the Arians, permitted to do him much mischief, he yet was enabled to die in peace, and to prove that the Lord faileth not them that are his. In the same year, 357, Liberius of Rome, after two years exile, was not only prevailed on to receive an Arian creed, Liberius of but even to reject Athanasius. The subscription Rome joins to the creed was not so much an evidence of inA.D. 357. sincerity, as was the condemnation of the Alexandrian prelate, because the Arians, fertile in expedients, made creeds upon creeds, expressed in artful ambiguities, to impose on the unwary." * Liberius by these unworthy means recovered his bishopric. The see of Rome at that time had secular charms sufficient to seduce a worldly mind. Whether Liberius cordially repented of his hypocrisy or not, we have no evidence. The cruelty of the Arians tried to the utmost the hearts of men in those days, and now the proverb was verified, "All the world against Athanasius, and Athanasius against all the world.” But the power of divine grace was displayed during this disastrous season in preserving a remnant, and particularly in strengthening the mind of that great man, through a long course of afflictions. He composed about this time a letter to the monks, in which he confesses the extreme difficulty of writing concerning the divinity of the Son of God, though it be easy to confute the heretics. He owns his ignorance, and calls himself a mere babbler, and beseeches the brethren to receive what he wrote, not as a perfect explanation of the divinity of the Word, but as a confutation of the enemies of that doctrine. Two councils were held,† the one at Rimini, the other at Seleucia, both with a view to support Arianism. In the former a number of good men were artfully seduced, by the snares of the Arians, to agree to what they did not understand. This sect, now victorious every where, began to show itself disunited and to separate into two parties. But it is not worth while to trouble the reader with idle niceties, in which proud men involved themselves, while all had forsaken the simple faith of antiquity. In these confusions, Macedonius lost the see of Constantinople, which was given to Eudoxius, translated from Antioch, in the year 360. Constantius poorly endeavoured to atone for the corrup[Sulp. Sever. Sacr. Hist. 1. 2. p. 418, &c.] *[Soz. iv. c. 15.] Eudoxius tions both of principle and practice, with which he filled the church, by offering large vessels of gold and silver, carpets for the altar of gold tissue, adorned with is made precious stones, curtains of gold and divers colours for the doors of the church, and also liberal donatives to the clergy, the virgins, and the widows.* patriarch of Constan A.D. 360. In the mean time Christendom throughout groaned under the weight of extorted Arian subscriptions; and Macedonius, the deposed bishop of Constantinople, formed another sect of those who were enemies to the divinity of the Holy Ghost. These, by the advantage of sober manners, spread themselves among the monasteries, and increased the corruption which then pervaded the Christian world. But the vigilant spirit of Athanasius was stirred up to oppose this heresy also. "The Father cannot be Son, nor the Son Father, (says he) and the Holy Ghost is never called by the name of Son, but is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. The holy Trinity is but one divine nature, and one God, with which a creature cannot be joined. This is sufficient for the faithful. Human knowledge goes no farther: the cherubims veil the rest with their wings." The see of Antioch being vacant,† Meletius, bishop of Sebasta, a man of exemplary meekness and piety, was chosen. The Arians supposed him to be of their party. Constantius ordered the new bishop to preach before him on the controversial subject of the Trinity: Meletius delivered himself with Christian sincerity, rebuked the rashness of men, who strove to fathom the divine nature, and exhorted his audience to adhere to the simplicity of the faith. He had remained only a month in Antioch, and had the honour to be banished by the emperor, who filled up the see with Euzoius, the old friend of Arius. In consequence of this, the friends of Meletius separated from the Arians, and held their assemblies in the ancient church, which had been the first at Antioch. Besides the Arians, who were in possession of the emperor's favour, there were two parties both sound in the Nicene faith, the Eustathians, before spoken of, and the Meletians, who testified in the strongest manner their regard for their exile pastor. In the year 361, however, Constantius died of a fever, having received baptism a little be* Fleury, b. xiv. [c 23.] [Theodoret. ii. 31. Socrat. ii. 44.] Constantius fore he expired, from Euzoius; for, after his father's example, he had deferred it till this time.* His character needs no detail: it appeared from his case, that A.D. 361. a weak man, armed with despotic power, was capable of doing incredible mischief in the Church of Christ. dies, CHAP. V. A VIEW OF MONASTICISM AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY UNDER CONSTANTINE, TO THE DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS. It seemed most convenient to preserve the connexion of the Arian controversy without interruption. If the evangelical reader has not gained much information concerning the spirit of true religion, during this violent contest, the times and the materials must bear the blame. There were probably, in that whole period, many sincere souls, who mourned in secret over the abominations of the age but history, ever partial to the great, and dazzled with the splendor of kings and bishops, condescends not to notice them. The people of God were in lower life, and remain, therefore, unknown. We left Athanasius in the