses the Conjunction of Two; so that the Deity is neither too much streight'ned, nor enlarged to Infinity.— The former (as he goes on) hath somewhat that's mean; and the latter would breed a Confusion. The former is altogether Jewish, and the latter Heathenish.— The word, to move one's self, here is a Platonic term. 
* Vid. Plotin. Ennead. v. l. 1. c. 6, 7.  which those Philosopher's use, when they speak of the Productions of the Deity: And Gregory means, that the Divine Nature was multiplied to Three Hypostases, or Three Idividuums; which is opposite to Judaisme, which acknowledges but One Supreme Nature; and to Paganism, which admits of too many Gods. The Platonics disputed about this among themselves; some maintained, That the Supreme Deity had multiplied itself only to Three Gods, 
* Vid. Cyryl viij. count. Julian. & Plotin. Ennead. v. l. 8. c. 12.  and that whatever is beyond it is not of a like Nature; and others extended it to a greater number of Deities. Plato and † Porphyry were of the former Opinion, and Plotinus of the latter.  
Julian being come to the Throne, in the Year 361, sought for all manner of ways to ruin the Christians; and perceiving that they made a great use of the Pagan Authors, either to fit themselves for Eloquence, or to take from them some Reasons fit to defend the Christian Religion, and attack Paganism, he undertook to hinder the Christians from applying themselves to the study of Humane Learning. Some Ancients say that he forbade 'em 
* Vid. Pagi ad An. 362.  not only to keep Schools to teach it, but also to go to those of the Pagan Grammarians and Orators; others seem only to say that the Christians were forbidden to keep Schools. Julian himself says in express 
† Ep. xlii.  words, in one of his Letters, that the Children of Christians should not be forbidden to go to the Schools of Pagans, however without forcing them to't; because those who sin only for want of Understanding, aught to be taught, not punished. Gregory Nazianzen mentions that Prohibition of Julian in his Third Oration: But, as a 
‖ Pagi ad Ann. 362.  Modern Author judiciously observes, forasmuch as he speaks there more like an Orator than an Historian, 'tis a difficult thing to find out what he means. 'Tis an ill effect of the continual Rhetoric of most of the Ancients: They are so Eloquent, that they can't be understood. 'Tis likely that Julian did not forbid the Children of Christians to go to the Schools of Pagan Teachers, either because he himself says so, or because it was a good way to seduce 'em. Hence it is, that some learned Men amongst the Christians, as both Apollinaris' and Gregory, put the Scripture and Doctrines of Religion in Greek Verses, or fine Prose. Those Writings might supply the room of those of the Ancient Pagans, and the Youth needed no Grammarians to understand 'em. Parents might easily be instead of Tutors to their Children, to explain those Christian Verses to them, after they had read the Holy Scripture. However, that Prohibition made the Christians very angry, who could not abide that their Grammarians, Rhetors and Philosophers should have been sent back to the Churches of the Galileans (these are Julian's words) to explain there Matthew and Luke. Had they never done any thing else, they would not have introduced so many new words, nor handled the Doctrines then in question with so many Subtleties, nor would the Platonic Philosophy have had so great a share in their Decisions.  
About that time, Caesarius, Gregory's Brother, who was returned (as hath been said) to Constantinople, was made Julian's Chief Physician; and because of his Learning, he was admitted into the number of the Friends of that Emperor, who loved learned Men. Whereupon Gregory wrote to him a very sharp 
* Ep. xvii.  Letter, wherein he tells him, That he had made all his Family ashamed, by reason of his Conduct; That every body wondered that a Bishop's Son should follow the Court, and endeavour to get Honours and Riches among the Pagans; That he made his Father's Life unpleasant to him, who could not blame in others what his Son did; That they were obliged to conceal his Conduct from his Mother, lest she should die with Grief; That he had enough to live handsomely, without exposing himself to so great danger. Lastly, That if he went on in the same manner of life, he must be ranked among those Christians who least deserve that Name. If Caesarius was not persuaded by that Letter to return to his Parents, 'tis likely however that it strengthened him against Julian's Endeavours to induce him to renounce Christianity, which his Brother mentions in 
* Orat. x. p. 167, 168.  one of his Orations. He says, that Caesarius having answered all his Reasons, protested to him that he was a Christian, and would be so all his life-time; and that Julian, in the presence of many Persons of his Court, cried out, thinking of the Bishop of Nazianzum and his two Sons, O Happy Father! O Unhappy Children! Caesarius being either weary of Julian's Solicitations, or moved with his Brother's Advice, returned to Nazianzum, when Julian set out to go against the Persians.  
It seems that about the same time, Julian sent a Captain with some Archers 
† Orat. nineteen. p. 308.  to Nazianzum, to take possession of the Church of the Christians. But he was so far from being able to perform what he desired, that if he had not speedily made his escape, by the Bishop's or some other's Advice, he must have retired with broken Legs; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pedibus lace●●tis.  so great was the Ardour of that Priest's (Gregory the Father) Anger and Zeal for that Church! Those are the very words of his Son: Which shows, that those good Men did not always preach up Passive Obedience.  
In the Year 363, Julian was killed in his Retreat before the Persian Army: 
† Ibid.  An effect, if we believe charitable Gregory, of the Prayers of the same Bishop and People, who designed to break the Legs of the Captain of the Archers, whom I mentioned just now.  
At that time Gregory composed his two Invectives against Julian, wherein he omits nothing that can make him odious to all Posterity. Those two Orations are as full of Resentment and Passion, as can be imagined, against a Man, who, abating of his Paganism, had been one of the Greatest Emperors that ever were in the Roman Empire. A learned Man believed that those two Orations were made public whilst Julian was alive; but 'tis a Mistake: Gregory mentions his Death in both of them. The same 
‖ P. Cunaeus Praef. in Caesares Juliani.  Author observes, not without reason, That we are extremely deceived by the Authority of some of those who have been formerly illustrious in the Church, when we come to judge after them of some Princes of their time. Prejudices are so strong (as he goes on) that most Men examine nothing, but are drawn by the Holiness of those great Men. The Vulgar fancies that 'tis a great Sin to believe that the Piety of those Men was not always attended with a great Candour. For my part, as I am persuaded that they had great Virtue, so I do believe that they have committed some Faults out of Passion, and I remember that they are very sharp. To say nothing of others, those who had some Reputation in Greece, were apt, according to the ill Custom of their Nation, to fall into Extremes, etc. They cast into Hell those with whom they were angry, although their Virtue had raised them to Heaven: And on the contrary, they have so much extolled those whom they undertook to Praise, that Posterity admires  their Virtue, which was scarce of the second Order.— Those who will judge sound of the Panegyrics and Invectives of the Christian Antiquity, ought necessarily to remember that Genius of the Greeks.  
1. Gregory gins his 
* Orat. iii. p. 49.  First Invective with opprobious Words against Julian; to the hearing of which he invites Heaven and Earth. He addresses himself particularly to the Soul of Constans, who made Julian Caesar: speaking to him he adds these words, 
* Pag. 50.  If the Dead perceive any thing: From whence it appears, that he doubted whether the Dead know any thing of what passes below. Yet he says elsewhere, 
† Pag. 63.  That he censures him, as if Constans was present and heard him, although he was with God, and enjoyed his Glory: Which shows that this was only a mere Rhetorical Apostrophe, from which nothing can be concluded.  
2. He very much wonders that Constans raised Julian to the Dignity of Caesar, knowing what he was; and at the same time makes the Encomium of the former, whose Piety he praises every where: 
‖ Pag. 65.  He defends him against those who accused him of Imprudence, for having raised Julian so high, after he had put to death his Brother Gallus; and says, that he hoped to allay the Mind of Julian by his Favours, and that trusting altogether to his own strength, he did not fear him in the least, as one might have seen, if Constans had not died. In the following Speech against Julian, speaking of the same Emperor, he excuses him 
* Orat. iv. p. 119.  for the Protection he granted to the Arians. He says that he was imposed upon, out of Simplicity, and want of Firmness, and that he was deceived by the seeming Zeal he perceived in the Arian Officers of the Court. It would be a difficult thing to reconcile that with the Principles of Gregory, who looked upon the Arian Disputes as material ones, were it not that 'tis well known that the words of an Orator are not to be urged as those of a Mathematician. But it would be a hard matter to reconcile him with St. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, who treated Constans much worse than Gregory did Julian. Those Great Men acted as others do; they spoke according to the present Passion they were led by, without very much weighing the Figures and Expressions which they used.  
3. Gregory 
* Pag. 51.  doth justly laugh at Julian, who forbade the Christians to teach Profane Learning; for the Reasons of the Christians would not have been less strong, though they were not propounded with so great Eloquence. But he feigneth to despise Eloquence and Politeness, which certainly he did not despise, and which he displays, as much as he can, in all his Writings, which would be very often clearer, if there was not so much Rhetoric in them. He doth also upbraid Julian, who trusted much his Eloquence, with the great desire he shown of taking from the Christians the Means of acquiring it; which (says he) is the same thing as if a Champion should Hector, and play the Courageous Man, after he hath forbidden all other Champions to fight with him.  
4. He assures 
* Pag. 58.  that Constans had taken a particular Care of the Education of Gallus and Julian, Sons of one of his Uncles, Brother of Canstantine, and whose Name was also Constans, to show that he had no hand in the Murder of the latter, which was committed when Constans, Constantine's Son, came to the Throne. Nay, he designed to impart the Empire to his two Sons, who were of a very different Temper, if we believe Gregory. Though they had been instructed after the same manner, and would both be Anagnostes, or read the Holy Scripture in the Church, it appeared afterwards that one of them was no Christian. Besides, there was a report, and Gregory believed it was true, that Gallus and Julian building a Temple, at common Costs, to the Honour of some Martyrs, that which Gallus caused to be built, did sensibly increase; but the Earth quaked in the place wherein Julian was building, and whatever was raised, sunk down. There happened many other Miracles besides, all different from those of the Gospel, which were not wrought so much in the behalf of Unbelievers, as of those whose Disposition made 'em not altogether unworthy of them. 'Tis true, that 
† Pag. 70.  Gregory says, that some Lies had been mixed with the Truth, and relates only, in a doubtful way, what was reported, that Julian, as he was sacrificing, saw a a Crowned Cross in the Bowels of a Victim. But he assures as certain some things that are much more incredible, in the following Oration; 
* Pag. 71.  and in this he says, that Julian having called out the Daemons, with certain Sacrifices, could not forbear being frighted, as soon as he heard the Noise, and that he saw certain Fires which commonly precede their Apparition, and that forasmuch as he had been bred up in the Christian Religion, he made the Sign of the Cross, which presently drove away all those Spectrum's. The Priest, who performed the Ceremonies, and perceived the trouble Julian was in, told him that the Gods abhorred him upon that account, not that they were afraid of the Sign of the Cross, which he had made.  
5. Gregory 
† Pag. 72.  derides the Artifices which Julian made use of to persecute the Christians, without procuring them the Honour of Martyrdom, and without seeming to treat them ill; because whatever Pretence he used, one might easily see that their greatest Crime was Christianity. Persecution upon the account of Religion, is so odious of itself, even to all those who have still some sense of Humanity left, that even those who practice it, are ashamed of it, when Superstition and Cruelty allow them some time to think somewhat more calmly on what they are doing. This is so true, that most of those who have suffered themselves to be led by the blind Zeal of Persecution, have used the same Artifices. We have seen an egregious Example of it in our Age; and if what Gregory says here of the pitiful Arts and Cunnings of Julian, be compared with what was lately done in a great Kingdom, one will find a great Resemblance between both. I shall omit it here, lest any body should think that I design to insist upon so odious a Parallel.  
6. Amongst other Reasons, which Gregory uses, to show that Julian could not succeed in his Design, he describes thus the Power of the Saints which the Christians honoured; 
* Pag. 76, 77.  Did you not fear those on whom so great an Honour is bestowed, and for whom solemn Feasts have been instituted; by whom the Daemons are driven away, and Diseases cured, whose Apparitions and Predictions are known; the very Bodies whereof have as much Virtue as their holy Souls, whether they be touched or honoured; some drops of whose Blood only have the same Virtue with their Bodies?— It appears from those words, and several other places out of Gregory, and other Fathers in his time, that they had already a great respect for the Relics of Saints, and vented a great many Miracles wrought at their Graves. 'Tis to be wondered how Gregory, who loved Exaggerations, said not that the Bodies of the Saints had a greater Virtue after their Death, than during their Life; for there is no comparison between the multitude of Miracles which are said to have been wrought at the Graves of Martyrs, and those which they wrought whilst they were alive. Several People believe that the want of Sincerity of some Christians, and the Credulity of some others, did very much contribute to the keeping up of Paganism.  
7. Our Author 
* Pag. 77.  makes afterwards an Encomium of the Monks, and despises Socrates, Plato, and all the Heathen Philosophers. Gregory upbraids Julian with his not esteeming Virtue in his Enemies; but certainly his Zeal made him on this occasion commit somewhat like it; and 'tis very certain that he had learned more by the reading of Plato and Socrates' Discourses, than by his Conversation with all the Monks he had seen. As for Manners, the continual Seditions of those Pious Hermits, and their implacable Temper, do plainly enough show that they were infinitely below those great Patterns of the Pagan Antiquity.  
8. He 
† Pag. 80.  rightly observes, that to design the ruin of the Christian Religion, in a time when the Roman Empire was full of Christians, was to undertake to ruin the Empire itself. When they were but a small number, they might have been ill treated without any danger to the State; but it could not then be done, without causing great Commotions, and too great Disorders in it. It were to be wished that the Imitators of Julian had well considered that Advertisement of Gregory, who despises, with great reason, whatever might be good in Julian's Government, if compared with the mischief which so detestable a Design would have been the cause of, if he had been able to execute it. Besides, one could have wished that our Age 
* Pag. 83, 84.  had been well acquainted with the horror the Christians had for the Snares which Julian laid for his Officers and Soldiers. Gregory says that some Christian Soldiers having, on one day wherein Julian was distributing some Liberalities to his Army, thrown Incense into the Fire in his presence, according to an ancient Custom; it had been interpreted, as if they had incensed the Idols; and having been told of their fault, as they were praying to Christ by making the Sign of the Cross after a Meal, by some who told 'em that they had renounced him, they presently went into the public Place, and cried even in the Emperor's hearing, that they had been surprised, and were Christians. Julian being angry because they had found out that Surprise, sent 'em into Banishment.  
9 Gregory describes 
* Pag. 87, 88  some horrible Cruelties against the Christians, which Julian had either commanded or suffered in Egypt and Syria. He says, that the Inhabitants of Arethusa, a Town of Syria, after they had exposed some Virgins consecrated to God to a thousand Infamies, killed them, ate their Liver raw, and threw their Bodies to be eaten by Dogs, having covered them with Barley. The same People treated with an abominable Barbarity, the Bishop of that Town, who notwithstanding seemed to be insensible in the midst of Torments. There might be some Exaggerations in this, and 
† Pag. 88  Gregory says, that that Bishop had, in Constans' time, demolished an Habitation of Daemons; that is, a Pagan Temple, according to the Power he had received from the Emperor. That Action of Mark of Arethusa drew on him the Hatred of the People, as a Heathen would have been detested by the Christians, if he had pulled down one of their Churches. Notwithstanding, Gregory says 
‖ Pag. 97.  a little lower, not only that the Christians had not treated the Pagans, as they were treated by them; but he asks them what Liberty the Christians took from them? As if it was nothing to pull down their Temples, as they did 
* Sozom. l. 2. c. 5.  since the Empire of Constantine! They went on with the same Rigour, under the following Emperors; and to leave nothing that the Pagans might be upbraided with, they forbade; on pain of Death, to sacrifice to Idols, with the Applauses of all Christians, if we believe 
† Ep. 48. ad Vincentium.  St. Augustine. I must not forget here to observe another effect of Gregory's Rhetoric, viz. speaking of the Christian Virgins of Arethusa, who had been so ill treated, he doth not only inveigh against the Pagans, but also addresses himself to our Saviour, by way of Apostrophe, in these words; O Jesus Christ! how shall I suffer the Patience you shown then?  
10. Julian added 
‖ Pag. 94.  Insults to ill Treatments; and when he deprived the Christians of their Estates, he said that he only helped them to observe the Gospel, which commands to despise them. That Raillery may be seen in Julian's Forty third Letter, where he says, that the Church of the Arians of Edessus having used them violently, he had confiscated all the Money of that Church, to distribute it to the Soldiers; and kept their other Goods for himself, lest the Arians being too rich, should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. To which Gregory answers, amongst other things, that Julian, by acting so, must needs have fancied that the Gods of Pagans are well pleased that Men should be deprived of what they have, without having deserved it, and so that they approve Injustice. He might have been content with that Answer; but he adds, That Christ hath commanded some things as necessary, and propounded some others only for those who would observe them, without absolutely obliging any body to do it. Such is (according to Gregory) the Command of forsaking what one hath.  
11. One of the things which offended most the Christians of that time, and about which they did not always defend themselves so well as they might have done, is, their being upbraided by the Pagans with keeping up Ignorance, 
* Pag. 99  since they preached nothing but Faith: You don't reason (said Julian to them,) you are mere Clowns, and all your Wisdom consists in saying, Believe. Gregory answers to that, That if Julian derided the Christians, by reason of that Method, he should also have derided Pythagoras, whose Disciples were wont to say, when they were asked the Reason of something, That Pythagoras had said so, which is all one.— He adds, That the Christians mean only by it, That it is not lawful to refuse to believe what hath been said by Men Inspired of God; but that they so much deserve to be believed, that that only is a Demonstration of what they say, stronger than the whole Faculty of Reasoning and Contradicting.— Celsus had raised the same Objection, 
* Origen. in Celsum. p. 8. etc.  and laughed at those who said, Examine nothing, but believe. Origen answered, That it was indeed impossible for the Common People to examine things throughly; and that there was nothing more convenient for them, than to Believe, without knowing why. Such Answers could not very much recommend Christianity, nor put the Christians in a Condition of Triumphing over the Pagans, who might have stopped their mouths with like Answers. For, if one must Believe, without knowing why, one may as well believe any thing, though never so absurd.  
12. Julian having observed that the Church Discipline and good Order among the Christians, did very much contribute to unite them one with another; and to increase their number, was resolved to introduce them into Paganism. He designed to 
† Pag. 102.  set up Schools in every Town, wherein the Pagan Religion and good Manners should be taught; to order public Prayers and Censures against those who should commit some Faults; and to erect Monasteries, and Hospitals where the Poor, Sick, etc. should be taken care of. The Christians had maintained themselves, and increased, in the midst of Persecutions, by such means which were much more proper to work upon the Common People, than Reasoning. Those who have writ concerning the manner how Christianity was propagated, have most of them omitted, I know not why, the good Order and constant Charity practised among them.  
13. To make an end of the Extract of that Oration, I shall only say, that Gregory doth afterwards 
* Pag. 103, etc.  fall upon the Theology of the Pagans. He is much stronger on this occasion, than when he defends himself; and it seems that he knew much better the weak-side of the Pagan Religion, than the strong one of his own.  
I shall further give an Extract of the chief places of his Second Oration against Julian, and then I shall only in general show the Subject of the other Writings of Gregory, which will be sufficient to know his Genius. That Oration contains in general the ill Designs of Julian against the Christians, some of his Actions, and his Death.  
1 He 
† Orat. iv. p. 111.  would favour the Jews, to oppose them to the Christians, and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. When the Jews began that Work, there happened, as when Julian himself was building with his Brother Gallus, so great an Earthquake, that they all ran away. As they were going into a neighbouring Temple to secure themselves, the Gates shut themselves of their own motion, as some reported it. But every body, if we believe Gregory, affirmed, that, as they intended to force their entrance into that Temple, some Flames came out of it, which consumed part of them, and lamed the rest. If any miraculous thing happened on this occasion, it must be confessed, that they took little care to write it faithfully; since History varies so much about it, as one may see by comparing only Socrates and Sozomen with Gregory. However, the latter speaks very positively of that Fire, which came out of the Foundations, or out of the Temple; and to convince altogether Unbelievers, he adds, Let no body refuse to believe those Miracles, unless he rejects the other Miracles of God too. That which is most admirable and glorious, is, that a Light was seen in Heaven, which represented the Cross, etc.— The Miracle did not stop there; Let those who have seen that Miracle (says Gregory) show their  marked with the Cross. As soon as any one, either of ours, or a Stranger, related this, or heard some body who related it, he perceived that Wonder either in himself, or those who were by him. He saw it shine in his , or in those of others, after a more artificial manner than the finest Weaving, or the most exact Picture can represent it.— That Miracle, together with the foregoing, converted an infinite number of People, if we believe Gregory.  
2. Afterwards he 
* Pag. 114, etc.  describes Julian's March, and Behaviour against the Persians, and his Death, about which they did not agree, some relating it one way, and some another; a variety to be observed not only amongst those who were not at the Fight, where he died, but also amongst those who were in it. Gregory says what he heard concerning it, but he hath not related that was reported about it, as it appears from what Sozomen relates, lib. 4. c. 1, 2. But he forbears especially saying that Libanius the Sophist accused the Christians of having killed that Emperor. From whence one may learn, that when the Question is about Facts, one ought not to rely too much upon Circumstances. Our Author, who takes advantage of every thing, prefers Constans before Julian, 
† Fag. 118.  because Constans his Funeral was better ordered than his Cousin's, and because he was Praised after his Death; whereas the Memory of Julian was abhorred by the Christians. Among the Ceremonies wherewith they honoured that of Constans, Gregory reckons 
* Ibid.  the Nocturnal Hymns and Torches, as if Constans had been the happier for it after his Death.  
3. After having upbraided Julian with his Inconstancy, Covetousness, angry Temper, and several other Vices, 
† Pag. 121, etc.  he says, that he had foreseen a great while before, when he was at Athens, what others knew by experience of that Emperor. It seemed to him, that no good thing could be expected from a Man who shook his Head at ever minute, who moved and raised up his Shoulders, who had wand'ring Eyes, a furious Look, staggering Feet, an insolent Countenance, together with something that was ridiculous, an excessive breaking in laughter, and a broken Voice; who asked impertinent Questions, and returned no better Answers.  
When Gregory saw this, he said, in the presence of many Persons, that he wished to prove a false Diviner, but, that the Roman Empire was breeding a great Evil. A 
‖ Cunaeus Praes. in Caesares.  learned Man, whom I have already quoted, could not abide that Gregory should find fault with Julian for some things, which of themselves have no relation with Virtue.  
4. Gregory, 
* Pag. 124, 127.  who had begged of God that Julian should be punished; as soon as he died, looked upon the Pagans with Pity, and exhorted the Christians to treat 'em with Mildness; though he rejoices because the Christian Churches would be no more polluted, the Altars profaned, Things consecrated to God ravished, Churchmen ill treated, the Relics of Martyrs burnt, etc. Afterwards he insults over the False Gods, and admonishes the Christians not to make an ill use of Prosperity, and to forbeat doing what they reproached to the Pagans. In the beginning of his 
† Pag. 128.  Exhortation, he speaks of himself thus, to excite the Attention of the Hearers: Hear the Discourse of a Man who hath not acquired a mean knowledge of those things, either by the experience of what happens every day, or by the reading of ancient Books, and ancient Histories.  
5. However, the greatest 
‖ Pag. 131.  Satisfaction of the Christians, after Julian's Death, was, according to Gregory, that those who had persecuted the Christians, were ridiculed upon the Stage, and in Public Places and Assemblies. That which is surprising (says he) is, that those who persecuted us together with others, do now overthrow, with great Acclamations, the Statues of the Gods, by whom they were so long deceived: These who worshipped them yesterday, do now use them opprobriously.— But those who continued in the Heathenish Religion, were undoubtedly very much offended to see the Statues of their Gods so dealt with, and could not look upon the Christians as moderate Men. For certainly those Statues were as dear to them, as the most Sacred Things were to the Christians. Besides, those who changed their Religion, as often as they had a new Emperor, and became so suddenly Enemies to the Gods whom they had worshipped all their life, could not but be very much suspected.  
