There is a material difference between infallibility and omnipotence: whatever the subtilties of argument might do in allowing to the church a tolerably fair and plausible reason for the first of these attributes, the natural superiority of the human mind, and the daily experience of every man, have hitherto prevented her from exposing her weakness by putting in a claim to all the power, as well as all the truth, in heaven and in earth;" and it is well for the church that she has been thus prevented; for however true and just may have been any of her decisions of Council, it is a fact that those decisions have seldom been promptly obeyed. This was par ticularly the case with the Nicene Council:the Arian heresy was not suppressed, though condemned. The difference of practice in the time for celebrating Easter still continued. The rank and prerogatives of the various sees, and the power and jurisdiction of the bishops, though defined and ordered,* remained still a subject of dispute and dissension. Nor could the canons of the Council, though aided by the power and authority of the emperor, suppress, perhaps, not even impede, the spread of heresy. The enemies of the Catholic Church rallied and returned to the charge; till, at length, the emperor issued a solen and fulminating rescript to the heretics, in which are specified the Nova

* Fleury, l. ii. v. 20.

tians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, and Cataphrygians. It is remarkable that the

Arians, who have cut so capital a figure in almost every subsequent list of apostates and heretics, are not included in this first royal Act of Uniformity. Was it that to deny the divinity and eternity of Jesus Christ was not in those days really thought to be so completely dam nable, as some more modern divines have endeavoured to maintain? Or that the Creed attributed to St. Athanasius had not yet been invented, to declare the heart-appalling truth, that "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly who does not keep whole and undefiled" this most obvious and lucid proposition, that "the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal ?" Sozomen informs us, that the reason why the Arian heretics were not included in the rescript of Constantine, was because they did not form a distinct sect, but were in union with the Catholic Church. The banishment and persecution of the principal Arian bishops shew, however, that this could not have been the reason: it is more likely that their numbers, their influence, and the antiquity and popularity of their faith, with, probably, a favourable bias in the mind of so enlightened an emperor, conspired to induce him to omit the mention of them in his letter of proscription.

It does not appear, in these proceedings

against the Arians, that the Bishop of Rome took any very important or active share, or that he was ready to interpose his influence in the suppression of so dangerous a heresy as it is represented to have been. The Council was called by the emperor solely, and the Roman Pontiff was not even present at the Assembly, but sent two priests, or proxies, to give his vote and sign the Acts; neither does it appear, that these priests enjoyed any superior rank or influence.*. Who presided there is not known; but it is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance to my subject briefly to inquire into this fact. St. Athanasius in his second apo. logy, calls Osius, the bishop of Cordova, in Spain, the Father and President of all Councils. The name of this bishop is first in all the subscriptions. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was much esteemed, as is evident from the epistle of the Council; but both Procus and Facundus assert, that Eustathius, who was first bishop of Bercea, and afterwards of Antioch, was president of the Council. If Osius presided, as appears to be the prevailing opinion,†

When all were seated, according to Eusebius, the bishop, whose place was the first at the right hand of the Emperor, rose and opened the business of the Council. Dr. Priestley conjectures, that Eusebius himself sat at the right hand of the Emperor. Hist. of the Christian Church, Vol. II. p. 42.

+ Fleury, ii. v. 5.

it is a desirable fact to be ascertained, whether he presided in his own name, or in that of the Bishop of Rome. And it is observed by Du Pin,* that it is more probable that Osius presided there in his own name, and not in the Pope's or, as Fury remarks, he might represent the western church, or be there on the part of Constantine; † for, adds this writer, he no where assumes the title of Legate of the Holy See, and none of the ancients say that he presided in this Council in the Pope's name. Gelasius of Cyzicus, who was of the eastern church, and who first affirmed it, says it without any proof or authority. Whoever presided, there can be little doubt that the Emperor's presence had considerable influence over its decisions; and by his subsequent very active and independent conduct, it is evident that he considered himself a sort of supreme head and dictator in the church. It should not, however, be overlooked, that, as some writers assert,§ before the Council finally broke up, which was at the end of about two months, they drew up a letter to Sylvester, bishop of Rome, requesting him to give his sanction to their proceedings; very

* Eccles. Writers, i. p. 251.

+ Fleury, Eccles. Hist. ii. v. 5.

In these pretensions Constantine was followed by his successors for several ages. See Dr. Wake's Authority of Christian Princes, &c. passim.

History of the Christian Church, by the Rev. Joseph Reeve, Vol. I. p. 163.

justly conceiving, that the personal approval of so revered and respectable a prelate as that of Rome, the old imperial capital, must have considerable weight with those bishops in different parts of the world who had not themselves attended. Yet if this was, indeed, the case, it would seem, that the two priests, Vitus and Vincent, whom it is said the Pope of Rome deputed to attend, had no authority to give any vote or to take any measures in his name: unless, indeed, it is true, what some Catholic writers assert, that Osius and the two priests acted in his name merely in his capacity of a common bishop, and that his final sanction was requisite, as the supreme Head of the Church, and universal Pastor over all Christendom.

This opinion was not, however, by any means unanimous among the bishops of that period. The twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which appears to have been held about a century after that of Nice, ordains as follows: "We, following in all respects the decrees of the fathers, and recognizing the canon of the one hundred and fifty bishops,* most beloved of God, which has now been read, decree and vote the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy church of Constantinople, which is New Rome: for the fathers, with good reason, granted certain privileges to

The third canon of Constantinople.