perienced; though not of their usual method or success in resisting their persecutors.

From some historians we should infer, that the persecuting efforts of the so-called Catholic church extinguished the sect of Novatianists before the close of the fifth century. Others, however-and among them Mr. Robinsontell us, that they continued, under various names, down to the time of the Lutheran Reformation.*

* See Jones' Hist. of the Chris. Chh. Vol. 1. pp. 312, 313. The reader will find a brief account of the Novatians in Mosheim, Cent. III. Part II. Chap. 5. Milner gives a much more full account of them, in connection with the life of his admired Cyprian, their violent enemy. See particularly the 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of the third century. The reader may collect nearly the whole truth from Milner, and yet, he will hardly fail to be amused by the efforts of that good man to prevent his antipathy to dissenters, from running away with his conscience. He seems to write like a man in a strait betwixt two. He can by no means approve of Novatian's schism; yet he must admit that the church from which he separated had become very corrupt. His followers were certainly schismatics; and yet, they certainly were very respectable and virtuous, and enjoyed the presence of God's spirit.

"The author would by no means be understood to encroach upon the right of private judgment. *** It is the right of ACTING according to this right of opinion that is contested," etc. It might well be answered: Of what value is "the right of private judgment," if one can have no liberty to follow that judgment in action? Always supposing that his actions do not interfere with the rights of other men.

"Can it be right," asks this learned historian, " for a small number of individuals to dissent-and that on no better ground than their own fancy and humor? * * Such however was the first origin of the Novatian schism."-Cent. III. Chap. 10.

One might retort upon this advocate of Diocesan episcopacy, who is "convinced that the Almighty has not limited his creatures to any particular and strictly defined modes of church government:"-Can it be right to require a small number of indivi

Of what has now been said of Novatianism, this is the sum: A learned and pious presbyter of the church at Rome, about the middle of the third century, alarmed at the progress of corruption in the churches, occasioned chiefly by a disregard of the apostolic example, in admitting the unworthy to the fellowship of the churches,-after pleading in vain for a reformation in this respect, separated himself from the church at Rome, and formed another, upon this distinctive and fundamental principle-The church of Christ should consist of none but the truly pious; and if any forfeit this character by an open denial of their faith (or, as they termed it, a sin unto death") they should be rejected, and never more received into the church. This principle

66

duals, contrary to their private judgment, to conform to "the fancy and humor" of a larger number? If any one's fancy and humor should be consulted, why not one's own? Why should I be required to conform to a hierarchy, many of whose rites and ceremonies-if not its entire order-have no better foundation than fancy and humor."

66

It is, however, very obvious, that the true ground of dissent, in the case of Novatian, was something widely different from "fancy or humor." It was principle-deep, religious principle-which constrained him to separate from the impure, and increasingly, and hopelessly impure church of his day. It is the same, that has removed thousands of the best of men from the enclosures of the Church of England in later times; the same which, I verily believe, will ultimately reduce all the anti-scriptural hierarchies of Christendom to the simple model of the apostolic churches.

Socrates has given many historical particulars and anecdotes illustrative of the Novatians.-See, in addition to the passages already referred to, Lib. VI. Chaps. 18–21. So favorable are his notices of Novatian and his followers, that his translator deemed it necessary to defend him from this "slander." Sozomon, another ancient ecclesiastical historian, has been suspected of partiality to Novatianism; but, as Gibbon thinks, without sufficient rea

son.

found advocates in all parts of the Roman empire; and was adopted and practised upon by multitudes of the most virtuous and excellent persons. Churches were formed all over the empire, and probably continued to exist, under various names, until the dawn of the Reformation.

This sect, though they may have developed but a single principle of the denomination whose history I am attempting to write, deserve the first place among the restorers of "the old paths ;" and may with propriety be regarded as the van-guard of that army of church reformers, of which Congregationalists are the rere-ward.

CHAPTER II.

THE RISE AND HISTORY OF THE DONATISTS, A. D. 311.

