they are worse [than nothing.] By such an unnatural alliance, and ill-judged`aid, hypocrisy and superstition may, indeed, be greatly promoted; but genuine piety never fails to suffer.”*

The sentiments of the primitive Christians for the first three centuries, in reference to the divinity of the Saviour, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform, nor do there appear to have been any public controversies regarding this leading article of the Christian faith. But a dispute now arose, which may be said to have involved all Christendom in a flame. It originated in the church of Alexandria, in Egypt, between Alexander and Arius, two of the pastors of that church, and soon spread itself into other churches, enflaming bishops against bishops, who, under the pretext of supporting divine truth, excited tumults, and fomented the most deadly strifes and hatreds towards each other. These divisions of the prelates set the people together by the ears, and the dispute was managed with such violence, that it involved the whole Christian world, and gave occasion to the heathens to ridicule the Christian religion upon their public theatres.†

The occasion of this dispute, which is well known by the name of "THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY," seems to have been simply this. Alexander, one of the prelates of ́that church, speaking upon the subject of the Trinity, had affirmed that there was "an unity in the Trinity, and particularly that the Son was co-eternal, and consubstantial, and of the same dignity with the Father." Arius objected to this language, and argued that " If the Father begat the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence, says he, 'tis manifest that there was a time when he (the Son) was not," &c.

Campbell's Lectures on Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 73. ↑ Socrates's Eccles. Hist. b. i. ch. 6.

It is wholly incompatible with the object of this history to discuss points of Christian doctrine; but the reader will probably, excuse a few remarks on this extraordinary controversy. It is scarcely possible for any one who entertains a reverential regard for the great God, not to be struck with the presumption of poor, finite, erring mortals, daring to investigate, in the rash and inconsiderate manner that was now done, a subject of such awful import as the modus of the divine existence. We no sooner turn our thoughts to this question than our feeble capacities are overwhelmed with the immensity of the subject. Reason, in its most improved state, can carry us but a little way in our discoveries of God; and, if we are wise, we shall receive in simplicity of mind, every information which the great First Cause hath been pleased to afford us concerning himself in his holy word. There, indeed, we learn with certainty, what may be also inferred from the works of creation and providence, that there is a God, who at first called the universe into being, and who still upholds and governs all things. But the works of creation and providence could never teach us, what the scriptures make abundantly plain,—that there is in this one immense being, a distinction of Father, Word, and Spirita distinction which lies at the foundation of the whole economy of our redemption. Men, in the pride of their hearts, may ask, how can these things be? But we are under no obligation to explain that point to them. And, indeed, it will be early enough for them to put the question, when they shall have explained how body, soul, and spirit constitute one individual human person. Every child may see that this distinction pervades the whole of divine revelation, and especially the New Testament. The FATHER is always represented as sustaining the majesty of the Godhead; as the great moral governor of the world, giving laws to his creatures, enforced by the sanctions of

the rewards and punishments of a future state. The WORD is described as becoming incarnate to accomplish the purposes of the Father's love in the redemption of the guilty. And the HOLY SPIRIT as the efficient agent, carrying into effect the purpose of the Father and the grace of the Son, on the hearts of the elect. But then it never leads us to conceive of the SON OF God, abstractedly from his incarnation. THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, or assumed a human body, and thus "that holy thing which was born of the virgin, was THE SON OF God."* The doctrine of "eternal generation" was unknown to the inspired writers, and, unquestionably, hatched in the school of Alexandria. Happy had it been for the Christian world, could they have rested satisfied with the simple doctrine of divine revelation on this sublime subject; not seeking to be wise beyond what is written. Much as I dislike the character of Athanasius, it is only due to him to say, that he hath in a few words said all that can with propriety be said on this subject. "The Father," says he, " cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father; and the Holy Ghost is never called by the name of the Son, but is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. The Holy Trinity is but one divine nature and one God. This is sufficient for the faithful; human knowledge goes no further. The Cherubims vail the rest with their wings."

But let the reader mark how these ecclesiastical combatants represent each others' opinions. Arius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, thus states the sentiments of Alexander. "God is always and the Son always-the same time the Father, the same time the Son-the Son co-exists with God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten-God was not before the Son, no not in conception, or the least point of time, he

being ever God, ever a Son-For the Son is out of God himself." Alexander, on the contrary, in a letter to the bishop of Constantinople, gives us the doctrine of Arius in the following words. "There was a time when there was no Son of God, and that he who before was not, afterwards existed, being made, whensoever he was made, just as any man whatsoever; and that therefore he was of a mutable nature, and equally receptive of vice and virtue, &c."

If these things were publicly taught and avowed, by these men, as each represents the other's sentiments, every sober man will surely think that they both merited severe reprehension, for leaving the plain language of scripture, and introducing terms of their own invention into a doctrine of pure revelation, and at last dividing the whole of Christendom on account of it.

Numerous expedients were tried to bring Alexander and Arius to one mind; the emperor himself condescending to become a mediator between them; but all attempts proved fruitless. He wrote letters to them at Alexandria, exhorting them to lay aside their differences and become reconciled to each other. He informs them that he had diligently examined the rise and progress of this dispute, and that he found the occasion of the difference to be very trifling and not worthy such furious contentions; and that therefore he promised himself, his mediation for peace would have its desired effect. He reminds Alexander that "He required from his presbyters a declaration of their sentiments concerning a silly, empty question-and Arius, that he had imprudently uttered what he should not even have thought of, or what at least he should have kept secret in his own bosom; that questions about such things ought not to have been asked; if asked, should not have been answered; that they proceeded from an idle itch of disputation, and

were in themselves of so high and difficult a nature, as that they could not be exactly comprehended or suitably explained. And that to insist on such points before the people could produce no other effect than to make some of them talk blasphemy, and others turn schismatics."*

This unquestionably was excellent advice, but religious animosities are not so easily removed; and the ecclesiastical combatants were too warmly engaged to listen to such salutary counsel. Finding all other resourses ineffectual, the emperor was at length under the necessity of issuing letters to the bishops of the several provinces of the empire, enjoining them to assemble together at Nice, in Bythinia, which was accordingly done, A. D. 325. This is what goes by the name of "the first general council." The number of bishops was three hundred and eighteen, besides a multitude of presbyters, deacons, Acolythists, and others, amounting in the whole to two thousand and forty-eight persons. The ecclesiastical historians inform us, that in this vast collection of the bishops, some were remarkable for their gravity, patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, and eloquence, yet they all agree that there were others of very opposite characters.†

* Eusebius's Life of Constantine, b. 1. ch. 65.

+ 66 The eloquence of Lactantius, and the beauty and purity of his style, raise him superior to every author of the fourth century, and place him upon an equality with some of the most accomplished writers of antient Rome. Entrusted with the education of Crispus, the unfortunate son of Constantine, whom that monarch afterwards put to death, Lactantius, amidst the splendours of a court, was distinguished only by his talents and his poverty. His principal work consists of a masterly refutation of Paganism, and a learned comparison between it and Christianity. It is to the indelible disgrace of the age, that while a number of fanatic monks and popular de claimers obtained the highest stations in the church, a man who possessed the learning of Aristotle, with the eloquence of Cicero, who united philosophy with religion, and an earnest piety with all the graces of a polished taste and enlightened understanding, should be permitted to languish without dis