slaughter and arms, for the party which they had espoused. After Macarius had vanquished these in battle at Bagnia', he no longer recommended, but commanded peace and reconciliation. A few Donatists obeyed; the majority either fled, or were sent into banishment, among whom was Donatus the Great; and many suffered the severest punishments. In this persecution of the Donatists, which lasted thirteen years, many things were done, as the Catholics themselves concede, which no upright, impartial, and humane person can well say were righteous and just. And hence the numerous complaints made by the Donatists of the cruelty of their adversaries.3 § 7. Julian, on his accession to the government of the empire, in the year 362, permitted the Donatists to return to their country, and enjoy their former liberty. After their return they drew, in a short time, the greater part of Africa into their communion. Gratian enacted indeed some laws against them; and especially, in 387, commanded all their temples to be taken from them, and all their assemblies, even in the fields and private houses, to be broken up. But the fury of the Circumcelliones, who were the soldiery of the Donatists, and the fear of producing intestine war, prevented, no doubt, the vigorous execution of these laws; for it appears that in the conclusion of this century the Donatist community in Africa was so extensive as to have more than four hundred bishops. 1 [Or Bagaja. Tr.] I will here give a quotation from Optatus of Milevi, whom none will refuse as a witness; de Schismate Donatistor. lib. iii. § 1, p. 51, ed. Du Pin: “Ab Operariis unitatis" (the imperial legates Macarius and Paullus)" multa quidam aspere gesta sunt.-Fugerunt omnes Episcopi cum clericis suis, aliqui sunt mortui: qui fortiores fuerunt, capti et longe relegati sunt." Through this whole book, Optatus is at much pains to apologize for this severity, the blame of which he casts upon the Donatists. Yet he does not dissemble, that all of it cannot by any means be approved or justified. See the Collatio Carthagin. dici tertiæ, § 258, at the end of Optatus, p. 315. [When the Donatists returned, under the permission of Julian, they demanded of the orthodox the restoration of their churches. And as they were not willing to give them up, and as little 5 could be expected from the civil authorities, the Donatists felt justified in depending upon their own strength. Most unhappy proceedings ensued, which have brought lasting disgrace upon the Donatists. Bloodshed, merciless denial of the necessaries of life, violation of females, in a word, the worst excesses of an oppressed party which, after long continued sufferings felt itself authorized to take unsparing revenge, attended the restoration of the Donatists; and by craft and violence must their churches be built up. The orthodox made resistance, and would not tamely suffer abuse. And hence arose those tumultuous scenes which the magistrates reported to the court; and very probably, had Julian lived a little longer, persecuting laws would have been issued by the government. See Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iv. p. 175. Schl.] [Codex Theodos. 1. ii. ne sanct. Bapt. iteretur. Schl.] As the century drew to a close, however, two things impaired not a little the energies of this very flourishing community. The one was a great schism that arose in it, occasioned by one Maximinus; than which nothing could more aid the Catholics in opposing the Donatists. The other was the zeal against them of Augustine, first a presbyter, and then bishop of Hippo. For he assailed them most vigorously, by his writings, discourses, conferences, advice, admonitions, and by conventions; and as his talents were such as command attention every where, he roused against them, not only Africa, but all Christendom besides, including the court itself." § 8. The Donatists were sound in doctrine, as their adversaries admit; nor were their lives censurable, if we except the enormities of the Circumcelliones, which were detested by the greatest part of the Donatists. Their fault was, that they considered the African church to have fallen from the rank and privileges of a true church, and to be without the gifts of the Holy Spirit from its adherence to Cæcilian, on account of that man's offences, and those of his consecrator, Felix of Aptungis. All other churches likewise, which were associated and connected with this in Africa, they looked upon as defiled and polluted. For their own body, on account of the sanctity of its bishops, they claimed exclusively the name of a true, pure, and holy church; nor, in consequence of these opinions, would they hold any communion with other churches, for fear of contracting some defilement. This error led them to maintain that the sacred rites and administrations of Christians. who disagreed with them were destitute of all efficacy. Hence they not only re-baptized such as came over to them from other societies, but also excluded from the sacred office, or reordained such ministers of religion as joined their community. This pestilence scarcely extended beyond Africa; for the few [On this schism among the Donatists, and others of less magnitude, sec Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iv. p. 258-267. Schl.] [A full catalogue of the writings of Augustine against the Donatists, is given by Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iv. p. 254, &c. and of his other efforts against them, an account is given, ibid. p. 181, &c. We will make here a single remark; that it was during these contests, Augustine first exhibited in his writings that horrid principle; Heretics are to be punished with temporal punishments and death ;- -a principle wholly inconsistent with Christianity, and one