quo definitum est, Filium Patri consubstantialem esse, Decreta enim Synodorum, leges sunt Spiritus Sancti. Nota sunt verba Apostolorum quae leguntur in Actibus, cap. xv. Visum est enim Spiritui Sancto et nobis, &c. Ad Theodor, v, 13, Valesius was obliged to maintain such principles, or to give up his religion: and every Protestant who admits these principles, ought by all means to admit the conclusion, and to go over to the church of Rome. - લ The fourth general council of Chalcedon, A, D, 451, was also divinely inspired and infallible, as we learn from no less a voucher than Symeon Stylites. διὸ καγω—ἐγνώρισα τὴν ἐμὴν πρόθεσιν, τὴν περὶ τὴν πίσιν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Καλ χηδόνι συνεληλυθότων εξακοσίων τριάκοντα, ἐμμένων καὶ ὑποσηριζόμενος ὑπ' αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπὸ τὸ ἁγία Πνεύματος φανερωθείσης, εἰ δ' μεταξύ δύο ἢ τριῶν συνελθόντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτό, πάρεσιν ὁ Σωτὴρ, πῶς μετ Ταξὺ τοσέτων και τηλικούτων αγίων πατέρων ἐνεχώρει εἰ μὴ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρ χῆς μετ ̓ αὐτῶν τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα; Quapropter ego-animi mei sententiam significavi, de fide sexcentorum triginta sanctorum Patrum qui Chalcedone congregati sunt persistens et fundatus in ea fide quæ a Spiritu Sancto revelata est. Etenim si Servator noster, ubi duo tresve in nomine ipsius congregati sunt, adest in medio illorum, quomodo fieri posset inter tot et tantos sanctos Patres, ut Spiritus Sanctus cum illis non esset? Thus saith Symeon, apud Evagrium ii. 10. The honest monk talks like an inhabitant of the middle region, who lived upon his pillar, and knew little of what passed below. The patrons of this doctrine are able to produce a large number of Symeons, and of ancient. and modern teachers, who all agree in voting for the inspiration of synods, for it is a much easier thing to find seditious of all mankind, those I mean who were Pa gans, were highly entertained with these debates, and made them the subject of constant ridicule and drollery in their theatres. Euseb. Vit. Const. ii. 61. They were doubtless of the same opinion with Shaftsbury and his facetious disciples, that ridicule is the only test of truth. For an instance of their national temper and turn of mind, when king Agrippa came to Alexandria, A. D. 38. the Alexandrians, who hated him because he was a Jew, and envied him because he was a king, contrived to set up a rival against him. They took a poor mad-man, who used to run naked about the streets, and hung a mat over his shoulders by way of robe, and put a paper diadem on his head, and a cane in his hand. When they had thus equipped him, they set him up on a bench in the most conspicuous place in the city; some with sticks on their shoulders stood round him as his guards, others knelt down before him, bringing informations or complaints, or begging favours whilst all the populace shouted, and called him Royal Master. Philo in Flacc. p. 970. Ed. Par. Elias Cretensis, in his Commentaries on Gregory Naz. p. 316. says, that the Alexandrians Ethnicum quendam hominem insigniter impudicum, veste detracta, pudendisque nudatis, in Antistitis solio collocarunt, tanquam si Antistes aliquis foret. Ille vero Doctoris lar vam præe se ferens, in religionem Christianam inveheba tur, slaves, because they were spritely, witty, and extremely impudent. See Statius Silv. ii. i. 72. and v. v. 66. and the Commentators. The poet Claudian was an Alexandrian, and his works are generally either panegyrics or satires: bút he shines most in the latter, as appears from his two books against Eutropius. tur, comico eam risu exsibilans; et contrariam ei doctrinam proponens! He took this from Theodoret : Quéndam ex suo numero notissimae turpitudinis, qui una cum veste pudorem simul exuerat, nudum sicut natus erat, in Ecclesiæ solio collocantes, Concionatorem infamem adversus Christum salutarunt. Nam divinorum verborum loco, turpitudinem proferebat: pro gravibus verbis petulantiam; pro pietate impietatem pro continentia scortationem, adulterium, masculam venerem, furtum, escam et potum vitæ hominum utilia esse docens. E. H. iv. 22. But, to leave the profane scurrilities of the Alexandrians, and to return to what is serious, and very serious, let us hear the judgment of Erasmus: Quid cogitabunt (a fide Christiana alieni) si viderint rem usque adeo difficilem esse, ut nunquam satis discussum sit quibus verbis de Christo sit loquendum? perinde quasi cum moroso quopiam agas Dæmone, quem in tuam ipsius perniciem exocaris, si quid te fefellerit in verbis præscriptis, ac non potius cum clementissimo Servatore, qui a nobis præter puram simplicemque vitam nihil exigit. Epist. 