6. Lastly, Gregory having 
* Pag. 183.  derided Julian's Speeches and Writings, which notwithstanding are not so contemptible, tells him that he boasts in vain of having never contracted any Crudity by eating too much; since the Harm he had done the Christians, was infinitely greater than the Good which might accrue to the Empire from his Sobriety. When one only Man (says he) is troubled with Crudities, and feels the Inconveniences of it, Is the Commonwealth the worse for it? But the whole Empire must needs suffer upon the account of so violent a Persecution, and so many Troubles.— In effect, the want of Royal Virtues in a Prince, is a greater defect, than to be destitute of those which Private Men ought to have.  
To return to our History, Gregory having been ordained a Priest against his Will, as hath been already said, resolved to retire into the solitary places of Pontus, without his Father's leave. His Brother Caesarius being then returned from Court, to live with his Parents, helped him to it. In the mean time, his Father being a very Old Man, and no longer able to bear the burden of a Bishopric, obliged him to return, to help him. Basil himself endeavoured to persuade him not to deny his Father. He was made a Bishop, to be his Coadjutor, and performed the Episcopal Functions, which his Father was not able to perform. At that time he made the Oration, which is the Fifth in order, wherein he addresses himself to his Father and to Basil, 
* Pag. 136.  and says, that he took the Long Habit and Mitre at their Solicitation. 'Tis a hard matter to know whether he pronounced that Compliment, or was contented to write it down; but he recited before the People the Forty first Oration, which runs upon the same Subject. Not long after, he made the long Apology for his Flight, which is in the beginning of his Works. He sets down at large the Difficulties which attend the Exercise of Episcopacy; and says, that notwithstanding, he was resolved to come, to comply with the Church of Nazianzum and his Parents Desires, who equally wished for his return.  
Among the Reasons which had deterred him from Episcopacy and Priesthood, he reckons the shameful manner after which many endeavoured to come to it, though they were never so unworthy of it, and and the multitude of Pretenders. 
* Orat. i p. 5.  They look upon that Dignity (says he) not as an Employment wherein they ought to be Examples of Virtue, but as the means of Maintaining themselves; not as a Ministry, of which they must give an Account; but as a Magistracy, which is liable to no Examination. They are almost more numerous than those whom they govern, etc. And I believe, that the Evil growing worse in time, they'll have no body to govern, but all will be Teachers, and Saul himself shall be seen among the Prophets.— He says, 
* Pag. 21.  That ignorant Men and Children were brought into the Pulpits; 
† Pag. 30.  That Churchmen were not better than the Scribes and Pharisees; 
‖ Pag. 33.  That no Charity was observed in them, but only Anger and Passion; That their Piety did only consist in condemning the Impiety of other Men, whose Conduct they observed, not to reclaim them, but to defame them; That they blamed or praised Men, not because of their good or bad Life, but according to the Party which they had embraced; That they admired among themselves, what they sharply censured in another Party; That there was nothing to be seen amongst 'em but Disputes like Night-Fights, wherein Friends are not distinguished from Enemies; That they wrangled about Trifles, on the specious Pretence of defending the Faith: Lastly, That they were abhorred by the Heathens, and despised by good Men among the Christians. This is a true Picture of the Lives of the ecclesiastics in his time, as it doth but too plainly appear by the History of that time. It's an unlucky thing, that those of our time are so much like them, that were it not known from whence those Complaints come, one would be apt to look upon them as a Picture of our Modern Divines.  
Another Difficulty which attended the Exercise of Episcopacy, consisted in discoursing well of the Mysteries of Christianity, and especially of the 
* Pag. 16.  Holy Trinity; concerning which, according to Gregory, a medium ought to be kept between the Jews, who acknowledge but One God; and the Pagans, who worship Many: A Medium which Sabellius did not keep, by making the same God, considered under several Relations, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; nor Arius, by maintaining that they are of different Natures. As for him, he believed (as we have already seen, and as he repeats it here and in many other places) that he kept that wished for Medium, by establishing Three Principles Equal in Perfection, though the Father be the Principle of the Son and Holy Spirit.  
It seems that Gregory had not been long his Father's Coadjutor, when his Brother Caesarius died. 'Twas not long after the Earthquake which happened in Bythinia, in October, in the Year 368. He was then at 
* Orat. x. p. 169.  Nice, where he exercised the Office of Questor, or the Emperor's Treasurer. That City was almost altogether ruined, and he was the only Officer of Valens who saved himself from that Danger. Gregory made a Funeral Oration in his Praise, which is the Tenth of those that are extant. He makes a short Description of his Life, the chief Circumstances of which I have related; describes the Vanity of whatever we enjoy here; and makes several Observations upon Death, and the manner of comforting one's self upon the Death of one's Relations. He wishes that his Brother may be in 
† Pag. 168.  Abraham's Bosom, whatever it may be: And towards the 
‖ Pag. 173.  end, describing the Happiness of Good Men after Death, he says, that according to Wise Men, their Souls are full of Joy, in the Contemplation of their future Happiness, until they are received into the Heavenly Glory after the Resurrection. Caesarius had given his Estate to the Poor at his Death, yet notwithstanding they had much ado to save it; those who were at his death having feized the greatest part of it, as Gregory complains in his Eighteenth Letter, whereby he desires Sophronius Governor of Bythinia to use his Authority in it.  
Basil, Gregory's Friend, having been made Bishop of Caesarea, 
* Vid. Pagi Crit. ad hunc ann.  in the Year 370, had some difference with Valens, which I shall not mention here, because it doth not at all relate to the Life of his Friend. This was perhaps the reason that moved that Emperor to divide Cappadocia into Two Provinces, and to make Tyane the Metropolis of the Second Cappadocia. Forasmuch as the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitans reached as far as the extent of the Province, several Bishops who were before Suffragan of Caesarea, became Suffragan of Tyane; so that Basil saw himself at the head of a lesser number of Bishops than before. 
† Orat. xx. p. 456.  The new Metropolitan drew to himself the Provincial Assemblies, ceased the Revenues of his Diocese, and omitted nothing to lessen the Authority and Revenues of Basil. Anthimus (such was the Bishop of Tyane's Name) who was an Arian, sheltered himself under the pretence of Piety, and said that he could not give up the Flocks to Basil's Instruction, whose Opinions concerning the Son of God were not right, nor suffer that any Tribute should be paid to Heretics. Gregory assures us, that he got some Soldiers to stop Basil's Mules, to hinder him from receiving his Rents. Basil found no other remedy to it, but to make new Bishops, who should have a greater care of the Flocks than he could have; and by whose means, every Town should carefully receive what was due to them. Sasime being one of those Towns in which he was resolved to put some Bishops, he cast his Eyes upon his Friend Gregory, to send him to it, without considering that that Place was altogether unworthy of a Person of such Merit: 'Twas a 
* Greg. de Vita sua, p. 7.  little Town, without Water and Grass, and full of Dust; a Passage for Soldiers, and inhabited only by some few poor Men. The Income of that Bishopric was very small; and besides, he must either resolve to defend it by Force against Anthymus, or submit to that new Metropolitan. Gregory refused that Employment; but at length the Importunity and Dexterity of Basil, who wrought upon Gregory's Father, obliged him to accept of it.  
It seems, that about that time he made his Seventh Oration, wherein he addresses himself to his Father and Basil, and desires their Help and Instruction to govern his new Church at Sasime. Notwithstanding▪ he says freely enough to Basil, that the Episcopal Throne had made a great Alteration in him, and that he was much milder when he was among the Sheep, than since he was a Pastor.  
The next day, he made 
* Orat. vi.  another Oration on the Arrival of Gregory Nyssen, Basil's Brother, to whom he further complains of the violence his Brother had done him▪ and because 'twas a Day of some Martyr's Feast, he adds several things on that occasion, concerning the Manner of Celebrating holidays, not with Profane Rejoicing, but Pious Exercises. He says, amongst other things, That 'tis then time to raise one's self, and become God (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) if one may so say, and that the Martyrs perform therein the Office of Mediators (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.)— That Expression, to become God, instead of, to become a Good Man, and despise Earthly things, doth often occur in Gregory's Writings. He says elsewhere, That the Priests 
* Orat. i p. 31. & Orat. xxiii. p. 410.  are Gods, and Deify other Men; 
† Orat. two. p. 46.  That Solitude Deify's. Introducing 
‖ Orat. xx. p. 349.  Basil, who refused to embrace Arianism, he makes him say, That he could not worship a Creature, he who was a Creature of God too, and had received a Commandment of being God.— It ought to be observed, that that Expression was used among the Pythagoreans; as may be seen by the last Golden Verse of Pythagoras, upon which Hierocles may be consulted.  
When Gregory came to Sasime, the misery of that Place made him believe that Basil despised him, and abused altogether his Friendship. Though he took upon him the Government of it for a little time, yet he exercised no Episcopal Function in it. He did not Pray publicly with the People, nor lay his Hands on any body. Forasmuch as he went thither against his Will, and without engaging himself to stay there, he thought he might leave that Church, and return into the Solitary Place out of which they took him, when he came to Nazianzum. He 
* Ep. 31, 32. & de Vita sua, p. 7. & alibi.  complained sharply of Basil's Pride, whom the Episcopal Throne of Caesarea had so blinded, that he had no more any regard to his Friends. Those Complaints, tho' never so just, were looked upon as a Rebellion, by the Metropolitan; who seemed to have forgot the Esteem he formerly had for Gregory, and the Services the latter had done him, in his Promotion to the See of Caesarea. Yet Gregory continued to complain that he had been shamefully dealt with by his Friend.  
Gregory having left Sasime, 
* Greg. Presb. in ejus Vita, p, 14.  retired into an Hospital of Sick Men, whom he took care to consolate; and his Father desired him, in vain, to return to Sasime; he could never resolve himself to do it, nor brook the Unkindness of Basil, who out of fifty Bishoprics, which were in his Diocese, had given him the least. All that Gregory the Father could obtain from his Son, was, that he should reassume the care of the Bishopric of Nazianzum during his Life, 
† Ep. xlii. & Orat. viij.  without engaging himself to succeed him.  
It seems that at that time, a Commissary of the Emperor, who had been a very good Friend of Gregory, came to Tax the Inhabitants of Nazianzum: They fearing he would not Tax them according to Equity, obliged Gregory to make the Discourse which is his Ninth Oration, wherein he exhorts Men of all Conditions to Piety, and addresses himself to Julian, who was the Emperor's Commissary, to induce him to lay that Tax like an Honest Man. Yet there happened a Tumult at Nazianzum, which exasperated the Imperial Commissary, and gave Gregory occasion to pronounce his Seventeenth Oration, which is upon the same Subject, and wherein he exhorts the People to Patience, and the Commissary to Moderation.  
'Tis also believed that his Sister Gorgonia, who married a Man of Quality, whose Name was Vitalian, died about this time. Gregory made her Funeral Oration, which is the Eleventh in order. I shall not mention the Praises he bestows upon her, upon the account of her Piety, and wise Conduct. I shall only observe these Two things: 1st. That Gorgonia 
* Orat. xi. p. 188.  was Baptised with her Husband but a little while before she died, according to the Custom of that time. Her Brother did so much esteem her Piety, that he doth not stick to say, that there is scarce any body else to whom Baptism was rather a Seal than a Grace; that is to say, rather a Confirmation of the Virtue she had before, than the Infusion of new Holiness. 2. At the end of his Oration, having said, in his Address to her by a Rhetorical Figure, very frequent in our Author, that she enjoys the Contemplation of the Heavenly Glory, he goeth on thus; If you have any regard to us, and if God hath given to Holy Souls the Privilege of perceiving such things, receive our Oration rather than Funeral Gifts. It appears from thence, that he doubted whether the Souls of Dead Men know what's done here. One may also observe, that the word which I have rendered Privilege, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hes. Opera & Dies vers. 125.  is the same which Hesiod uses, when he says that Jupiter hath given to Kings the Advantage of being after their death the Guardians of Men.  
In the Year 371, Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria being dead, Gregory 
† Orat. xxi.  made his Funeral Oration, some Years after, 
‖ V p. 376.  being at Constantinople. I shall say something of it, when I come to that part of Gregory's Life.  
In the Year 374, Gregory made another Funeral Oration, in Praise of his Father, which is the Nineteenth in order. He says that he died, being almost a Hundred Years old, having been a Bishop Five and forty Years. His Son makes his Panegyric at large, by giving an Abridgement of his Life; and endeavours to consolate his Mother Nonna, whom he also praises very much. He addresses himself to his Father, 
* Orat. nineteen. p. 314.  whom he desires to let him know what Glory he was in, and to govern both the Flocks and Pastors, of which he was named the Father, and especially his Son.— Here he uses no word which may excuse so violent a Figure as that Prosopoeia is; and had he not used elsewhere some softening words in the like occasions, it would perhaps be a difficult thing to distinguish that Apostrophe from a true Invocation.  
His Mother Nonna, who was almost as 
* Pag. 315.  old as her Husband, died soon after; and it was not necessary that Gregory should make any Discourse to her Praise, because he had already made her Panegyric, in the Funeral Oration of his Father. After the death of the latter, they would oblige him to take upon him the Bishopric of Nazianzum; and 'twas pretended that he had engaged himself to keep it, when he began to take care of it. But 
† Ep. xlii.  he excused himself, because of his Old Age; and the Bishops of the Province named Eulalius to succeed his Father; and because 'twas reported that that Election was made against Gregory's Will, he wrote to Gregory Nyssen, to let him know that there was nothing done in it but at his desire.  
Forasmuch as things were not presently brought to that issue, and Gregory 
‖ Carmen de Vit. p. 9  was afraid that he should be forced to stay at Nazianzum, he retired to Seleucia in a Monastery, where he stayed long enough, till the Church of Nazianzum should be provided. However, he returned to that Town before the Election was made; and he was again urged to take his old station, but he would never do it. The Author of his Life assures, that Basil built at this time an Hospital for those that were sick of the Leprosy, and that Gregory made on that occasion his 
* 'Tis the Sixteenth Oration.  Discourse concerning Charity towards the Poor, especially towards those that are sick of the Leprosy. That Oration contains several Reflections concerning Piety in general, and the use of the Good things and Evils of this Life. Gregory doth seldom confine himself to one Subject only, and observe an Order clear and free from Digressions.  
During the Empire of Valens, who favoured the Arians, that Sect, and those that sprung out of it, did very much increase. 
† Carmen de Vita sua, p. 10.  Constantinople especially was full of Arians and Apollinarists, who believed that the Divinity of Christ was instead of a Soul to his Body. Whereupon several Bishops, and many amongst the People, who followed the Council of Nice, obliged Gregory to go to Constantinople, to confirm the Orthodox, and oppose the Heretics. He says that he undertook that Journey against his will, especially because 'twas reported that there was to be a Synod made up of Apollinarists, to establish their Opinion.  
Being arrived at Constantinople, 
‖ Orat. 28. p. 484.  † towards the end of the Year 378, he lodged at a Kinsman's of his, whom some Author's conjecture to have been Nicobulus, who had married Alypiane Daughter of Gorgonia, Gregory's Sister. Valens had given to the Arians all the Churches of Constantinople, so that Gregory was obliged to Preach at his Kinsman's House. There was soon after so great a concourse of People, that that House having no Chamber that might hold them, the Owner of it pulled it down to make a Church of it. 
* Orat. 32. p. 527.  It was named Anastasis, that is, the Church of the Resurrection; because the Orthodox Faith had been, as it were, raised in that Place. Then the Arians stirred up almost the whole City against him, by accusing him of believing Three Gods. He ascribes the Zeal of the People against him, to their ignorance of the manner how to reconcile the Trinity with the Unity of God. It was not altogether the People's fault; because Gregory himself speaks of it so as to make one believe that he introduced what we should call Three Gods, according to the common way of speaking; though, according to his manner of defining the Unity, it must be said he believed but One. He complains, that they threw 
† Carm. de Vita, p. 10, 11.  Stones at him, upon that account, and that he was summoned before the Judges as a Seditious Person.  
All that helped to make him more Famous, and increase the number of his Admirers. 'Twas then that St. Jerom heard him, as he said in 
‖ Ep. ad Nepot. Catal. Script. Eccles. count. Jovinian. lib. 1.  several places. I have quoted elsewhere a Passage out of that Father, wherein he gives but an ill Character of Gregory's Eloquence, whom he describes as a Declamator, and whom the People applauded, without understanding what he said.  
The number of the Orthodox increasing every day, they desired to have a Bishop of their Opinion, and generally cast their Eyes upon Gregory. The Eastern Orthodox Bishops, especially Meletius of Antioch, Basil of Caesarea, and Peter of Alexandria, did openly favour him. Yet they succeeded not in their Design.  
There was at Alexandria 
* Carm. de Vita sua, p. 12.  one Maximus, a Professed Cynic, and yet a Christian. He pretended to be desoended from a Noble Family, and in which there had been some Martyrs. After the Death of Athanasius; the Orthodox having been persecuted in Egypt, he had been banished into a Village of the Wilderness of Thebais, named Oasis. He went dressed like the Philosophers, that is, with a ragged Cloak on his Back; he never cut his Hair, nor shaved his Beard, and went with a Stick, as Diogenes. Thus living a very austere life, he took upon himself to censure every body's Vices, without any regard to any one's Quality, as the Ancient Cynics did. Yet under that severe Outside, and mortified Countenance, there lay a Soul Deceitful, Ambitious, Malicious, Covetous, and full of the most shameful Passions. But because those things appeared not to the Eyes of Men, he got a great Reputation, not only among the People, but also among the most learned Men. He kept Correspondence with the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory's Friend, 
* Basil. Ep. 41. & 42.  as it appears from two Letters of Basil, which are directed to him.  
Gregory received him so well, at his arrival at Constantinople, that he made an Oration in his Praise, 
† Orat. 23.  wherein he omits nothing that might contribute to make that Impostor be looked upon as a Great and Good Man. But having since found out his Cheat, 
‖ Hieron. in Cat. in Greg.  instead of the Name Maximus, which was prefixed to that Oration, he put that of Heron, and entitled it thus; An Oration in the Praise of Heron a Philosopher of Alexandria, sent into Exile because of the Faith, and returned three Years after. Gregory shows, in that Discourse, what use might be made of the Cynic Philosophy, in the Christian Religion; and mentions the Persecutions which the Princes who favoured Arianism had exercised against the Orthodox, especially in Egypt, and against the Philosopher Maximus. He concludes with explaining the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, and exhorting his Philosopher constantly to persevere in the Sound Doctrine, which kept a medium between Judaisme and * Arianism. 
† Pag. 425, etc.  He often makes that Observation, when he mentions the Holy Trinity; and one may observe in general, by reading his Works, that the same Thoughts do frequently occur. He advises his Philosopher to despise the Objections that are raised against that Doctrine, and bids him not be ashamed of the Charge of Tritheism, whilst others (the Arians and Macedonians) run the hazard of establishing Two Gods; for (says he) either you'll resolve the Difficulty as they do, or you will not be able to resolve it no more than they, etc.  
Gregory having thus made the Panegyric of Maximus, received him at his House, Instructed, Baptised and Ordained him, and imparted to him his most secret Thoughts. 
† Carm. de Vita sua, p. 12, etc.  But as soon as Maximus thought himself Learned enough, he saw with grief that they designed to make Gregory Bishop of Constantinople. He thought he deserved that Station better than his Master and Benefactor; and perceiving that one of the Chief Priests of that Church envied also Gregory that Dignity, he joined with him to cross him. In order to it, Maximus got on his side Peter of Alexandria, who before favoured Gregory. Some time after, the Corn Fleet, which came every year from Alexandria to Constantinople, arrived there; and the Masters of the Ships Hammon, Aphammon, Harpocras, Steppas, Rhodon, Anubis and Hermanubis, joined presently with Gregory's Assembly, though they had Orders to favour the Design of Maximus, whom two or three Egyptian Bishops designed to uphold more vigorously afterwards. In the mean time, the arrival of the Egyptians, and the care they took to join with Gregory, rejoiced him so much, that he made 
* Orat. 24.  an Oration thereupon, wherein he doth very much extol the Piety and Constancy of those of Alexandria, and explains to them his Opinion concerning the Equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He doth especially enlarge to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; and among other Reasons, he uses this Argument, the Terms whereof would seem strange, had I not already observed the like before: 
† Pag. 429.  If the Holy Spirit is not God, let him be made God first, and then let him make me God equal to him in Honour. The meaning of that harsh Expression seems only to be this, viz. that if the Holy Spirit is not God, he cannot sanctify Men, which Gregory styles elsewhere, to make Men Gods.  
Some learned Men conjecture that about the same time Gregory made the Panegyric of St. Athanasius, which is his One and twentieth Oration. He displays in it not only the Virtues of the Bishop of Alexandria, but also relates at large the Persecutions he suffered, and the Troubles that happened during his life. He praises him especially for his Orthodoxy and Constancy in the defence of the Truth: All those (says 
* Pag. 394.  he) who professed our Doctrine, were divided into Three Parties-Some did not think well of the Son, and worse yet of the Holy Spirit: Those who had a sound Belief in those two Points, were very few: He was the first and only Man who durst openly publish the Truth, or at least he was seconded by very few People.— Gregory gives also St. Athanasius 
† Pag. 395.  the Glory of having brought to an Agreement the Eastern and Western Churches, which disputing only about Words, yet looked upon one another as Heretics: We said, agreeably to the Doctrine of Godliness, that there is One Essence, and Three Existences (Hypostases,) the Former relating to the Nature of the Deity; and the Second, to the Properties of the Three. The Bishops of Italy apprehended it so; but because of the scantiness of their Tongue, they could not distinguish the Hypostasis from the Essence, (because the Latin Churches 
‖ Hieron. in Ep. ad Damas'. T. 2. p. 13. Ed. Gryph.  rendered the word Hypostasis Substance;) and they introduced the word Person, lest it should seem they acknowledge Three Essences. What followed from it? Something ridiculous, or rather, that deserves Pity. A mere Dispute about Words, was looked upon as a Dispute concerning the Faith. Those who said that there are Three Persons, were suspected (in the East) of Sabellianism; and those who mentioned Three Hypostases, were suspected (in the West) of Arianism. Such was the effect of those Disputes, etc.) St. Athanasius remedied it, by mildly conversing with every Party, and carefully examining the senses of the words which they used; and as soon as he perceived that the Eastern and Western Bishops were of the same Opinion as to the thing, and differed only in Expressions; he allowed the use of different Terms, and reunited them as to the Substance of the Doctrine.  
To return 
* Carm. de Vit. p. 14, etc.  to Maximus, his Party grew stronger, by the arrival of his Countrymen, in the Year 379; and the better to engage the Bishops of that Country to serve him, he sent to them considerable Presents. Wherefore, he borrowed some Money of a Priest who was lately come from Thassus, an Island of the Archipelago, with Orders to buy at Constantinnple some Marble, and other Materials for a Church, which they designed to build in that Island. Not long after that, Gregory being indisposed, went out of Constantinople, to take the Air, and so gave occasion to the Bishops to go very early to his Church, and to place Maximus upon the Episcopal See. They could not make an end of the Ceremony of that Cynics Ordination, before it was noised about in the City. Whereupon the Magistrates of Constantinople, the Clergy, and the People, without excepting the Arians themselves, went in a Crowd to the Anastasis, and turned those Bishops out of the Church. They retired into a Playhouse that was hard by, where they cut his Hair, and Consecrated him. Which did but exasperate the People, who gave Maximus all sort of ill Language, and blamed Gregory for having too kindly received that wicked Man into his House.  
Gregory having notice of what past, returned presently to Constantinople, and made that Oration, which is the Twenty-eighth in order; wherein he says, that he was gone out of Town with some repugnancy, and that the little time he had been absent, had but increased his Love for his Flock. He doth again show the Perfidiousness of Maximus, and those of his Party; to which he adds a Description of a true Christian Philosopher. He excuses himself for his having been deceived by Maximus; because Good Men being not Suspicious, he could not suspect that that Philosopher would deceive him. Lastly, He says, that he is ready to leave the Episcopal See, and that he never desired it. He mixes several general Reflections in that Discourse, and seems to prepare himself to Patience, by the Consideration of the Miseries of this Life. It appears that he was an Old Man, because he says that Maximus 
* Pag. 483.  would perhaps upbraid him with his Old Age, and want of Health; which is contrary to the Opinion of those who believe that Gregory was born about the time of the Council of Nice.  