which, in after ages, served as an excuse for inhuman cruelties. Only read Augustine's 48th Epistle, ad Vincent. and his 50th, ad Bonifac. and several others; and you will there meet with all the plausible arguments, which the spirit of persecution in after ages so dressed up-to the disgrace of Christianity — as to blind the eyes of kings. Schl.] A small congregations which the Donatists formed in Spain and Italy, had no permanence, but were soon broken up.8 § 9. Not long after the commencement of the Donatist controversy, or in the year 317, another storm arose in Egypt, more pernicious and of greater consequence, which spread its ravages over the whole Christian world. The ground of this contest was the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which, during the three preceding centuries, had not been in all respects defined. It had, indeed, often been decided, in opposition to the Sabellians and others, that there is a real difference between the Father and the Son, and also between them and the Holy Spirit; or, as we commonly express it, that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. But the mutual relations of these persons, and the nature of the difference between them, had not been a subject of dispute, and therefore nothing had been decreed by the church on these points. Much less was there any prescribed phraseology which it was necessary to use when speaking on this mystery. The doctors, therefore, explained this subject in different ways, and gave various representations of the difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without offence being taken. In Egypt and the neighbouring countries, the greater part had, in this article as well as others, followed the opinions of Origen, who had taught that the Son is in God, what reason is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is nothing else than the divine energy or power of acting and working; which opinion, if it be not cautiously stated, may lead, among other difficulties, to the subversion of any real distinction between the divine persons, or in other words to Sabellianism. § 10. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria,—it is uncertain A more full account of the Donatists is given by Hen. Valesius, Diss. de Schismate Donatistarum, which is subjoined to his edition of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica:- by Thos. Ittig, Historia Donatismi; in an appendix to his book, de Haresibus Evi Apostolici, p. 241. by Herm. Witsius, Miscellaneor. Sacror. tom. i. lib. iv. p. 742.-by Hen. Noris, Historia Donatiana; a posthumous work, which the brothers Ballerini enlarged and published, Opp. tom. iv. p. xlv. &c.-and by Thos. Long, History of the Donatists, London, 1677, 8vo. The narrative we have given above, is derived from the original sources; and, if our life is spared, it will in due time be corroborated by a statement of the requisite testimonies. [What chancellor Mosheim was prevented from fulfilling, by his death, his successor in the professorial chair of church history, Dr. Walch, has now accomplished, to the satisfaction of all the friends of this branch of knowledge, in the fourth volume of his Historie der Ketzereyen, p. 1 -354. Schl.] on what occasion,- expressed himself rather freely on this subject in a meeting of his presbyters; and maintained, among other things, that the Son possesses not only the same dignity as the Father, but also the same essence. But Arius, one of the presbyters, a man of an acute mind, and fluent, influenced perhaps by ill-will towards his bishop', at first denied the truth of Alexander's positions, on the ground that they were allied to the Sabellian errors, which had been condemned by the church: and then, going to the opposite extreme, he maintained, that the Son is totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was, in fact, only the first and noblest of those created beings whom God the Father formed out of nothing, and the instrument which the Father used in creating this material universe; and, therefore, that he was inferior to the Father both in nature and in dignity. What were his views of the Holy Spirit is 9 See Socrates, Hist. Eccles. 1. i. c. 5. Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. 1. i. c. 2. [A historian should be cautious of judging of the motives of human actions; for there are cases, in which a man's motives are discernible only to the eye of Omniscience. The present is such a case. Here we can express only a dubious "perhaps," when we impartially survey the sources of the 'history of Arius. We commonly read, it is true, that ambition of distinction led Arius to contradict his bishop. But this cannot be proved by credible testimony and his opposers, Alexander and Athanasius, who would surely have used this fact to his disadvantage, if it had been known to them, observe a profound silence on the subject. On the contrary, Philostorgius relates (Hist. Eccles. 