Chapter XXI: Persecution Of Heresy, State Of The Church.—Part

III.

II. The devotion of individuals was the first circumstance which
distinguished the Christians from the Platonists: the second was
the authority of the church. The disciples of philosophy asserted
the rights of intellectual freedom, and their respect for the
sentiments of their teachers was a liberal and voluntary tribute,
which they offered to superior reason. But the Christians formed
a numerous and disciplined society; and the jurisdiction of their
laws and magistrates was strictly exercised over the minds of the
faithful. The loose wanderings of the imagination were gradually
confined by creeds and confessions; 40 the freedom of private
judgment submitted to the public wisdom of synods; the authority
of a theologian was determined by his ecclesiastical rank; and
the episcopal successors of the apostles inflicted the censures
of the church on those who deviated from the orthodox belief. But
in an age of religious controversy, every act of oppression adds
new force to the elastic vigor of the mind; and the zeal or
obstinacy of a spiritual rebel was sometimes stimulated by secret
motives of ambition or avarice. A metaphysical argument became
the cause or pretence of political contests; the subtleties of
the Platonic school were used as the badges of popular factions,
and the distance which separated their respective tenets were
enlarged or magnified by the acrimony of dispute. As long as the
dark heresies of Praxeas and Sabellius labored to confound the
_Father_ with the _Son_, 41 the orthodox party might be excused
if they adhered more strictly and more earnestly to the
_distinction_, than to the _equality_, of the divine persons. But
as soon as the heat of controversy had subsided, and the progress
of the Sabellians was no longer an object of terror to the
churches of Rome, of Africa, or of Egypt, the tide of theological
opinion began to flow with a gentle but steady motion towards the
contrary extreme; and the most orthodox doctors allowed
themselves the use of the terms and definitions which had been
censured in the mouth of the sectaries. 42 After the edict of
toleration had restored peace and leisure to the Christians, the
Trinitarian controversy was revived in the ancient seat of
Platonism, the learned, the opulent, the tumultuous city of
Alexandria; and the flame of religious discord was rapidly
communicated from the schools to the clergy, the people, the
province, and the East. The abstruse question of the eternity of
the _Logos_ was agitated in ecclesiastic conferences and popular
sermons; and the heterodox opinions of Arius 43 were soon made
public by his own zeal, and by that of his adversaries. His most
implacable adversaries have acknowledged the learning and
blameless life of that eminent presbyter, who, in a former
election, had declared, and perhaps generously declined, his
pretensions to the episcopal throne. 44 His competitor Alexander
assumed the office of his judge. The important cause was argued
before him; and if at first he seemed to hesitate, he at length
pronounced his final sentence, as an absolute rule of faith. 45
The undaunted presbyter, who presumed to resist the authority of
his angry bishop, was separated from the community of the church.
But the pride of Arius was supported by the applause of a
numerous party. He reckoned among his immediate followers two
bishops of Egypt, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and (what may
appear almost incredible) seven hundred virgins. A large majority
of the bishops of Asia appeared to support or favor his cause;
and their measures were conducted by Eusebius of Cæsarea, the
most learned of the Christian prelates; and by Eusebius of
Nicomedia, who had acquired the reputation of a statesman without
forfeiting that of a saint. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were
opposed to the synods of Egypt. The attention of the prince and
people was attracted by this theological dispute; and the
decision, at the end of six years, 46 was referred to the supreme
authority of the general council of Nice.

40 (return) [ The most ancient creeds were drawn up with the
greatest latitude. See Bull, (Judicium Eccles. Cathol.,) who
tries to prevent Episcopius from deriving any advantage from this
observation.]

41 (return) [ The heresies of Praxeas, Sabellius, &c., are
accurately explained by Mosheim (p. 425, 680-714.) Praxeas, who
came to Rome about the end of the second century, deceived, for
some time, the simplicity of the bishop, and was confuted by the
pen of the angry Tertullian.]

42 (return) [ Socrates acknowledges, that the heresy of Arius
proceeded from his strong desire to embrace an opinion the most
diametrically opposite to that of Sabellius.]

