They were exposed to the lawless violence of the multitude, and suffered from the sanguinary decrees of rulers and princes. If, under the milder sway of a few of the Roman emperors, they enjoyed an interval of comparative repose, it was only to be followed by a renewal of their calamities. At length, however, a brighter prospect was opened to the Christian world. In consequence of the victory of Constantine, over the tyrant Licinius, in the year of our Lord 323, external tranquillity was fully secured to the Church; and in order to confirm it, several beneficial laws were enacted by the emperor. He recalled those who had been banished for the profession of the faith; and the property of such as had been despoiled of their goods, was restored. He gave directions for enlarging the ancient churches, and building new and more splendid ones. He commanded that the clergy should be held in honor; and shielded their persons from indignity and outrage. The people were exhorted to relinquish idolatry, and embrace the true religion; and many other salutary measures were adopted, to extend the influence, and promote the welfare of Christianity. But while Constantine was zealously employed in this laudable design, and the Church was protected from foreign enemies, a dissension had arisen in its own bosom, which occasioned much animosity, and long continued to disturb its domestic peace. It happened that Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, disputing one day, in the presence of his presbyters and other clergy, on the subject of the three divine persons, and being desirous of making a display of his knowledge, remarked, that in the Trinity there was a unity.* Arius, one of his presbyters, who was well versed in the art of reasoning and in metaphysical distinctions, thinking that the bishop was desirous of introducing the opinion of Sabellius † of Lybia, inclined to an error directly * Socrates, L. I. c. 5. + It will be recollected that Sabellius, who lived about the middle of the third century, believed in a modal Trinity, considering the Son and Holy Spirit as different manifestations only of the Godhead, and not as separate persons. opposed to it, and replied, with great asperity, that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning; from which, he continued, it clearly followed that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was made from nothing.* These novel and hitherto unheard of opinions excited many persons to enter into the controversy. By a little spark a great fire was thus kindled. The evil which originated in the church of Alexandria, pervaded the whole of Egypt, Lybia, and the upper Thebias, and reached at length to many other cities and provinces. Numbers favored the sentiments of Arius; but no one defended them with more warmth and earnestness than Eusebius, formerly bishop of Berytus, but who had now surreptitiously obtained possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia, in Bithynia. Alexander, being greatly incensed at these proceedings, assembled a numerous council, in which Arius and his followers were deposed; and afterwards wrote to the other bishops informing them of the fact. His letter, copies of which were sent to all the cities under his spiritual jurisdiction, served only to increase the mischief, by kindling the flames of discord among those who received it. Some signified their approbation of the letter, while others expressed their dissent. Eusebius, of Nicomedia, opposed it more strenuously than others, as it made unfavorable mention of himself. The credit of Eusebius, at that period, was great, because the emperor then made Nicome Sozomen gives the following account of this dispute. "Arius having declared his opinions in public, some of those who heard of them, blamed Alexander for having suffered him to advance such novel doctrines, but this prelate thought proper to leave the two parties at liberty to dispute upon an obscure subject, lest if he should prohibit the controversy, he might seem to terminate it by force, rather than by persuasion. Sitting, therefore, in the midst of his clergy, he permitted every one to say what he thought proper. Alexander inclined sometimes to one side, and sometimes to the other, but declared at last for those who maintained that the Son of God is consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, and required Arius to hold the same opinion; and because he refused to do it, drove him from the Church, together with the priests and deacons who supported him." Hist. Eccles. L. I. c. 15. + Documents, A. dia his residence, having built a palace in that city a short time before the reign of Diocletian. Many of the bishops, therefore, were subservient to the wishes of Eusebius. He was continually writing, sometimes to Alexander, to induce him to abandon the dispute with Arius, and receive him into communion, and sometimes to the bishops of the different cities, in order to persuade them not to join that prelate. The churches were thus filled with tumult and disorder. Nor was the war of words confined to the pastors of the church, but the people also were divided, inclining to one or the other of the two parties. The matter proceeded, at length, to such a shameful extremity, that the Christian religion was publicly ridiculed, and afforded a subject of profane merriment to the pagans, even in their theatrical exhibitions. The people of Alexandria contended with childish petulance respecting the most sublime mysteries of our faith. Each party sent messengers to the bishops