their adversity, the Arians displayed much less firmness than had
been exerted by the orthodox party under the reigns of
Constantius and Valens. The moral character and conduct of the
hostile sects appear to have been governed by the same common
principles of nature and religion: but a very material
circumstance may be discovered, which tended to distinguish the
degrees of their theological faith. Both parties, in the
schools, as well as in the temples, acknowledged and worshipped
the divine majesty of Christ; and, as we are always prone to
impute our own sentiments and passions to the Deity, it would be
deemed more prudent and respectful to exaggerate, than to
circumscribe, the adorable perfections of the Son of God. The
disciple of Athanasius exulted in the proud confidence, that he
had entitled himself to the divine favor; while the follower of
Arius must have been tormented by the secret apprehension, that
he was guilty, perhaps, of an unpardonable offence, by the scanty
praise, and parsimonious honors, which he bestowed on the Judge
of the World. The opinions of Arianism might satisfy a cold and
speculative mind: but the doctrine of the Nicene creed, most
powerfully recommended by the merits of faith and devotion, was
much better adapted to become popular and successful in a
believing age.

[Footnote 37: Socrates (l. v. c. 7) and Sozomen (l. vii. c. 5)
relate the evangelical words and actions of Damophilus without a
word of approbation. He considered, says Socrates, that it is
difficult to resist the powerful, but it was easy, and would have
been profitable, to submit.]
[Footnote 38: See Gregory Nazianzen, tom. ii. de Vita sua, p. 21,
22. For the sake of posterity, the bishop of Constantinople