It was to be expected that great defectiveness of doctrine would not fail to influence practice. External piety flourished, monastic societies in particular places were also growing; but faith, love, heavenly-mindedness, appear very rare; yet, among the poor and obscure Christians I hope there was far more godliness than could be seen at courts, and among bishops and persons of eminence. The doctrine of real conversion was very much lost, or external baptism was placed in its stead; and the true doctrine of justification by faith, and the true practical use of a crucified Saviour for troubled consciences, were scarcely to be seen at this time. There was much outward religion, but this could not make men saints in heart and life. The worst part of the character of Constantine, is, that as he grew older, he grew more culpable, grew more culpable, oppressive in his own family, oppressive to the government, oppressive by eastern superfluous magnificence; and the facts to be displayed will show, how little true humility and charity were now known in the Christian world, while superstition and selfrighteousness were making vigorous shoots, and the real Gospel of Christ was hidden from men who professed it.

Donatists.

The schism of the Donatists,* as its history throws some light on the matters of Christians, will deserve a few words in this place. During the cessation of the persecution in the West, while it raged still in the East, on the death of Mensurius bishop of Carthage, a council of neighbouring bishops was called for the appointment of his successor. The council was thinner than had been usual, through the management of Botrus and Celesius, two persons who aspired to the office, whose ambition was however disappointed, the election falling on Cæcilian the deacon. All that was essential in the appointment of a bishop was observed in this transaction; for Cæcilian had confessedly the suffrage of the whole church. The two disappointed persons protested against the election, and were joined by Lucilla, a rich lady, who for a long time before had been too haughty to submit to discipline. One Donatus of Casa Nigræ, who had been

* [Excerpt. ad Donatist. historiam pertinent. in Augustin. Op. tom. 17. p. 2446. (Ed. Ben. 4to. Ven.) et Optatus de schism. Donatist. ap. Lardner, vol. 2. c. 67. ed. 4to.]

a schismatic before this time, offered himself as the chief of the faction. A number of bishops co-operated with him, piqued that they had not been called to the ordination of Cæcilian. Seventy bishops, a number of whom had been traditors, met thus together at Carthage, to depose Cæcilian.

The reader will conceive in a strong light, how corrupt the pastors of the African church must have been at that time, when such a number met to impose a bishop on the Church of Carthage against the general sense of the Christians at that place, and were at the same time unable to object any one crime, or support the least material accusation against the pastor, who had the hearts of the people. Yet they persevered, and ordained one Majorinus, a servant of the factious lady, who, to support the ordination, gave large sums of money, which the bishops divided among themselves.

Such is the origin of the famous Donatist schism, the second class of dissenters who have appeared in the records of the Church; but, as in their origin, so in their manners and spirit all along, they seem unworthy to be compared with the first class, the Novatian, which still existed. With these a degree of real spirituality existed; whereas with the Donatist, there does not appear to have been any.†

It would be tedious to enter into a detail of Constantine's proceedings in regard to this sect. Undoubtedly he had a great respect for whatever he conceived to be Christian. With much candour and patience he examined and re-examined the case of the Donatists; and the issue was constantly to their disgrace. They stirred up magistrates to deprive the Christian pastors of the benefit of the imperial laws, by which they were exempted from public offices, and endeavoured to deprive them of their churches, till the emperor was at last provoked to confiscate the places of their assemblies. Silvanus, one of the Donatist bishops, being convicted of having delivered up the vessels of the church, and of being simoniacally ordained a bishop,

A name of infamy given to those who to save their lives in the persecution, had delivered the Scriptures or goods of the church to the persecuting powers. Fleury, b. ix. [c. 34.]

and of having deprived the Christians of their church, was sent into banishment, with some others of the faction. Yet such was the kindness of Constantine toward the Christian name, that he recalled them from their banishment, and granted religious toleration to the party, of which lenity they continued to make an unworthy use.

How corrupt is human nature! The Church has outward peace, and even prosperity. Yet feuds, contentions, and the most unworthy spirit of avarice and ambition, appear very prevalent. So ungrateful were men for that admirable administration of Providence, which as we have seen now took place in their favour. Another scourge seemed quickly necessary, a scourge generated from their own vices indeed, though evidently of divine appointment for the chastisement of the Church. Satan saw his time; pure doctrinal truth was now too commonly mere speculation. Men were ripe for a perversion of doctrine. Lower or ambiguous views of Christ were secretly rising amidst the Platonic studies of learned men. Origen gave the first handle; Eusebius the historian with cautious prudence was fomenting the evil. And at length a bold and open assault was made against the Deity of the Son of God, and persecution was stirred up against Christians by those who bore the Christian name. The people of God were exercised, refined, and improved; while the Christian world at large was torn in pieces with violence, intrigue, and scandalous animosities, to the grief of all who loved the Son of God, and walked in his ways in godly simplicity.

