BOOK II.
FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I , A.D. 313-395.
CHAPTER I.
CONSTANTINE - DONATISM-ARIANISM
, A.D. 313-337.
The idea that the emperors of Rome might be Christians
had been regarded by Tertullian as one which involved in consistency and
impossibility; but it was now to be realized. Constantine had probably been
trained in the religion of his father, which appears to have been an eclectic
system, founded on the belief in one supreme God. Some years of his youth were
spent at the court of Diocletian and Galerius in the character of a hostage,
and while thus detained he had opportunities of observing the deceits by which
the pagan priesthood endeavoured to influence the emperor’s mind; he witnessed
the publication of the persecuting edict at Nicomedia and the horrors which
followed. When hailed by the legions (A.D. 306) in Britain as his father's
successor, he continued and extended the toleration which Constantius had
bestowed on the Christians: but it would seem that in this he was rather
influenced by indifference and by political considerations than by any
inclination to embrace their religion. Whatever his secret belief may have
been, he continued to share in all the public rites of paganism, and professed
to regard Apollo as his especial patron.
The most critical event in Constantine’s religious
history took place in the year 312, as he was on his march against Maxentius.
Eusebius tells us that, as the tyrant was known to be preparing for the
struggle by magical and superstitious rites, Constantine felt the need of
supernatural aid in order to cope with him, and therefore considered to what
god he should betake himself; that, remembering how his father had always been
blessed with prosperity, whereas the persecutors of Christianity had come to
miserable ends, he resolved to forsake the service of idols, and prayed to the
god of Constantius—the one supreme Being; and that, as he was engaged in such
thoughts, he saw in the sky, soon after midday, a luminous cross, with the
words “By this conquer”. While perplexed by the vision the emperor fell asleep;
when the Saviour appeared to him, bearing in his hand the same symbol which had
been displayed in the heavens, commanding him to use it as his standard in war,
and giving him the assurance of victory. On awaking, Constantine described the
ensign which had been shown to him in his dream, and from that time his troops
marched under the protection of the LABARUM—a banner on which the cross
was combined with the first letters of the Redeemer's name. The emperor then
sought and received from the Christian clergy instruction as to the meaning of
the vision which had been vouchsafed to him; and after his victory at the
Milvian Bridge he erected at Rome a statue of himself, holding in his right
hand a cross, while the inscription attributed his victory to the power of that
“saving sign”.
The story of a vision or dream in which the cross was
displayed to Constantine, with a charge that he should use it as a device, and
with a promise of victory, is also related by other ecclesiastical writers. But
it is told with variations which, while they add to the presumption that it had
some foundation in truth, increase the difficulties of the account which
Eusebius professed to have received, under the sanction of an oath, from the
emperor shortly before his death. The literal accuracy of these narratives will
now find few defenders. Educated as Constantine had been, and after the
experience through which he had passed, it is extremely improbable that he
could have been so utterly unacquainted with everything relating to
Christianity as the historians here represent him. Perhaps we may fairly
suppose that he had been accustomed to regard the Christian God as one of
many—as standing on a level with the host of pagan deities; that the
circumstances of his opposition to Maxentius may have turned his thoughts
towards this God, and that he may have been on the outlook for some omen of the
future; that he may have seen a remarkable appearance in the air, which to his
excited imagination bore the form of the Christian symbol, while, although his
soldiers witnessed the same sight, it had not for them the shape or the meaning
with which the emperor's fancy invested it; that the motto (if not to be
explained in the same manner as the cross itself) may possibly have been
nothing more than the inference drawn from the phenomenon; that the dream was a
continuation of the thoughts in which the mind had before been engaged. And, if
it be assumed that Eusebius reported his hero’s relation with perfect accuracy,
it is surely not unwarrantable to suppose that the other circumstances may have
grown up within the emperor’s mind in the course of years, as his adhesion to
the Christian faith became more entire, and as his continued prosperity
confirmed him in the belief that he was an especial favourite of Heaven—a
belief which is strongly marked throughout his career.
The benefit conferred on the Christians by the edicts
of 312 and 313 was toleration, not ascendency over other religions; and if we
attempt to discover the progress of Constantine’s own opinions by his acts and
legislation, we find that much is doubtful and perplexing in the history
of his next years. He spoke of the Divinity in vague and ambiguous terms. He
omitted the secular games, which in the ordinary course would have been
celebrated in 314, to the great indignation of the Romans, he refused to take
part in the rites of Jupiter Capitolinus. He favoured the Christians in many
ways; he bestowed munificent gifts on the community, and built churches; he
committed the education of his son Crispus to the celebrated Christian
rhetorician Lactantius; he associated much with bishops, frequently making them
the companions of his table and of his journeys; he interfered in the
settlement of religious disputes. In 313 he exempted the catholic clergy from
the decurionate —an office which, from having once
been an object of ambition, had come to be generally regarded as an oppressive
burden, on account of the expense, the labour, and the unpopular functions
connected with it. As it was found that, in consequence of this law, many
persons, whose property rendered them eligible as decurions, pressed into the
minor orders of the church for the purpose of obtaining an exemption,
Constantine afterwards ordered that no person qualified for the decurionate should be admitted to ordination; that the
clergy should be chosen from the poorer members of the church: and that only so
many should be ordained as were necessary to fill up vacant places. But when
some cities attempted to reclaim those who had become clerks with the object of
evading civil office, the emperor ordered that such persons as were already
ordained should not be molested.
It would appear that in 315 Constantine exempted the
lands of ecclesiastics from the ordinary taxes—an exemption which was
afterwards withdrawn. In the same year he abolished crucifixion as a
punishment, and decreed that any Jews who should attempt to raise a tumult
against Christians should be burnt. In 316 he allowed that the emancipation of
slaves, which had until then been performed before a magistrate, might also
take place in churches; and, in order to give popularity to the new method, it
was divested of many troublesome formalities with which the act of emancipation
had formerly been encumbered. By two laws of the year 319 he forbade private
sacrifices and divination, and ordered that priests or diviners should not
enter dwelling-houses for the exercise of their art, under the penalty of being
burnt. But by the same laws the public exercise of such rites was still
permitted; and two years later, while the practice of magic with any hurtful
object was severely denounced, the emperor sanctioned the use of magical means
for bodily cures, or for the prevention of storms. In 321 an edict was issued
for the general observance of Sunday. Agricultural labours were to be carried
on, but in the towns there was to be a cessation from traffic and from judicial
business; and even the heathen soldiers were obliged to repeat on that day a
prayer to the supreme Deity. In the same year, as a concession to the zeal of
the Christians for celibacy, the old laws against unmarried and childless
persons were abolished; and by another edict the church was allowed to receive
legacies—a privilege which, in the event, had an important effect on its
temporal condition.
