precedence, or pre-eminence, unattended by any authority; and this precedence is attributed, first, to the Imperial name of Rome, and next to the superiority in wealth, which he seems to have acquired at a very early period; to the splendour and extent of his religious administration, and the influence naturally rising from these causes.

The simple establishment of the Church, such as we have now described it without anticipating the measures of State afterwards applied, or misapplied, to the support of it, was favourable not only to the progress of Christianity, but also to the concord of Christians; the former has never been disputed; as to the latter, we have seen by what a cloud of heresies the religion was overshadowed before its establishment; and no one can reasonably doubt, that the additional sanction given to the Gospel by imperial adoption, and the greater dignity and influence and actual power thus acquired by its regular ministers in every province of the Empire, would conduce to dissolve and disperse them. They did so-but while the numerous forms of error, of which we have treated, fell for the most part into silence and disrepute, there was one, of which we have yet made no mention, which grew up into such vigour and attained so much consistency, that there seemed to be danger lest it should possess itself of the high places, and occupy the sanctuary itself. Its progress, and the means adopted to oppose it, form the subject of the following chapter. We shall conclude the present with one or two observations.

It is one favourite opinion of most sceptical writers, that Christianity is entirely indebted for its general propagation and stability to the Imperial patronage of Constantine; it is another, that the establishment of the Church led to the disunion of its members, and its prosperity to its corruption. The first of those theories is falsified by the history of the three first centuries-during which we observe the religion to have been gradually but rapidly progressive throughout the whole extent of the Roman Empire, in spite of the persecution of some Emperors, the suspicious jealousy of others, and the indifference of the rest. We need not dwell longer on this fact; especially as it is virtually admitted by those same writers, when it suits them to attribute Constantine's pretended conversio. to his policy. The second of their assertions has a greater show of truth, but is, in fact, almost equally erroneous. A fairer view of that question, and, if we mistake not, the correct view, is the following-the establishment of the Church was in itself highly beneficial both to the progress of religion, and to the happiness of society-the mere pacific alliance of that Body with the State was fraught with advantage to the whole Empire, with danger to no member of it. Many evils indeed did follow it, and many vexations were inflicted by Christians upon each other in the perverse zeal of religious controversy. But such controversies, as we have sufficiently shown, had existed in very great abundance, very long before Christianity was recognised by law; and the vexations were not at all the necessary consequence of that recognition. They originated, not in the system itself, but in the blindness of those who administered it; they proceeded from the fallacious supposition-that which afterwards animated the Romish Church, and which has misled despots and bigots in every age that unanimity in religious belief and practice was a thing attainable; and they were conducted on a notion equally remote from reason, that such unanimity, or even the appearance of it, could be attained by force. Many ages of bitter experience have been necessary to prove the absurdity of these notions, and the fruitless wickedness of the measures proceeding from them. But a candid inquirer will admit that they were not at all inseparably connected with the establishment of

the Church; and that that Body would not only have continued to exisand to flourish, without any interference of civil authority to crush its adversaries, but that it would have subsisted in that condition with more dignity, and more honour, and much more security.

Note on
Eusebius.

The prosperity of the Church was unquestionably followed by an increase in the number and rankness of its corruptions. But unhappily we have already had occasion to observe, that several abuses had taken root in all its departments, during at least that century which immediately preceded the reign of Constantine-to the fourth we may undoubtedly assign the extravagant honours paid to Martyrs, and the shameful superstitions which arose from them. But we should also recollect, that many among the Romish corruptions are of a much later date, and that several may be directly referred to the influence of expiring Paganism, not to the gratuitous invention of a wealthy and degenerate priesthood. Indeed, we should add, that in respect to the moral character of the clergy of the fourth century, they seem rather chargeable with the narrow, contentious, sectarian spirit, which was encouraged and inflamed by the capricious interference of the civil power, than with any flagrant deficiency in piety and sanctity of life. (Euseb. H. E. lib. vii. c. i.) The name of Eusebius has been so frequently referred to in this History, that being now arrived at the age in which he flourished, we are bound to give some account of his life and character. He is believed to have been born at Cæsarea in Palestine, about the year 270; he was raised to that See about 315, and died in 339, or 340; being thus (within two or three years) contemporary with his Emperor, and his friend, in the three circumstances of his birth, his dignity, and his death. He was extremely diligent and learned, and the Author of innumerable volumes.'* among those which still exist, his Ecclesiastical History, and his Life of Constantine, furnish us with the best lights which we possess respecting his own times, and with our only consecutive narrative of the previous fortunes of Christianity. Eusebius admits, in the first chapter of his History, that he has entered upon a desolate and unfrequented path;' and in gleaning the scattered records of preceding writers, and presenting them for the most part in their own language and on their own authority, he has indeed very frequently discovered to us the scantiness of the harvest and the poverty of the soil. Still in that respect he has faithfully discharged his historical duties, and has rescued much valuable matter from certain oblivion. In this indeed consists one peculiar merit of his History, that it unfolds to us a number of earlier memoirs, written immediately after the events which they describe, and on all of which we are at liberty to exercise our critical judgment, as to the credit which may be due to them, without also involving that of Eusebius in our conclusion. But respecting the historical candour of the Author, when he speaks in his own person, and the fidelity with which he has delivered such circumstances as were well known to him, a few words are necessary, because the question is not usually stated with fairness.

