Short Papers on Church History

The reign of Constantine the Great forms a most important epoch in the history of the Church. Both his father Constantius, and his mother Helena, were religiously inclined, and always favorable to the Christians. Some years of Constantine’s youth were spent at the court of Dioclesian and Galerius in the character of a hostage. He witnessed the publication of the persecuting edict at Nicomedia in 303, and the horrors which followed. Having affected his escape, he joined his father in Britain. In 306 Constantius died at York. He had nominated as successor, his son Constantine, who was accordingly saluted Augustus by the army. He continued and extended the toleration which his father had bestowed on the Christians.
There were now six pretenders to the sovereignty of the empire. Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, Maxentius, Maximin, and Constantine. A scene of contention followed, scarcely paralleled in the annals of Rome. Among these rivals, Constantine possessed a decided superiority in prudence and abilities, both military and political. In the year 312 Constantine entered Rome victorious. In 313 a new edict was issued, by which the persecuting edicts of Dioclesian were repealed, the Christians encouraged, their teachers honored, and the professors of Christianity advanced to places of trust and influence in the state. This great change in the history of the Church introduces us to
THE PERGAMOS PERIOD.
A.D. 313 TILL ABOUT 606.
The epistle to the church in Pergamos exactly describes, we believe, the state of things in Constantine’s time. But we will quote the address entire for the convenience of our readers, and then compare it. “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is, and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that over-cometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” Rev. 2:12-17.
In Ephesus, we see the first point of departure, leaving their “first love”—the heart slipping away from Christ, and from the enjoyment of His love. In Smyrna, the Lord allowed the saints to be cast into the furnace, that the progress of declension might be stayed. They were persecuted by the heathen. By means of these trials Christianity revived; the gold was purified; the saints held fast the name and the faith of Christ. Thus was Satan defeated; and the Lord so ruled that the emperors, one after the other, in the most humiliating and mortifying circumstances, publicly confessed their defeat. But in Pergamos, the enemy changes his tactics. In place of persecution from without, there is seduction from within. Under Dioclesian he was the roaring lion; under Constantine he is the deceiving serpent. Pergamos is the scene of Satan’s flattering power; he is within the Church. Nicolaitanism is the corruption of grace—the flesh acting in the Church of God. In Smyrna he is outside as an adversary, in Pergamos he is inside as a seducer. This was exactly what took place under Constantine.
Historically, it was when the violence of persecution had spent itself; when men had grown weary of their own rage; when they saw that all their efforts were to no purpose; that the sufferers ceased to care for the things of the world, and became more devoted to Christianity; that even the numbers of the Christians seemed to increase; Satan tries another, and an old artifice, once so successful against Israel. (Num. 25) When he could not obtain the Lord’s permission to curse His people Israel, he allured them to their ruin, by unlawful alliances with the daughters of Moab. As a false prophet he was now in the church at Pergamos, seducing the saints into unlawful alliance with the world—the place of his throne and authority. The world ceases to persecute; great advantages are held out to Christians, by the civil establishment of Christianity; Constantine professes to be converted, and ascribes his triumphs to the virtues of the cross. The snare, alas, is successful; the Church is flattered by his patronage; shakes hands with the world, and sinks into its position—“even where Satan’s seat is.” All was now lost as to her corporate and proper testimony, and the way to popery laid open. Every worldly advantage was no doubt gained; but alas, alas, it was at the cost of the honor and glory of her heavenly Lord and Savior.
The Church, we must remember, is an out calling (Acts 15:14)—called out from Jew and Gentile to witness that she was not of this world, but of heaven—that she is united to a glorified Christ, and not of this world, even as He is not of this world. So He says Himself, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” John 17.
The Christian’s mission is on the same principle and of the same character as was Christ’s. “As my Father hath sent me,” He says, “even so send I you.” They were sent, as it were, from heaven to the world, by the blessed Lord, to do His will, care for His glory, and to return home when their work was done. Thus the Christian should be the heavenly witness of the truth of God, especially of such truths as man’s total ruin, and God’s love in Christ to a perishing world; and thereby seek to gather souls out of the world, that they may be saved from the wrath to come. But when we lose sight of our high calling, and associate with the world as if we belonged to it, we become false witnesses. We do the world a great injury, and Christ a great dishonor. This, we shall see by and by, was what the Church did as to her corporate position and action. Doubtless there were many cases of individual faithfulness in the midst of the general declension. The Lord Himself speaks of His faithful Antipas who was martyred. Heaven takes special notice of individual faithfulness, and remembers the faithful by name.
But the eye and the heart of the Lord had followed His poor faithless Church to where she had fallen. “I know thy works,” He says, “and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is.” What solemn words are these, and from the lips of her dishonored Lord! Nothing was hidden from His eye. I know, He says; I have seen what has happened. But what, alas, had now taken place? Why, the Church as a body had accepted the emperor’s terms, was now united to the state, and dwelling in the world. This was Babylon spiritually—committing fornication with the kings of the earth. But He who walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks judges her action and her condition. “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write, These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges.” He takes the place of one who was armed with the divine sword—with the all-searching, piercing power of the word of God. The sword is the symbol of that by which questions are settled; whether it be the carnal sword of the nations, or “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
It has been often said, that there is always a marked and instructive connection between the way in which Christ presents Himself, and the state of the Church which He is addressing. This is most true in the present address. The word of God, evidently, had lost its right place in the assembly of His saints; it was no longer the supreme authority in divine things. But the Lord Jesus takes care to show that it had not lost its power, or place, or authority in His hands. “Repent,” He says, “or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” He does not say, observe, I will fight against thee, but against them. In exercising discipline in the Church, the Lord acts with discrimination and with mercy. The public position of the Church was now a false one. There was open association with the prince of this world, in place of faithfulness to Christ, the Prince of heaven. But he that had an ear to hear what the Spirit said unto the churches, had secret fellowship with Him who sustains the faithful soul with the hidden manna. “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give Him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” The general defection would no doubt isolate the faithful few—a remnant. To them the promise is given.
The manna, as we learn from John 6, represents Christ Himself as He came down from heaven to give life to our souls. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever.” As the lowly one who took the place of humiliation in this world, He is our provision for the daily walk through the wilderness. The manna was to be gathered daily, fresh from the dew drops every morning. The “hidden manna” refers to the golden pot of manna that was laid up in the ark as a memorial before the Lord. It is the blessed remembrance of Christ, who was the humbled suffering man in this world, and who is the eternal delight of God, and of the faithful in heaven. Not only has the true-hearted saint communion with Christ as exalted on high, but with Him as the once humbled Jesus here below. But this cannot be if we are listening to the flatteries and accepting the favors of the world. Our only strength against the spirit of the world is walking with a rejected Christ, and feeding on Him as our portion even now. Our high privilege is to eat, not of the manna only, but of the “hidden manna.” But who can speak of the blessedness of such communion, or of the loss of those who slip away in heart from Christ, and settle down in worldliness?
The “white stone” is a secret mark of the Lord’s special favor. As the promise is given in the address to Pergamos, it may mean the expression of Christ’s approval of the way the “overcomers” witnessed and suffered for Him, when so many were led away by the seductions of Satan. It gives the general idea of a secret pledge of entire approbation. But it is difficult to explain. The heart may enter into its blessedness, and yet feel unable to describe it. Happy they who so know it for themselves. There are joys which are common to all; but there is a joy, a special joy, which will be our own peculiar joy in Christ, and that forever. This will be true of all. “And in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” What an unknown source of calm repose, sweet peace, true contentment, and divine strength, we find in the “white stone,” and in the “new name,” written by His own hand. Others may misunderstand us, many may think us wrong; but He knows all, and the heart can afford to be quiet, whatever may be passing around. At the same time, we must judge everything by the word of God—the sharp sword with two edges—even as we ourselves are judged.
“There on the hidden bread
Of Christ—once humbled here —
God’s treasured store—forever fed,
His love my soul shall cheer.

Called by that secret name
Of undisclosed delight —
Blest answer to reproach and shame —
Graved on the stone of white.”
Having thus briefly glanced at the epistle to Pergamos, we shall be better able to understand the mind of the Lord as to the conduct of Christians under the reign of Constantine. The professing church and the world had joined hands and were now enjoying themselves together. As the world could not rise to the high level of the Church, she must fall to the low level of the world. This was exactly what took place. Nevertheless, the fair form of Christianity was maintained, and there were doubtless many who held fast the faith and the name of Jesus. We now return to the conversion and history of Constantine the Great the conversion of Constantine. A.D. 312.
The great event in the religious history of Constantine took place in 312. He was marching from France to Italy against Maxentius. The approaching contest was one of immense moment. It was likely either to be his ruin or to raise him to the highest pinnacle of power. He was in deep thought. It was known that Maxentius was making great preparations for the struggle, by enlarging his army, and by scrupulously attending to all the customary ceremonies of paganism. He consulted with great pains the heathen oracles, and relied for success on the agency of supernatural powers.
Constantine, though a wise and virtuous heathen, was a heathen still. He knew what he had to give battle to; and while considering to what god he should betake himself for protection and success, he thought on the ways of his father, the emperor of the west. He remembered that he prayed to the God of the Christians and had always been prosperous, while the emperors who persecuted the Christians had been visited with divine justice. He resolved therefore to forsake the service of idols and to ask the aid of the one true God in heaven. He prayed that God would make Himself known to him, and that He would make him victorious over Maxentius, notwithstanding all his magical arts and superstitious rites.
While engaged in such thoughts, Constantine imagined that he saw, soon after mid-day, some extraordinary appearance in the heavens. It assumed the sign of a glittering cross, and above it the inscription, “BY THIS CONQUER.” The emperor and the whole army who were witnesses of this wonderful sight stood awestruck. But while the emperor was gravely meditating on what the vision could signify, night came on, and he fell asleep. He dreamed that the Savior appeared to him, bearing in his hand the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and directed him to cause a banner to be made after the same pattern and use it as his standard in war, assuring him that while he did so he would be victorious. Constantine, on awaking, described what had been shown to him while asleep, and resolved to adopt the sign of the cross as his imperial standard, without delay.
The Banner of the Cross.
According to Eusebius, the workers in gold and precious stones were immediately sent for, and received their orders from the lips of Constantine. Eusebius had seen the standard and gives a long account of it. As the greatest interest has been thrown around this relic of antiquity by all ecclesiastical writers, we will give our readers a brief but minute sketch of it.
The shaft, or perpendicular beam, was long and overlaid with gold. On its top was a crown composed of gold and precious stones, with the engraving of the sacred symbol of, he cross and the first letters of the Savior’s name, or the Greek letter X, intersected with the letter P. Just under this crown was a likeness of the emperor in gold, and below that a cross-piece of wood, from which hung a square flag of purple cloth, embroidered and covered with precious stones. It was called the Labarum. This resplendent standard was borne at the head of the imperial armies and guarded by fifty chosen men, who were supposed to be invulnerable from its virtues.
Constantine now sent for christian teachers, of whom he inquired concerning the God that appeared to him, and the import of the symbol of the cross. This gave them an opportunity of directing his mind to the word of God, and of instructing him in the knowledge of Jesus and of His death on the cross. From that time the emperor declared himself a convert to Christianity. The superstitious hopes and confidence of Constantine and his army were now raised to the highest pitch. The decisive battle was fought at the Milvian bridge. Constantine gained a signal victory over his enemy, though his troops did not number one fourth of the troops of Maxentius.
Short Papers on Church History
The victorious emperor paid a short visit to Rome. Amongst other things which he did, he caused to be erected in the forum a statue of himself, holding in his right hand a standard in the shape of a cross, with the following inscription: “By this salutary sign, the true symbol of valor, I freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant.” Maxentius was found in the Tiber, the morning after the battle. The emperor evidently felt that he was indebted to the God of the Christians and to the sacred symbol of the cross for his victories. And this, we dare say, was the extent of his Christianity at that time. As a man he had not felt his need of it, if ever he did; as a warrior he embraced it earnestly. Afterward, as a statesman, he owned and valued Christianity; but God only knows whether as a lost sinner he ever embraced the Savior. It is difficult for princes to be Christians.
Constantine now proceeded towards Illyricum to meet Licinius, with whom he had formed a secret alliance before going to meet Maxentius. The two emperors met at Milan, where their alliance was ratified by the marriage of Licinius to Constantine’s daughter. It was during this quiet moment that Constantine prevailed upon Licinius to consent to the repeal of the persecuting edicts of Dioclesian, and the issuing of a new edict of complete toleration. This being agreed upon, a public edict, in the joint names of Constantine and Licinius, was issued at Milan, A.D. 313, in favor of the Christians, and may be considered as the great charter of their liberties. Full and unlimited toleration was granted to them; their churches and property were restored without compensation, and, outwardly Christianity flourished.
