the worst principles, could not possibly hope for moderation, and could not speedily terminate; and it is not useless to have premised them to our account of those controversies, for thus we shall neither attribute them (as some have done) to mistaken causes; nor be so much scandalized by their intemperance, as to take any offence against religion itself, because such evils have been done in its name.

Constantine appears to have enlisted himself very early under the banners of the Church which he had established; very soon after the Edict of Milan, we find him publishing Laws against Heresy, which went so far, in menace at least, as to transfer the property of heretical bishops or ministers to the orthodox. In the list of the proscribed we find the followers of Paul of Samosata, the Unitarians of those days; we find the Montanists, who were the Enthusiasts, the Novatians, who were the Reformers, and two denominations of Gnostics ;* but the opinions of the Arians were not yet attacked; perhaps they had not yet assumed a tangible form, or at least were not distinguished and stigmatized by a

name.

In the freedom exercised by individual opinion on abstruse mysteries under the early Church, it is possible that many may have held the doctrine afterwards called Arian; but the controversy seems to have been awakened about the year 319, by the zeal of a Bishop of the Church, and the scene of its explosion was that hot-bed of heresy and dissension, Alexandria.† Alexander was the Bishop, Arius a Presbyter, in that city; and the former, in an assembly of his clergy, felt it his duty strongly to impress on them his sentiments respecting the nature of the Godhead; maintaining, among other things, that the Son was not only of the same eminence and dignity, but also of the same essence with the Father. Arius disputed this doctrine, and this dispute led him to the promulgation of his own opinions: they were these, or nearly these§-that the Son had been created by the Father before all things; but that time had existed before his creation, and that he was therefore not co-eternal with the Father; that he was created out of nothing; that he was not co-essential with the Father; that, though immeasurably superior in power and in glory to the highest created beings, he was still inferior in both to the Father. These opinions

*The Marcionites and Valentinians-See Sozomen, lib. ii. c. 32; and the beginning of Gibbon's 21st chapter-we should rather conclude, however, from Eusebius's account (Vit. Const. 1. iii. c. 63—66) that Constantine's Edict against those Heretics was posterior to the Council of Nice. Sozomen asserts (not very accurately) that the effect of the Edict was the destruction of all excepting the Novatians, against whom it was not seriously enforced.

+ Even after the Council of Nice we learn from Eusebius (Vit. Const. I. iii. c. 23) that 'while all the rest of the world was disposed to concord, among the Egyptians alone there prevailed immitigable dissension.'-Some anecdotes respecting the character of this people, which had engrafted Greek principles on African character, are given by Jortin.. Eccl. Hist., book iii. A. D. 364.

The opinions of Alexander himself have not escaped the charge of heresy-his notions respecting the distinct persons of the Trinity were so imperfect, that Arius accused him, with seeming justice, of inclination to the error of Sabellius. And again, some of his expressions respecting the nature of the second person place him upon the very borders of the error subsequently denominated semi-Arianism. So difficult was it in those days even for the most pious prelate to discover, and preserve undeviatingly, the precise path of orthodoxy.

§ Mosh. Gen. Hist. c. iv. p. ii. ch. 5. Maimb. Hist. Arian. book i. p. 16. Gibbon, chap. 21. The original materials from which the history of Arianism is chiefly composed, are Eusebius's life of Constantine, the writings of Athanasius (particularly the first volume) and the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. We may also mention the 69th (or 49th) Heresy of Epiphanius.

found many and respectable advocates* in Asia as well as Egypt, among the clergy as well as the laity, and even in the highest ranks of the clergy; and their number was probably increased, when the Bishop, after condemning the tenets of Arius in two Councils held at Alexandria, pronounced against him the sentence of excommunication.

