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 origen 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 last a degree of real spirituality existed, with the former there does not appear to have been any.*

It would be tedious to enter into a detail of Constantine's proceedings with respect to this sect. Undoubtedly he had great respect for whatever he conceived to be christian. With much candour and patience he examined and re-examined the case of this people; and the issue was constantly to their disgrace. They stirred up magistrates to deprive the christian pastors of the benefit of the imperial laws, which exempted them 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 simonically ordained a bishop, 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 relig.

* Fleury, b. ix.

ious 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, contention, 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 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 wore 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.

CHAPTER 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

Socrates, 1. 6.

deposed by Peter before 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 thre 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 o 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, and these were undoubtedly possessed by 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 which ever afflicted the church of Christ, and of whom Cicero's words, with little variation, in his masterly character of Catiline,†

*See his Oration pro Calio.-Neque unquam ex illo tam sceleratus impetus extitisset, nisi tot vitiorum tanta immanitas quibusdam facilitatis & patientiæ radicibus niteretur. Sozomen, b. 15.

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 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 gener al 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, cagerly 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 ev ident 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 noSocrates, 1..5..

* Sozomen, b. i. c. 15.

tions. 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 of a grave cast, and able and eloquent, like Arius, espoused and fostered the infant heresy. Arius preached diligently at his Church, diffused his opinions in all companies, and gained over many of the common people; a number of women who had professed virginity espoused his cause; and Alexander saw the ancient doctrine of the Church undermined continually.† Lenient measures and argumentative methods having been tried in vain, he summoned a synod of bishops, who met at Alexandria, condemned Arius' doctrine, and expelled him from the church, with nine of his adherents.

What Arius really held may be distinctly stated from the concurrent testimony of friends and enemies. Already some secret and ambiguous attempts had been made to lessen the idea of the divinity of the Son of God. While his eternity was admitted by Eusebius the historian, he yet was not willing to own him coequal with the Father. Arius went greater lengths: he said, that the Son proceeded out of a state of nonexistence; that he was not before he was made; that he, who is without beginning, has set his Son as the beginning of things that are made, and that God made one, whom he called Word, Son, and Wisdom, by whom he did create us. From these and such like expressions, it it is evident what Arianism properly is: for the epistle of Arius himself, preserved by Theodoret, represents his views in the same manner as his adversaries have.

Theod. b. i. c. 2. See Cave's Life of Athanasius:

# Thcod. b. i. c. 5.