And

In describing the sufferings of the Christians during the last persecution, Eusebius † (H. E. lib. viii. c. ii.) admits that it does not agree with ' our plan to relate their dissensions and wickedness before the persecution, on which account we have determined to relate nothing more concerning them than may serve to justify the Divine Judgment. We have

Jerome de Vir. Illust. c. xxxi.

+ In Vit. Constant. cap. ix., he makes the same sort of profession.

'therefore not been induced to make mention, either of those who were 'tempted in the persecution, or of those who made utter shipwreck of ' their salvation, and were sunk of their own accord in the depths of the 'storm; but shall only add those things to our General History, which 'may in the first place be profitable to ourselves, and afterwards to posterity.' And in another passage he asserts, that the events most suitable to a History of Martyrs' are those which redound to their honour. From these two passages it appears that Eusebius in his relation of that persecution has suppressed the particulars of the dissensions and scandals which had prevailed among the faithful, because he judged such accounts less productive of immediate edification and future profit, than the celebration of their virtues and their constancy. We may remark that in this determination, his first error was one of judgment—if indeed he imagined that the great lessons of History were more surely taught by the records of what is splendid and glorious, than by the painful, but impressive story of human imperfection, and of the calamities which man has gathered from his own folly and wickedness. But his second and less pardonable deviation was from principle-there is a direct and avowed disregard of the second fundamental precept of historical composition. However, the crime is less dangerous because it is avowed, and more excusable because less dangerous; and at any rate, if we shall perceive, in the general course and character of the work, a disposition to investigate diligently, and represent faithfully, we shall be disposed to confine our doubts to those portions only, which the writer has not even professed to treat with entire fidelity; and in the vast multitude of circumstances, in which the honour of the Martyrs is not concerned, we shall approach our only fountain of information with a confidence not much impaired by a partial dereliction of principle, which is fairly admitted.

But that delinquency of Eusebius which we have just mentioned is confined to the suppression of truth-it does not proceed to the direct assertion of falsehood-we shall now notice a still more serious suspicion, to which he has rendered himself liable. The thirty-first chapter of the twelfth book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous proposition*- How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, for the advantage of those who require such a method.' We have already deplored, with sorrow and indignation, the fatal moment, when fraud and falsehood were first admitted into the service of religion. Philosophy, in the open array of her avowed hostility, was not so dan

We purposely copy the language of Gibbon (Vindication, p. 137, 2d ed.) Still we should fail in doing perfect justice to Eusebius, if we did not publish, together with the proposition, the very short chapter in which it is treated. It begins with a quotation from Plato (De Leg. 2.) A legislator of any value-even if the fact were not such as our 'discourse has just established it-if in any case he might make bold to deceive young persons for their advantage; could he possibly inculcate any faisehood more profitable 'than this, or more potent to lead all without force or compulsion to the practice of all 'justice?' 'Truth, my friend, is honourable and permanent; but not, it would seem, very easy of persuasion." To this somewhat hypothetical passage of Plato, Eusebius adds"You may find a thousand such instances in the Scriptures, where God is described as ❝ jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or liable to other human affections, so expressed for the ad“ vantage of those who require such a method (ἐπ' ὠφελείᾳ τῶν δεομένων τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου.) This is all that is said on the subject, and it shows us perhaps to what limits Eusebius intended to confine the application of his proposition. And thus Gibbon's account of the chapter, though it may be literally true, is calculated to mislead. In this chapter (says he) Eusebius alleges a passage of Plato, which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds; nor is he ashamed to justify the sentiments of the Athenian Philo sopher by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament,'

gerous as when she lent to her undisciplined adversaries her own poisoned weapons, and placed them in unskilful hands, as implements of selfdestruction. It was disgraceful to the less enlightened fathers of the second and third centuries, that, even in the midst of trial and tribulation,. they borrowed a momentary succour from the profession of falsehood—but the same expedient was still more shameful to Eusebius, who flourished during the prosperity of the Church, whose age and more extensive learning left him no excuse in ignorance or inexperience, and whose great name and unquestionable piety gave sanction and authority to all his opinions. There can be no doubt then, that the publication of that detestable principle in any one of his writings, however modified and limited by his explanation, must, to a certain extent, disturb our confidence in the rest -the mind which does not profess to be constantly guided by truth possesses no claim to our implicit submission. Nevertheless, the works of Eusebius must at last be judged by the character which severally pervades them, not by any single principle which the Author has once only laid down; to which he has not intended (as it would seem) to give general application, and which he has manifestly proposed rather as a philosophical speculation, than as a rule for his own composition. At least we feel convinced, that whoever shall calmly peruse his Ecclesiastical History will not discover in it any deliberate intention to deceive-in the relation of miraculous stories, he is more sparing than most of the Church Historians who succeeded him, and seemingly even than those whom he has copied -and upon the whole, we shall not do him more than justice, if we consider him as an avowed, but honest advocate, many of whose statements must be examined with suspicion, while the greater part bear direct and incontestable marks of truth.*

CHAPTER VII.