The quarrel now became so violent, that it was judged necessary to invite the interference of the Emperor. Constantine viewed the whole question as trifling and utterly unimportant ;† he regretted that the peace of the Church should be so vainly disturbed; he la ented that the harmony of Christians, who were united on so many subjects of infinite weight, should be interrupted by such unprofitable speculations-and in the Epistle containing those sentiments he enjoined peace to bot parties. Constantine knew not the nature of the tempest which was excited, for neither experience nor history had yet presented to him any thing resembling it. However he had adopted the only measure which offered any hope of appeasing it, and had he persisted in his neutrality, it is probable that the Arian controversy, after some noisy debates and angry invectives, would have discharged its passion in words, and the heresy itself would have fallen into dishonour, almost into oblivion, like so many others. But the firmness of the Emperor was not proof against the importunity of the orthodox prelates, seconded, as some think, by his own theological vanity; a General Council was suggested as the only remedy for the evil, and the Emperor would, of course, preside over its deliberations. Still the matter was some little time in suspense; and that was perhaps the most critical moment in ecclesiastical history, in which Constantine determined to convoke the Council of Nice.

In the year 325 A. D. about three hundred and eighteen|| Bishops assembled at Nice (Nicæa) in Bithynia, for the purpose of composing the Arian Controversy. Let us consider (says Dr. Jortin) by what various motives these

* Sozomen i. 15. iii. 18.

Council of Nice.

+ Constantine's epistle appears in Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. ii. c. 64-72. In c. 69 the Emperor describes the origin of the controversy, and exposes its dangerous tendency; and in c. 71 he rebukes the parties for disputing ὑπὲρ μικρῶν καὶ λίαν ἐλαχίστων— about trifing, and most truly insignificant matters." This account is confirmed by Sozomen, H. E. 1. i. c. 15 and 16. Socrates, H. E. lib. i. c. 7.

It would appear indeed from the following passage in his Epistle, that he was very imperfectly informed even respecting the nature of the question controverted. Wherefore, says he, let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer mutually excuse each other for neither does the cause of your contention regard the chief among the commandments of the law, nor has any new heresy been introduced by you respecting the worship of God, but both of you hold one and the same opinion-so that there is nothing to prevent your concord and communion.' Vit. Const. 1. ii. c. 70. There was nothing, indeed, to prevent their concord and communion—yet the opinions which they held were widely and essentially different.

Jortin has suggested another method in the following very rational passage— (Eccles. Hist. B. iii.) If, when the quarrel between Alexander and Arius was grown to such a height as to want a remedy, the Fathers of the Church had, for the sake of peace, agreed to draw up a Confession of Faith in words of Scripture, and to establish the divinity of Christ on the expressions used by the Apostles, every one might have assented to it, and the Arian party would most certainly have received it. The difference of sen

timents, indeed, and of interpretation, would not have ceased, but the controversy would have cooled and dwindled away, after every champion had discharged his zeal upon paper and written to his heart's content. The Arian notion that the Son was created in time, and that there was a time when he existed not, would probably have sunk, as not being the language of the New Testament; and the Macedonian notion, that the Holy Ghost was created in time, would have sunk with the other for the same reason; at least these opinions would never have been obtruded upon us as Articles of Faith.'

'Persons not more widely separated and diversified in sentiments, than in person,

various men might be influenced; by reverence to the Emperor, or to his counsellors and favourites, his slaves and eunuchs; by the fear of offending some great prelate, who had it in his power to insult, vex and plague all the Bishops within and without his jurisdiction; by the dread of passing for Heretics, and of being calumniated, reviled, hated, anathematized, excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if they refused to submit; by compliance with some active, leading and imperious spirits; by a deference to the majority; by a love of dictating and domineering, of applause and respect; by vanity and ambition; by a total ignorance of the question in debate or a total indifference about it; by private friendship, by enmity and resentment, by old prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an indolent disposition, by good nature, by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home, by the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred of contention, &c. &c.' To these considerations, which comprehend perhaps the usual motives of human action, we should add that among so many assembled, many there must have been of sincere intention and earnest piety, and certainly several well instructed in the learning of that age; and the excellence of these persons doubtless so influenced the general character of the Council, that, though unable to repress the intemperate violence of some of its members, they were sufficient to conduct it to that decision, which has now been followed by the great majority of Christians for fifteen centuries.