But peace between the emperors, which seemed to be established on a firm foundation, was soon interrupted. Jealousy, love of power, and ambition for absolute sovereignty in the Roman empire, would not allow them to remain long in peace. A war broke out in the year 314, but Licinius was defeated with heavy losses, both in men and territory. A peace was again concluded, which lasted about nine years. Another war became unavoidable, and once more it assumed the form of a religious strife between the rival emperors. Licinius attached the pagan priesthood to his cause, and persecuted the Christians. Many of the bishops he put to death, knowing they were special favorites at the court of his rival. Both parties now made preparations for a contest, the issue of which should be final. Licinius, before proceeding to war, sacrificed to the gods, and extolled them in a public oration. Constantine, on the other hand, relied upon the God whose symbol accompanied his army. The two hostile armies met. The battle was fierce, obstinate, and sanguinary. Licinius was no mean rival; but the commanding genius, activity, and courage of Constantine prevailed, The victory was complete. Licinius survived his defeat only about a year. He died, or rather was privately killed, in 326. Constantine had now reached the height of his ambition. He was sole master—absolute sovereign of the Roman empire, and continued so until his death in 337. For a description of the political and military career of this great prince we must refer the reader to civil history; we will briefly glance at his religious course.
The religious history οf Constantine.
All that we know of the religion of Constantine up to the period of his conversion, so-called, would imply that he was outwardly, if not zealously, a pagan. Eusebius himself admits that he was at this time in doubt which religion he would embrace. Policy, superstition, hypocrisy, divine inspiration, have been in turn assigned as the sole or the predominant influence, which decided his future religious history. But it would surely be unjust to suppose that his profession of Christianity, and his public declarations in its favor, amounted to nothing more than deliberate and intentional hypocrisy. Both his religious and ecclesiastical course admit of a far higher and more natural explanation. Neither could we believe that there was anything approaching to divine inspiration, either in his midday vision or in his midnight dream. There may have been some unusual appearance about the sun or in the clouds, which imagination converted into a miraculous sign of the cross; and the other appearance may have been the exaggeration of a dream from his highly excited state: but the whole story may now be considered as a fable, full of flattery to the great emperor, and very gratifying to his great admirer and panegyrist, Eusebius. Few will now be found to give it a place among the authentic records of history.
Policy and superstition, we have no doubt, had a great deal to do with the change that was wrought in the mind of Constantine. From his youth he had witnessed the persecution of the Christians, and must have observed a vitality in their religion which rose above the power of their persecutors, and survived the downfall of all other systems. He had seen one emperor after another, who had been the open enemies of Christianity, die the most fearful death. His father only—the protector of Christianity—of all the emperors, during the long persecution, had gone down to an honored and peaceful grave. Facts in striking could not fail to influence the superstitious mind of Constantine. Besides, he might appreciate with political sagacity the moral influence of Christianity; its tendency to enforce peaceful obedience to civil government; and the immense hold which it obviously had on the mind of something like the one half of his empire.
The emperor’s motives, however, are no part of our history, and need not occupy us longer. But in order to have this most important period, or great turning-point in Church history clearly before our minds, it may be well to look at the state of the Church as he found it in 313, and as he left it in 337.
THE CHURCH AS CONSTANTINE FOUND IT.
Up till this time the Church had been perfectly free and independent of the state. It had a divine constitution—direct from heaven—and outside the world. It made its way, not by state patronage, but by divine power, against every hostile influence. In place of receiving support from the civil government, it had been persecuted from the first as a foreign foe; as an obstinate and pestilent superstition. Ten times the devil had been permitted to stir up the whole Roman world against her, and ten times it had to confess weakness and defeat. Had she kept in mind the day of her espousals, and the love of Him who says, “No man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church,” she never would have accepted the protection of Constantine at the cost of her fidelity to Christ. But the Church as a whole was now much mixed up with the world, and far away from her first love.
We have already seen, that since the days of the apostles there had been a growing love of the world, and of outward display. This tendency, so natural to us all, the Lord in love checked, by allowing Satan to persecute. But in place of the Church accepting the trial as chastening from the hand of the Lord, and owning her worldliness, she grew weary of the place and path of rejection, and thought she might still please and serve the Lord, and walk in the sunshine of the world. This satanic delusion was accomplished by Constantine, though he knew not what he was doing. “Whatever the motives of his conversion,” says Milman, “Constantine, no doubt, adopted a wise and judicious policy, in securing the alliance, rather than continuing the strife, with an adversary which divided the wealth, the intellect, if not the property, and the population of the empire.”
The union of the church and state.
In the month of March 313, the bands of the unholy alliance between the Church and the State were published at Milan. The celebrated edict of that date conferred on the Christians the fullest toleration, and led the way to the legal establishment of Christianity, and to its ascendancy over all other religions. This was publicly displayed on the new imperial standard—the Labarum. Besides the initials of Christ, and the symbol of His cross, there was also an image of the emperor in gold. These signs, or mottoes, were intended as objects of worship for both heathen and Christian soldiers, and to animate them to enthusiasm in the day of battle. Thus he, who is called the great christian emperor, publicly united Christianity to idolatry.
But if we have read the mind of Constantine aright, we should have no hesitation in saying, that at this time he was a heathen in heart, and a Christian only from military motives. It was only as a superstitious soldier that he had embraced Christianity. At that moment he was ready to welcome the assistance of any tutelar divinity in his struggles for universal empire. We can see no trace of Christianity, far less any trace of the zeal of a new convert: but we can easily trace the old superstition of heathenism, in the new dress of Christianity. Were it not for such considerations, the Labarum would have been the display of the most daring dishonor to the blessed Lord. But it was done in ignorance. He was also anxious to meet the mind of his heathen soldiers and subjects, and to dissipate their fears as to the safety of their old religion.
The earlier edicts of Constantine, though in their effects favorable to Christianity, were given in such cautious terms as not to interfere with the rites and liberties of paganism. But the Christians gradually grew in his favor, and his acts of kindness and liberality spoke louder than edicts. He not only restored to them the civil and religious rights of which they had been deprived; the churches and estates which had been publicly confiscated in the Dioclesian persecution; but enabled them by his own munificent gifts, to build many new places for their assemblies. He showed great favor to the bishops; had them constantly about him in the palace, on his journeys, and in his wars. He also showed his great respect for the Christians} by committing the education of his son Crispus to the celebrated Lactantius, a Christian. But with all this royal patronage; he assumed all supremacy over the affairs of the Church. He appeared in the synods of the bishops without his guards, mingled in their debates, and controlled the settlement of religious questions. From this time forward, the term Catholic was invariably applied, in all official documents, to the Church.
CONSTANTINE AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH AND HIGH PRIEST OF THE HEATHEN.
After the total defeat of Licinius, already referred to, the whole Roman world was reunited under the scepter of Constantine. In his proclamation issued to his new subjects in the East, he declares himself to be the instrument of God for spreading the true faith; and that God had given him the victory over all the powers of darkness, in order that His own worship by his means might be universally established. “Freedom,” he says, in a letter to Eusebius. “being once more restored, and, by the providence of the great God and my own ministry, that dragon driven from the ministration of the state, I trust that the divine power has become manifest to all, and that they, who through fear or unbelief have fallen into many crimes, will come to the knowledge of the true God, and to the right and true ordering of their lives.” Constantine now took his place more openly to the whole world as the head of the Church; but at the same time retained the office of the Pontifex Maximus—the high priest of the heathen; this he never gave up: he died head of the Church and high priest of the heathen.
The unholy alliance, the unhallowed mixture of which we have spoken, and which is referred to and mourned over in the address to Pergamos, meets us at every step in the history of this great historical prince. But having given some explanation of the address, we must leave the reader to compare the truth and the history in a godly way. What a mercy to have such a guide in studying this remarkable period in the history of the Church!
Among the first acts of the now sole emperor of the world was the repeal of all the edicts of Licinius against the Christians. He released all prisoners from the dungeon or the mine, or the servile and humiliating occupations to which some had been contemptuously condemned. All who had been deprived of their rank in the army or in the civil service he restored, and restitution was made for the property of which they had been despoiled. He issued an edict addressed to all his subjects, advising them to embrace the gospel, but pressed none: he wished it to be a matter of conviction. He endeavored, however, to render it attractive by bestowing places and honors on proselytes of the higher classes and donations on the poor—a course which, as Eusebius 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 statues of the gods and would not allow his own statue to be set up in the temples. All state sacrifices were forbidden, and in many ways he exerted himself for the elevation of Christianity and the suppression of heathenism.
THE EFFECTS OF ROYAL FAVOR.
We now come to the consideration of that which has been the great historical problem to men of all creeds, nations, and passions; namely, whether the state which seeks to advance Christianity by the worldly means at its command, or the earthly power which opposes it by legal violence, does the greater injury to the Church and people of God on the earth? Much may be said, we admit, as to the great blessing of impartial toleration, and of the great advantages to society of the legal suppression of all wicked customs; but court favor has always been ruinous to the true prosperity of the Church of God. It is a great mercy to be unmolested, but it is a greater mercy to be unpatronized by princes. The true character of Christians is that of strangers and pilgrims in this world. The possession of Christ, and of Christ in heaven, has changed everything on earth to Christians. They belong to heaven, they are strangers on earth. They are the servants of Christ in the world, though not of it. Heaven is their home; here they have no continuing city. What has the Church to expect from a world that crucified her Lord? or rather, what would she accept from it? Her true portion here is suffering and rejection; as the apostle says, “For thy sake we are killed all the day long: we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” The Lord may spare His people, but if trial should come, we are not to think that some strange thing has happened to us. “In the world ye shall have tribulation.” Rom. 8:36; John 16:33.
Short Papers on Church History
But even from history, we think it can be proved that it was better for Christianity when Christians were suffering at the stake for Christ, than when they were feasted in king’s palaces, and covered with royal favors. By way of illustrating our question, we will give our readers a page from the history of the great persecution under Dioclesian, and one from the brightest days of Constantine; and we will quote both from Milman, late Dean of St. Paul’s, who will not be suspected of unfairness to the clergy. We speak of the faithful only. It is well known that in the later persecutions, when the assemblies of Christians had greatly increased, many proved unfaithful in the day of trial; though these were comparatively few, and many of them afterward repented.
“The persecution had now lasted for six or seven years (309), but in no part of the world did Christianity betray any signs of decay. It was far too deeply rooted in the minds of men, far too extensively promulgated, far too vigorously organized, not to endure this violent but unavailing shock. If its public worship was suspended, the believers met in secret, or cherished in the unassailable privacy of the heart, the inalienable rights of conscience. But of course the persecution fell most heavily upon the most eminent of the body. Those who resisted to death were animated by the presence of multitudes, who, if they dared not applaud, could scarcely conceal their admiration. Women crowded to kiss the hems of the martyrs’ garments, and their scattered ashes, or unburied bones, were stolen away by the devout zeal of their flocks.”
Under the edict issued from the dying bed of Galerius, the persecution ceased, and the Christians were permitted the free and public exercise of their religion. This breathing time lasted only a few months. But how grand the sight which followed, and what a testimony to the truth and the power of Christianity! The Dean goes on to say:—“The cessation of the persecution showed at once its extent. The prison doors were thrown open; the mines rendered up their condemned laborers; everywhere long trains of Christians were seen hastening to the ruins of their churches, and visiting the places sanctified by their former devotions. The public roads, the streets, and market places of the towns were crowded with long processions singing psalms of thanksgiving for their deliverance. Those who had maintained their faith under these severe trials received the affectionate congratulations of their brethren: those who had failed in the hour of affliction hastened to confess their failure and seek for re-admission into the now joyous fold.”
We now turn to the altered state of things under Constantine, about twenty years after the death of Galerius. Mark the mighty change in the position of the clergy.
“The bishops appeared as regular attendants upon the court; the internal dissensions of Christianity became affairs of state. The prelate ruled, not now so much by his admitted superiority in christian virtue, as by the inalienable authority of his office. He opened or closed the door of the Church, which was tantamount to an admission or an exclusion from everlasting bliss: he uttered the sentence of excommunication, which cast back the trembling delinquent amongst the lost and perishing heathen. He had his throne in the most distinguished part of the christian temple; and though yet acting in the presence and in the name of his college of presbyters, yet he was the acknowledged head of a large community, over whose eternal destiny he held a vague, but not therefore less imposing and awful dominion.”
Intellectual and philosophical questions took the place of the truth of the gospel, and mere outward religion for faith, love, and heavenly-mindedness. A crucified Savior, true conversion, justification by faith alone, separation from the world, were subjects never known by Constantine, and probably never introduced in his presence. “The connection of the physical and moral world had become general topics; they were, for the first time, the primary truths of a popular religion, and naturally could not withdraw themselves from the alliance with popular passion’s. Mankind, even within the sphere of Christianity, retrograded to the sterner Jewish character; and in its spirit, as well as its language, the Old Testament began to dominate over the gospel of Christ.”
THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH DISAPPEARS.
However agreeable to mere nature, the sunshine of the imperial favor might be, it was destructive of the true character of the individual Christian, and of the Church corporately. All testimony to a rejected Christ on earth, and an exalted Christ in heaven, was gone. It was the world baptized, in place of believers only, as dead and risen in Christ—as having died in His death, and risen again in His resurrection. The word of God is plain. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Col. 2:12.) Baptism is here used as the sign both of death and resurrection. But to whom was that solemn and sacred ordinance now administered? Again, we repeat, To the Roman world. Faith in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, acceptance in the Beloved, were not looked for by the obsequious clergy.