The Arian Controversy.

Controversies among Christians-their origin-how distinguished from philosophical disputationstheir character-accounted for. Constantine's conduct toward Heretics and origin of the Arian con. troversy-Alexander-Arius-his opinions-followers-Interference of the Emperor-Council of Nice-various motives of those assembled-their proceedings and decision-Proposal of Eusebius of Cæsarea-Gibbon's account of this Council-Temporal penalties-to what extent carried. Conduct of the successors of Constantine-Constantius. Athanasius-his history-twice exiled-his triumphant restoration-contests with Constantius-methods taken by the latter to secure success -remarks on them-third banishment of Athanasius-Council of Rimini-progress of Arianism.Theodosius-Council of Constantinople.-Arianism of the Northern Barbarians-the conquerors of the West-its effects. Justinian-Spain-Council of Toledo. Termination of the controversy. Observations-examination of Arian claims to greater purity of faith-to greater moderationProgress of Arianism in the West to what cause attributable-confusion of sectarian and national enmity-conduct of Catholics and Arians under persecution-Note on certain Christian Writers. WHEN Constantine established Christianity as the religion of the Empire, he probably did not foresee how soon he should be called upon to interpose his authority, in order to prescribe and define the precise tenets of that religion, which he had established. Doubtless he was well acquainted with the numerous opinions by which Christians had ever been divided; but he saw that, in spite of them, the Body had continued

* Dr. Jortin (vol. i. p. 209) has corrected' a mistake of Dr. Middleton, who had attributed to Eusebius an absurd respect for the Erythrean Sibyl-which seems, in fact, to have been entertained by Constantine.

to advance in vigour and magnitude, with the show of health and unity. The Church was strong in the midst of heresy, as well as of oppressionand when he gave her his protection against the latter, he imagined, perhaps reasonably, that she could have nothing to apprehend from the former. But, whether it was, as some suppose, that the evil passions of Christians were inflamed by their present security, or, as we rather believe, that the expression of dissent had been softened by the impunity which attended it during former reigns, it is certain that scarcely ten years from the Edict of Milan had elapsed, before the Christian world beheld the beginning of a convulsion, which continued for some years to increase in violence, and which was not finally composed without a long and desolating struggle.

米

It had been the vice of the Christians of the third century, to involve themselves in certain metaphysical questions, which, if considered in one light, are too sublime to become the subject of human wit; if in another, too trifling to gain the attention of reasonable men.' The rage for such disputations had been communicated to religion, by the contagion of philosophy; but the manner in which it operated on the one and on the other was essentially different. With the philosopher such questions were objects of the understanding only, subjects of comparatively dispassionate speculation, whereon the versatile ingenuity of a minute mind might employ or waste itself. But with the Christian they were matters of truth or falsehood, of belief or disbelief; and he felt assured that his eternal interests would be influenced, if not decided, by his choice. Hence arose an intense anxiety respecting the result, and thus the passions were awakened, and presently broke loose and proceeded to every excess.

From the moment that the solution of these questions was attempted by any other method than the fair interpretation of the words of Scripture; as soon as the copious language of Greece was vaguely applied to the definition of spiritual things, and the explanation of heavenly mysteries, the field of contention seemed to be removed from earth to air-where the foot found nothing stable to rest upon; where arguments were easily eluded, and where the space to fly and to rally was infinite; so that the contest grew more noisy as it was less decisive, and more angry as it became more prolonged and complicated. Add to this the nature and genius of the disputants; for the origin of these disputes may be traced, without any exception, to the restless imaginations of the East. The violent temperament of orientals, as it was highly adapted to the reception of religious impressions, and admitted them with fervour and earnestness, intermingled so closely passion with piety, as scarcely to conceive them separable. The natural ardour of their feelings was not abated by the natural subtilty of their understanding, which was sharpened in the schools of Egypt; and when this latter began to be occupied by inquiries in which the former were also deeply engaged, and when the nature of those inquiries assumed an indeterminate and impalpable form, it was to be expected that many extravagances would follow. We must also mention the loose and unsettled principles of that age, which had prevailed before the appearance of Christianity, and had been to a certain extent adopted by its professors-those, for instance, which justified the means by the end, and admitted fraud and forgery into the service of religion. From these considerations we perceive, that disputations on such subjects, conducted by minds such as have been described, and on

* Warburton, Post. to 4th ed. of the Alliance of Church and State.