329. For these and such remarks, Erasmus was frequently accused of Arianism by his enemies. Erasmus, as Le Clerc observes, Arianismi ab illius ævi Monachis, alisque non melioribus insimulatus est; quasi nimio fuisset ingenio, quam ut orthodoxus esse posset. Scripture, say the Protestants, is the only rule of faith in matters pertaining to revealed religion, and they say well. There is no other Christianity than this; no other test of doctrines than this; no other center of union than this. Whatsoever is not clearly delivered there, may be true, but cannot be important : HÆC MEA EST SENTENTIA, NEQVE ME EX EA VLLIVS VNQVAM AVT DOCTI AVT INDOCTI MOVEBIT ORATIO. VOL. II. D If If when the quarrel between Alexander and Arius was grown to such an height as to want a remedy, the fathers of the church had, for the sake of peace, agreed to draw up a confession of faith in words of scripture, and to establish the divinity of Christ in the expressions used by the apostles, every one might have assented to it, and the Arian party would most certainly have received it. The difference of sentiments indeed and of interpretation would not have ceased, but the controversy would have cooled and dwindled away, after every champion had discharged his zeal upon paper, and had written to his heart's content. The Arian notion, that the Son was created in time, and that there was a time when he existed not, would probably have sunk, as not being the language of the New Testament; and the Macedonian notion, that the Holy Ghost was created in time, would have sunk with the other, for the same reason; at least, these opinions would never have been obtruded upon us, as articles of faith. One remarkable difference may be observed between the creeds which were proposed upon this occasion. The consubstantialists drew up their creed with a view to exclude and distress the Arians: † the Arians had no design to distress the Consubstantialists, but usually * It had been better to have dropped and dismissed the question, but perhaps this was impracticable, in tantis animorum incendiis. +Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis Epistolâ suâ prodidit dicens: Si verum, inquit, Dei Filium et increatum dicimus, homoousion cum Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nicæno, hoc verbum in Tractatu Fidei posuerunt Patres, quod viderunt Adversariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum nefandæ caput Hæreseos amputarent. Ambrosius de Fid. ad Grat. L. iii. 7. usually proposed creeds, to which Athanasius himself might have assented; so that if the compilers were Arians, their creeds were not Arian. The Semiarians agreed with the Arians in rejecting the word μs, but differed from them in carrying the perfections and the dignity of the Son higher than the Arians did, and in affirming that he was ios, of like substance, and like to his father in all things. If Christ be God the Word, who had glory with the Father before the world was, who was in the beginning, who was before all things, by whom all things were made, &c. the coeternity of the Aoyos with the Father appears to be a natural and unforced con sequence. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been of this opinion he uses a typical argument from the cxth Psalm, and draws a parallel between Melchisedec and Christ, intending perhaps to intimate that what Melchisedec was figuratively or typically, that Christ was really and truly. Now Melchisedec had neither beginning of days nor end of life, nothing being recorded in sacred writ concerning his birth or his death: consequently the Son of God hath in reality neither beginning of days, nor end of life. Dr Clarke judged it more reasonable to admit, than to reject, the eternity of the Son. "It cannot be denied," (says this excellent writer) that the terms "Son and Beget, do most properly and necessarily imply an act of the Father's will. For whatsoever any person is supposed to do, not by his power and will, but by mere necessity of nature, it is not in"deed He that does it at all, in any true propriety D2 "" of |