Indeed, Gregory's Return got him the People on his side, and obliged Maximus to leave the City, but not to give over his Design. It seems that he wrote to the 
† Ep. Ambros. & Epp. Italiae ad Theod. Imp. Conc. T. 2. col. 1007.  Bishops of the Italic Diocese, met in a Synod at Aquileia, to whom he imparted the News of his Election, which had been approved by the Communicatory Letters of Peter of Alexandria, which he sent to them, to be read in their Council. He confessed he had been Ordained in a Private House; but he said it was because the Arians had seized all the Churches, and that he was forced to give way to their Violence. The Council, who knew not the Circumstances, approved his Ordination, thinking that Gregory's Promotion was not according to the Canons; because a Bishop was not allowed to leave one Church, and settle himself in another. Their Approbation of Maximus' Ordination was also the reason why they refused since to Communicate with Nectarius his Successor, and wrote to the Emperor to desire him to have an eye to it, and to restore Maximus; or to call a General Council at Rome, to examine that Business. Damasus Bishop of Rome disappaoved also Gregory's Election, who, according to the Canons, should have stayed at Sasime, since it was not lawful for a Bishop 
* In Collect. Rom. Holsten. p. 37.  to leave the People committed to his Charge, to remove to another out of Ambition, which breeds Quarrels and Schisms. Thus he speaks of it in a Letter written to some Bishops of Egypt, wherein he also blames Mavimus' Election, as being contrary to the Canons. He wrote 
† Ibid. p. 43.  further to Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica against the same, and exhorted him to endeavour to get a Catholic Bishop established at Constantinople. It appears from thence, that Gregory's leaving Sasime, had offended several People; and perhaps he was somewhat too Nice, for one who was so little addicted to the World, as he himself says he was. Besides, his resolving to go to Constantinople, after he had despised Sasime, was a thing that might raise Suspicions in the Mind of illaffected Persons. 'Tis not to be doubted but Maximus did maliciously make use of all that, to ruin Gregory's Reputation; and this perhaps emboldened him to go to Thessalonica, to desire Theodosius to restore him by an Edict. But he was so far from obtaining what he desired, that the Emperor ordered him with Threaten to give over his Pursuits. Being enraged at his having miss his aim, he went to Alexandria; where having drawn some People to his Party, he threatened Peter Bishop of that City to deprive him of his Place, if he he did not help him to invade the Bishopric of Constantinople. The Governor of Alexandria having had notice of this Insolence, and being afraid that the Cynic would cause some Disturbance, banished him out of the City; and History doth not tell us what became of him afterwards.  
Gregory being thus got rid of Maximus, was now exposed to the Arian Faction, which endeavoured to cry him down, by ridiculing his Country and Relations. Besides, they accused him of ill Humour, Carelessness, and other like Defects. But because those Reproaches were either ill grounded, or inconsiderable, he easily justified himself, as may be seen in his Twenty-fifth Oration. That which did him the greatest Prejudice, is, that though he was great Orator, according to the manner of the Age he lived in, yet he was not really fit to do a thousand other things necessary to maintain himself against the Arians. He should have made his Interest at Court, and got the Favour of the Grandees, to promote the Interest of his Church: But this he was not capable of, having spent the greatest part of his Life in Study and Quiet. Hence it is that that Priest, who had favoured Maximus (as I have said) drew several Catholics to himself, who began to say that Gregory was not capable of well performing the Episcopal Duties; which required no less Experience and Skill in Affairs, than Eloquence and Learning.  
Gregory was so weary of the Complaints and Crosses of those Men, that one day 
* De Vita sua, p. 17, 18.  he undertook to take his leave of his People. But he had no sooner said that he would go, than that the whole Assembly did so earnestly desire him not to leave them, and not to suffer the Orthodox Doctrine to perish by the Arians Endeavours, after his departure; that at last he was persuaded to stay till the Eastern Bishops, who were to meet shortly, as 'twas reported, would choose another to fill up the Episcopal See of Constantinople.  
Such was the state of Affairs, until the arrival of Theodosius at Constantinple, the 22d. of 
* Vid. Pagt ad hunc Ann. n. 7.  November. 380. That Emperor had been lately Baptised at Thessalonica, by Acholius an Orthodox Bishop, who had inspired him with the Design of restoring the Nicene Faith. He had already ordered, being at Thessalonica, 
† C. Th. l. 16. T. 1. c. 2.  by an Edict bearing date the 27th. of February, That all his Subjects should have such a Belief concerning the Holy Trinity, as they had at Rome and Alexandria; That those who would profess it, should be called Catholics, and the others Heretics; That the Assemblies of the latter should not be called Churches: and, That they should be liable to Civil Punishments, as well as to the Divine Vengeance. Being at Constantinople, and having observed the great multitude of Heterodox, of which that City was full, he published yet a more severe Edict 
‖ Ibid. T. 5. l. 6.  the 10th. of January, in the Year 381, whereby he annuls all those which might have allowed the Heretics some liberty, and takes from them all the Churches they had in the Towns, ordering them to restore 'em to those who followed the Nicene Faith. Afterwads he sent word 
* So● at l. ●. c. ●. So●●● 7. c. ●.  to Demophilus, an Arian Bishop, to subscribe to the Council of Nice, or to resolve to leave the Churches of Constantinople. Demophilus did the latter without any Hesitation, and told the People that the next day they should meet out of the City. Thus the Arians were deprived of the Public Churches, which they had kept Forty Years. 
* De Vita sua, p. 20, etc.  Notwithstanding, Theodosius was accused of want of Zeal, and they would would have him use Violence, to reduce the Arians, (as Gregory says;) though he doth not approve the Heat of those who found fault with Theodosius' Conduct upon that account, and declares himself against those who pretend to force the Conscience.  
The Emperor having sent for Gregory, received him very kindly, and told him he was going to put him in possession of the Cathedral of Constantinople. Lest the People, the greatest part whereof followed the Opinions of Arius, should rise up, Theodosius sent some Soldiers to seize the Church of the Apostles; and sent Gregory to it, attended with some others, through the midst of the People, who cried on every side, and were as much afflicted as if Constantinople had been taken; which could not be a pleasant Spectacle to a wise and moderate Bishop. Though the Sun was up, it was so clouded, that one would have thought it was Night; but the Sun shone all of a sudden, when Gregory came to Church. That Circumstance should not deserve to be taken notice of, were it not that our Bishop relates it as an extraordinary thing; having said, 
* Carm. de Vita sua, p. 22.  That though he is one of those who are most opposite to such Thoughts; yet he believes 'tis better to believe all things, than to refuse to believe what is said.— As soon as they came to Church, all the People that were in it, cried out, they would have Gregory to be their Bishop. He silenced them, getting a Priest to tell them, that they ought not to cry, but to give Thanks to God. As for the rest, he was threatened with no danger, except that one Man only drew his Sword, which he presently put up into its Scabboard.  
But though the Arians had yielded their Churches, yet they murmured about it among themselves, and were angry because they had been turned out. Gregory believed, with great reason, that the Heterodox might be wrought upon by Mildness, which he more willingly used than the Emperor's Authority. He complains, That a Company of wretched Young men called Mildness Cowardice, gave to Fury the name of Courage, and would have the Arians to be exasperated and inflamed with Anger.  
The Moderation of Gregory was not unpleasant to Theodosius, who sometimes sent for him, 
† Carm. 10. T. 2. p. 80.  and made him eat at his Table. Notwithstanding, our Bishop went seldom to Court, 
* Carm. de Vita sua, p. 23.  though the others were constantly there, to be in the Emperor's or his Officers Favour; and made use of Piety, as a pretence to raise themselves, and ruin their Enemies. Forasmuch as he was Old, and of a Weak Constitution, he was often indisposed; which his Enemies ascribed to too great a Delicacy. As he was once in his Bed, they sent a Man to kill him; who moved with repentance, confessed to him, at the feet of his Bed, that they had incited him to commit that Crime; the Pardon of which he presently obtained.  
As for the Revenues of the Church, Gregory says, that having not been able to find any Account of them, neither among the Papers of those who had been Bishops of Constantinople before him, nor among those to whom the care of gathering them was committed; he would not meddle with them, and took nothing out of them, to avoid giving an account of them.  
Theodosius called at that time a Council at Constantinople, either to condemn several Heresies, or to settle Gregory Canonically in the Episcopal See of that City. But before I relate what past with respect to Gregory, it will not be amiss to say something of the Orations he made whilst he was at Constantinople, and which are extant.  
Basil Bishop of Caesarea 
* Vid. Pagi ad An. 378. n. 1.  being dead on the First Day of the Year 380, Gregory made an 
† Orat. 20.  Oration in his Praise some time after; having not been able to pay that last Duty to his Friend as soon as he could have wished. He praises Basil's Ancestors, who were Persons of Quality, and besides, Christians for a long time. He says, that 
‖ Pag. 319.  during Maximin's Persecution, some of Basil's Ancestors having retired into a Forest of Pontus, without any Provision, and without Arms to go a Hunting, they prayed to God that he would send them some of the Fowls, or a little of the Venison, which they saw in that Wood; and God presently sent 'em a great number of the fattest Stags, who seemed to be grieved because they had not called them sooner. Gregory delights in that Subject, according to the Custom of the Pagan Orators, who did the same with respect to the Fables of Paganism: The worst of all, is, that it makes one suspect the other Relations of Gregory.  
2. Afterwards, he gives a short Account of Basil's Life, and insists upon every Particular, according to his custom, with a great deal of Exaggeration, many Figures, and Moral Observations. Speaking of the manner after which he himself had spent his Life, he says, that he wishes 
* Pag. 333.  his Affairs may better prosper hereafter, by the Intercessions of Basil.  
3. The manner of getting 
* Pag. ib.  Church-Preferments in his time, was not more Canonical than the Means which are  made use of for the same end, if we believe Gregory.  
Having said, that in other Professions Men raised themselves only by degrees, and according to their Capacity, he assures, That the Chief Dignity was got as much by Crimes as by Virtue; and that Episcopal Sees were not for those who deserved them best, but for the most Powerful, etc. No body takes the Name of a Physician, or a Painter, before he hath studied the Nature of Diseases, well mixed his Colours, and made several Pictures; but a Bishop may be easily found, not after he hath been carefully form, but upon the spot, as the Fable feigneth, That the Giants were no sooner sowed, but they sprung out of the Earth. We make 
† The Bishops were then called Saints, as  Lords.  SAINTS in one day, and we exhort to Wisdom those who have not learned to be Wise, and who have brought nothing to perform well the Episcopal Duties, but the Desire of being Bishops.  
4. Gregory ascribes to Basil 
‖ Pag. 340, & 358.  some Monastical Laws, and written Prayers. We have the former still, without any great alteration; but the Liturgy which bears his Name hath been very much altered since.  
5. He not only praises his Friend, but also makes his Apology against those who accused him of Pride, (of which notwithstanding he himself accuses him in several places,) 
* Pag. 364.  and suspected he did not believe the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, because he had not styled him God, in his Book. Gregory says that Basil did so, for fear of exasperating the Heretics, who could not abide that that Title should be bestowed upon the Holy Spirit, because the Scripture doth not ascribe it to him; but that he had said something equivalent to it, which was the same thing; since Words do not save us, but Things.  
6. Lastly, Having described Basil's Funeral, he goes on thus; 
† Pag. 372.  He is now in Heaven, where he offers, as I think, Sacrifices for us, and prayeth for the People; for when he left us, he did not altogether forsake us, etc. He advises me still, and chides me in Night-Visions, when I depart in something from my Duty.— At the end of his Oration, he addresses himself to him, and asks his Help in energick terms, as if he heard him; though he seemed to doubt whether he was in Heaven, that is, in the Place of greatest Bliss; into which the Ancients believed no body went, except Martyrs, but after the Resurrection, (as we have already seen by another Passage of Gregory.)  
There is some likelihood that he composed at Constantinople most of the other Orations which are extant, which I have not mentioned yet, especially those which he made against the Arians; wherein he hath been thought to have so well defended the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, as well as in his other Writings, that for that reason they have given him the Title of Theologue. One may read especially his Thirty third Oration, and the Four following, upon that Subject. In order to give an Idea of those Five Orations, I shall observe, that the Design of the First, is to show, that it doth not belong to All to dispute about Religion, and that it ought not to be done before every body, neither at all times, nor with too great a heat. He censures the Heretics, as if they had no regard to any of those things, and preaches some common places which all Parties have always equally made use of. He complains, 
* Orat. 33. p 535.  That they make Saints the very same day they go about it; That they choose Divines, as if they had inspired them with Learning, and, That they make a great many Assemblies of Ignoramus' and Babblers. Forasmuch as he knew that some Men can't forbear Disputing, he tells 'em, to satisfy their Desire, that he will give them a large Field, in which they may exercise themselves without danger: 
* Ib. p. 536.  Philosophise (says he) about the World or Worlds, the Soul, Rational Creatures less or more Excellent, about the Resurrection, the Judgements, the Rewards, the Sufferings of Christ. 'Tis not an useless thing to succeed in those Matters, as there is no great danger in being mistaken about them.— Christians have been since of a very different Opinion; and 'tis certain, that one may fall into dangerous Errors, and that there hath been real Mistakes about those Articles.  
In the 
† Orat. 34.  Second Oration, he comes to the Matter in hand, and doth chief enlarge to prove against the Eunomians the Incomprehensibility of God, which he doth often. He shows, that there is an infinite number of things in Nature, which we do not comprehend, to conclude from thence, that 'tis no good Reasoning, to deny that something is in God, only because we do not comprehend it.  
Having thus prepared the Mind of his Reader, or Hearer, he proposes his Opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son, 
‖ Orat. 35. p. 562.  and the Holy Trinity in general, which he doth in these remarkable terms: That which we worship is a Monarchy. I don't call Monarchy, what is possessed by one Person only, (for it may happen, that a Person not agreeing with himself, produces the same effect as if there were many,) but what is grounded upon the Equality of Nature, the Consent of the Will, the same Motion, and the same Design, with respect to the things which that Monarchy produces, (which is not possible in Created Natures;) so that although those that compose that Monarchy differ in Number, yet they differ not in Power.— Had Gregory believed the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence, he would have spoken very weakly and obscurely; since instead of the Equality of the Nature, he should should have said the Identity, and not mentioned the Consent of Will, but One only Will in Number. In that Oration, Gregory answers the Objections which the Arians raised against the Eternal Generation of the Son, which are often very weak, either because they are not well propounded, or because the Arians argued not better. However, as one might Personate an Arian better; so so one might perhaps maintain with greater advantage the Sentiments of the Council of Nice.  
Among the Arian Objections which Gregory proposes to himself, this is one of them, which is the Eighth; viz. 
* Pag. 569.  That if the Son is, as to the Essence, altogether as the Father is; it will follow, that the Son is not Begotten, as the Father is not.— Gregory answers not, as the Schoolmen do, That the Son is not Begotten, as to the Essence, which is the same in Number with the Fathers, as he should have said according to the Principles of the Modern Schools; but that not to be Begotten, is not a thing Essential to the Deity. To which he adds; Are you the Father of your Father, that you may not be inferior to him in any thing; because you are the same thing as to the Essence?— If any one should doubt still, whether the Unity which our Orator speaks of, is a Specific or a Numerical one, he needs only read these words, which are at the bottom of the following Page; 
† Pag. 570.  This is our Doctrine, As we judge alike of things which are under the same Species, as a Horse, an Ox, and a Man, and every thing is properly called by the Name which suits the Nature of which it partakes, whereas that which doth not partake of it, doth not go by that Name, or hath it but improperly: so there is but One Essence and Nature in God, which hath the same Name; though the Persons and Names are distinguished by the Thoughts.  
In the 
* Orat. 36.  Fourth Oration, Gregory resolves, according to his way, the Objections of the Arians, by which they pretend to show the Unequality of the Father and the Son.  
In the 
† Orat. 37.  Fifth, he disputes about the Consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, against the Macedonians.  
Some of those who believed the Divinity of the Son, denied that of the Holy Spirit, and were even so bold, as to call the Holy Spirit a Strange God; because he is styled God no where in the Holy Scripture. Gregory made his Fifth and last Theological Oration against them.  
In that Discourse, speaking of the several Opinions that have been about that, he says, amongst other things, 
‖ Orat. ib. p. 595.  That the greatest Theologers among the Pagans, and those who came nearest to us, have an Idea of Him; though they gave him another Name, having called him, The Soul of the World, and, The Soul which comes from without; and used some other such Names. As for the Wise Men of our times, some believe that the Holy Spirit is a Faculty; some, that he is a Creature; some, that he is a God; and some know not in what Order of Things they should place him; by reason of the respect they have for the Scripture, which is not clear upon that Point.— Gregory maintains, That 'tis a Person Consubstantial with the Two other: And when he answers his Adversaries, who asked him wherein the Generation and Procession differed, he hath recourse to the Incomprehensibility.  
But one of the chief Objections against the Orthodox, was, 
* Pag. 600.  That they acknowledged Three Gods. If there is (said their Adversaries) a God, and a God, and a God; how comes it that there are not Three Gods? etc. This is (replies Gregory) what is said by those whose Impiety is come to its height, and even by those who are in the Second rank, that is, who have a right Belief concerning the Son. I have a common Answer to both, and another which concerns only the latter: I ask therefore the latter, why they call us Tritheists, since they honour the Son; and whether, though they leave out the Holy Spirit, they are not Ditheists? How d'ye explain your Ditheism, when they offer you this Objection? Teach us how we ought to answer; for the Answer by which you will clear yourselves from Ditheism, will serve us to vindicate ourselves from Tritheism, etc. Thus we shall get the Victory, and our Accusers will be our Defenders, etc. But we have a Dispute with those two sorts of Adversaries, and a common Answer to both. We have but One God, because there is but One Godhead; and that those who emaned from it, refer to One only thing, though we believe Three of them. The one is not more God than the other; the one is not Anterior, and the other Posterior. They are not divided in Will, nor separate in Power, and there is nothing in them that is found in things divided; but to say all in a word, the Godhead is without Division in Three Divided Persons; as in Three Suns fastened one to another, there would be but One Mixture of Light. When we consider the Deity, and the First Cause of the Monarchy, we conceive but One Thing; but when we consider those in whom the Deity, and those who emaned from the First Cause before Time was, and enjoy the same Glory, we worship Three.  
But it will be said, Is there not One only Deity among the Pagans, as their most learned Philosophers say? All Mankind hath but One Humanity, and yet there are Many Gods among the Pagans, not One only, as there are Many Men. I answer, That in those things the Unity lies only in the Thought. Every Man is divided from others, by Time, Passions, and Power, which is not in God. Therein doth the UNITY of God consist, as far as I can conceive it. If that Reason be Good, let God be thanked for it; if not, we must look for a Better.  
Afterwards Gregory proposes to himself an Arian Objection, which shows more clearly still, that the Orthodox placed not the Unity of God in the Numerical Unity of the Divine Essence, but in a Specific Unity of Distinct and Equal Essences, and in a perfect Agreement of Wills. 
* Pag. 602.  Things which are of the same Essence (say ye) are ranked in the same Order of Things;— and those which are not Consubstantial, are not so ranked. From whence it follows, that you cannot but confess, that there are Three Gods, according to your reckoning: For as for us, we are not in the same danger, because we do not say that the Persons are Consubstantial.— The Arians meant, That forasmuch as they admitted but of One Supreme God, and who hath created all other things, they might say, in that respect, that there is but One God; because that God could not be ranked in the same Order, and under the same Name with his Creatures: but that the Orthodox acknowledging Three Being's of a perfectly like Nature, they could not deny that they acknowledged Three Gods, properly speaking. Gregory answers only, That Things which are not of the same Species, are often reckoned in the same Rank (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) of which he gives several Instances out of the Scripture. That shows, that the Arians might be accused of admitting of Many Gods, as well as the Orthodox; not that the Orthodox acknowledged not Three Eternal Minds, though perfectly Equal, and having the same Will.  
A little lower, in the same Oration, 
* Pag. 611.  Gregory says, That having sought among Created Things something like the Holy Trinity, he could find no satisfactory Comparison: He thought of an Eye, a Fountain, and a River, but he found not those things proper enough to express his Thoughts. I was afraid (says he) First, that I should seem to introduce a cetain Fluxus of Divinity, which should have no Consistency: Secondly, establish a Numerical Unity by those Comparisons. For an Eye, a Fountain, and a Sun, are One in Number, though differently Modified. I was thinking of the Sun, the Beams, and the Light; but it was to be feared still on this occasion, First, That we should suppose a Composition in a Nature wherein there is none; such as the Composition of the Sun, and what is in the Sun. Secondly, That indeed, we should give an Essence to the Father, but should not ascribe a Distinct Existence to the other Persons, by making them to be some Faculties which exist in God, and have no distinct Existence. The Rays, or the Light, are not other Suns, (as the Son and the Holy Spirit are other Minds distinct from the Father,) but some Emanations and Essential Properties of the Sun. Lastly, Gregory 
* Pag. 612:  found nothing better, than to lay aside those Images and Shadows, as being Deceitful, and very Remote from the Originals.  
After all Gregory believes 
† Pag. 608▪  that the Holy Trinity was only revealed by degrees; so that the Revelation manifested to Men, first God the Father, without speaking of God the Son but obscurely; afterwards the Son, without requiring from Men the Belief of the Holy Spirit; and lastly, the Holy Spirit, after the Ascension of the Son.  
One may judge from those places, of the Doctrine of Gregory, and the Orthodox of his time; with whom the Orthodox of ours agree as well in Terms, as they differ from them in Sense. One may also observe in the Expressions of our Bishop a remarkable Effect of Disputing; viz. when Men are afraid that their Adversaries will take advantage of certain Expressions, they carefully forbear using them, for fear of lying open to 'em; though those Expressions are very proper to express the Doctrine they maintain. 'Tis manifest, that Gregory, to be well understood, should have answered the Arians; Yes, 'tis true, we worship Three Gods, since we acknowledge Three Eternal Minds, who have Distinct Essences: But those Gods are perfectly Equal, and as perfectly United as Distinct Being's can be, having the same Thoughts, and the same Will; hence it is that we commonly say, that we acknowledge but One God.— But had he spoken thus, the Arians, who boasted of their studying, and following the Scripture, would have presently replied, that the Scripture represents the Unity of the Supreme God, as a Numerical Unity, not as a Unity of Species and Agreement. They would have said (as they already did) but with greater show of Reason, that the Homoousians introduced a New Paganism, by acknowledging Three Collateral Gods. So that they were obliged, to avoid those Reproaches, stoutly to maintain that there is but One God, according to the Nicene Opinion. The Platonics, who had the same Thought, but were not confined to Expressions, spoke it out, and said, that the Principles of All Things are Three Gods. I cannot forbear quoting, on this occasion, some remarkable Words of St. Augustine, which do admirably confirm what I have just now said; 
* De Civit. Dei, l. 10. c. 23.  Liberis Verbis loquuntur Philosophi, nec in rebus ad intelligendum difficillimis, offensionem Religiosarum aurium pertimescunt. Nobis autem ad certam Regulam loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia, ETIAM in rebus quae in his SIGNIFICANTUR, impiam gignat opinionem. Nos autem non dicimus Duo vel Tria Principia, cum de Deo loquimur; sicuti nec Duos Deos vel Tres nobis licitum est dicere, quamvis de unoquoque loquentes vel de Filio, vel de Spiritu Sancto, etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur. The Philosophers do freely use any Words, and are not afraid of offending Pious Ears, in Matters very difficult to understand. As for us, we are not allowed to speak, but according to a certain Rule; lest some Words used with too great a licence, should produce an impious Opinion, if understood according to their Signification. When we speak of God, we neither mention Two nor Three Principles; as we are not allowed neither to say that there are Two or Three Gods, though speaking of every one of them, either of the Son or Holy Spirit, we say that each of 'em is God.  
Such a Conduct, was the Cause of departing by degrees from the ancient Notions; because the word Unity was taken in its ordinary Signification, without minding that the Ancients understood it in a particular Sense. The same hath happened in several other Doctrines.  