But as to all these enactments and proceedings it is
questionable in how far they may be regarded as evidence of the emperor’s
personal disposition towards Christianity. The omission of the secular games,
and the slight offered to the Capitoline Jupiter, need not have meant anything
beyond a contempt for the popular religion. The laws which conferred privileges
and removed disabilities did no more than put the Christian community on a
level with the heathens, or even with the Jews. The private divinations
condemned by Constantine were not properly a part of the old religion, but
rather were a corruption which a reformer in the interest of that religion
would have wished to abolish; they were, moreover, objectionable on political
grounds, and had therefore been censured by Diocletian, by Tiberius, and even
by so ancient an authority as the laws of the twelve tables. Nay, even the law
for the observance of Sunday—the festival of the sun, or Apollo, called by its
heathen name—while it had its special and sacred meaning for Christians, might
have been regarded by the rest of Constantine’s subjects as merely adding to
the number of holidays by an exercise of the pontifical authority which
belonged to him as emperor.
In seeking to understand Constantine's policy as to
religion, we must distinguish between the sovereign and the man. As emperor he
desired that his subjects should live in peace and order, and that the
framework of the constitution should be preserved; in this capacity, therefore,
it was his interest to avoid offending the prejudices of his people, to extend
to all an equal protection, to allow in religion a freedom of thought limited
only by the necessities of civil government. In his private opinions, which
were probably at first vaguely monotheistic, he received a determination in
favour of Christianity about the time of his march against Maxentius, and
thenceforth advanced by degrees until at length he openly avowed the faith of
the gospel. By thus considering separately his official and his personal
character, we may perhaps best understand much that at first sight appears
inconsistent; how he retained throughout his life the office of Pontifex
Maximus, the highest in the pagan hierarchy; how he took part in heathen
ceremonies, regarding them as attached to his imperial function; how, in two edicts
of the same year, he enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday, and directed the
regular consultation of the aruspices.
The joint triumph of Constantine and Licinius over
Maxentius and Maximin (314) was soon followed by differences which were decided
by the defeat of Licinius in the battles of Cibalis and Mardia. By a new partition of the empire all
Europe, except Thrace, was assigned to Constantine; but a revival of jealousies
produced another war, which ended in the ruin of Licinius. This prince, whom
some writers have very improbably supposed to have been once a catechumen,
oppressed his Christian subjects, perhaps regarding their religion as a token
of inclination to his rival's interest. He demolished churches, put some
bishops to death, and it is said that he was on the point of giving orders for
a general persecution when he was diverted by the progress of Constantine. The
emperors mustered their hosts under the standards of Christ and of
heathenism respectively; each party relied on presages and visions which were
supposed to come from heaven; and the triumph of Constantine was especially
ascribed to the God of Christians. From that time pagan emblems disappear from
his coins, and he declares himself in his edicts to be an instrument of God for
spreading the true faith.
Constantine now recalled all Christians who were in
exile or in the mines; he ordered that those who had been deprived of public
employments on account of their religion should be reinstated, that the
property of martyrs should be restored to their heirs, and that, if no heirs
could be discovered, it should be given to the church (A.D. 324). In an edict
addressed to all his subjects, he advised them to embrace the gospel; but at
the same time he professed to wish that it should be advanced by means of
persuasion only. He endeavoured, however, to render it attractive by bestowing
employments and honours on proselytes of the higher classes, and by donations
to the poor—a course which, as Eusebius himself acknowledges, produced a great
amount of hypocrisy and pretended conversion. He ordered that churches should
be everywhere built, of a size sufficient to accommodate the whole population.
He forbade the erection of images of the gods, and would not allow his own
statue to be set up in temples. All state sacrifices were prohibited, and such
of the provincial governors and officials as adhered to the old religion were
ordered to abstain from rites of this kind; yet other public sacrifices—those
which were undertaken by the priests, as distinguished from ceremonies
performed in the name of the state—were allowed to continue. There is reason to
suppose that in the end of his reign Constantine issued an edict against them;
but if so, it was little enforced. While the emperor exerted himself for the
elevation of the Christian community, he refrained from any such attacks on the
religion of the majority as would have been likely to excite opposition. His
measures were intended to appear as a reform of abuses which had crept into the
pagan system—not as directed against that system itself. Commissioners were
sent throughout the empire, with instructions to visit the temples and to
inquire into the worship which was performed in them; and these commissioners,
although unarmed, and unprotected by any military guard, were allowed to do
their work without hindrance—a circumstance which shows how little hold the
heathen religion retained on the general mind. In consequence of this
visitation, many statues were stripped of their precious ornaments, destroyed,
or carried away, and many impostures of the priests were exposed. Constantine
respected the temples in general, but he shut up and unroofed some which were
almost deserted, turned others into churches, and destroyed those which had
been the scenes of immoral rites or of pretended miracles.
The change in the position of Rome towards the empire,
which had originated in the policy or in the caprice of Diocletian, was carried
further by Constantine. He paid only two visits to the city after that which
followed his victory over Maxentius; and his reception was not such as to make
a favourable impression on his mind. With wonderful speed a new capital, called
after the emperor's name, was raised on the site of Byzantium. Whereas Rome was
the chief stronghold of heathenism, Constantinople was to be wholly a Christian
city. Churches were erected in every quarter, Statues of gods and illustrious
men were removed from the cities and temples of Greece and Asia to decorate the
streets and public places, while they served as trophies of victory over the old
religion. The chief room of the palace was adorned with representations of
sacred subjects, among which was one of the crucifixion. The gladiatorial
shows, and other barbarous exhibitions which formed the delight of the Romans,
were never allowed at Constantinople, although in the older capital the popular
feeling was as yet so strong that the emperor did not venture to interfere with
it.
In the outward duties of religion Constantine was very
diligent. He caused himself to be represented in the attitude of prayer on
coins and medals and in statues; he studied the Scriptures, and regularly
attended the services of the church; he kept the paschal vigil with great
devotion; he listened, standing, to the longest addresses of his bishops; he
even composed religious discourses, and after they had been translated from
Latin into Greek, with which he was but imperfectly acquainted, he delivered
them before his court. One of these sermons is still extant, having been
preserved as a specimen by Eusebius, to whom it is probably indebted for more
than its Greek idiom. In this composition the emperor recommends the Christian
religion, dwelling on the evidence borne by prophecy, with which he classes the
Sibylline verses and the fourth Eclogue of Virgil; and, as was his custom,
insisting strongly on the contrast between his own prosperity and the
calamities of princes who had persecuted the church. In his journeys he was
accompanied by a travelling chapel. Bishops were his chosen associates; and too
many of them were dazzled by the splendour of such a position, so that he found
them willing to let his faults pass uncensured, and to admit a dangerous amount
of interference in spiritual things. Eusebius relates that one of these
bishops—probably the historian himself—went so far in flattering the emperor
with assurances of salvation as even to draw down a rebuke from him. It has
indeed been maintained that Constantine's Christianity was merely a matter of
policy; but the charge is palpably unjust; for although some of his measures as
to religion were unquestionably dictated by political interest,—although his
understanding of Christian doctrine was very imperfect, and his life was far
from being that of a consistent believer,—there is no reasonable ground for
doubting that his conviction was sincere, and that he earnestly endeavoured to
employ his power for the benefit of the church and for the extension of the
truth.
