life; the proud self-satisfaction of Roman aristocrats, the vicious frivolity of Greek populations. Had such a distressing, bewildering vision been allowed to burst upon them all at once, their faith might in too many cases have reeled under the shock, and assumed that the promise had come utterly to an end. But here, as in other cases, "the distant scene was kept out of sight, and men were led on step by step, with strength sufficient for the needs of the day.

CHAPTER V.

THE BEGINNINGS OF ARIANISM.

WE have now to watch the gathering of a great controversial storm, which speedily dispelled the fond hopes of those who had expected that after the cessation of pagan persecution the bark of the Church would float easily through smooth waters. It was not to be a long day of trouble, rebuke, and blasphemy was at hand -a period of “scandals " which would put the sorest strain on trustful hopes, on persistent endurance, on practical adhesion to a sacred Cause; which would cause love to wax cold, and would grievously impede the progress of Christianity; but which would also train heroes of faith and "scribes well instructed," and vivify, enrich, and consolidate the Christian conception of belief in Christ as God's "own" and only Son. Our scene opens at Alexandria, where the martyred Peter (whose death is dated on November 29, 311) had been succeeded, perhaps in 312, by Achillas, and Achillas, after a few months' episcopate, by Alexander (312 or 313). This prelate had had to encounter opposition from the very outset. To explain its cause, we must go back to the very first years of the fourth century.

There was a bishopric of Lycopolis, on the northern boundary of the Thebaid, which "appears to have possessed some honorary pre-eminence among" the other sees which were subordinate to the 'Evangelist's throne" at Alexandria. Here, in A.D. 300, sat a bishop named Meletius, whose character has been always more or less of a problem; although there is no doubt of his having originated a schismatical movement, the grounds which he took up-the motives of his conduct-have been very variously stated. Athanasius (writing apparently in 356) says that it is fifty-five years since Meletius began his schism, and thirty-six since the Meletians were condemned; and in another work tells us that he

began it because he had been condemned in a council, by Peter, for various offences, particularly for an act of apostasy during persecution. Epiphanius, who evidently relied on some Meletian documents of a partisan character, represents Meletius as a brave confessor who suffered imprisonment with Peter, and in a discussion with him on the right mode of treating those who had lapsed, expressed a strong opinion against receiving them to penance until the persecution had been for some time over, and they had given sufficient evidence of genuine contrition; whereas Peter, being tender-hearted," urged a gentler line of proceeding, and at last, when the pursuit grew hot, spread out his pallium or cloak on the floor of the prison, and bade the brethren go on this or that side of it, as they agreed with himself or with Meletius. He thereupon found himself, says Epiphanius, left in a minority: and so the schism began, and was kept up under Alexander (whom Epiphanius imagined to have been Peter's immediate successor). Meletius, banished to the mines, organized a " Church of Martyrs" by constituting bishops and clergy, and after his release still kept up private religious meetings with his own friends, although on terms of personal friendship with Alexander. The documents to which Epiphanius had referred are in various ways self-convicted of untrustworthiness: but it is to be observed, that the Nicene Council, in a formal letter to the Egyptian Church, is silent about the accusation of apostasy, and dwells only on the "disorderly and impetuous" conduct of Meletius; and also that a letter of Phileas and three other bishops to Meletius, first published by Scipio Maffei at Verona in 1738, rebukes Meletius for ignoring "the law of our fathers," and disregarding the dignity of "the great bishop Peter," by ordaining clergy outside the bounds of his own diocese, on the pretext that persecution made it necessary thus to provide new pastors for desolate flocks: to which letter an anonymous narrator appends the statement, that Meletius, after receiving this remonstrance, did not go to visit the bishops who had sent it from their prison, but after their martyrdom repaired to Alexandria, and there, supported by Isidore, "a turbulent man who desired to be a teacher," and by Arius, pretended to excommunicate the presbyters whom Peter had appointed to take the oversight of his Church, and ordained two men, one in prison, one in a mine,-whereupon Peter wrote a brief letter to his flock, ordering them not to communicate with Meletius, until he himself, "with wise men," could