Having thus alleged so many Proofs of our Bishop's Opinion concerning the Doctrines which then divided Christians, 'tis now time to return to his History. The Council, which I have already mentioned, 
* Socrat. l. 5. c. 8. & Sozom. l. 7. c. 7.  met at Constantinople in May, in the Year 381. It was made up of a CL. Orthodox Bishops; and XXXVI. Macedonians, whom they hoped to bring to the Orthodox Faith. Besides, some Canons made in it concerning the Discipline, which I shall not mention, the Business of Gregory and Maximus was debated in it, and they made a Creed. Maximus' 
† Conc. C.P. c. 4.  Ordination, and all those which he might have conferred, were judged Null; and then 
‖ Carm. de Vit. p. 14.  they declared Gregory Bishop of Constantinople, though he endeavoured to be excused from it. They made him promise he would stay in it; because he persuaded himself, that being in that Station, he could more easily reconcile the different Parties which divided Christianity. Indeed, it was said against Gregory's Promotion, that having been Bishop of Sasime and Nazianzum, he could not be transferred to Constantinople, without breaking the Fifteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, which is Formal thereupon. But Meletius Bishop of 
* Theodor. l. 5. c. 8.  Antioch replied to that, That the Design of that Canon was to bridle Pride and Ambition, which had no share in that Business. Besides, it seems, that that Canon was not observed in the East; since 
† Carm. de Vit. sua, p. 29.  Gregory calls what they opposed to him, Laws dead long since. Furthermore, he had exercised no Episcopal Function at Sasime; and as to Nazianzum, he had been only his Father's Coadjutor.  
That Business being over, they came to treat of the chief Subject for which they were met; viz. Macedonius' Opinion, who had been Bishop of Gonstantinople, and believed that the Holy Spirit is but a Creature; though all the Disciples of that Bishop agreed not about the Nature of that Divine Person, (as may be seen from a Passage of Gregory, which I have quoted.)  
The Nicene Creed was presently confirmed in the Council, and 'twas thought fit 
‖ Vid. Conc. Chalced. Act. 2.  to make some Additions to it, especially to what concerns the Holy Spirit. That Addition is expressed in these words, I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together, is worshipped and glorified, and who spoke by the Prophets.  
The Council did also Anathematise the Opinions of Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, Eunomius, Apollinaris, and Macedonius; but I shall not enlarge upon those Errors because they have no essential relation with the Life of Gregory. For the same reason, I shall omit what concerns the Discipline.  
All things went quietly enough with respect to Gregory, till there arose a Storm, which deprived him of the Episcopal See of Constantinople, when he least expected it. The Spirit of Vengeance, of a Party which he opposed, was the cause of that Disturbance; which Gregory, who was not courageous enough to sustain the shock of his Adversaries, could not get himself rid of, but by running away.  
There happened, some time before, a mischievous Schism in the Church of Antioch, where there were Two Orthodox Bishops at the same time. Meletius being dead at Constantinople, before the Council was ended, 'twas proposed to give him a Successor. Thereupon Gregory proposed an Expedient to put an end to that Schism; viz. That Paulinus, who was the other Orthodox Bishop, 
* Carm. de Vit. p. 25.  and had been Ordained by Lucifer of Cagliari, should govern alone the Church of Antioch during the rest of his life; and afterwards, those of Melelius' Party being reunited with those of Paulinus', should choose a Bishop by common Votes.  
Lest it should be thought he had some Interest in favouring Paulinus, and that he designed to make a Party; he offered the Counsel to leave the Episcopal Throne of Constantinople, on which he was just settled. But the Ambitious Men, and Incendiaries, (as Gregory calls 'em) who began to move to give a Successor to Meletius, would not hearken to that Proposal. 
* Ib. p. 27.  A company of Young Men fell a crying like Magpies, and made so great a Noise, that they drew in even the Old Bishops, who should have resisted them, and brought to a second Examination the Business of Gregory, which was just before ended. Gregory describes admirably well their Ambition, Ignorance, and their other Defects, in the Poem he made concerning his Life: One had better read it in the Author himself, than here. In the mean time, the People having heard that Gregory began to be weary of the Council, and was talking of retiring, fell a crying that they would not take their Pastor from them, and desired him that he would not leave his Flock.  
Thereupon, Timothy Bishop of Alexandria, who had succeeded Peter, and was of a violent and quarrelsome Temper, arrived with several Egyptian Bishops. The old Grudge they bore Gregory, on the account of Maximus the Cynic, had inflamed them to such a degree against our Bishop, that the first thing they did, was to complain that they had broke the Canons, by transferring Gregory from one Bishopric to another. This caused a great stir in the Council, and on that occasion Gregory made his Oration concerning Peace, which is the Fourteenth, wherein he describes at large the Advantages of Concord, and the Mischiefs which arise from Divisions. He severely censures the Inconstancy of the Bishops, who had other Thoughts of him, without any reason, and suffered themselves to be imposed upon by the Calumnies of his Adversaries. He says, that the ill Reports which are commonly spread against Moderate Men, aught to be despised.  
Lastly, One may easily perceive, by all that he says, that 'tis not only in our time that Men have covered their most shameful Passions, with the specious Name of Zeal for the Purity of the Faith. Wherefore Gregory says 
* Ib. p 29.  that he told 'em, That they should not trouble themselves so much with what concerned him, but that they should endeavour to be reunited; That 'twas time for 'em to expose themselves no longer to be laughed at as Wild Men, and such as have learned nothing but Quarrelling; That provided they would agree, he would willingly be the Ionas who should make the Storm to cease; That he had accepted of the Episcopal See against his will, and willingly parted with it; and that his Body, weakened with Old Age, obliged him to't.  
But because notwithstanding they charged him with Ambition still, he made a Discourse which is his Twenty seventh Oration; whereby he protests that he had accepted the Bishopric of Constantinople against his will, and appeals to all the People for it. He says, 
* Ortt. 27. p. 465.  he doth not know whether he ought to call the See of Constantinople the Throne of a Tyrant, or a Bishop: He complains of his Enemies Evil-speaking, and the Envy they bore him, 
† Pag. 466.  because of his Eloquence and Learning in the Sciences of the Pagans. That perhaps raised the Envy of some; but the Station he was in, raised without doubt the Envy of many more. He might have made use of all his Rhetoric at Sasime, without being put to any trouble upon that account.  
Having declared, a Full Council, that he desired to leave the Place, which was so much envied; he went to the Emperor's Palace, to desire him to give him leave to retire. He obtained it with some difficulty; and having obtained it, his only Thoughts were to take his leave publicly; which he did in the Cathedral, in the presence of a Hundred and Fifty Bishops, and all the People. The Discourse he made is extant still, and is the Thirty second in order. He describes the bad Condition he found the Orthodox Church of Constantinople in, and the Alteration he made in it: He makes a Confession of his Belief concerning the Holy Trinity, and shows that he had done nothing that deserved to be censured: He exhorts the Fathers of the Council to choose a Person worthy of the See of Constantinople, to succeed him; and lastly, takes his leave of all those who heard him. In that 
* Pag. 523.  Oration he complains of his Old Age. And in the Poem concerning his Life, 
† Pag. 30.  he says he was then but a Dead Man Animated: Which he could not say, had he been but Fifty six, or Fifty seven years old, according to the ordinary Supputation.  
As soon as he had taken his leave, the People, and generally all those who heard him at Constantinople, shown a great grief for it. The Conduct of the Council must needs have appeared to them very inconstant and violent, since after they had confirmed Gregory in the See of Constantinople, they obliged him to leave it, when he was above Fourscore Years old. Without doubt, so imprudent and Unchristian a Behaviour gave matter of Sport to the Enemies of the Council, and lessened in a great measure the Authority of their Decisions. For how can it be imagined that Bishops, as Factious, Unjust and Ignorant as Gregory describes them in several Places, were able to examine with Deliberation the Doctrines then in question? If their Interest made 'em not incline to Orthodoxy, 'twas a mere Chance which led them into the right way. The love of Truth is seldom to be found with so much Vanity and Ignorance.  
Thus Gregory left the Bishopric of Constantinople, some Weeks after he had been settled in it by the Council that turned him out of it: He retired into Cappadocia, (according to Gregory the Priest, the Author of his Life,) and went to live at Arianzum, where he was born.  
Among those who were presented to the Emperor, some Bishops 
* Sozom. l. 7. c. 8.  put in Nectarius a Senator of Constantinople, a Man of an Exemplary Life, and good Mien, but was not Baptised yet, and had scarce any Learning. 'Tis not known whether Gregory set out for Cappadocia before that Election was made, or whether he stayed at Constantinople till they had named him a Successor. However, Gregory wrote 
† Orat. 46.  an Instruction for Nectarius, wherein he gins with saying, That it seems, God's Providence, which heretofore took care of the Churches, had altogether given over the Conduct of the Things of this Life.— He says, that his Private Afflictions, though so great, that they would seem intolerable to any body else, induced him not to speak so: He assures, that the Condition only the Church was in, extorted those words from him. Afterwards, he describes to Nectarius the Boldness of the Arians and Macedonians, who were at least as numerous as the Orthodox, and dared to meet publicly. A horrible Undertaking, after the Decisions of a Council so well regulated as that which was held a little before! Gregory could not apprehend how his Holiness and his Gravity (so the Bishops were called) suffered the Apollinarists to meet. He lets him know, that Apollinaris asserted. That the Body of the Son of God existed before the World; That the Divinity supplied the Place of the Soul; and, That the Body, which descended from Heaven, and is Essential to the Son, did notwithstanding die.  
Gregory fancied, I know not why, that to suffer those Men to Meet, was to allow 'em that their Doctrine was Truer than that of the Council, since there cannot be Two Truths: As if to suffer some body, is to denote that one believes their Opinion to be True!  
Lastly, He exhorts Nectarius to tell the Emperor, That what he had done in the behalf of the Church, would signify nothing, if Heretics were suffered to Meet.  
Thus good Gregory, who, whilst the Arians were strongest, having the Emperor on their side, would not have that practised, which was blamed in them, exhorted his Successor to forget that good Lecture. So difficult a thing it is not to contradict one's self, when one doth not take great care to be free from Passion!  
The next Year 
* Theod. l. 5. c. 8.  there was an Assembly of Bishops held at Constantinople, to which Gregory was invited: But he refused to go; and he answered those who invited him to it, thus; 
† Ep. 55.  If I must write the Truth t'ye, I am so affected, that I will always avoid any Assembly of Bishops; because I never saw any Synod that had good Success, or which did not rather increase the Evil, than lessen it. Without any Exaggeration, the Spirit of Dispute and Ambition is so great in them, that it can't be expressed.— One ought not to think that our Bishop said so, without thinking well on't, and in a Fit of Passion. He repeats it in his Sixty-fifth, Seventy first, Seventy second, and Seventy fourth Letters; and besides, he diverted himself, by putting in Verses the same Thought in his Poetical Pieces: 
‖ Carm. 10. p. 80.  I'll never go (says he) to any Synod, because Gregory drew, for Example, Baronius, 
* Pagi ad an. 389. a. 5.  or some of his Transcribers, into an Error; since they believed, that when Gregory, a short time after the Death of his Brother Caesarius, and Sister Gorgonia, said that he was an Old Man, it was to be understood of a Premature Old Age; because the Translator made use of that term, in translating the 363 Verse of the Poem entitled, Carmen I. de Rebus suis, though there is no such thing in the Original. As for the Translation of the Works writ in Prose, 'tis incomparably better; and it may be said, that the Abbot de Billy was as fit for Prose, as he was unfit for Verses. 'Tis a surprising thing, that a Man of his Learning took so much pains to translate into bad Verses, what he might have better translated in Prose. However, one may observe a thing, in the Translation both of Gregory's Orations and Letters; which shows, that one ought always to have recourse to the Original; viz. That the Punctuation of the Translation is often altogether different from that which is in the Greek, which makes it appear neater. This may arise partly from the fault of those who put the Greek over against his Translation, (for he published it by itself, and were not careful enough to correct it; and partly from the liberty the Translator took, who cut several Periods that were too long, and lengthened those which seemed to him too short. However, it may be said in general, that 'tis one of the best Translations of the Greek Fathers that we have, and at the same time one of the most difficult, by reason of Gregory's Style being too Florid, and even Harsh and Obscure in several places wherein he handles some controverted Doctrines.  
I should end here the Life of Gregory, because there is nothing else to be said of him that is certain, were it not that I perceived, a little too late, that what I have said concerning the putting off of Baptism, may be cleared by Gregory himself. He disputes at large, in his Fortieth Oration, wherein he treats of Baptism, against those who put it off, for the abovementioned Reasons. After all, it appears, to say so in a word, from that Oration, that Gregory believed, 1. That all past Sins are forgiven and blotted out by Baptism. 2. That 'tis a very difficult thing to be restored into a state of Salvation, if one commits a mortal Sin after Baptism. 3. That those who neglect Baptism, and die without it, are Damned. 4. That those who die without being Baptised, but have not neglected or put off their Baptism by their fault, are neither Glorified nor Punished; whether they die in Childhood, or in a more advanced Age, wherein they wished in vain to be Baptised.  
It appears from that Doctrine, and several others, that Christian Societies , without excepting one, cannot boast to follow the Doctrine of the Fathers in every thing. Theology is subject to Revolutions, as well as Empires; but though it hath undergone considerable Changes, yet the Humour of Divines is not very much altered; as will easily appear, by comparing what we see in those of our time, with the Complaints Gregory Nazianzen makes against those who lived in his.   

The Life OF PRUDENTIUS.  
A Vrelius Prudentius Clemens was born in Spain, in the Year 348, (
* Praefat. Cathem.  as he himself says, in some places of his Works.) His Ancestors and Quality are not known, but it appears that he had afterwards some considerable Employments. 
† Ibid.  After his Childhood, he applied himself, according to the Custom of those Times and the foregoing Ages, to the Study of Eloquence, under the Direction of a Rhetor. Youth learned, in those Ages, to Declaim upon all sorts of Subjects, before they applied themselves to the Sciences necessary to dive into the Nature of those Subjects, and handle them well.  
That way of Instructing Young Men was not New; and the Abuses that crept into it, were not introduced all of a sudden. 
* L. 2. c. 4.  Quintilian assures us, that 'twas only in Demetrius Phalerianus' time about 300 Years before Christ, that the Athenian Masters of Rhetoric began to exercise Young Men, who desired to advance themselves, and get some Preferments in the State, by proposing some feigned Subjects to them, like those that were treated before the People, or at the Bar, and obliging them to discourse upon those Matters in their Schools. But in Socrates' time, who lived a hundred years before, there were already some Masters whose Profession was to teach to defend all sorts of Causes, and who boasted to argue them so, as to make what is Unjust, appear Just; such were 
† Cicero in Bruto. § 8.  Gorgias Leontinus, Thrasimachus of Calcedonia, Protagoras Abderinus, Prodicos of Ceos, Hippias Eloeus, and many others, who promised, with great insolence, to teach how a Bad Cause might become Good, by pleading it as one ought to do: Quemadmodum causa inferior dicendo fieri superior posset. One may see a bloody satire against those Men in Aristophanes his Nubes, who indeed very unjustly ascribes that Doctrine to Socrates, but grounds that Calumny only upon this, viz. That there was at that time some Men who maintained it, and upon some outward resemblance which might be between Socrates' Discourses and theirs. He that will form yet a more complete Idea of those Sophists, must read Aristotle's Books concerning Sophistical Arguments, wherein he assures us, that the Art of those Men was, a seeming Wisdom, but not really so.  
Socrates, and the wise Men of his time, omitted nothing to ridicule those Men, and hinder that so pernicious an Art should be esteemed, as it may be seen by Three Dialogues 
* Hippias, Protagoras, & Euthydemus. See Cicero de Orator. l: 3. c. 16.  of Plato, wherein he very ingeniously mocks the Sophists of his time. But they did not succeed in their Design, since Greece proved afterwards full of that sort of Rhetors; and Isocrates, whom Plato did much esteem, made two Orations like those of Gorgias, wherein he praises two Persons that are extremely to blame, viz. Helena and Busiris.  
Whatever Socrates, and those that were of his Mind, might have said, a Discourse artificially composed, and attended with the other Ornaments of Rhetoric, made so great an Impression upon the People, that by the means of such Art, they overcame the best Reasons. This could not fail to make a great many People desirous to learn it, and to corrupt the Minds of most Men: Therefore they endeavoured to know how to speak agreeably and readily upon all Subjects; and because such a thing depended much more upon Exercise, than the Knowledge of the Things themselves, they spent a great deal more time in Declaiming, than in Forming their Judgement, and Studying the other Sciences. If they applied themselves to Philosophy, it was not so much to please themselves with the Knowledge of the Truths which it might contain, as to appear Learned, and make use of them at the Barr. They chief applied themselves to Dialectic; which was nothing else but the Art of Wrangling upon every thing, and Arguing Sophistically, rather than Rationally. They pretended, that they were not bound to use, upon the Subjects which they treated, Demonstrative Arguments, or such as come as near them as can be; and they thought that it was enough to allege Likely Arguments, not in such a degree of Probability which moves the Mind by itself, but in such a degree as belongs to the Things which are not opposite to clear Truth. 'Twas almost enough, to say nothing either altogether absurd, or whereof the Weakness was palpable almost to every body. 
* Vid. Diog. Laert. in ejus Vita; p. 319. Ed. Hen. Steph.  Aristotle, who proposed Two things to himself in his Writings, what is Probable (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) and what is True, handled the former, in his Dialectic and Rhetoric; wherein he shows how to make upon every thing Probable Discourses, that is, of the Falsity whereof every body is not sensible.  
One may also convince one's self of all this, by reading of the other Ancient Rhetors, and especially the Rhetorical Books which Cicero wrote. That Art, as he himself says, came from Greece to Rome, and besides the Greeks who taught Rhetoric in it from the time of the Second Punic War, some Masters did also teach to Declaim in Latin. 'Twas one Lucius Plotius who began to exercise the Youth in that Language, Cicero being but a Child.  
They distinguished those Exercises into several kinds; sometimes they took a Moral Subject, which they handled so as to allege nothing that was particular, but only some general Notions, which had no relation to any Fact or Circumstance. This they called Theses, and 
* In Praef. Cont.  Seneca the Rhetor says that those were the Exercises practised before Cicero; although it appears from what hath been said, that they had some other Exercises, which consisted in some Discourses which they made upon a true Fact taken 
† Sucton. in lib. de Claris Rhetoribus.  out of Ancient or Modern History: Whereupon they enquired what ought to be done on some Occasions; wherein they praised or blamed some Action. Cicero calls those Subject's Causes; and says in several places, that he 
* Tuscul. 1. c. 4.  had much exercised himself in them: Nay, he says, in one of his Letters, 
† Ep. Famil. l. 9 Ep. 16.  that Hirtius and Dolabella Declamed at his House, in an Age in which it seems that those Exercises were unseasonable. Afterwards they found, that true Subjects taken out of ancient History, or such as lately happened, were not fit for that: They feigned some Facts, and to have more occasion to say some extraordinary things, 
‖ Petron. Init.  they clothed them with strange Circumstances. There was nothing to be heard but Discourses upon what a Man should do, when he is ready to escape from a Shipwreck, and seethe upon the Shore some Pirates who will bind him with Chains; or concerning a Man whom a Tyrant should command, upon pain of Death, to kill his own Father; or concerning a Father who should see his Children carried away to be sacrificed, by the Command of an Oracle. One may see a great number of such like Subjects in Seneca's and Quintilians Controversies. They handled them with such an Eloquence, as came much nearer the Style of a Tragical Poet, than a Judicious Orator. That manner of Studying, which was admired in the following Ages, in which Men were much less polite, made most Writers mere Declamators, full of Exaggerations, strained Figures, Witticisms, Equivocations, Punns, Arguments which prove nothing, and all the other Defects of a false Rhetoric. They undertook to maintain all sorts of Subjects, without having any regard to Truth, thinking that one might more improve, by exercising one's self to defend bad Causes, than to maintain good one's. Thus Julian, being yet a Christian, Declamed against the Christian Religion in the School of Libanius, only said they to form his Mind, and use himself to find out probable Arguments pro and con on all Subjects.  
I was obliged somewhat to enlarge upon the Manner of Studying in those Centuries; because without having some Notion of it, these words of Prudentius, in the Abridgement which he himself made of his Life, cannot be understood: 
Aetas prima crepantibus  
Flevit sub ferulis, mox docuit toga  
Infectum vitiis falsa loqui, non fine crimine.   
That last Verse denotes well enough the Rhetorical Exercises which I have mentioned, which Young Men applied themselves to, when they had put on the thorough White Gown, that is, at Seventeen or Eighteen Years of Age. In effect, they learned thereby to speak false things (falsa loqui,) which though spoken, as it were, out of an ingenious Fancy, yet were criminal, (non sine crimine,) because by that means they used themselves by degrees to Lie, and speak against their Conscience. Father Chamillard [who put out Prudentius, in usum Delphini] hath paraphrased those words with some that are more obscure: Plenus criminibus didici dicere falsa criminosé. But I have not mentioned the Studies of Prudentius' time, only by reason of that place; but because, as we shall see hereafter, there is a great many others in our Poet, which require that we should think of the Manner of Studying, and the Eloquence of his Time.  
The Christians Studied as others did, and Reasoned almost as they did. One may find a pleasant Description of the Eloquence of that time, in St. Jerom's Letter to Nepotianus, 
* Pag. 12. Ed. Gryph.  concerning the manner how ecclesiastics ought to behave themselves: Don't you require of me (says he) Childish Declamations, wherein one may find Sentences spread as it were Flowers through the whole Discourse; far fetched Expressions, to flatter the Hearer's Ear; and at the end of every Article, Witticisms shut up within few Words, to excite the Applauses and Exclamations of those that hear us:— Ne à me quaeras pueriles declamationes, sententiarum flosculos, verborum lenocinia, & per fines capitulorum singulorum acuta quaedam breviterque conclusa, quae plausus & clamores excitent audientium. For then, to say so by by the buy, Acclamations and Applauses were used in Churches, as well as theatres: 
* Ib. p. 14.  Which appears by St. Jerom's Advertisement in the same Letter: I will not have you (says he) to be a Declamator, and a Babbler without Reason; but understand the Mysteries, and be instructed in the Secrets of your God. 'Tis the part of Unlearned Men, to seek to be Admired by the ignorant Vulgar, by rolling as it were some words, and reciting with an extraordinary swiftness. An impudent Man doth often explain what he knows not; and after he hath imposed upon others, fancies himself to be Learned. I desired once Gregory Nazianzen, who was formerly my Master, to explain to me what's meant by the Second Sabbath after the First, in St. Luke: And he pleasantly answered, I will teach you that at Church, where, when all the People shall applaud me, you will be forced to know what you do not know; or if you only keep silence, you will be looked upon as a Fool: Docebo te super hac re in Ecclesia, in qua mihi omni populo acclamante, cogeris invitus scire quod nescis; aut certè si solus tacueris, solus ab omnibus stultitiae condemnaberis.  
To return to Prudentius: He confesses, that when he applied himself to the Study of Eloquence, he lived after a manner somewhat licentious. Afterwards he began to make use of his Eloquence at the Bar; where his desire of gaining all the Causes he undertook to defend, either good or bad, exposed him, as he says, to great Dangers. Next to that, he obtained twice the Government of some Provinces which he doth not name: He was in the Army for some time, and was raised by Theodosius, or Honorius, to a considerable Employment, which he describes in these terms: 
Tandem militae gradu  
Evectum Pietas Principis extulit,  
Assumptum propiùs stare jubens ordine proximo.  Perhaps he had been Praefect of the Praetorium, which was the Chief Dignity of the Empire. 'Tis not known why, nor upon what occasion, he retired Home; but it appears, that in the Fifty seventh Year of his Age, he wrote the Preface of his Hymns for Every Day; wherein he alludes to his several Works (Vers. 35, etc.) which he designed, or had already composed, but perhaps were not yet made public. They all run upon some Subjects of Devotion, and part of them are in Lyric, and part in Heroic Verses; yet he was not born for Poetry, and it doth not appear that he had much Learning. He doth very often mistake the Quantity not only of Greek Words, the Orthography of which he doth not seem to have well understood, but also of Latin Words, of which one may find some Lists in his Interpreters. He also uses many words of the Latinity of his time, and a Style which could only be liked then. The noble Facility of the ancient Poets, nor so much of Claudian, who lived at the same time, doth not appear in it; and the bottom of his Style is low, and prosaic enough, though he doth whatever he can to raise it. His Heat fails him at every moment: One may perceive that Age had lessened the Heat of his Fancy, and that he could not supply it by the Light of his Mind. But if his Poetry doth not please by its Elegancy, yet it may be useful, because one may learn from it several Opinions and Customs of his time, besides some Facts concerning the History of Martyrs; as it will appear by the following Examination of some Places of our Poet.  