The profession of Christianity being now the sure way to wealth and honors, all ranks and classes applied for baptism. At the Easter and Pentecostal festivals, thousands, all clothed in the white garment of the neophyte, crowded round the different churches, waiting to be baptized. The numbers were so great, and the whole scene so striking, that many thought these conspicuous neophytes must be the innumerable multitude spoken of in the Revelation, who stood before the Lamb, clothed with white robes. According to some writers, as many as twelve thousand men, besides women and children, were baptized in one year in Rome; and a white garment, with twenty pieces of gold, was promised by the emperor to every new convert of the poorer classes. Under these circumstances, and by these venal means, the downfall of heathenism was accomplished, and Christianity seated on the throne of the Roman world.
THE BAPTISM AND DEATH OF CONSTANTINE.
The baptism of Constantine has given rise to almost as much speculation as his conversion. Notwithstanding the great zeal he displayed in favor of Christianity, he delayed his baptism, and consequently his reception into the Church, till the approach of death. Many motives, both political and personal, have been suggested by different writers as reasons for this delay; but the real one, we fear, was personal. Superstition had by this time taught men to connect the forgiveness of sins with the rite of baptism. Under this dreadful delusion, Constantine seems to have delayed his baptism until he could no longer enjoy his imperial honors, and indulge his passions in the pleasures of the world. It is impossible to conceive of any papal indulgence more ruinous to the soul, more dishonoring to Christianity, or more dangerous to every moral virtue. It was a license for such as Constantine to pursue the great objects of his ambition through the darkest paths of blood and cruelty, as it placed in his hands the means of an easy forgiveness, when convenient to himself. But on the other hand, we think it was a great mercy of the Lord, that one, whose private and domestic life, as well as his public career, was so stained with blood, should not have made a public profession of Christianity by receiving baptism and the Lord’s supper. Let us hope that he really repented on his deathbed.
The bishops, whom he summoned in his last illness to the palace of Nicomedia, heard his confession, were satisfied, and gave him their blessing; Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, baptized him! He now professed for the first time, that if God spared his life, he would join the assembly of His people, and that having worn the white garment of the neophyte, he would never again wear the purple of the emperor. But these resolutions were too late in coming; he died shortly after his baptism, in the year 337.
HELENA, the emperor’s mother, deserves a passing notice. She embraced the religion professed by her son. Her devotion, piety, and munificence were great. She traveled from place to place; visited the scenes which had been hallowed by the chief events of scripture history; ordered the temple of Venus to be demolished, which Hadrian had built on the site of the holy sepulcher, and gave directions for a church to be built on the spot, which should exceed all others in splendor. She died A.D. 328.
We have now seen, alas, too plainly, the sorrowful truth of the Lord’s words, that the Church was dwelling where Satan’s seat is. Constantine left it there. He found it imprisoned in mines, dungeons, and catacombs, and shut out from the light of heaven; he left it on the throne of the world. But the picture is not yet complete; we must notice other features in the history, answering to the likeness in the epistle.
The reign of Constantine was marked, not only by the Church being taken out of her right place, through the deceptions of Satan, but by the bitter fruits of that degrading change. The seeds of error, corruption, and dissension sprang up rapidly, and now came publicly before the tribunals of the world, and in some instances before the pagan world.
THE DONATISTIC AND ARIAN CONTROVERSIES.
Two great controversies—the Donatistic and the Arian, had their beginning in this reign. The former, arising in the west, from a disputed appointment to the episcopal dignity at Carthage; the latter, of eastern origin, and involving the very foundations of Christianity. The one was a question of doctrine, the other of practice. Both were now corrupted in their very springs and essence; and may have been represented by the false prophet and the Nicolaitanes; but more as to this afterward. We will now briefly notice the two schisms, as they throw light on the nature and results of the union of church and state. The emperor took part in the councils of the bishops as head of the Church.
On the death of Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, a council of neighboring bishops was called to appoint his successor. The council was small through the management of Botrus and Celesius, two presbyters who aspired to the office, but Caecilian, the deacon, who was much loved by the congregation, was elected bishop. The two disappointed persons protested against the election. Mensurius died on a journey; but before leaving home he had entrusted some plate and other property of the church to certain elders of the congregation, and had left an inventory in the hands of a pious female. This was now delivered to Caecilian; he of course demanded the articles from the elders; they were unwilling to deliver them up, as they had supposed no one would ever inquire for them, the old bishop being dead. They now joined the party of Botrus and Celesius in opposition to the new bishop. The schism was also supported by the influence of Lucilla a rich lady whom Caecilian had formerly offended by a faithful reproof; and the whole province assumed the right of interference.
Short Papers on Church History
Donatus, bishop of Cosae Nigrae, placed himself at the head of the Carthaginian faction. Secundus, primate of Numidia, at the summons of Donatus, appeared in Carthage at the head of seventy bishops. This self-installed council, cited Caecilian before them; alleging that he ought not to have been consecrated except in their presence and by the primate of Numidia and inasmuch as he had been consecrated by a bishop who was a Tradator, the council declared his election void. Caecilian refused to acknowledge the authority of the council; but they proceeded to elect Majorinus to the see, declared to be now vacant by the excommunication of Caecilian. But, unfortunately for the credit of the bishops, Majorinus was a member of Lucilla’s household, who, to support the election, gave large sums of money, which the bishops divided among themselves. A decided schism was now formed, and many persons who before stood aloof from Caecilian returned to his communion.
Some reports of these discords reached the ears of Constantine. He had just become master of the West; and had sent a large sum of money for the relief of the African churches. They bad suffered greatly during the late persecutions. But as the Donatists were considered sectaries, or dissenters from the true Catholic Church, he ordered that the gifts and privileges conferred on the Christians by the late edicts should be confined to those in communion with Caecilian. This led the Donatists to petition the Emperor, desiring that their cause might be examined by the bishops of Gaul, from whom it was supposed that impartiality might be expected. Here, for the first time, we have an application to the civil power, to appoint a Commission of Ecclesiastical Judges.
Constantine agreed; a council was held at Rome in 313, consisting of about twenty bishops. The decision was in favor of Caecilian, who thereupon proposed terms of reconciliation and reunion; but the Donatists disdained all compromise. They prayed the Emperor for another hearing, declaring that a synod of twenty bishops was insufficient to overrule the sentence of seventy who had condemned Caecilian. On this representation Constantine summoned another council. The number of bishops present was very large, from Africa, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, but especially from Gaul. This was the greatest ecclesiastical assembly which had yet been seen. They met at Aries in 314. Caecilian was again acquitted, and several canons were passed with a view to the African dissensions.
In the meantime, Majorinus died, and a second Donatus was appointed his successor. He was surnamed by his followers “the Great,” for the sake of distinction from the first Donatus. He is described as learned, eloquent, of great ability, and as possessing the energy and fiery zeal of the African temperament. The sectaries, as they were called, now assumed the name of the Donatists, and took their character, as well as their name, from their chief.
CONSTANTINE AS ARBITER OF ECCLESIASTICAL DIFFERENCES.
The Emperor was again entreated to take up their cause, and on this occasion to take the matter entirely into his own hands; to which he agreed, though offended by their obstinacy. He heard the case at Milan in the year 316; where he gave sentence in accordance with the councils of Rome and Aries. He also issued edicts against them, which he afterward repealed, from seeing the dangerous consequences of violent measures. But Donatism soon became a fierce, wide-spread, and intolerant schism in the Church. As early as 330 they had so increased that a synod was attended by two hundred and seventy bishops; in some periods of their history they numbered about four hundred. They proved a great affliction to the provinces of Africa for above three hundred years: indeed down to the time of the Mahommedan invasion.
Reflections on the first great schism in the church.
As this was the first schism that divided the Church, we have thought it well to give a few details. The reader may learn some needed lessons from this memorable division. It began with an incident so inconsiderable in itself that it scarcely deserves a place in history. There was no question of bad doctrine, or of immorality, but only a question of a disputed election to the see of Carthage. A little right feeling; a little self-denial; a true desire for the peace, unity, and harmony of the Church; and above all, a proper care for the Lord’s glory, would have prevented hundreds of years of inward sorrow, and outward disgrace to the Church of God. But pride, avarice, and ambition—sad fruits of the flesh—were allowed to do their fearful work. The reader will also see, from the place that the Emperor had in the councils of the Church, how soon her position and character were utterly changed. How strange it must have appeared to Constantine, that immediately on his adopting the cross as his standard, an appeal should be made from an episcopal decision on ecclesiastical matters to his own tribunal! This proved the condition of the clergy: but mark the consequences which such an appeal involves; if the party against whom the sentence of the civil power is given refuse to yield they become transgressors against the laws. And so it was in this case.
The Donatists were henceforth treated as offenders against the imperial laws: 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. Strong measures, however, were resorted to by the state, with the view of compelling the Donatists to reunite with the Catholics, but, as is usual in such cases, and as experience has taught ever since, the force that was used to compel them only served to develop the wild spirit of the faction that already existed among them. Aroused by persecution, stimulated by the discourses of their bishops, and especially by Donatus who was the head and soul of his party, they were hurried on to every species of fanaticism and violence.
Constantine at length, taught by experience, that although he could give the Church protection, he could not give her peace, issued an edict, granting to the Donatists full liberty to act according to their own convictions, declaring that this was a matter which belonged to the judgment of God.
The Arian controversy.
Scarcely had the outward peace of the Church been secured by the edict of Milan, when it was distracted by internal dissensions. Shortly after the breaking out of the Donatist schism in the province of Africa, the Arian controversy, which had its origin in the East, extended to every part of the world. We have already spoken of these angry contentions as the bitter fruit of the unscriptural union of the Church with the state; not that they necessarily sprang from that union, but from Constantine becoming the avowed and ostensible head of the Church, and presiding in her solemn assemblies: questions of doctrine and practice produced an agitation throughout the whole Church, and not the Church only, but they exercised a powerful political influence on the affairs of the world. This was unavoidable from the new position of the Church. The empire being now christian, at least in principle, such questions were of world-wide interest and importance. Hence, the Arian controversy was the first that rent asunder the whole body of Christians, and arrayed in almost every part of the world the hostile parties in implacable opposition.
Heresies, similar in nature to that of Arius, had appeared in the Church before its connection with the state; but their influence seldom extended beyond the region and period of their birth. After some noisy debates and angry words were discharged, the heresy fell into dishonor, and was soon almost forgotten. But it was widely different with the Arian controversy. Constantine, who sat upon the throne of the world, and assumed to be the sole head of the Church, interposed his authority, in order to prescribe and define the precise tenets of the religion he had established. The word of God, the will of Christ, the place of the Spirit, the heavenly relations of the Church, were all lost sight of, or rather had never been seen, by the Emperor. He had probably heard something of the numerous opinions by which the Christians were divided; but he saw at the same time, that they were a community who had continued to advance in vigor and magnitude; that they were really united in the midst of heresies, and strong under the iron hand of oppression. But he could not see, neither could he understand, that then, spite of her failure, she was looking to the Lord and leaning on Him only in the world. Every other hand was against her, and was led on by the craft and power of the enemy. But, professedly, she was going up through the wilderness leaning on her Beloved, and no weapon formed against her could prosper.
The Emperor, being entirely ignorant of the heavenly relation of the Church, may have thought that as he could give her complete protection from outward oppression, he could also by his presence and power give her peace and rest from inward dissensions. But he little knew that the latter was not only far beyond his reach, but that the very security, worldly ease, and indulgence, which he so liberally granted to the clergy, were the sure means of fomenting discords, and of inflaming the passions of the disputants. And so it turned out; he was continually assailed by the complaints and mutual accusations of his new friends.
THE BEGINNING OF ARIANISM.
Arianism was the natural growth of the gnostic opinions; and Alexandria—the hotbed of metaphysical questions and subtle distinctions—its birthplace. Paul of Samosata, and Sabellius of Libya, in the third century, taught similar false doctrines to Arius in the fourth. The Gnostic sects in their different varieties, and the Manichean—which was the Persian religion with a mixture of Christianity—may be considered rather as rival religions, than as christian factions; nevertheless they did their evil work among Christians as to the doctrine of the Trinity. Nearly all of these heresies, as they are usually called, had fallen under the royal displeasure, and their followers subjected to penal regulations. The Montanists, Paulites, Novations, Marcionites, and Valentinians, were amongst the proscribed and persecuted sects. But there was another, a deeper, a darker, and a much more influential heresy than had yet arisen, about to burst forth, and that from the very bosom of the so-called holy Catholic Church. It happened in this way.
Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, in a meeting of his presbyters, appears to have expressed himself rather freely on the subject of the Trinity; when Arius, one of the presbyters, questioned the truth of Alexander’s positions, on the ground that they were allied to the Sabellian errors, which had been condemned by the Church. This disputation led Arius to state his own views of the Trinity; which were substantially the denial of the Savior’s Godhead—that He was, in fact, only the first and noblest of those created beings whom God the Father formed out of nothing—that though He is immeasurably superior in power and in glory to the highest created beings, He is inferior in both to the Father. He also held, that though inferior to the Father in nature and in dignity, He is the image of the Father, and the vicegerent to the divine power, by whom He made the worlds. What his views were of the Holy Spirit are not so plainly stated.
