Chapter 10
Constantine
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 favourable to the
Christians. Some years of Constantine's youth were spent at the court of
Diocletian 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 effected his escape, he joined his father in Britain. In 306
Constantius died at York. He had nominated as his 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which the persecuting edicts of Diocletian were repealed, the Christians
encouraged, their teachers honoured, 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. 313-606
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 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." (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 Diocletian 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, and when they saw that their efforts were to no purpose that the
sufferers ceased to care for the things of the world, and became more
devoted to Christianity; while 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
honour and glory of her heavenly Lord and Saviour.
The church, we must remember, is an
outcalling
(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, to
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 should 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 dishonour. 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 dishonoured
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 was 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 of "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. As
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 church, 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 for ever." 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 dewdrops 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 favours 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 favour. 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 for ever.
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 — for ever 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 Saviour 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 to use it as his standard in war, assuring him that while
he did so he would be victorious. Constantine, on awakening, described
what had been shown to him while asleep, and resolved to adopt the sign
of the cross as his imperial standard.
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 the
cross and the first letters of the Saviour'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.
{*(Christos), Christ.}
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.
The Edict of
Constantine and Licinius
A.D. 313
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 valour, 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. Afterwards, as a
statesman, he owned and valued Christianity; but God only knows whether
as a lost sinner he ever embraced the Saviour. 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 Diocletian, 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 favour 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 favourites 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 of 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
favour, 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 — of all the emperors — the protector of Christianity during the
long persecution, had gone down to an honoured and peaceful grave. Facts
so 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 Her
Up to this time the church had been
perfectly free and independent of the state. She had a divine
constitution direct from heaven — and outside the world. She made her
way, not by state patronage, but by divine power, against every hostile
influence. In place of receiving support from the civil government, she
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
against her the whole Roman world, which ten times 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
thinking 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 banns 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.
{*The letters usually employed to
represent the Saviour's name are, LH.S., which mean
Jesu Hominum
Salvator-Jesus the Saviour of
men.}
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 dishonour 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 favourable to Christianity, were given in such
cautions terms as not to interfere with the rights and liberties of
paganism. But the Christians gradually grew in his favour, 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 Diocletian persecution; but enabled them, by his own munificent
gifts, to build many new places for their assemblies. He showed great
favour to the bishops and 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 is son
Crispus
to the celebrated
Lactantius, a
Christian. But with all this
royal patronage he assumed a 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
sceptre 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, and he died head of the church and high priest of
the heathen.
This unholy alliance, or 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 occupation to which
they 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 endeavoured, however, to render it attractive by
bestowing places and honours 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
Favour
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
favour 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 unpatronised 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)
The Witness of
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 kings'
palaces and covered with royal favours. By way of illustrating our
question, we will give our readers a page from the history of the great
persecution under Diocletian, 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 afterwards 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 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 labourers, 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 to or an exclusion from everlasting
bliss, he uttered the sentences 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."*
{*History
of Christianity, vol. 2, p.
283-308. Neander, vol. 3, p. 41.
Life of
Constantine, by Eusebius.}
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 Saviour,
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 passions. 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 favour 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 baptised, in place of believers only as dead
and risen with 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 honours, all ranks and classes applied
for baptism. At the
Easter
and
Pentecostal festivals,
thousands, all clothed in the white garments of the neophyte, crowded
round the different churches, waiting to be baptised. 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, beside women
and children, were baptised 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 favour 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 honours, 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
dishonouring to Christianity, or more dangerous to every moral virtue.
It was a licence 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 baptised 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.*
{* Eusebius's
Life of
Constantine, p. 147.}
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 travelled 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 sepulchre, and gave directions for a church to be built on the
spot, which should exceed all others in splendour. 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 latter was a
question of
doctrine, the former 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 afterwards. 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
neighbouring 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 when absent from Carthage 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, as he of course demanded the articles from the elders, but
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.
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
Traditor,*
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 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.
{*"A name of infamy given to those who,
to save their lives in the persecution, had delivered the scriptures or
goods of the church to the persecuting powers." Milner, vol. 1, p. 513.}
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
had 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
favour 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 Arles, 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 Arles. He also issued edicts
against them, which he afterwards repealed, from seeing the dangerous
consequences of violent measures. But Donatism soon became a fierce,
widespread, 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 Mahometan
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 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 in the germ. 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, taught by experience, at
length found that although he could give the church protection, he could
not give her peace; and 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. *
{*Neander, vol. 3, p. 244; Robertson,
vol. 1, p. 175; Milman, vol. 2, p. 364.}
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 her 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 dishonour, 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 vigour 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, Novatians, 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 Saviour'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 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
of the divine power by whom He made the worlds. What his views were of
the Holy Spirit are not so plainly stated.*
{*The blasphemous doctrine of Arius was
an offshoot of Gnosticism, perhaps the least offensive in appearance,
but directly and inevitably destructive of the personal glory of the Son
as God, and hence overthrowing the basis of redemption. Modem
Unitarianism denies the Lord Jesus to be more than man, and thus even
His supernatural birth of the Virgin Mary; though Socinus asserted the
singular modification of such an exaltation after His resurrection as
constituted Him an adequate object of divine worship. Arius seemed to
approach the truth on the side of His pre-existence before He came into
the world, owned that He the Son of God, made the universe but
manifested that He was Himself created, though the very first and
highest of creatures. It was not the Sabellian denial of distinct
personality, but the refusal to the Son, and of course to the Spirit, of
true, proper, essential, and eternal Deity.
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 His 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
eyevero,
"He was" in the sense of coming into being or caused to be, but
nv,
"He was" in His own absolute being. All things
eyevero,
"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
nv
but eyevero.
Further, when come among men, He is described as "the only-begotten Son
'who is' [o
wv, 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.
{{*The absence of the article here is
necessarily due to the fact that
meos
is the predicate of
o
Aoyos,
in no way to an inferior sense of His Godhead, which would contradict
the context itself. Indeed, if the article had been inserted, it would
be the grossest heterodoxy, because its effect would be to deny that the
Father and the Spirit are God by excluding all but the Word from
Godhead.}}
Again, Romans 9: 5 is a rich and
precise expression of Christ's underivative and supreme Godhead equally
with the Father and the Spirit. Christ came, "who is over all, God
blessed for ever. 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. There 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 is
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 first-born of every creature; for
by Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are on
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be 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 consist
[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 Hebrews 1, where the apostle illustrates the fulness of Christ's
Person among other Old Testament scriptures by Psalms 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 sympathised 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 skilfully 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.
Constantine's First
Impression of the Controversy
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.
{*See the Letter in Eusebius's
Life of
Constantine, 2. 64-72.}
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.