religion, were deprived of the very best method of supporting the truth, by showing its necessary connexion with the foundation of true piety and virtue. The Gentiles beheld the contest and triumphed ; and on their theatres they ridiculed the contentions of Christians, to which their long and grievous provocations of their God had justly exposed them. Alexander repeatedly, in letters and appeals, maintained his cause, and so far as speculative argumentation can do it, he proved his point from the Scriptures; while Arius strengthened himself by forming alliances with various bishops, and particularly with Eusebius of Nicomedia†, who supported Arianism with all his might. He had been translated from Berytus in Syria, and by living in the metropolis, (for there Constantine resided much) he had an opportunity of ingratiating himself with the emperor. Near an hundred bishops in a second synod at Alexandria condemned Arius, who was now obliged to quit that place, and try to gain supporters in other parts of the empire.

In the year 324, Constantine being at Nicomedia, and intending to make a farther progress into the East, was prevented by the news of these contentions. So important were Christian affairs now grown, at a time when it is with difficulty we can find any eminent spirit of genuine piety. The emperor sincerely strove to make up the breach; for his regard for Christianity in general was doubtless sincere; but it is not in ecclesiastical proceedings that we can discover any trace of that penetration and discernment for which in civil story he is so justly renowned. He wrote both to Alexander and Arius, blamed both, expressed his desire for their agreement, and explained nothing. He sent the letter by Hosius bishop of Corduba, one whose * I use the language of the times, in calling the Pagan world Gentiles.

He must not be confounded with Eusebius of Cæsarea, the historian.

CENT.

IV.

CHAP. faith and piety had been distinguished in the late persecutions. Hosius endeavoured to make up the breach; but it was impossible. The two parties were formed, and were determined; worldly motives were too predominant in both to admit of an easy compromise; and it was not in the power of those who loved both truth and peace, to sacrifice the former to the latter, consistently with a good conscience, however sincerely desirous they must have been of promoting both. For the object of contention was not a trifle, but a fundamental in religion.

Nicene council.

A. D.

325.

Constantine now took the resolution of summoning the aid of the whole Christian Church; and the Nicene Council calls for our attention.

The bishops, collected from all parts of the Christian world, met at Nice in Bithynia: and their number, according to the account of Athanasius who was present, amounted to three hundred and eighteen. Of these, if we may believe Philostorgius the Arian historian, twenty-two espoused the cause of Arius; others make the minority still less. Be that as it may, since many presbyters were there besides the bishops, it is not probable that the whole number of persons assembled in the council was less than six hundred.

They met in the year 325, being transported to Nice in public conveyances at the emperor's expence, and maintained at his cost, while they resided

there.

Before the immediate business of the synod was entered upon, their attention was engaged by the attempts of some Gentile philosophers, who appeared among them; some with a design to satisfy their curiosity concerning Christianity itself, others wishing to involve the Christians in a cloud of verbal subtilties, and to enjoy the mutual contradictions of the followers of Christ. One of them distinguished himself above the rest by the pomp and arrogancy of

his pretensions, and derided the clergy as ignorant and illiterate. On this occasion an old Christian, who had suffered with magnanimous constancy during the late persecutions, though unacquainted with logical forms, undertook to contend with the philosopher. Those who were more earnest to gratify curiosity than to investigate truth, endeavoured to raise a laugh at the old man's expence; while serious spirits were distressed to see a contest apparently so unequal. Respect for the man, however, induced them to permit him to engage; and he immediately addressed the philosopher in these terms: "Hear, philosopher, says he, in the name of Jesus Christ. There is one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, who made all these things by the power of his Word, and confirmed them by the holiness of his Spirit. This Word, whom we call the Son of God, compassionating the sons of men involved in error and wickedness, chose to be born of a woman, to converse with men, and to die for them; and he will come again as the Judge of all things which men have done in the body. That these things are so, we believe in simplicity: do not then labour in vain, investigating the manner in which these things may or may not be, and seeking to confute things which ought to be received by faith; but if thou believest, answer me, now that I ask thee." Struck with this plain authoritative address, the philosopher said, "I do believe;" with pleasure owned himself vanquished, confessed that he embraced the same sentiments with the old man, and advised the other philosophers to do the same, swearing that he was changed by a divine influence, and moved by an energy which he could not explain *.

Men will draw their conclusions from this story, according to their different tastes and views. A

* Sozomen, B. I. c. 18.

IV.

CHAP.

III.

self-sufficient reasoner will despise the instruction it contains; but he who thinks with St. Paul, will consider the whole story as no mean comment on his words, that your "faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God;" nor will he much regard the prudence of those who labour to accommodate Christian ideas to the spirit of unbelievers, by which they only weaken themselves, and abate not in the least the enmity of their opposers. They will think it better to go forth in simple dependence on God, trusting that he will bless his own word with victorious energy, Such know that even in our own times, there want not instances of conversions of a similar kind; and those who are still disposed to object, should at least be told, that the story has all the proper marks of historical credibility, whatever inferences they may be pleased to draw from it.

I fear we shall not find in the transactions of the whole Nicene council so instructing a narrative. The emperor himself came to the synod, and exhorted them to peace and unanimity. A number of mutual accusations having been presented to him, he threw them all into the fire, protesting that he had not read one of them, and charged them to forbear, and forgive one another. After this very candid and generous procedure, he gave them leave to enter directly on the business of the synod. They canvassed the doctrine of Arius, extracted his propositions out of his own writings, and argued the subject with great vehemence; Constantine himself acting as moderator, and endeavouring to bring them to perfect agreement. But it soon appeared, that without some explanatory terms, decisively pointing out what the Scriptures had revealed, it was impossible to guard against the subtilties of the Arians. Did the Trinitarians assert that Christ was God? the Arians allowed it, but in the same sense as holy men and angels are styled gods in

IV.

Scripture. Did they affirm that he was truly God? CENT. the others allowed, that he was made so by God. Did they affirm that the Son was naturally of God? it was granted; for even we, said they, are of God, of whom are all things. Was it affirmed, that the Son was the power, wisdom, and image of the Father? we admit it, replied the others, for we also are said to be the image and glory of God. Such is the account* which Athanasius gives of the disputations. He was at that time deacon of the church of Alexandria, and supported his bishop with so much accuracy and strength of argument, as to lay the foundation of that fame, which he afterwards acquired by his zeal in this controversy. What could the Trinitarians do in this situation? to leave the matter undecided, was to do nothing; to confine themselves merely to Scripture terms, was to suffer the Arians to explain the doctrine in their own way, and to reply nothing. Undoubtedly they had a right to comment according to their own judgment, as well as the Arians; and they did so in the following manner. They collected together the passages of Scripture, which represent the Divinity of the Son of God, and observed that taken together they amounted to a proof of his being of the SAME SUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER, oμ080105. That creatures were indeed said to be of God, because, not existing of themselves, they had their beginning from him; but that the Son was peculiarly of the Father, being of his substance, as begotten of him.

It behoves every one who is desirous of knowing simply the mind of God from his own word, to determine for himself, how far their interpretation of Scripture was true. The Council however was, by the majority before stated, convinced, that this was a fair explanation, and that the Arian use of the terms, God, true God, and the like, was a mere deception, because they affixed to them ideas, which

* See Cave's Life of Athanasius.