These, Milner calls, "the second class of dissenters." Like the Novatians, they agreed with the Catholic party in their doctrinal belief, but dissented on the ground of church order. The Donatists believed that the church had so corrupted herself that she was no longer the spouse of Christ ;

"that immorality had unchurched the Catholics, and sunk them into a mere worldly corporation."* They therefore separated entirely from them; and would neither commune with the Catholics nor receive them to their churches, until they had been re-baptized.

They appeared, as a distinct sect, early in the fourth century, A. D. 311-321.

The account given us of the origin of these dissenters, is

* Robinson.

not altogether satisfactory; for the reason, that the cause assigned for their rise seems hardly adequate to the effects developed in their history.* The current account of their origin is briefly as follows: In the year A. D. 311, Mensurius,bishop of Carthage, dying, three rival candidates appeared for the vacant episcopal chair. Caecilian, the arch-deacon of the church, was the successful aspirant. With a degree of haste and irregularity which threw suspicion on the movement, a few of the neighboring bishops proceeded to consecrate the bishop elect. Against this procedure Botrus and Celesius, the rival candidates, and their friends, strenuously protested. They asserted that the ordination of Caecilian was null and void: 1st, Because the bishops of Numidia, a neighboring province attached to the See of Carthage, had not been consulted, or called to take part in the ordination of the new primate;† which was a violation

cess.

* In addition to the authorities quoted in preceding pages, I have consulted the French historian, Fleury, who treats more fully of this schism than any other author to whom I have had acHe is quoted as authority by most others whom I have examined. Milner has followed him very closely. Gibbon's account gives evidence of his familiarity with the French Romanist. So does Waddington's. Fleury, though a papist, and sufficiently attached to "The" church, and abundantly credulous, when the honor of his saints is concerned,-is yet, apparently, a dispassion

ate and honest historian.

I have also consulted the "History of Baptism" by Robert Robinson, author of Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., an English Baptist dissenter, of Socinian principles. He writes like a learned man, though sometimes rather violent in his language. His denominational partialities led him to investigate the views of the early dissenters respecting church order more fully than is apparent in the writings of most other historians.

+ This appears to have been the title given to the bishop of Carthage; who was virtually the arch-bishop, patriarch, or pope of Africa.

of established usage, if not of ecclesiastical law. 2dly, Because one or more of the consecrating bishops was a Traditor, i. e. one who, to avoid persecution, had delivered the sacred books to the heathen magistrates to be burned. This, they asserted, was true of the principal bishop concerned in the consecration of Caecilian. 3dly, They charged Caecilian with having been "hard-hearted and cruel to the witnesses for Christ, or martyrs, during the persecution of Diocletian; and [that] he had forbidden food to be carried to them in prison."*

The Numidian bishops, to the number of seventy, having assembled at Carthage, undertook to investigate the affair. But Caecilian and his party refused to appear before them; asserting that the Numidians had been prejudiced by the representations, and bribed by the gold of the other party. This council," with the approbation of a considerable part of the clergy and people of Carthage," set aside the ordination of Caecilian, and consecrated Majorinus, one of the deacons of the church, bishop of Carthage.

Thus began the schism of the Donatists, so called, probably, from Donatus, the name of two of their principal bishops.

* Mosheim, Vol. 1. Cent. IV. Part II. Chap. 5.

† Fleury, Tom. II. p. 668. He says, the Numidians were quartered in the city among those, exclusively, who were opposed to Caecilian; and that Lucilla, a wealthy lady who was personally inimical to Caecilian, had furnished not less than £2000, to bribe and buy up the Numidian bishops. Whatever we may think about the probability of this latter story, it certainly furnishes a hint respecting the reputed morality of the African church, in the fourth century. For further hints, see Taylor's " Ancient Christianity.” This learned writer in his refutation of Oxford divinity, has as it seems to a humble believer in "the crude assumptions" of modern Congregationalism-completely undermined the foundation of his own admired Church of England.