[74]. Ibid. l. 7. c. 28, 29.
[75]. De vit. Const. l. 2. c. 61.
[L]. See note [[L]] at the end of the volume.
[76]. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 6.
[77]. Euseb. l. 6. c. 45.
[78]. Soc. E. H. l. 1. c. 15.
[79]. Theodoret[[79a]] indeed gives another account of this matter, viz. That Arius was disappointed of the bishopric of Alexandria by the promotion of Alexander, and that this provoked him to oppose the doctrine of the bishop.[[79b]] But it should be considered that Theodoret lived an hundred years after Arius, and appears to have had the highest hatred of his name and memory. He tells us, “he was employed by the devil; that he was an impious wretch, and damned in the other world.” The accusations of such a one deserve but little credit, especially as there are no concurrent testimonies to support them. Bishop Alexander never mentions it amongst those other charges which he throws upon him, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople. Constantine expressly ascribes the rise of the controversy to Alexander’s inquisitory temper, and to Arius’s speaking of things he ought never to have thought of. Socrates assures us it was owing to this, that Arius apprehended the bishop taught the doctrine of Sabellius. Sozomen[[79c]] imputes their quarrel only to their diversity of sentiments. Bishop Alexander says he opposed Arius, because he taught impious doctrines concerning the Son; and Arius affirms he opposed Alexander on the same account. Now whether Theodoret’s single unsupported testimony is to be preferred to these other accounts, I leave every one that is a judge of common sense to determine. Nay, I think it is evident it must be a slander, because the bishop himself had an esteem for Arius, after his advancement to the bishopric of Alexandria, and, as Gelasius Cyzicenus tells us,[[79d]] “made him the presbyter next in dignity to himself;” which it is not probable he would have done, if he had seen in him any tokens of enmity because of his promotion.
[79a]. Theod. l. 1. c. 2.
[79b]. c. 7, 14.
[79c]. Soz. p. 426.