The emperor's mother, Helena, was induced by him to
embrace his new religion, and during the remaining years of her life
distinguished herself by the fervour of her zeal and devotion. In 326 she
visited the Holy Land, with the intention of seeking out the places which had
been hallowed by the chief events of Scripture history. The site of the holy
sepulchre was to be marked by a church which should exceed all others in
splendour. The temple of Venus, with which Hadrian had defiled the place, was
demolished; the earth below it was dug up as polluted, when, it is said, three
crosses were discovered, and near them the label on which the superscription
had been written over the Saviour’s head. As, however, there was not enough to
distinguish with certainty the cross on which he had suffered, Macarius, bishop
of the city, proposed a test. A lady of his flock, who was supposed to be at
the point of death, was carried to the spot; prayers were put up that the true
cross might be revealed through her cure; and, after two of the three had been
applied to her in vain, the third wrought an instantaneous recovery. In addition
to the place of the entombment, those of the nativity and the ascension, and
the site of the oak or turpentine-tree of Mamre, were covered with churches, in
token of Helena's piety, and of the unrestricted bounty which Constantine
enabled her to exercise.
The reign of Constantine was marked by the beginning
of two great controversies—the Donatistic and the
Arian : the former arising in the west, out of a disagreement as to discipline;
the latter, of eastern origin, involving the very essence of Christian doctrine.
The emperor took part in both, but the goodness of his intentions was not
always directed by knowledge and sound judgment. Wielding an absolute power,
and imperfectly instructed as to the faith which he professed, he was
continually tempted to confound religious with civil considerations. Sometimes
the desire to preserve peace among his subjects induced him to view error with
indifference; at other times he regarded and punished the proceedings of
religious parties as offences against his imperial authority.
We have repeatedly had occasion to notice the peculiar
character which marked the Christianity of northern Africa. In that country
Montanism had found a congenial soil, and had acquired its great champion,
Tertullian. From Africa, too, it was that the Novatianist sect had in part derived its origin; and there its rigid principles had been
received with the greatest enthusiasm. There the strict view as to the nullity
of schismatical baptism had been maintained by
Cyprian; and in the history of that great bishop we have seen the extravagant
honour which the Christians of Africa attached to the outward acts of martyrdom
and confessorship.
In the persecution under Diocletian many of the
African Christians exhibited the characteristic spirit of their country. They
endeavoured to provoke martyrdom by violent behaviour; in some cases, it is
said, they were impelled to this by debts, disrepute, or wretchedness, and by
the hope of at once washing away in their blood the sins and crimes of a whole
life. To all such courses Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, was strongly opposed.
He himself, when asked to give up the sacred books of his church, substituted
for them some heretical writings. He forbade his people to visit in prison
those who had ostentatiously courted death; he refused to acknowledge such
persons as martyrs; and in carrying out this policy his chief instrument was
his archdeacon, Caecilian.
In the year 305, a synod of about twelve bishops met
at Cirta (now Constantine) to elect a bishop for that
city. The president, Secundus, bishop of Tigisis and
primate of Numidia, began by inquiring into the conduct of his brethren during
the late persecution. Several confessed that they had delivered up the
Scriptures; one, Purpurius by name, on being charged
with the murder of two of his nephews, told Secundus that he was not to be
frightened by such questions; that he had killed, and would kill, all who stood
in his way; and he taxed Secundus himself with being a traditor. When the
inquiry had proceeded so far as to inculpate the greater part of the bishops
who were present, one of them proposed that, for the sake of peace, past
offences should be forgotten, and that everyone should make his account to God
alone; and the synod, acting on this suggestion, proceeded to elect one who had
been a traditor, Silvanus, to the see of Cirta.
It is to be noted that the very persons who on this occasion were so lenient
towards the crime of traditorship became afterwards
the chief leaders of the more rigid party.
Although Mensurius had incurred much enmity by his
conduct during the persecution, the spirit which he had provoked did not break
out into any considerable manifestation during his lifetime. On his death,
which took place in 311, as he was returning from Rome, where he had been
summoned to appear before Maxentius, two presbyters, named Botrus and Celesius, aspired to the vacant see, and, for
their own purposes, contrived that the election should take place without
summoning the Numidian bishops. The choice, however, fell on the archdeacon
Caecilian, who was consecrated by Felix, bishop of Aptunga. Before leaving
Carthage, Mensurius had intrusted some plate and other property of the church
to certain elders of the congregation, and had left an inventory in the hands
of a female member of his flock. This document was now delivered to Caecilian,
who asked the elders to produce the articles enumerated in it; and these
persons, who had supposed themselves secure against inquiry, and had intended
to appropriate the deposit, endeavoured to avenge themselves by forming a party
in opposition to the new bishop. The faction was joined by the disappointed
presbyters, and was supported by the influence and wealth of Lucilla, a
lady whom Caecilian had formerly offended by reproving her for a practice of
kissing the bone of a supposed martyr before partaking of the Eucharist. In
consequence of an invitation from the malcontents, a body of Numidian bishops,
seventy in number, and headed by their primate, Secundus, appeared at Carthage.
They cited Caecilian before them, alleging that he ought not to have been
consecrated except in their presence, and by the primate of Numidia; and,
moreover, that his consecration was void, inasmuch as Felix of Aptunga was
a traditor. Personal charges were also brought against Caecilian. His
exertions to check the fanatical spirit during the persecution were exaggerated
into monstrous inhumanity; it was said that he had stationed men at the
prison-doors, with whips in their hands, to drive away such of the faithful as
should carry provisions for the relief of the martyrs; that he himself had
beaten some persons who went to the prison on this errand of charity; that he
had broken the vessels which they carried, and had scattered the food, so that
some of the prisoners had in consequence been starved to death. In answer to
the summons of the Numidians, Caecilian refused to appear before them, but
professed himself willing to satisfy them if they would go to him; he
maintained that his consecration was regular and valid, and offered, if they
could prove it otherwise, to submit to a fresh consecration at their hands. On
this Purpurius broke out with his usual violence:
“Let him come”, he said, “to receive our imposition of hands, and we will break
his head by way of penance”. The Numidians excommunicated Caecilian with his
adherents, and ordained a rival bishop, Majorinus, who had formerly been a
reader under him, but was now a member of Lucilla’s household. By this
formation of a decided schism, many persons, who had before stood aloof from
Caecilian, were induced to return to his communion.
