We are not to suppose that, even in the first century, the power of the Christian bishops was limited to matters of doctrinal decision, or of ecclesiastical polity. It comprehended a very great proportion of those questions which now belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. There is some countenance given to this extension of the episcopal power in the sacred writ ings, and especially in the epistles of St Paul ; and it was perhaps necessary, in the early and unsettled state of the Christian communities. " If thy brother," says Jesus, (Matth. xviii. 15.) " trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou bast gained thy brother ; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And in conformity with the spirit of what has now been quoted, the apostle Paul enquires of the Corinthian Christians, why they went to law cc before the unjust, and not before the saints? Is it so," says he, (1 Cor. vi. 5.) ,4 that there is not a wise man among you ? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren ; but brother goeth to law with bro the•, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another." • We do not stop to enquire whether these passages were rightly interpreted or not. It is sufficient for our purpose to state, that these and similar passages were • long supposed to sanction, in the most authoritative manner, and to the utmost extent, those encroachments on the civil power, which characterize the ambition, and disfigure the annals of the popish church. By u little management, almost every question was made to put on an ecclesiastical aspect, and as such it was tiled in the episcopal courts. The parties concerned might indeed belong to the laity, and not to the clergy; but the cause, considered as distinct from the parties, was pro nounced to be of a different nature. Or justice had been denied by the civil magistrate : and where had the poor man, injured and oppressed as he was declared to be, an opportunity of making his complaint, unless before the rulers of the church, the constituted guardians of innocence, and the delegates of heaven ? Or the case was from the beginning of a mixed nature, and belong ed in its substance and character to the bishop as well as to the magistrate. Or the feudal officers were too fond of their amusements, 'too careless, or too illiterate to interfere. From these causes, it grew into a maxim, " that except in places bordering on the infidels, a good lawyer makes a better bishop than a good divine." En croachment followed encroachment. The clergy, while they exercised their functions as judges, and in civil questions too, proceeded also to legislate. The princi ples of the canon law gave an aspect and colouring to those of the civil ; and the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, in ecclesiastical matters, being acknowledged, the ambition of the papal see appeared to look forward to nothing less than a despotic sway over the whole Christian world, in all its interests and concerns. In ad dition to this, the pope was now raised to the dignity of a temporal prince. About the year 755, Pepin king of France, made over to him twenty-two cities of Italy ; and in one part of Europe, at least, the successor of the poor and humble Peter reigned uncontrolled in the exer cise of the civil as well as the ecclesiastical authority, and united in his own person the highest offices of king and of In a succeeding age he laid claim to in fallibility ; and in the prostration of tile human under standing, and presumptuous plenitude of apostolical power, he disposed of crowns and governments at his pleasure.
No sooner had Constantine the Great ascended the throne of the Csars, than his attention was directed to the Arian heresy. This heresy, which long divided and afflicted the church, had many patrons and supporters. It gave rise to many personal disputes, and it broke and disturbed the peace which Christianity might have enjoy ed under the imperial protection.
The heresy alluded to was propagated by Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria : He was a man of considerable learning, acuteness, and eloquence, and his natural abilities were sharpened and improved by the opposition which he met with, and the controversies in which he was engaged. He maintained, in an assembly of the Alexandrian presbyters, and against the opinion of his bishop, that, in the sacred Trinity, the Son was essentially different from the Father ; that there was a time hid in the depths of eternity, when he did not exist ; or, in other words, that he was really a creature, pro duced or brought into being by the supreme volition of the true God. lie contended farther, that though a creature thus produced, the Father had impressed upon him the effulgence of his glory, and transfused into him his ample Spirit ;" that he was the framer of the world, and that he governed the universe as the repre sentative of the eternal and unchangeable Divinity. In
consequence of these tenets, Arius was publicly con demned and excommunicated by Alexander, his bishop. Ile retired, however, into Palestine, where he was re ceived and protected. The number of his followers increased. The angry passions were awakened, and the controversy was agitated with the utmost violence. Dis tant provinces and churches engaged in the dispute. The combatants became every day more and more warm ; reproach took place of argument; and the sacred scrip tures themselves, and even the very subject of the dis cussion, were forgotten amidst personal quarrels :tad mutual reviling. The contests of the schoolmen, in the dark ages, may have been violent, but they must have exceeded all common measures of asperity, if they sur passed, in malignant zeal and fierce recrimination, the dispute which now rent and dishonoured the church.
