ledged as catholics, even by those who heartily detested their genuine doctrines "."

We may conclude, therefore, that neither the synod of Ariminum, nor the catholic church apostatized to the Arian heresy, or even sanctioned or tolerated it.

OBJECTIONS.

66

I. Gregory Nazianzen says, that, except a few, " all the bishops went with the times, and the only difference between them was, that some fell sooner, and others later into the fraud "."

Answer. He does not mean that they really fell into the Arian heresy; but that they yielded successively to threats or artifices, so as to afford an apparent sanction to it. Besides, they did not fall at once, so that the truth had always defenders.

II. Hilary says: "The danger of the oriental churches is so great, that it is rare to find either bishops or people of the catholic faith.... Except the bishop Eleusius, and a few with him, the ten provinces of Asia, in which I dwell, for the most part really know not God. Every where there are scandals, schisms, perfidies "."

Answer. This relates solely to the provinces of the Asiatic diocese, which were peculiarly infected with Arianism but St. Hilary himself testifies (as we have seen above) that the faith was preserved even under Arian bishops and in the synod of Seleucia held shortly after, it appears that out of 150 bishops, there were but 37 real Arians. The remainder, soon after, adopted the Nicene creed.

Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicæn. -Works by Burton, vol. v. p. 804.

Gregor. Naz. Orat. 21. t. i.

h Hilar. Pictav. Lib. de Synodis, n. 63. p. 1186. i Sozomen, iv. 22.

III. Jerome says, with reference to the synod of Ariminum: "Then it was proclaimed that the Nicene faith was condemned, and the whole world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian ."

Answer. He means that the Arians pretended falsely that the Nicene faith had been condemned by the synod and the very wonder of all the church to find Arianism imputed to themselves, proves that they were not really of Arian sentiments. St. Jerome proves in the same work, that the fathers of Ariminum were deceived, and that they did not act heretically.

IV. St. Augustine says: "Who is ignorant that many persons of small understanding were at that time deluded by ambiguous words, to suppose that the Arians believed as they themselves did: and that others yielded to fear, and gave a feigned consent.... Those who were then most firm, and who were able to understand the insidious words of the heretics, were few indeed in comparison of the rest: but yet even they, some of them, bravely went into exile, others lay in concealment throughout the world'." Therefore the majority adopted the Arian heresy.

Answer. St. Augustine says that they were deceived, or that they pretended to agree. In either case they did not fall into heresy but into infirmity or sin.

V. Vincentius Lirinensis says: "When the poison of the Arians had contaminated not merely a small portion, but almost the whole world; so that, nearly all the Latin bishops being deceived, partly by force, partly by fraud, a sort of darkness fell over the minds of men, as to what was to be especially followed, in circum

k Hier. Dial. adv. Lucifer. t. Rogatist. c. ix. n. 31. t. ii. p. iv. pars ii. p. 300.

August. Ep. ad Vincent.

244.

stances of such great confusion: then, whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, by preferring the ancient faith to the novel perfidy, escaped the defilement of that contagion "." Therefore the church approved Arianism.

Answer. Vincentius says the bishops were deceived, he does not affirm that they really adopted Arianism. The obscurity which fell on the minds of men at the time of the synod of Ariminum, arose from the temporary appearance of contradiction between the church's judgment then, and at the synod of Nice: and during such a temporary difficulty the faithful would of course follow the light of ancient tradition. A very short time, however, sufficed to show that the church had really never contradicted herself; and the Nicene faith was acknowledged to be the divine, the eternal, the unchangeable truth of christianity.

SECTION III.

THE LATROCINIUM OF EPHESUS.

This synod was assembled by the emperor Theodosius in 449, and consisted of 130 bishops. St. Leo of Rome sent his legates, and Dioscorus of Alexandria presided ". In this synod the heretic Eutyches was absolved from the censure of a synod at Constantinople: and Flavianus who had condemned him was deposed, and treated with such violence, that the synod for this, and its other irregular proceedings, was styled the Latrocinium. No decree in faith was made here, and the synod was immediately rejected and annulled by the oecumenical synod of Chalcedon and by the universal church.

m Hist. Sacr. lib. ii.
"The acts of this synod are

found among those of the fourth œcumenical synod.

SECTION IV.

THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND NICE IN THE QUESTION OF IMAGES.

a

The synod of Constantinople was assembled by the emperor Constantine Copronymus in 754, to suppress the use of images. It consisted of 338 oriental bishops, and assumed the title of œcumenical. The patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, took no part in it. The use of images had been already prohibited by the emperors Leo and Constantine Caballinus c. The iconoclast party, in their zeal to prevent an idolatrous use of images, which had arisen in later times, and which was contrary to the intention of the catholic church; blamed the use of all images in such terms as implied a condemnation of the ancient practice of the universal church in permitting the use of pictures, and a charge of heresy and idolatry against all who retained them. This was an uncharitable and censurable proceeding: and hence, it is not to be wondered at, that the Western church, which permitted images, but prohibited any bowing or other worship to them, rejected the synod of Constantinople, and never accounted it oecumenical.

The synod of Nice was assembled in 787 by the empress Irene, to reverse the decrees of Constantinople. It consisted of 350 oriental bishops, and was attended by the legates of pope Hadrian. In this synod the judgment formerly made against images was condemned,

a The acts of this synod are extant among those of the second Nicene synod.—Harduin. Conc. t. iv. p. 327, &c.

Fleury, liv. xlii. s. 1. 5.

e Goldastus, Imperialia Decreta de cultu imaginum, p. 19.

Harduin. Conc. t. iv. p. 355,

&c. 426, &c.

e

Fleury, liv. xliv. s. 29.

and their worship was established in the following terms: "We define... that like the image of the precious and life-giving cross, the venerable and holy images be set up. . . for according as they are continually seen by image representation, so they who behold them are excited to remember and to love the prototypes, and to pay these images salutation and respectful honour: not indeed that true worship, which is according to our faith, which only befits the divine nature . . . but to offer incense and lights to their honour, as has been piously ordained by the ancients'.

The decree of this synod was not universally received in the east, and did not terminate the controversy; the iconoclasts having the preceding decree at Constantinople in their favour. Considered in itself, this synod was fully equal in authority to that of Nice ; while both were alike rejected by the western church; and hence, though the party who adhered to the council of Nice, obtained a temporary predominance by the aid of the Empress Irene, who enforced its decree with the strong arm of the law, the party who rejected the use of images did not cease their opposition, and in 815 another council assembled at Constantinople, confirmed the former synod held at the same place, and anathematised the synod of Nice"; which from this