averfion to a court like that of Heraclius. He entered into the monaftery of Chryfopolis near Chalcedon, and was at length elected abbot. He it was, who fucceeded Sophronius in the defence of the primitive faith, and with much labour confuted the herefiarchs. Martin, bishop of Rome, was excited by the zeal of Maximus to affemble a council, in the Lateran, of a hundred and five A.D. bishops in 649. Conftans was at this time empe- 649. ror, and, by a decree, had forbidden any fide at all to be taken in the controverfy. Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, three fucceffive bishops of Conftantinople, had fupported the herefy. The controverfy had now lafted eighteen years. In this way the active minds of men, deftitute of true godlinefs, but eagerly embracing the form, gratified the felf-righteous bias of the heart and all the malevolent paffions in long-protracted controverfies, while practical religion was loft. Nor could all the calamities of the times and the defolation of the eaftern churches move them to the love of peace and truth. In these circumftances, Martin in council ventured to anathematize the fupporters of the Monothelite herefy. I cannot blame his difobedience to the emperor Conftans in refufing to obferve filence on a point of doctrine, which to him appeared important. Conftans evidently forgot his office, when he required fuch things. And it is a curious inftance of the power of prejudice in fome Proteftant hiftorians*, that they will fo much fupport the conduct of a worthlefs tyrant as Conftans doubtlefs was, because his fpeculative principles induced him to treat a Roman bifhop with cruelty. There was a haughtinefs, no doubt, and an afperity in the language and behaviour of Martin, very unbecoming. * See Bower and Mofheim. unbecoming a chriftian. His caufe however feems juft; nor does it appear, that he either meant or acted treasonably: he defended that part of the truth, which was oppofed, with the magnanimity, though not with the meeknefs, that became a bifhop. Conftans ordered him to be dragged into the eaft, and treated him with a long, protracted barbarity of punishment. Martin was firm to the laft. “As to this wretched body," fays he, "the Lord will take care of it. He is at hand; why fhould I give myself any trouble? for I hope in his mercy, that A.D. he will not prolong my courfe." He died in the 655. year 655. His extreme fufferings of imprisonment, hunger, fetters, brutal treatment a thousand ways, call for compaffion: his conftancy demands refpect; and his firm adherence to the doctrines of truth, though mixed with a very blamable ambition in maintaining the dignity of the Roman See, deferves the admiration of Chriftians. He is, in Roman language, called St. Martin; and I hope he had a juft title to the name in the best sense of the word. Maximus was alfo brought to Conftantinople, and, by the order of Conftans, underwent a number of examinations. He was afked by an officer to fign the type;-fo the edict of Conftans was named. Only do this, faid the officer, believe what you please in your heart. "It is not to the heart alone," replied Maximus, "that God hath confined our duty; we are alfo obliged with the mouth to confefs Jefus Chrift before men*." It is aftonishing to obferve, what pains were taken to engage him to own the Monothelite party, nor can this be accounted for in any other way than by the opinion which all men had of his piety and fincerity, and the expectation of the influence, which his example would have on many. But the labour * See Butler's Vol. XII. + Fleury, R. XXXIV. 12, &c. labour was loft: Maximus, though seventy-five years old, preferved all the vigour of understanding, and confounded his examiners, by the folidity of his answers. He clearly proved," that to allow only one will or operation in Jefus Chrift was in reality to allow only one nature: that therefore the opinion for which the emperor was fo zealous, was nothing more than Eutychianifm dreffed up anew: that he had not fo properly condemned the emperor, as the doctrine, by whomfoever it was held: that it was contrary to the current of all ecclefiaftical antiquity that our Saviour was always allowed from the apoftolical times to be perfect God and perfect man, and must therefore have the nature, will, and operations diftinctly belonging both to God and man: that the new notion went to confound the idea both of the Divinity and the humanity, and to leave him no proper exiftence at all: that the emperor was not a paftor, and that it had never been practifed by Christian emperors in the best times, to impofe filence on bishops : that it was the duty of the latter not to difguife the truth by ambiguous expreffions, but to defend it by clear and diftinct terms adapted to the fubject that Arianifm had always endeavoured to fupport itself by fuch artifices as those employed by the emperor, and that a peace obtained by fuch methods in the Church was at the expenfe of truth." I admire the good fenfe and fincerity, which appear through the very long account of his defence, of which I have given a very brief fummary. Were it not, that God, from age to age, had raised up fuch champions in his Church, humanly fpeaking, not an atom of Chriftian truth by this time would have been left in the world. For heretics have uniformly acted on this plan: they have impofed filence on the orthodox, under pretence of the love of peace and union, whenever they had the power, and in the the mean time propagated their own tenets. The The tyrant, enraged to find himself disappointed, ordered Maximus to be fcourged, his tongue to be cut out, his right hand to be cut off; and he then directed the maimed abbot to be banished and doomed to imprisonment for the rest of his life. The fame punishment was inflicted on two of his difciples, both of the name of Anaftafius. These three upright men were feparated from each other, and confined in three caftles in obfcure A.D. regions of the eaft. Their condemnation took 656. place in 656: Maximus died in 662: one of the Anaftafius's in 664: they both had fuftained the moft cruel indignities, and had been rendered incapable of any confolations, except those which undoubtedly belong to men who fuffer for rightA.D. Coufnefs fake. The other Anaftafius died in a 666. castle at the foot of Mount Caucasus in 666. While fuch barbarous measures were used by nominal Chriftians to fupport unfcriptural tenets, it is not to be wondered at that Providence frowned on the affairs of the empire. The Saracens now ruled over Arabia, Perfia, Mefopotamia, Chaldea, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and part of Africa. Even Europe fuffered from the depredations of the Arabians, and part of Sicily was reduced to their fubjection. The unworthy emperor Conftans murdered also his own brother Theodofius, and continued to dif grace the Chriftian name by his follies, his vices, A.D. and his cruelties. He was himfelf dispatched at 667. length in the twenty-seventh year of his reign in 667, In In the year 680 a general council was called at A.D. Conftantinople: the emperor Conftantine Pogona- 680. tus prefided: the Monothelite herefy was anathematized; and its several abettors were condemned, among whom was Honorius a bishop of Rome. A certain proof that infallibility was neither allowed nor pretended to at that time by the Italian prelate. For the legates of Agathon, who was then. bishop of Rome, were at the council, nor do we find that any oppofition was made by them or by their master to the condemnation of Honorius. If we compare the east and the weft, during this century, we shall fee a very striking difference. In England true godlinefs fhone for a confiderable part of it: in France there was a good measure of piety; and from these two countries divine truth inade its way into Germany and the north with ' glorious fuccefs. In Italy, the Lombards were more and more cleared of Arianifm; and though there arofe no bishop of Rome to be compared at all to Gregory, yet the purity of the faith was preserved by them all, in point of theological fpeculation, except one. And his condemnation, which we have juft feen, demonftrates, that Antichrift had not yet arrived at maturity. Infallibility was not then thought of, as attached to the perfon of the Roman prelate. His power indeed was much too great; fo was his pomp and influence. But it was the fame with the bishops of other great Sees : and the bishop of Conftantinople retains the title of univerfal bishop to this day. Nor had the bishop of Rome any temporal dominion, nor did he pretend to any. In fine, the most decifive marks of Antichrift, idolatry and falle doctrine, had not yet appeared at Rome. Superftition and vice were lamentably on the increase in the west, though a confiderable degree of true picty pre vailed, |