EXCELLENT PRINCIPLES OF THE DONATISTS:

475

for both the church and the world, had all Christians adopted and acted upon it; in that case we had never heard of Antichrist -the Man of Sin-the son of perdition-that wicked one that exalteth himself against all that is called God, or is worshipped! We had never heard of Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth! Our hearts had not been sickened with a detail of the atrocities of the church of Rome in deluging the earth with the blood of the Waldenses and Albigenses, from the 12th to the 17th century! Alas, for Constantine the Great! he was little aware of what he was doing when, to gratify the clergy of his day, he formed that unnatural alliance. Could he have foreseen the racks, the fires, the massacres, the butcheries, that were to follow his measures of complaisance to the clergy, he would have shuddered at his own conduct.

Another maxim of the Donatists was, as we learn from Optatus,-"Quid Christianis cum regibus, aut quid episcopis cum palatio?" "What have Christians to do with kings, or what have bishops to do at court?”

Now the answer to these questions is perfectly easy on the principles of the New Testament, and the doctrine of our Lord concerning his kingdom in particular. For instance, you may recollect that, in the days of his public ministry, he was accosted by certain hypocrites who desired to know from him whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not-meaning, doubtless, did the divine law permit them so to do or not? "Shall we give or shall we not give ?" said they. But "Jesus, perceived their wickedness and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money ;" and they brought to him a penny bearing the emperor's inscription; when Jesus pointing them to it, said, "Render, therefore, unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Matt. xxii. 15-21. But what is the instruction that we derive from this piece of sacred history? Is it not this?—that in all the civil, and secular, and political transactions of life, Christ would have his disciples to yield a ready and cheerful obedience to the civil magistrate; but that, in the affairs of religion, they must allow no human authority to dictate to them-their consciences must be in subjection to the authority of God, speaking to them in his word, and to that alone? When the question is put-"What have

emperor's to do with the church?" We answer, that, as empeperors, they have nothing to do with it—not a particle more than the beggar on the dunghill. If an emperor, or king, believe the gospel, and apply to the church for communion in divine ordinances, he may be received on a confession of his faith, and on being baptized, in obedience to the command of Christ: but in that case he takes his standing in the church or kingdom of heaven, on the very same footing as the humblest believer—his elevated station in life avails him nothing here. In a Christian church all those distinctions which prevail in the kingdoms of this world, and which are founded on birth, property, education, or other adventitious circumstances, avail nothing-" Jew and Gentile, barbarian, Scythian, bond, and free," here meet upon one common level.

THE ERIANS.

While the subject of dissent and a contention for primitive Christianity is the topic of the Lecture, I must not omit to mention a third class of Reformers which rose up towards the close of the fourth century, and which is well entitled to notice. I will first lay before you Dr. Mosheim's account of this matter, and then offer a few strictures and observations upon it. Thus he

writes:

"About this time" (the latter part of the fourth century)Ærius, a presbyter and Semi-Arian, erected a new sect, and excited divisions throughout Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, by propagating opinions different from those that were commonly received. One of his principal tenets was, that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right; but that, according to the institution of the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same, How far Ærius pursued this opinion, through its natural consequences, is not certainly known; but we know with the utmost certainty, that it was highly agreeable to many good Christians, who were no longer able to bear the tyranny and arrogance of the bishops of this century.

"There were other things in which Ærius differed from the common notions of the time: he condemned prayers for the dead-stated fasts-the celebration of Easter, and other rites of

MOSHEIM'S ACCOUNT OF ERIUS.

477

that nature, in which the multitude erroneously imagine that the life and soul of religion consists. His great purpose seems to have been that of reducing Christianity to its primitive simplicity, a purpose indeed laudable and noble when considered in itself, though the principles from which it springs, and the means by which it is executed, are generally, in many respects, worthy of censure, and may have been so in the case of this reformer."*

