in it. As Augustine says, he was "overcome by their importunity." The Donatists all but prevailed on him, by some of their leading men whom he had sent for to Treves in the spring of 315, to hold a new inquiry in Africa by means of Commissioners. However, on further reflection, he resolved to hold it at his own court, and promised the Donatist bishops that if they could bring home to Cæcilian one single charge, he would hold it as equivalent to the establishment of all. He summoned both parties to Rome. Cæcilian, for some reason not mentioned, was not forthcoming. Constantine, although beset by demands that he should be condemned as contumacious, simply gave orders that the inquiry should be transferred to Milan. Thereupon some of the Donatists returned to Africa. Constantine for a time thought of visiting Africa for the purpose of adjudicating the cause; but he found that this was impracticable, and summoned Cæcilian to Milan. The bishop went thither, wearied, no doubt, and disappointed, but judging it best not to disobey again. The investigation, which was conducted, says Augustine, with all care and diligence, ended as usual: and Constantine wrote to Eumalius, the "Vicarius" of the six" African provinces, telling him how he had found Cæcilian to be "a man thoroughly blameless, fulfilling the duties of his religion;" a verdict implying, as Augustine says, that no such crime could be found in him as had been falsely alleged in his absence by his enemies. The letter was written on the 10th of November, 316, and Constantine's wrath at the obstinacy of the false accusers found vent at first in a hasty impulse to send them to execution; but he thought better of it, perhaps under the influence of Hosius, simply banished them, confiscated their property, and took away the Churches which they occupied. This act, however, failed to relieve him from the trouble: the Donatists in a memorial told him that they would never communicate with "that scoundrelly bishop of his," and in weary disgust he recalled his sentence of exile, and left the case to "the judgment of God." With this final declaration, this "indulgentia ignominiosissima," of Constantine may be closed the first portion of a repulsive but suggestive tale of faction and violence, combined, no doubt, in some cases, with elements of character which might have been turned to good account, but were all marred by want of fairness, not to speak of want of charity. These men, whose coarse and bitter partisanship so offends us, included some who had a zeal that "even consumed" them for the discipline of the Church: they had, no doubt, as Hooker allows, an ideal, in their better moments,

of a Church which should be all-glorious in its purity. They were scandalized by the intrusion, actual or supposed, of grave sin into the sacred precinct; they insisted that it should be driven out at once and at any cost. But, as Cowper most truly said, "there is no grace that the spirit of self can counterfeit with more success than religious zeal," none that can more readily accept "the wrath of man" as its instrument; and when thus detached from its proper moral correctives, it becomes a mere turbid, self-deceiving impulse, which may at any time hurry the zealot into an abyss of reckless truculence, and reproduce among Christians the atrocities of unchristian fanaticism. Something, no doubt, must be allowed for the sullen, gloomy, " black-blooded " temper which distinguished many of the African provincials, producing a disposition to violence, and a hardness literally inhuman. Those savage peasants, whom Donatists, some years later, stirred up to harass the African Church -the ruffians who went about blending wrath against the Church of "Traditors" with a wild revolutionary movement against landowners and creditors; those hideous "Circumcellions who were somewhat akin, at least, to the "Sicarii," and nearly as ferocious as the leaders of a "Jacquerie "-were phenomena from which, no doubt, the simple credulous rigorists who first accepted the story of "Felix the Traditor" would have recoiled in terror and abhorrence. So again, the intense, almost insane self-assertion of "Donatus the Greater," who succeeded "Donatus the Elder” in the leadership, and bore himself as if he were actual sovereign of Carthage, uniting an arrogance like that of Paul of Samosata with Arianizing sympathies which would be another point of resemblance, this might seem a development of worldly-mindedness which could be no natural fruit of an enthusiasm for Christian intensity. More might be said as to the indomitable contentiousness and obstinate resistance to evidence which the sect showed in the days when it wearied the great heart of St. Augustine. But the upshot and moral of the history is, that any excesses of pride, or cruelty, or bitterness, or baseness, are possible to those movements which begin by earnestness without humility, and separate indignation against evil from the natural virtue of justice and the evangelical grace of love.

VOL. I.

D

CHAPTER III.

THE COUNCILS OF ANCYRA AND NEOCÆSAREA.

THE return of peaceful times to the Church in Asia gave facilities for the holding of two Councils, of which the first is assigned to the same year with the Council of Arles, and which met at Ancyra and Neocæsarea.

The city of Ancyra, in North Galatia, had become the capital of the whole Galatian province. It stood, says Professor Ramsay, "in a picturesque and very strong position;" and it was "the middle point of the great highway from Byzantium into Syria, and the emporium of Oriental caravan traffic." It possessed a grand marble temple, built in honour of Augustus, and an inscription recording his acts. The Jews were, in his reign, an important part of its population; and he had ordered his decree in their favour to be set up in "that conspicuous place which had been set up in his honour by the Community of Asia at Ancyra." We meet with its name in the early history of Montanism, where the anonymous anti-Montanist writer, cited so largely by Eusebius, says that he "discoursed many days in the church at Ancyra on the points urged by the adherents of Montanus," and the presbyters of Ancyra wished him to leave with them some records of addresses which had "gladdened and confirmed " the minds of the faithful.