Not only is Arianism fundamentally inconsistent with the place given to the Son from first to last throughout scripture, as well as with the infinite work of reconciliation and new creation, for which the old creation furnished but the occasion, but it is distinctly refuted beforehand by many passages of holy writ. A few of these it may be well here to cite. Him, who, when born of woman, was named Jesus, the Spirit of God declares (John 1:1-3) to be in the beginning the Word who was with God and was God. “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Impossible to conceive a stronger testimony to His uncreated subsistence to His distinct personality when He was with God before creation, and to Ηis divine nature. He is here spoken of as the Word, the correlate of which is not the Father but God (and thus leaving room for the Holy Spirit); but, lest His own consubstantiality should be overlooked, He is carefully and at once declared to be God. Go back beyond time and the creature, as far as one may in thought, “in the beginning was the Word.” The language is most precise; he was in the beginning with God, not ἐγένετο “He was,” in the sense of coming into being or caused to be, but ῆν, ‘He was’ in His own absolute being. All things ἐυένετο ‘came into being’ through Him. He was the Creator so completely that St. John adds, “and without him not one thing came into being which is come into being.” On the other hand, when the incarnation is stated in verse 14, the language is, the Word was made flesh, not ῆν but ἐυένετο. Further, when come among men, He is described as “the only begotten Son ‘who is’ [ not merely who was] in the bosom of the Father”—language unintelligible and misleading unless to show that His manhood in no way detracted from His Deity, and that the infinite nearness of the Son with the Father ever subsists.
Again, Rom. 9:5 is a rich and precious expression of Christ’s underivative and supreme Godhead, equally with the Father and the Spirit. “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.” The efforts of heterodox critics bear witness to the all-importance of the truth, which they vainly essay to shake by unnatural efforts which betray the dissatisfaction of their authors. Their is no such emphatic predication of supreme Deity in the Bible: not of course that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal, but because the humiliation of the Son in incarnation and the death of the cross made it fitting that the fullest assertion of divine supremacy should be used of Him.
Next, the apostle says of Christ, “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are on earth visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things subsist.” Col. 1:15-17. The reveries of the Gnostics are here anticipatively cut off; for Christ is shown to have been chief of all creation, because He was Creator, and this of the highest invisible beings as well as of the visible: all things are said to have been created for Him as well as by Him: and as He is before all, so all subsist together in virtue of Him.
The only other passage I need now refer to is Heb. 1, where the apostle illustrates the fullness of Christ’s person among other Old Testament scriptures by Psalm 45 and 102. In the former He is addressed as God and anointed as man; in the latter He is owned as Jehovah, the Creator, after He is heard pouring out His affliction as the rejected Messiah to Jehovah.
It is impossible then to accept the Bible without rejecting Arianism as a heinous libel against Christ and the truth; for it is not more certain that He became a man than that He was God before creation, Himself the Creator, the Son, and Jehovah.
(From unpublished MSS of W. K.)
Alexander, indignant at the objections of Arius to himself, and because of his opinions, accused him of blasphemy. “The impious Arius,” he exclaimed, “the forerunner of Antichrist, had dared to utter his blasphemies against the divine Redeemer.” He was judged by two councils assembled at Alexandria, and cast out of the Church. He retired into Palestine, but in nowise discouraged by the disgrace. Many sympathized with him, among whom were the two prelates named Eusebius; one of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian; the other, bishop of Nicomedia, a man of immense influence. Arius kept up a lively correspondence with his friends, veiling his more offensive opinions, and Alexander issued warnings against him, and refused all the intercessions of his friends to have him restored. But Arius was a crafty antagonist. He is described in history as tall and graceful in person; calm, pale, and subdued in countenance; of popular address, and an acute reasoner; of strict and blameless life, and agreeable manners; but that under a humble and mortified exterior, he concealed the strongest feelings of vanity and ambition. The adversary had skillfully selected his instrument. The apparent possession of so many virtues fitted him for the enemy’s purpose. Without these fair appearances he would have had no power to deceive.
Short Papers on Church History
The dissension soon became so violent, that it was judged necessary to appeal to the emperor. He at first considered the whole question as utterly trifling and unimportant. He wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius jointly, in which he reproves them for contending about idle questions and imaginary differences, and recommends them to suppress all unhallowed feelings of animosity, and to live in peace and unity. It is more than probable that the emperor had not thought of the serious nature of the dispute, or he could not have spoken of it as trifling and unimportant: but if the letter was drawn up by Hosius, bishop of Cordova, as is generally believed, he could not plead ignorance of its character; and must have framed the document according to the expressed feelings of Constantine, rather than according to his own judgment. The letter has been highly extolled by many as a model of wisdom and moderation; and, had the matter been of no graver importance than fixing the time for the Easter festival, it might have deserved that praise; but the Godhead and the glory of Christ were in question, and consequently the salvation of the soul.
Hosius was sent to Egypt as the imperial commissioner, to whom the settlement of the affair was committed. But he found that the dissensions occasioned by the controversy had become so serious, that both parties refused to listen to the admonitions of the bishop, though accompanied with the authority of the sovereign.
CHAPTER 12
THE COUNCIL OF NICE.
Constantine was now obliged to look more closely into the nature of the dispute. He began to understand that the question was one not of trifling, but of the highest and most essential importance; and resolved to convoke an assembly of bishops, in order to establish the true doctrine, and to allay forever, as he vainly hoped, this propensity to hostile disputation. Everything necessary for their journey was provided at the public charge, as if it had been an affair of State.
In the month of June, A.D. 325, the first general council of the Church assembled at Nice, in Bithynia. About three hundred and eighteen bishops were present, besides a very large number of priests and deacons. “The flower of the ministers of God,” as Eusebius says, “from all the Churches which abound in Europe, Africa, and Asia, now met together.” The spectacle was altogether new; and surely to none more so than to the bishops themselves. Not many years had elapsed since they had been marked as the objects of the most cruel persecution. They had been chosen on account of their eminence, as the peculiar victims of the exterminating policy of the government. Many of them bore in their bodies the marks of their sufferings for Christ. They had known what it was to be driven into exile; to work in the mines; to be exposed to every kind of humiliation and insult; but now, all was changed, so changed, that they could scarcely believe that it was a reality, and not a vision. The palace gates were thrown open to them, and the emperor of the world acted as moderator of the assembly.
Nothing could so confirm and declare to the world the sad fall of the Church, and her subjection to the State, as the place which the emperor had in these councils. He did not arrive at Nice till the 3rd of July. On the following day the bishops assembled in the hall of the palace, which had been prepared for the purpose. We learn from Eusebius, that the assembly sat in profound silence, while the great officers of State and other dignified persons entered the hall, and awaited in trembling expectation the appearance of the emperor. Constantine at length entered; he was splendidly attired: the eyes of the bishops were dazzled by the gold and precious stones upon his raiment. The whole assembly rose to do him honor. He advanced to a golden seat prepared for him, and there stood, in respectful deference to the spiritual dignitaries, till he was requested to sit down. After a hymn of praise was sung, he delivered an exhortation on the importance of peace and union. The council sat for rather more than two months; and Constantine seems to have been present during the greater part of the sittings, listening with patience, and conversing freely with the different prelates.
THE NICENE CREED.
The celebrated confession of faith, usually called “The Nicene Creed,” was the result of the long and solemn deliberations of the assembly. They decided against the Arian opinions, and firmly maintained the doctrines of the holy Trinity, of the true Godhead of Christ, and of His oneness with the Father in power and glory. Arius himself was brought before the council, and questioned as to his faith and doctrine; he did not hesitate to repeat, as his belief, the false doctrines which had destroyed the peace of the Church. The bishops, when he was advancing his blasphemies, with one accord stopped their ears, and cried out that such impious opinions were worthy of anathema together with their author. St. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his zeal in defense of the true faith, and by his penetration in unraveling and laying open the artifices of the heretics. But more of the noble Athanasius by and by.
This famous creed was subscribed by all the bishops present, with the exception of a few Arians. The decision of the council having been laid before Constantine, he at once recognized in the unanimous consent of the council the work of God, and received it with reverence, declaring that all those persons should be banished who refused to submit to it. The Arians, hearing this, through fear, subscribed the faith laid down by the council. They thus laid themselves open to the charge of being dishonest men. Two bishops only, Secundus and Theonas, both Egyptians, continued to adhere to Arius; and they were banished with him to Illyria. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice, were condemned about three months later, and sentenced by the emperor to banishment. Severe penalties were now denounced against the followers of Arius: all his books were sentenced to be burnt, and it was even made a capital offense to conceal any of his writings. Their labors being completed, the bishops dispersed to their respective provinces. Besides the solemn declaration of their opinion of the doctrine in question, they finally set at rest the question respecting the celebration of Easter; and settled some other matters which were brought before them.
Short Papers on Church History
As the emperor had no independent judgment of his own in ecclesiastical matters, and certainly no spiritual discernment into these doctrinal controversies, the continuance of his favor could not be relied upon. In little more than two years his mind was completely changed. But these two years were eventful in the domestic history of Constantine, in what was much more serious than a change of mind as to Arianism. The same year that he convened the council of Nice, he gave private orders for the execution of Crispus, his eldest son, and for the suffocation of his wife, Fausta, in a hot bath, who had been married to him for about twenty years. History can find no better reasons for those deeds of darkness than a mean and an unworthy jealousy. The wisdom and bravery of Crispus in the final overthrow of Licinius, is said to have excited his father’s jealousy, and which was probably fomented by Fausta, who was his stepmother. Knowing that he was bitterly reproached for his cruelty to his own son, he ordered the death of Fausta in his remorse and misery. As we have expressed a very decided judgment against the unhallowed nature of the church’s connection with the state, we have said this much of the private life of the emperor, so that the reader may judge as to the fitness, or rather the unfitness, of one so polluted with blood, to sit as president in a christian council. From that day to this, the state church has been exposed to the same defilement, either in the person of the sovereign or the royal commissioner.
Constantia, the widow of Licinius, and sister of Constantine, possessed great influence with her brother. She sympathized with the Arians, and was under their influence. On her death bed in 327, she succeeded in convincing her brother that injustice had been done to Arius, and prevailed on him to invite Arius to his court. He did so, and Arius appeared, presenting to the emperor a confession of his faith. He expressed in a general way his belief in the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and besought the emperor to put a stop to idle speculations, so that schism might be healed, and all, united in one, might pray for the peaceable reign of the emperor, and for his whole family. By his plausible confession, and his fair speeches, he gained his point. Constantine expressed himself satisfied, and Arius and his followers, in turn, stood high in the imperial favor. The banished ones were recalled. A breath of court air changed the outward aspect of the whole Church. The Arian party had now full possession of the emperor’s weighty influence, and they hastened to use it.
SAINT ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA.
In the Council of Nice Athanasius had borne a distinguished part; his zeal and abilities designated him at once as the head of the orthodox party, and as the most powerful antagonist of the Arians. On the death of Alexander, in the year 326, he was elevated to the see of Alexandria, by the universal voice of his brethren. He was then only thirty years of age, and knowing something of the dangers as well as the honors of the office, he would have preferred a less responsible position; but he yielded to the earnest desires of an affectionate congregation. He held the see for nearly half a century. His long life was devoted to the service of the Lord and His truth. He continued steadfast in the faith, and inflexible in his purpose, according to the noble stand which he made in the Council of Nice, down to his latest hour. The divinity of Christ was to him no mere speculative opinion, but the source and strength of his whole christian life. And nowhere else is it to be found by anyone; as the apostle assures us. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” (1 John 5:11, 12.) This life dwells in the only-begotten Son of the Father. He is “the eternal life.” And this life, to the praise of the glory of God’s grace, is given to all who believe in the true Christ of God. In receiving Christ, we receive eternal life, and become the sons of God—heirs of God—and joint heirs with Christ. This life is not the property of any mere creature, however exalted. The holy angels have a most blessed and an unceasing existence by the power of God; but the Christian has eternal life, through faith in Christ, by the grace of God. Nothing could be more fatal to the well-being of the human soul than the doctrine of Arius. But to return to our history.
While the advancement of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria gave great joy and hope to his friends, it filled his enemies with the bitterest resentment. They now saw the great leader of the Catholics the bishop of that church from which Arius had been expelled; and that he was supported by the affections of his people and by a hundred bishops who owned allegiance to the great see of Alexandria. They knew his power and indefatigable zeal in defense of the decrees of the Nicene Council; and might well judge, that if his influence had been so great when in a private capacity, what may now be expected when he is placed in so eminent a station? Wherefore, they laid their plans and united their powers to overthrow him.
ATHANASIUS CONTESTS THE AUTHORITY OF CONSTANTINE.
Eusebius, of Nicomedia, first resorted to apparently friendly measures with Athanasius, for the purpose of inducing him to re-admit Arius to the fellowship of the Church; but failing completely in this, he influenced the emperor to command him. An imperial mandate was issued to receive Arius and all his friends who were willing
to connect themselves once more with the catholic church; and informing him that unless he did so, he should be deposed from his station, and sent into exile. Athanasius, however, was not to be intimidated by imperial edicts, but firmly replied, that he could not acknowledge persons who had been condemned by a decree of the whole Church. “Constantine now found to his astonishment,” says Milman, “that an imperial edict—which would have been obeyed in trembling submission from one end of the Roman empire to the other, even if he had enacted a complete political revolution, or endangered the property and privileges of thousands—was received with deliberate and steady disregard by a single christian bishop. During two reigns, Athanasius contested the authority of the emperor.” He endured persecution, calumny, exile; his life was frequently endangered in defense of the one great and fundamental truth—the Godhead of the blessed Lord; he confronted martyrdom, not for the broad distinction between Christianity and heathenism, but for that one central doctrine of the christian faith.