The Bishops began by much personal dissension, and presented to the Emperor a variety of written accusations against each other; the Emperor burnt all their libels, and exhorted them to peace and unity. They then proceeded to examine the momentous question proposed to them. It was soon discovered that the differences, which it was intended to reconcile, might in their principle be reduced to one point, and that that point might be expressed by one word—and thus the question appears to have been speedily simplified (as indeed was necessary, that so many persons might come to one conclusion on so mysterious a subject) and reduced to thiswhether the Son was, or was not, consubstantial with the Father.... Many of the leading Bishops hesitated, or even held in the first instance the negative opinion, and among them were Eusebius* of Cæsarea, the historian of Constantine, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, from whose hands the Emperor afterwards received baptism. The former proposed to the assembly a Creed, in which the word consubstantial† (Homoousian) was omitted; but in which he anathematized every impious heresy, without particularizing any. His advice was not followed. Then arose subtile dis

residence and race, here met together; and one City received them all, as it were an ample garland variegated with beautiful flowers.' Such is the light in which this assembly appeared to Eusebius, who was one of its members. Vit. Const. 1. iii. cap. 6. Respecting the number of Bishops, Eusebius, as the passage has come down to us, makes it more than two hundred-and-fifty. Socrates (lib. i. c. 8.), professing to follow Eusebius, describes it in one place as above three hundred, in another as three hundred and eighteen. And that number is generally received by modern writers, on the additional authority of Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome and Rufinus.

Jortin (Eccl. Hist. b. iii.) has discussed the religious opinions of Eusebius very reasonably.

He objected to the term as unscriptural-and to the use of such terms, he attributed nearly all the confusion and disorder of the Churches (See Socrates, lib. i. c. viii. near the end.) We may observe that this was the most tenable ground in which the Arians of every denomination entrenched themselves in the course of their subsequent disputes with the Consubstantialists.-See Maim. Hist. Arian. b. iv. (vol. i. p. 223.) The distrust of tradition which they ventured to express even in that early age, was closely connected with it-yet it proved also, that the early tradition of the Church was favourable to he Catholic opinion.

ceptations respecting the meaning of the word, about which some conflicted with each other, dwelling on the term and minutely dissecting it; it was like a battle fought in the dark; for neither party seemed at all to understand on what ground they vilified each other.'* However, the result was perfectly conclusive; they finally decided against the Arian opinions, and established, respecting the two first persons of the Trinity, the doctrine which the Church still professes in the Nicene Creed. †

Their labours being completed, the Bishops dispersed to their respective provinces-besides the solemn declaration of their opinion, on a most im portant point of doctrine (since it established the equal divinity of the Son), they finally set at rest the question respecting the celebration of Easter, and enacted some profitable regulations relating to Church discipline.‡ Thus far, then, we can have no just reason to condemn the result of their meeting, or to pronounce such assemblies either pernicious or useless. The doctrine of the majority of Christendom was proclaimed by a public act, on a subject hitherto uncontroverted, and henceforward it was reasonably considered the doctrine of the Church. And if matters had rested here, perhaps the dissentients would either have concealed their opinions, or gradually melted away into the mass of the orthodox. But Constantine thought the work of ecclesiastical legislation incomplete, until the spiritual edict was enforced by temporal penalties. Immediate exile was inflicted on those who persisted in error-and the punishment of a Heretic by a Christian Prince was defended by the same plea of rebellious contumacy, which is urged by the apologists of his Pagan predecessors to justify the execution of a Christian. §

* See Socrates, 1. i. c. xxiii. This passage has rather reference to the differences on the same subject which continued after the Council; but it well describes the nature of the disputations. Sit ista in Græcorum levitate perversitas qui maledictis insectantur eos a quibus de veritate dissentiunt. Cic. Fin. 11.

+ Gibbon's account of this Council does not seem to rest on evidence sufficient to counteract its improbability. He divides the Christian world, as represented at Nice, into three classes or parties, all Heretical-Arians, Sabellians and Tritheists; and then he asserts that the two last (professing opinions diametrically opposite to each other) combined against the Arians. Without affecting to believe, that the majority of the Nicene Bishops would have explained the mystery of the Trinity in the precise language of the Athanasian Creed, we think it very irrational to suppose, that there were none (that there were not many) among them, impressed with notions of the Trinity very far removed either from Sabellianism or Tritheism. Those, who know the pertinacity with which men adhere to their own previous notions on such matters, will not easily believe, that two numerous parties, professing opinions not only contrary but adverse, should immediately waive those opinions, and assume, and persist in, other opinions essentially different from either, and then unite, merely for the sake of outvoting a third party, against which they were not inflamed by any personal animosity. It is possible that there may have been some Sabellians as well as Tritheists among the members of the Council, notwithstanding the repeated condemnations of those heresies by the Church writers; but it is impossible to believe, that the opinions, which were finally sanctioned by the great majority of the Bishops, and were ever afterwards followed as the rule of orthodoxy, were not previously very general among the ministers of the Church.