43 (return) [ The figure and manners of Arius, the character and
numbers of his first proselytes, are painted in very lively
colors by Epiphanius, (tom. i. Hæres. lxix. 3, p. 729,) and we
cannot but regret that he should soon forget the historian, to
assume the task of controversy.]

44 (return) [ See Philostorgius (l. i. c. 3,) and Godefroy’s
ample Commentary. Yet the credibility of Philostorgius is
lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, by his Arianism; and in
those of rational critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his
ignorance.]

45 (return) [ Sozomen (l. i. c. 15) represents Alexander as
indifferent, and even ignorant, in the beginning of the
controversy; while Socrates (l. i. c. 5) ascribes the origin of
the dispute to the vain curiosity of his theological
speculations. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol.
ii. p. 178) has censured, with his usual freedom, the conduct of
Alexander.]

46 (return) [ The flames of Arianism might burn for some time in
secret; but there is reason to believe that they burst out with
violence as early as the year 319. Tillemont, Mém. Eccles. tom.
vi. p. 774-780.]

When the mysteries of the Christian faith were dangerously
exposed to public debate, it might be observed, that the human
understanding was capable of forming three district, though
imperfect systems, concerning the nature of the Divine Trinity;
and it was pronounced, that none of these systems, in a pure and
absolute sense, were exempt from heresy and error. 47 I.
According to the first hypothesis, which was maintained by Arius
and his disciples, the _Logos_ was a dependent and spontaneous
production, created from nothing by the will of the father. The
Son, by whom all things were made, 48 had been begotten before
all worlds, and the longest of the astronomical periods could be
compared only as a fleeting moment to the extent of his duration;
yet this duration was not infinite, 49 and there _had_ been a
time which preceded the ineffable generation of the _Logos_. On
this only-begotten Son, the Almighty Father had transfused his
ample spirit, and impressed the effulgence of his glory. Visible
image of invisible perfection, he saw, at an immeasurable
distance beneath his feet, the thrones of the brightest
archangels; yet he shone only with a reflected light, and, like
the sons of the Romans emperors, who were invested with the
titles of Cæsar or Augustus, 50 he governed the universe in
obedience to the will of his Father and Monarch. II. In the
second hypothesis, the _Logos_ possessed all the inherent,
incommunicable perfections, which religion and philosophy
appropriate to the Supreme God. Three distinct and infinite minds
or substances, three coëqual and coëternal beings, composed the
Divine Essence; 51 and it would have implied contradiction, that
any of them should not have existed, or that they should ever
cease to exist. 52 The advocates of a system which seemed to
establish three independent Deities, attempted to preserve the
unity of the First Cause, so conspicuous in the design and order
of the world, by the perpetual concord of their administration,
and the essential agreement of their will. A faint resemblance of
this unity of action may be discovered in the societies of men,
and even of animals. The causes which disturb their harmony,
proceed only from the imperfection and inequality of their
faculties; but the omnipotence which is guided by infinite wisdom
and goodness, cannot fail of choosing the same means for the
accomplishment of the same ends. III. Three beings, who, by the
self-derived necessity of their existence, possess all the divine
attributes in the most perfect degree; who are eternal in
duration, infinite in space, and intimately present to each
other, and to the whole universe; irresistibly force themselves
on the astonished mind, as one and the same being, 53 who, in the
economy of grace, as well as in that of nature, may manifest
himself under different forms, and be considered under different
aspects. By this hypothesis, a real substantial trinity is
refined into a trinity of names, and abstract modifications, that
subsist only in the mind which conceives them. The _Logos_ is no
longer a person, but an attribute; and it is only in a figurative
sense that the epithet of Son can be applied to the eternal
reason, which was with God from the beginning, and by _which_,
not by _whom_, all things were made. The incarnation of the
_Logos_ is reduced to a mere inspiration of the Divine Wisdom,
which filled the soul, and directed all the actions, of the man
Jesus. Thus, after revolving around the theological circle, we
are surprised to find that the Sabellian ends where the Ebionite
had begun; and that the incomprehensible mystery which excites
our adoration, eludes our inquiry. 54

47 (return) [ Quid credidit? Certe, _aut_ tria nomina audiens
tres Deos esse credidit, et idololatra effectus est; _aut_ in
tribus vocabulis trinominem credens Deum, in Sabellii hæresim
incurrit; _aut_ edoctus ab Arianis unum esse verum Deum Patrem,
filium et spiritum sanctum credidit creaturas. Aut extra hæc quid
credere potuerit nescio. Hieronym adv. Luciferianos. Jerom
reserves for the last the orthodox system, which is more
complicated and difficult.]