A succession of complaints against Athanasius was carried to the emperor by the Arian, or more properly the Eusebian party. But it would be outside our purpose to go into details; still we must trace the silver line a little farther in this noble and faithful witness.
The most weighty charge was, that Athanasius had sent a sum of money to a person in Egypt, to aid him in the prosecution of a design of conspiracy against the emperor. He was ordered to appear and answer the charge. The prelate obeyed and stood before him. But the personal appearance of Athanasius, a man of remarkable power over the minds of others, seems for the moment to have over-awed the soul of Constantine. The frivolous and groundless accusations were triumphantly refuted by Athanasius, before a tribunal of his enemies, and the unblemished virtue of his character, undeniably established. And such was the effect of the presence of Athanasius on the emperor, that he styled him a man of God; and considered his enemies to be the authors of the disturbances and divisions: but this impression was of short duration, as he continued to be governed by the Eusebian party.
THE COUNCIL OF TYRE.
In 334 Athanasius was summoned to appear before a council at Caesarea. He refused on the ground that the tribunal was composed of his enemies. In the following year he was cited before another council, to be held at Tyre, by imperial authority; which he attended. Upwards of a hundred bishops were present; a lay commission of the emperor directed their proceedings. A multitude of charges were brought against the undaunted prelate; but the darkest, and the only one we will notice, was the twofold crime of magic and murder. It was said that he had killed Arsenius, a Miletian bishop; had cut off one of his hands, and had used it for magical purposes; the hand was produced. But Athanasius was prepared for the charge. The God of truth was with him. He calmly asked whether those present were acquainted with Arsenius? He had been well known to many. A man was suddenly brought into the court, with his whole person folded in his mantle. Athanasius first uncovered the head. He was at once recognized as the murdered Arsenius. His hands were next uncovered; and on examination he was proved to be Arsenius, alive, unmutilated. The Arian party had done their utmost to conceal Arsenius, but the Lord was with his guiltless servant, and the friends of Athanasius succeeded in discovering him. The malice of the unprincipled Arians was again exposed, and the innocence of Athanasius triumphantly vindicated.
But the implacable enemies of the bishop were yet fruitful in their accusations against him. Once more he was commanded to appear in Constantinople, and answer for himself in the imperial presence.
The old charges, on this occasion, were dropped, but a new one was skillfully chosen, with the view of arousing the jealousy of the emperor. They asserted that Athanasius had threatened to stop the sailing of the vessels laden with corn from the port of Alexandria to Constantinople. By this means a famine would be produced in the new capital. This touched the pride of the emperor; and whether from belief of the charge, or from a wash to remove so influential a person, he banished him to Treves, in Gaul. The injustice of the sentence is unquestionable.
THE DEATH OF ARIUS.
Neither Constantine nor Arius long survived the exile of Athanasius. Arius subscribed an orthodox creed; Constantine accepted his confession; he sent for Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, and told him that Arius must be received into communion on the following day, which was Sunday. Alexander, who had almost completed a hundred years, was greatly distressed by the emperor’s orders. lie entered the church, and prayed earnestly that the Lord would prevent such a profanation. On the evening of the same day, Arius was talking lightly, and in a triumphant tone of the ceremonies appointed for the morrow; but the Lord had ordered otherwise: He had heard the prayer of His aged servant; and that night the great heresiarch died. His end is related with circumstances which recall to mind that of the traitor Judas. What effect the event had on Constantine we are not informed; but he died soon after, in his sixty-fourth year.
REFLECTIONS ON THE GREAT EVENTS IN CONSTANTINE’S REIGN.
Before proceeding farther with our general history, we shall do well to pause for a moment, and consider the bearings of the great changes which have taken place both in the position of the Church and the world, during the reign of Constantine the Great. It would not be too much to say, that the Church has passed through the most important crisis of her history; and that the downfall of idolatry may be partly considered as the most important event in the whole history of the world. From a period shortly after the flood, idolatry had prevailed among the nations of the earth, and Satan, by his craft, had been the object of worship. But the whole system of idolatry was doomed throughout the Roman earth, if not finally overthrown, by Constantine; it had, at any rate, received its deadly wound.
The Church, doubtless, lost much by her union with the state. She no longer existed as a separate community, and was no longer governed exclusively by the will of Christ. She had surrendered her independence, lost her heavenly character, and become inseparably identified with the passions and interests of the ruling power. All this was sad in the extreme, and the fruit of her own unbelief. But, on the other hand, the world gained immensely by the change. This must not be overlooked in our lamentations over the failure of the Church. The standard of the cross was now raised all over the empire; Christ was publicly proclaimed as the only Savior of mankind; and the holy scriptures acknowledged to be the word of God, and the only safe and certain guide to eternal blessedness. The professing church was no doubt in a low, unspiritual state, before she was connected with the civil power, so that she may have thought more of her own ease, than of her mission of blessing to others; nevertheless, God could work by means of these new opportunities, and hasten the disappearance, from the face of the Roman world, of the fearful abominations of idolatry.
The general legislation of Constantine bears evidence of the silent under-working of christian principles; and the effect of these humane laws would be felt far beyond the immediate circle of the christian community. He enacted laws for the better observance of Sunday; against the sale of infants for slaves, which was common among the heathen; and also against child-stealing for the purpose of selling them; with many other laws both of a social and moral character, which are given in the histories already noted. But the one grand, all-influential event of his eventful reign, was the casting down of the idols, and the lifting up of Christ. The Ethiopians and Iberians are said to have been converted to Christianity during his reign.
Short Papers on Church History
Valentinian was succeeded by his son Gratian in 375. He was then only sixteen years of age. He admitted as a nominal colleague his half-brother, the younger Valentinian; and soon after he chose Theodosius as an active colleague, on whom he bestowed the sovereignty of the East. Gratian had been educated in the christian faith, and gave evidence of being a true believer. He was the first of the Roman emperors who refused the title and robe of high priest of the ancient religion. How could a Christian, he said, be the high priest of idolatry? It is an abomination to the Lord. Thus we see in the early piety of this young prince, the blessed effects of the testimony of the faithful. What a new and strange thing in Rome; a pious prince to ascend the throne of the Caesars at the age of sixteen! But he was humble as well as pious.
Being conscious of his own ignorance in divine things, he wrote to Ambrose, bishop of Milan, to visit him. “Come,” he said, “that you may teach the doctrines of salvation to one who truly believes; not that we may study for contention, but that the revelation of God may dwell more intimately in my heart.” Ambrose answered him in an ecstasy of satisfaction: “Most christian prince,” he says, “modesty, not want of affection, has hitherto prevented me from waiting upon you. If, however, I was not with you personally, I have been present with my prayers, in which consists still more the duty of a pastor.”
The young emperor was generally popular; but his attachment to the orthodox clergy, the time he spent in their company, the influence they gained over him, especially Ambrose, exposed him to the contempt of the more warlike part of his subjects. The frontiers were sorely pressed at this time by the barbarians, but Gratian was unable to undertake the conduct of a war against them. Maximus, taking advantage of the disaffection of the army, raised the standard of revolt. Gratian, seeing the turn things had taken, fled with about three-hundred horse, but was overpowered and killed at Lyons in the year 383. Maximus, the usurper and assassin, placed himself on the throne of the West. He was afterward overthrown and slain by Theodosius, and the younger Valentinian placed upon the throne of his father.
THEODOSIUS, SURNAMED THE GREAT.
The measure of our interest in the history of the Roman emperors, must be proportionate to their acknowledgment of the truth, and their treatment of Christians. Did we not seek to discern God’s hand in their government? It would be wearisome add profitless, at this distant period, to examine what remains of them. But to see God’s hand, and to hear His voice, and to trace the silver line of His grace, throughout those rude times, keeps us in company with Himself, and our experience is increased. But almost everything depends, as to service to God, or blessing to ourselves, in the motive or object with which we study the history of the Church, and that which affects it. According to this principle of estimation, Theodosius claims an earnest and careful study. He was God’s minister, as well as the Roman emperor; and used of Him to subdue Arianism in the East, and to abolish the worship of idols throughout the Roman world. Idolatry is the boldest sin of man, and can never be exceeded until “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:3, 4.) The full expression of this blasphemy is still future, and will be the signal for immediate judgment, and the dawn of the millennial day.
But the zeal of Theodosius was not merely negative. He supported Christianity, according to his light, more vigorously than any of his predecessors. He completed what Constantine commenced, and far surpassed him in christian zeal and earnestness. Soon after his baptism, he assembled a council, which met at Constantinople on May 2nd, 381. The principal objects for which this council was convoked were the following: —To give greater fullness and definiteness to the Nicene creed—to condemn heresies, such as those of the Arians, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, and others—and to take measures for the union of the Church.
Most of our readers, even the youngest, have heard of “The decline and fall of the Roman empire”—the fourth great world-power spoken of by the prophet Daniel, and by St. John in the Apocalypse. It had been on the decline for some time, and was rapidly approaching its fall, when Theodosius was called to the throne. The frontiers were menaced on all sides by the barbarians, who dwelt immediately outside the Roman earth. “On the shores of each of the great rivers which bounded the empire,” says Dean Milman, “appeared a host of menacing invaders. The Persians, the Armenians, the Iberians, were prepared to pass the Euphrates or the eastern frontier; the Danube had already afforded a passage to the Goths; behind them were the Huns in still more formidable and multiplying swarms; the Franks and the rest of the German nations were crowding to the Rhine.” This frightful array of barbaric invasion, will show the reader at a glance, the then position of the fourth empire; and that it is as easy for God to break in pieces the iron, as the brass, the silver, or the gold.
Within the limits of the Roman earth, idolatry still existed, and its worship was undisturbed. Its thousands of temples in all their ancient grandeur and imposing ceremony, covered the land. Scarcely could the Christian turn anywhere without seeing a temple, and inhaling the incense offered to idols. Christianity had only been raised to an equal toleration. Arianism, and semi-Arianism, in their many forms, greatly prevailed. In Constantinople and the East, they were supreme. Other heresies abounded. Such was the state of things both within and without the empire on the accession of Theodosius. But for the details of his civil history, we must refer the reader to the authors already noted. We would only add, that he was used of God in arresting for a time the progress of invasion; in demolishing the images and some of the temples of heathen worship; in abolishing idolatry; in suppressing superstition; in causing the decisions of the Nicene council to prevail everywhere; and in giving triumph and predominance to the profession of Christianity.
THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF THEODOSIUS.
We will now glance at some of the leading events in the history of the great Theodosius. In the circumstances of these events, will be found the best commentary on the life of the emperor, the power of the priesthood, and the character of the times.
Theodosius was a Spaniard. Christianity, at an early period, had been established in the Peninsula. It was famous for its firm adherence to the Athanasian doctrines, throughout the Trinitarian controversy. Hosius, a Spanish bishop, was president of the Nicene council. Towards the end of the first year of his reign, Theodosius was admonished by a serious illness not to delay his baptism, as the practice then was. He sent for the bishop of Thessalonica and was at once baptized. Some say that he was the first of the emperors baptized in the full name of the holy Trinity. His admission to the Church was immediately followed by an edict which proclaimed his own faith, and prescribed the religion of his subjects. “It is our pleasure that all the nations which are governed by our clemency and moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty, and a pious Trinity.... Beside the condemnation of divine justice they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them.”
Such was the stern and uncompromising orthodoxy of Theodosius. Still, however mistaken, he believed it was his duty so to rule as a christian emperor, and the bishops that he consulted were more inclined to increase than to soften its severity. On one occasion, his sense of justice determined him to order some Christians to rebuild at their own expense a Jewish synagogue, which, in a tumult, had been pulled down, But the vigorous bishop of Milan interfered and prevailed on him to set aside the sentence, on the ground that it was not right for Christians to build a Jewish synagogue. Herein the bishop evidently failed in a matter of common justice. He was less righteous than his imperial master.
THE FAILINGS AND VIRTUES OF THEODOSIUS.
The most prominent defect in the character of Theodosius was a proneness to violent anger; yet he could be softened down and moved to be most merciful after great provocation, if properly appealed to. We have a remarkable instance of this in his forgiving the people of Antioch. It happened in this way:
In the year 387, the inhabitants became impatient on account of a tax which the emperor had imposed upon them; and having been haughtily treated by the rulers, to whom they had respectfully appealed for relief, a great tumult arose in the city. The statues of the imperial family were thrown down and treated with contempt. But a company of soldiers immediately appearing, the sedition was suppressed. The governor of the province, according to the duty of his office, dispatched a faithful narrative of the whole transaction to the emperor. But as eight hundred miles lay between Antioch and Constantinople, weeks must elapse before an answer could be received. This gave the Antiochians leisure to reflect on the nature and consequences of their crime. They were greatly and constantly agitated with hopes and fears, as may be well supposed. They knew their crime was a serious one, but they had confessed it to Flavian their bishop, and to other influential persons, with every assurance of genuine repentance. At length, twenty-four days after the sedition, the imperial commissioners arrived, bearing the will of the emperor, and the sentence of Antioch. The following imperial mandate will show the reader, how much depended on the will or temper of a single man in those times.