I. The Book entitled Hymns for Every Day, contains Twelve of them, composed as if they were to be sung or recited on several Occasions, at Break of Day, at one's Rising, before and after Meals, when they light the Candle, when one goes to Bed, on a Fast and after Fasting, at all times, at a Funeral, on Christmas-Day, and on the Epiphany. The Preface which is before those Hymns seems to be rather a General Preface for all the Poems of Prudentius; since (as I have already observed) he alludes therein to all his Works; and says, that he is resolved to leave for ever his worldly Employments, that he might altogether apply himself to write Verses to the Praise of God, against Heresies, and the Pagan Religion, to explain that of Christ, and upon the Martyrs and Apostles. Those are the Subjects upon which all the Poems of Prudentius run.  
1. One may observe, that that Poet mentions several popular Opinions of the Christians in his time, which they took from the Heathens, as that which is to be found in the First Hymn (Vers. 38.) wherein he assures us that they said, That the Daemons, whom the Darknesses of the Night rejoices, withdraw when the Day appears. The Pagans believed that the Demigods retired into some Desert Places, and wandered in the Night, and at Full-Noon, (as I have observed elsewhere; to which the 72, 73, and 74 Verses of Callimacus his Hymn, entitled The Baths of Pallas, may be joined, wherein he says that that Goddess bathed herself at the same time that Mount Cithaeron enjoyed the Rest of Noon. What the Latins said concerning their Lemures and Striges, is well known.  
2. There is many Expressions in Prudentius, which are very harsh, and seem to say much more than he designed. For Example, 
* Ib. v. 58.  speaking of St. Peter, he says: 
Flevit negator denique  
Ex ore prolapsum nefas,  
Cum Mens maneret Innocens,  
Animusque servaret fidem.   
It seems that he meant no more than this, viz. That though St. Peter had sworn that he knew not our Lord, yet he kept in his mind the same Sentiments for him which he had before. But his words taken in a rigorous sense, seem to say that a Man may speak against his Conscience, and yet have his Mind free from Gild, as in Euripides' Verse: Juravi Lingua, Mentam Injuratam gero.  
Those who delight too much in a Figurative Style, are liable to the like Expressions. Thus St. Cyprian, in his Book 
* Oxon. Ed. 127.  de Lapsis, speaking of those who were overcome by the violence of Torments, says, Infirmitas viscerum sensit, nec animus sed corpus dolore defecit:" 'Tis not the" Mind, but the Body that failed.  
We shall see in the Sequel of this Discourse another remarkable Example, by which it will appear that Prudentius says more than he means.  
3. In the Evelenth Hymn, to be recited in the Morning, 
† Vers. 29.  there is a slight Imitation of Horace; wherein having said, that in the Morning every body betakes himself to his Affairs, Prudentius adds: 
Miles, Togatus, navita,  
Opifex, arator, institor:  
Illum forensis gloria  
Hunc triste raptat classicum, etc.   
One may see the beginning of the First satire of Horace, by which it will appear, that by Togatus, we are to understand a Juris Consult, or a Lawyer. F. Chamillard understands a Judge by it: But what I have said, and forensis gloria, which follows, show that the Poet means, a Person who frequented the Bar, to get Glory by Pleading, not to do Justice in it. This agrees well enough with the Division of the Day, which we find in Martial, l. 4. Ep. 8.  
Prima salutantes atque altera distinet Hora,  
Exercet raucos tertia Causidicos.  
In the words of Cicero, cited by F. Chamillard, Cedant arma togae, Toga doth not signify the Judgements given in time of Peace, and hath no relation with Junicature; but denotes Eloquence, as it appears by the rest of the Verse, Concedat Laurea Linguae. This is not the only place wherein Critics will not agree with our Commentator.  
4. For Example; Prudentius, in the Third Hymn 
* Vers. 2.  to be recited Before Meals, calls Christ Verbigena; where F. Chamillard doth well observe, that according to the Analogy of the Latin Tongue, that word signifies Begotten, or Born of the Word, as Martigena signifies Born of Mars. Yet he maintains that this is not Prudentius' meaning, because it is contrary to the Faith, which teaches us, that Christ is the very Word of his Father, not a Production of the Father's Word; so that he explains Verbigena, Begotten Word. But as we would not have our Words to be always explained according to the Notions and Terms of the Ancients; 'tis not just that we should make 'em speak as we do, unless it be evident that they have really used the same Expressions in the same sense. That Rule ought always to be observed, but especially when the Question is about an Incomprehensible Subject, as on this occasion; for indeed, whatever Expressions be used, it doth not become more Intelligible. Besides, it appears from another place of Prudentius, that by Verbigena, he understood, Begotten by Speaking. Here are his words in 
* Vers. 17.  the Eleventh Hymn of the same Book: 
Ex ore quamlibet Patris  
Sis ortus, & Verbo Editus,  
Tamen paterno in pectore  
Sophia callebas priús.  Although Thou camest out of the Father's Mouth, and waste begotten as the Word, yet Thou wast before his Wisdom, in his Breast.  
Prudentius expresses in those words the Opinion of several Ancients who lived before the Council of Nice, and believed that the Substance of the Son of God had existed after an Incomprehensible manner, and without Generation in the Father, from whom it emanated after an unspeakable manner 
* Vid. Bull Def. Fid. Nican. §. 3. p. 5, etc.  before the Creation of the World; and that Emananation they call his Generation. Notwithstanding, they do sometimes explain that Generation by the Example of the Production of the Word; which made Tertullian say, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, & prolatione generatum: 
† Vid. Iren. l. 2. c. 48.  We have learned that God produced him, and begot him by Production.— Hence it is that the Fathers of the Council of Nice anathematised those who should say that the Son existed not before he was begotten: So that, in their Opinion, the Nature of the Son of God existed not only before the World, but is Coeternal with God, properly speaking; whereas his Personality is only Eternal, inasmuch as it did exist before Time, that is, the Duration of the World. The same Fathers teach, that after the Generation of the Son, he created the World, (as one may see in Dr. Bull.) Prudentius says also, agreeably to that Notion, in the following words, 
Quae prompta Caelum condidit,  
Caelum, Diemque & caetera.  Which being emanated from the Father, created Heaven, the Day, and all Things else.— Those who will give themselves the trouble to compare this Remark with F. Chamillard's Note, will be able to judge whether it be safe to explain the Ancients according to the Modern Notions. If any one desires to have a clear Idea of the manner after which the Ancients apprehended that the Essence of the Son existed without Generation in his Father, and how he was emanated from him, I refer him to the same Fathers, who will tell him that 'tis a Mystery they comprehended not no more than we.  
5. In the same Hymn, 
* Vers. 58.  wherein the word Verbigena is to be found, there is also an Opinion singular enough, and which savours more of a Pythagorean, or Manichean, than an Orthodox. Having said that the Earth affords all sorts of Fruits to the Christians, he adds: 
Absit onim procul illa fames,  
Caedibus ut pecudum libeat  
Sanguineas lacerares dapes.  The Ebionites are accused, as well as the Manicheans, of having believed that 'tis not lawful to eat Meat; and one may see St. Epiphanius upon those two Heresies. Prudentius might have said in this place more than he thought, as F. Chamillard believes, who observes, that he only meant, that many abstained from Meat, the they thought it not unlawful, only to live a more austere Life.  
6. Towards the end of the same Poem, 
* Vers. 19  Prudentius, speaking of Christ's Resurrection, says: 
Nam modo corporeum memini  
De Phlegethonte gradu facili  
Ad superos remeasse Deum.  For I remember that a Corporeal God easily came up again from Phlegeton.— F. Chamillard paraphrases this latter word by that of Limbus; as if Prudentius, by the Name of one of the Rivers of Hell, understood what they call Limbus Patrum. 'Tis certain, that the Pagans, who first used the word Phlegeton, denoted by it, not a River of the Elysian Fields, or Fortunate Islands, but of Hell, and the Place of Torments. So that unless Prudentius ex-explains it elsewhere, or the general Opinion of the Christians of that time leads that way, the Critics will have much ado to apprehend why the word Phlegeton should not denote in Prudentius the Place of Torments. Now, having examined all the Passages in Prudentius, wherein that Name, and those of the other Rivers of Hell are used, I find that Prudentius denotes by those terms, not a Place of Rest, but a Place wherein the Souls are Tormented. He describes that Place as the Heathen Poets do, either with respect to its Situation, or the Torments which they suffer there. Thus in the Apotheosis, Vers. 743, he speaks to Lazarus in these terms, Dic cujus vocem tellure sub ima, etc. Tell us whose Voice you heard under the lowest Places of the Earth, and what Force went through the hidden Places where the Dead make their abode: Since when Christ recalled you, and ordered you to come forth from the Black Depth wherein you was, you heard it as if you had been near. By what so neighbouring an Abyss is the Kingdom of of Darkness almost joined with the Upper Parts of the Earth? Where is the dismal Tenarus, by which they go down through a vast Extent? and that Hidden River, which rolls Flames in its Channel, which nothing can fill?  
It appears from thence, that Prudentius placed Hell under the Earth, at a very great distance from the Place wherein the Living dwell: as Homer and Hesiod, who say that Tartarus is as far from hence, as Heaven is; and that an Iron Anvil thrown from Heaven upon Earth, or from hence to Tartarus, could get thither but in Ten Days.  
In his Hamartigeny, Ver. 824. he describes Hell in the following words: 
Praescius inde Pater liventia Tartara plumbo  
Incendit liquido, piccasque bitumine fossas  
Infernalis Aquae furvo subfodit Averno,  
Et Phlegethonteo sub gurgite sanxit edaces  
Perpetuis scelerum poenis inolescere vermes.  One would almost think that 'tis a Heathen Poet who speaks thus; but he is not the only one who hath done the same; the Jews before and after Christ, and the ancient Christians, expressed themselves in the same terms.  
Now, if it be asked what was the Opinion of the Father's concerning the Place into which Christ descended, and those he took out of it; I answer, That there was some diversity of Opinions amongst 'em upon that Subject, although they agree in some respects. They 
* See Pearson upon the Fifth Article of the Apostles Creed, pag. 256, etc.  all constantly say that Christ descended into the subterranean Places where the Dead make their abode; but they don't agree about the Persons to whom he made himself known, and the End for which he went to them, because they had not the same Notions concerning the State of the Dead. Some who by the words Hades and Infernus, understood the Places wherein the Souls of all Men, both Good and Bad, are expecting the Resurrection, believed that the Soul of Christ descended towards the Souls of those who died in the fear of God, as the Patriarches and prophets. But some others, as St. Augustine, who thought that those words are never to be found in the Scripture for a Place of Happiness, and consequently could not apprehend that the Souls of the Patriarches and Prophets should be detained in it; those Fathers, I say, could not believe that Christ, in his Descent into Hell, went to the Prophets and Patriarches who were not there.  
Some of those who followed the former Opinion, as Eusebius, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerom, believed that Christ took from Hell the Souls of Good Men, and led them into Heaven. That's the Opinion of the modern Schoolmen, and which F. Chamillard seems to follow in his Paraphrase. But others who had the same Thoughts, with respect to the word Hades, believed that the Souls were still in a subterranean Place, which they call Abraham's Bosom, where they were to stay till the Day of the Resurrection. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory Nyssen, were of that Opinion.  
Others, who maintained that the Souls of the Patriarches could not be in a Place called Hell, which, in their Opinion, denotes only the Place of Torments in the Scripture, said that Christ really descended into the Place wherein the Devils and wicked Men are tormented. They believed he went thither to deliver the Souls which were there to suffer the Punishment which their Sins deserved. Some pretended that Christ had only delivered a certain number of those Souls; and others, that he had altogether emptied Hell. St. Augustine 
* Haeres. 79.  calls this latter Opinion a Heresy, and follows the former. However, it was St. Cyril's Opinion, 
† Hom. Pasch. 7.  who assures us, that when Christ was risen, he left the Devil alone in Hell. Prudentius seems to have been of the same Mind too; at least, in his 
‖ Vers. 125. & 133.  Fifth Hymn, he says that every Year, on the Night in which Christ risen, the Damned feel no Pain; which supposes that Christ descended into that Place, and took the Damned out of it on that very Night: 

Sunt & Spiritibus saepè nocentibus  
Paenarum celebres sub Styge feriae,  
Illa Nocte sacer qua rediit Deus  
Stagnis ad superos ex Acheronticis.   

Marcent suppliciis Tartara mitibus,  
Exultatque sui carceris otio  
Vmbrarum populus liber ab ignibus  
Nec fervent solito flumina sulphur.   The Spirits of the Wicked, the Night in which God came from the Lakes of Acheron, have some solemn releases from their Torments. Tartarus languishes with milder Punishments; the People of the Shades, free from Fire, are glad to have some rest in their Prison, and the Rivers of Brimstone don't boil as they are wont to do.— F. Chamillard observes that the Poet was mistaken in that respect, altho' St. Augustine▪ 
* Enchir. c. 12.  believed also that the Damned had sometimes some release. The Schoolmen, and other Divines, who are so positive upon that Matter, should produce a clear Revelation, or the Testimony of some that have been in the Places which they speak of. But it appears, by the variety of Opinions, that no body hath any such Proof; and all that can be said, is, that it were better ingeniously to confess that they know nothing of it, no more than those who formerly spoke of it so differently. We shall see again, in the sequel of this Work, a Thought of Prudentius, extraordinary enough, concerning the State of the Dead.  
7. In the Hymn 
† Vers. 95.  to be said before Sleep, speaking of the Divine Justice, which can kill the Soul, as well as the Body, he says, 
Idem tamen benignus  
Vltor retundit iram  
Paucosque non piorum  
Patitur perire in aevum.  Notwithstanding, that Revenger, full of Goodness, stops his Wrath, and only permits that some impious Men perish for ever.— Had Prudentius read Plato, one might believe that he should have taken that Opinion from him; for that Philosopher introduces Socrates, in his Phaedon, dividing Men into Three Orders; the last whereof, which contains but a small number of them, is of those who are come to the highest pitch of Wickedness, and who being past curing, are precipitated into Tartarus, never to come out of it. It may be also that our Poet, by Perirae in Aevum, meant, not merely to be excluded from Heaven, or to be in Hell, but to suffer the highest degree of Punishment in it; for he acknowledged several Degrees of it, as he says in the end of his Harmartigeny, of which I shall speak hereafter.  
The Fathers have very differently spoken of the State of Souls after Death, and the Punishments of another Life; so that 'tis no wonder that Prudentius should have an Opinion of his own upon that Subject. We have seen what they said concerning the Place into which Christ descended, whilst his Body was in the Grave: And several of their Opinions concerning the Duration of the Punishment of the Wicked, may be seen in Huetius his Origeniana, lib. 2. cap. 2. q. 11. by which it will appear, that Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus believed that after a certain time they should be annihilated. But, says that learned Man, the Church had decided nothing then concerning those Questions, so that what was looked upon as uncertain at that time, became certain, since some Councils were pleased to tell what was their Opinion concerning it; which Opinion cannot be grounded upon a constant Tradition, seeing the Ancients spoke so differently of it.  
8. 'Twas the Custom to make the Sign of the Cross when they went to Bed, thinking that that Sign did drive away the Devil; as it appears by these words of 
* Vers. 131.  Prudentius in the same Hymn: 
Frontem locumque cordis  
Crucis figura signet.  
Crux pellit omne crimen,  
Fugiunt crucem tenebrae, etc.  Make the Sign of the Cross upon the Forehead and Heart. The Cross drives away all manner of Crimes, and Darkness flies from the Cross, etc.— The Respect which the Ancients had for that Figure, gave occasion to their being accused of worshipping the Cross, (as may be seen in Minutius Felix, who vindicates himself from it;) but at last the time came, when Men were not ashamed to maintain that it ought to be worshipped. Thus Outward Practices, which strike the Eyes of the People, and are performed without Trouble, are easily kept up and increased; whilst the Inward Dispositions of the Mind, which cannot be acquired without Pains, and without renouncing one's Passions, are neglected.  
9 In the 
* Ver. 147.  Seventh Hymn, which is for those who Fast, Prudentius, speaking of the Fast of the Ninivites, affords us an Example of a manner of Speaking, which may easily lead one into an Error, if he doth not read with great Attention. He speaks after the manner of his time, of a thing that was done in a very remote time, and which those who did it, would not have expressed after the same manner: 
Placet frementem publicis jejuniis  
Placare Christum.  It was resolved to appease Christ with Public Fast.— If the Ninivites well known, and if we knew not the Fast which Prudentius mentions, was celebrated many Ages before Christ, we might conclude from thence, that the People knew Christ. But 'tis very likely that our Poet had no such Thought, but only spoke as they did in his time; and in all probability, those who spoke of the Father's of the Old Testament in Christian terms, did the same.  
10. Prudentius is not very exact in his Expressions, as one may easily perceive by the reading of some Pages with a little Application. Here is a remarkable Instance of it in the two Verses of his 
* Ver. 12.  Tenth Hymn, wherein he describes Death thus: 
Humus excipit arida Corpus,  
Animae rapit Aura Liquorem.  The Earth receives the Body, and the Wind carries away the Soul.— If we had nothing of him but those two Verses, and if we knew not that he was a Christian, we should maintain, that he believed that the Soul dies together with the Body; for the second of those two Verses doth naturally signify so much, and an Epicurean could not express himself better. But besides that it cannot be doubted, after the reading of Prudentius, that he believed the Immortality of the Soul, he explains himself in his second Book against Symmachus, wherein he introduces † God speaking thus; 
a Ver. ib.  The Inward Man, who lives in you, shall not die; he shall be punished with an Everlasting Punishment, because he hath ill governed the Members that were subjected to him. 'Tis no difficult thing for me to surround a Liquid Substance with Flame, though it flies as the Wind: 
Nec mihi difficile est liquidam circumdare flammis  
Naturam, quamvis perflabilis illa feratur More Noti.  He would have the Soul to be a very subtle Liquor, which the Wind carries away; but he pretended, that it could not be dissipated. The question is not, whether he had a clear Idea of what he said, and whether his Opinion is rational; 'tis enough to show that he believed those two things, lest he should be suspected of Epicureism. F. Chamillard conjectures, that he might believe that the Soul was of the same Nature with Heaven, or of the Quint-Essence which Heaven is made of. But Prudentius his Chimeras were not perhaps the same with those of the Peripatetics of our time.  
II. The Work entitled De Coronis, contains a Preface, and Fourteen Hymns, in Praise of several Martyrs, especially of Spain, which was our Poet's Native Country.  
1. It doth clearly appear from several Places in those Hymns, that they Prayed to Martyrs at that time, and believed that they were appointed Patrons of some Places by God. Some Protestant Writers, who fancy that the Tradition of the Four or Five first Centuries of the Church ought to be joined with the Scripture, have denied that the Saints were Prayed to in the Fourth Century; but they should not have framed a Notional System, before they were well instructed in Facts, since they may be convinced of this by several places out of Prudentius. Thus in the 
* Ver. 10.  First Him, which is in Praise of two Martyrs of Calahorra, a City of Spain, he says, Exteri nec non & Orbis, etc. Strangers come hither in Crowds, because Fame hath published through the whole World, that the Patrons of the World (Patroni Mundi) are here, whose Favour may be sought for by Prayers. No Body did ever offer here pure Orisons in vain. Whosoever came to Pray to them, perceiving that his just Requests had been granted him, went away full of Joy, having wept off his Tears. Those Martyrs are so careful to intercede for us, that they suffer not that they should be Prayed to in vain: Whether it be done with a loud or a low Voice, they hear it, and report it to the Ears of the Eternal King.— Those who desire more Proofs of it, need only. read the Passages marked in the 
* Hymn. II. ver. 457. III. 311. iv 175, & 196. V 545. IX. 97. X. 130. XIV. 124.  Margin.  
It doth also appear from Vigilantius a Priest 
† Vid. Hieron. T. 2.  of Barcelona his upbraiding most of the Christians of his time upon that account, that there were already great Abuses in the Honour which they paid to the Saints. St. Jerom, who answered him, confirms the same, by his manner of vindicating himself: He feigneth so to understand the Objections of Vigilantius, as if that learned Man had said that the Martyrs were Honoured as Gods, whereas he only complained that they Prayed to them, and Kissed their Relics. Hereupon his Antagonist denies that they Worshipped the Martyrs, and believed they were Gods; but he doth not deny that they Prayed to them. One may see his violent Invective against Vigilantius, in the Second Tome of his Works.  
2. Although Prudentius relates a great number of Circumstances of the Torments of the Martyrs, whom he mentions; yet he complains that Time and the Heathens have destroyed abundance of Acts, from which one might have learned them.  
O vetustatis silentis obsoleta oblivio!  
Invidentur ista nobis, fama & ipsa extinguitur,  
Chartulas blasphemus olim nam Satelles abstulit.  

* Hymn I. ver. 73.  O Forgetfulness of Antiquity! We are deprived of the knowledge of those Facts; and the very Fame, which would have mentioned them, is extinguished; for the Satellites of the Heathens have long since taken from us the Acts.— The History of the Martyrs hath been the better adorned for it; they are represented to us not as Men, but as Persons that have no Feeling, and at the same time are almost out of their Wits, (as it appears by the Hymns upon Laurence and Agnes.) Hence it is also that Prudentius made but Two Persons of several. Hippolytus' and Cyprian, as F. Chamillard hath observed upon the Eleventh and Twelfth Hymns.  
3. They believed, in our Poet's time, that Rome was full of the Graves of Martyrs, whereof the Number was not known, 
† Hymn II. ver. 541.  as may be inferred from the following words: 
Vix fama nota est, abditis  
Quàm plena sanctis Roma sit,  
Quàm dives urbanum solum  
Sacris sepulchris floreat.  'Tis scarce known how full Rome is of hidden Saints, and how rich and adorned with holy Sepulchers the Soil of that City is.— The great Crowds of People about the Graves of the Martyrs, brought then too great a Gain to the ecclesiastics in whose Parish they were found, to believe them altogether upon their Word. However, they began then to set up the Catacombs, of which here's a Description taken out of the 
* Ver. 158.  Eleventh Hymn: 
Haud procul extremo culta ad pomoeria vallo,  
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveris, etc.  Not far from the Walls of the City is a Vault, that lies open through dark Pits: They go down into it by winding Stairs, without seeing any thing at all, for there is but a small Light that gets into it through the Door of the Stairs; but when they go forward to the darkest Place, after they have walked through the winding Bye-ways of that Den, the Light comes in through a Gap that is above: And although those Paths are very narrow and winding, yet one sees often the Light through such like Gaps which are in the pierced Vault, etc. The Body of Hippolytus (says Prudentius) was laid in that hidden Place.  
4. 'Tis not only the Behaviour of the Christians towards the Martyrs, after their Death, which may be observed in the Works of Prudentius; one ought also to remark how they behaved themselves towards them whilst they were alive. In the 
* Ver. 333.  Fifth Hymn, which contains St. Vincent's Passion, Prudentius represents the Christians going in Crowds to the Prison, wiping and kissing the Wounds which he received when he was pinched with Tongues (ungularum duplices sulcos) licking his Blood, or dipping a Cloth in it, to keep it as a kind of Preservative for them and their Posterity. It appears also from the 
† Ver. 75, etc.  Sixth Hymn, that Fructuosus Bishop of Sarragoza was attended with many Friends of his as far as the burning Pile, and that they desired him to remember them. Afterwards they gathered carefully his Ashes and Bones, and having sprinkled them with Wine, they buried them magnificently enough. In the Tenth Hymn, 
‖ Ver. 665, etc.  which contains the Passion of Romanus, a Christian Woman being at his Execution with a Child, delivers him to be asked whether 'tis not better to worship One God than Many? The Child answers, Yes, and says that his Mother taught him so: Whereupon the Pagan Judge causes him to be whipped till the Blood runs before his Mother who exhorts him to suffer, is angry with him because he calls for some Drink, and afterwards carries him to be Beheaded.  
