satisfactory. In neither of the genuine writings referred to is there any mention by the missionary of a communication with Rome; whereas, especially in case of the Confession, there was a distinct occasion to refer to such a communication had it taken place. In this writing he mentions his call to the Irish mission, and defends himself against the charge of presumption in having entered upon so great a work. How natural in such a relation to have quoted the sanction of the Roman bishop, if that had been among the antecedents of his enterprise! An equal silence respecting any connection with Rome is also observed by some of the earliest productions relating to Patrick, such as the Hymn of St. Secundinus, the Hymn of St. Fiacc, and the Life in the Book of Armagh. There is ground, therefore, to hold under suspicion, if not positively to deny, the theory of Roman patronage in connection with the mission. As Dr. Todd suggests, certain facts belonging to the history of Palladius may have been transferred by uncritical and interested biographers to the life of Patrick. But, whatever the relations of Patrick himself may have been, the relations of the early Irish Church with the Roman see do not appear to have been very intimate; for we find the Irish, like the Britons across the channel, cherishing non-Roman customs.1

Ireland, with its Druids and its turbulent and war

1 W. D. Killen calls attention to the fact that in all the correspondence of Leo the Great, who was a contemporary of Patrick, there is no mention of Ireland. He adds: "It is acknowledged that for one hundred and fifty years after the death of Leo, the Church of Ireland continued to be in a very flourishing condition; and yet there is not a shadow of evidence that meanwhile any bishop of Rome addressed to any of its ministers so much as a single line of advice, warning, or commendation." (Eccl. Hist. of Ireland, i. 8, 9.)

like tribes, was a difficult field to bring under Christian cultivation. On more than one occasion the missionary found his life imperilled. Great success, nevertheless, attended his labors; and in his own person he accomplished much for that religious and intellectual regeneration of Ireland, which made this island a chief light in Europe in the period immediately following.

Authentic history says but little concerning Patrick, but it says enough to indicate the prominent traits in his character. We see in him a man distinguished by humility, simplicity, unselfish devotion, and large practical efficiency; a man very different from the pious monstrosity into which his image has been distorted by many ancient legends, and by some modern biographers who have overlooked the distinction between legend and history. A miscalculating fancy has clouded his fame in the attempt to magnify it by a list of ill-begotten marvels. So much the more, however, should the tribute be paid to him which is required by genuine history.

CHAPTER III.

DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.

I. CAUSES AND FEATURES.

EVEN general church history must take considerable note of the doctrinal controversies of this period. They entered too deeply into the life of the age, were too large a factor in the great events of the Christian Empire, that they should be left entirely to the history of doctrine. However, we shall endeavor to observe the distinction between the two branches, and without dwelling upon the minutiae of doctrine, or the arguments adduced in their support, shall consider the controversies mainly as factors in the life and public events of the age.

The reign of Constantine inaugurated, almost of necessity, an era of theological activity, if not of theological strife. That the Church, when relieved of the strong outward pressure, should apply itself with great zeal to the deeper problems of the faith, was a very natural turn of events. Where there is mental life, there is always speculation in some department or other, always philosophizing, always endeavors after the exact definition and the satisfactory defence of truth. In the centuries following Constantine, philosophizing was drawn by an irresistible attraction into the theological

field. Christianity uplifting itself in the freshness and glory of a new and triumphant power, and claiming to be the absolute religion embracing the whole circle of divine truth, must necessarily absorb very much of the speculative energies of the times.

Indifference to matters of creed was practically an impossibility. Many whom custom still bound to their old, worn-out heathenism may have had but a moderate. interest in its tenets. But Christianity with its unforgotten record of heroic conflicts, with its long list of honored martyrs, with its lofty promises, with its comparative freshness, and with its felt superiority to all the religious products of the ancient world, claimed too lively an interest from thoughtful adherents to allow of an indifferent attitude towards its doctrinal contents.

Aside from indifference to matters of creed, unanimity of opinion was the only thing which could have saved the Church of that era from doctrinal controversies. But this, too, was practically out of the question. The depth of the subject was enough by itself to prevent unanimity of opinion, especially on the part of men coming from such varied antecedents as belonged to the transition from a Jewish and heathen to a Christian world. There were causes, therefore, comparatively normal and legitimate, that acted powerfully in the direction of doctrinal agitation.

But these causes were re-enforced by others that have less claim upon our charity. A false impetus was given to theological strife by a wide-spread failure properly to recognize the broad distinction which exists between. faith and orthodoxy. The abhorrence of heresy, which had been engendered by such gross aberrations from

Christian truth as Gnosticism and Manichæism, conjoined with the unspiritual temper of numerous adherents of the victorious Church, led not a few to confound evangelical belief with allegiance to a creed. According to their superficial estimate, a zealous championship of the right articles of faith was a supreme evidence of Christian character. Coalescing with this stimulus to controversy was the old Greek disputatiousness which still survived. It was easy for the Greek mind to run into a mania for speculation and discussion, to the neglect of practical interests. Cicero in his day complained of the controversial bias of the Greeks, and accused them of thirsting for contention rather than for truth. Not a little of this spirit came unconquered into the Church.

Controversy was also intensified and imbittered by the action of the government. The design of the emperors was indeed the promotion of peace and harmony in the Church, but their interference none the less bore the natural fruit of increased strife. What else could have been the result of the principle established under the administration of Constantine; namely, that the minority of bishops, gathered or represented in a council, must submit their faith to the decision of the majority, and, in case of refusal, feel the force of civil as well as of ecclesiastical proscription? The inevitable consequence was, that, when a doctrinal dispute arose, the partisans of either side were intent upon securing for themselves a majority in a council and the co-operation of the government. The government, thus flattered by the appeals of contending factions, was incited to make a full show of its power and importance. Emperors having least understanding of the subjects under debate