48 (return) [ As the doctrine of absolute creation from nothing
was gradually introduced among the Christians, (Beausobre, tom.
ii. p. 165- 215,) the dignity of the _workman_ very naturally
rose with that of the _work_.]

49 (return) [ The metaphysics of Dr. Clarke (Scripture Trinity,
p. 276-280) could digest an eternal generation from an infinite
cause.]

50 (return) [ This profane and absurd simile is employed by
several of the primitive fathers, particularly by Athenagoras, in
his Apology to the emperor Marcus and his son; and it is alleged,
without censure, by Bull himself. See Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect.
iii. c. 5, No. 4.]

51 (return) [ See Cudworth’s Intellectual System, p. 559, 579.
This dangerous hypothesis was countenanced by the two Gregories,
of Nyssa and Nazianzen, by Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus,
&c. See Cudworth, p. 603. Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Universelle, tom
xviii. p. 97-105.]

52 (return) [ Augustin seems to envy the freedom of the
Philosophers. Liberis verbis loquuntur philosophi.... Nos autem
non dicimus duo vel tria principia, duos vel tres Deos. De
Civitat. Dei, x. 23.]

53 (return) [ Boetius, who was deeply versed in the philosophy of
Plato and Aristotle, explains the unity of the Trinity by the
_indifference_ of the three persons. See the judicious remarks of
Le Clerc, Bibliothèque Choisie, tom. xvi. p. 225, &c.]

54 (return) [ If the Sabellians were startled at this conclusion,
they were driven another precipice into the confession, that the
Father was born of a virgin, that _he_ had suffered on the cross;
and thus deserved the epithet of _Patripassians_, with which they
were branded by their adversaries. See the invectives of
Tertullian against Praxeas, and the temperate reflections of
Mosheim, (p. 423, 681;) and Beausobre, tom. i. l. iii. c. 6, p.
533.]

If the bishops of the council of Nice 55 had been permitted to
follow the unbiased dictates of their conscience, Arius and his
associates could scarcely have flattered themselves with the
hopes of obtaining a majority of votes, in favor of an hypothesis
so directly averse to the two most popular opinions of the
Catholic world. The Arians soon perceived the danger of their
situation, and prudently assumed those modest virtues, which, in
the fury of civil and religious dissensions, are seldom
practised, or even praised, except by the weaker party. They
recommended the exercise of Christian charity and moderation;
urged the incomprehensible nature of the controversy, disclaimed
the use of any terms or definitions which could not be found in
the Scriptures; and offered, by very liberal concessions, to
satisfy their adversaries without renouncing the integrity of
their own principles. The victorious faction received all their
proposals with haughty suspicion; and anxiously sought for some
irreconcilable mark of distinction, the rejection of which might
involve the Arians in the guilt and consequences of heresy. A
letter was publicly read, and ignominiously torn, in which their
patron, Eusebius of Nicomedia, ingenuously confessed, that the
admission of the Homoousion, or Consubstantial, a word already
familiar to the Platonists, was incompatible with the principles
of their theological system. The fortunate opportunity was
eagerly embraced by the bishops, who governed the resolutions of
the synod; and, according to the lively expression of Ambrose, 56
they used the sword, which heresy itself had drawn from the
scabbard, to cut off the head of the hated monster. The
consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was established by
the council of Nice, and has been unanimously received as a
fundamental article of the Christian faith, by the consent of the
Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant churches. But
if the same word had not served to stigmatize the heretics, and
to unite the Catholics, it would have been inadequate to the
purpose of the majority, by whom it was introduced into the
orthodox creed. This majority was divided into two parties,
distinguished by a contrary tendency to the sentiments of the
Tritheists and of the Sabellians. But as those opposite extremes
seemed to overthrow the foundations either of natural or revealed
religion, they mutually agreed to qualify the rigor of their
principles; and to disavow the just, but invidious, consequences,
which might be urged by their antagonists. The interest of the
common cause inclined them to join their numbers, and to conceal
their differences; their animosity was softened by the healing
counsels of toleration, and their disputes were suspended by the
use of the mysterious _Homoousion_, which either party was free
to interpret according to their peculiar tenets. The Sabellian
sense, which, about fifty years before, had obliged the council
of Antioch 57 to prohibit this celebrated term, had endeared it
to those theologians who entertained a secret but partial
affection for a nominal Trinity. But the more fashionable saints
of the Arian times, the intrepid Athanasius, the learned Gregory
Nazianzen, and the other pillars of the church, who supported
with ability and success the Nicene doctrine, appeared to
consider the expression of _substance_ as if it had been
synonymous with that of _nature;_ and they ventured to illustrate
their meaning, by affirming that three men, as they belong to the
same common species, are consubstantial, or homoousian to each
other. 58 This pure and distinct equality was tempered, on the
one hand, by the internal connection, and spiritual penetration
which indissolubly unites the divine persons; 59 and, on the
other, by the preëminence of the Father, which was acknowledged
as far as it is compatible with the independence of the Son. 60
Within these limits, the almost invisible and tremulous ball of
orthodoxy was allowed securely to vibrate. On either side, beyond
this consecrated ground, the heretics and the dæmons lurked in
ambush to surprise and devour the unhappy wanderer. But as the
degrees of theological hatred depend on the spirit of the war,
rather than on the importance of the controversy, the heretics
who degraded, were treated with more severity than those who
annihilated, the person of the Son. The life of Athanasius was
consumed in irreconcilable opposition to the impious _madness_ of
the Arians; 61 but he defended above twenty years the
Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when at last he was
compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to
mention, with an ambiguous smile, the venial errors of his
respectable friend. 62

