Page:History of Heresies (Liguori).djvu/70

This page has been validated.
62
THE HISTORY OF HERESIES,

banished[1]. But while we condemn the temerity of those, we must acknowledge that they were more sincere than their colleagues, who subscribed the decrees, but were afterwards persecutors of the council and the Catholics. Eusebius of Cesarea especially merits reprobation on this score, for writing to his diocesans, as Socrates tells us[2], and publishing the formula of faith promulgated by the council, he says that he subscribed it merely for peace sake, and states, among other falsehoods, that the council approved the formula handed in by Eusebius of Nicomedia, when the fact was that it was not only rejected, but torn to pieces; that the word "consubstantial" was inserted to please the Emperor, when it was inserted by the fathers after the most mature deliberation, as a touchstone to distinguish the Catholics from the Arians. The fathers, he adds, in adopting this word intended merely to signify that the Son was of the Father, and not as a substantial part of him; and that the words, born and not made, merely meant that he was not made like other creatures, who were afterwards created by him, but of a more excellent nature. He concludes by saying that the council anathematized any one who would assert that the Son was made from nothing, and that he did not exist before he was born, in as far as such expressions are not found to be used in the Scriptures, and likewise because the Son, before he was generated, though he did not exist, was nevertheless existing potentialiter, as theologians say, in the Father, who was potentialiter from all eternity the creator of all things. Besides the proof afforded by this letter of his opinion, St. Jerome[3] says, that every one knows that Eusebius was an Arian. The fathers of the seventh synod, in the sixth Actio, declare "no one is ignorant that Eusebius Pamphilius, given over to a reprobate cause, holds the same opinions as those who follow the impiety of Arius." Valois remarks that this may have been said incidentally by the fathers, but Juenin[4] on the contrary proves that the synod came to this decision, after a strict examination of the arguments taken from his works.

18. Though Arius was abandoned by all except the two obstinate bishops, he still continued to defend his errors, so he was excommunicated by the council, and banished to Illiria, together with his partisans, by Constantine. All his writings, and especially the infamous Thalia, were likewise condemned by the Emperor and the council, and the Emperor published a circular or decree through the entire empire, ordering the writings of Arius to be everywhere burned, and denouncing the punishment of death against any one who would controvert this order[5].

19. The council having disposed of Arius, next suspended Me-

  1. Fleury, l. 11, n. 24; Orsi, t. 5, l. 12, n. 54.
  2. Orsi, ibid.
  3. St. Hieron. Epist. ad Ctesiphont.
  4. Juenin, Theol. t. 3, ar. 4, sec. 1.
  5. Fleury, t. 2, l. 11, n. 24; Orsi, t. 5, l. 12, n. 42.