of the histories, for I do not profess to know when they were first seen as we see them; and when the magnitude and importance of that council, as described to us, are considered, -the number of prelates from all parts of the world that are said to have attended it,—the interest which, we are told, was taken in it by the emperors, one of whom is represented as almost a defendant at its bar,—when these things are duly weighed, and it is further added that not only no knowledge of these extraordinary proceedings existed in the Church for at least a century afterwards, but that a very different series of events was known; and that the documents which contain any notice of this council are evidently spurious, my impression is that the reader will agree with me in thinking it to be a forgery altogether, and in believing that the letter of Julius clearly points out why it was forged. No. VII. ROMAN LEGATES AT THE A FEW words may not be amiss on the Roman legates at the Council of Nice. I have no doubt but Baronius rightly interpreted these three signatures, and that they were all intended to represent the Roman bishop. They were Hosius, bishop of Cordova, in Spain; Vincentius, a Roman presbyter, afterwards bishop of Capua; and Vito, another presbyter. I will treat of them singly. § 1. HOSIUS. THE accounts of Hosius, bishop of Cordova, are so extraordinary, that it is difficult to avoid viewing him as altogether a mythic personage. I am really inclined to believe that he never had any existence. He is first said to have been a confessor in the persecution under Maximian; but of that interesting fact there is no evidence beyond his own letter contained in the writings of Athanasius, from which an extract will be given. He is in favour with, and an attendant upon, the emperor Constantine; but the only proof of it is the word Hosius, without any designation of his see, or who or what he was, contained in a Greek letter evidently inserted into Eusebius's "History," with some other African documents, by some other person than Eusebius, as they are introduced without any note or comment by him, and are not translated by Ruffinus. He is then stated, in a writing of Augustine, on the authority of the Donatists, to have been deposed in some unknown council in Spain, and to have been restored in some equally unknown council in Gaul; but, I venture to say, it is all a fable. Hosius is then said, on the authority of Socrates*, *Hist. Eccl. i. 7. and a letter of the Marcotic presbyters, contained in the Athanasian documents*, to have been sent to Alexandria by Constantine, A. D. 324, to compose the dispute between Alexander and Arius, in which he failed. Little confidence can be placed in statements from such sources. He is then said, in the Athanasian documents†, to have put forth the Nicene Creed; but their authority, I must be allowed to say, is nothing. The next event in his life that is heard of is thus introduced. Athanasius says that he never saw Constans (who lived in Gaul or Italy), except in the presence of the bishop of the city in which he was living; and Hosius is appealed to as a witness of the truth of his statement; and if years and grey hairs give confidence, a very trustworthy one he must have been. He was then about ninety, and-bishop of Cordova in Spain. Constans afterwards, when Athanasius was at Milan, sent for the latter into Gaul, that he might accompany Hosius (for the nonagenarian had come up from Spain) to Sardica.§ The place in Gaul is not named; but, in our ignorance, it seems like going from London to York to reach Dover. In A. D. 347, Hosius presided at Sardica, where he and Gratus, the Carthaginian primate, as we learn from the canons alledged to have been decreed by it, played the principal characters. What other councils he presided at we cannot now tell; but we may hope that they were not a few; for Athan * Apol. contr. Arian. s. 74. Apol. ad Constantium, § 3. † Histor. Arian. § 42. § Ibid. § 4. asius thus speaks (or is made to speak) of him— "What synod was there at which he did not preside? What Church is there which does not possess memorials of his presidency? Who went up to him sad, and did not return joyful? Who made a request from him that he did not obtain ?" After the Council nothing more is heard of him for a time, and the tomb might have been supposed to have claimed its long deferred due: but no such thing. Ten years after, he is summoned from Cordova to meet Constantius; but where the emperor was residing at that time does not appear. He is asked to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius, and to hold communion with the Arians. The old bishop's anger was roused at such an insult, and he rebuked the emperor. It would appear from Athanasius that the emperor yielded, and Hosius was allowed to return into Spain. But soon a letter is sent after him, at the instigation of the Arians, and he is again desired to sign the condemnation of Athanasius. His letter, in reply, is preserved by Athanasius, from which an extract will be given. This, however, was not satisfactory. The court party told Constantius that Hosius was exciting others against the Arians, and that there were many in Spain of the same opinion with him. When the emperor heard this he was angry; and having sent into Spain to make those (unknown) others subscribe, and finding them refuse, he sent for Hosius from Spain, and detained him a whole year at Sirmium (he is now a hundred years old); till at last, broken by age and suffering, he com municated with our old acquaintances Valens and Ursacius, but would not subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius. I am afraid, that on this last account it was that Athanasius was far too favourably inclined to Hosius. One who has quite as good claims on our confidence, Hilary, bishop of Poitiers and a confessor, and one who professes to have known accurately all that was going on, states in his work "On the Synods," that the old man turned Arian in his old age; and that, so far from being compelled to subscribe, he was actually the composer of the Arian Creed of Sirmium, and enforced its subscription on others. Hilary viewed this creed, not as the result of a sudden change, but as the manifestation of the wickedness that had long been working in the old man's heart.* Two equally veracious writers, Marcellinus and Faustinus, confirm this view. Who they were is not clear; they profess to have been living in Palestine. But be this as it may, in their petition to the emperor, presented, as they alledge, not later than A. D. 385, they enter more fully into particulars, and we learn that Hosius was rich, and that it was proved in his case, "how hardly they that have riches can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." They say that, being rich and fearing exile, he signed the Sirmian Creed; and that, as a reward, on his return into Spain, he was armed with imperial power to send every bishop, who would not communicate with him, into the De Synod. § 63. † Libellus Precum. |