CHAP. IV. THE PROGRESS OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY DURING THE REIGN OF CONSTANTIUS. THE subject before us is more speculative and more secular than I could wish. I shall condense it as much as possible into a narrow compass, keeping more particularly in view the one great end of this history. The great Constantine was succeeded by three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans.* The first ruled in Spain and Gaul, the second in the East, the third in Italy and Africa. The other relations of the late emperor were put to death by the soldiers. Two sons alone of Julius his brother survived, Gallus and Julian. These were spared, privately educated, placed among the clergy, and appointed readers in the church. The latter was born at Constantinople, was only eight years old at the time of his uncle's death, and was reserved to be a scourge of degenerate Christendom, and a memorable instrument of Divine Providence. Of Constantine the eldest we know but little; and that little is laudable. He sent back Athanasius to his church with great respect, ‡ and declared, that his father had intended to do the same, but was prevented by death. After a banishment of two years and four months, the bishop returned from Treves to his diocese, where he was received with general acclamations. Asclepas of Gaza and Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been deposed by Arians, with others likewise, were restored; but Constantine himself was slain by the troops of his brother Constans. of his brother Constans. He was undoubtedly steady in his adherence to the Nicene faith, but our information concerning him is too small to enable us to form any proper estimate of his character. His next brother, Constantius, furnishes but too many materials to illustrate his disposition. One Eusebius § an eunuch, his chamberlain, had great influence over him; and was himself the convert of the Arian priest, whom Constantia had recommended to her brother, and to whom also the dying emperor had entrusted his will. The empress herself, the wife of Constantius, was infected with Arianism. + [Soz. v. 2.] § [Socrat. ii. 2. Soz. iii. 1.7 [Zosimi Hist. 1. 2. c. 39.] By degrees at least the emperor, a man of a weak understanding, corrupted with the pride of power, and ill informed in any thing that belonged to real Christianity, was confirmed in the fashionable heresy. There was then during this whole reign, which reached from the year 337 to the year 361, a controversy carried on between the Church and the heretics by arms and resources suited to the genius of the parties; those of the former were prayers, treatises, and preaching; of the latter, policy, intrigue, persecution, and the friendship of the great. The most zealous supporters of anti-scriptural sentiments seem far more disposed to cultivate the favour of men of rank, than to labour in the work of the ministry among the bulk of mankind. Caesarea, About the year 340 died the famous Eusebius of Cæsarea. He was the most learned of all the Christians. After Death of viewing him with some attention, I can put no Eusebius of other interpretation on his speculations than that A.D. 340. which has been mentioned already. He talks of a necessity that there was in God, to produce a middle power between himself and the angels, to lessen the infinite disproportion between him and the creature.* Of the Holy Ghost he speaks still more explicitly, and represents him as one of the things made by the Son. Nevertheless, one might be disposed to put a favourable construction on various expressions of this great man, were it not that his practice is a strong comment on his opinions. He frequented the court, he associated with Arius, he joined in the condemnation of Athanasians. It really gives pain to part on such terms with the historian, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many valuable monuments of antiquity; but truth must be spoken, and his case is one of the many, which show that learning and philosophy, unless duly subordinate to the revealed will of God, are no friends to Christian simplicity: however, the loud noise which in our times has been made concerning the doctrine of the Trinity being derived from Platonism, should be silenced, when it is known that it was by admiration of Plato and Origen that Eusebius himself was perverted. About the same time died Alexander of Constantinople, aged ninety-eight years, who had been bishop twenty* IV. Demonstr. Evang. c. 6. See Fleury, b. xii. c. 6. of Constan three years. His clergy asked him in his dying moments, whom he would recommend as his successor.* If Death of you seek a man of exemplary life, and able to in- Alexander struct you, says he, you have Paul: if you desire tinople. a man of secular skill, and one who knows how to maintain an interest among the great, and to preserve an appearance of religion, Macedonius is preferable. The event showed in what strength of discernment the aged prelate was still preserved, and how careful to his last breath he was of the propagation of Evangelical purity. These two men were just such as he had described them. Paul, though young, was at once pious and discreet; Macedonius was far advanced in life, but yet was only a deacon. The Arian party during the lifetime of the venerable champion was unable to predominate in the metropolis.