07. BOOK V, CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I.

The general Aspect of Society—Insidious Introduction of Error and Corruption in the Church—Constantine assumes the Title of Pontifex Maximus—Severe Enactments against the Jews Death by Fire—Retributive Providence exercised on the

Jewish People—Effects of a Departure from Christian Simplicity—Evils resulting from worldly Associations—Arius, anterior to the Nican Council—Progress of the Arius Heresy—Christian Churches in Rome—Persecution of the Donatists—

The Eastern Part of the World still Pagan—The Christian Hierarchy and the

Pagan Priesthood contrasted—Martyrdom of Blaise, Bishop of Sebaste—Circumcelliones—Their Extravagancies—Strong Passion for Martyrdom—Constantine strives zealously to promote Peace—Fatality of false Peace—On the Administration of the Christian Community—Effect of the imperial Authority—Its deleterious

Tendency—Objects contemplated in the early Synods of the Church—Alleged Cause for assembling the First General Council—Ecumenical Councils—Assembly of the

Council of Nice—By whom it was composed—Where it was convened—Is opened by Constantine—Splendour of his Appearance—Vain Attempts of certain Gentile

Philosophers—Their Conversion—The Nicene Creed—The Homœousian Faith—

Remarks on Newman's History of the Arians—Arius is deposed and banished—

Constantia is inclined to Arianism—The vacillating Temper of the Emperor—Reports affecting his moral Character—Arius is restored—Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedes

—Arian Bishops recalled from Exile—Who become Oppressors—Eustathius—His

Character foully calumniated—Considerable national Commotion—Athanasius—His

Rise—The Emperor commands the Reception of Arius in the Church—It is disregarded—State of the Church—Heavy Crimes attributed by the Arians to Athanasius—Arsenius—Synod summoned to investigate Complaints against Athanasius—

Base Conduct of the Arians—Anecdote recorded by Theodoret—Further Persecution of Athanasius by the Arians—Proceedings at Tyre—Banishment of Athanasius—Interview with the Emperor—Numerous Acts of Oppression and Persecution by the Arians—Dissimulation of Arius, and Weakness of Constantine, who insists on Arius being admitted into the Church—Pious and exemplary Conduct of Alexander—Awful Death of Arius—Remarks on his Character—Position of the

Church at this Period—Ecclesiastical Canons made Law of the Empire—Heresy considered a criminal Act—The Power of the Emperors yields to the Church—All

Parties indulge in gross Acts of Intolerance—The Council of Gangra—Its Character—Apostolical Constitutions—Their intrinsic Value—Foundation of Constantineple Erection of this City favourable to Christianity—Ceremonial of the

Foundation—Dimensions of the City—William of Malmsbury quoted—Basilicas

—Conduct of Constantine—Malmbourg quoted—Socrates—Saxomen—Theodoret—

Philostergius—Epiphanius—Hilary—Rufinus—Sulpicius Severus—Constantine puts Crispus, his Son, to Death—His professed Repentance for this rash

Act—Trugic End of Fausta—The Illness, Death, and Funeral of Constantine

2 C

—His Character—How far was he a Christian—His Baptism, why delayed—Sanguinary Massacre of the Princes—Prospects of the Church—Paganism how far suppressed—Persia, its Condition—Tiridates—His Death—Agitated State of Affairs in Armenia—Severe Persecutions inflicted on the Christians—Constantine makes War against Persia—Battle of Singara—And the Siege of Nisibis.

THE Christian history of the fourth and following centuries presents us with some of the most striking characters in the martyrology of the church. Stupendous changes took place in the aspect of society, and the movements of the human mind were advancing as with railway speed; so much so, that ecclesiastical historians are not agreed what term they will affix to the earlier part of that period. It has been denominated “the Nicene age,” “the age of Councils and Synods,” “the golden age of Christian learning,” and “the dogmatic age.” The last two are perhaps the best definitions which can be used; for it is not easy to point out any other portion of the revolution of time that has produced so many theological writers of first-rate eminence, whose works have had such a powerful influence in regulating modes of faith and worship, and in giving expression to the feelings of devotion. Highest among those who were living in the concluding part of the fourth century were Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Paulinus of Nola, and Jerome the celebrated reviser of the Vulgate, and translator of the Bible. What an array of highly-gifted men, honoured in their generation, and whose hope was full of immortality! Their printed works occupy no less than thirty-eight folio volumes; and to the authority of one or other of these an appeal is made on almost every point of practical, doctrinal, and polemical divinity which has since divided the opinions of the Christian world. But an age of excitement and controversy, like a stream which, turning from its true course, traces its direction through unhealthy grounds, cannot roll on, without carrying down in its channel much of that which is turbulent and impure. The fourth century was a period of transition,* between the ascendancy of Heathenism and that of Christianity, in the Roman empire: and in the struggle for influence, a lamentable compromise between right and wrong was often made on the part of proselyting Christians. Recruits, rather than converts, were obtained for the ranks of the cross; and the frailties, the passions, and the imaginations of men began, at the expense of conscience and truth, to be enlisted in the service of the church. Objects of worship were disguised and presented under every form more consonant with Heathenism than with Gospel ideas of religion; rites similar to those of ancient mythology were introduced, and a breach was opened to every corruption.

* Those who contend most strenuously for antiquity, admit that a change took place in the fourth century from the Christianity of the Apostles to that of the Fathers. (See Brit. Magazine, vol. ix., p. 359, Rivington, 1836.) “Three centuries and more were necessary for the infant church to attain her mature and perfect form and due stature. Athanasius, Basil, and Ambrose are the fully-instructed Doctors of her doctrine, morals, and discipline.” According to this hypothesis, Paul and Peter and John were infants compared with Ambrose; and we are to receive a new doctrine from the fourth century. (Gilly.)

ERROR AND CORRUPTION IN THE CHURCH.

It was at the same time a turning-point between scriptural and traditional Christianity; and as much learning and argument were employed to justify the admixture of mythological ceremonies with evangelical exercises of devotion, as to prove the cardinal verities of the Gospel. In fact, the close of the fourth century is the epoch from which we date the time when, to use the words of Bishop Van Mildert, a "system of Paganism was engrafted on Christianity;" when the simplicity of the Gospel was sacrificed, in a fearful degree, to pious sophistries; and when the forms of the Pantheon were fatally introduced into the Christian sanctuary.* And here it must be confessed that the undue deference, which has been shown in every age, for "the learned," to the neglect of humble and common-sense piety, receives a severe rebuke in the destiny of those churches which were most rich in polemical theologians. How few of the capitals of Asia and Africa, where ecclesiastical learning flourished so proudly in the fourth century, can now exhibit any vestiges of the Christian establishments which were the glory of the dogmatic age! "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength." This prophetic saying, to which our Lord referred on two remarkable occasions, had an extraordinary fulfilment at the period we are now discussing. The chief among "the wise and prudent" of that day were falling into errors, which had gradually crept into the church; and the religion, which was at first commended to the world by the simplicity and unbending holiness of its professors, was now promoted by sophistry and false reasoning. Ambrose, who was then at the height of his reputation in the Western church, and Jerome, who was consulted as an oracle both in that and the Eastern, and even Augustine himself, gave their sanction to practices and opinions, at which "the stones would have cried out," had all who professed to be guided by the holy Scriptures held their peacer†

Constantine, having assumed the office of Pontifex Maximus, probably imagined that, as a pagan ruler, he was supreme over the privileges of the heathen temples; and, as a Christian Prince, he might transfer them to the Ministers of his adopted religion. As Emperor he continued until now to observe all the pagan usages, in spite of his professed attachment to Christianity. The shield of imperial protection, which the Emperor had thrown around the Christian church, occasioned great anger among the Jews, who were still numerous and powerful in the empire. It is not improbable that many of their number took opportunity at this time—that is, soon after the edict of Milan—to forsake Judaism and embrace the religion of the Emperor. It was their custom when any persons quitted their religion to stone them, or to cast them into the fire. "I have no doubt, though I cannot produce demonstrative evidence of the fact, that many of the Jews were guilty of such conduct about this period." ‡

* These men, by taking the Greek philosophers to their assistance, in explaining the nature and genius of the Gospel, had unhappily turned religion into an art; and their successors, the Schoolmen, by framing a body of theology out of them, instead of searching for it from the Scriptures, soon after turned it into a trade. (Warburton.)