Constantine, soon after becoming master of the west by
his victory over Maxentius, sent a large sum of money for the relief of the
African Christians; and as reports which reached him had produced impressions
unfavourable to the malcontent party, he ordered that his gifts, with the
privileges conferred on Christians by his late edicts should be limited to
those who were in communion with Caecilian, while he used some harsh language
as to the “madness” of their opponents. On this the discontented party, through
the proconsul Anulinus, presented to the emperor a
petition, desiring that their cause might be examined by the bishops of Gaul,
from whom it was supposed that impartiality might be expected, as their country
had been exempt from the late persecution, so that they had escaped the
difficulties and dissensions connected with the question of giving up the
Scriptures. Even such an application to the civil power—a request that it would
appoint a commission of ecclesiastical judges—was altogether inconsistent with
the attitude which the Donatists afterwards assumed towards the state; and
their adversaries did not fail in later times to remind them from which party
the original appeal to the emperor had proceeded.
Constantine complied with their request by issuing a
commission to the bishops of Cologne, Autun, and Arles, with whom he joined Melchiades (or Miltiades) of Rome, and another; but this
commission was afterwards extended, so that the assembly before which the cause
was tried consisted of about twenty bishops, who in October 313 met in the
Lateran, then the palace of the empress Fausta. Caecilian attended, with ten
bishops of his party; and a like number of accusers appeared, headed by
Donatus, bishop of Casse Nigra, in Numidia. The decision was in favour of
Caecilian, and Melchiades proposed a conciliatory
expedient—that both parties should reunite in communion, and that, where rival
bishops laid claim to a see, the bishop who had the earlier consecration should
keep possession. Donatus and his brethren, however, disdained all compromise.
They complained that their cause had not been sufficiently examined; they
renewed their charges; they accused the judges of corruption; they declared
that a synod of only twenty bishops was insufficient to overrule the sentence
of the seventy who had condemned Caecilian; and they prayed the emperor to
grant them a further hearing.
On this Constantine summoned a council from all parts
of the western empire to Arles, whither the judges, the accusers, and the
accused were conveyed at the public expense. About two hundred bishops—by far
the greatest ecclesiastical assembly that had yet been known (if the number be
rightly given),—met on the 1st of August 314, under the presidency of Marinus,
bishop of Arles. The bishops of Rome and of Ostia were represented by deputies.
The deliberations of the council resulted in a fresh acquittal of Caecilian,
and some canons were passed with a view to the African dissensions. It was
enacted that clergymen who had given up the Scriptures, the sacred vessels, or
the lists of the faithful, should be deposed, if convicted by the evidence of
public records, but that mere hearsay testimony was not to be admitted in such
cases; that false accusers should be excluded from communion, and should not be
readmitted until in prospect of death; that if a person in himself
unexceptionable had been ordained by a traditor, his ordination should
stand valid. And, for the settlement of the old question as to baptism, it was
decided that, where a person had received baptism from heretics in the name of
the Trinity, he should be admitted into the church by imposition of hands for
the conveying of the Holy Spirit; but that, if the proper form of words had not
been used, he should be rebaptized.
The defeated party entreated the emperor to take the
matter into his own hands—a request which contrasts strangely with the
principles which they afterwards maintained as to the independence of the
ecclesiastical power. Although offended by their obstinacy, Constantine agreed,
and, after some delays, the question was heard before him at Milan, where
he gave a sentence to the same effect with those already pronounced by the
synods of Rome and Arles. This judgment was followed up by severe edicts
against the sectaries. They were deprived of their churches; many of them
suffered banishment and confiscation; even the punishment of death was enacted
against them, although it does not appear that this law was enforced in
any case during the reign of Constantine.
Majorinus is supposed to have died in 315, or earlier,
and was succeeded in the schismatical episcopate by
Donatus “the Great”—so styled by his followers for the sake of distinction from
the bishop of Casae Nigrae.
It was from this second Donatus that the sect, which had before been known as
“the party of Majorinus”, took the name which it bears in history. He is
described as learned, eloquent, a voluminous writer, a man of rigid life, but
of excessive pride. He is said to have been desirous that his followers,
instead of being styled Christians in common with their opponents, should be
called after himself (although at a later time they resented the appellation)
to have carried himself loftily towards the other bishops of his communion; to
have scorned to receive the Eucharist in public; to have been very intemperate
in his language towards all who differed from him. His partisans boasted of his
miracles, and of the answers which he had received to prayer, and are charged
with paying him honours which trenched on those due to the Deity—with singing
hymns to him, and swearing by his grey hairs. The character of the sectaries
answered to that of their chief. They displayed an extreme austerity, which was
too often a pretext for the neglect of the more unpretending duties of morality
and religion. They professed to embody in each individual that holiness which
Scripture ascribes to the ideal church of Christ as a whole. They held that the
true church existed only in their own communion, which, with the exception of
one scanty congregation at Rome and the private chapel of a wealthy female
Donatist in Spain, was limited to a corner of Africa. They boasted of miracles
and revelations. They rebaptized proselytes, and compelled such professed
virgins as joined the party to submit to penance, and to renew their vows.
Constantine soon began to perceive that against such
fanaticism force would be as unavailing as reason. In 317 he wrote to the catholic
bishops of Africa, exhorting them to treat the schismatics with gentleness; and
when, in 321, the Donatists presented to him a memorial, in which they declared
that they would have nothing to do with his “scoundrel of a bishop”, he
repealed the laws against them, and allowed their exiles to return—expressing a
horror of their frenzy and turbulence, but declaring that he left them to the
judgment of God. This policy of indulgence was continued throughout the
remaining years of the reign, during which the emperor's attention was drawn
away from the African schism by the nearer and more widely-spread Arian
controversy. In the meanwhile the Donatists became the stronger party in
Africa. A synod of the sect in 330 was attended by two hundred and seventy bishops,
and the whole number of their bishops is said to have at one time amounted to
four hundred.
The appearance of the circumcellions among the Donatists is placed by some writers as early as 317, while others
date it a quarter of a century later. These were persons of the poorest class,
ignorant of any language but the Punic; their name was derived from the
practice of begging around the cells or cottages of the
country people, instead of earning a livelihood by regular industry. The
accounts of them might be disbelieved, as fictions of their enemies, were it
not that later experience forbids us to be hasty in rejecting statements of
extravagances and crimes committed under the name of religion. Their zeal was
often combined with excesses of drunkenness and lust; and in these the “sacred
virgins” of the party shared. Bands of both sexes roamed about the country,
keeping the peaceable inhabitants in constant terror. They styled themselves
the Lord’s champions; their shout of “Praises to God!” was heard, according to
St. Augustine, with greater dread than the roaring of a lion. Supposing that
our Lord’s words to St. Peter (Matt. XVI. 52) forbade them the use of swords,
they at first carried no other weapon than heavy clubs, called Israels, with
which they beat their victims—often to death; but the scriptural scruple was
afterwards overcome, and they added to their “Israels” not only slings, but
swords, lances, and hatchets. They attacked and plundered the churches and
houses of the catholic clergy; they committed violent outrages on their
persons; in later days they used to put out their eyes with a mixture of lime
and vinegar. Professing to redress the wrongs of society, they interfered
between creditors and their debtors, between masters and their slaves; offences
which deserved punishment were allowed to pass unnoticed, lest the circumcellions should be called in by the culprits; all
property was unsafe in the region infested by these furious fanatics; and the
officers of justice were afraid to perform their functions.
