Bishops also in general cheerfully submitted to the decrees of this council. The most eminent of its opposers was Eusebius of Nicome-dia, who, after three months of wavering, was exiled, and disgraced.* .*

Though the decrees of the council of Nice were peremptory and decisive, they did not wholly suppress the Arian Heresy; nor heal the divisions which it excited in the Church. This might be reasonably expected; for when human power is exerted to impose a scheme of faith on men who depart from the general belief, it tends rather to widen than to heal the breach. They may be put to silence; but in matters of faith, they will not yield to a com-pulsive power. Persecution tends to confirm them in their opinions, even though erroneous.

By an artifice that was practised on the Emperor Constantine, he was induced to recall Arius from banishment; and when the Bishops of Africa persisted in refusing to receive him, the Emperor invited him to Constantinople; and ordered the Bishop to admit him to his communion. Some of the successors of Constantine declared in favor of the Arians. This gave them a temporary triumph; and a scene of contention followed, for many years.

It is not necessary to the present object, to give a detail of the fluctuation of opinion, as the civil authority either favored, or opposed,,

* Christian Church, Vol. I. page 171.1

the orthodox; and that hostility and mutual recrimination which distracted the Church, after the death of Constantine. It appears, however, that the orthodox faith prevailed, after a season of confusion; and, in the fifth century, the Arians sought a refuge among the Goths, Suevi, Vandals, and Burgundians, those barbarous nations who now began to advance, and commit depredations upon the western empire. These rude people adopted the Arian scheme; and as they gained, in conquest, upon the empire, they gave support and importance to the sect. This importance was of short duration: for in the next century, according to Mosheim, most of those northern nations embraced the orthodox faith. The

same writer adds, "Whether the change, wrought in those princes, was owing to the force of reason and argument, or the influence of hopes and fears, is a question which we shall not pretend to determine. One thing, however, is certain, and that is, from this period the Arian sect declined apace; and could never after recover any considerable degree of stability and consistence."

These facts are not exhibited as claiming any authority like Scripture; for had the whole Christian world, in the time of Constantine, declared against the doctrine of the Trinity, and all that scheme of Grace which results from a perfect atonement, this should not weaken our faith in those doctrines if we find them in the Gospel. By this exhibition of facts respecting the rise of the Arian scheme,

the friends of evangelical truth will see, that in addition to their own convictions of truth, they have the example of primitive times. I Here the orthodox believer will see, that while Heresy has ever been in a state of fluctuation, the voice of a majority, in the purest times, from the Apostles days, has been in favor of the doctrines of Grace, until the Church became corrupted by an unnatural alliance with the civil authority.

1

When the Arian doctrine first appeared, it is manifest that it excited a deep concern in the minds of Christians. Their conduct, in regard to this doctrine, is a proof that they at least deemed it a Heresy of pernicious tendency; and that if it were suffered to spread, it would corrupt the Church, and counteract the moral tendency of the Gospel. On no other principle can we justify, or even account for, the part which they acted. This proof does not arise from those contentions between the Arians and the orthodox, which agitated the Church after the death of Constantine. These became conflicts between the rival Emperors, rather than between truth and error. The proof arises from the decision of the Bishops and Ecclesiastics, who were assembled at the council of Nice. That council was the most general assembly of Ecclesiastics that had ever been convened. They doubtless considered. themselves as the representatives, and their decisions as the voice, of the Christian world.

We may, with propriety, consider the result'+ of their deliberations as an expression of the general opinion.'

Those who have thought favorably of the Arian scheme of doctrine, acknowledge, that the principal object of this council was to decide respecting the doctrines of Arius, which were then new.

It is a fact, that these doctrines were condemned; and that Arius, with those who adhered to him, were excommunicated.

It appears furthermore, that the members of that numerous assembly were almost unani mous in the sentence upon Arius and his followers. The conclusion, that they considered this doctrine to be a Heresy, is plain and unavoidable.

The fathers, who composed that council, declare their belief, that the Son of God, who is equal, or consubstancial, with the Father, came down, became incarnate, and suffered for our salvation. In addition to their belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ, they also declare it as their belief, that his sufferings were necessary for salvation; or that men are saved by the efficacy of his atonement; therefore they are saved by Grace.

Their conduct, respecting Arius, is manifest proof, that they considered his doctrine to be essentially different from that which they express in their creed.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Pelagian doctrine.
THE Church had not yet enjoyed a res-

pite, from those contentions which the doctrines
of the Arians had excited, when another sect
arose, which has divided the Christian world
from the fifth century to this time. If credit
be due to the testimony of Mosheim, doctrines
were advanced in the fifth century, which, at
that time, were new, and different from those
which had been the faith of the Church. Pela-
gius, and Cælestus, two monks, the former of
Britain, and the other of Ireland, first origi-
nated those sentiments.
these, have been called Pelagians.

The followers

of

We must suppose, that a historian of such credibility as Mosheim, would not hazard assertions on slight grounds; and therefore we may depend upon the correctness of the account which he has given of this sect. His account is this: "These monks looked upon the doc-. trines which were commonly received concerning the original corruption of human nature, and the necessity of divine grace to enlighten the understanding and purify the heart, as