55 (return) [ The transactions of the council of Nice are related
by the ancients, not only in a partial, but in a very imperfect
manner. Such a picture as Fra Paolo would have drawn, can never
be recovered; but such rude sketches as have been traced by the
pencil of bigotry, and that of reason, may be seen in Tillemont,
(Mém. Eccles. tom. v. p. 669-759,) and in Le Clerc, (Bibliothèque
Universelle, tom. x p. 435-454.)]

56 (return) [ We are indebted to Ambrose (De Fide, l. iii.)
knowledge of this curious anecdote. Hoc verbum quod viderunt
adversariis esse formidini; ut ipsis gladio, ipsum nefandæ caput
hæreseos.]

57 (return) [ See Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. ii. c. i. p.
25-36. He thinks it his duty to reconcile two orthodox synods.]

58 (return) [ According to Aristotle, the stars were homoousian
to each other. “That _Homoousios_ means of one substance in
_kind_, hath been shown by Petavius, Curcellæus, Cudworth, Le
Clerc, &c., and to prove it would be _actum agere_.” This is the
just remark of Dr. Jortin, (vol. ii p. 212,) who examines the
Arian controversy with learning, candor, and ingenuity.]

59 (return) [ See Petavius, (Dogm. Theolog. tom. ii. l. iv. c.
16, p. 453, &c.,) Cudworth, (p. 559,) Bull, (sect. iv. p.
285-290, edit. Grab.) The _circumincessio_, is perhaps the
deepest and darkest he whole theological abyss.]

60 (return) [ The third section of Bull’s Defence of the Nicene
Faith, which some of his antagonists have called nonsense, and
others heresy, is consecrated to the supremacy of the Father.]

61 (return) [ The ordinary appellation with which Athanasius and
his followers chose to compliment the Arians, was that of
_Ariomanites_.]

62 (return) [ Epiphanius, tom i. Hæres. lxxii. 4, p. 837. See the
adventures of Marcellus, in Tillemont, (Mém. Eccles. tom. v. i.
p. 880- 899.) His work, in _one_ book, of the unity of God, was
answered in the _three_ books, which are still extant, of
Eusebius.——After a long and careful examination, Petavius (tom.
ii. l. i. c. 14, p. 78) has reluctantly pronounced the
condemnation of Marcellus.]