To this city, about the Easter festival of 314, or perhaps in the fourth week after Easter, came some eighteen prelates from the different parts of Asia Minor and Syria. Vitalis of Antioch, as the highest in rank, probably presided; another eminent prelate was Basil of Amasea, who is said to have afterwards suffered martyrdom but the one whose name is best known is the bishop of Ancyra, that unfortunate Marcellus who, in the Arian controversy, gave such trouble to his friends by appearing, at least, to adopt a line of opposition to Arianism which was itself heretical in

an opposite direction; and next to him, a Basil who was the best representative of that "Semi-Arian" view which might seem to be rather verbally than intelligently heterodox. The chief purpose of the episcopal gathering was to provide for the treatment of the Lapsi of the late persecution. Not much need be said about its canons. Cases of apostasy were classified. We find that some presbyters had sacrificed to idols, and had then renewed their profession of Christianity, but had made a private arrangement with the officials that they should merely go through the form of being submitted to torture. Some clerics or laics had taken part in an idolatrous feast, had "dined in presence of idols," and this under severe pressure, yet all the while had put on an appearance of cheerfulness or indifference; others had wept persistently, and worn a mourning habit; others had sat at the feast, but refused to taste anything, or had resorted to the subterfuge of bringing and eating their own food. Some Churchmen had not only lapsed, but had pressed others to share in their apostasy. Various penances are assigned to various classes. We hear of three orders or grades of penitents: the Hearers, who might listen to the reading of Scripture; the Kneelers, who might join in certain prayers; and the Co-standers, who stayed throughout the Eucharistic service, and were only restricted from actual communion. And we read of some who needed no penance, who had had incense thrust into their hands beside an altar, or part of the "idol-sacrifice" thrust into their mouths, but who at the time and afterwards had unequivocally expressed their Christian faith. Another canon is important in regard to the function of the "Chorepiscopi," or bishops of rural districts. The reading is disputed, but probably comes to this: "It is not permitted to country bishops to ordain presbyters or deacons-" then, with an accusative and not a dative, "nor truly city presbyters either (or, and certainly not city presbyters'), without the written permission of the bishop, in another 'parish'" (or diocese), or perhaps, "in each parish." The other reading, which is adduced as making the canon say, "it is not permitted to country bishops, nor even to city presbyters" (to ordain, etc.), rests chiefly on the authority of Latin versions, whereas the Greek manuscripts support the accusative, as is shown in a learned paper in the third volume of Studia Biblica. It is not unlikely that the dative was adopted under the notion that the accusative in that second clause was an erroneous iteration of the accusative in the first. But which reading is intrinsically the more probable?

Were the Chorepiscopi real bishops, or, as were some in the West in the latter half of the fourth century, presbyters holding an office like that of a rural dean? Apparently those in the East had received episcopal consecration, but on the understanding that they should be in strict subordination to the diocesan bishops. They were stationed in the "country-sides," to look after the scattered rural flocks they are here directed not to confer orders even in their own districts, still less in the cities where the diocesan bishops dwell, without express warrant from the latter; the aim of the restriction being apparently to guard against a gradual dissolution of the unity of the diocesan Church. This being the object, one may ask first, Why should the canon here introduce a restriction applying to the action of a different class? One class of persons is forbidden (except under conditions) to do a particular act. If we read the dative, we must suppose that another class is suddenly, and in a dependent clause, placed under the same prohibition. This would seem to mar the simplicity and unity of the veto pronounced. Further, if we render, "it is not permitted to Chorepiscopi, nor even" (as Lightfoot takes it) "to city presbyters," this would suggest that city presbyters ranked higher than Chorepiscopi; whereas we see here that the latter had power to ordain, and there is no good evidence for such power as vested in presbyters; the evidence, rather, goes the other way. Another canon shows that churches, or "houses of the Lord," had, as such, certain property: if any part of it had been alienated, an incoming bishop might reclaim it. We also learn that in some cases persons appointed as bishops for particular towns were repulsed by popular feeling. The difficulty here is that, according to rule, a strong expression of acceptance, or even of desire, was a necessary pre-condition of the appointment of a bishop; he was not to be set over an "unwilling" people. The laity of the diocese had very full opportunity of signifying their opinions and wishes in such a case; and it would be very seldom that they were overruled by the provincial synod, as if they did not know what was best for them, or were too excitable and intractable to have their objections taken into account.

Again, the canons illustrate the general tone of feeling in regard to asceticism. The requirement of 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12 (in its natural sense) as to presbyters (called episkopoi) or deacons was not, indeed, extended to lay people; but still a second marriage on the part of a laic was deemed a weakness, a falling short of the higher tone of Christian life. At the same time, there is a clear