You have, in this extract, one specimen of the things for which I blamed this learned writer in my first Lecture. The tyranny and arrogance of the bishops of the Catholic church, he assures us, had, at this time, become insupportable. The friends of truth examined the New Testament in order to ascertain upon what ground these claims were founded, and the result was a conviction that the scriptures afforded not the slightest pretext for them. They consequently made a noble stand against them. Numerous other corruptions had crept into the church, and against these also they raised their voice. They appealed to the law and to the testimony, the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, and "were for reducing the profession of Christianity to its primitive simplicity," an object which has extorted from Mosheim a tribute of applause," the purpose was, indeed, laudableand noble in itself." Well, surely, if so, it is natural to expect that the conduct of these reformers would receive his unqualified approbation. That, however, is not the case; "the principles from which an opposition to an intolerable grievance, and the increase of corrupt practices springs, and the means by which it is executed," he tells us, " are generally, in many respects, worthy of censure, and MAY have been so in this reformer." What, then, is the inference that Dr. Mosheim would have his readers to deduce from the things he has laid before them ?– Why, that we are justified in suspecting the motives of every reformer, whether in church or state; and that, if men are wise, they will swim with the stream, countenance, or at least connive at, every species of corruption, and never raise their voice against them, lest they subject themselves to the imputation of base motives! Now this is monstrous, and had Wycliffe, and Huss, and Jerome of Prague, had Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and the

* Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 387, &c.

noble army of reformers acted upon this principle, we, in this enlightened day, had been paying our adorations to a tenpenny nail, or attending the levee of the Lady of Loretto!

I bless the great author of my being that I was not cast in that mould !--there are few things that gratify me more, in this world of sin and sorrow, than to have an opportunity of recording the disinterested labours of such persons as, under circumstances of discouragement, and often at the expense of character, liberty, property, and life, have stood forward to stem the torrent of corruption and advocate the cause of God and truth. It was this principle that prompted me many years ago to prosecute my inquiries into the history of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and to lay the result before the public: in doing which, I would fondly hope, I contributed my mite towards enlightening the public mind, exposing that mass of hypocrisy, perfidy, cruelty, injustice, and oppression, which had for centuries passed under the name of the "Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church," and vindicating the character of these much injured followers of the Lamb. The sectaries now mentioned, whose fame is become so dear to thousands of Christians in the present day, were the genuine descendants of the Novatianists, the Donatists, the Ærians, and others whom I shall hereafter have to introduce to your notice. They were actuated by the same spirit, walked in the same path, and had the same noble ends in view, viz. the glory of God, the honour of the Redeemer, and the best interests of their fellow creatures; and though it fell to their lot to be calumniated, persecuted, and, in ten thousand times ten thousand instances, to seal their testimony with their blood, yet were their lives honourable in the estimation of the Most High, and their deaths precious in his sight. May my lot be found among theirs in that day, when Jesus shall come again to take account of his servants and number up his jewels!

As to the four errors which are laid to the charge of Arius, and for maintaining which he was placed in the list of heretics, I must offer a remark or two before bringing this Lecture to a close. First, he denied that, according to the Scriptures, a presbyter differed in order or degree from a bishop. And, certainly, this distinction, though generally admitted in the fourth century, when Erius lived, has no sanction from the apostolic writings.

VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ARIUS.

479

This is a point on which I have so often insisted, in preceding Lectures, that it may suffice to remind you of what has been already said, p. 266. I may, however, add, in this place, that the holy apostles, though the accrediteda mbassadors of the Lord Jesus, were content to rank themselves among the elders or presbyters of the churches. Thus, for instance, Peter exhorts :-"The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, exercising the bishop's office, not by constraint but willingly, &c." 1 Pet. v. 1. This is a literal version of the apostle's words; and you see that, while the apostle ranks himself among the presbyters, he enjoins it upon the latter to perform the bishop's work, committing the entire care of the flock into their hands. So also we find the apostle John once and again subscribing himself the Prebyter, O Пpɛσßurep8c, 2 Joh. ver. 1, and 3 Ep. ver. 1. The distinction, therefore, between the bishop and the presbyter, and the superiority of the former to the latter, were unknown in the apostle's days, have no sanction in their writings, and must be placed to the account of the corruption of Christianity.

Another article in what was termed the heresy of Erius was his denying that Christians are under any obligation to attend to the annual solemnity now termed Easter-that it was not enforced by either apostolic precept, or approved example, and consequently that its observance was a piece of mere will-worship. As I have hitherto abstained from noticing this matter, I avail myself of the present opportunity to remark that, for several centuries, the time of observing Easter day, and the previous fast, furnished a fruitful source of contention in the church. In order to settle it, councils were held in Asia, Syria, and Palestine in the east; and in Italy and France in the west. Decisions were pronounced against the Asiatics, who kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, after the Jewish custom, by Victor, bishop of Rome, in a synod held in that city in the second century, and the sentence was sent to other churches. This prelate insisted on its being held on a Sunday, pleading a tradition from the apostles Paul and Peter; but Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, an aged man, pleaded a command from the apostle John for