Antioch, the metropolis of the East, was degraded from the rank of a city; stripped of its lands, its privileges, and its revenues; it was subjected, under the humiliating denomination of a village, to the jurisdiction of Laodicea. The baths, the circus, and the theaters were shut: and, that every source of plenty and pleasure might at the same time be intercepted, the distribution of corn was abolished. The commissioners then proceeded to inquire into the guilt of individuals. The noblest and most wealthy of the citizens of Antioch, appeared before them in chains; the examination was assisted by the use of torture, and their sentence was pronounced, or suspended, according to the judgment of these extraordinary magistrates. The houses of the criminals were exposed to sale, their wives and children were suddenly reduced from affluence and luxury, to the most abject distress; and a bloody execution was expected to conclude the horrors of a day, which the eloquent Chrysostom has represented as a lively image of the final judgment of the world. But God, who has the hearts of all men in His hand, and in the remembrance of what Antioch had been in the early days of the Church, moved the ministers of Theodosius to pity. They are said to have shed tears over the calamities of the people; and they listened with reverence to the pressing entreaties of the monks and hermits, who descended in swarms from the mountains. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and it was agreed that one of the commissioners should remain at Antioch, while the other returned, with all possible speed to Constantinople.
The exasperated rage of Theodosius had cooled down. The deputies of the distressed people obtained a favorable audience. The hand of the Lord was in it, He had heard their cry. Grace triumphed in Theodosius. A free and general pardon was granted to the city and citizens of Antioch: the prison doors were thrown open; and senators, who despaired of their lives, recovered the possession of their houses and estates; and the capital of the East was restored to the enjoyment of her ancient dignity and splendor. Theodosius condescended to praise and reward the bishop of Antioch and others who had generously interceded for their distressed brethren; and confessed, that if the exercise of justice is the most important duty, the indulgence of mercy is the most exquisite pleasure, of a sovereign.
Short Papers on Church History
The history of the tumult and massacre at Thessalonica in 390, graves yet deeper lines in the character of Theodosius. In studying this period of his life, we are reminded of David the king of Israel. In this sorrowful affair the enemy gained a great advantage over the christian emperor; but God overruled it for the deeper blessing of his soul.
Botheric, commander in chief of the district, and several of his principal officers, were killed by the populace, on the occasion of a chariot-race. A favorite charioteer had been thrown into prison for a notorious crime, and, consequently, was absent on the day of the games. The populace unreasonably demanded his liberty; Botheric refused, and thus the tumult was raised and the dreadful consequences followed. The news exasperated the emperor, and he ordered the sword to be let loose upon them. Ambrose interceded, and Theodosius promised to pardon the Thessalonians. His military advisers, however, artfully insisted on the heinous character of the crime, and procured an order to punish the offenders; which was carefully kept secret from the bishop. The soldiers attacked the people indiscriminately when assembled in the circus, and thousands were slain, to revenge the death of their officers.
The mind of Ambrose was filled with horror and anguish on hearing of this massacre. As the servant of God he rises to the place of separation from evil, even in his imperial master. He retired into the country to indulge his grief, and to avoid the presence of the emperor. But he wrote a letter to him, in which he set before him, in the most solemn manner, his fearful guilt; and assuring him that he could not be allowed to enter the church of Milan until satisfied of the genuineness of his repentance. The emperor, by this time, was deeply affected by the reproaches of his own conscience, and by those of his spiritual father. He bitterly bewailed the consequences of his rash fury in substituting barbarity for justice; and proceeded to perform his devotions in the church at Milan. But Ambrose met him at the porch, and, laying hold of his robe, desired him to withdraw as a man stained with innocent blood. The emperor assured Ambrose of his contrition; but he was told that private regrets were insufficient to expiate public offenses. The emperor referred to David, a man after God’s own heart. “You have imitated him in his crime, imitate him in his repentance,” was the reply of the undaunted bishop.
The emperor submitted to the priest. For eight months he remained in penitential seclusion; laying aside all his imperial ornaments, until at the Christmas season he presented himself before the archbishop, and humbly entreated re-admission into the church. “I weep,” said he, “that the temple of God, and consequently heaven, is shut from me, which is open to slaves and beggars.” Ambrose was firm, and required some practical fruit of his repentance. He demanded that in future, the execution of capital punishment should be deferred until thirty days after the sentence, in order that the ill effects of intemperate anger might be prevented. The emperor readily agreed, and was then allowed to enter the church. The scene which followed was overwhelming. The emperor pulling off his imperial robes, prayed prostrate on the pavement. “My soul cleaveth to the dust,” he cried, “quicken thou me according to thy word” The people wept and prayed with him, being moved with Ms grief and humiliation.
Ambrose mentions in his funeral oration, that from the time of the emperor’s deep anguish, he never passed a day without recalling to mind, the crime into which he had been betrayed by his great failing—an infirmity of temper.
REFLECTIONS ON THE DISCIPLINE OF AMBROSE, AND THE PENANCE OF THEODOSIUS.
There are few events in the annals of the Church more deeply interesting than the penance of the great Theodosius; and the rigorous conditions of restoration demanded by Ambrose. Stripped of the superstition and formalities peculiar to the times, we have a case before us of the most genuine and salutary discipline. We must not suppose for a moment, that the behavior of Theodosius was the result of weakness or pusillanimity; but of a true fear of God; a real feeling of his guilt; a tender conscience, an acknowledgment of the claims of God, to whom all worldly greatness is subject.
Ambrose was neither haughty nor hypocritical, as we find many of the pontiffs became in later times. He cherished a strong affection for the emperor, and a sincere concern for his soul; but he acted towards him from a solemn sense of his duty. He had a great idea, no doubt, of the dignity with which his office invested him; and he felt himself bound to use it in behalf of justice and humanity and in controlling the power of earthly sovereignty: a character of power, most certainly, never granted by God to a christian minister; and which often proved in after ages to be a most dangerous power, as the priest who holds m his hands the king’s conscience, may inflame to moderate his sanguinary passions. In the case of Ambrose it was pure christian influence. He appeared, though somewhat out of character, as the vindicator of outraged humanity, and as exercising a judicial authority over the meanest and the mightiest of mankind. But it is always disastrous to interfere with God’s order, even when the best of objects seem to be thereby gained.
About four months after his victory over Eugenius, and the chastisement of the assassins of Valentinian, Theodosius the Great died at Milan, in the year 305—not exceeding fifty years of age; the last emperor who maintained the dignity of the Roman name. Ambrose did not long survive his imperial friend. He died at Milan on Easter-eve, 397 He deepened and strengthened the foundations of ecclesiastical power which was to influence Christianity in all future ages. Basil, the two Gregories, and Chrysostom flourished about this time.
Chapter 8
THE INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.
The century which closes with the death of the great Theodosius and Ambrose, has been full of the deepest interest to the christian reader. Events, the most momentous— affecting the majesty and glory of God, and the well-being of mankind—have transpired. From 303 till 313, the Church passed through her most trying ordeal under Diocletian. Ten years she was in a fiery furnace; but in place of being consumed, as her enemies vainly imagined, she seemed to increase in numbers as well as in purity and power. Satan was permitted to do his utmost against her; and he so moved and stirred up the heathen population, that in all parts of the empire they arose in arms; first, to defend their ancient polytheism; and, secondly, to root out Christianity, by persecuting the Christians, and destroying their sacred books. Thus the century commenced with the great and final struggle between paganism and Christianity, and closed with the total ruin of the former, and the complete triumph of the latter. The contest ended with the fourth century, and victory has rested with Christianity ever since.
Such has been the external history of the Church, and the accomplishment, so far, of the word of the Lord in the epistles to Smyrna and Pergamos. But there are other things which most reasonably demand a little of our attention before entering on the fifth century; and no part of the wide field which lies before us, seems to have a stronger claim than the sphere and influence of the great prelates of the East and the West. It must also have occurred to our readers from the necessary allusions to baptism, that the observance of that rite had an immense place in the minds of those early Christians. They believed that the waters of baptism purified the soul completely. We have thought, then, of combining the two—of giving a brief history of baptism from the writings of the fathers; which will, at the same time, give us an opportunity of seeing what views they held, not only on baptism, but on the fundamental truths of the gospel.
ECCLESIASTICAL VARIATIONS OF BAPTISM.
In the New Testament there is perfect uniformity, both as to precept and example, on the subject of baptism; but in our own day, and ever since the beginning of the third century, we find in the professing church endless variations both as to theory and practice on this important subject. Those not acquainted with ecclesiastical history naturally inquire, When, and by what means, did such differences arise in the Church?
As it has been our plan all through these “short papers” to find out the beginnings of great questions which have affected the peace and prosperity of the Church, we will endeavor, very briefly, to point out the beginning and early history of ecclesiastical baptisms. We use the term ecclesiastical, as distinguished from scriptural. Nothing is of divine authority either in theory or practice that was introduced after the days of the inspired apostles. So that nothing can be christian baptism that varies from the institution of Christ and the practice of His apostles. To bring in alterations is to change the thing itself, and make it not the same, but another baptism; hence we find in history there were baptisms many.
As the early history of these variations, and not controversy, is our object, we will avoid giving any opinion on the long-agitated question. For more than sixteen hundred years the controversy has been maintained with great determination, and by able men on both sides. No controversy in the history of the Church has been of such continuance, or conducted with such confidence of victory by both parties. As there is no express mention of infant baptism in scripture, the Baptists think that their position is beyond question; and the pedobaptist’s as firmly believe that it may be inferred from several well-known passages that infant baptism was practiced in the days of the apostles. There has not been so much controversy as to the mode of baptism. The Greeks, Latins, Franks, and Germans, appear to have baptized by immersion. “Baptism is a Greek word,” says Luther, “and in Latin it may be rendered mersio, immersion;.... and though among the greater part of us this practice has fallen into disuse, nevertheless, they that are baptized ought to be entirely immersed, and forthwith lifted out of the water, and this the etymology of the word indicates, as also in the German language.” Neander’s testimony is to the same effect: “Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of resurrection with Christ; and both, taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life.” Cave, Tillotson, Waddington, &c, &c, speak of the mode of baptism in a similar way. And as all these testimonies are from paedobaptists, we may dismiss this part of the subject as fairly proved in church history; nevertheless, faith can only stand in the word of God. We follow not the fathers but Christ.
IRENAEUS, bishop of Lyons, is the first of the fathers that alludes to infant baptism. He died about the year 200, so that his writings are placed towards the close of the second century. The apostolical fathers never mention it. By this time, superstition, to a great extent, had taken the place of faith, so that the reader must be prepared to hear some extravagant notions advanced by some of the great doctors; yet many of them, we doubt not, were true, earnest Christians. “Christ came to save all persons by himself,” says Irenaeus, “all, I mean, who by him are regenerated—baptized—unto God: infants and little ones; children and youths, and elder persons. Therefore he went through the several ages: for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants: to little ones he was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age: and also giving to them an example of godliness, justice, and dutifulness: to youths he was a youth,” &c. &c. Baptism was thus taught to be a complete lustration of the soul for all ages and conditions of mankind. But the controversy soon resolved itself into the one question—infant or adult. Regeneration, being born again, baptism, are used as interchangeable terms, and as meaning the same thing, in the writings of the fathers.
Here we have the origin, so far as ecclesiastical antiquity informs us, of infant baptism. The passage is somewhat obscure and extremely fanciful; but it is the first trace we have of the yet unsettled question, and probably the root of all its variations ecclesiastically viewed. The effect of such teaching on superstitious minds was immense. Anxious parents hastened to have their delicate infants baptized lest they should die under the curse of original sin, and the man of the world delayed his baptism until the near approach of death, to avoid any subsequent stain, and that he might emerge from the waters of regeneration, to the realms of pure and unmingled blessedness. The example and reputation of Constantine led many thus to delay their baptism, though the clergy testified against the practice.
Short Papers on Church History
TERTULLIAN. The testimony of this father would prove that infants were baptized in his day—he died about 240—but that he was not favorable to the practice: as he says, “ But they whose duty it is to administer baptism, are to know that it must not be given rashly......Therefore according to every man’s condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into danger? because they either fail of their promises by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition.”
ORIGEN, in discoursing on the sin of our nature alludes to baptism, as the appointed means for its removal: “Infants are baptized,” he says, “for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or when have they sinned? or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now: none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism, the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized.”
CYPRIAN, bishop of Carthage, about the year 253, received a letter from one Fidus, a country bishop, inquiring, whether an infant, before it was eight days old, might be baptized if need required. The answer proves, not only that infant baptism was then practiced, but the necessity of it in their minds because of its efficacy. Cyprian, with sixty-six bishops in council, says, “As to the case of infants; whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born: we were all in our assembly of the contrary opinion. For as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was not one that was of your mind, but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born. For whereas our Lord in His gospel says, ‘the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,’ so far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost,” &c. &c.
Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople, was a father of great note about the year 380. He was the means of destroying the power of Arianism in the eastern capital, where it had been maintained in great strength for nearly forty years. He had to encounter much opposition and even persecution at first; but by degrees, his eloquence, the practical and serious tone of his teaching, and the influence of his godly life, began to tell, and gained him a firm footing, though he never liked the imperial style of the capital.