† Vigilantius and his Times. By W. S. Gilly, D.D. London, 1844.

‡ Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, &c., vol. i., p. 249.

2 c 2

It is otherwise impossible to acquit Constantine of the charge of cruelty and persecution. Retaliation, under these circumstances, would have been considered justifiable. An original law consigning Jews to the flames for attacking their brethren with stones because they forsook Judaism, and that, too, with all their aiders and abettors, would have been intolerable. Such a law was passed in the year 315.* It is so worded as to imply that the Jews had committed great outrages upon those that forsook Judaism, of which stoning the proselyte was one. It describes the other outrages in general terms only. As the committing the convert to Christianity to the flames was a usual custom with them, and as this horrible enactment is the punishment now assigned to them,† we are willing to believe that the law of Constantine, which decreed vivi-comburation as the penalty to the Jews for any insult upon the proselytes from Judaism to Christianity, was decreed in the spirit of retaliation, and not of arbitrary persecution. Hadrian was accustomed to cut off the ears of the Jews; and Chrysostom affirms that they assembled about this time to rebuild Jerusalem; and that Constantine, offended at their rashness, cut off their ears, and sold them as slaves. There is no contemporary evidence, however, to justify us in believing this assertion of Chrysostom; neither is there any law in the Theodosian Code which ordains the cutting off of the ears of the Jews. Eutychius declares that Constantine ordered them all to be baptized, and to eat pork at Easter. Of these allegations, also, we find no evidence. There is no law to that effect. Very unfortunate has it been for the cause of toleration and humanity, that the Jews gave any occasion for the law which sentenced them to a retaliatory punishment. The penalty continued to be enforced against them for many generations when no outrages were committed. This was the first law of a professedly Christian Prince which may be called persecuting. The first part of it, if it be indeed recriminatory, might be defensible; for the political laws of a

* We subjoin the whole law. It is not so long as the preamble to a modern Act of Parliament. "Judæis, et majoribus eorum, et patriarchis, volumus intimari, quod, si qui, post hanc legem, aliquem, qui eorum feralem fugerit sectam, et ad Dei cultum respexerit, saxis aut alia genere (quod nunc fieri cognoscimus) ausus fuerit attemperare, mox flammis dedendus, et cum omnibus suis participibus concremandus. Si quis vero ex populo ad eorum nefariam sectam accesserit, et conciliabulis eorum se applicaverit, cum ipsis poenas meritas sustinebit." (Dat. xv. Kalend. Nov., Murgillo, Constantino, A. iv. et Licinio iv., Cosc.)

† This punishment Moses commanded to be inflicted on the daughters of Priests who should be guilty of fornication, (Lev. xxi. 9,) and upon a man who should marry both the mother and the daughter. (Lev. xx. 14.) This custom seems to have been in use in the East from a very early period. When Judah was informed that his daughter-in-law Tamar was pregnant, he condemned her to be burnt. (Gen. xxxviii. 24.) Many ages afterwards we find the Habylonians or Chaldeans burning certain offenders alive; (Jer. xxix. 22; Dan. iii. 6;) and this mode of punishment was not uncommon in the East so late as the seventeenth century. Chardin, in his Travels, (vol. vi. p. 118, of Langie's edition,) after speaking of the most common mode of punishing with death, says, "But there is still a particular way of putting to death such as have transgressed in civil affairs; either by causing a dearth, or by selling above the tax by a false weight, or who have committed themselves in any other manner. The cooks are put upon a spit, and roasted over a slow fire; (see Jerem. xxix. 22;) bakers are thrown into a hot oven. During the dearth, in 1688, I saw such ovens heated on the royal square in Ispahan to terrify the bakers, and deter them from deriving advantage from the general distress." (Burder, Oriental Literature.)

A RETRIBUTIVE PROVIDENCE ILLUSTRATED IN THE JEWS. 197 state might be sometimes justified, when they are framed upon the principles of retaliation, which, in private life, Christianity would condemn. For the second part, which commanded the punishment of death by fire to be inflicted upon those who became converted to Judaism, it is difficult to form an apology. It is painful, though it is curious, to trace in this manner the origin of the laws which were afterwards framed into a code of persecution. It is evident, in spite of the edict of Milan, that Constantine did not understand toleration.*

The doctrine of a retributive Providence may be illustrated in a very powerful but, alas! awful manner; and in no degree more forcible and impressive than towards the Jews. They were the first and most inveterate enemies the Christians had. They put them to death as often as they had it in their power. At the martyrdom of Polycarp the Jews constituted the most active portion of the populace, who collected the fuel from the public baths, and ignited the pile that was to consume to ashes the Prelate of Smyrna. When they revolted against the Romans, in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, Barchochebas, who was at the head of that revolt, employed against the Christians the most rigorous punishments to compel them to blaspheme and to renounce Jesus Christ. And we find that even in the third century they endeavoured to obtain possession of Christian women, in order to scourge and stone them in their synagogues. They cursed the Christians three times a day in their sanctuaries; their Rabbins would not allow them to converse with the faithful upon any occasion; nor were they satisfied with manifesting hatred and detestation, they despatched emissaries all over the world to defame the Christian character, and to disseminate calumnies against them. They accused them, amongst other things, of worshipping the sun, and the head of an ass; they reproached them with idleness, and with being a useless race of people. They charged them with treason, and endeavouring to erect a new monarchy against the Romans. They affirmed that, in celebrating their mysteries, they were accustomed to kill a child, and eat his flesh. They accused them of the most shocking incests, and of intemperance in their feasts of charity. Nevertheless, the lives and behaviour of the first Christians were sufficient to refute all that was said against them, and evidently demonstrated that these accusations were mere calumny, and the effect of inveterate, nay, diabolical, malice.

A departure, says Mr. Stebbing, from the simplicity of revelation, a desire to set forth and embody mysteries in human language, which the Holy Spirit himself did not see fit to define, and a combining of spiritual offices with temporal rewards and dignities, may be regarded as among the causes of all the divisions by which the Christian world has been agitated, and the promulgation of Christianity retarded in many of its most important particulars.† It was indeed

* Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, vol. I., p. 250.

