1

who died in the beginning of the third century, Milner says: "He agrees with all the primitive Christians in the doctrine of the Trinity, and makes use of the 45th Psalm to prove the Deity of Christ." Page 89. The complexion of religious sentiment in the third century, may be seen by what this historian says of the Novatians; that they "separated themselves from the general Church, not on the ground of doctrine, but of discipline." Page 118.

My opponent acknowledges, that "the doctrine of the Trinity was very generally advocated by the Bishops in the third century;" but, with "violent opposition from the common people." I cannot tell from what source the gentleman received his information on this subject; nor is it very material, as its accuracy is distinctly denied.

With respect to "the common people," permit me to remark, that unless they were members of the Christian churches, their opinion has nothing to do in this case. The Roman Empire, in the third century, was under heathen government; and, therefore, we may be well assured that they were all opposed to the doctrine in view, from the Emperor on the throne, down to the peasant in his cottage. "The Bishops," no doubt, were opposed by such "common people," as well as by those of distinguished rank in point of science, property, and power. But, if by "the common people," be meant those who professed the Christian religion, I reply, they would not have been admitted into the Church at that time, without an express declaration of their faith in the Trinitarian doctrine. There could have been no disagreement, therefore, between them and their Bishops on that subject. We may learn the views of common Christians in that period, from their own words, and in their dying moments. Thousands were slain by the Roman government, for holding to the doctrine of the Trinity; "common people," as well as the Bishops.

4

Sabina lived in the third century; and surely she was not a Bishop; yet she fully believed in a Triune God. When she was arraigned at the bar of Polemon, for being a Christian, that heathen magistrate asked her, "What God dost thou adore ?" In that awful situation, she replied, "God Almighty, who made all things, of which we are assured by his Word Jesus Christ."-" And what dost thou adore?" said he to Asclepiades; who readily replied, "Jesus Christ." "What! is there another God ?" "No," said this Christian, "this is the same which we came here to confess." Milner says, "He who worships the Trinity in Unity, will find no difficulty in reconciling these two confessions."

When Lepidus, another Roman officer, asked Pionius, "What God do you adore ?" he answered, "Him that made heaven and earth." The Judge proceeded, "You mean him that was crucified ?" To this the martyr said, "I mean Him whom God the Father hath sent for the salvation of men." It appears very clearly from these statements, that the Christians were then perfectly united in respect to the Trinity in Unity, the Deity of Christ, and his atonement.

If, however, "by the common people," my opponent means, the disciples of Cerinthus, Mercion, &c. his remarks may be very true. very true. But, the real church, had no more connection with them, than she had with the surrounding heathen. In respect to the Orthodox, Milner says, "They were all one body, of one name, and cordially loved one another as brethren. There were, indeed, many heretics; but real Christians did not admit them into their communities. The line of distinction was drawn with precision, and a dislike to the person and offices of Christ, and of the real spirit of holiness, discriminated the heretics: and separation from them, while it was the best mark

of benevolence to their souls, preserved the faith and love of the true Christians in genuine purity." Abr. p. 63.

As those ancient heretics, were not embodied with the Orthodox in the same church, neither were they exposed to death with the multitude of true believers, who were slain in the ten heathen persecutions. The historian says of them, "It does not appear from any evidence which I can find, that these men were ever persecuted for their religion. Their doctrine pleased the carnal heart too well to excite a spirit of persecution. They spake of the world, and the world heard them." Abr. p. 58.

The gentleman in opposition, after hinting at the silence of Scripture on the doctrine of the Trinity-the little knowledge the christian world had of it through the first and second centuries-the opposition that was made to it by the common people" in the third century, says, "It was finally established, by a general council in the early part of the fourth century, and became the reigning creed of christendom."

66

He refers, undoubtedly, to the famous council of Nice. It commenced in the twenty-fifth year of that century, by the special order of Constantine the Great; and the object of it was, to effect a settlement of the grand dispute, between the Arians and the Orthodox. That celebrated council, consisted of three hundred and eighteen Bishops, who were assembled from all parts of the christian world. After their decision on the case at issue, the famous Arius, "was deposed from the ministry, and excommunicated from the church. Twenty-two ministers, out of three hundred and eighteen, only adhered to his cause. At this council, was formed the Nicene creed, sound in itself, but hated by Anti-Trinitarians then, and in every subsequent period of time. Many, who composed that council, had lived to see a considerable part of the third century, and

had endured unparalleled sufferings for Christ, in the heathen persecutions. They were acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, and with the views of the church respecting the Trinity, from then, up to the apostles. In a long scries of persecutions, they had evinced the sincerity of their love to God, and attachment to his truth."

The historian says, "Apostolical discernment and piety, in no inconsiderable degree, animated the spirit of the Nicene fathers. Not a few of them bore on their bodies "the marks of the Lord Jesus." One, debilitated by the application of hot iron to both his hands; some deprived of both their eyes: others, of their legs. A croud of martyrs collected in one body." Abr. We have no reason to suppose, in the view of this account, that they came together to impose a new doctrine on the christian church; but, to vindicate "the faith which was once delivered to the saints," and to cut off her heretical members. Duty required these steps to be taken.

P.

172

But my opponent says "Anathemas were poured upon the head of Arius and his followers, by the Orthodox." The expression "anathemas," is very strong indeed; but, it amounts to no more than excommunication from the communion of sound Christians. The church is commanded to do this in these words, which are of divine authority:-"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that such an one is subverted; being condemned of himself."

Concerning Arius, the gentleman adds; "though he was restored to good standing in the church, by an emperor who favored his cause; yet, he came to a tragical end-probably by poison." Constantine was this emperor. He was fond of peace and union in the church, to a fault ; but, he was strictly orthodox in his own sentiments. He was not so fully aware of the duplicity of Arius, as the

Bishops were; and, therefore, he was more easily imposed upon by that artful heretic. There was some fear in the mind of Constantine, that the orthodox clergy, were prejudiced against him, on other grounds than doctrine. It was the man, and not his heresy, which the emperor favored.

Milner says "Constantine himself, was not to be prevailed on to admit Arius into the church, unless he were convinced of his orthodoxy. He sent for him to the palace, and asked him plainly, whether he agreed to the Nicene decrees. Arius, without hesitation, subscribed: the emperor ordered him to swear: he assented to this also. Constantine, whose scruples were now overcome, ordered the Bishop to receive him into the church the next day." The Arians then began to rejoice, and the church to weep. Both parties knew very well, that although Arius had subscribed to the Nicene creed, his principles remained the same. The Bishop, spent the time in solemn fasting and prayer, for divine interposition in that affecting case. "The next day," says Milner," seemed to be a triumphant one to the Arians: the heads of the party paraded through the city with Arius in the midst. When they came nigh to the forum of Constantine, a sudden terror, with a disorder of the bowels, seized Arius. He retired, and then fainted; and his bowels were poured out with a vast effusion of blood." "Thus," says the historian, "God sent deliverance, and confounded the adversaries of Zion."

This, is what my opponent calls "a tragical end-probably destroyed by poison." But the word, "probably," is all the evidence of the thing, that he has produced. To fasten such a charge upon the Orthodox, something of the testimony is necessary, which he demands to prove the authority of the text in dispute.

"His

After the death of Arius, my opponent says,doctrine, however gained ground with astonishing rapidity