The authority of a general council, to which the Arians
themselves had been compelled to submit, inscribed on the banners
of the orthodox party the mysterious characters of the word
_Homoousion_, which essentially contributed, notwithstanding some
obscure disputes, some nocturnal combats, to maintain and
perpetuate the uniformity of faith, or at least of language. The
consubstantialists, who by their success have deserved and
obtained the title of Catholics, gloried in the simplicity and
steadiness of their own creed, and insulted the repeated
variations of their adversaries, who were destitute of any
certain rule of faith. The sincerity or the cunning of the Arian
chiefs, the fear of the laws or of the people, their reverence
for Christ, their hatred of Athanasius, all the causes, human and
divine, that influence and disturb the counsels of a theological
faction, introduced among the sectaries a spirit of discord and
inconstancy, which, in the course of a few years, erected
eighteen different models of religion, 63 and avenged the
violated dignity of the church. The zealous Hilary, 64 who, from
the peculiar hardships of his situation, was inclined to
extenuate rather than to aggravate the errors of the Oriental
clergy, declares, that in the wide extent of the ten provinces of
Asia, to which he had been banished, there could be found very
few prelates who had preserved the knowledge of the true God. 65
The oppression which he had felt, the disorders of which he was
the spectator and the victim, appeased, during a short interval,
the angry passions of his soul; and in the following passage, of
which I shall transcribe a few lines, the bishop of Poitiers
unwarily deviates into the style of a Christian philosopher. “It
is a thing,” says Hilary, “equally deplorable and dangerous, that
there are as many creeds as opinions among men, as many doctrines
as inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy as there are
faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily, and explain
them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected, and received,
and explained away by successive synods. The partial or total
resemblance of the Father and of the Son is a subject of dispute
for these unhappy times. Every year, nay, every moon, we make new
creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have
done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we
defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves,
or our own in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one
another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.”
66

63 (return) [ Athanasius, in his epistle concerning the Synods of
Seleucia and Rimini, (tom. i. p. 886-905,) has given an ample
list of Arian creeds, which has been enlarged and improved by the
labors of the indefatigable Tillemont, (Mém. Eccles. tom. vi. p.
477.)]

64 (return) [ Erasmus, with admirable sense and freedom, has
delineated the just character of Hilary. To revise his text, to
compose the annals of his life, and to justify his sentiments and
conduct, is the province of the Benedictine editors.]

65 (return) [ Absque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majore
parte Asianæ decem provinciæ, inter quas consisto, vere Deum
nesciunt. Atque utinam penitus nescirent! cum procliviore enim
venia ignorarent quam obtrectarent. Hilar. de Synodis, sive de
Fide Orientalium, c. 63, p. 1186, edit. Benedict. In the
celebrated parallel between atheism and superstition, the bishop
of Poitiers would have been surprised in the philosophic society
of Bayle and Plutarch.]

66 (return) [ Hilarius ad Constantium, l. i. c. 4, 5, p. 1227,
1228. This remarkable passage deserved the attention of Mr.
Locke, who has transcribed it (vol. iii. p. 470) into the model
of his new common-place book.]

