ble obstinacy-they did not accuse him of any error in faith.*

Mr. Robinson gives the following brief account of this sect: "There was a party nearer to Augustine than the Donatists, who were called Luciferians, from Lucifer; ** a man of eminent piety and goodness. He and his followers held the doctrine of the Trinity; they re-baptized nobody; and their lives were exemplary: but they held separate assemblies, and would not hold communion with Austin's [Augustine's] worldly church. They were a sort of Trinitarian Independents. The Donatists were Trinitarian Anabaptists. ** Austin held all in like execration, for all stood in the way of that hierarchy which this Carthaginian genius was endeavoring to set up. While each. bishop tyrannized over his own congregation, all was easy; but when one in the chair had begun to treat the bench as the bench had treated the people, the bench rebelled against the chairman, and made the people free for the sake of being free themselves."†

The cause here assigned for the rise of both the Luciferians and Donatists is certainly reasonable. The tyranny of the principal bishops over their inferiors, and the arbi trary and oppressive canons of the provincial councils, which assumed the right to make laws for the government of all the churches within their limits,-would naturally excite the inquiry in the minds of the oppressed: "By what authority doest thou these things; and who gave thee this authority?" This vein of thought once struck, and the Scriptures taken as a guide, would unavoidably result in the discovery of the great principles on which modern Congregationalists have built their system of church order.‡

*Book 15. p. 69.

+ History of Baptism, p. 200. The history of the recent schism in the Methodist Episcopal

The Luciferians seem not to have been very numerous. The schism was confined chiefly to Sardinia and Spain. There were, however, assemblies of Luciferians in Rome as early as A. D. 367-374, notwithstanding they were forbidden to come within a hundred miles of the city. They were not only subject to trial and condemnation by the Catholic bishops, but were forbidden to appeal to the emperor for any revision of catholic decisions. Under this law, Damascus, bishop of Rome, caused several Luciferian priests and laymen to be arrested and exiled. One of

Church, in this country, furnishes an illustration of the above remarks. One of the leaders in this schism-Rev. George Storrs— has recently" defined his position," by stating his utter abhorrence of Episcopacy, and his cordial reception of Congregationalism or Independency. Now, what has brought him and his friends to this position? The historian of that church would, without doubt say The difficulty they experienced in that Church, in carrying out their favorite measures for the abolition of slavery. A person unacquainted with the whole affair, would very naturally ask :— What connection is there between the cause and the effect? It is only by knowing the whole history of the difficulties, that we can answer this question. And even then, we shall be unable to perceive any connection between the cause, abstractly considered, and the effect practically developed. The whole story may be briefly thus told: Mr. Storrs and his clerical friends were easy under Methodist Episcopacy-though it deprives the people, as such, of any voice in the government of the church-until they began to feel the power of the bishops and of the General Conference in controlling their movements as abolitionists :-the bishops presiding in the Yearly Conferences refused to put their anti-slavery motions; and the General Conferences passed decrees prohibiting" any travelling preacher from engaging in any agency for any object not approved by the General Conference." These things led the aggrieved brethren to inquire—“ By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? The result of this inquiry may be found in the "American Wesleyan Observer" for Aug. 13, 1840.

these priests was accused of holding a conventicle in a private house in the night time. All the efforts of their persecutor could not prevent Aurelius and his successor Ephesius, Luciferian bishops, from remaining in the city until the time of their deaths.*

It was the fortune of the Luciferians to live amidst the fires of the Arian controversy. And, having little sympathy with either the Arians or the Orthodox, in their strug. gle for supremacy in the empire, they suffered persecution from both parties: in which respect they resembled the Separatists the strictest portion of the English Puritans, and the immediate ancestors of the Congregationalists—as well as in their views of Christian doctrine and practice, and the independency of their churches.

THE ERIANS.

Nearly contemporary with Lucifer (A. D. 363) appeared Ærius. He was a native of Pontus, a province of Asia Minor. Fleury represents him to have been an Ascetic. He was the intimate friend and fellow monk of Eustathius, who was afterwards raised to the bishopric of Sebaste, a city in the northern part of ancient Cappadocia. This elevation of his companion is said to have excited the jealousy and ambition of Erius. Eustathius did what he could to appease him; he ordained him presbyter, and gave him the chaplaincy of a hospital, or a house for the entertainment of strangers; but nothing would satisfy him. Caresses and menaces were equally ineffectual. Ærius at length broke away from his friend and the Catholic church, and began to preach doctrines which neither Eustathius nor

* Fleury, Book 15th and 16th, passim.

the church could at all approve. Such, for substance, is Fleury's account of the rise of Erianism.*

From a comparison of several accounts of this matter, I suppose the truth to be very nearly as follows: Ærius, like many others of his day, disgusted with the pride and tyranny of the bishops, may have remonstrated with his friend Eustathius for taking a bishopric, or for following in the beaten track of episcopal usurpations. Eustathius, with the hope of stilling his reprover, ordained him a presbyter, and made him his private chaplain. Finding that these favors did not remove the objections of Erius, he next resorted to threats. But neither excommunication nor any other ecclesiastical punishment had sufficient terrors to stop the mouth of the dissenter. Finding his remonstrances with his friend fruitless, and his efforts at reform in the church unavailing, he at length decided, as Novatian and Donatus and Lucifer had before him, to abandon a communion in which so much error and corruption were allowed. Having resigned his station in the hospital of Sebaste, he at once avowed himself the advocate of the simple and primitive organization and worship of the church. He maintained first of all, "That (jure divino), by divine appointment, there was no difference between bishops and presbyters;" 2. That prayers for the dead were wrong; and 3. That the feasts and fasts observed by the church on set days were Jewish, rather than Christian observances.

These doctrines-so directly opposed to the teachings and practice of the Church of that day—he supported by appeals to the Scriptures. Such were the outlines of Erius's system of church reform.

"He seems," says Mosheim," to have aimed to reduce religion to its primitive simplicity." And, it is a proof that

*Tom. IV. B. 19.

66

there were some remains of primitive feelings among the people, that his doctrine respecting the equality of bishops and presbyters was very pleasing to many, who were disgusted with the pride and arrogance of the bishops of that age.

This advocate for "primitive simplicity" in the order of the church, in opposition to the usurpations of the bishops; and for the same simplicity in the worship of the church, in opposition to the growing errors, and superstitions, and idolatries of the people-found" a great multitude" (to use Fleury's own words) to follow him. Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia were rent by the schism.t

The Catholic doctors attempted by their writings to refute the "heresies" of this reformer. Among them Epiphanius, bishop of Salamina, in Cyprus, took the lead. According to Fleury, he "refuted the heresy principally by an appeal to tradition and the consent of all the churches.”‡ An example which the advocates for diocesan Episcopacy, and the oppugners of the Congregational doctrine-that bishops and presbyters are, jure divino, of the same rank— have wisely followed, from the days of "St. Epiphanius” to the present time. Such arguments were then, as they are now, lightly esteemed by those who took the Scriptures for their guide. The Catholics, not content with denouncing, and, in their judgment, refuting the heresy, resorted to more pungent, if not more convincing arguments. "They drove the Erians every where from the churches, from the cities, and the villages." But this, it seems, did not quench their zeal for the truth; for, "They assembled in the woods, in caverns, in the open country, even sometimes when covered with snow."§

* Mosheim.

+ Ibid.

Tom. IV. B. 19. pp. 672, 673.

§ Fleury, Tom. IV. B. 19. pp. 672, 673.