THE DECLINE AND FALL

326

CHAP.

XXI.

have acknowledged the learning and blame-less life of that eminent presbyter, who, in aformer election, had declared, and perhapsgenerously declined, his pretensions to theepiscopal throne. 1 His competitor, Alexan-der, assumed the office of his judge. The im-portant cause was argued before him; and ifat first he seemed to hesitate, he at length pro-nounced his final sentence, as an absolute rule offaith/ The undaunted presbyter, who presumedto resist the authority of his angry bishop, wasseparated from the communion of the church ;but the pride of Arius was supported by theapplause of a numerous party. He reckonedamong his immediate followers two bishops ofEgypt , seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and(what may appear almost incredible) seven hun-dred virgins. A large majority of the bishops ofAsia appeared to support or favour bis cause ;and their measures were conducted by Eusebiusof Caesarea , the most learned of the Christianprelates ; and by Eusebius of Nicomedia , whohad acquired the reputation of a statesmanwithout forfeiting that of a saint. Synods inPalestine and Bithynia were opposed to the sy-nods of Egypt . The attention of the prince

* See Philostorgius (I. i, c. 3) and Godefroy’s ample Commentary,Yet thecredibilityof Philostorgius is lessened, in the eyes of the ortho*dox, by his arianism j and those of rational critics by his passion, Iliaprejudice, and his ignorance.

y Zozomen (I. i, c. 15) represents Alexander as indifferent, and evenignorant, in the beginning of the controversy ; while Socrates (I. i. c.6)ascribes the origin of the dispute to the vain curiosity of his theologicalspeculations. Dr. Jortin (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii,p. 178) has censured, with his usual freedom, the conduct of Alexander;ogy tjv g£avTiTiti ,,.. , fpnsii fxi teurt.