† How corrupt is human nature! The church has outward peace and even prosperity; yet feuds, contentions, and the most unworthy spirit of avarice and ambition appear very prevalent. So ungrateful were men for that admirable administration with the establishment of our religion, as it is with other benefits conferred by the Almighty, his providence had no sooner given the blessing, and men had but just begun to enjoy the advantages of religious liberty, when they formed ideas utterly subversive of that peace, and those elevating virtues, which were to be looked for as the immediate fruit of a divine and newly-established faith, of a religion, the sublime wonders attending the publication of which were still solemnly impressed on the memory; of one whose triumphs had been obtained by the exercise of so much human virtue, and so many striking evidences of divine interference; of one which, sent from heaven, had not yet been long enough received among men to become greatly marred by error, or lose the beauty or the odour of its birth-place. It might have been expected that, for some generations at least after its victory over Paganism, Christianity would have been allowed to shed its bland influence through the world without interruption; that ambition and intolerance would not have ventured to oppose it till the sea of human passion and iniquity, which had received a sudden check by its establishment, was again in the flow; and that, during that interim, its moral power would have become so great, that it would only have been those who stood on the very outskirts of its empire on whom the lust of dominion or wealth, or the insidious language of intolerance, could have exercised any influence.*

Unhappily for the church and the world, this was not the case; the zeal and earnestness which it well became the early Christians to feel in the propagation of their faith, was now to be mingled with the leaven of magisterial pride. The humbler professors of the new faith could at first be little affected by the ambitious views of their teachers; but all those who held the same rank, or had a right to the same distinctions, were exposed to a severe trial by the proceedings of their worldly-minded brethren. Many of them remembered too readily the warning, that they were to be wise as serpents; and, in of Providence, which, as we have seen, now takes place in their favour! Another scourge seemed quickly necessary, a scourge generated from their own vices indeed, though evidently of divine appointment for the chastisement of the church. Satan saw his time: pure doctrinal truth was now too commonly mere speculation. Men were ripe for a perversion of doctrine. Lower or ambiguous views of Christ were secretly rising amidst the Platonic studies of learned men. Origen gave the first handle; Eusebius the historian, with cautious prudence, was fomenting the evil. And at length a bold and open assault was made against the Deity of the Son of God, and persecution was stirred up against Christians by those who bore the name of Christ. The people of God were exercised, refined, and improved; while the Christian world at large was torn in pieces with violence, intrigue, and scandalous animosities, to the grief of all who loved the Son of God, and walked in his ways in godly simplicity. (Milner.)

* Constantine had a great desire to accomplish two very laudable designs:—the first was to propagate Christianity, and to convert unbelievers; the other was to re-unite Christians, and to compose their differences. In the first attempt he succeeded in some measure; but, along with those who were sincere in their profession, there came a multitude of hypocrites and nominal Christians. The latter project he soon found to be impracticable. The Emperor took fruitless pains to settle the strifes of Christendom by Councils and hearings; and finding some of the belligerents extremely refractory, he was provoked to use rough methods, and to banish their ringleaders; but he afterwards recalled them, and gave them up, as he said, like incorrigible fools, to their own madness. Those schismatics, who wrangle in good earnest about trifles, have an incurable understanding, and are unpersuadable; and would fall out with themselves, if they had none else to oppose. (Justin.)

RISE OF ARIUS.

attempting this, they lost the harmlessness and simplicity of the dove, which typified their religion, and the spirit by which it was inspired. Others lost their trust in the superintending care of divine Providence, and endeavoured to invent projects for the defence of the truth, which had already subdued the hosts raised against it for three hundred years. Some of the most conscientious and enlightened of the Christian teachers were, by degrees, drawn into the ranks of these parties. Thus ambition and zeal became united in the pursuit of an object which seemed to be midway between earth and heaven. Those who had neither piety nor faith sufficient to raise their thoughts to the ultimate purpose of religion, had the penetration to see how much worldly advantage they might gain by securing a conformity to their opinions in all matters of faith; and those who were in reality instigated by the holiest of motives, often suffered themselves to forget the main blessings of religion in an anxious struggle to procure a conformity, which, if at all attainable, was only to be effected by the ever gentle, but almighty, influences of reason and tolerant piety.*

The Christian church had always been greatly disturbed by Paul of Samosata, and by others, who had taught opinions respecting the person of Christ, contrary to those which were generally maintained; when Arius, a native of Lesbia, or, as others affirm, of Alexandria, was ordained Deacon by Felix, the Prelate of that diocese. He was early distinguished among his contemporaries for extensive learning, and that love of subtle disputation which so naturally inclines the mind to venture beyond its depth, in the hope of passing to the region of full and unclouded truth. It is supposed that Arius was of the school of Lucian of Antioch, who had espoused the opinions of Paul of Samosata, because, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius calls him by the same name of "Col-Lucianist," which was given to Arius by the opponents to his doctrines,† a circumstance which may account for his subsequent speculations. Before he had been ordained Deacon, he had been attached to the schism of Meletius,‡ the Bishop of Lycopolis, who had been deposed on a charge of having sacrificed to the gods, and of other crimes, and was excommunicated by Peter on account of having disapproved of his severity. After the death of Peter, who is said to have refused to receive him again into communion with the church, even when he was going to his martyrdom, Arius professed repentance for his conduct; and was admitted by Achillas, the successor of Peter, to communion with the church, and to the order of Presbyter. He was then appointed to one of the churches of Alexandria, named Bancalis. Alexander succeeded Achillas in the diocese of Alexandria, about the year 315;§

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 143.

† On the history of Arianism at Antioch before Nice, see Newman's work on the Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 8, 9. On the truth or falsehood of Gibbon's opinion, that Arianism was derived from Platonism, see Cudworth's Intellectual System, lib. I., cap. 4.

‡ He was deposed by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, who was put to death by Maximinus, A.D. 311. This Peter was the immediate predecessor of the accuser of Arius.

§ Socrat., Eccles. Hist., lib. I., cap. 6.

and conversing one day with his Presbyters and Clergy on the subject of the controversies respecting the nature of the Godhead, he expressed some opinions which induced Arius to dissent from him, because they seemed to resemble those of Sabellius;* and affirmed, that the Son of God had a beginning, and was not of the same substance or essence with the Father, and therefore not necessarily eternal; but that he was of a like substance with the Father, from whom he received a beginning. Having asserted, as the foundation of his reasonings, that the nature of the Deity, and the relation of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to the Father, might be made the subject of a syllogism, he succeeded in convincing some, and unsettling the faith of many. His opinions, for which the soil was already prepared by former heresies, were rapidly diffused over the whole of Egypt, Libya, and the adjacent countries, and at length obtained a powerful advocate in Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. Some time elapsed before Alexander the Bishop could be induced to take any active measures to arrest the heresy. He at length summoned a Council of nearly a hundred Bishops, in the year 322, in the city of Alexandria.† In this Council Arius was excommunicated. Many of the neighbouring Bishops favoured the opinions of Arius. The usual custom, therefore, of rejecting from one church those who had been cast off from communion with another, was not observed. Arius was not only still received by his brethren, but Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the following year, called another Council in Bithynia, in which Arius was declared worthy of being retained in the communion of the church. The affair now began to be of more concern to the churches, because, at this time, every Bishop had the power to frame, or to express in words, the creed of his church, as well as the words of his Liturgy. Alexander, therefore, now writes letters to the Bishops of the surrounding churches, explaining his views of the doctrines of the Trinity. He calls upon them not to break the canons of the church, but to unite with him in expelling Arius and his followers from their communion. Replies were written to these letters by the friends of Arius; and Eusebius, of whom Alexander had spoken reproachfully, became the avowed patron and defender of the heresiarch. Alexander then summoned a second Council at Alexandria in 324, in the presence of Hosius,‡ who had been sent by the Emperor to

* Our business can only be with the consequences of this dispute. For a statement of the opinions of Arius, we refer to Tillemont's History of Arianism, Newman's History of the Arians of the Fourth Century, Maimbourg's History of Arianism, Whitaker's History of Arianism; and also to an elaborate article entitled, "Arians," in the Biblical and Theological Dictionary of the late Rev. Richard Watson.

† Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 6.

