the bishops of the west, who were there assembled to the number of four hundred, and amongst others those of Britain, subscribed a creed which differed a little from that of the council of Nice. But this appears to be the effect of mere force. For at the beginning of the council they unanimously declared their approbation of the Nicean creed, and pronounced anathemas against the errors of Arius; and after their return to their respective dioceses they renewed their former declarations in favour of the faith of Nice, and renounced their involuntary subscriptions at Ariminum as soon as they could do it with safety." This the learned historian considers as a certain proof that the opinions of Arius had, as yet, made little or no progress among the clergy in the western empire; "though it also shews, that the spirit of enduring persecution was very much abated." St. Athanasius and the bishops assembled in the council of Antioch, A. D. 363, assure the Emperor Jovian, that "the bishops of SPAIN, GAUL, and BRITAIN, continued to adhere to the faith of the council of NICE, of which they had been informed by letters from those bishops. Both St. Jerom and St. Chrysostom, speak often of the orthodoxy of the British church in their writings."

Let Doctor Henry's arguments have all the weight they are entitled to they can only prove, with respect to our country, that the most eminent of the clergy were sound in the Catholic Faith; and we are ready to admit that they, with several others at the council of Ariminum, did not sign the articles which were designed to corrupt the Nicean confession, until recourse was had to those threats which induced them reluctantly to comply with a peremptory injunction from the imperial court.

But it should be remembered that the decision of this council aimed a deadly blow at the vitals of that essential

article, the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, which had been so clearly set forth by the representatives of almost all the Christian world assembled at Nice. The pliability of the orthodox bishops at Ariminum was, therefore, a subject of great lamentation to the Catholics; and proved a cause of triumph to the Arians. Hence Jerom exclaims that the Homoousia was there abolished; and the Nicene Faith was then cried down and condemned. The great point on which the controversy depended was given up. That, in consequence of the triumph of Arianism on that occasion, the seed which might previous to this have been sown in Britain would be fostered and cause disputes, carries no improbability with it; and Gildas states the fact that Arianism was brought over, and many infected by it. How it could ever come into Gildas's head, that the British church had been tinctured with Arianism, if there were no grounds for the charge, I cannot conceive: but it is possible that the language of Gildas may be too highly coloured; that his words are stronger than what the real state of the case would warrant. Dr. Henry has not, however, disproved the existence of the fact, notwithstanding his severe reprehension of our old querulous historian, whose mind, although soured by what he had witnessed and felt in his own turbulent age, was not capable of bringing such a charge against his countrymen, without some just cause for it.

With respect to the testimony of Jerom, and that of Chrysostom, it is pleasing to find that the British church was not generally overrun with the Arian heresy; but although the heads of the church were sound, it does not prove but that several among both clergy and laity were not in some measure infected with it. Archbishop Usher has treated this subject with his usual impartiality; and states, that although Athanasius testifies the

orthodoxy of the bishops of Britain, as well as those of Spain and Gaul, and their consent to the Nicean confession, yet he supposes that Arianism found its way into Britain previous to the year 383, the year in which Maximus was proclaimed emperor by the soldiery of this island. Gratian and Valentinian sided with the Arians; and the former issued an edict to the churches of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, directing the free exercise of faith and worship to be granted to the various contending sects. Such an edict implies that disputes existed in those western churches; and as this contagion extended to all parts of Christendom, it is not to be supposed that our fickle and wavering islanders had alone escaped its baneful influence.

It has been generally supposed that, during the reign of Constantine the Great, the Christian Religion took deep root in Britain, and shared the royal patronage in common with other provinces of the empire. The British Christians improved in the external splendour, which marked the progress of religion, during this sunshine of its prosperity: the edifices appropriated for public worship were rendered decorous, and perhaps had a degree of magnificence suited to the established religion of the empire; and the clergy were treated with respect, and dignified with the notice of great men. But the Hierarchy which flourished in other countries, under the fostering wing of imperial favour, did not meet with a soil so congenial in this island; and it is not easy to decide whether a regular diocesan church government obtained here during this century. There were bishops, it is true, in several of the great towns and cities; but these were not yet loaded with temporal honours, and large revenues, We may form some conjecture respecting their situation, from what is related of the British bishops at the council of Ariminum;

for while all the others bore their own expences they alone accepted of the emperor's bounty, and had their charges defrayed at the public cost.

The church was exposed to new dangers in the season of external prosperity. Conformity to the world, which now smiled upon it, began to have a most injurious effect upon both clergy and laity. The simplicity of religion was debased by being loaded with pompous cere monies, under the specious pretext of thereby gaining over the heathen to embrace the Cross of Christ. Men, who were strangers to the inward power of religion, found a substitute in outward forms. A great diversity of rites were introduced into Divine worship; and almost every province had something peculiar to itself, which in process of time became the fertile source of violent contentions. The poverty of the British churches was perhaps the means of preserving them in some measure from running into the excess of other churches. But if our countrymen had not departed from primitive simplicity, so far as the churches of Italy and the east, yet they wanted not their share of superstition. Among the numbers who travelled to Jerusalem to visit our Saviour's grave, over which the mother of Constantine built a sumptuous church, there were several of the Britons. Some of them are also enumerated among those pilgrims who travelled into Syria to visit that celebrated fanatic Simon Stylites, who received that name on account of his living on the top of a high pillar. He is said to have lived thirty-seven years in that extraordinary manner. "Many people," says Theodoret, 66 came to see him from the remotest corners of the west, particularly from Spain, Gaul, and Britain."

Some authors have affirmed that the monastic life was introduced into this country before the conclusion of this century. But monachism does not appear to have

prevailed much here before the ensuing century. This kind of institution began to be adopted in Italy and Gaul during the fourth century; and in the latter country Martin of Tours was a great promoter of the monastic discipline.

66

Monkery," says Bishop Lloyd, "began in the eastern parts, as all the antients agree; and even there it was not until the time of Dioclesian's persecution." But what had its rise in a time of persecution and distress, was afterwards adopted from choice; on account of its supposed tendency to wean the affections from this world, and to promote holiness and heavenly mindedness. Hence many betook themselves into deserts and solitary situations to spend their time there, at a distance from human society, to be free both from the allurements and the cares of the world.

This disposition prevailed greatly in Syria and in Egypt, where the monks of St. Anthony soon gained celebrity; for he was the first who formed regular communities in that way, and laid down rules for the direction of their conduct. The whole east in a short time was filled with a set of men who, abandoning all human connexions and concerns, wore out a languishing life amidst the hardships of want and various kinds of suffering, in order to arrive at a more close communion with God!

The monastic order was distributed into two distinct classes, of which one received the denomination of Cœnobites, the other that of Eremites. The former lived together, and made up one large community, under a chief whom they called father or abbot, which signifies the same thing in the Egyptian language. The latter drew out a wretched life in perfect solitude; and were scattered here and there in caves, in deserts, in the hollows of rocks, sheltered from the wild beasts only by the cover