honoured with furnishing those who suffered for Je sus. This people had three churches in Constantinople, one of which was thrown down by the emperor's orders. The Novatians carried away the materials to the other side of the sea: the women and children wrought diligently, and thus it was rebuilt. In the next reign, by the emperor's permission, they carried back the materials, and rebuilt their church at Constantinople, and called it ANASTASIA. An attempt was now made to reunite those of the general church with the Novatians: the former were the more ready, because they had no place of worship at all; but the narrow bigotry, which had ever been the great fault of Novatianism, prevented the union. But we must now mention a remarkable instance of human infirmity, which calls at once for compassion and for caution. Hosius had been a year confined at Sirmium, his relations were persecuted, and he suffered in his own person both scourges and tortures. By thus afflicting him, the Arian tyrant thought he served the cause; and by such inhuman measures were the patrons of the heresy stimulated to seek the destruction of godliness! Yet so infatuated was the spirit of Constantius, that he all along was liberally supporting the most expensive forms and ornaments of christian worship, while he was labouring with all his might to eradicate christian doctrine. Hosius, above an hundred years old, submitted at length to subscribe an Arian creed, but the condemnation of Athanasius he would not vindicate. Permitted at length to return into Spain, he lived however to retract, protesting against the violence with which he had been treated, and with his last breath exhorting all men to reject the heresy of Arius; and thus we have seen to his end the most venerable character of that age, still in his heart true to his God. The length of his days only exposed him to a greater variety of suffering, and though That is, "risen again."

Sozomen, b.iv. c. 20.

Satan's malice was 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 year, 357, Liberius of Rome, after two years exile, was not only prevailed on to receive an Arian creed, but even to reject Athanasius. The subscription to the creed was not so much an evidence of insincerity, 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 in preserving a remnant in this disastrous season, 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 shew 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 Mace

donius lost the see of Constantinople, which was given to Eudoxius, translated from Antioch, in the year 360. Constantius poorly endeavoured to atone for the corruptions 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 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.*

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

* Fleury, b. xiv. 33.

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 exiled pastor. In the year 361, however, Constantius died of a fever, having received baptism a little before 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 weak man armed with despotic power was capable of doing incredible mischief in the church of Christ.

CHAPTER 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,

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!

which the iniquity of the persecution gave him, in visiting the monks. He had been acquainted with their most renowned leader Anthony, but had not the satisfaction to meet with him again, he dying in the beginning of the year 356. Let us leave Athanasius and the Arian controversy a while, and see what we can find concerning monks, and other particulars of the dealings of God with his church in the mean time.

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 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 an hundred and five years in. voluntary poverty with admirable consistency. Surely 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 mén, 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