‡ Hosius had presided over two Synods at Alexandria by order of the Emperor Constantine. The claim of the Bishop of Rome to give validity to the decisions of Councils was not recognised by any contemporary of the fourth century. Hosius presided at every Council where he happened to be present. He held at Nice the first place after Constantine. (Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 13.) Next to him were Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, Peter of Alexandria, then the Legates of the Pope, who are said, adfuisse, to have been present; not præfuisse, to have presided. There is no authority for the assertion of the Romish writers, Dr. Doyle and others, that Sylvester sent his Presbyters to preside. Baronius says, they were undoubtedly on the left hand of Hosius; Bellarmine, that no Presbyters eate in the General Councils; Delahogue, (De Ecclesii,

LIBERALITY OF CONSTANTINE TO THE CHURCH.

inquire into the affair, and, if possible, to compose their differences. To this Council Alexander submitted the letters he had written since the first condemnation of Arius, and demanded their opinion on the controversy. The decision of the Council is not recorded: most probably, Hosius decided nothing; though in this Synod the peculiar terms on which the true doctrine of the church was affirmed to rest, were settled in opposition to Sabellius. The disputes proceeded, and the whole church was convulsed by the vehemence of the opposite parties; and scandalized by the open insults and mockery of the Pagans around them, even in the public theatre. The language of Alexander was of the most severe and stern nature; and Eusebius, who was very moderate, endeavoured in vain to reconcile the opposing creeds, and the contending disputants.*

In the mean time Constantine continued to extend his protection to the once persecuted and oppressed church. His acts of liberality were beyond those of a Sovereign disposed to redress the wrongs of an oppressed class of his subjects: he not merely enforced by his edict the restoration of their churches and estates, he enabled them, by his own munificence, his gift of a large sum of money to the Christians of Africa, to rebuild their ruined edifices, and restore their sacred rites with decent solemnity.† Many of the churches in Rome claim the first Christian Emperor for their founder. The most distinguished of these, and, at the same time, those which are best supported in their pretensions to antiquity, stood on the sites now occupied by the Lateran and St. Peter's. If it could be ascertained at what period in the life of Constantine these churches were built, some light might be thrown on the history of his personal religion. For the Lateran being an imperial palace, the grant of a basilica within its walls for the Christian worship (for such we may conjecture to have been the first church) was a kind of direct recognition, if not of his own regular personal attendance, at least of his admission of Christianity within his domestic circle.‡ The palace was afterwards granted to the Christians, the first patrimony of the Popes. The Vatican suburb seems to have been the favourite place for the settlement of foreign relations. It was thickly peopled with Jews from an early period; and remarkable vestiges of the worship of Cybele, which appears to have flourished side by side, as it were, with that of Christianity, remained to the fourth or the fifth century. The site of St. Peter's church was believed to occupy the spot hallowed by his martyrdom; and the Christians must have felt no unworthy pride in employing the materials of Nero's circus, the scene p. 179,) that no simple Presbyter presided, and if present they were representatives of Bishops; whence the creed was called, the creed of three hundred and eighteen Fathers, who were all Bishops.

* Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, vol. I., p. 259.

† See the original grant of three thousand folios to Cæcilian, Bishop of Carthage, Euseb., Eccles. Hist., lib. x., cap. 6. The folios is generally supposed to be of the value of £6. 10s.

‡ The Lateran was the residence of the Princess Fausta: it is called the "domus Fausta" in the account of the first Synod held to decide on the Donatist schism. (Optat., lib. I., cap. 23.) Fausta may have been a Christian.

2 D of the sanguinary pleasures of the first imperial persecutor, on a church dedicated to the memory of his now honoured, if not absolutely worshipped, victim.

The authority of the Government had been invoked to aid in quieting the Donatist schism; but their interference was ultimately rejected by that party against which the award was made. Three times was the decision repeated in favour of the catholic or orthodox party, at Rome, at Arles, and at Milan: each time was more strongly established the self-evident truth, which was so late recognised by the Christian world, the incompetency of any Council to reconcile religious differences. The suffrages of the many cannot bind the consciences, or enlighten the minds, or even overcome the obstinacy, of the few. Neither party can yield without abandoning the very principles by which they have been constituted a party. An imperial commission of two delegates to Carthage, ratified the decision of former Councils. At every turn the Donatists protested against the equity of the decree; they loudly complained of the unjust and partial influence exercised by Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, over the mind of the Emperor. At length the tardy indignation of the Government had recourse to violent measures. The Donatist Bishops were driven into exile, their churches destroyed or sold, and the property seized for the imperial revenue. The Donatists defied the armed interference, as they had disclaimed the authority, of the Government. This firm development of the principles of Christian sectarianism was as stern, as inflexible, and as persevering as in later times. The Donatists drew their narrow pale around their persecuted sect, and asserted themselves to be the only elect people of Christ,—the only people whose Clergy could claim an unbroken apostolical succession, vitiated in all other communities of Christians by the inexpiable crime of tradition. Wherever they obtained possession of a church, they burned the altar; or, where wood was scarce, they scraped off the infection of heretical communion; they melted the cups, and sold, it was said, the sanctified metal for profane, perhaps for pagan, uses; they re-baptized all who joined their sect; they made the virgins renew their vows; they would not even permit the bodies of the orthodox to repose in peace, lest they should pollute the common cemeteries. The implacable faction darkened into a sanguinary feud. For the first time, human blood was shed in conflicts between followers of the Prince of Peace. Each party recriminated on the other; but neither denies the barbarous scenes of massacre and licence which devastated the African cities. The Donatists boasted of their martyrs, and the cruelties of the orthodox party rest on their own admission: they deny not, they proudly vindicate, their barbarities. "Is the vengeance of God to be defrauded of its victims?" * And they appeal to the Old Testament to justify, by the examples of Moses, of Phinehas,

* This passage is found in the work of the Catholic Optatus: "Quasi omnino in vindicam Dei nullus merestur occiili." (Compare the whole chapter, lib. iii., cap. 6.) There is a very strong statement of the persecutions which they endured from the Catholics in the letter put in by the Donatist Bishop Habet Deum, in the Conference held during the reign of Honorius. (Apud Dupin, No. 258, in fine.)

THE GRADUAL ADVANCE OF PRIESTLY POWER.

and of Elijah, the Christian duty of slaying, by thousands, the renegades, or the unbelievers.*

Christianity, if it had not contributed much to the successes of the victorious Constantine, certainly shared in the triumph. The public acts, the laws and the medals, of Constantine show how the lofty eclectic indifferentism of the Emperor, which extended impartial protection over all the conflicting faiths, or attempted to mingle together their least inharmonious elements, gradually, but slowly, gave place to the progressive influence of Christianity. Christian Bishops appeared as regular attendants upon the Court; the internal dissensions of Christianity became affairs of state; the pagan party saw, with increasing apprehension for their own authority, and the fate of Rome, the period of the secular games, on the due celebration of which depended the duration of the Roman sovereignty, pass away unhonoured. It was an extraordinary change in the constitution of the Western world, when the laws of the empire issued from the court of Treves, and Italy and Africa awaited the changes in their civil and religious constitution from the seat of government on the barbarous German frontier. The munificent grant of Constantine, for the restoration of the African churches, had appeared to commit him in favour of the Christian party, and had perhaps indirectly contributed to inflame the dissensions in that province. The Christian hierarchy and the pagan priesthood were confessedly widely different. The pontifical offices of Paganism, ministering in a ceremonial to which the people were either indifferent, or bound only by habitual attachment, calmly descended in their accustomed course, were nominated by the municipal magistracy, or attached to the higher civil offices; they awoke no ambition, they caused no contention; they did not interest society enough to disturb it. The growth of the sacerdotal power was a necessary consequence of the development of Christianity. The hierarchy asserted (they were believed to possess) the power of sealing the eternal destiny of man. From a post of danger, which modest piety was compelled to assume by the unsought and unsolicited suffrages of the whole community, a bishopric had become an office of dignity, influence, and at times of wealth. The Prelate ruled not now so much by his admitted superiority in Christian virtue, as by the inalienable authority of his office. He opened or closed the door of the church, which was tantamount to an admission or an exclusion from everlasting bliss; he uttered the sentence of excommunication, which cast back the trembling delinquent among the lost and perishing Heathen. He had his throne in the most distinguished part of the Christian temple; and though yet acting in the presence and in the name of his college of Presbyters, he was the acknowledged head of a large community, over whose eternal destiny he had a vague, but not therefore less imposing and awful, dominion. Among the African Christians, perhaps by the commanding character of Cyprian, in his writings at least, the episcopal power is elevated to its utmost height. No wonder that, with the elements of strife fermenting in the society, and hostile parties already arrayed

* Milman, Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 374.