take cognizance of the matter. Such are the various accounts of the origin of that Meletian schism or party which actually retained some life as late as the middle of the eighth century. And if we may accept as genuine the documents last quoted, commonly called the Maffeian Fragments, we shall certainly be disposed to think that Athanasius, when, many years after the event, he spoke of Meletius as having been condemned for apostasy, was giving credit to a serious misstatement-in its first form, perhaps, an exaggeration of the fact that Meletius was rebuked for a breach of ecclesiastical order, by confessors who soon afterwards became martyrs; and also that his date for the origin of the schism is perhaps five years too early. The Epiphanian account, representing Meletius as a zealot for discipline, and Peter as swayed towards laxity by his benevolence, betrays, plainly enough, a Meletian romancer's hand.

Whatever were the actual circumstances under which the bishop of Lycopolis was drawn into a sectarian position, we may take it as pretty certain that he became a schismatic during the persecution; and that Arius, afterwards the great heresiarch, espoused his cause. According to one account, Arius for a while abandoned Meletius, and was ordained deacon by Peter; but when Peter proceeded to severities against the Meletians-refusing to admit their baptism -Arius "exclaimed against this conduct of the bishop," and was consequently excommunicated. Under Achillas-who, like Peter, was an object of Meletian invective-Arius regained his position in the Church, on making his submission to the bishop. He was even advanced to the priesthood, and put in charge of the oldest church in Alexandria, which bore the name of Baucalis. It must be here observed that there were at this time several churches in the city, as those called after Bishops Dionysius, Annianus, Pierius, Serapion, etc., and what we now call the parochial system was already established, "for," says Epiphanius, "every church had its own presbyter appointed over it,"—as at Rome the churches (now only twenty-five) had long been distinguished as tituli or incumbencies, with clergy severally assigned to and "fixed" in each-the original idea of the term "cardinal."

So stood matters at the death of Achillas: then, according to Theodoret, Arius put forward his pretensions to the vacant see, and was greatly mortified by the preference given to Alexander. One is bound, however, to suspect these stories-by no means uncommon-which ascribe the first movements of a great heretical

career (for instance, that of Valentinus the Gnostic) to the impulse of wounded personal feeling. For some time, at any rate, after the accession of Alexander, he had no difficulty with the priest of the Baucalis church, and is said, indeed, to have "held him in high esteem." He had much business and some trouble on his hands there was the building of a large and new church in memory of Bishop Theonas, which, we are told, he used before it could actually be dedicated; there was the appointment of bishops to various sees, the names of some of whom are recorded by Athanasius, in connection with the sufferings which they lived to endure in the days of Arian tyranny; there was a sharp controversy with a person named Crescentius, as to the right time for observing Easter; and there was the now established and intensified system of attack carried on by the Meletians, who denounced Alexander to "the Emperor," probably the Eastern sovereign Licinius. But, withal, there were for the good and kind-hearted bishop resources of support and comfort, and prospects full of hope, opening before him as he watched the expanding intellect and ripening moral force of a youth whom he had taken up-attracted, no doubt, by the evident promise of a high vocation, by unequivocal tokens of qualifications for doing the cause of Christ great service-and had received into his house, as his confidential secretary and deacon. It was no small privilege, no small happiness for Alexander, to have opened the ecclesiastical career to Athanasius.

It was not until 319--some six years after Alexander's accession -that he began, as it seems, to hear of strange language being held in Alexandrian Church society by the distinguished logician and highly esteemed preacher, who, after a period of misdirected and factious activity, had won for himself a considerable name for strictness of life and theological ability, as pastor of the church of Baucalis. Arius was a man of mark even in his outward characteristics: he was known by the sleeveless tunic and scanty half-cloak which he constantly wore, by his tall person, his melancholy thoughtful face, his grave manner, his sweet impressive voice, his social attractiveness and signal powers of conversation. Personally as well as officially, he had great opportunities for bringing his mind to bear on others; and he "went about from house to house," energetically propagating opinions which caused, by degrees, a vehement excitement, in regard to the nature of the Son of God. It came to the bishop's knowledge that Arius was disturbing the faith of some over whom he had gained an influence, as to the