introduced as attempting to force Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, to receive Arius into communion, and to have been prevented only by the latter's sudden death.* I leave these statements to the reader's consideration, not knowing how to reconcile them; for it is evident that the Church never regarded Arius as having repudiated his early opinions, but only as having deluded the emperor by an evasive creed.

The first event of importance that occurred was the deposition of Eustathius from the see of Antioch; and it is supposed to have taken place in A. D. 330.

One of the historians states that it was the result of an Arian conspiracy, effected in the following manner :-Eusebius, of Nicomedia, having gone to the emperor, and expressed a wish to visit Jerusalem, permission and the means of transport were given to him. He set out, accompanied by Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, the city where the council had been held their route lay through Antioch, where they were kindly and hospitably welcomed by its bishop. Passing onward to Jerusalem, they visited in their way Eusebius of Cæsarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Etius of Lydda, Theodotus of Laodicea, and others of their party; and arranged with them the convention of a council, in which Eustathius should be deposed.

held at Antioch on their return.

This was to be

* That Arius was his fellow pupil rests only on a letter of Arius-a forgery.

Such a story has nothing to recommend it. A council, however, was held, and Eustathius was deposed. Scarcely two writers agree as to the precise charges brought against him. Their nature was heresy and immorality. The latter, I think, may be discarded; and with regard to both it may be said, that his Church always revered his memory, and his deposition and exile were not effected without a dangerous tumult.* He was banished by the emperor into Thrace.

It is said that another important event occurred during the episcopate of Silvester, the deposition of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, in a synod at Constantinople. He had attended the Nicene Council, and shown himself a very zealous supporter of the word, "of the same substance." The circumstances which led to his deposition are thus stated:-In Galatia lived a sophist of the name of Asterius, who, having been born a Heathen, had embraced Christianity under the teaching of Lucian, the celebrated presbyter and martyr at Antioch. Unfortunately the pupil's faith had not been so strong as his master's, and his courage had failed him at the hour of trial. He had sacrificed. What were his theological opinions it is impossible to say: this is one of the

If

* Athanasius is made to say, that his exile was in consequence of some insult to the emperor's mother, and that a great company of priests and deacons were sent along with him. Athanasius had written this account, it would be true. is entirely unsupported. Hist. Arian. s. 5.

But it

many cases in which the judgment is perplexed. If regard be paid to one class of extracts from his writings, his creed was orthodox; if to another, he was an Arian.

Whatever tenets he held, however, he was an able and prolific composer of books, and used to travel about, it is said, to make them known. To one of these Marcellus replied in a work, entitled "The Subjection of Christ," containing, it is said, in the judgment of the Orientals, heretical teaching on the person of Christ, approaching to Sabellianism. This book is described by Eusebius of Cæsarea as the first composition of Marcellus, and as containing very violent attacks upon Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, and himself.

Basil of Ancyra, so called to distinguish him from Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, is said to have been consecrated in his place.

XXXIII. MARK (A. D. 336).

Nothing is known of the Roman Church during his episcopate. There are extant, however, two spurious letters; one from Athanasius to him, saying that the Arians had burnt his papers, and that he had lost the Nicene Canons, which were seventy in number, and begging to have a transcript of the Roman copy. This, in the other letter, is graciously conceded. The two writers

vie with each other in the strength of their expressions respecting the authority of the Church of Rome.

XXXIV. JULIUS (337-352).

Julius ascended the Roman chair on the 6th of February, A. D. 337. In the month of May following Constantine died, leaving behind him three sons. His dominions were ultimately divided among them in the following proportions. The eldest, Constantine, took Gaul, Spain, and Britain; the youngest, Constans, had Italy, Illyria, and Africa; and Constantius had Thrace, Asia, Syria, and Egypt. Such, in the main, was the disposition under their father's will. Their ages were, Constantine 21, Constantius 20, Constans 17.

It was during the episcopate of Julius that Athanasius escaped out of the East to Treves; and it is probable that by this time some other deposed prelates had sought the protection of Constans. Among them several writings, which I regard as spurious, name Marcellus. It is curious that in the genuine writings of the Latin Church at this period, he is nowhere styled a heretic. Neither Philastrius nor Augustine name him, although Augustine translated Epiphanius, by whom his heresy is described. The language of Augustine gives room for suspicion that his copy of Epiphanius did not contain

Marcellus's name or heresy, and that some mystery hangs over him.

Four spurious letters are attributed to Julius respecting Athanasius; two of them Isidorian. Another will be especially noticed in the "Proofs and Illustrations." * The Apollinarians also published under his name. He died, A. D. 352.

The course of the history now brings to the reader's notice a prelate whose name is the most famous in Christian antiquity-Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. He is said while deacon to have attended his bishop, Alexander, to the Nicene Council; and to have displayed so much energy and ability in the support of the word "of the same substance," as to have incurred the bitter dislike of its opponents.

On the death of Alexander, whether that event took place soon after the Nicene Council, or, as is more probable, some years later, he was raised to the bishopric by the unanimous suffrage of the clergy and people. Clear in his apprehension of truth, and firm in its maintenance, he was at one period the centre of all movements affecting the Church. At a time when scarcely a chair in Christendom was occupied with honour, when the loftiest prelates were cowering before the storm, and sooner or later betraying their Master's cause, no hesitation marked the career of Athanasius. When the tempest approached his diocese, raging with re

* Under "COUNCIL OF SARDICA.” † Mai. Scrip. vii. 165.