desert, where he employed the leisure, which the iniquity of the persecution gave him, in visiting the monks. He had been acquainted with their most renowned leader Anthony, but Anthony had not the satisfaction to meet with him again, the Monk, he dying in the beginning of the year 356. Let us leave Athanasius and the Arian controversy awhile, and see what we can find concerning the monks, and other particulars of the dealings of God with his Church in the mean time. Death of A. D. 356. We are not to form an idea of ancient monks from modern ones. It was a mistaken thing in holy men of old to retire altogether from the world. But there is every reason to believe the mistake originated in piety. We often hear * A fact related of him by Theodoret enables us to fix the religious character of this prince. When he was going to carry on war with Magnentius, he exhorted all his soldiers to receive baptism, observing the danger of dying without that sacred rite, and ordering those to return home who refused to submit to it. Not infidelity, but superstition, predominated in his mind. Yet how inconsistent, to defer his own baptism so long. [Theodoret. iii. 3.] + [Socrat. ii. 47. Philostorg. vi. 5.] it said, How ridiculous to think of pleasing God by austerities and solitude! Far be it from me to vindicate the superstitions of monks, and particularly the vows of celibacy. But the error is very natural, has been reprehended much too severely, and the profaneness of men of the world is abundantly more dangerous. The enormous evils of Monasticism are to be ascribed to its degeneracy in after-times, not to its first institution. What could, for instance, be better intentioned, than the determination of Anthony to follow literally our Lord's rule, "Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor ?" Say that he was ignorant and superstitious; he was both but he persevered to the age of a hundred and five years in voluntary poverty with admirable consistency. Sure it could be no slight cause that could move a young person of opulence to part with all, and live in the abstemiousness of a solitary life with such unshaken perseverance. Let us, from the memorials of his life, written by Athanasius, omitting the miracles which the then fashionable credulity imposed on men, endeavour to collect, as far as we can, a just idea of his spirit. Athanasius tells us that he had often seen him, and had received information concerning him from his servant. It was a great disadvantage to Anthony's judgment, that he was unwilling to be instructed in literature. There is a medium in all things secular. We have seen numbers corrupted by an excess of literary attachments: we see here one misled by the want of proper cultivation. When a youth, he had heard read in the church our Lord's words to the rich young man, and his ignorance led him to sell all and give to the poor, and enter into the monastic life. Monks, as yet, had not learned to live in perfect deserts unconnected with mankind, and hitherto they lived at a small distance from their own village. Anthony endeavoured to form himself on the severest models, and pushed the genius of solitude to rigours before unknown. His fame increased; he was looked on as a mirror of perfection, and the Egyptians were studious to follow his example. His instructions to those who listened to him are not, in general, worth transcribing. The faith of Christ is very obscure at least in the best of them; yet his sincerity is evident: his love [Vit. S. Antonii ap. Athan. Op. tom. 2. p. 450, &c.] to divine things must have been ardent; his conflicts and temptations, which are confusedly written by Athanasius, demonstrated a mind too humble, and knowing too much of himself, to trust in his own righteousness. He preached well by his life, and temper, and spirit, however he might fail in doctrinal knowledge. * In the persecution by Dioclesian he left his beloved solitude, and came to Alexandria, strengthening the minds of Christian sufferers, exposing himself to danger for the love of the brethren, and yet not guilty of the excess of delivering up himself to martyrdom. In all this there was what was better than the monk,—the sincere and charitable Christian. Nor did he observe to perfection the rules of solitude. There were two sorts of monks, the solitary, and those who lived in societies. Anthony, though he had a strong inclination to follow the first sort altogether, sometimes joined the latter, and even on some occasions appeared in the world. The Arian heresy gave him another opportunity of showing his zeal. He again entered Alexandria, and protested against its impiety, which, he observed, was of a piece with heathenism itself. "Be assured," said he, "all nature is moved with indignation against [them because they] reckon the Creator of all things to be a creature." And this is one circumstance, which convinces me, that genuine godliness, the offspring of Christian principles, must have been with the primitive monks, because they generally vindicated the Nicene faith, and could not endure Arianism. They must, many of them at least, have felt the motions of the divine life, which will not connect itself with any principles that depreciate the dignity of Jesus Christ. In conversing with Pagan philosophers, he observed, that Christianity held the mystery, not in the wisdom of Grecian reasoning, but in the power of faith supplied to them from God by Jesus Christ. "Faith," says he "springs from the affection of the mind; Logic from artificial contrivance. Those who have the energy that is by faith, need not perhaps the demonstration that comes by reasoning." He very justly appealed to the glorious fruits of Christianity in the world, and exhorted the philosophers * [Ibid. p. 478, D.] + [Ibid. p. 491.] [Ibid. p. 495, B.] |