It will not be expected, it would not perhaps be endured, that I
should swell this theological digression, by a minute examination
of the eighteen creeds, the authors of which, for the most part,
disclaimed the odious name of their parent Arius. It is amusing
enough to delineate the form, and to trace the vegetation, of a
singular plant; but the tedious detail of leaves without flowers,
and of branches without fruit, would soon exhaust the patience,
and disappoint the curiosity, of the laborious student. One
question, which gradually arose from the Arian controversy, may,
however, be noticed, as it served to produce and discriminate the
three sects, who were united only by their common aversion to the
Homoousion of the Nicene synod. 1. If they were asked whether the
Son was _like_ unto the Father, the question was resolutely
answered in the negative, by the heretics who adhered to the
principles of Arius, or indeed to those of philosophy; which seem
to establish an infinite difference between the Creator and the
most excellent of his creatures. This obvious consequence was
maintained by Ætius, 67 on whom the zeal of his adversaries
bestowed the surname of the Atheist. His restless and aspiring
spirit urged him to try almost every profession of human life. He
was successively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling
tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a schoolmaster, a theologian,
and at last the apostle of a new church, which was propagated by
the abilities of his disciple Eunomius. 68 Armed with texts of
Scripture, and with captious syllogisms from the logic of
Aristotle, the subtle Ætius had acquired the fame of an
invincible disputant, whom it was impossible either to silence or
to convince. Such talents engaged the friendship of the Arian
bishops, till they were forced to renounce, and even to
persecute, a dangerous ally, who, by the accuracy of his
reasoning, had prejudiced their cause in the popular opinion, and
offended the piety of their most devoted followers. 2. The
omnipotence of the Creator suggested a specious and respectful
solution of the _likeness_ of the Father and the Son; and faith
might humbly receive what reason could not presume to deny, that
the Supreme God might communicate his infinite perfections, and
create a being similar only to himself. 69 These Arians were
powerfully supported by the weight and abilities of their
leaders, who had succeeded to the management of the Eusebian
interest, and who occupied the principal thrones of the East.
They detested, perhaps with some affectation, the impiety of
Ætius; they professed to believe, either without reserve, or
according to the Scriptures, that the Son was different from all
_other_ creatures, and similar only to the Father. But they
denied, the he was either of the same, or of a similar substance;
sometimes boldly justifying their dissent, and sometimes
objecting to the use of the word substance, which seems to imply
an adequate, or at least, a distinct, notion of the nature of the
Deity. 3. The sect which deserted the doctrine of a similar
substance, was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
Asia; and when the leaders of both parties were assembled in the
council of Seleucia, 70 _their_ opinion would have prevailed by a
majority of one hundred and five to forty-three bishops. The
Greek word, which was chosen to express this mysterious
resemblance, bears so close an affinity to the orthodox symbol,
that the profane of every age have derided the furious contests
which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the
Homoousians and the Homoiousians. As it frequently happens, that
the sounds and characters which approach the nearest to each
other accidentally represent the most opposite ideas, the
observation would be itself ridiculous, if it were possible to
mark any real and sensible distinction between the doctrine of
the Semi-Arians, as they were improperly styled, and that of the
Catholics themselves. The bishop of Poitiers, who in his Phrygian
exile very wisely aimed at a coalition of parties, endeavors to
prove that by a pious and faithful interpretation, 71 the
_Homoiousion_ may be reduced to a consubstantial sense. Yet he
confesses that the word has a dark and suspicious aspect; and, as
if darkness were congenial to theological disputes, the
Semi-Arians, who advanced to the doors of the church, assailed
them with the most unrelenting fury.

67 (return) [ In Philostorgius (l. iii. c. 15) the character and
adventures of Ætius appear singular enough, though they are
carefully softened by the hand of a friend. The editor, Godefroy,
(p. 153,) who was more attached to his principles than to his
author, has collected the odious circumstances which his various
adversaries have preserved or invented.]

68 (return) [ According to the judgment of a man who respected
both these sectaries, Ætius had been endowed with a stronger
understanding and Eunomius had acquired more art and learning.
(Philostorgius l. viii. c. 18.) The confession and apology of
Eunomius (Fabricius, Bibliot. Græc. tom. viii. p. 258-305) is one
of the few heretical pieces which have escaped.]

69 (return) [ Yet, according to the opinion of Estius and Bull,
(p. 297,) there is one power—that of creation—which God _cannot_
communicate to a creature. Estius, who so accurately defined the
limits of Omnipotence was a Dutchman by birth, and by trade a
scholastic divine. Dupin Bibliot. Eccles. tom. xvii. p. 45.]

70 (return) [ Sabinus ap. Socrat. (l. ii. c. 39) had copied the
acts: Athanasius and Hilary have explained the divisions of this
Arian synod; the other circumstances which are relative to it are
carefully collected by Baro and Tillemont]

71 (return) [ Fideli et piâ intelligentiâ... De Synod. c. 77, p.
1193. In his his short apologetical notes (first published by the
Benedictines from a MS. of Chartres) he observes, that he used
this cautious expression, qui intelligerum et impiam, p. 1206.
See p. 1146. Philostorgius, who saw those objects through a
different medium, is inclined to forget the difference of the
important diphthong. See in particular viii. 17, and Godefroy, p.
352.]