If those Circumstances, and many more, are true, it doth necessarily follow, that they spared then, in some measure, the Blood of the Christians, and put but few of them to death, to terrify others, since they did not put to death such Persons as made a public Declaration. Yet if we believe those who wrote since the History of those Times, 'twas enough to show that one was a Christian, to suffer Martyrdom; and the Rivers were red with the innocent Blood that was shed, to confess the Name of Christ. Those who have no great love for Truth, and maintain it with the same Spirit that stirs those who defend a Faction, have always done the same: They never believed that simple Truth was sufficient to maintain itself, but that it wanted to be adorned and upholden with Lies. A fatal Conduct, and which hath done Truth so great a wrong, as will never be repaired. All that can be done by those who love it, is to endeavour to disentangle it from Fables as much as they can, and ingenuously to confess that an infinite number of Falsehoods hath been mixed with some true Facts. This we are obliged to do, especially in the History of the Martyrs; and Mr. Dodwell hath happily performed it in his Cyprianick Dissertations, wherein he shows that there hath not been so many Martyrs as the Martyrologies reckon.  
5. Although the Heathenish Custom, of filling the Churches with Images, is not approved, because it hath been found by Experience that they do more harm than good; yet it must be confessed, that that Custom was practised in Italy in the beginning of the Fourth Century, and perhaps before. We learn it from Prudentius, in the Ninth Hymn, wherein he says, 
* Ver. 9  That as he was going to Rome, he went into a Church at Imola, where St. Cassianus a Martyr was buried, and that being upon his Knees before his Grave, he saw there the Representation of his Martyrdom, over-against him: 
Erexi ad Coelum faciem, stetit obvia contrà  
Fucis colorum picta imago Martyris, etc.   
The same thing may be observed in the Eleventh Hymn, concerning 
† Ver. 123.  St. Hippolytus, in whose Chapel Prudentius reports that the same thing may may be seen as in that of Cassianus.  
Exemplar sceleris paries habet illitus, in quo  
Multicolor fucus digerit omne nefas.  
Picta super tumulum species liquidis viget umbris,  
Effigians fracti membra cruenta viri.  
It ought to be observed, that upon that Grave there was a Table, or an Altar, on which they celebrated the 
* Ibid. ver. 170.  Eucharist; so that, that Image precisely upon the Altar where they are wont to place Images now in the Church of Rome.  
Thus those who had but a confused Notion of Christian Piety, believed that it could not maintain itself without the help of Outward Objects, and I know not what Heathenish Pomp, which hath at last extinguished the Spirit of the Gospel, and substituted Paganism in its room. Whatever hath an Outward Appearance of Piety, and may be observed without having any Virtue in the Soul, was always easily entertained amongst ignorant Nations; who, on the contrary, did always neglect whatever requires some Virtue to be practised. However, we must acknowledge, that Images were not yet permitted every where at that time; witness St. Epiphanius' Action, who tore a Veil in a Church of a Village in Palestine, named Anablatha, because there was a Picture upon it, saying, that it was against the Authority of the Scripture. He himself relates that Action, in a Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem, which St. Jerom translated into Latin, and speaks of it as of an Action which no body could blame, and which was grounded upon the Doctrine of the Apostles. However, it appears from Prudentius, that this was not the Opinion of the whole Christian Church; and one may see thereby, that the single Testimony of one Father is not sufficient to judge of the Opinions of all the Christians, as 'tis but too often practised.  
III. Prudentius his Apotheosis is a Poem in Heroic Verses, wherein he assaults several Errors either of some Heretics, or of the Jews. He attacks,  
1. The Patripassians, or Disciples of Noêtus, who lived about the Year 240, who distinguished no Hypostases in the Deity, and believing that it was united to Christ, maintained that the Father had suffered as well as the Son. 'Tis a difficult thing to know whether the Opinion of that Heretic is faithfully related, or whether they did not ascribe to him the Consequences which they drew from it. However, Prudentius endeavours to prove against him, that the Father never made himself Visible, and that consequently it cannot be said that he dwelled in Christ; but it must be confessed that this is a very weak Argument, according to the Notions of our Modern Divines. For if the Essence of the Son became in some respect Visible by being United to Christ, that of the Father became Visible at the same time, because 'tis but One only Essence in Number.  
2. The next Heretics against whom Prudentius writes, are the Vnionites, that is to say, the Sabellians, who began to appear about twenty Years after Noëtus. They used the same Arguments with that Heretic, to prove the Unity of a Divine Hypostasis; and they were answered as Noëtus was, (as may be seen in 
* Haerens. 57, & 62.  St. Epihanius.) Prudentius upbraids Sabellius with saying nothing that's new; because the Pagans, especially the Philosophers, acknowledged the Unity of a Supreme God, as well as he, although they did sometimes mention many: 
Cum ventum tamen ad norman rationis & artis,  
Turbidulos sensus, & litigiosa fragosis  
Argumenta modis concludunt Numen in Vnum.   
Afterwards he shows, that the Christians surpass those Pagan Vnionites, because they believe Three Hypostases in that One Deity; and that if there was but One Hypostasis, the Son would be Son of Himself; which is absurd. That whole Dispute is a very intricate one, because it runs upon a Subject equally incomprehensible to the Orthodox and Heretics; and those who will carefully read the Reasonings of Prudentius and St. Epiphanius upon that Matter, will perceive that they prove not Three Modifications of One Essence, but Three equally Glorious Essences.  
This the Heretics upbraided the Orthodox with, when they asked 'em, as St. Epiphanius relates it, Have we One God, or have we Three? Prudentius answers that Question, in his 
* Ver. 347.  Hamartigeny, thus: 
— Deus Pater est & Filius unum,  
Quip unum Natura facit quae constat utrique  
una voluntatis, juris, virtutis, amoris;  
Non tamen idcircò Duo Numina, nec Duo rerum  
Artifices; quorum generis Dissentio nulla est.  That is to say, those are not Three, whose Nature is the same Kind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, which is the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as I have showed 
* In the Life of Eusebius.  elsewhere.)  
3. Afterwards Prudentius attacks the Jews somewhat weakly, by confusedly relating some Miracles of Christ, and some Effects of the Gospel, either true or false, as the History of I know not what Magical Sacrifice of Julian, the Effects whereof a Christian hindered by his Presence. Yet he speaks well of that Emperor, which is a sign of his Equity: 
— Ductor fortissimus armis,  
Conditur & legum celeberrimus ore manuque,  
Consultor Patriae, sed non consultor habendae Religionis.   
4. The Fourth Error, which Prudentius confutes, is that of Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of Antioch, who believed the Unity of God, in the same sense as Noëtus and Sabellius: but said, that Christ was but a mere Man. To show the falsity of that Doctrine, Prudentius relates the History of the Wise Men, and the Miracles of Christ. He that set down the Titles to those Places of the Apotheosis, wherein our Poet gins to confute a new Error, calls the Followers of Paulus, Homuncionites.  
5. Prudentius explains the Nature of the Soul, against I know not what Heretics, who seem to have made it Equal to the Divine Nature: He shows, that the Soul hath a Beginning, though it be like God; wherein it differs from the Son, of whom the Essence had no Beginning, having been in his Father from all Eternity. Afterwards he shows how it is subject to several Weaknesses, and may sin. He says that Souls 
* Ver. 910.  become corrupted, by being united with the Body, which all Men have from Adam; whence it is that all Men are born Sinners, and that we must beware of believing that Souls produce other Souls.  
6. Our Poet writes against the Phantasmaticks, that is to say, those who pretended that Christ had not a True Body. He doth especially endeavour to to show that, if this were true, God would have deceived us, and that Christ's Genealogy would he but a Chimaera; in effect, the Manichaeans, who were of the number of the Phantasmaticks, rejected that Genealogy.  
7. Prudentius, in the last place, describes the Resurrection, in some Venses, and so ends his Poem.  
iv The following Poem, entitled Hamartigeny, or, The Birth of Sin, is against the Opinions of the Manicheans and Marcionites, who believed Two Collateral Gods, whereof the one was the Author of Good, and the other of Evil. Prudentius doth scarce any thing but set down the common Opinion, and repeat several ways, That there is but One All-Good God; and that he whom the Heretics make Equal with Him, is an Angel fallen from his Innocency, who induced Men to Sin, and is really the cause of most Evils which happen in the World, which our Poet describes at large.  
The Manicheans and Marcionites raised an Objection against the Orthodox, which Prudentius 
* Ver. 640.  alleges, without abating any thing of its strength; viz. That if the God who governs the World did not delight in Sin, he would hinder it; since he is not ignorant of men's Corruption, and can hinder it. They pretended, that to do Ill, or suffer it, was the same thing, when it can be remedied. Prudentius answer, First, That it doth plainly appear, that God delights not in Sin; since he applies a Remedy to it, and saves those who abstain from it. But, replied the Heretics, Men cannot Sin, if God will not; since he masters men's Hearts, and turns them as he pleases. Our Poet doth not resolve this Difficulty any other way, than by having recourse to , without which, there can be neither Vice nor Virtue. He doth much enlarge upon that, and proves it, not only by the Example of our First Parents, but of Lot and his Wife, Noemi's Daughter-in-Law; and of two Brothers, one of whom is seen every day to embrace Virtue, and the other to give up himself to Vice: To which he adds 
* Ver. 508.  this general Maxim: 
Omnibus una subest Natura: sed exitus omnes  
Non unus peragit, placitorum segrege formâ.  All Men are not of the same Nature, but all have not the same End, because they do not all pursue the same thing.—  
It appears from what hath been said before, the Prudentius believed that Men are born corrupted; but one may see by what he says here, that he believed not that that Corruption did irresistibly determine 'em to do iii. To which he adds. That because Men may be Good or Bad, as they will, God hath appointed Rewards and Punishments. If the Manicheans had further objected to him, That it seems 'twere better if there was no Freedom of Will, nor Happiness, bestowed as a Reward, and if Men necessarily applying themselves to Good, were necessarily happy, than to make Men so dismal a Present as , which exposes most of them to an Eternal Misery: If, I say, the Manicheans had raised such an Objection against him, he would perhaps have made use of his Principle, which I have already mentioned, viz. That few Men fall into that Misery. And who knows but Prudentius came by that Notion because of that Objection, which might easily come into his Mind?  
2. Prudentius, describing the Flying of Lot, uses a word which cannot be understood without the help of the Old French, which hath its Original immediately from the bad Latin: 'Tis in the 773 Verse: Altar (Lot) se proripit, altera mussat. That is, Et l'autre muse; in better Latin, Nectit moros. Father Chamillard paraphrases it Murmur, in effect Mussare signified that in the ancient Latinity, but afterwards it changed its signification. But that's an Observation of no great moment: I had rather observe another thing which Prudentius says in the same History, viz. That Lot's Wife was not only changed into a Statue of Salt, but also, that that Statue was perfectly like her, and had the Head turned backwards; That it was still extant; and though the Salt did melt, and was often licked by the Cattle, yet it did not lessen. It seems that our Poet had this out of a Poem upon Sodom, ascribed to Tertullian, wherein 'tis said moreover, that 'twas known every Month, by a certain Mark, that 'twas a Woman's Statue. I think I am able 
* The Author hath done it since, in his Comment upon Genesis.  to show, that Moses says not that Lot's Wife was metamorphosed into a Statue of Salt; but this is not a fit place to enlarge upon that Matter, or show, that what is related concerning the Statue of Salt, are mere Fables.  
3. At the end of this Poem Prudentius offers a Prayer to God, which deserves to be observed. He prays, That when he is dead, he may not see a Devil, who carries his Soul into the Black Dens, where he will be forced to pay whatever he owes, to the last Farthing. He doth not beg to be in the Place where the Blessed, especially the Virgins dwell. He says he'll be content, provided he sees no Devil, and Hell devours not his Soul; that since is is necessary, because of the Corruption which his Soul had contracted in his Body, he consents to be swallowed up by the sod Fire of Avernus, provided however that it shall not be too hot. Let others (says he) be gloriously crowned in an Immense Light, and I but lightly burnt.  
Esto; cavernoso, quia sic pro labe necesse est  
Corporea, tristis me sorbeat ignis Averno:  
Saltem mirificos incendia lenta vapores  
Exhalent, aestuque calor lanquente tepescat.  
Lux immensa alios, & tempora vineta coronis  
Glorificent, me poena levis clementer adurat.  
Prudentius adds not, that he hoped to get out of that Place in the Day of the Resurrection; so that one cannot affirm, that he understands by it what was since called Purgatory, as F. Chamillard thinks. The Ancients differed so much among themselves concerning those Matters, that we cannot tell whether Prudentius had not a private Opinion of his own concerning this; and believed not, that a lesser degree of Heat, though it should last for ever, was a hind of Happiness. In effect, he ranks the Place wherein he wished to be, among the several Habitations in the House of God, which Christ speaks of, John nineteen.  
Multa in Thesauris Patris est habitatio, Christ,  
Disparibus Discreta locis.  
V The Psychomachy is an Allegorical Poem, wherein Prudentius describes a Fight of Virtues against Vices, and wherein there is nothing that's remarkable.  
VI The two Books against Symmachus were composed a little while after the Defeat of Alarick by Stilichon, in the Year 402. as it appears from the 695 Verse of the Second Book, wherein Prudentius mentions that Defeat, as having lately happened. Symmachus, a Pagan and Praefect of the City of Rome, the most Eloquent Orator of his time, had about eighteen Years before presented a Request to Valentinianus, Theodosius and Arcadius, to obtain from them the re-establishment of an Altar and Statue of Victory, which was in the Place where the Senate met, and which Gratianus took away. We have still the Discourse of Symmachus, and an Answer to it of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, which he wrote when he had disappointed the Request of Symmachus, by another which he presented upon the spot. Prudentius did also exercise himself in writing an Answer in Verses to the Discourse of that famous Heathen. He excuses himself for daring to write against so learned a Man. 
* Lib. 1. ver. 646.  In effect, the Verses of our Poet are not comparable with Symmachus' Prose, as to what concerns the Expression; though the Reasons of the latter, being only the Reasons of a Declamator, are very much beneath those of Prudentius. Yet Prudentius says scarce any thing against the Pagan Religion, but what other Christian Authors, who wrote upon the same Matter, said before him. He spends his First Book in that, and answers Symmachus' Reasons only in the Second.  
1. One may learn from two Places of the First Book, that there was then but a small number of Heathens in Rome, since 
* Ver. 579.  Prudentius says to the Pagans, That to know how few People pay Honour to the Altars of Jupiter, one needs only observe of what Religion are those who live in the highest Stories of the Houses, those who walk through the whole City, those who are nourished with the Bread which the Emperors distributed to the People, those who lived at the foot of the Vatican, and those who go to the Church of Lateran, to be Confirmed there.— It appears from thence, that the greatest part of the People were Christians. And a little lower, 
† Ver. 609.  Prudentius teaches us, that the greatest number of the Senators were Christians too; Because they had thrown down the Images of the Gods, by a Decree of the Senate made by the Majority of Votes. He says, That the Senators gave freely their Consent to the Proposal of the Emperor for it; which was evident, because that Prince did equally honour Merit in the Pagans and Christians.  
2. Simmachus had drawn an Argument for the Pagan Religion from its Antiquity, which he expressed very elegantly; Si longa aet as authoritatem religionibus faciat, servanda est tot saeculis sides, & sequendi sunt nobis Parents, qui feliciter secuti sunt suos: If length of Time is of some weight in Religion, we ought not to departed from the Belief of so many Centuries; we ought to imitate our Fathers, who did so well imitate theirs.— This is so well worded, that the ablest Missionary cannot preach better against the Innovators. Yet Prudentius answers chief two things against that Argument, which are so judicious, that the most learned Innovator cannot answer a Missionary better. The First is, That if the manner of Living of past Ages, is always to be preferred before that of the time wherein one lives, the Romans of that time should have renounced all the Conveniences of Life, trodden under foot all Sciences, recalled the Inconveniences and Barbarity of the Age of Saturn, and sacrificed Humane Victims to him. The Second thing is, That the Religion of the Romans was very much altered since Saturnus, and even Romulus' time: 

* Ver. 303.  Roma Antiqua sibi non constat, versa per aevum,  
Et mutata sacris, etc.   
What was remarkable in the Religion of the Romans, is, that since Romulos, the number of the Gods was infinitely increased: 

† Ver. 343.  Sanguinis Hectorei populum probo tempore longo  
Non multos coluisse Deos, rarisque sacellis  
Contentum paucas posuisse in collibus arras, etc.   
3. Symmachus said also, That as every Body hath a certain Soul; so Cities have some Tutelar Gods, which Fate gives 'em. Prudentius having laughed at those pretended Genius's, 
‖ Ver. 460.  doth very much inveigh, as all the Ancient Christians did, against the Opinion of Fate. He says, that if it be true, there should be no Laws nor Punishments against Malefactors: 
— quos ferrea Fata  
Cogunt ad facinus, & inevitabile mergunt:  
Quin & velle adigunt pravum insinuantia votum,  
Ne liceat miseris vetitum committere nolle.  That Unmoveable Fate doth avoidable force to Sin; That it disposes the Will to do Ill, so that Men cannot forbear being willing to do what is forbidden.  
4. The Heathen Orator vaunted much the Institution and Chastity of the Vestales: But Prudentius, who did not suffer himself to be surprised by fine words, when the Question was about Paganism, replied, 
* Ver. 1065.  That it must be observed, that the Vestales were chosen in their Childhood, before they came to despise the lawful Bond of Marriage of their own motion, and kindled with the love of Virginity and Religion. They Consecrate (says he) their Chastity before the Altars against their Wills, and those poor Wretches are deprived of a Pleasure which they take away from them, but they have not despised it: If they are Chaste as to the Body, they are not so as to the Mind: They enjoy no Rest in their Beds, where an Invisible Wound makes them sigh after the Nuptial Torches.— The same Argument cannot be made use of against the Christian Nuns of that time, who were permitted to Marry, if they were not content with Celibacy. But some things have happened since among a part of Christians, by the means whereof we see , upon the Theatre of Christianity, its several Parties act the same Scene between themselves, which was acted formerly by the Pagans and Christians.  
VII. Lastly, There are Forty nine Quadrants to be found in the Works of Prudentius upon several Histories of the Old and New Testament, which make up a little Book entitled Enchiridion, whereby the Style is still less Poetical than that of the other Works of our Poet.   

THE HISTORY OF PELAGIANISM.  
IN the Fourth Century, a vast number of People went to visit the Holy Places in Pulestine; which made the Books of Origen to be known in the West, where they were unknown before. Rufinus, amongst others, a Priest of Aquileia, having lived thirty Years in the East, and studied under Evagrius an Origenist, not only embraced the Opinions of Origen, but being returned into Italy, spread them every where, by translating several of his Works. Pelagius and Celestius learned of him at Rome that Doctrine, of which I shall speak hereafter. They were both Monks, and of Great Britain; Celestius was a Scotchman, and Pelagius an Englishman: The latter's Name was Morgan, in the Language of his Country, that is, Born of the Sea; or in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Name which he took out of his Native Country. If we believe 
* In Proem. Dial. count. Pelag.  St. Jeram, Pelagius was an ignorant Fellow, who knew not how to express himself, who deserved more to be pitied than envied; and Celestius a Solecism-maker. But St. Augustine speaks well of their Parts, in several Places; and indeed, it appears by their Fragments, which remain in his Works, that they did not express themselves so ill as St. Jerom says. We have still two Pieces of Pelagius among the Supposititious Writings of this latter; whereof one is a Letter to Demetriades; and the other is entitled Symboli Explanatio ad Damasum, whereas it should be called Professio Fidei ad Innocentium, for Pelagius sent it to Innocent. This last Piece is also to be found in Baronius, and in the First Volume of the Councils of Cologne, in 1606.  
Pelagius made a long stay at Rome, where he got a great Reputation by his Works and Conduct: Hence it is, that Augustin Bishop of Hippo praised him, and wrote a very obliging Letter to him, before he fell a Disputing with him. He calls him, in his Book De Peccatorum Meritis, 
† Cap. 1, 3.  Vir, ut audio, sanctus, nec parvo profectu Christianus, bonus ac praedicandus Vir: As I hear (says he) he is a Holy Man, and very much improved in Piety, a Good Man, and worthy of Praise.— Petavius, in his Book 
* Dogm. Theol. T. 3. p. 586.  De Pelagianorum & Semipelagianorum Dogmatum Historia, observes, that St. Augustin wrote the Book in which he speaks so advantageously of Pelagius, after the Condemnation of Celestius in the Council of Carthage, in 412. From whence he concludes, that St. Chrysostom doth not mention the same Pelagius in his Fourth Letter, wherein he laments the Fall of a Monk of the same Name. 'Tis not more likely that Pelagius the Hermit, to whom St. Isidorus of Damietto wrote 
† Lib. 1. Ep. 314.  sharp Censures, was the same whose History I writ, and whose Life was always unblameable, as it appears by St. Augustin's Testimony.  
Rome having been taken by the Goths, in the Year 410; 
‖ Vid. Vsser. Brit. Eccl. Antiq. c. 9 p. 16.  Pelagius, who was there, left it, and sailed into Africa; but he did not stay there, having presently set out for the East. In the mean time, Celestius his Disciple stayed at Carthage, and aspired to be Priest of that Church; but because he made no scruple to maintain the Opinions of his Master, he was accused by Paulinus a Deacon of the same Church, in a Council wherein Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage presided in the  Year. Celestius was Condemned and Excommunicated, as having maintained these Seven Propositions. 1. That Adam was created a Mortal Man, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. 2. That Adam's Sin had prejudiced none but himself, not all Mankind. 3. That the Law brought Men to the Heavenly Kingdom, as well as the Gospel. 4. That before the Coming of Jesus Christ, Men were without Sin. 5. That Newborn Children are in the same Condition in which Adam was before his Fall. 6. That all Men do not die through the Death and Prevarication of Adam, as all Men do not rise through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 7. That Man is without Sin, and may easily obey God's Commands if He pleases.  
Celestius answered all those Heads; but we have only some Fragments of his Answers, in St. Augustine's Book; that is to say, we have no other Witnesses of his Doctrine but his Adversaries, who took no great care to propose their Accusations clearly, and to apprehend well of the Opinions of those whom they accused, as it appears by the Obscurity of the before mentioned Heads. 
* Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 3.  Celestius said, among other things, that as for what concerns the Propagation of Sin, He had heard many Catholic Priests, and especially Rufinus, deny it. He presented a Request to the Council, wherein he confessed, that Children were Redeemed by Baptism. But he was Condemned notwithstanding; and being obliged to leave Africa, he went into Sicily, where he wrote some Books in his Vindication. From thence some short Questions were sent to St. Augustine, which Celestius had composed to prove that Man is not by his Nature unavoidably inclined to do Evil. Those Interrogations are contained in Fourteen Articles: I shall only here set down one or two, by which one may judge of the rest. 
* Quest. 1.  First (says he,) Those who say▪ that Men cannot be without Sin, must be asked, what Sin is in general? whether it be a thing that may be avoided or not? If it cannot be avoided, there is no harm in the committing of it. If Man can avoid it, he may be without Sin. Now, there is no Reason nor Justice that allows that what cannot any way be avoided, should be called a Sin. 
† Quest. 2.  Again, It must be asked whether Man ought to be without Sin? It will undoubtedly be answered, that he ought. If he ought, he can be without it; if he can't, he is not obliged to it. Besides, if Man ought not to be without Sin, he ought not to be a Sinner; and 'twill be no more his fault, if it be supposed that he is necessarily such.  
At the same time, Pelagius, who was at Jerusalem, published several Pieces, wherein he explained his Opinion more fully, 
* Vsser. Brit. Eccl. Ant. p. 125.  and in particular asserted, that although no Man but Jesus Christ had been without Sin, yet it did not follow from thence that it was impossible. He affirmed, that he did not Dispute about the Fact, but about the Possibility; and besides, that it was possible only by the Grace and Assistance of God. St. Augustin undertook to confute one of those Writings of Pelagius, in his Book De Natura & Gratia. He accuses him, on the one hand, of confounding the Graces which God gives to Men, when he creates them, with those by which he regenerates; and on the other hand, of saying, that God bestows his Grace's according to men's Merits, and that those Graces are only External; but we shall see hereafter how Pelagius explained his meaning.  