† After his death, they endeavoured to prefer Macedonius; but the primitive ideas were too prevalent as yet among the populace, and Paul was elected. Constantius arriving afterwards was provoked at the election, encouraged an Arian council, directed its resolves, and Eusebius of Nicomedia was translated to the metropolitan see, which from this time continued under Arian government for forty years. Thus the ancient usages in choosing bishops were altered, and a precedent was set, of fixing in the hands of princes the government of the church in capital cities. A council of a hundred bishops of Egypt, with Athanasius at their head, protested against these proceedings to the whole Christian world. A council was now convened at Antioch, supported by the presence of the emperor and by the manœuvres of Eusebius. Here they undertook to depose Atha- Council at nasius, and ordain Gregory, a Cappadocian, in Antioch. his room; prevailing on Constantius to direct Philagrius, the prefect of Egypt, to support their proceedings with an armed force. For the integrity and probity of Athanasius had gained him so strong an ascendant in Egypt, that while the primitive modes of church government remained, it would have been impossible to expel him. Violence was found necessary to support iniquity, and an Arian prince was obliged to tread in the steps of his pagan predecessors, to support what he called the Church. * [Socrat. 1. 2. c. 6. Soz. iii. c. 3.] + [Soz. iii. 4. Socrat. ii. 7.] [Soz. iii. 5. Socrat. ii. 10 and 11.] His views were promoted with vigour. Virgins and monks were cruelly treated at Alexandria: Jews and pagans were encouraged to murder Christians.* Gregory himself entered the church with the governor and certain pagans, and caused a number of the friends of Athanasius to be scourged and imprisoned. The persecuted prelate himself, who wanted not courage and capacity to resist, acted however a much more Christian part. He fled from the storm, and made his escape to Rome. Athanasius escapes to Rome, A. D. 342. This also happened about the year 342. It was a memorable season for the church of God, which now found her livery to be that of persecution, even when pagans had ceased to reign. Gregory † would not suffer the Athanasians, who in great numbers still refused to own the Arian domination, even to pray in their own houses. He visited Egypt in company with Philagrius. The greatest severities were inflicted on those bishops who had been zealous for the Nicene faith, though the decrees of the council had never been reversed, and the Arians as yet contented themselves with ambiguous confessions and the omission of the term consubstantial. Bishops were scourged and put in irons. Potamo, whom we have before celebrated, was beaten on the neck, till he was thought to have expired; he recovered in a small degree, but died sometime after. His crime, in the eyes of the Arians, was doubtless an unvaried attachment to the Nicene faith. While Gregory dealt in violence, his competitor used only the more Christian arms of argument. He published an epistle to the Christian world, exhorting all the bishops to unite on the occasion. "The faith is [not] now begun, says he," it came to us [from] the Lord [through] his disciples. Lest what has been preserved in the churches until now perish in our days, and we be called to an account for our stewardship, exert yourselves, my brethren, as stewards of the mysteries of God, and as beholding your rights taken away by strangers." He goes on to inform them of the proceedings of the Arians, observing that the like had not [Ep. Jul. ap. Athan. tom. 1. p. 749. Fleury, 1. 12. c. 14.] Athan. Ep. ad Orthodox. tom. 1. p. 943. happened in the church since the ascension of our Saviour. "If there were any complaints against me, [It was not right that a decided Arian, nor one who was inclined to such sentiments, should have been chosen, but according to the Canons of the Church and the word of the Apostle Paul, the people being gathered together and the Spirit who with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ appoints Bishops, all things should have been examined into and done regularly in the presence of the people who make the application, and of the clergy. A stranger put forward by the Arians should not, as if making gain of the office, intrude himself by force and the authority of secular magistrates, upon those who have not asked for him and who neither wish for him, nor were at all cognizant of the proceedings that had taken place."] He begs the bishops "not to receive the letters of Gregory, but to tear them, and treat the bearers with disdain, as ministers of iniquity." It cannot be denied, that his arguments were sound, and that his cause was just. The Arians must bear the infamy of being the first who secularized the discipline of the church. But in adding the close of the letter, I mean the reader to remark the decline of the spirit of the Gospel at this time. As on the one hand it were very unfair to confound the Athanasians and the Arians as on an equal footing in point of piety and morality, when the superiority of the former is too evident to admit of a dispute; so on the other hand it is certain, that the experimental use of the Divinity of Christ, by no means employed an equal degree of the zeal of its patrons with the abstract doctrine itself. Hence Athanasius, though always firm and constantly sincere, fails in meekness and charity. Death of This great man continued in exile at Rome for eighteen months, under the protection of Julius the bishop.* Thither fled many others whom the Arian tyranny had expelled from their sees. Eusebius of Constantinople died soon after, in the fulness of that prosperity, which Eusebius of his iniquity and oppression had procured him. ConstantiHuman depravity under religious appearances had in him attained a rare degree of maturity. And the only lesson which his life affords seems to be this, to warn the * nople. [Julii Ep. ap. Athan. tom. 1. p. 751, and 754, et Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Constant. tom. 1. p. 675.] |