2 D 2 against each other, the contest for this commanding post should be commenced with blind violence, and carried on with irreconcileable hostility.* The fiery ordeal of persecution tried the Christians of Africa by the most searching test, and drew more strongly the line of demarcation.†

We have lately had to review characters most opposed to the religion of Jesus Christ, whose simultaneous and great effort was to extirpate the name of the Saviour from among the children of men; but we have witnessed Christianity emerging victorious from a period of the darkest trial, and the thunderbolts destined for the faithful falling with aggravated strength upon the persecutors themselves. A striking circumstance, which had a tendency to influence the minds of many, is stated by Eusebius not to have been without effect on Constantine himself. Of all the Emperors who had been invested with the purple, either as Augusti or Cæsars, during the persecution of the Christians, his father alone, the protector of Christianity, had gone down to an honoured and peaceful grave.‡ Diocletian lived long; but in what, no doubt, appeared to most of his former subjects an inglorious retirement. However the philosophy of the abdicated Emperor might teach him to show the vegetables of his garden as worthy of as much interest to a mind of real dignity as the distinctions of worldly honour; however he may have been solicited by a falling and desperate faction to resume the purple; his abdication was, no doubt, in general, attributed to causes less dignified than the contempt of earthly grandeur. Conscious derangement of mind, (a malady inseparably connected, according to the religious notions of Jew, Pagan, probably of Christian, during that age, with the divine displeasure,) or remorse of conscience, was reported to embitter the calm decline of Diocletian's life. Instead of an object of envy, no doubt, in the general sentiment of mankind, he was thought to merit only aversion or contempt. Herculeus, the colleague of Diocletian, after resuming the purple, engaging in base intrigues, or open warfare, against his son Maxentius, and afterwards against his protector Constantine, anticipated his execution. Severus had been made prisoner, and forced to open his own veins; Galerius, the chief author of the persecution, had experienced the most miserable fate,—he had wasted away with a slow, agonizing, and loathsome disease; and Maxentius perished in the mud. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

Before the fires of persecution were utterly extinguished, an individual of some eminence underwent martyrdom: we allude to Blaise, Bishop of Sebaste, in Armenia: he was crowned with martyrdom at the command of Agricolaus, Governor of Cappadocia and the Lesser Armenia. During the period of Diocletian's persecution, Blaise had been exposed to numberless hardships, and had undergone a variety

* The principal source of information concerning the Donatist controversy is the works of Optatus, with the valuable collection of documents subjoined to them; and for their later history, various passages in the works of Augustine.

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 366.

‡ Euseb., Vit. Constant., lib. i, cap. 21; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 11.

MARTYROOM OF BLAISE, BISHOP OF SEBASTE.

of trials, in the defence of the faith of Christ, and for an example to the flock over which he had been appointed overseer. Many Bishops and Priests in Egypt and Libya were arrested about this time, cut into pieces, and thrown into the sea. Hermilus also, who was a Deacon; and Stratonicus, a keeper of a prison, who had recently been converted to the faith, probably by Hermilus; were both, after having endured various tortures, strangled, and thrown into the river Ister.*

It was in vain that Constantine endeavoured to lull into peace and tranquillity the discordant materials which were harboured in the visible church: the afflicted community was rent asunder until the close of his reign, and during that of his son. The barbarous fanaticism of the Circumcelliones† involved the Donatist party in the guilt of insurrection, and connected them with revolting atrocities, which they were accused of countenancing, of exciting, if not actually sanctioning, by their presence. That which in the opulent cities, or the well-ordered communities, led to fierce and irreconcilable contention, grew up among the wild borderers on civilization into fanatical frenzy. When Christianity has outstripped civilization, and has not had time to effect its beneficent and humanizing change, whether in the bosom of an old society, or within the limits of savage life, it becomes, in times of violent excitement, instead of a pacific principle to assuage, a new element of ungovernable strife. The wild tribes had gradually become industrious peasants, and among them Christianity had found an open field for its exertions, and the increasing agricultural settlements had become Christian bishoprics. But the savage was yet only half tamed; and no sooner had the flames of the Donatist conflict spread into these peaceful districts, than the genuine

* Alban Butler says, "It is mentioned, in the Acts of Eustratius, who received the crown of martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian, and is honoured on the 13th of December, that Blaise, the Bishop of Sebaste, honourably received his relics, deposited them with those of Orestes, and punctually executed every article of the last will and testament of Eustratius. His festival is kept a holiday, in the Greek Church, on the 11th of February. He is mentioned in the ancient Western Martyrologies, which bear the name of Jerome: Ado, and Usuard, with several more ancient manuscript Martyrologies, quoted by Chatelain, place his name on the 15th. In the holy wars his relics were dispersed over the West; and his veneration was propagated by many miraculous cures, especially of sore-throats. (1) He is the principal patron of the commonwealth of Ragusa. No other reason than the great devotion of the people to this celebrated martyr of the church, seems to have given occasion to the wool-combers to choose him the titular patron of their profession; on which account his festival is still kept by them with a solemn guild at Norwich. Perhaps also his country might in part determine them to this choice; for it seems that the first branch, or at least hint, of this manufacture was borrowed from the remotest known countries of the East, as was that of silk; or the iron combs with which he is said to have been tormented, gave occasion to this choice. The iron combs, hooks, racks, swords, and scaffolds, which were purplled with the blood of the martyrs, are eternal proofs of their invincible courage and constancy in the divine service." (Butler's Lives.)

† Circumcelliones, a branch of the sect of the Donatists: they abounded chiefly in Africa. They had no fixed abode, but rambled up and down, begging, or rather exacting, a maintenance from the country people. It was from this wandering course of life they had their name. They exercised all sorts of cruelty, and treated every one they met in the most brutal manner. They ran about like madmen, and carried several kinds of arms. This rendered them famous all over the world, and the disgrace of their sect; whence Theodoret, speaking of the Donatists, says scarce anything but what is true only of the Circumcellions. (Henderson.)

Christian was lost in the fiery marauding child of the desert. Maddened by oppression, wounded in his religious feelings by the expulsion and persecution of the Bishops, from his old nature he resumed the fierce spirit of independence, the contempt for the laws of property, and the burning desire of revenge; of his new religion he retained only the perverted language, or rather that of the Old Testament, with an implacable hatred of all hostile sects; a stern ascetic countenance, which perpetually broke out into paroxysms of unbridled licentiousness, and a fanatical passion for martyrdom, which assumed the acts of a kind of methodical insanity. They commenced their outbreaks in the reign of Constantine, who gave the provincial authorities instructions to reduce them by force to a state of religious unity, which drove them into open revolt. They defeated a body of the imperial troops, and killed Ursacius, the Roman General.* They abandoned, by a simultaneous impulse, their agricultural pursuits; they proclaimed themselves the instruments of divine justice, and the protectors of the oppressed; they first asserted the wild theory of the civil equality of mankind, which has so often, in later periods of the world, become the animating principle of Christian fanaticism; they thrust the proud and opulent master from his chariot, and made him walk by the side of his slave, who, in his turn, was placed in the stately vehicle; they cancelled all debts, and released the debtors; their most sanguinary acts were perpetrated in the name of religion, and Christian language was profaned by its association with their atrocities; their leaders were the Captains of the Saints; † the battle-hymn, "Praise to God!" their weapons were not swords, for Christ had forbidden the use of the sword to Peter, but huge and massive clubs, with which they beat their miserable victims to death. They were bound by vows of the severest continence; but the African temperament, in its state of feverish excitement, was too strong for the bonds of fanatical restraint; the companies of the saints not merely abused the privileges of war by the most licentious outrages on the females,