Dr. Wall quotes largely from Gregory on baptism; our extracts will be brief. Like the rest of the fathers, he is wild on this subject. “What say you to those that are as yet infants, and are not in capacity to be sensible either of the grace or the miss of it? Shall we baptize them too? Yes, by all means, if any danger make it requisite. For it is better that they be sanctified without their own sense of it, than that they should die unsealed and uninitiated. And a ground of this to us is circumcision, which was given on the eighth day, and was a typical seal, and was practiced on those that had no use of reason.” Against the practice of delaying baptism till a death-bed, he speaks strongly and earnestly; comparing the service to the washing of a corpse, rather than to christian baptism.
Basil, bishop of Caesarea, is constantly associated with the two Gregories. Gregory of Nyssa was his brother; the other, his chief friend. Cappadocia gave birth to the three fathers. Basil was faithful to the Athanasian creed during its days of depression and adversity, but did not live to behold its final triumph. He died about 379. He was a great admirer and a true example of monastic Christianity. He embraced the ascetic faith, abandoned his property, and practiced such severe austerities as to injure his health. He fled into the desert; his fame collected, as it were, a city around him; he built a monastery, and monasteries sprang up on every side.
His views of baptism are similar to those of his friend Gregory; he urges the necessity of it from the same superstitious feeling that they all had. “If Israel had not passed through the sea,” he says, “ they had not got rid of Pharaoh: and unless thou pass through the waters of baptism, thou shalt not be delivered from the cruel tyranny of the devil,” &c, &c. This he would apply to all ages, and enforce it by the words of the Lord to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, like all the fathers we have yet met with, is thoroughly mistaken as to the meaning of John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “You see,” he says, “that Christ excepts no person, not an infant, not even one that is hindered by unavoidable accident.”
JOHN, surnamed CHRYSOSTOM, which means the golden-mouthed; he obtained this name from his smooth, flowing eloquence. He was such a favorite of the people, that they used to say, “We had rather the sun should not shine, than that John should not preach.” He was evidently in favor of infant baptism, though it is not clear that he believed in original sin. “For this cause we baptize infants also,” he says, “though they are not defiled with sin; that there may be superadded to them saintship, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, a brotherhood with Christ, and to be made members with Him.” It would be difficult to say more as to the alleged benefits of baptism than what we have here enumerated. But extravagant as the whole sentence may seem, it has been the text of the Paedobaptists from that day to this. Most of our readers are familiar with these words, “Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” These words are taken, not from scripture, but from Chrysostom.
Dr. Wall is anxious to make it appear, that this great doctor was not unsound as to original sin. He suggests that the meaning of his words may be, “they are not defiled with their own actual sins.” But Chrysostom does not say with their own, but that they are not defiled with sin. And surely every child is defiled, as saith the Psalmist, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” In vain do we look for soundness on many of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity among the fathers; to say nothing of what they all overlooked, such as, the presence of the Holy Ghost in the assembly, the heavenly calling, and the heavenly relations of the Church, the difference between the house of God and the body of Christ, and the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Titus 2:11-15.
REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM.
Enough, we believe, for our present purpose, has been said on the subject of infant baptism. The reader has before Mm the testimony of the most trustworthy witnesses, for the first two hundred years of its history. The practice seems to have taken its rise, and derived all its wondrous influence, from a misinterpretation of John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It was argued from this passage that baptism was necessary to salvation, and all the blessings of grace. The efficacy of the blood of Christ, the purifying power of the word of God, and the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, were all attributed to the due observance of external baptism. And need we wonder at the place it has held in the professing church these sixteen hundred years, or at its mighty influence over all classes and all ages? though many do not hold with baptismal regeneration.
The ancient Christians, Dr. Wall affirms, without the exception of one man, teach that these words of the Savior refer to baptism. Calvin, he believes, was the first man that ever denied this text to mean baptism. Supposing these statements to be correct, they prove, that the great ecclesiastical fabric that arose out of baptism, was founded on a misinterpretation. The church of Rome, Lutherans, and Anglicans, continue to follow the fathers in this misapplication of the truth. “Shall that,” says Hooker, referring to Calvin’s new interpretation of John 3:5, “which hath always received this and no other construction be now disguised with the toy of novelty? God will have baptism embraced, not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or means whereby we receive grace.” Bishop Burnet also observes, speaking of the ancient times: “The words of our Savior to Nicodemus were expounded so as to import the absolute necessity of baptism in order to salvation.” These words ‘the kingdom of God,’ being taken to mean eternal glory, that expression of our Savior’s was understood to import this, that no man could be saved unless he were baptized, &c. &c Calvin taught, that the benefits of baptism were limited to the children of the elect, and thus introduced the idea of hereditary Christianity. The Presbyterians follow Calvin, and as a consequence of his teaching, circumcision becomes both the warrant and the rule of infant baptism. But some of our readers may be anxious to know what we believe to be the true interpretation of John 3:5, seeing that so much is built upon it. What is the teaching of John 3:5?
The expression “born of water,” we believe, in no way means baptism. The new birth is the Savior’s theme; without which no man can see or enter into the kingdom of God. It was not yet come visibly—“not with observation”— but it was there among them, as God’s new sphere of power and blessing. Flesh cannot even perceive this kingdom. Christ had not come to teach and improve the flesh, as Nicodemus seemed to think; but that man might be partaker of a divine nature which is imparted by the Spirit. No mere external rite admits to the kingdom. There must be a new nature or life suited to the new order of things. “And Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then the Lord shows Nicodemus the only way of entering into the kingdom. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Water is here used as the symbol of the cleansing and purifying power of the word of God; as in Peter, “seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.” Here, the truth is spoken of as the instrument, and the Spirit as the agent, in the new birth; as he goes on to say, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God.” Two things are necessary—the word, and the Spirit. 1 Pet. 1:22, 23.
The passage obviously means, the application of the word of God in the power of the Spirit; operating in the heart, conscience, thoughts, and actions; and thereby brining in a new life from God, in which we have His mind, and his thoughts about the kingdom. The following passages will make it still plainer. “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” (Jas. 1:18.) “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26.) “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” (John 15:3.) Here we have the moral cleansing or purifying of the soul, by the application of the word through the Spirit, which judges all things, and which works in us new thoughts and affections, suitable to the presence and glory of God.
As a question of interpretation, then, we see no allusion to baptism in John 3:5: baptism may set forth that which is conveyed by it, but baptism itself conveys nothing. On the other hand—according to the inspired commentaries in the epistles—baptism is the sign of death, not of giving life, as the fathers uniformly affirm. “Know ye not,” says the apostle,” that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” (Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Pet. 3) Besides it is perfectly plain that Nicodemus could not possibly have known anything of proper christian baptism, as it was not instituted by our Lord till after He arose from the dead.
MODERN PAEDOBAPTISTS.
The Church of Rome and all who follow the fathers, confess that the origin of their practice is tradition. But there are many in our day, and have been since the Reformation, who hold infant baptism from the writings of the New Testament. The following are the principal passages they refer to: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.”..... “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”..... “For the promise is unto you, and to your children.”..... “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” And many draw their arguments chiefly from the baptism of households, and from the Abrahamic covenant. Mark 10 Cor. 7; Acts 2; Eph. 6; Acts 16; Gen. 17
ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISTS, or “the Baptists” as they call themselves, simply affirm, that in all the allusions to baptism in the writings of the apostles, it is uniformly coupled with faith in the gospel; and that such expressions as “buried with him by baptism;” and “planted together in the likeness of His death,” &c, must mean, that the person so baptized has part with Christ by faith. And, further, that as baptism is an ordinance of Christ, it must of necessity be celebrated exactly as He appointed. Nothing, it is said, but direct scripture ought to be the foundation for our faith and practice in divine things. And since to the very being of baptism a subject to whom it must be administered is necessary, and a mode of administering, without which it would only be a notion in the human mind, —these things, therefore, are as necessary as baptism itself. And hence it follows that the true subjects, which are professed believers only, and the true mode, which is immersion only, are necessary to true christian baptism.
THE ORIGIN OF INFANT COMMUNION.
When superstition in general takes the place of faith, and human notions the place of God’s word, where will even serious and enlightened men not be carried to! Augustine strongly advocated the practice of infant communion. But it followed infant baptism as a necessary consequence. The fathers affirmed that the grace of God bestowed upon the subjects of baptism, was given without measure, and without any limitation as to age; therefore, they reasoned, that the Lord’s supper might consistently be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The custom prevailed for many ages; it is still observed by the Greek church; but we refrain from details. In general, the true, inward, spiritual meaning and desire of the Lord’s supper were greatly lost sight of; and the most superstitious reverence was expressed for the external symbols of the ordinance.
Short Papers on Church History
In studying the internal history of the Church during the fourth century, innumerable things crowd for a brief notice; but we can only refer to those which characterize the period. The altered position of the clergy is an important one, and will account for many changes that were introduced by them. From the time of Constantine, the members of the christian ministry attained a new social position, with certain secular advantages. This led great numbers to join the sacred order from the most unworthy motives. Hence the sorrowful influence of this unhallowed mixture on the whole professing church. We constantly meet with it in the pride, arrogance, luxury, and assumed dignity of the whole clerical order. Thus, it is said, that Martin of Tours, when at the court of Maximus, allowed the Empress to wait on him at table; and that when the Emperor had desired him to drink before him, and expected to receive the cup back after the bishop had drunk, Martin passed it to his own chaplain, as being higher in honor than any earthly potentate. This circumstance shows us where the clergy now were, what they thought of themselves and of spiritual dignity in opposition to secular rank. The Church had now become like “a great house, wherein are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.” And such it has been ever since, and such it will be to the end; but the path of the faithful is plain. “If a man therefore purge himself from these, [the vessels to dishonor,] he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” 2 Tim. 2:20-21.
THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF MONASTICISM.
Before we approach the period of “the Church of Thyatira,” it may be well to notice the rise and growth of the early ascetic tendencies. The influence of monasticism was indeed great during the dark ages, and throughout the Western Churches. Let us trace it to its source. It is well to know the beginning of things, especially of important and influential things.
During the violence of the Decian persecution, about the year 251, many Christians fled into voluntary exile. Among these was a young man named PAUL, of Alexandria; who took up his abode in the desert of Thebais, or Upper Egypt. By degrees he became attached to the mode of life he had adopted from necessity; and is celebrated as the first christian hermit, though without fame or influence at the time. Not so, with His immediate and great successor.
ANTONY, who is regarded as the father of monasticism, was born at Coma, in Upper Egypt, about the year 251. In boyhood and youth, it is said, he was thoughtful, serious, and of a retiring disposition. He cared little for worldly learning, but desired earnestly the knowledge of divine things. Before reaching the age of nineteen, he lost his parents, and came into possession of considerable property. One day while in church, it so happened that the gospel concerning the rich young man was read before the assembly. Antony considered the words of the Savior as addressed from heaven to himself: “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22.) He forthwith made over his lands to the inhabitants of his village, turned the rest of his estates into money, and gave all to the poor, except a small portion which he reserved for the maintenance of his only sister. On another occasion, he was deeply impressed with the words of the Lord, SHORT PAPERS ON CHURCH HISTORY. 255
“Take no thought for the morrow” (Matt. 6:25-34), and taking these words in a literal sense, he parted with the remainder of his property, placed his sister with a society of pious virgins, that he might be free from all cares about earthly things, and embraced a life of rigid asceticism.
Antony is said to have visited Paul the hermit, and all the most famous ascetics he could hear of, endeavoring to learn from each his distinguishing virtue, and to combine all their graces in his own practice. He shut himself up in a tomb, where he lived ten years. By excessive fastings, exhaustion, and an over-excited imagination, he fancied himself beset by evil spirits, with whom he had many and severe conflicts. Antony became famous. Many visited the unnatural place of his abode in the hope of seeing him, or of hearing the noise of his conflicts with the powers of darkness. But he left his tomb, and dwelt in a ruined castle near the Red Sea, for other twenty years. He increased his mortifications with the view of overcoming the evil spirits, but the same temptations and conflicts followed him.
Strange as it may seem, this remarkable and deluded man had a true heart for Christ, and a tender heart for His people. The persecution under Maximus (311) drew him from his cell to the public scenes in Alexandria. His appearance produced a great effect. He attended on the sufferers, exhorting them to unwavering confidence in their confession of Christ, and manifested great love to the confessors in the prisons and in the mines. He exposed himself in every way to danger, yet no one ventured to touch him. When the fury of the persecution was past, he escaped to a new place of solitude in the side of a lofty mountain. Here he cultivated a small piece of ground; multitudes flocked to him; great numbers imitated him. Mourners came to him to be comforted, the perplexed to be advised, and enemies to be reconciled. Miracles were ascribed to him, his influence was boundless.
In the year 352, when he was a hundred years old, he appeared a second time in Alexandria. This was to counteract the spread of Arianism, and defend with all his influence the true orthodox faith. His appearance produced a great sensation; multitudes thronged to see the monk—the man of God, as he was called—and hear him preach; and many pagans were converted to Christianity by his means. Antony and his monks were steady and powerful supporters of the Nicene creed. He lived to the age of a hundred and five, and died only a few days before Athanasius sought a refuge among the monks of the desert in 356.
THE VIRTUES AND FAILURES OF ANTONY.