of every province, and succeeded in gaining individuals to their respective opinions. But the Meletians, who had recently been separated from the Church, espoused the cause of the Arians. They were so denominated from Meletius, one of the bishops of Egypt, who had been deposed by Peter of Alexandria, for several reasons, but especially for having offered sacrifice, in time of persecution, to the heathen divinities. His partizans were numerous; and, although he had no sufficient cause for deserting the church, he complained that he had been treated with injustice by Peter, whom he attacked with reproaches and calumny. After the death of that prelate, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, he transferred his abuse to Achillas, who was next to Peter in the episcopate, and then to Alexander, his successor. In this state of things, the controversy respecting our Lord's divinity taking place, Meletius, with his followers, favored the party of Arius, and supported him against the bishop. They who thought that the notions of Arius were absurd, approved of the sentence against him; and considered those who agreed with him in opinion as justly condemned. Eu sebius of Nicomedia, however, and such as had embraced the views of Arius, wrote to Alexander, praying that the excommunication might be removed, on the ground that his opinions were orthodox. On receiving intelligence of these transactions, the emperor was greatly afflicted; and, regarding the affair as his own private calamity, spared no pains to suppress the growing evil. Accordingly he sent a letter to Alexander and Arius, exhorting them to be reconciled, by Hosius, bishop of Corduba, a city of Spain, who was a man of approved fidelity, and greatly beloved by the emperor. He had reached the age of seventy, had been a bishop thirty years, was a confessor in the persecution of Maximian, and celebrated throughout the Church. letter, however well intended, produced but little effect. The disorder indeed, had acquired such a degree of virulence, that neither the endeavors of the emperor, nor the influence and authority of his messenger, were of any avail. Both Alexander and Arius remained inflexible, the people disputed with still greater acrimony, and tumults became more frequent. This But there was another subject which occasioned considerable uneasiness in the Church, viz. the difference which arose among the orientals with respect to the proper day of keeping Easter, some celebrating that festival in the manner of the Jews, and others following the custom of Christians throughout the rest of the world. This diversity of practice, however, with regard to the day of observing that important solemnity, did not hinder religious fellowship, although it might cast a shade of gloom over the joyful anniversary of our Saviour's resurrection. The emperor, therefore, finding that the quiet of the Church was not a little disturbed by these two evils, assembled (by the advice of some of the prelates, according to Rufinus,) a general council, inviting, by letter, all the bishops to meet at Nice, in Bithynia, and furnishing them with the means of conveyance. In consequence, a great number of them, not less than three * Documents, B. hundred and eighteen,* arrived from various cities and territories, attended by a vast concourse of the inferior clergy. Daily and ample provision was made by Constantine for the support and accommodation of this numerous body. It is mentioned by Sozomen, that several persons were also present, well instructed in the dialectic art, for the purpose of assisting the bishops. So great a synod was without previous example; for the Church was not at liberty to convoke such numerous assemblies under the pagan emperors. The pastors of three churches founded by the apostles, were present, Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius, of Antioch, and Alexander, of Alexandria. Of this memorable council, Eusebius Pamphilus speaks in the following terms.† "The most distinguished ministers of God met together from every part of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The sacred edifice, as if enlarged by the pleasure of God, inclosed at the same time within its walls, both Syrians and Cilicians, Phenicians, Arabians, and inhabitants of Palestine; Egyptians, Thebeans, and Lybians, with others arriving from Mesopotamia. A bishop from Persia was also present. Nor was the Scythian absent from this assembly. Pontus, also, and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia furnished representatives from their most able divines. Thracians too, Macedonians, Achaians and Epirotes, and those who resided at a vast distance beyond them, were convened. That illustrious Span The early historians of the church differ considerably as to the number of bishops assembled on this occasion. Athanasius mentions about three hundred; and in one passage of his works expressly says that there were three hundred and eighteen. Eusebius speaks of more than two hundred and fifty. Eustathius, of Antioch, who was present, as well as the two already named, and was an active member of the synod, declares that there were about two hundred and seventy, but that he cannot give the exact number, on account of the great multitude who attended; nor indeed does he profess to have been very solicitous to ascertain it. Sozomen reckons about three hundred and twenty. The number mentioned in the text was at length generally admitted as the correct one. See Cave, Hist. Eccles. Lit. p. 223. + Vit. Const. L. III. c. 7. |