The frenzy of the circumcellions was directed against themselves as well as others. Sometimes they courted death
by violently disturbing the pagan worships. They stopped travellers on the
roads, and, with threats of killing them, demanded death at their hands. In the
same way, they compelled judges who were travelling on their circuits to hand
them over to the executioners. Many drowned themselves, rushed into fire, or
threw themselves from precipices; but hanging was a death which they eschewed,
because they would have nothing in common with the traditor Judas.
The more moderate Donatists disapproved and dreaded the excesses of the circumcellions. Councils of the sect condemned
suicide; but the practice continued, and those who perpetrated or procured
their own death were popularly honoured as martyrs.
Constans, who in 337 succeeded to the western part of
his father's empire, endeavoured to conciliate the Donatists by the same system
of presents which had been found effectual in winning proselytes from heathenism
to the church. It would seem that three such attempts were made; the agents in
the last of them were Paul and Macarius, who were sent into Africa in 347. When
these commissioners invited all Christians to share in the emperor's gifts,
Donatus repelled the offer with a great show of indignation : “What”, he asked,
“has the emperor to do with the church?”—and he forbade the members of his
communion to accept anything from traditors. It was reported that the
commissioners were charged to set up the emperor's image in churches for the
purpose of adoration. The circumcellions rose in
revolt, and a battle was fought, in which the imperial troops were
victorious—two Donatist bishops, the chief instigators of the insurrection,
being among the slain. Macarius then required the sectaries to return to the
church, and sentenced those who refused to banishment.
Optatus, the chief controversial opponent of Donatism
until the time of Augustine, acknowledges that they were treated with
harshness, but assures us that this was against the wishes of the catholic
bishops. The Donatists in Augustine's day used to speak of the “times of
Macarius” as those in which their forefathers had been most severely tried; and
they affected to call the catholics Macarians,
in memory of the persecutor. By the vigorous measures employed against them,
the schism appeared to be suppressed for a time, and Donatus died in exile.
The distinctive tenet of Arianism—the denial of the
Saviour's Godhead—had already appeared in the heresies of the Ebionites, of
Artemon, and of Theodotus. But now that Christianity had assumed a new
position, questions of doctrine produced an amount of agitation before unknown;
the Arian controversy, and some which followed it, were not only felt
throughout the whole church, but had an important effect on political affairs.
And, sad as it undoubtedly is to contemplate the distractions thus occasioned,
we must yet remember that by fighting out these differences, instead of
attempting to stifle them by compromise, the church gained a fixed and definite
form of sound words, which was of the greatest value, and even necessity, for
the preservation of her faith through the ages of ignorance which followed.
Although Alexandria was the birthplace of Arianism,
the origin of the heresy is rather to be traced to the other great church of
the east, over which Paul of Samosata had exerted a powerful and lasting
influence. While the Alexandrian tendency was spiritual and mystical, the
theologians of Antioch were given to dialectic subtleties, and were more
distinguished for acuteness than for largeness or depth of mind; and such was
the tone which prevailed in the school of Lucian, an eminent teacher of
Antioch, whose history has already been noticed. Lucian, induced rather by a sympathy
with Paul's spirit than by any near agreement in his opinions, left the church
together with the bishop, or in consequence of his condemnation: and although
he afterwards returned, and was honoured in the church as a martyr, the effects
of his teaching remained for evil. The Arians claimed him as their founder.
Among his pupils were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Leontius, and other persons who
became prominent as leaders of the party; even Arius himself has been reckoned
as one of them, although the connection appears very doubtful.
Arius is supposed to have been, like Sabellius, a
native of Libya or Cyrenaica. He is described as a man of strict life, of grave
appearance and agreeable manners—with an air of modesty, under which, according
to his enemies, he concealed strong feelings of vanity and ambition. After
having been ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, about the beginning
of the century, he became connected with a party which Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, the second in rank of the Egyptian sees, had
formed on grounds which appear to have resembled those of the Donatistic schism. For this, Arius was excommunicated by
Peter; but the next bishop, Achillas, readmitted him to the church, ordained
him presbyter, and intrusted him with a parochial cure in the city. On the
death of Achillas (A.D.311), after an episcopate of a few months, Arius is said
by some writers to have aspired to the bishopric; Philostorgius, a member of
his party, even states that he had a majority of votes, and that he voluntarily
gave way to Alexander, who was elected. But there is no good evidence for the
story of his having been a candidate at all.
Amidst contradictory reports as to the beginning of
the controversy, it seems to be certain that on some public occasion, when
Alexander was discoursing on the unity of the Divine Trinity, Arius charged his
doctrine with Sabellianism. Alexander at first endeavoured to convince him of
his error by friendly expostulations; but, finding that they were ineffectual,
that he himself was blamed for tolerating Arius, and that a presbyter named Colluthus even made this the pretext for a schism, the
bishop appointed a conference, at which, after having heard the arguments on
both sides with judicial impartiality, he decided against Arius. The
condemnation was ratified by a synod of Egyptian and Libyan bishops; and the
heresiarch with his adherents was excommunicated.
Arius found many to sympathize with him—partly from
the attractiveness of a doctrine which brought down the mysteries of the
Godhead to the sphere of human analogies and conceptions; partly because the
multitude is usually ready to take part with any one who may suffer from the
exercise of lawful authority. Among his followers were two bishops, about
twelve presbyters and as many deacons, and a great number of virgins. Being
unable to remain at Alexandria, he took refuge in Palestine, and a lively
correspondence followed—Arius endeavouring to gain friends by veiling his more
offensive opinions, while Alexander dispersed warnings against him, and
withstood all the intercessions of the historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,
and of others who attempted to mediate.
Among these was another Eusebius, who had been
associated with Arius as a disciple or admirer of Lucian, and was now bishop of
Nicomedia. Eusebius procured from a Bithynian synod an acknowledgment of his
friend as orthodox, and received him when he had been dislodged from Palestine
through the influence of the Alexandrian bishop. At Nicomedia the heresiarch
composed his Thalia—a book chiefly consisting of verses, and described by
his opponents as an imitation of a heathen versifier named Sotades,
whose writings are said to have been alike disgusting in subject and
contemptible in execution. The Thalia was intended to advance
the Arian doctrine by introducing it into pieces which might be sung as an
accompaniment of meals; and with a like view Arius wrote songs for millers,
sailors, and travellers. The character of his mind, as exhibited in his heresy
and in the arguments for it, forbids us to suppose that these productions had
anything of poetry except the form.