Antony was evidently sincere and honest, though utterly mistaken and misled by the craft and power of Satan. In place of acting upon the Savior’s commission to His disciples, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” or following His example who went about doing good, he thought to attain to a more elevated spirituality by withdrawing from mankind, and devoting himself to austerity of life, and to uninterrupted communion with heaven. He was a Christian, but utterly ignorant of the nature and object of Christianity. Holiness in the flesh was his one grand object; though the apostle had said, “In me—that is, in my flesh—dwelleth no good thing.” Therefore all was failure, utter failure; as it ever must be, if we think there is any good tiling in human nature, or try to become better in ourselves. In place of sanctifying his nature by fastings and idleness, he found that every evil passion was excited to greater activity.
“Hence, in his solitude,” says Neander, “he had to endure many conflicts with sense, which in some active vocation, demanding the exertion of all his powers, might perhaps have been avoided. The temptations he had to battle with were so much the more numerous and powerful, as he was given to idle self-occupation, as he busied himself in fighting down the impure images that were constantly coming up from the abyss of corruption within his heart, instead of forgetting himself in worthier employments, or in looking away to the everlasting source of purity and holiness. At a later period, Antony, with a conviction grounded on long years of experience, acknowledged this, and said to his monks. Let us not busy our imaginations in painting specters of evil spirits; let us not trouble our minds as if we were lost. Let us rather be comforted and cheerful at all times, as those who have been redeemed; and let us be mindful that the Lord is with us who has conquered them and made them nothing. Let us ever remember that, if the Lord is with us, the enemy can do us no harm. The spirits of evil appear different to us, according to the different moods of mind in which they find us...... But if they find us joyful in the Lord, occupied in the contemplation of future blessedness and of the things of the Lord, reflecting that everything is in the Lord’s hand, and that no evil spirit can do any harm to the Christian, they turn away in confusion from the soul which they see preserved by such good thoughts.”
It is perfectly plain from these counsels to his monks, that Antony was not only a sincere Christian, but that he had a good knowledge of the Lord and of redemption, though so completely turned aside by a deceived heart. We are never safe unless moving on the direct lines of the truth of God. The system which this man introduced in his false dreams of perfection in the flesh, became, in process of time, the very hot-bed of profligacy and vice. And thus it continued for more than a thousand years. It was not until the sixteenth century, when the divine light of the blessed Reformation, bursting upon a scene of dense moral darkness, revealed the deep-seated corruptions and the flagrant enormities of the different monastic orders. The monks at that time, like swarms of locusts, covered all
Europe; they proclaimed everywhere, as history informs us, the obedience due to holy mother church, the reverence due to the saints, and more especially to the Virgin Mary, the efficacy of relics, the torments of purgatory, and the blessed advantages arising from indulgences. But as the monks lost their popularity and influence at the Reformation, a new order was necessary to fill their place and do their evil work; and such was found in the Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius Loyola—the Jesuits. But we must take another glance at the early history of monasticism.
THE FIRST SOCIETY OF ASCETICS.
The earliest form in which the ascetic spirit developed itself in the christian Church, was not in the formation of societies or communities, as we find in later times, but in the seclusion of single individuals. They believed, however mistaken, that they had a special call to strive after a higher christian life; and in order to attain this eminent holiness, they imposed upon themselves the most severe restraints. They retired to desert places, that they might give themselves up to close meditation on divine things, and that their minds might be entirely abstracted from all natural objects, and from whatever delights the senses. Both men and women supposed that they must emaciate their bodies with watchings, fasting, toil, and self-torture. As the poor body was considered an oppressive load and hindrance to their spiritual aspirations, they vied with each other in the extent to which they could carry their self-mortifications. They existed on the coarsest and most unwholesome diet; they sometimes abstained from food and sleep till nature was almost wholly exhausted. The contagion of this new device of Satan spread far and wide. The mysterious recluse was regarded as necessarily invested with peculiar sanctity. The hermit’s cell was visited by the noble, the learned, the devout—all desirous to pay homage to the holy man of God; and thus spiritual pride was engendered by the flattery of the world. From this time the monastic life was held in such esteem, that many adopted it as a highly honorable employment; and afterward formed themselves into communities, or monastic institutions.
PACHOMIUS, who was, like Antony, a native of Thebais, was converted to Christianity in the early part of the fourth century. After practicing austerities for some time, he was told by an angel in his dreams, that he had made sufficient progress in the monastic life, and must now become a teacher of others. Pachomius then founded a society on an island of the Nile. Thus began ascetics to live in an association. The institution soon extended, so that before the founder’s death it embraced eight monasteries, with three thousand monks; and in the beginning of the following century the number of monks was no less than fifty thousand. They lived in cells, each of which contained three. They were under engagements of absolute obedience to the commands of the Abbot or father. They wore a peculiar dress, the chief article of which was a goatskin, in imitation of Elijah, who, with John the Baptist, was regarded as exemplifying the monastic condition. They were never to undress; they slept with their clothes on, and in chairs so constructed as to keep them almost in a standing posture. They prayed many times a-day, fasted on the fourth and sixth days of the week, and communicated on the Sabbath and on the Lord’s day. Their meals were eaten in silence, and with their hoods drawn over their faces, so that no one could see his neighbor. They employed themselves in agriculture and various forms of industry, and had all things in common, in imitation of the first Christians after the day of Pentecost. Pachomius founded similar societies for women.
Short Papers on Church History
Until nearly the close of the fifth century, the monasteries were placed under the superintendence of the bishops; the monks were regarded simply as laymen, and had no claim to be ranked among the sacerdotal order. Circumstances, however, in course of time, led the monks to assume a clerical character. Many of them were occupied in the work of reading and expounding the scriptures, and all of them were supposed to be engaged in the cultivation of the higher spiritual life; so that they were in great favor with the multitude, especially as they began to exercise their clerical functions beyond the confines of their establishments. Jealousies soon sprung up between the bishops and the abbots; the result was, that the abbots, to deliver themselves from dependence upon their spiritual rivals, made application to be taken under the protection of the Pope at Rome. The proposal was gladly accepted, and very quickly all the monasteries, great and small, abbeys, priories, and nunneries, were subjected to the authority of the See of Rome. This was an immense step towards the pontifical power of Rome.
The Pope could now establish in almost every quarter, a kind of spiritual police, who acted as spies on the bishops as well as on the secular authorities. This event is carefully to be noted, if we would watch the ways and means of the rising power, and ultimate supremacy, of the Roman Pontiff.
The monastic system soon spread far beyond the borders of Egypt; and all the great teachers of the age, both in the east and in the west, advocated the cause of celibacy and monasticism. St. JEROME, in particular, the most learned man of his day, is regarded as the connecting link between the two great divisions of the Church—the Greek and the Roman, or the eastern and the western. He was the means of powerfully forwarding the cause of celibacy and monasticism; especially among females. Many Roman ladies of rank became nuns through his influence. AMBROSE so extolled virginity in his sermons, that the mothers of Milan restrained their daughters from attending his ministry; but crowds of virgins from other quarters flocked to him for consecration. BASIL introduced monastic life into Pontus and Cappadocia; MARTIN, into Gaul; AUGUSTINE, into Africa; and CHRYSOSTOM was prevented by the wisdom of his mother, from retiring in his youth to a remote hermitage in Syria.
REFLECTIONS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF ASCETICISM.
It is truly sorrowful to reflect on the many and serious mistakes, or rather positive errors, of these great doctors, or early fathers, as they are usually called. We know of nothing more grave and solemn than the fact, that they greatly misled the people then, and that by their writings they have been misleading the Church ever since. Who can estimate the evil consequences of such teaching for the last fourteen hundred years at least? The misinterpretation or the misapplication of the word of God, is evidently the rule with these leaders; to teach sound doctrine, the exception. And still they are the boast and the alleged authority of a large portion of Christendom even until now.
On the subject of asceticism, anyone having an ordinary acquaintance with scripture, may see their ignorance of the mind of God, and their perversion of His word. We are exhorted, for example, to “ mortify the deeds of the body,” but never to mortify the body itself. The body is the Lord’s, and to be cared for. “Know ye not,” says the apostle, “that your bodies are the members of Christ?” True, they are to be kept under and brought into subjection, but that is the wisest way of caring for the body (Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 6:15; 9:27). Again, the apostle says, “mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;” and then states what these are; “fornication, un-cleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” These are the deeds of the body which we are to mortify—to put to death practically; and that on the ground that the flesh was put to death on the cross. “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.” Not, observe, are crucifying it, or ought to crucify it, but have crucified it. God has put it out of His sight by the cross, and we are to keep it out of sight by self-judgment. The body, on the contrary, has a most important place in the New Testament as the temple of the Holy Ghost; but the tendency of asceticism is to starve the body, and feed the flesh. “Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.” Col. 2:23.
The fathers seem to have overlooked that asceticism was the offspring of heathen philosophy, and not in any way of divine Christianity; but they never fairly looked into scripture for the mind of God on these subjects. The total ruin of man in the flesh not being understood by them, they vainly thought it might be improved, and were thus led astray in ways innumerable; especially as to the work of Christ, God’s judgment of the flesh, the true principle of worship, and the whole path of christian service.
Having now seen the foundation laid of the great monastic system, which was to exert so powerful an influence in connection with Christianity, literature, and civilization, throughout the dark ages; we may leave it for the present, and return to our general history.
ARCADIUS AND HONORIUS. A.D. 395.
Theodosius the Great left two sons—Arcadius, aged eighteen years, and Honorius, who was only eleven. The elder succeeded to the sovereignty of the East, the younger to that of the West. Nothing can be more striking than the condition of the Roman world at this moment, or more fitted to excite our compassion. Two emperors of such weakness as to be incapable of conducting the administration of public affairs, and the whole empire in a state of danger and alarm from the Gothic invaders. The hand of the Lord is manifestly here. Where is now the genius, the glory, and the power of Rome? They expired with Theodosius. At a moment when the empire required the prudence, the martial skill, and the talents of a Constantine, it was professedly governed by two imbecile princes. But its days were numbered in the providence of God, it was fast passing away.
The fiercest storm that had ever assailed the empire was now ready to burst upon it in its hour of weakness. The Goths had yielded to the arms, and especially to the policy of Theodosius, but it needed only the news of his death to arouse them to revolt and revenge. The famous Alaric, the crafty and able leader of the Goths, only waited for a favorable opportunity to carry out a scheme of greater magnitude and daring than had entered into the mind of any of Rome’s enemies since the time of Hannibal. He was, we doubt not, the minister of God’s righteous judgments on a people so deeply stained with the blood of His saints, besides having crucified the Lord of glory, and slain His apostles. Details we must leave to the civil historian of Rome’s decline and fall: but we may briefly say, that Alaric led his forces into Greece without opposition; devastated its fruitful lands, and plundered Athens, Corinth, Argos, and Sparta; and that which was impiously called, “the eternal city,” he besieged and sacked. The richest provinces of Europe too, Italy, Gaul, and Spain, were laid waste and new kingdoms set up by the barbarians. Thus the history of the fourth great world-empire closes about A.D. 478, and in the twelve hundred and twenty ninth year from the foundation of Rome.
Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, a prince alike excellent in the arts of war and of government, restored an age of peace and prosperity, swept away all vestiges of the imperial government, and formed Italy into a kingdom.
REFLECTIONS ON THE CALAMITIES OF ROME.
The christian reader may here find it profitable to pause for a moment and contemplate the overthrow of the Western empire, and the division of its territory amongst the various hordes of the barbarians. It is our privilege and edification to see in all this, the fulfillment and harmony of scripture, the overruling providence of God, and the accomplishment of His purposes. We can also afford to drop the tear of compassion over the miseries of our deluded fellow men. This would be nothing more than the tender compassion of Him who wept over the devoted city Jerusalem. It is our duty to study history by the sure light of scripture; not scripture—as some have attempted—by the uncertain light of history. Thus we may be happy in the presence of God with the page of history open before us, and our faith strengthened by the mighty contrast between the kingdom of God and all earthly glory. “Wherefore,” says the apostle, “we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” (Heb. 12:28.) The superiority of Christianity to the most powerful of Pagan institutions was now manifest to all. When the overwhelming judgments of God fell upon Italy, and broke in pieces the iron rule of the empire, the Church suffered no harm. It was rather shielded, and the means of shielding others, than exposed to danger. Like the ark which rose above the dark waters of the deluge, the Church was preserved from the fury of the invader. There was no instance of the barbarians embracing the old religion of Greece and Rome; they either adhered to the superstitions of their ancestors, or adopted some form of Christianity. There is no sure footing for the sinner amidst the convulsions of earth, the rise and fall of empires; but the Rock of Ages—the risen and exalted Christ of God. “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalm 2:12.) The Lord provided for the safety of His people, by the previous conversion of those who subverted the empire.
Note. —It was our original intention to discontinue “Short Papers on Church History,” when we had reached the important epoch of the triumph of Christianity and the downfall of idolatry under Constantine; but the record of these events not answering with the end of a volume, we have continued the papers until now. The complete disappearance of the empire and the further triumphs of the truth over the barbarians, fall in remarkably with the close of this year, and with the discontinuance of the history in “Things New and Old.” But our intention, the Lord willing, is to bring down the history to the present century, and publish it in a separate form.