In these circumstances, Constantine, with a laudable concern, but perhaps with little knowledge of nunian nature, wrote first of all to the bishop of Alexandria, and afterwards to Arius himself,. reprimanding them for their indecent hostility, and exhorting them to peace. But it soon appeared, that the paternal advice of the em peror might have been spared. Neither of the parties was willing to yield, because each of them, of course, believed his antagonist in the wrong. The subordinate agents likewise in the dispute, had their victories to gain, their enemies to et ush, and their interests to serve. In reality, the letter of the emperor had no other effect than that of magnifying the controversy in the public estimation, and of inducing those, who, from indolence or prudence, had hitherto been silent, to range themselves with the one party or with the other ; to resist the here tic, or to abandon the church. Something more decisive, therefore, was to be done. Accordingly the imperial summons was issued, and an acurnenical or general coun cil convoked: And in the year 325, the representatives of the whole Christian world assembled at Nice in Bithy nia, to ascertain the Catholic doctrine, and provide for the tranquillity of future generations.
The appearance of the assembly was venerable in the highest degree. No fewer than two thousand ecclesias tics, according to sonic accounts, had risen from their retirements in obedience to the imperial summons, and of these three hundred and eighteen were bishops. Thu' emperor himself presided in the council, " exceeding," as Eusebins says, " all his attendants in stature, grace fuln•ss, and strength, and dazzling every eye with the splendour of his apparel." And the question to be de cided related to nothing less than the peculial distinctions which may he predicated of the din lime essence, and the honour which belongs to the Sou of God. however, obliges us to declare, that the conduc• aed de portment of the lathers did not exactly correspond, either with the respect .bility of their appearance, or the so lemnity of the occasion. They seemed to think, that they had met together, ratla r with a %kw to settle their private disputes. than to ascertain the Catholic .f.ita. Numerous complaints muscle, and loads of memo tials transmitted to the emperor. These memorials were little else than accusations of parties or of indivi duals, each man libelling his antagonist, and represent ing him as an enemy to the church. It is said that the emperor, having collected the libels in question, threw the whole of them into the fire ; advising the fathers, ac cording to the precept of our Saviour, to forgive one another as they themselves expected to lie forgiven, and modestly hinting, (as Sozomen observes,) that it did not belong to him to decide the differences of Christian bi shops. Having proceeded so far, he requested the im mediate attention of the council to the weighty matter which lay before them, Upon this subject, however, there was a very great and unexpected unanimity. The doctrine of the church appears to have been so corn plen•y separated from the heresy of Arius, that no pri vate dissensions, or remaining rancour among the mem bers of the synod, conk! prevent them from agreeing upon the question at issue. The tenets of the disputa tious presbyter, as he was called, were solemnly con demned ; and, by the order of the emperor, lie was banished into Illyria. The Homoousian doctrine, or the doctrine of Consubstantiality, was pronounced to be the faith of the church ; and though there were certain dif feilnces of opinion with regard to the correct meaning of term i;ro:-.rc'e5oc, and though it was for some time disputed, %vlietoer Lois term applied to the nature of the Godhead, or to the persons (vreacejl-ti) in the blessed Tri nity, still it was finally declared, %situ scarcely a dissent ing voice, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was not, in substance or essence, distinct from the Father. Arius himself was present in this assembly, the most numerous which the Christian world had ever witnessed before. He was supported by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, and Theognis of Nice. These ecclesiastics, who seem to have been persons of considerable ability, attempted to explain or to qualify the heretical opinions ; but Eusebius alone persisted in refusing to subscribe the sentence of the council. Among the orthodox, the chief speaker was the famous Athanasius, then only a deacon in the church of Alexandria.