Constantine, on becoming master of the east, found the
church distracted by the newly-risen controversy. In the hope of allaying this
he wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius jointly—telling them that belief in a
Providence was the one essential doctrine of Christianity, while he reproved
them for contending about idle questions and imaginary differences, and
recommended peace and unity, which, he said, they might learn even from the
manner in which the heathen philosophers conducted their disputes. This
document has been highly extolled as a model of wisdom and moderation, but
would better deserve the praise if the Godhead of the Redeemer were, in a
Christian view, that utterly trifling matter which the emperor then supposed it
to be. Armed with the imperial letter, Hosius, bishop of Cordova, to whom the
settlement of the affair was committed, proceeded to Alexandria, and held a
synod; but, although he succeeded in healing the schism of Colluthus, the only result as to the Arian question was to
convince him that the Arians were impracticable. The dissensions occasioned by
the controversy had by this time become very serious; the disputes of the
Christians were ridiculed in the heathen theatres; and in some places the
emperor's statues were treated with indignity.
Constantine now took a new view of the affair. He
began to understand that the doctrine at stake was of the highest and most
essential importance; and, moreover, the Arians appeared to him as disturbers
of the public peace. In order, therefore, to a settlement of the controversy,
and of the disputes as to the time of Easter, which had been lately revived, he
summoned a general council of the whole church, to be held at Nicaea, in
Bithynia. It was the first time that such an assemblage, had been possible; for
never until now had the east and the west been united under a sovereign
professing the Christian faith : and the summons necessarily proceeded from the
imperial authority, as being the only authority which was acknowledged by all
the Christians of the empire.
Something has been said in a former chapter as to the
manner in which the Christian doctrines on such subjects as that which was now
in question had gradually been defined and exhibited. In the earlier time, down
to the age of Irenaeus, the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost had
been strongly held; so strongly, indeed, that the language of the fathers might
have been misconstrued into something like Sabellianism. When heresies of that
character had appeared, from the time of Praxeas downwards, they had been met by declarations which tended to establish the
distinction of the Divine Persons, with a subordination of the Second and the
Third as ministering to the First. The task appointed for the fourth century
was to reconcile and to combine the truths which had thus been successively
brought into prominence.
The terms by which the relations of the Divine Being
had been expressed were intended to be regarded as complementary of each other
in conveying such a shadow of the mystery as is within the compass of human
thought and language; and, if taken singly, they were liable to be
misunderstood. Thus the term Son, while it expressed the sameness of nature and
the derivation of “God from God”, was defective, inasmuch as it suggested ideas
of posteriority, inferiority, material generation, and too great personal
distinctness. On the other hand, the term Word or Reason conveyed the ideas of
coeternity, essential indwelling, and mediation, but tended to obscure that of
personality—rather suggesting that the Second was to the First as an attribute
or a mode of operation. On the incompleteness of such images Arius founded his
heresy. His original objection against Alexander was, that, if the Son were
begotten, the Father was anterior to him; therefore the Son had a beginning;
“once he was not”. He could not (it was argued) have been taken from the
Father's substance; therefore he was made out of nothing. And thus, by a
sophism drawn from the title of Son, Arius concluded against the very doctrine
which that term was expressly intended to convey—the identity of nature
between the Second Person and the First. The Word, he said, was created by the
Father, at his own will, before the worlds —before all time. He was the highest
of creatures—“a creature, yet not as one of the creatures”—and therefore styled
only begotten. He was framed after the pattern of the indwelling Divine Logos
or Wisdom, enlightened by it, and called by its name. But although the Arians
exhausted language in expressing the height of the Son’s elevation, they yet,
by representing him as a creature, removed him to an infinite distance from the
supreme Source of being. They assigned him a part like that of the gnostic
demiurge in the work of creation; God (they said) created by him, because the
Divinity itself could not come into contact with the finite world. According to
them, he was employed in creation as an instrument, whereas in catholic
language the Father was said to have wrought by him as by a hand. It was said
that the Son was styled God in an inferior sense—as men also are occasionally
so styled in Scripture. The texts in which he himself speaks of his unity with
the Father were explained as signifying either a mere agreement of will, or an
indwelling of God in him after the same manner as in men.
The peculiar weapon of Arius was logic; his mind was
incapable of any speculation which rose into a higher region. The details
of his system are obscured, partly by the variations to which he resorted as
the consequences of his principles were pressed on him; partly by his own
recoil from results which he had not foreseen or understood; and partly from
his wish to disguise his opinions in such terms as might seem most plausible to
the orthodox, and might be most likely to win for him the sympathy of the
undiscerning. Among the doctrines which he once held and afterwards retracted
was that of the mutability of the Son’s will. He might, it was said, have
fallen like Satan; the Father, foreseeing that he would not fall, anticipated
the reward of his merits by bestowing on him the titles of Son and Logos, which
he was afterwards to earn.
The incarnation, according to Arius, was merely the
assumption by the Son of a human body—his nature supplying the place of a soul.
Hence scriptural expressions, which really relate to the Saviour’s humanity,
were applied to his pre-existent nature, and it was argued from them that that
nature was inferior to the Divine.
The first general council met at Nicaea in June 325.
The number of bishops present was about three hundred, and with them were many
of the lower clergy. Even some heathen philosophers were attracted to the place
of assembly and held conferences and disputes with the bishops.
The controversy had not yet begun to agitate the west;
and from that portion of the emperor's dominions there were only Hosius of
Cordova, Caecilian of Carthage, and two Roman presbyters, Vito and Vincent,
sent as representatives of their bishop, Sylvester, whose age prevented his
attendance. One bishop came from Scythia, and one from Persia, while the great
body were from the eastern division of the empire. Among those who were thus
assembled there was, no doubt, much variety as to their amount of ability and
knowledge; but the object of their meeting was not one which required any high
intellectual qualifications. For the more subtle arguments and definitions were
not introduced into the controversy until a later time, and the fathers who
assembled at Nicaea were not called to reason on the grounds of their belief,
but to witness to the faith which the church had held on the disputed subjects.
It has been supposed by some writers that Eustathius of Antioch was president;
by some, that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch presided by turns; while
others have assigned the chief place to Eusebius of Caesarea. The most general
opinion, however, is in favour of Hosius, whose name is first among the
subscriptions but there is no ground whatever for the idea that the office
belonged to him in the character of a Roman legate, or that he held that
character in any way. The number of bishops favourable to Arius is variously
stated at thirteen, seventeen, and twenty-two; the most eminent among them were
the two Eusebiuses, —who, however, did not fully
agree in doctrine, as the bishop of Nicomedia carried his views to the whole
length of the heresy, while the historian's opinions appear to have been of the
class afterwards styled semi-Arian. In the
earlier sessions, which seem to have been held in a church, Arius was
repeatedly heard by the fathers in defence of his opinions. He avowed his
heresy without disguise, and it is said that the avowal caused all who were
present to stop their ears. His chief opponents in argument were Marcellus,
bishop of Ancyra, and Athanasius, archdeacon of Alexandria, who was in
attendance on his bishop, Alexander.