Three Years after Celestius had been Condemned at Carthage, his Master was accused at Jerusalem of having the same Opinions. John Bishop of that City called an Assembly of some Priests, to examine Pelagius, and see whether he really held the Opinions that were ascribed to him. Three Latin Priests, Avitus, Vitalis, and Orosius, were sent for to know what had been done in Africa against Celestius. Orosius was then at Bethlehem, studying (
† De Lib. Arbit. pag. 621. Edit. Mogunt. in 8vo.  as he himself says) at the feet of St. Jerom, to whom St. Augustin had recommended him. Forasmuch as he happened to be in Africa when Celestius was Condemned there, he told the Assembly of Jerusalem, with what Zeal that of Carthage had Condemned that Heretic, and that St. Augustine had wrote a Book against Pelagius; and besides, confuted the Queries of Celestius, in a Letter sent to Sicily. Having that Letter about him, he offered to rend it, and read it at the Request of the Assembly. After the reading of it, Bishop John desired that Pelagius should be introduced. It was permitted, out of Connivance (says Orosius) either out of respect for the Bishop, or because it was thought necessary that that Prelate should confute him in his Presence. He was asked whether he acknowledged to have taught what Augustine Bishop of Hippo had confuted. He presently answered, Who's that Augustine? And every one crying out▪ That a Man, who blasphemed against a Bishop by whose Mouth the Lord had preserved Union in all Africa, should not only be banished from that Assembly, but also from the whole Church; John bade him sit in the middle of the Catholic Priests, though he was a Layman, and guilty of Heresy. Afterwards, he told him, I am Augustine; to the end, that acting as it were in the Name of that Offended Bishop, he might more freely forgive Pelagius, and allay the exasperated Minds. We told him then (says Orosius,) If you represent here the Person of Augustine, follow his Opinions. He replied, by ask us whether we believed that what was read concerned any body else, or Pelagius? If it be against Pelagius, say (added he) what you have to propose against him. I answered, by the Assembly's leave, That Pelagius had told me, he maintained that Man might be without Sin, and easily observe all the Commands of God, if he would. Pelagius confessed that it was his Opinion. Whereupon I said, that this was the very thing which the Bishops of Africa had condemned in Celestius, which Augustin declared in his Writings to be a horrible Doctrine, and which Jerom had rejected in his Epistle to Ctesiphon, and confuted in some Dialogues which he was then writing. But the Bishop of Jerusalem, without harkening to any of those things, would have us to prosecute Pelagius before him. We are not (answered we) the Accusers of that Man; but we declare to you, what your Brethren and our Fathers have judged and decreed concerning that Heresy, which a Layman publishes now, lest he should disturb, without your knowing of it, your Church, into the Bosom of which we are come. Then, that he might engage us to be in a manner Accusers, he began to cite what the Lord said to Abraham, Walk before me, and be without spot: And what was said of Zacharias & Elizabeth, That they were both righteous before God, and walked in all the Commandments of the Lord blameless. Many of us knew that this was an Observation of Origen: And I answered him, We are Children of the Catholic Church. Father, don't require of us that we should undertake to set up for Teachers, above the Teachers; nor for Judges, above the Judges. Our Fathers, whose Conduct the Universal Church approves, and in whose Communion you rejoice to see us, have declared that those Doctrines are condemnable. 'Tis just, we should obey their Decrees. Why d'ye ask Children what they think, when you know the Opinions of their Fathers?  
The Bishop said afterwards, that if Pelagius maintained, that Man may be without Sin, without God's Help, it would be a condemnable Doctrine; but that he denied not God's Assistance, and asked what we had to say to that? whether we denied the Necessity of that Assistance? We answered to it, by pronouncing Anathema to those who denied it; and we cried out, that he was a Latin Heretic; that we were Latins; that he ought to be judged by the Latins; and that 'twas almost a piece of Impudence in him to pretend to judge of it, since we were not Accusers. Because he said that I was the only Witness against Pelagius, and that I was suspected; some of the Company thought themselves obliged to say, that the same Person could not be a Heretic, an Advocate and a Judge at the same time. 'Twas concluded, that Pelagius should be referred to the Judgement of Innocent Bishop of Rome, and in the mean time should be silent.  
Thus that Assembly acted, in which Pelagius, who understood only Latin, spoke by an Interpreter with the Bishop of Jerusalem, who understood only Greek. A Synod was held at Diospolis in Palestine, towards the end of the same Year 415, where Fourteen Bishops met. Erisychthon and Lazarus, Bishops of the Gauls, had delivered to Eulogus Archbishop of Caesarea an Accusation in Writing against Pelagius; but they could not come to that Synod, because one of 'em fell sick in his Journey. Pelagius appeared in it, and answered the several Accusations laid on him; so that the Council acquitted him, and even approved of his Doctrine, according to the Interpretations he put upon it. Here's in a few words an Account of the whole Matter.  

* Aug. de Gest. Palaest. Synon▪  Pelagius was accused of maintaining the following Propositions: 

1. That none can be without Sin, without knowing the Law. He answered, That he meant only by it, that the Law was a help to avoid Sin; not that such a Knowledge was sufficient not to Sin.  
2. That all Men are led by their Will. He owned that Proposition, by saying, That though Man hath a ; yet when he chooses well, 'tis by God's Assistance.  
3. That in the Day of Judgement, God will not forgive the Wicked and Sinners. That's, said Pelagius, the Doctrine of the Gospel.  
4. That Evil doth not so much as come into one's Thoughts. He assured, he had only said, That Christians should endeavour to have no ill Thoughts.  
5. That the Kingdom of Heaven is promised in the Old Testament. This he maintained by Dan. seven. 18.  
6. That Man may be without Sin, if he will, Pelagius said, That he had maintained, that this was possible by the Grace of God; but, that he never taught, that any Man had lived without Sin from his Childhood to his Old Age. He also denied, that he had maintained some other Doctrines, of which he was accused. Whereupon he was asked, whether he did not Anathematise those who were of that Opinion? I Anathematise 'em (said he) as Fools, not as Heretics; for what they say is not a Doctrine.  
7. He was accused of maintaining the Opinions which had been condemned at Carthage, which have been before mentioned; and besides, That a Child may be saved without Baptism. He replied, by denying that he ever taught any thing after the manner it was reported, especially that ever he said, that those who lived before Christ, have been without Sin.  
8. Some places which were said to be extracted out of Celestius his Books, were proposed to him; but he said he could not warrant what another had writ, and that he anathematised those who maintained Propositions so worded. Amongst other Propositions, this was one of 'em, That Sinners who repent, obtain the Forgiveness of their Sins, not by the Grace and Mercy of God, but according to their Merits and Penitence. Perhaps, this was only a Consequence drawn from Celestius' Opinions; for in this whole Controversy, both Parties ascribed to one another well or ill drawn Consequences, as express and formal Doctrines. Besides, those Propositions which Eros and Lazarus extracted out of the Books of Pelagius and Celestius, being separated from the Series of the Discourse, might have a fence contrary to that which they had in those Books.    
The Council having approved all his Answers, declared him worthy of the Communion of the Catholic Church. But the Enemies of Pelagius accused him of having concealed his true Opinions and deceived those Greek Bishops, to whom he spoke only by an Interpreter. St. Augustine says that Pelagius his Answers 
* De Gest. Palaest. Syn. c. 1, 2.  were Orthodox, as the Fathers of the Council understood 'em, not as Pelagius did. But those who have not so bad an Opinion of Pelagius as he had, observe, that St. Augustine, who understood not the Greek, could not know, by his own knowledge, the Opinions of the Greek Church concerning that Matter. If he had been able to read those Fathers, say they, he would have found that they spoke not otherwise than 
† Vid. Bull. Harm. Apost. Diss. 2. c. 7. §. 14. & Exam. Cens. p. 157.  Pelagius, as may be seen by an infinite number of Places out of St. Chrysostom, and St. Isidorus of Damietta, his Disciple, whom some late Authors have openly accused of Pelagianism. Therefore 'tis not to be wondered, that Greek Bishops should approve the Language of that English Monk.  
Before the Acts of that Council were published, Pelagius wrote to a Friend of his, that his Opinions had been approved in it, and made his Letter public. He also made a kind of an Apology for that Council, in the Year 416, which he sent to the Bishop of Hippo, who having received no other from Palestine, durst not trust it. He, together with some other African Bishops, wrote to John Bishop of Jerusalem, to have the very Acts of the Council of Diospolis. In the mean time, St. Jerom, who had written against the Pelagians, and especially against the Bishop of Jerusalem, occasioned a Disorder which happened at Bethlehem, where a Deacon was killed, and some Monasteries were burnt. The Bishop was accused of having stirred that Tumult; but they had not time enough to bring him to an account for it, because he died the same Year. St. Jerom, having also offended the Bishops of Palestine, by despising their Assemblies, thought the best way to maintain himself, was to rely upon the Friendship of those of Africa, though he was not of their Opinion in every thing, being of that of the Semi-Pelagians, of whom I shall speak in the Sequel of this History. Wherefore he wrote to St. Augustin, in these terms; I am resolved to love, honour, respect and admire you, and to defend what you say, as if I had said it: Mihi decretum est te amare, te suspicere, te colere, te mirari, tuaque dicta quasi mea defendere.  
Pelagius was accused every where of denying altogether the Assistance of Grace. To justify himself, he wrote a Book concerning , where he shown, that he 
* Petau. de Pelag. c. 2, etc.  acknowledged six sorts of Grace.  
First, 'Tis a Grace of God, according to Pelagius, to have a Rational and Free Soul; that is to say, which may obey or not obey God, without being unavoidably determined either to the one or the other. Pelagius maintained, that all Men were born in that state; so that if they applied themselves to Evil, it was not by an Unavoidable Necessity, but by an ill use of their Liberty. St. Augustine maintained, First, That what we receive from God by Creation, ought not to be called a Grace, on this occasion, but only what we receive from him, by virtue of our Redemption. But that's only a Dispute about Words. Besides, St. Augustine denied that Men are born otherwise than unavoidably determined to do Ill; and said, that 'twas impossible for them to do any Good, without an extraordinary Assistance of God, which he only bestowed upon some; and that those who had not that Assistance, were unavoidably inclined to Evil. Thus, though he admitted of the Name of , he put a new sense upon those words; since Freedom, in his Opinion, is only a mere Spotaneity, and doth not imply a Power of not doing what one doth. The difference therefore that was between St. Augustin and Pelagius in this Matter, is, that the former believed, that since the Fall of Adam, Men are so corrupted, that they are born with ill Habits, which do necessarily incline them to do Evil; That if God would incline them to Good, he must bestow upon them, for every Good Action, a Grace, which makes 'em unavoidably willing to do Good: And further, That those to whom he gave not that Grace, were Damned; God, by a Wisdom which we do not comprehend, being willing that Mankind should be born with an unavoidable Necessity of Offending him, and of being afterwards tormented with Everlasting Punishments, without freeing from that dismal Necessity but a very small number of Persons, upon whom he bestows an Irresistible Grace. St. Augustine believed that this was to give God the Glory due to him. Pelagius, on the contrary, believed that God had not permitted that Adam's Sin should cause so great a Disorder in the World; that those who descended from him, should not be able still to obey or not obey God's Law, who gave their Souls the power of avoiding Evil, and doing Good; so that they were Damned only by their Fault, without being bound to Sin and Everlasting Misery by any unavoidable Necessity. Having received a  from God, 'twas not necessary that God should interpose in every Action. 
* Vsser. p. 141. ubi sup.  To be able to do Good (said Pelagius) comes from God, who gave it to his Creature; but to be willing to do Good, and to practise Virtue, depends on Man.  
The Second Grace, which Pelagius acknowledged, is the Forgiveness of Past Sins, which God grants to those who mend their Lives. Pelagius Anathematised, in the Council of Diospolis, whosoever durst say that God hath any respect to Merits on this occasion. St. Augustine complains, that Pelagius, being content to acknowledge that God freely forgives us our Past Sins, confessed not that he helps us to abstain from them hereafter. But Pelagius maintained that that Forgiveness helped us to do our Duty for the time to come, seeing we cannot betake ourselves to serve God when we have offended him, but by being persuaded that he will freely forgive us what is past. He further said, that as to those Sins which were committed in the very time of Penitence, that is, in the state of Regeneration, they were forgiven us, in consideration of our Good Works, by which we also come to Glory. And in that sense he maintained that Grace is given according to Merits, that is, according to Good Works. Forasmuch as Children, before the use of Reason, commit no Sin, they are not concerned in that kind of Grace.  
The Third Grace (according to Pelagius) is the Law, that is to say, the Preaching of the Gospel, and the Example of Jesus Christ, which those who lived under the Old Dispensation had not. He said, that this Grace was altogether necessary, to live like Christians.  
The Fourth sort of Grace, is an Inward Illumination of our Minds, which Pelagius expressed thus: 
* Apud Aug lib. de Grat. Chr. c. 7.  I maintain, that Grace doth not only consist in the Law, but in the Assistance of God, etc. Now, God assists us by his Doctrine and Revelation, by opening the Eyes of our Hearts; by showing us things to come, to hinder us from being too much taken up with present things; by discovering to us the Snares of the Devil; by enligthning us with the various and unspeakable Gifts of his Heavenly Grace. Do you think (adds Pelagius) that those who speak thus, deny the Grace of God? Do they not rather acknowledge both  and the Grace of God together?— St. Augustine accuses Pelagius, on this occasion, not of having positively denied Grace, but of having denied the Necessity of it; and said, that God did only give it, that  might the more easily incline to Good. That Grace, according to Pelagius, doth not infallibly and by itself produce the Will of Doing Good, and Good Works, but only inclines to be more easily Willing.  
The Fifth is, the Grace of Baptism, by which, according to him, although Children receive not the Forgiveness of Sins, which they have not committed, being, according to Pelagius, altogether Innocent, yet they enter into a better state, which consists in their being thereby adopted by God, and becoming Heirs of the Heavenly Kingdom. On the contrary, St. Augustine maintained, that Children being born Sinners, Baptism confers upon them the Forgiveness of Sin, and sanctifies them by a Grace which God hath annexed to it.  
Lastly, The Sixth Grace consists, according to Pelagius, in Eternal Life, and the Kingdom of Heaven. He is accused of having distinguished those two things; and said, that Eternal Life might be obtained without the Revelation of the Gospel, but that God gave the Kingdom of Heaven only to those who were Baptised. According to Pelagius, that Grace was given consequently to Merits, that is to say, a Good Life. 'Tis a hard matter to know wherein that Distinction of Eternal Life and Kingdom of Heaven did consist, and to reconcile it with the Accusation raised against Pelagius, that the Kingdom of Heaven was promised under the Old Testament. St. Augustin said upon this last Article, that if by the Old Testament the Legal Covenant was understood, it did not promise Eternal Life; but if all the Books of the Old Testament were understood by it, 'twas true, that it was promised therein, although the Kingdom of Heaven is not mentioned in them, that Phrase belonging to the New Testament.  
There was never a Dispute more intricate than this, because each Party being urged with some troublesome Consequences, endeavoured to get rid of them with the help of some Terms, upon which they put a Sense different from that which they had in the Mouth of their Adversaries. The word Grace, when used by Pelagius, did not signify the same thing as when used by the Bishop of Hippo, and the latter gave the Name of Liberty to a thing which was not ordinarily so called. In short, several People believe, that if the chief Words that have been used in that Controversy, and the Ideas that have been fixed to 'em, were examined, it would be found, that there is scarce any of those Ideas that is very distinct, so as to know perfectly the meaning of a Word to which one of those Ideas is fixed, when 'tis pronounced. Nay, there is, in their opinion, some of those words to which no Idea at all hath been fixed: so that in some parts of that Dispute, both Parties do in a manner imitate a Frenchman and an Arabian, who knowing only their Mother-Tongue, should speak by turns as loud as they could, and sometimes both at one time, without understanding one another, and should afterwards boast each of them of having overcome his Adversary.  
Thus we have seen wherein the Opinions of Pelagius and his Adversaries, concerning Grace, did chief consist. As to Election, it seems that Pelagius believed Two sorts of it; the one to Grace, and the other to Glory. God was resolved, as he thinks, to call certain Persons to the Knowledge of the Gospel, to make the way to Everlasting Happiness more easy for them. That's Predestination to Grace. God resolves afterwards to save those whom he hath foreseen should persevere to the end in a good use of those Graces. That's Predestination to Glory, which is grounded upon Merit, whereas the other is altogether Free. St. Augustine, Disputing against Pelagius, confounded (as 
* Pag. 614. ibid.  Petavius thinks) those two Predestinations, and made but one of them; because, according to him, all those who have received the Means necessary in order to Salvation, do infallibly come to it. Hence it is that he doth so loudly exclaim against those who maintain Predestination according to Works; as if they meant Predestination to Grace, whereas they understood it only of Predestination to Glory.  
The next Year after the Council of Diospolis, that is, in 415. two Councils met in Africa concerning the same Matter, the one at Carthage, and the other at Milevum. Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage presided in the First, where there was Sixty seven Bishops. The Acts of Diospolis had not yet been received in Africa; but Eros and Lazarus had writ what passed there, and sent their Letter by Orosius, who returned from Palestine to Africa. It was Resolved, upon that Report, to Anathematise the Opinions of Pelagius, lest they should spread; and to Anathematise him afterwards, together with Celestius his Disciple, if they did not clearly condemn those Errors. Afterwards they sent the Acts of the Council to Pope Innocent, to engage him to condemn the same Opinions. The Council of Milevum, made up of Sixty one Bishops, in which Sylvanus Primate of Numidia presided, did the same with that of Carthage. Besides the Synodal Letters of those two Councils, Innocent received some private ones from some Bishops of Africa, among whom was St. Augustine. The Design of those Letters was the same with that of the foregoing, viz. to oblige Innocent to condemn the Doctrine ascribed to Pelagius, and to summon him to appear, to know whether he continued to maintain it. Wherefore they intimated, that Pelagius had perhaps deceived the Bishops of Palestine, tho' they durst not assure it positively, for fear of setting the Churches of Africa against those of the East. The next Year (417.) Innocent wrote an Answer to the two Councils, and the Bishops who wrote to him in private. He said that he believed Pelagius and Celestius deserved to be Excommunicated, and that the former could not have cleared himself at Diospolis, but by Equivocations, and obscure Expressions. Notwithstanding, having not yet received any certain News from that Country, and knowing not well how things were done there, he says he can neither approve nor disapprove the Conduct of the Bishops of Palestine. He also excuses himself, with respect to the summoning of Pelagius, because of the Distance of Places. Innocent wrote those Letters in the Beginning of the Year, and died soon after; seeing the Tenth of March, in Beda's Martyrology, is marked for the Day of his Death.  
After the Death of Innocent, 
* Vid. Vser ubi sup. c. 10.  St. Augustine and Alypius wrote to St. Paulinus Bishop of Nola, to exhort him to oppose Pelagianism in Italy, if it was like to make any progress in it. In the mean time, Celestius, who returned from Asia, whither he was gone, after he had stayed some time in Sicily, went of his own motion to Zosimus, born in Cappadocia, and Successor of Innocent. He delivered into his hands a little Writing, in which he explained his Belief.  
He mentioned therein all the Articles of Faith, from that of the Holy Trinity, to that of the Resurrection from the Dead, and declared that he held the Doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning all those Articles. To which he added afterwards, That if some Disputes were started up concerning some things which were not of Faith, he had not assumed to himself the Authority of forming any settled Doctrines out of them; but that he offered to the Examination and Judgement of Zosimus what he had taken out of the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles concerning those Matters, to be corrected, if there was any Error in it.— Lastly, He explained the Doctrines which I have before mentioned, and expressly denied that Men are born Sinners.  
Zosimus summoned Celestius to appear before him in St. Clemens' Church, where he caused that Writing to be read, and asked the Author whether he truly believed what he said in it. Celestius assured it; and than Zosimus asked him several questions, which amounted to these two; Whether he condemned the Doctrines of which Paulinus Deacon of Carthage had accused him? To which he answered, That he was able to prove that that Paulinus was a Heretic, and he would not condemn the Propositions of which he had accused him. The other Question which Zosimus asked him, was, Whether he condemned not what Pope Innocent had condemned? and whether he would not follow the Sentiments of the Church of Rome? Celestius answered, he would.  
After those Formalities, Zosimus wrote a pretty long Letter to the Bishops of Africa, wherein he tells 'em after what manner Celestius had appeared before him, and how he was examined. Afterwards, he reproaches them with having acted in that Affair with too great a Precipitancy (Fervore fidei praefestinatum esse) and with having too slightly believed some general Reports and certain Letters of Eros and Lazarus, without being very sure of their Sincerity. However, he did not take away the Excommunication which the Bishops of Africa had pronounced against Celestius.  
Forasmuch as at that time the Judgement of a Synod, and even of a Bishop, especially of that of Rome, was of great moment; and because Zosimus was afterwards accused of having Prevaricated, by condemning Pelagius, after he had approved of his Doctrine: 
* De Pec. Orig. cap. 5, 6, 7.  St. Augustine endeavoured to put as handsome a varnish as he could upon Zosimus' Conduct, as if that Pope grew milder with respect to Celestius, only out of Pity; and thinking that Celestius having advanced his Opinions only to be better instructed, they could not be ascribed to him as his settled Doctrine, and even that it would be no difficult Matter to convert him.  
In a word, Zosimus (according to St. Augustine) had only approved in Celestius, (who was a very ingenious Man, and who being corrected, might be serviceable to many others) the Will of Mending his Opinions, not the Falsity of his Doctrine: 
* Ad Bonif. l. 2. c. 3.  In homine acerrimi ingenii, qui profectò si corrigeretur plurimis profuissèt, voluntas emendationis, non falsitas Dogmatis approbata est. But the learned Vossius (says 
† Brit. Eccles. Antiq. p. 147.  Bishop Usher) hath showed, a great while ago, that that great Bishop sweats to no purpose to hid the Bunch of Zosimus with his Purple. It cannot be doubted, after the reading of the Letters which he wrote to the Bishops of Africa, that he did favour not only Celestius, but Pelagius, as being Catholics, without having ever departed from the True Faith.  
Zosimus having sent his Letter into Africa, received from Palestine a Packet directed to Innocent, whose Death they knew not yet. It contained some Letters of Praylus Bishop of Jerusalem, and an Apology of Pelagius, with a little Book, wherein he explained his Opinions very clearly, as it will appear by the reading of it. Praylus did openly side with Pelagius, and Zosimus caused those Letters and Writings to be publicly read, which were approved by every Body, as Zosimus wrote it a little while after to the Bishops of Africa: Would to God (says he to them) my most Beloved Brethren, that some of you had been at the reading of those Letters! How great was the Joy of the Holy Men who were present at it? In how great an Admiration were they All? some of them could scarce forbear shedding Tears. Is it possible that Men, whose Belief is so pure, could be so slandered? Is there any place in their Writings in which they do not mention the Assistance and Grace of God?  
Besides, he condemned, in that Letter, Eros and Lazarus, Accusers of Pelagius and Celestius, as Men guilty of great Crimes, Erubes cenda factis & damnationibus nomina, and spoke with great contempt of the others, who had prosecuted him.  
Yet the Bishops of Africa had no regard to those Letters: Two hundred and fourteen of them met together at Carthage, and condemned a new Pelagius and Celestius, till they would acknowledge the Necessity of Grace, in the same sense it was taught in Africa, without using any shift, as they had done hitherto.  
That Assembly met in the Beginning of the Year 418, and sent its Constitutions with a Letter to Zosimus, wherein those Bishops exhorted him to proceed against Pelagius, agreeably to their Constitutions. Their Letter had the Effect they wished for; and Zosimus and his Clergy, who had admired the Writings of Pelagius, wherein he very clearly expressed his Opinions, Being attentive (as St. Augustine relates it) to what the Romans, whose Faith is to be praised in the Lord, believed concerning it; they saw, that all their Opinions, which agreed with one another, were full of ardour for the Catholic Truth, against the Error of Pelagius.— However, when Zosimus condemned him, he spoke not so eagerly as he did when he gave Sentence in his Behalf, (as may be seen in Bishop Usher.)  