* A full catalogue of the writings of Augustine against the Donatists is given by Dr. Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iv., p. 254, and of his other efforts against them an account is given, ibid., p. 181. We make here a single remark, that it was during the contests with the Donatists, Augustine first exhibited in his writings that horrid principle,— Heretics are to be punished with temporal punishments and death, a principle wholly inconsistent with Christianity, and one which, in after-ages, served as an excuse for inhuman cruelties. Only read Augustine's 48th Epistle ad Vincent, and his 50th ad Boniforem, and several others; and you will there meet with all the plausible arguments, which the spirit of persecution in after-ages so dressed up, to the disgrace of Christianity, as to blind the eyes of Kings. (Mosheim.)

† They evidently sprang from the Donatist party, a furious, headlong, sanguinary set, composed of the peasantry and rustic populace, who, espousing the cause of the Donatists, defended it by the force of arms; and roaming through the province of Africa, filled it with slaughter, rapine, and burnings, and committed the most atrocious crimes against the adverse party. This mad throng, which disregarded death and every evil, nay, faced death, when there was occasion, with the greatest boldness, brought extreme odium upon the Donatists; and yet it does not appear, from any competent evidence, that the Donatist Bishops, and especially those possessed of any measure of good sense and religion, approved or instigated their proceedings. The storm continuing to increase, and seeming to threaten a civil war, Constantine, after attempting a reconciliation without effect, at the suggestion of the Prefects of Africa, repealed the laws against the Donatists, and gave the African people full liberty to follow either of the contending parties as they liked best. (Mosheim.)

EXTRAVAGANCIES OF THE DONATISTS.

but were attended by troops of drunken prostitutes, whom they called their sacred virgins. But the most extraordinary development of their fanaticism was their rage for martyrdom. When they could not obtain it from the sword of the enemy, they inflicted it upon themselves. The ambitious martyr declared himself a candidate for the crown of glory; he then gave himself up to every kind of revelry, pampering, as it were, and fattening the victim for sacrifice. When he had wrought himself to the pitch of frenzy, he rushed out, and, with a sword in one hand, and money in the other, he offered rewards to the first comer who would satisfy his longings for the glorious crown, and threatened death to him who should refuse. They leaped from precipices; they went into the pagan temples to provoke the vengeance of the worshippers. Such were the excesses to which Christianity was liable; but this fanaticism rarely bursts out into disorders dangerous to society, unless goaded and maddened by persecution.*

Constantine appears to have enlisted himself very early under the banners of the Christian church, which he had engaged to foster and protect. Very soon after the edict of Milan, we find him publishing laws against heresy, which went so far, in menace, at least, as to transfer the property of heretical Bishops or Ministers to the orthodox. In the list of the proscribed, we find the followers of Paul of Samokata, the Unitarians of those days; the Montanists, who were the enthusiasts; the Novatians, who were the reformers; and two denominations of Gnostics.† But the opinions of the Arians were not yet attacked: perhaps they had not assumed a tangible form, or, at least, were not distinguished and stigmatized by a name. In the freedom exercised by individual opinion on abstruse mysteries under the early church, it is possible that many may have held the doctrine afterwards called Arian; but the controversy seems to have been awakened about the year 319, by the zeal of a Bishop of the church; and the scene of its explosion was that hot-bed of heresy and dissension, Alexandria. These opinions found many and respectable advocates in Asia as well as in Egypt, among the Clergy as well as the laity, and even in the highest ranks of the former; and their number was probably increased, when the Bishop, after condemning the tenets of Arius, in two Councils held in Alexandria, pronounced against him the sentence of excommunication. The quarrel now became so violent, that it was judged necessary to invite the interference of the Emperor. Constantine viewed the whole question as trifling and utterly unimportant; ‡ he regretted that the peace of the church should be so vainly disturbed; he lamented that the harmony

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 378.

† The Marcionites and Valentinian. See Sozomen., Hist. Ecclesiast., lib. ii., cap. 32, and the commencement of Gibbon's 21st chapter. We should rather conclude, however, from Eusebius's account, (Vit. Constantin., lib. ii., cap. 63-66,) that the edict of the Emperor against those heretics was posterior to the Council of Nice. Sozomen asserts, not very accurately, that the effect of the edict was the destruction of all excepting the Novatians, against whom it was not seriously enforced.

‡ Constantine's Epistle appears in Eusebius. (Vit. Constantin., lib. ii., cap. 64-72.) In cap. 71 the Emperor rebukes the parties for "disputing about trifling, and most truly insignificant, matters." This account is, upon the whole, confirmed by Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 15, 16; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 7.

of Christians, who were united on so many subjects of infinite weight, should be interrupted by such unprofitable speculations; and, in the epistle containing those sentiments, he enjoined peace to both parties. Constantine knew not the nature of the tempest which was excited; for neither experience nor history had yet presented to him anything resembling it. However, he had adopted the only measure which offered any hope of appeasing it; and, had he persisted in his neutrality, it is probable that the Arian controversy, after some noisy debates and angry invectives, would have discharged its passion in words, and the heresy itself would have fallen into dishonour, almost into oblivion, like many others.* But the firmness of the Emperor was not proof against the importunity of the orthodox Prelates, seconded, as some think, by his own theological vanity: a General Council was suggested as the only remedy for the evil, and the Emperor would, of course, preside over its deliberations. Still the affair was some little time in suspense; and that was perhaps the most critical moment in ecclesiastical history, in which Constantine determined to convoke the Council of Nice.

It is comparatively easy to assert, that silence and charity would have been the best means of preserving peace on all sides; but then this mode of speaking supposes that the controversy was frivolous. No real Christian can think it unimportant whether his Saviour be believed to be the Creator, or a creature. The soul is of too great consequence for men to hazard its salvation on they know not what. And it then appeared to all humble and charitable Christians, that to persist in blaspheming God, was at least as practical an evil as to continue in drunkenness and theft. All these found themselves obliged to join with Alexander against Arius. Silence was a vice in this case; though it never can be enough lamented how little care was taken of humility and charity, of both which the exercise is perfectly consistent with the sincere zeal for the doctrine of the Trinity; but true religion itself was low; the face of the church was "sullied and dishonoured, yet still divine." And amidst the numbers who, from fashion, prejudice, or worse motives, joined with the Alexandrian Bishop, we must look for those, though they are hard to be found, who feared God, and whose history alone is the subject before us. The principles of Arius exclude him and his followers, and, by the fullest light of antiquity, their actions also exclude them, from being numbered among the sound, faithful, intelligent followers of

* Jortin has suggested another method, in the following very rational passage:—"If, when the quarrel between Alexander and Arius was grown to such a height as to want a remedy, the Fathers of the church had, for the sake of peace, agreed to draw up a Confession of Faith in words of Scripture, and to establish the divinity of Christ on the expressions used by the Apostles, every one might have assented to it, and the Arian party would most certainly have received it. The difference of sentiments, indeed, and of interpretation, would not have ceased; but the controversy would have cooled, and dwindled away, after every champion had discharged his zeal upon paper, and written to his heart's content. The Arian notion that the Son was created in time, and that there was a time when he exulted not, would probably have sunk, as not being the language of the New Testament; and the Macedonian notion, that the Holy Ghost was created in time, would have sunk with the other, for the same reason; at least these opinions would never have been obtruded upon us as articles of faith."