About a fortnight after the opening of the council,
Constantine arrived at Nicaea, and the sittings were transferred to the palace
where the emperor appeared at them, and acted as a moderator. Immediately on
his arrival, he found himself beset by bishops who eagerly importuned him to
listen to their grievances against each other; and as these quarrels were not
only scandalous, but seemed likely to interfere with the proper business of the
council, he resolved to put a summary end to them. Having appointed a day for
the decision of such matters, he took his seat as judge, and received all the
memorials which contained the mutual complaints and recriminations of the
bishops. Then, after having shortly exhorted them to unity and concord, he
burnt the documents without opening them, “lest the contentions of the priests
should become known to any one”. After this, the council proceeded to the
discussion for which it had been assembled. The partisans of Arius, and
especially that section of which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the leader,
attempted to shelter themselves under ambiguous terms. Eusebius
of Caesarea offered for acceptance a creed which he declared to be
agreeable to the faith which he had received from his predecessors, which he
had learnt as a catechumen, and had always held and taught; but this
document, although of orthodox appearance, was so artfully framed as to evade
the very questions which it was the business of the council to determine. He
censured the terms proposed by the Catholics, as not being scriptural;—a futile
objection, inasmuch as the matter in dispute was the sense of those Scriptures
which all professed to accept; and somewhat shameless, as coming from a party
which had opened the controversy by the introduction of terms unknown to
Scripture.
In order to meet the evasions of this creed, the
word homoousion (i.e. of the same substance or essence)
was proposed. Objections were taken to it, as tending to suggest the notion of
materiality, as obscuring the personal distinction, as having been connected
with some heretical systems, and, in particular, as having been condemned
(although in another sense) by the council which deposed Paul of Samosata.
Eusebius, however, acknowledged that it had been used by fathers of good
repute, and at length he agreed to adopt it. A creed was drawn up, resembling
that of Eusebius, and, like it, mainly derived from the older forms of the
eastern church, but differing from it by the addition of the necessary
safeguards against the Arian errors; and this creed, with a solemn condemnation
of Arius, was generally signed by the bishops—among the rest by
Eusebius himself, whose adhesion, as explained in a letter to his flock,
was more creditable to his ingenuity than to his candour. The learned and
courtly historian professed to have accepted the word homoousion as
meaning that the Son was like the Father, and unlike all the other creatures;
and to have joined in the condemnation of Arius because the censured terms were
novel and unscriptural, but without intending either to pronounce the opinions
in question false, or to affirm that they were held by the accused.
The paschal question was settled by a decision against
the quartodeciman practice. Twenty canons were passed
on various subjects connected with the government and discipline of the church;
and the deliberations of the council were succeeded by the celebration of
Constantine’s Vicennalia, during which he entertained
the bishops at a splendid banquet, and, after having exhorted them to cultivate
peace among themselves, dismissed them with a request that they would pray for
him.
The emperor followed up the council’s judgment by
banishing Arius into Illyria, and including in the sentence two Egyptians,
Secundus and Theonas, who were the only bishops that had throughout adhered to
the heresiarch. Severe penalties were denounced against Arius and his
followers, and it was even made a capital offence to possess his writings.
Constantine ordered that the party should be styled Porphyrians,—
a name derived from that of the latest noted controversialist who had appeared
on the side of heathenism and intended to brand the Arians as enemies of the
Christian faith; and in a letter addressed to the heresiarch, the emperor, not
content with vehemently attacking his doctrine, and condescended to pun on his
name and to ridicule his personal appearance. Three months after the council,
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, who had subscribed the creed but
not the anathema, were condemned by a local synod on some new charge; and the
emperor, who had given orders for their trial, sentenced them to banishment.
Within a few months after his return from Nicaea,
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, died. Athanasius, whom he had recommended for
his successor in the see, was then absent,—having, it would seem, intentionally
prolonged his absence on a mission to the court from a wish to avoid the
dangerous and laborious dignity. He was, however, chosen by general
acclamation; and although some faint charges of irregularity were afterwards
brought against the manner of his appointment, it would seem to have been
really beyond exception. From the age of thirty to that of seventy-six
Athanasius held the see, devoting himself with all his powers to the assertion
of the orthodox doctrine, which for him was no speculative opinion, but was
intimately connected with the whole Christian life. To his abilities and
constancy is due, under the Divine Providence, the preservation of the eastern
church, and perhaps even of the whole church, from the adoption of the Arian
heresy, or from a vague and creedless system, which would probably have issued
in an utter abandonment of Christianity. He displays in his writings a manly
and direct eloquence; a remarkable and unusual combination of subtlety with
breadth of mind; extreme acuteness in argument, yet at the same time a
superiority to mere contentiousness about words. His unbending steadiness of
purpose was united with a rare skill in dealing with men; he knew when to give
way, as well as when to make a show no resistance. His activity, his readiness,
his foresight, his wonderful escapes and adventures, gave countenance to the
stories of magical art which circulated among his enemies, and to the belief of
his admirers that he possessed the gifts of miracles and prophecy. Throughout
all his troubles he was supported by the attachment of his people, and of the
hundred bishops who owned allegiance to the see of Alexandria.
The Arian party in no long time began to gain strength
in the imperial court. Constantia, the widow of Licinius and sister of
Constantine—a princess who had been under the influence of Eusebius of
Nicomedia—was persuaded by a presbyter whose name is said by writers of later
date to have been Eutocius, that Arius had been
misrepresented and unjustly condemned. When on her death-bed, she endeavoured
to impress her brother with the same belief, and recommended the presbyter to
him; and by this man the emperor, whose apprehension of the question had never
been independent or discerning, was persuaded to invite Arius to his court. The
heresiarch appeared, with Euzoius, a deacon of
Alexandria, who had been included in the excommunication. They produced a
creed, which although defective in the critical points, was expressed in
inoffensive, and for the most part scriptural, terms; and Constantine was
satisfied of their orthodoxy. Eusebius and Theognis also soon obtained a
recall, protesting that they had no sympathy with the errors imputed to Arius;
that their only offence had been that of doubting whether he held these
errors—a doubt, they said, which the emperor himself had lately justified.
The Arian or Eusebian party had now full possession of
court influence, and they made an unscrupulous use of it to eject such catholic
bishops as stood in the way. Among these was Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, who
had offended them by charging Eusebius of Caesarea with unfaithfulness to the
Nicene doctrine. Eusebius retorted by an accusation of Sabellianism—an error
which the Arianizers habitually imputed to their
orthodox opponents; and at a party synod, held in his own city, the bishop of
Antioch was deposed on charges of heresy and adultery, which were alike
unfounded. As the attachment of his people to Eustathius, and their
indignation at this sentence, appeared to threaten a disturbance of the public
peace, the emperor's jealousy was aroused, and the bishop was sent into exile.
After two Arians in succession had held the see for a short time, Eusebius was
solicited to accept it; he declined, however, and his refusal was approved by
the emperor.