The Emperors Honorius and Theodosius received also the Acts of the Council of Africa, and thought themselves obliged to maintain them by their Authority, by making an Edict which they sent to the Three Praefects of the Praetorium, to be published through the whole Empire, by which they banished Pelagius and Celestius from Rome, and also condemned to a perpetual Banishment and Confiscation of Estates all those who should maintain their Doctrine, wherever they might be, authorising all manner of Persons to Accuse them.  
The Praefects of the Praetorium added to that Imperial Law particular Edicts, one of which is still extant in the 
* Tom. 5. Col. 849.  Centuriators of Magdeburg. 'Tis Palladius' Edict, and it runs thus; If he who is fallen into the infamous Opinion of that Dark Heresy be Layman or a Clergyman, by whomsoever he be drawn before the Judge, and without minding the Accuser, his Estate shall be confiscated, and he shall be condemned to perpetual Banishment: Et si sit ille Plebeius ac Clericus, qui in Caliginis hujus obscoena reciderit, à quocnnque tractus ad Judicem, sine Accusatriois discretione Personae, facultatem publicatione nudatus irrevocabile patietur exilum.  
Some will suspect that that Edict, expressed in words so Emphatical, was penned by a zealous Clergyman; but 'tis nothing, if compared with that of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, which may be seen at large in 
* Vbi sup. p. 151.  Bishop Usher.  
Those who know the Style of the Preachers of that time, will easily believe that it required a long Experience, to begin an Imperial Edict with these Terms, which I shall not undertake to translate into French. Ad conturbandam, Catholicae simplicitatis Lucem, puro semper splendore radiantem, dolosae antis ingenio, novam subitò emicuisse versutiam, pervulgatâ opinione cognovimus; quae fallacis scientiae obumbrata mendaciis, & furiato tantum debacobata luctamine, stabilem quietem coelestis conatur attrectare fidei; dum novi acuminis commendata vento, insignem notam Plebeiae aestimat vilitatis sentire cum cunctis, ac prudentiae singulatis pálmain fore, communiter approbata destruere. etc. The rest runs in the same strain; and one may see thereby, that in Honorius' time, the Spiritual Exactations to convert the Heretics, were not very different from those that have been made use of in these latter Times.  
In the mean time, the same Bishops of Africa who had condemned Pelagius, knowing nothing yet of the Emperor's Edict dated from the last Day of April, met again the next Day at Carthage, and Anathematised those who should say, 

1. That the First Man was Mortal by his Nature.  
2. That Little Children ought not to be Baptised, or that they may be Baptised, although they are not infected with Adam's Sin.  
3. That the Grace by which we are Justified, serves only for the Forgiveness of Sins, and is not an Assistance to abstain from them for the time to come.  
4. That Grace helps us, only by teaching us our Duty, and produces not the Obedience itself.  
5. That Grace is given us, that we may more easily do by its means, what we should do with greater difficulty without it.  
6. That 'tis only out of Humility that we are all obliged to say that we are Sinners.  
7. That every one is not obliged to say Forgive us our Sins for himself, but only for others who are Sinners.  
8. That the Saints are obliged to say the same words only out of Humility.    
It seems that that Council intended not only to condemn the Opinions of Pelagius, but also to anathematise before hand those who should fall into some Opinions which should have some relation with his. For one may easily perceive, that according to his Principles, he might have altogether denied the Four last Propositions. He did not believe that Grace did only teach us our Duty, nor that any Man had lived without Sin, except Jesus Christ.  
But it hath always been the Custom of Councils to anathematise such Erros as no body maintained, when they condemned the true Opinions of the Heterodox; perhaps to inspire a greater horror for Heresy, and lest any one should be so rash as to protect Heretics. Thus (as 
* Ep. 157.  St. Augustine speaks) by the Vigilance of the Episcopal Councils, with the Assistance of the Saviour who defends his Church (and that of the Imperial Edicts,) Pelagius and Celestius were condemned through the whole Christian World, unless they should repent.  
In the mean time Pelagius, who was at Jerusalem still, being urged to it by Pinianus and Melanius, published a Declaration as to what concerns the Necessity of Grace, which he acknowledged to be necessary in every Act and at every Moment. He also said, That with respect to Baptism, he was of the same Opinion which he had set down in his Profession of Faith to Pope Innocent, viz. That Children ought to be Baptised as they were wont to be. But whatever he might say, they did not believe that he understood what he said, in the same Sense as the Church of Africa. In the mean time Julian Bishop of Celaena in Campania, published some Commentaries upon the Song of Solomon, a Book concerning Constancy, and four Books against the first of St. Augustin, De Concupiscentia & Nuptiis, wherein he maintained the Opinions of Pelagius. In the last of those Works, he openly called the Bishops of Africa Seditious Men and Innovators; and said, that they must needs not have Reason on their side, since in the Dispute they frighted those who dared oppose them, with Imperial Edicts; but that by such Proceed they persuaded not Understanding but Timorous Men. 
* Ap. Aug. count. Jul. lib. 3. c. 1.  Laborare illam partem rationis inopiâ, quae in disserendo cum terrorem Surrogat, nullam à prudentibus impetrat, sed coecum à meticulosis extorquet assensum. He accused Zozimus of having prevaricated, by condemning Pelagius after he had approved his Opinions: And with respect to the Councils of Africa, he said, That those who had been condemned in them, could not defend their Cause; That none is able to judge well of controverted Matters, unless he examines them with a Mind free from Hatred, Friendship, Enmity and Anger; and that the Bishops of Africa were not in that Disposition▪ seeing they hated the Opinions of Pelagius before they were acquainted with them; That Advices ought not to be numbered but weighed; and in short, Whatever is commonly objected against the Judgement of Great Assemblies.  
A New Council made up of 217 Bishops was held at Carthage in the Year 419. wherein whatever was done in the foregoing against Pelagius was confirmed, and indeed, to use the Terms of St. Prosper, in his Poem de Ingratis, 
An alium in finem posset procedere Sanctum  
Concilium, cui Dux Aurelius, ingeniumque▪  
Augustinus erat?   
But the Episcopal Authority was again upheld in this occasion by that of the Emperors, who, by a Letter directed to Aurelius, confirmed their precedeing Edict, and ordered, 
* Vsser. ubi sup. p. 161.  That if any one knew in what part of the Empire Pelagius and Celestius lay hid, and did not discover 'em, or presently drive 'em from it, they should be liable to the same Punishment as Heretics. And in order to correct the Obstinacy of some Bishops, who maintained, by a tacit consent, those who disputed in the behalf of Heresy, or did not destroy it by publicly assaulting it, Aurelius should take care to Depose those who would not subscribe to the Condemnation of Pelagianism, and that they should be Excommunicated and Banished.  
Aurelius received Orders to publish that Edict through all Africa; and he did punctually perform them, sending a Circular Letter to the Bishops of the Byzacene and Arzugitane Provinces, by which he exhorted to subscribe to the Acts of the last Council both those who had assisted at it, and those who could not come to it, that it might appear that there was in the Bishops neither Dissimulation nor Negligence, or lest perhaps there might remain some just Suspicion of some hidden Heresy.  
The Bishops who were of Pelagius' Opinion, had much ado to subscribe to the Acts, and Eighteen of them wrote to the Bishop of Thessalonica, to endeavour to get the Eastern Bishops on their side. To engage them the more easily to it, they accused their Adversaries of Manicheism; because the Manicheaus maintained also the unavoidable Necessity of Sin, and the Natural Corruption of Man.  
That Accusation was so much the more odious, because St. Augustine, the chief Defender of those Opinions, had been infected in his Youth with the Opinions of Manes; and because having abjured them, he had confuted them by the same Principles which the Pelagians used, which he afterwards forsook when he came to be a Bishop.  
On the other hand, Julian wrote to Rome, and Celestius went to Constantinople in the Year 419, to endeavour to get Friends there. But after the beforementioned Imperial Edicts, 'twas not likely they should be successful in it. Celestius was ill received by Atticus, who had succeeded Arsacius substituted to St. Chrysostom, who died soon after.  
The Pelagians were also ill treated (as St. Prosper relates it) at Ephesus, and in Sicily: And Constantius, whom Honorius had made Partner of the Empire, made, in the Year 420, an Edict like that of that Prince, against those who should conceal Celestius.  
St. Jerom died that Year; and St. Augustine wrote his Four Books dedicated to Boniface, Successor of Zosimus; and Six against Julian, dedicated to Claudius. He makes the Encomium of St. Jerom in them, and assures us that he was of the same Opinion with the Bishops of Africa, in all likelihood because he wrote against the Pelagians, though he made not use of the same Arguments with St. Augustine.  

* Lib. 1. in Pelag.  St. Jerom said, That God's Commands are possible, but that every one cannot do whatever is possible; not by any Weakness of Nature, which would be a Reflection upon God, but by the Custom of the Soul, which cannot have all Virtues always and at the same time: Possibilia praecepit Deus, sed haec possibilia cuncta singuli habere non possumus, non imbecillitate Naturae, ut calumniam facias Deo, sed animi assuetudine, qui cunctas simul & semper non potest habere virtutes.  
St. Augustin was so far from being of that Opinion, that in 191 Sermon de Tempore, he speaks thus; We detest the Blasphemy of those who say that God hath commanded Man any thing that is impossible; and that God's Commands cannot be observed by every one in particular, but by All in common: Execramur blasphemiam eorum qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini à Deo esse praeceptum, & mandata Dei non à singulis, sed ab omnibus in common posse servari.— Here we must supply, By the Assistance of Grace.  
Whilst 
* Vsser. ubi sup. c. 11.  Pelagius lay hid in the East, and kept silence, Julian wrote Eight Books against the Second of St. Augustine de Concupiscentia & Nuptiis,, having refuted the First in the Four Books abovementioned. St. Augustine undertook to Answer the Last Work of Julian, as he had answered the First; but he could not finish his Answer, being prevented by Death. We have Two Books of his with the Two Books of Julian which he confutes, printed at Paris by the care of Claudius Menard, in the Year 1616. Julian expressed his Mind boldly in those Books, and seems, by his giving the Adversaries of Pelagius ill Words, to have been willing to take his revenge of the severe Edicts which they had obtained against him. But his Conduct proved prejudicial to him, seeing Celestinus Bishop of Rome caused him to be banished out of Italy, together with Florus, Orentius, Fabius, and all the Bishops of the same Party.  
It appears notwithstanding that Pelagianism spread itself maugre its Opposers, seeing the Emperor Valentinian published an Edict at Aquileia, in the Year 425, to drive it from the Gauls▪ by which he ordered Patroclus' Bishop of Arles to go and see several Bishops who followed the Opinions of Pelagius, and to let 'em know, that if they did not retract their Errors within Twenty Days allowed them to deliberate about it, they should be banished from the Gauls, and deprived of their Bishoprics.  
Joaunes Cassianus, a Scythian by Origin, whom some will have to be an Athenian, others a Roman, and others to be born in the Gauls, who had been Deacon of St. chrysostom, and Ordained a Priest by Innocent I. having retired to Marseilles, betook himself to write some Books then; by which softening a little the Opinions of Pelagius, whom he otherwise condemned as a Heretic, he gave birth to those Opinions, which went since under the Name of Semipelagianism. His Opinions may be seen in his Collationes, or Conferences, which St. Prosper confuted, and which he maintained to contain mere Pelagianism. 
* Petau. lib. Laud. c. 7.  Here's in a few words what his Opinions may be reduced to.  

1. The Semi-Pelagians confessed that Men are born corrupted, and cannot free themselves from that Corruption but by the help of Grace, which is notwithstanding prevented by some Motion of the Will, as by a good Desire; whence it is that they said, Meum est velle credere, Dei autem gratiae est adjuvare; To be willing to believe depends on me, but 'tis the part of God's Grace to help me.— God, in their Opinion, expects those First Motions from us, and then gives us his Grace.  
2. That God invites All Men by his Grace, but that it depends upon men's freedom to embrace or reject it.  
3. That God caused the Gospel to be preached to the Nations which he foresaw should embrace it, and would not have it to be preached to the Nations which he foresaw should reject it.  
4. That although he would have all Men to be saved, yet he had only elected to Salvation those whom he foresaw should persevere in Faith and Good Works.  
5. That there was no particular Grace absolutely necessary to Salvation, which God gave only to a certain number of Men, and that Men could lose all the Graces they had received.  
6. That among little Children, who died in that Age, God permitted that those only should be Baptised, who, according to God's Foreknowledge, would have been Pious Men if they had lived; and on the contrary, that those who were to be Wicked, if they had come to a more advanced Age, were excluded from Baptism by Providence.  
7. The Semi-Pelagians were also accused of making Grace altogether External; so that, in their Opinion, it consisted only in the Preaching of the Gospel. But some of them maintained that there was also an Inward Grace, which Pelagius himself did not altogether reject. Some others confessed besides, that there is a Preventing Grace.   
Thus it seems that the Difference between their Opinions and those of Pelagius, consisted in their owning that Men are born in some sort corrupted, and in their insisting more upon the Necessity of Grace, at least in Words.  
Although the Difference is not very great, yet they Anathematised Pelagius. Which perhaps they did, supposing that Pelagius maintained all the Opinions condemned by the Councils of Africa. St. Augustine accuses them of making the whole Grace of God to consist in Instruction, which concerns only the Understanding; whereas he makes it to consist in a Particular and Inward Working of the Holy Ghost, which unavoidably determines us to Good, and that Determination is not the Effect of the Light we have. The other Opinions of that Father, either contrary to the Doctrine of Pelagius, or that of the Semi-Pelagians, are well known. One may learn them especially in his Books concerning Predestination and Perseverance, which he wrote at the Desire of St. Prosper, against the Semi-Pelagians, and in the Works of this latter.  
To return to the History, 'tis said that in the Year 429, one Agricola Son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop, brought Pelagianism into England; but St. German Bishop of Auxerre was sent thither by Pope Celestinus, or the Bishops of the Gauls, and soon extirpated it. Many Miracles are ascribed to him in that Journey, and whilst he stayed in England, which may be read in Bishop Usher. But if what 
* Hist: Scot lib. 8.  Hector Boetius, a Scotch Historian, who lived in the beginning of the last Century, says, be true, he used a Method which is not less efficacious for the extirpating of Heresy; 'tis this, the Pelagians who would not retract their Errors, were burnt by the care of the Magistrates.  
But whilst St. German was purifying England, the Seeds of Pelagianism which Cassianus had spread among the Monks of Marseilles, and in Gallia Narbonensis, made it grow in France. St. Prosper and Hilary wrote to St. Augustine about it, and let him know that many Clergymen in the Gauls looked upon his Opinions as dangerous Novelties. St. Augustine answered their Objections in the Books which I have just now mentioned: But the Toleration which Hilary Bishop of Arles, and Maximus Bishop of Riez, granted the Semi-Pelagians, hindered every body from molesting them, though they shown a great Aversion to the Doctrine of St. Augustine.  
Julian, and the other Bishops, who were banished (as I have said) from Italy, went to Constantinople, where they importuned the Emperor to be re-established: but because they were accused of Heresy, he would grant 'em nothing, without knowing the Reasons for which they were expelled.  
Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople wrote to Celestinus about it, who returned him a very sharp Answer, and as if it had not been lawful to inquire for the Reasons of their Condemnation, upbraiding him at the same time with his private Opinions. His Letter is dated the 12th. of August, in the Year 430.  
St. Augustine died about that time, whose Encomium's may be found in Bishop Usher, who approves the Praises bestowed upon him by Fulgentius, in his Second Book Of the Truth of Predestination, wherein he calls him an Inspired Man. A little while after his Death, the Letters of Theodosius, who ' called him to the Council of Ephesus, came to Africa, from whence some Bishops were sent to it.  
That Council, made up of Two hundred and ten Bishops, met to Condemn Nestorius, in the Year 431. Cyril of Alexandria presided in it; and whilst it sat, John Bishop of Antioch met, with Thirty other Bishops, who made some Canons opposite to those of that Council. What is singular in it is, that the Party of Cyril and that of John accused each other of Pelagianism; but the greatest Party approved the Deposal of Julian, and the other Italian Bishops, whom Nestorius had treated more mildly. He is accused of having been of their Opinion, and of having maintained that Christ became the Son of God, by reason of the good use he made of his ; for a Reward whereof, God had united him to the Eternal Word. Hence it is that Pelagianism and Nestorianism were condemned together in that Council.  
But notwithstanding all this, and the care of Three Popes, Celestinus, Xystus III. and Leo I. Semipelagianism maintained itself in the Gauls. Perhaps the manner after which Celestinus wrote to the Bishops of France, contributed towards it; because although he condemned Pelagius with heat, and praised much St. Augustine, yet he said at the end of his Letter, That as to what concerned the profound and difficult Questions which were mixed with that Controversy, and had been handled at large by those who opposed the Heretics, as he durst not despise 'em, he did not believe neither that it was necessary to determine one's self thereupon.  
One may see in 
* Vbi sup. c. 12.  Bishop Usher, how much St. Prosper, and the Pope's Xystus and Leo, laboured to confute or destroy Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. About the same time, Vincentius Lirinensis wrote his Commonitorium, that is, three Years after the Council of Ephesus. He is suspected to be the Author of the Objections which St. Prosper confuted, under the Title of Objectiones Vincentianae. His Commonitory was reprinted last Year (1687.) in Twelves, at Cambridge, with Balusius' Notes, and Sr. Augustine's Book de Haeresibus.  
One may also see in 
† Ibid.  Bishop Usher the Devastation which the Scots and Picts made in England in that Century, the Arrival of the Saxons into that Island, after what manner they made themselves Masters of it, and the other Events of that Time.  
Before 
* Vid. Vsser. ubi sup. c. 13.  those Misfortunes happened in England, a Monk whose Name was Faustus went from that Country into Gallia Narbonensis, where he became Abbot of Lerins, and afterwards Bishop of Riez after Maximus, to whom he had also succeeded in the Abbey of Lerins. He assisted at a Council held at Rome towards the End of the Year 462, wherein it was agreed that a Council should be held every Year in the Gauls, which should be convocated by the Archbishop of Arles. There was one held a little while after in that City, which ordered Faustus to declare his Opinions concerning the Matter of Grace; and another at Lions, by the Order of which he added something to what he had already written, because some new Errors had been discovered. Those Errors are those to which the Divines of Marseilles gave the Name of Predestinarian Heresy, which some maintain to have been a true Heresy, and others the Opinion of St. Augustine.  
We have no more the Acts of those two Synods, but Faustus' Work is still extant; it is entitled De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio, directed to Leontius Bishop of Arles, and contains very clearly the Semipelagianism. Erasmus printed it for the first time at Basil, in 1528, and it was since inserted into the Eighth Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
Faustus sent the Opinions of the Second Council of Arles to a Predestinarian Priest, named Lucidus, to oblige him to retract his Errors, and subscribe to the Doctrine of that Council: We have still his Letter to Lucidus, and the Answer of that Priest directed to the Bishops who met at Arles, wherein he declares, That he condemns the Opinions of those who believe that  was altogether lost after the Fall of the First Man; That Christ died not for all Men; That some are designed for Death, and others for Life; That from Adam to Christ, no Heathen was saved by the First Grace of God, that is, by the Law of Nature, because they have lost  in our First Father; That the Patriarches, Prophets, and greatest Saints, have been in Paradise before the time of the Redemption.— This is almost an Abridgement of Faustus' Book.  
Some learned Men have maintained that Faustus did more than he was ordered, and that many of those who assisted at the Councils of Arles and Lions would not have subscribed to his Book. But 'tis hard to apprehend how a Bishop, who was very much esteemed (as it appears by the Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, who makes his Encomium in many places, and by Gennadius, who praises that Work,) 'tis, I say, somewhat hard to apprehend how he could have been so bold as to ascribe to a Council some Opinions which the greatest part of them would have abhorred, and that the Members of that Council should show no resentment of it.  
Indeed, those who say that Faustus did more than he was bid, give no reason for it, only they cannot believe that there was so many Semi-Pelagians in the Gauls.  
One may see in Bishop Usher the Judgement of several learned Men concerning Faustus, and whereof the greatest part do not much favour him. Baronius himself speaks ill of him; so that what happened formerly to the Pelagians, happens  to the Semi-Pelagians; viz. those who maintain their chief Doctrines, condemn them, only because some Men, who were more esteemed than they, have formerly condemned them.  
Faustus his Book 
* Vsser. ubi sup. c. 14.  did not remain unknown, seeing they brought it to Constantinople, where the Minds were divided concerning the Doctrines which it contained. Some affirmed it was Orthodox, and others Heretical, as it appears by a Letter of Poss●●● an African Bishop, who was then at ●●●●tantinople, and wrote from thence to Pope Hormisda, in the Year 520, to know what he thought of it. Some Persons of the greatest Quality, among which were Vitalian, and Justinian, who was since Emperor, desired to know the Opinions of the Church of Rome thereupon. Hormisda disapproved Faustus his Book, and referred them to those of St. Augustine, Of Predestination and Perseverance.  
There was then at Constantinople a Monk whose Name was John Maxentius, who wrote an Answer 
* Tom. 6. Bibl. P. P. Ed. Col.  to Hormisda's Letter, wherein he compares the Opinions of St. Augustine and Faustus, and sharply censures Possessor, and those who maintained that Faustus his Book was Orthodox. It appears from thence that Possessor was a Semi-Pelagian, and consequently, that the Councils of Africa had not been yet able to bring all the Bishops of that Church to their Decisions.  
The Vandals had invaded Africa, during the heat of the Pelagian Controversies; ●nd because they were Arian, they turned out a great number of Bishops, who, followed the Decrees of the Council of Nice.  
Thrasamond King of the Vandals had sent Sixty of the Byzacene Province into Banishment to Sardinia. They were consulted from the East concerning the Controversies about Grace, rather to have a public Declaration of their Opinions, than to be Instructed; seeing those who wrote to them were already fixed in their Opinion, and condemned in their Letters not only the Pelagians, but the Books of Faustus.  
Fulgentius Bishop of Esfagues answered in the Name of the others, and explained the Opinion of St. Augustine, in a Letter, and a private Book directed to Paulus Diaconus. The same Fulgentius wrote also some other Books concerning the same Matter. He had composed Seven Books against Faustus his Two De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio, but they are lost. Those African Bishops returned to their Churches in the Year 523, in which Thrasamond died, as we learn from Victor of Tonneins, in his Chronicle.  
Fulgentius had confuted Faustus, before he departed from Sardinia; from whence it follows, as well as from Possessor's Letter, that Binius should not have placed the Third Council of Arles, the Opinions of which Faustus had explained, in the Year 524▪ But this is not the only Fault he hath committed: he hath corrected, or rather corrupted, as he thought fit, a vast number of Places in the Ancient Councils, without having any regard to Manuscripts: Wherefore 
* Vb. sup. p. 231.  Bishop Usher gives him the Title of Contaminator Conciliorum.  
As Hilary and Leontius, Archbishops of Arles, had favoured Semipelagianism; so Caesarius, who succeeded Leontius, favoured what the Divines of Marseilles called Predestinatianism, that is, the Opinions of St. Augustine. The Second Council of Orange was held under his Direction, in the Year 529, which approved St. Augustine's Opinions, and whereof the Acts may be seen entire in 
† Vb. sup. p. 262.  Bishop Usher. A little while after, another Council was held at Valence, concerning the same Matters, which did also condemn Semipelagianism. Boniface II. approved the Acts of that Council, by a Letter which he wrote to Caesarius, in the Year 531, which the same learned Primate of Ireland hath inserted in his Work.  
Here ends the History of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism, which notwithstanding was not extinguished in the Gauls and England by so many Endeavours and Decrees of the Defenders of Grace, as may be seen by the History of Godescale, written by the same Bishop. What can one conclude from thence, according to St. Augustine's Principles, but that God was not pleased to bestow his Grace upon anathemas, Confiscations, Deposals and Banishments, which the Godly Emperors and Holy Councils made use of against the Unfortunate Pelagians?  
FINIS.