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

Jesus. The Christian world now became the scene of animosity and contention. The orthodox and the heretical did each their utmost to support their several pretensions; practical religion was too much forgotten on both sides; and the former, from the want, or, at least, from the very low state, of experimental religion, were deprived of the very best method of supporting the truth, by showing its necessary connexion with the foundation of true piety and virtue. The Gentiles * beheld the contest and triumphed; and on their theatres they ridiculed the contentions of Christians, to which the long and grievous provocations of their God had justly exposed them. Alexander repeatedly, in letters and appeals, maintained his cause, and, so far as speculative argumentation can do it, he proved his point from the Scriptures; while Arius strengthened himself by forming alliances with various Bishops, and particularly with Eusebius of Nicomedia.† He had been translated from Berytus in Syria; and by living in the metropolis, (for there Constantine resided much,) he had an opportunity of ingratiating himself with the Emperor.‡

Notwithstanding the assumption of ecclesiastical supremacy by the Emperor, which ultimately proved the fruitful source of tyranny and persecution, the church retained in many respects its separate existence, or at least the freedom of its autonomous constitution: indeed, had not this been so, the term "alliance," which is used to designate the union of Church and State under Constantine, as it implies a certain degree of independence in both parties, would be unmeaning and out of place. Some immediate advantages were also reaped by the Church: much that it formerly held by sufferance, it now possessed by law; many privileges, which had hitherto existed through the connivance only, or the ignorance, of the Government, were now converted into rights, and as such confirmed and perpetuated. Constantine divided the administration of the Church into, (1.) Internal, and, (2.) External. The former continued, as heretofore, in the hands of the Prelates, individually and in Council: little or no alteration was introduced into this department; and it comprehended nearly everything which was really tangible and available in the power of the Church before its association with the State, now confirmed to it by that association. The settlement of religious controversies was recommended to the wisdom of the hierarchy; § the forms of divine worship, the regulation of customary rites and ceremonies, or the institution of new ones, the ordination and offices of the priesthood, which included the unrestrained right of public preaching, and the formidable weapon of spiritual censure, were left to the exclusive direction of the Church. The freedom of episcopal election was not violated; and the Bishops retained their power to convoke legislative Synods twice a year in every diocese, uncontrolled by the civil Magistrate.

* We adopt the language of the times in calling the pagan world Gentiles. (Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 6.)

† Who must not be confounded with Eusebius of Cæsarea, the historian.

‡ Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. iii., vol. i., p. 519.

§ A rescript of Constantine to the provincial Bishops on the disputes between Athanasius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, admits, "Vestri est, non mei judicii, de ea recognoscere." (See Baronios ad Ann. 329, sect. 8.)

2 B

By the edict of Milan the possessions of the Church were restored, and its legal right to them for the first time acknowledged; and this act of justice was followed in the year 321 by another edict, which permitted all subjects to bequeath property to that body.* Exemption from all civil offices, we have already seen, was granted to the whole body of the Clergy;† and perhaps a more important privilege, about the same time conferred on the higher orders, was that of independent jurisdiction, even in capital charges, over their members: so that the Bishops alone, among the myriads of the subjects of the empire, enjoyed the right of being tried by their peers. This was not granted with any intention of securing their impunity; for, though degradation was the severest punishment which could be inflicted by a spiritual court, the penalty was liable to increase, after condemnation, by the interference of the secular authority. While we may consider the free trial of the Bishops, in a political light, as another important inroad into the pure despotism of the imperial system, we are also assured, that on the body thus exclusively possessing it, it conferred no inconsiderable advantages. But another privilege, even more valuable than this, and one which will more constantly be present to us in the review of succeeding ages, is traced with equal certainty to the legislation of Constantine. The arbitration of Bishops in the civil differences referred to them in their dioceses, was now ratified by law; and their decisions, of which the validity had formerly depended on the consent of the parties, were henceforward enforced by the civil Magistrate. On this foundation was imperceptibly established the vast and durable edifice of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; from this simple legalization of an ancient custom, in process of time, the most substantial portion of sacerdotal power proceeded, and the most extravagant pretensions of spiritual ambition. But those consequences convey no reflection on the wisdom of Constantine, since they were produced by circumstances which he could not possibly foresee; and which, besides, never influenced, to any great extent, the Eastern division of Christendom. Here, then, we cannot fail to perceive a powerful, self-regulated body, armed with very ample and extensive authority; and supported, when such support was necessary, by the secular arm. Let us now proceed to the second division, or the external administration of the Church. Of this department the Emperor assumed the entire control to himself.‡ It comprehended everything relating to the outward state and discipline of the Church; and was understood to include a certain degree of superintendence over such contests and debates as might arise among the Ministers, of whatsoever rank, concerning their possessions, their reputation, their rights and privileges, as well as their political or other offences against the laws of the empire. Even the

* Constantine's personal generosity to the Church, as well as his deference to the episcopal orders, is mentioned by Eusebius, (De Vit. Constantin., lib. i., cap. 42,) and was continued throughout his reign. The Pagan Zosimus, lib. ii., remarks on the profusion of money which he wasted upon "useless persons."

† Baronii Aunal. Ecclesiast., ad Ann. 319, sect. 30.

‡ The authority assumed by the Emperors appears, under various titles, in the sixteenth book of the Theodosian Code; as also in the Code of Justinian.

THE OBJECT OF COUNCILS AND SYNODS.

final decision of religious controversies was subjected to the discretion of Judges appointed by the Emperor.* The same terminated any differences which might arise between the Bishops and people, fixed the limits of the ecclesiastical provinces, took cognizance of the civil causes subsisting between Ministers, and lent his power to the execution of the punishment due to their criminal offences. And though the right of convoking local and provincial Synods remained with the Church, that of assembling a General Council was exercised only by the Prince.†

The principal objects which the Prelates of the several churches, composing, all together, the one holy Catholic Church, had in view in calling together the early Synods, were,—to form those rules or canons by which they might establish the best regulation of conduct to the faithful in general, and to the Ministers of the Church in particular; to point out those duties which their vocation and ministry require; the modes by which incipient errors may be repressed at their commencement, and obstinate errors most effectually rooted out; to ascertain the best means of reforming offenders; to affix suitable penances for each fault; to prescribe the discipline respecting the admission to, or the rejection from, the participation of the sacraments; the amount of knowledge, and the proofs of good conduct, requisite for the candidates for the sacred offices; what proofs of their fitness should be demanded; and what fidelity and moderation in dispensing the demands of the Church should be required. These may be regarded as a portion of the general business of the early Synods: yet there were always more particular and especial reasons for which each of these high ecclesiastical tribunals was convened. The alleged cause for which the first General Council was called,‡ was the heresy of Arius and those of his sect. With regard to the more especial cause for summoning the Council of Nice, we must recollect the great disorders in the Church, caused by the contumacy of the Donatiats; of whose conduct an account has been already given. We have seen that this schism originated in a cause by no means of sufficient importance to have been made a plea for that disunion which resulted from, much less for the calamities which spread on

* Constantine and his successors assembled Councils, presided in them, assigned Judges for religious disputes, decided contests between Bishops and their people, determined the limits of ecclesiastical provinces, and by the ordinary Judges heard and decided upon the civil causes and common offences among the Ministers of the Church: ecclesiastical causes, on the other hand, he left to the cognizance of Councils and Bishops. (Mosheim.)

† Waddington, History of the Church, vol. 1., p. 181, 8vo. edit., London, 1835.