The provinces of Egypt and Asia, which cultivated the language
and manners of the Greeks, had deeply imbibed the venom of the
Arian controversy. The familiar study of the Platonic system, a
vain and argumentative disposition, a copious and flexible idiom,
supplied the clergy and people of the East with an inexhaustible
flow of words and distinctions; and, in the midst of their fierce
contentions, they easily forgot the doubt which is recommended by
philosophy, and the submission which is enjoined by religion. The
inhabitants of the West were of a less inquisitive spirit; their
passions were not so forcibly moved by invisible objects, their
minds were less frequently exercised by the habits of dispute;
and such was the happy ignorance of the Gallican church, that
Hilary himself, above thirty years after the first general
council, was still a stranger to the Nicene creed. 72 The Latins
had received the rays of divine knowledge through the dark and
doubtful medium of a translation. The poverty and stubbornness of
their native tongue was not always capable of affording just
equivalents for the Greek terms, for the technical words of the
Platonic philosophy, 73 which had been consecrated, by the gospel
or by the church, to express the mysteries of the Christian
faith; and a verbal defect might introduce into the Latin
theology a long train of error or perplexity. 74 But as the
western provincials had the good fortune of deriving their
religion from an orthodox source, they preserved with steadiness
the doctrine which they had accepted with docility; and when the
Arian pestilence approached their frontiers, they were supplied
with the seasonable preservative of the Homoousion, by the
paternal care of the Roman pontiff. Their sentiments and their
temper were displayed in the memorable synod of Rimini, which
surpassed in numbers the council of Nice, since it was composed
of above four hundred bishops of Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul,
Britain, and Illyricum. From the first debates it appeared, that
only fourscore prelates adhered to the party, though _they_
affected to anathematize the name and memory, of Arius. But this
inferiority was compensated by the advantages of skill, of
experience, and of discipline; and the minority was conducted by
Valens and Ursacius, two bishops of Illyricum, who had spent
their lives in the intrigues of courts and councils, and who had
been trained under the Eusebian banner in the religious wars of
the East. By their arguments and negotiations, they embarrassed,
they confounded, they at last deceived, the honest simplicity of
the Latin bishops; who suffered the palladium of the faith to be
extorted from their hand by fraud and importunity, rather than by
open violence. The council of Rimini was not allowed to separate,
till the members had imprudently subscribed a captious creed, in
which some expressions, susceptible of an heretical sense, were
inserted in the room of the Homoousion. It was on this occasion,
that, according to Jerom, the world was surprised to find itself
Arian. 75 But the bishops of the Latin provinces had no sooner
reached their respective dioceses, than they discovered their
mistake, and repented of their weakness. The ignominious
capitulation was rejected with disdain and abhorrence; and the
Homoousian standard, which had been shaken but not overthrown,
was more firmly replanted in all the churches of the West. 76

72 (return) [ Testor Deum cœli atque terræ me cum neutrum
audissem, semper tamen utrumque sensisse.... Regeneratus pridem
et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi
exsulaturus audivi. Hilar. de Synodis, c. xci. p. 1205. The
Benedictines are persuaded that he governed the diocese of
Poitiers several years before his exile.]

73 (return) [ Seneca (Epist. lviii.) complains that even the of
the Platonists (the _ens_ of the bolder schoolmen) could not be
expressed by a Latin noun.]

74 (return) [ The preference which the fourth council of the
Lateran at length gave to a _numerical_ rather than a _generical_
unity (See Petav. tom. ii. l. v. c. 13, p. 424) was favored by
the Latin language: seems to excite the idea of substance,
_trinitas_ of qualities.]

75 (return) [ Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus
est. Hieronym. adv. Lucifer. tom. i. p. 145.]

76 (return) [ The story of the council of Rimini is very
elegantly told by Sulpicius Severus, (Hist. Sacra, l. ii. p.
419-430, edit. Lugd. Bat. 1647,) and by Jerom, in his dialogue
against the Luciferians. The design of the latter is to apologize
for the conduct of the Latin bishops, who were deceived, and who
repented.]