CHAP. III.

THE PROGRESS OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY, TILL THE
DEATH OF CONSTANTINE.*

PETER, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under the Dioclesian persecution. Numbers had recanted at that time to save their lives, and among the rest Meletius, an Egyptian bishop. This man was of a schismatical and enterprising spirit, and having been deposed by Peter before * Socrates, 1, 5 and 6.

his martyrdom, he separated himself, continued bishop on his own plan, ordained others, and gave rise to the third species of Dissenters: THAT is the proper name of the Meletian party; for they are not charged with corruption in their doctrine. Nor was this the only person who disturbed the Church, and exercised the patience of Peter. Arius of Alexandria, in his beginnings, was a promising character, but on the appearance of the Meletian party, he espoused their cause. Sometime after, he left it, and reconciled himself to Peter, and was by him ordained deacon : but condemning the bishop's severity in rejecting the Meletian baptism, and exhibiting a restless and factious spirit, he was again expelled from the Church. After which Peter was called to his rest by martyrdom. He was, like Cyprian, too severe in rejecting the baptism of schismatics and heretics, but his zeal was doubtless from a desire of preserving the uniformity of Christian faith, and he did not live to see still stronger proofs of that turbulent and contentious spirit in his deacon, which has rendered the name of Arius so famous in history.

Achillas had succeeded to the bishopric and from him Arius, by submissions, again obtained favour. Understanding and capacity will command respect, Character and these were undoubtedly possessed by Arius of Arius. in a great degree. He was by nature formed to deceive. In his behaviour and manner of life he was severe and grave; in his person tall and venerable; and in his dress almost monastic. He was agreeable and captivating in conversation, and well skilled in logic and all the improvements of the human mind, then fashionable in the world.*

Such was the famous Arius, who gave name to one of the most powerful heresies that ever afflicted the Church of Christ, and of whom Cicero's words, with little variation, in his masterly character of Catiline,† might be delivered; "had he not possessed some apparent virtues, he would not have been able to form so great a design, nor to have proved so formidable an adversary." He, who does much Sozomen, b. [1. c. 15. and Epiphan. contra Hæres. c. 69. 23.] + See his Oration pro Cælio.-Neque unquam ex illo tam sceleratus impetus extitisset, nisi tot vitiorum tanta immanitas quibusdam facilitatis et patientiæ radicibus niteretur.

mischief in deceiving souls, must at least have a fair appearance of morals. Paul of Samosata wanted this, and he glittered only as the insect of a day.

Achillas advanced Arius to the office of presbyter, which in that church was more important than in others, because each presbyter had a distinct congregation of his own, and was not sent up and down to different churches, at the discretion of the bishop, as the general practice had been in the primitive Church. This practice, however, in time gave way to the Alexandrian custom. Alexander, the successor of Achillas, under Constantine, treated Arius with respect, and appeared very backward to censure him for his dangerous speculations in religion. The pride of reasoning seduced the presbyter to assert,* that there was a time when the Son of God was not, that he was capable of virtue or of vice, and that he was a creature, and mutable as creatures are. Whilst he was insinuating these things, the easiness of Alexander in tolerating such notions was found fault with in the church. Necessity roused him at length, however unwilling, to contend, and in disputing before Arius and the rest of his clergy,+ he affirmed that there was an union in the Trinity. Arius thinking that the bishop introduced Sabellianism, eagerly maintained the extreme which is opposite to that heresy, and said, "If the Father begat the Son, the begotten had a beginning of existence; hence it was evident there was a time when he was not."

I have given the narration from the two historians rather with a view to connect and reconcile them, than from a conviction that this dispute arose from Alexander's zeal to withstand the growth of Arianism. For it might have originated from his orthodox zeal in general, before Arius had yet distinctly broached his notions. Be that as it may, Arius evidently split on the common rock of all heresies,a desire of explaining by our reason the modes of things which we are required to believe on divine testimony alone. Many of the clergy joined the disputatious presbyter, and it was no longer in Alexander's power to prevent a solemn cognizance of the cause. He was himself cautious and slow in his proceedings; while many persons

* Sozomen, b. 1. c. 15. + Socrates, 1, 5.

Sozomen, 1. [c. 15.]