1. i. c. 3.) that Arius, when the votes of the electors were very favourable to himself, modestly directed the choice on Alexander. Philostorgius, it must be owned, was an Arian in sentiment, and his testimony is of no great weight. But the direct contrary to what he states is not capable of proof. The motives, therefore, which actuated Arius, in opposing his bishop, must be regarded as dubious. Probably something of human infirmity was found on both sides. The conduct of Arius in the contest itself betrays pride, conceit of learning, and a contentious disposition. On the other hand, the Arians complain that Alexander was actuated by envy and personal hatred of Arius, because the great popularity of Arius had excited his jealousy. See Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. ii. p. 395, &c. Schl.] : [Both Alexander and Arius have left us statements, each of his own doctrinal views, and also what he understood to be the sentiments of his antagonist. The statements are in their private letters, written after long and public discussions at Alexandria, and when Arius and his friends were cast out of the church. The letter of Alexander is addressed to his namesake, Alexander of Byzantium, since of Constantinople and that of Arius to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia. Both are preserved by Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 4, 5. It may gratify the reader, who has not access to the original, to peruse the following extracts, containing the grand points, as originally contested in the great Arian controversy, and in the language of the first combatants. Alexander states that Arius and his adherents, Denying the divinity of our Saviour, pronounced him τοῖς πᾶσιν ἴσον εἶναι, on a level with all other creatures." He says that they held," there was a time, when the Son of God was not; and he who once had not existence, afterwards did exist; and from that time was, what every man naturally is; for (say they) God made all things of nothing, including the Son of God in this creation of all things both rational and irrational: and of course, pronouncing him 66 not equally manifest. That his views of the Son of God were combined with some other opinions differing from the common to be of a changeable nature, and capable of virtue and of sin-The doctrine just risen up in opposition to the piety of the church, is that of Ebion and Artemas, and is an imitation of that of Paul of Samosata." Alexander then gives his own views, as follows: "We believe, as the Apostolic church does, in the only unbegotten Father, who derived his existence from no one, and is immutable and unalterable, always the same and uniform, unsusceptible of increase or diminution; the giver of the law and the prophets and the gospels; Lord of the patriarchs and apostles and of all saints and in one Lord, Jesus Christ; the only begotten Son of God; not begotten from nothing, but from the living Father; and not after the manner of material bodies, by separations and effluxes of parts, as Sabellius and Valentinian supposed; but in an inexplicable and indescribable manner, agreeably to the declaration before quoted. Who shall declare his generation?' For his existence (vróσTασis) is inscrutable to all mortal beings; just as the Father is inscrutable; because created intelligences are incapable of understanding this divine generation from the Father. : No one knoweth what the Father is, but the Son; and no one knoweth what the Son is, but the Father. He is unchangeable, as much as the Father; lacks nothing; is the perfect Son, and the absolute likeness of the Father, save only that he is not unbegotten. Therefore to the unbegotten Father, his proper dignity (oikeîov akiwμa) must be preserved. And to the Son also suitable honour must be given, by ascribing to him an eternal generation (avaρxov yévνnow) from the Father." Such is the statement of Alexander.The letter of Arius is as follows: "To his very dear lord that man of God, the faithful, orthodox Eusebius; Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by the bp. Alexander, on account of that all-conquering truth which thou also defendest, greeting in the Lord. As my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed proper for me to address you by him, and to acquaint the native love and affection which you exercise towards the brethren for God and his Christ's sake, that the bishop greatly oppresses and persecutes us, putting everything in motion against us; and so as to drive us out of the city, as if we were Atheists; because we do not agree with him, publickly asserting, that God always was, and the Son always was; that he was always the Father, always the Son; that the Son was of God himself; and that because your brother Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Theodotius, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aëtius, and all they of the East, say that God was before the Son, and without beginning, they are accursed; except only Philogonius, and Hellanicus and Macarius, unlearned and heretical men, who say of the Son, one of them, that he is an eructation, another, that he is an emission, and another, that he is equally unbegotten; which impieties we could not even hear, though the heretics should threaten us with a thousand deaths. As to what we say and believe, we have taught, and still teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a portion of the unbegotten, in any manner : nor was he formed out of any subjacent matter, but that, in will and purpose, he existed before all times and before all worlds, perfect God (λhpns Deós), the only-begotten, unchangeable; and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not; for he was never unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God was without beginning. We are also per secuted, because we say, that he is from nothing (OUK VTWV ŠOTÍV); and this we say, inasmuch as he is not a portion of God, nor formed from any subjacent matter. Therefore we are persecuted. The rest you know. I bid you adieu in the Lord."-According to these statements, both the Arians and the orthodox considered the Son of God and Saviour of the world, as a derived existence, and as generated by the Father. But they differed on two points. I. The Orthodox believed his generation was from eternity, so that he was coeval with the Father. But the Arians believed, there was a time when the Son was not. II. The Orthodox believed the Son to be derived of and from the Father; so that he was duoovolos, of the same essence with the Father. But the Arians believed, that |