The three written monuments of this Council were the Rule of Faith-a number of Canons-and the Synodical Epistle which was addressed to the Churches on its dissolution. Socrates, E. Hist. lib. i., c. ix. See Semler, Cent. IV. cap. iii. De Conciliis. Mosheim. E. H. Cent. iv. p. ii. c. v.

In a formal Edict addressed to the Bishops and People, Constantine compares the blindness of Arius to that of Porphyry, and commands his followers to be designated by the ignominious name of Porphyrians. He then proceeds to consign the books of Arius to the flames, nearly in the following terms: If any man be found to have concealed a copy of those Books, and not to have instantly produced it and thrown it into the fire, he shall be put to death. The moment he is convicted of this he shall be subjected to capital punishment. The Lord continue to preserve you.' Socrates, Hist. E., lib. i., p. 32.

In justice, however, to the character of Constantine, we must admit, that he was animated throughout these perplexing dissensions not by any private or sectarian animosity against the Arian party, but by a sincere desire to restore peace to the Church, It was his object to correct and chastise the perversity of the Heretics, and thus to force them into communion with the great body of his Christian subjects; but he had no design or wish for their extermination. And as soon as he discovered that his first severities were ineffectual; that the Arians, under the episcopal guidance of Eusebius of Nicomedia,* lost little strength in Asia and even maintained the contest in Alexandria itself, and that they were not without support in his own Court and Household, he perceived the inutility of his measures, and chose rather to retrace the steps which he had taken, than to advance more deeply into the paths of persecution. He therefore recalled Eusebius in the year 330, and six years afterwards Arius himself, after presenting to the Emperor a modified profession of faith, was released from the sentence of banishment.† That Heresiarch perished soon afterwards by a sudden, but probably a natural, deathand so far from joining in the anathemas, which are commonly heaped upon him, we shall perform a more grateful office in bearing testimony to the purity of his moral life, and the probable sincerity of his religious opinions. Respecting the less important circumstances of his manners and conversation, we shall be contented to adopt the language of a writer who has seldom treated either him or his followers with any show of candour or justice.‡ Arius made use of the advantages he was master of, by art and by nature, to gain the people-for it is certain that he had a great many talents, which rendered him capable of nicely insinuating himself into their good opinion and affections. He was tall of stature and of a very becoming make, grave and serious in his carriage, with a certain air of severity in his looks, which made him pass for a man of great virtue and austerity of life. Yet this severity did not discourage those who accosted him, because it was softened by an extraordinary delicacy in his features that gave lustre to his whole person, and had something in it so sweet and engaging, as was not easily to be resisted. His garb was modest, but withal neat, and such as was usually worn by those who were men of quality as well as learning. His manner of receiving people was very courteous, and very ingratiating, through his agreeable way of entertaining those who came to him upon any occasion. In short, notwithstanding his mighty seriousness, and the severity and strictness of his mien, he perfectly well understood how to soothe and flatter, with all imaginable wit and address, those whom he had a mind to bring over to his opinion, and engage in his party.'

6

On the death of Constantine in 336 A. D. the Empire was partitioned among his sons. Constantius occupied the eastern throne, and Constantine and Constans divided that of the west. These two Princes (in compliance perhaps with the inclinations of their subjects) supported the

Philostorgius, the Arian historian, attributes miracles to this Eusebius; and Athanasius (Orat. 2.) seems to consider him rather as the master than the disciple of Arius. See Tillemont. Sur les Arièns. Art. vI.

It is another, perhaps a more probable opinion, that Eusebius was recalled in 328, and Arius even sooner; but that the Emperor did not invite Arius to Constantinople until 336. Mosh. Ecc. Hist., Cent. iv, p. ii. c. v. See also Tillem. loc. cit., who dates the real rancour of the contest from the refusal of Athanasius still to communicate with his adversary.

Maimbourg, Hist. Arian., b. i. Epiphanius, Hares. 69.