hilo, ex ipso vero Patre progenita est. Apud Theodoret. i. p. 17. Benigne intelligendum est quod ait Alexander, says Valesius. It is very well observed; for without benignity and grains of allowance, Alexander himself will not be much better than the Semi-Arians. Sed vos, Trojugence, vobis ignoscitis, Therefore Valesius, and several besides him, interpret the words of Alexander, so as to express their own scholastic language, and say that our considered abstractedly from entity. Art. Crit. vol. i. p. 293. &c. means personality See Le Clerc The difference between Alexander and the Semiarians seems not to have been great. Yet Pachomius, the monk, had a revelation, and a voice from heaven, which directed him to follow the doctrine of Alexander. Such was the testimony which God gave to the pure and orthodox faith of this holy prelate, who was soon to be attacked by the calumnies of the Arians. Tillemont, H. E. vi. 216. If this be true, a man may be orthodox, without coming fully up to that standard of orthodoxy which was fixed in later ages. Monsieur Jurieu, whose zeal against heresy is well known, assures us that the fundamental articles of Christianity were not understood by the Fathers of the three first centuries, that the true system began to be modelled into some shape by the Nicene bishops, and was afterwards immensely improved and beautified by the following synods and counsels, that is, by the Juricus of the fourth and fifth centuries. Thus did this warm and imprudent writer make concessions as large and liberal as his adversaries could desire, and deliver himself up to be buffeted by the Socinians, whom he had treated as the vilest of all heretics. Philostorgius Philostorgius says that one Alexander Baucalis was the incendiary, who stirred up the unhappy quarrel between Alexander and Arius. He also tells us, that Alexander of Alexandria owed his bishoprick to Arius, who might have been chosen, but declined it, and preferred Alexander to himself; he also mentions some things which are not to the honour of Athanasius. Philostorgius indeed was an Arian; but there is no good reason why we should follow the example of modern ecclesiastical historians, and believe every thing that the Homoousians say concerning the Arians, and nothing that the Arians say concerning the Homoousians. It is best to be diffident, and not to trust overmuch to the relations of either party. Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius the historian endeavoured to pacify Alexander, and to persuade him to make up the quarrel, and Constantine sent a letter by the illustrious Hosius of Corduba to Alexander and Arius, in which he reprimanded them both for disturbing the church with their insignificant disputes ὑπὲρ μικρῶν και λίαν ἐλαχίσων, de rebus parvis atque levissimis, and exhorted them to mutual forbearance and forgiveness. Socrates commends this letter, and calls the emperor's sentiments wise and prudent. Taxta μὲν ἦν θαυματα και (οφίας μετὰ παρήνει ἡ τὸ βασιλέως ἐπιτολή. i. 8. which Valesius renders: Et haec quidem Imperator admirabili sapientia præditus per literas suadebat. He should have said prædita or plena, but he seems, for certain good reasons, to have had a mind to tran Τοιαύτα slate it wrong. Eusebius also hath published and praised this epistle. Tillemont, Baronius, and many others, are highly offended at it, and suppose that the emperor when he wrote it, had some evil counsellor at his elbow, either Satan, or Eusebius. But But the affair was gone too far to be thus composed, and Socrates represents both sides as equally contentious and refractory. To settle this and other points, the Nicene council was summoned, consisting of about three hundred and eighteen bishops, a mystical number*, on which many profound remarks have been made. The first thing that they did was to quarrel, and to express their resentments, and to present accusations to the emperor against one another. So say Socrates, Sozomen, Rufinus. Theodoret favours his brethren in this affair, and seems to throw the fault upon the laity. Rufinus quidem ait Episcopos varis de causis inter se jurgantes libellos criminationum adversus collegas Constantino obtulisse. Theodoritus vero libellos illos porrectos fuisse dicit a Laicis, qui Episcopos variis de causis accusabant. Valesius ad Theod. i. 11. But the whole story, as it is related by them all, and even by Theodoret, shews that the bishops accused one another. The emperor burnt all their libels and exhorted them to peace and unity; so that if they had not been restrained by his authority, and by fear and respect, they would probably have spent their time in altercations. Socrates i. 8. In ea sententia fuit Socrates, says Bishop Bull, ut crederat Concilio Episcoporum cere Universali semper adesse Spiritus Sancti gratiam illuminatricem, quæ eos, utcunque rudes et imperitos (quod tamen Suvinus de Patribus Nicenis fulso affirmaverat) ab errore saltem in neces» sariis Fidei articulis immunes custodiret. Def. Fid. Nic. See Socrates i. p. 31. * See Barnabas c. ix. p. 28. and his Commentators. Thus Thus the infallibility of general councils is establish ed. But where, I pray, is this written? and in what part of the New Testament shall we find this important doctrine? What constitutes a general council? and how shall we know when it is vere Universale? For this it seems is a necessary requisite to draw down infallibility upon it. Have bishops alone a right to vote in a general council? Why are presbyters excluded, &c.? Were even all the Christian bishops invited to the Nicene Council? Were the Novatian bishops admitted there? No, says Valesius; they deserved to be shut out as being schismatics. It may be so; but they were accounted orthodox in points of doctrine, and they had also a plausible claim to admittance, if they wrought miracles. Socrates tells us that some of them had these extraordinary gifts, and their miracles are as probable as those of Antony, of Hilarion, of Symeon, and of other monks. Four hundred bishops met together at Ariminum: did they constitute a general council? No; it was an Arian council, and therefore it must not be called Concilium, but Conciliabulum. Thus the question concerning Universality is somewhat embarrassed. But let us proceed to something that is not embarrassed, and that is sufficiently plain. Let us imagine then a Council called by a Christian emperor, by a Constantine, a Constantius, a Theodosius, a Justinian, and three or four or five hundred prelates assembled together from all quarters, to decide a theological debate. Let us consider a little by what various motives these various men may be influenced, as by reverence to the emperor, or to his counsellors and favourites, his slaves and eunuchs: by the fear of offending some great prelate, as a bishop of Rome or of Alexandria, who had it in his power to insult, vex, and plague all the bishops within and without his jurisdiction; by th edread of passing for heretics, and of being calumniated, reviled, hated, anathematized, excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if they refused to submit; by compliance with some active leading and imperious spirits, by a deference to the majority, by a love of dictating and domineering, of applause and respect, by vanity and ambition, by a total ignorance of the question in debate, or a total indifference about it, by private friendships, by enmity and resentment, by old prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an indolent disposition, by good-nature, by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home, by the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred of contention, &c. Whosoever takes these things into due consideration will not be disposed to pay a blind deference to the authority of general councils; and will rather be inclined to judge that the council held by the apostles at Jerusalem was the first and the last in which the Holy Spirit may be affirmed to have presided. Thus far we may safely go, and submit to an apostolical synod but if once we proceed one step beyond this, we go we know not whether. If we admit the infallibility of one general council, why not of another? and where shall we stop? At the first Nicene council, A. D. 325. or at the second Nicene council, A. D. 787? They who disclaim private judgment, and believe the infallibility of the church, act consistently in holding the infallibility of councils; VOL. II. but |