The occupant of the other great eastern see was far
more obnoxious, not only on account of his formidable character and talents,
but as being the bishop of that church from which Arius had been expelled, and
through which it was desired by his partisans that he should be formally
readmitted to catholic communion. After Eusebius of Nicomedia had in vain
attempted to mediate, the emperor himself was persuaded to write to Athanasius,
requiring him to receive Arius with his followers, and threatening deposition
and banishment in case of refusal. But the undaunted bishop replied that he
could not acknowledge persons who had been condemned by a decree of the whole
church; and Constantine desisted from urging the matter.
The Arians now made overtures to the Meletians. The
council of Nicaea had endeavoured to provide for the healing of the Meletian
schism by an arrangement as to the possession of sees which were claimed both
by catholic and by Meletian bishops, but Meletius, although for a time he
acquiesced in this measure, had afterwards been persuaded to continue the
breach by ordaining one John to succeed him as the chief of his community.
The Meletians, in their enmity against the Alexandrian primate, were easily
induced to lend themselves as tools to his Arian opponents; and, although
hitherto free from doctrinal error, they gradually became infected with the
heresy of their new allies. In the alleged grievances of the Meletians the
Arians found means of besieging the emperor with a multitude of complaints against
Athanasius; but the bishop exposed the futility of these complaints so
successfully as even for a time to turn Constantine's indignation against the
authors of them.
In 334 Athanasius was summoned to appear before a
council at Caesarea, but disregarded the citation on the ground that he could
not expect justice at the hands of such a tribunal. In the following year was
cited before another council, to be held at Tyre; and as the order was then
enforced by the imperial authority, with threats of personal violence, he
thought it well to comply. At this assembly sixty bishops were present, and a
lay commissioner of the emperor directed and overawed their proceedings.
Athanasius appeared at the head of fifty Egyptian bishops, and was about to
take the place to which the dignity of his see entitled him, when he was
ordered by the president, Eusebius of Caesarea, to stand, as being a person
under accusation. On this one of the Egyptian bishops, Potammon,
a man of high repute for sanctity, is said to have addressed Eusebius: “Do you
sit, while the innocent Athanasius is tried before you? Remember how you were
my fellow-prisoner in the persecution. I lost an eye for the truth : by what
compliances was it that you came off unhurt?”. Eusebius found it expedient to
evade the question. “Your behavior”, he answered,
“gives countenance to the charges against your party; for if you try to play
the tyrants here, no doubt you must do so much more at home”. And he broke up
the meeting for the day.
Athanasius was arraigned on a variety of charges, some
of them arising out of collisions with the remaining adherents of Meletius and Colluthus, in the course of the visitations which he
indefatigably performed throughout his vast province. The most serious was,
that he had killed a Meletian bishop named Arsenius, had cut off one of his
hands, and had used it for magical purposes; and a human hand was exhibited in
evidence of these crimes. In answer to all these charges, Athanasius defended
himself boldly and triumphantly. The story as to Arsenius was refuted by
producing the man himself, alive and unmutilated,—the friends of Athanasius
having succeeded in discovering him, notwithstanding the endeavours of the
opposite party to keep him concealed. As the case against Athanasius had thus
broken down, a commission, chosen from among his bitterest enemies, was sent
into the Mareotis to collect fresh evidence against him. He protested against
the unfair composition of this body; and, without waiting for the result of its
inquiries, he embarked for Constantinople, threw himself in the emperor's way
as he was riding near the city, and, reminding him of the judgment at which
they must both one day appear, extorted from him a promise of a new
investigation in the imperial presence. Constantine was so far moved by this
appeal that he wrote in a tone of reproof to the council, which had already
decreed the deposition and excommunication of Athanasius, and, having removed
to Jerusalem for the purpose of dedicating the magnificent church which
the emperor had lately erected over the holy sepulchre, had there admitted
Arius and Euzoius to communion.
The leaders of the Arian faction persuaded the other
bishops to return to their homes, and themselves repaired to Constantinople.
Dropping the charges on which they had condemned Athanasius in the council,
they asserted that he had threatened to stop the sailing of the Egyptian fleet,
on which the new capital depended for its supplies of corn. The accusation was
well devised with a view to rouse Constantine’s jealousy; for on a similar
suspicion he had a few years before put to death a philosopher named Sopater,
who had long enjoyed his intimacy; and the artifice of the Arians was
successful. Whether from belief of the charge, from a wish to remove so
influential a man from a scene where he might be dangerous, with a view of
withdrawing him for a time from exposure to the malice of his enemies, the
emperor banished Athanasius to Treves, where the champion of orthodoxy found an
honourable reception at the court of the younger Constantine.
But the spirit of its bishop continued to animate
the Alexandrian church. The attempts of Arius to obtain re-admission were
steadily repelled; and at length reports of disturbances occasioned by his
proceedings induced the emperor to summon him to Constantinople. A council
which was sitting there condemned Marcellus of Ancyra, one of Athanasius’ most
conspicuous partisans, on a charge of Sabellianism, to which he had at least
given countenance by the use of incautious language; and it is said that the
same council ordered the admission of Arius to communion. The heresiarch
appeared before the emperor, and without hesitation subscribed a profession of
orthodoxy, declaring that he had never held any other doctrine. With this
compliance Constantine was satisfied, and sending for the bishop, Alexander, he
told him that Arius must be received into communion on the following day, which
was Sunday. Alexander, who had occupied the see of Byzantium while it was as
yet an undistinguished city, and had now almost completed his hundredth year,
had already been threatened by Eusebius of Nicomedia with deposition in case of
a refusal, and had been for weeks engaged with his flock in solemn
deprecation of the intended evil. On leaving the emperor’s presence, he entered
the church of Peace, prostrated himself under the holy table, and prayed that,
rather than he should witness such a profanation, either he himself or the
heresiarch might be taken from the world. On the evening of the same day, Arius
was parading the streets of the city on horseback amidst a large party of his
adherents, talking lightly and in a triumphant tone of the ceremonies appointed
for the morrow, when the pressure of a natural necessity compelled him to
dismount and withdraw. He was soon after found dead, and his end is related
with circumstances which are intended by the narrators to recall to mind that
of the traitor Judas.
Notwithstanding the part which Constantine had taken
in the affairs of the church, he had not yet been received as a member of it by
baptism, when, in his sixty-fourth year, he was seized with a dangerous
sickness, at a palace near Nicomedia. Feeling the approach of death, he sent
for some bishops, to whom he declared that he had deferred his baptism from a
wish to receive it in the waters of Jordan, but that, as the opportunity of
doing so was denied to him, he begged them to administer the sacrament. After
having been admitted by imposition of hands to the highest class of
catechumens, he was baptized by the bishop of the neighbouring city, Eusebius,
and during the remaining days of his life he retained the white robe of
baptism, refusing to wear the imperial purple. On Whitsunday at noon, in the
year 337, he expired.