‡ The Bishops met together in Conventions or Councils, to deliberate on subjects in which the churches of a whole province were interested, on points of religious controversy, on the arrangement of divine worship, and other things. To these minor Councils of one or more provinces, there were now added assemblies or Councils of the whole Church. Those called Ecumenical, or General Councils, met by authority from the Emperor, who summoned the first at Nice. For he thought it just, (and in this he was most likely guided by the judgment of the Bishops,) that causes of great inoffence, and affecting the Church universally, or the general principles of Christianity, should be examined and decided in Conventions of the whole Church. There were never indeed any Councils held, which could strictly and properly be called universal: those, however, whose decrees and enactments were received and approved by the whole Church, or by the greatest part of it, are commonly called Ecumenical. (Mosheim.)

2 x 2 account of, their irreconcilable obstinacy. Open resistance to the decisions of many local Synods, and to the judgment of the Emperor, to whom the sectarians had appealed, was carried to such extremes, as to threaten rebellion throughout the African provinces of the empire; and the resentment of the heretical partisans was raging to a great degree of violence at the time when the unfortunate disputes concerning the Arian heresy commenced. The vexations which the mind of the first Christian Emperor suffered from the provocations of the Donatists, and the desire, if possible, to prevent a similar calamity from the Arian dissension, appear to have been the powerful motives which induced Constantine to summon the Council of Nice.*

It was during the summer of 325 that the great Council of Nice met. Not half a century before, the Christian Bishops had been only marked as the objects of the most cruel insult and persecution. They had been chosen, on account of their eminence in their own communities, as the peculiar victims of the stern policy of the Government. They had been driven into exile, set to work in the mines, exposed to every kind of humiliation and suffering, from which some in mercy had been released by death. They now assembled under the imperial sanction, a religious senate, from all parts at least of the Eastern world; for Italy was represented only by two Presbyters of Rome; Hosius appeared for Spain, Gaul, and Britain. The spectacle was altogether new to the world. No wide-ruling Sovereign would ever have thought of summoning a conclave of the sacerdotal orders of the different religions; a Synod of philosophers, to debate some grave metaphysical or even political question, was equally inconsistent with the ordinary usages and sentiments of Grecian or Roman society. The public establishment of post-horses was commanded to afford every facility, and that gratuitously, for the journey of the assembling Bishops.† Vehicles or mules were to be provided, as though the assembly were an affair of State, at the public charge. At a later period, when Councils became more frequent, the heathen historian complains, that the public service was impeded, and the post-horses harassed and exhausted, by the incessant journeying to and fro of the Christian delegates to their Councils. They were sumptuously maintained during the sitting at the public charge.‡ Above three hundred Prelates were supposed to have been present; Presbyters, Deacons, and other inferior officers, without number. Some degree of doubt exists with regard to the edifice in which the debates took place. According to an expression in Eusebius, it would appear that the imperial palace was the scene of the contest between the rival parties;§ but it has been properly observed, that it would detract much from the authority of the Council to believe that it held its sittings in the residence of the Emperor; and the most probable supposition is, that it carried on its various preliminary consultations in

* Townsend, Civil and Eccles. History, vol. 1., p. 264.

† Kuseb., De Vita Constantin., lib. iii., cap. 6; Theodoret, Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 7.

‡ Kuseb., De Vita Constant, lib. iii., cap. 9.

§ Ibid., lib. iii., cap. 10.

THE COUNCIL OF NICE.

the principal church of the place; and that it was not till they were on the point of concluding the debate that they assembled in the palace, and propounded their opinions for the approbation of the Emperor. However this may be, on the day appointed for the solemn assembling of the Council in the imperial presence, the central hall of the palace was opened to the throngs of Ecclesiastics who had come from all parts of the world to deliver their opinions on the important questions in dispute. The presence of the Emperor gave the chief weight and dignity to the assembly. Nothing could so much confirm the Christians in the opinion of their altered position, or declare to the world at large the growing power of Christianity, as this avowed interest taken in their domestic concerns; or so tend to raise the importance attached even to the more remote and speculative doctrines of the new faith, as this unprecedented condescension, so it would seem to the Heathen, on the part of the Emperor. The Council met probably in a spacious basilica.* Eusebius describes the scene as having deeply impressed him with its solemnity. The assembly sate in profound silence, while the great officers of state, and other dignified persons, (there was no armed guard,) entered the hall, and awaited, in proud and trembling expectation, the appearance of the Emperor of the world in a Christian Council. Constantine at length entered; he was splendidly attired; the eyes of the Bishops were dazzled by the gold and precious stones upon his raiment. The majesty of his person and the modest dignity of his demeanour heightened the effect: the whole assembly rose to do him honour: he advanced to a low golden chair prepared for him, and did not take his seat (it is difficult not to suspect Eusebius, says Mr. Milman, of highly colouring the deference of the Emperor) till a sign of permission by the Bishops. One of the leading Prelates, probably Eusebius the historian, commenced the proceedings with a short address, and also a hymn to Almighty God. Constantine then delivered an exhortation to unity in the Latin language, which was interpreted to the Greek Bishops. His admonition seems at first to have produced no great effect: mutual accusation, defence, and recrimination prolonged the debate. A number of mutual accusations having been presented to him, he threw them all into the fire, protesting that he had not read one of them, and charging them to forbear, and to forgive one another.† After this very candid and generous procedure, he gave them leave to enter directly on the business of the Synod. Constantine seems to have been present during the greater part of the sittings, listening with patience, softening asperities, countenancing those whose language tended to peace and union, and conversing familiarly, in the best Greek he could command, with the different Prelates. The courtly flattery of the Council might attribute to Constantine himself what was secretly suggested by Hosius,

* There is a long note in Heinichen's Eusebius, to prove that they did not meet in the palace, but in a church: as though the authority of their proceedings depended upon the place of assembly. It was probably a basilica, or hall of justice; the kind of building usually made over by the Government for the purposes of Christian worship; and, in general, the model of the earliest Christian edifices.

† Sosom., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 17; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 8.

the Bishop of Cordova. For, powerful and comprehensive as his mind may have been, it is incredible that a man so educated, and engaged during the early period of his life with military and civil affairs, could have entered, particularly being imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language, into these discussions on religious metaphysics.*

The historian Milner informs us, that, before the immediate business of the Synod was entered upon, their attention was engaged by the attempts of some Gentile philosophers, who appeared among them, some with a design to satisfy their curiosity concerning Christianity itself; others wishing to involve the Christians in a cloud of verbal subtitles, and to enjoy the mutual contradictions of the followers of Christ. One of them distinguished himself above the rest by the pomp and arrogance of his pretensions, and derided the Clergy as ignorant and illiterate. On this occasion an old Christian, who had suffered with magnanimous constancy during the late persecutions, though unacquainted with logical forms, undertook to contend with the philosopher. Those who were more earnest to gratify curiosity than to investigate truth, endeavoured to raise a laugh at the old man's expense; while serious spirits were distressed to see a contest apparently so unequal. Respect for the man, however, induced them to permit him to engage; and he immediately addressed the philosopher in these terms: "Hear, philosopher," says he, "in the name of Jesus Christ. There is one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; who made all these things by the power of his Word, and confirmed them by the holiness of his Spirit. This Word, whom we call the Son of God, compassionating the sons of men involved in error and wickedness, chose to be born of a woman, to converse with men, and to die for them; and he will come again as the Judge of all things which men have done in the body. That these things are so, we believe in simplicity: do not, then, labour in vain, investigating the manner in which these things may or may not be, and seeking to confute things which ought to be received by faith: but if thou believest, answer, now that I ask thee." Struck with this plain, authoritative address, the philosopher said, "I do believe;" with pleasure owned himself vanquished, confessed that he embraced the same sentiments with the old man, and advised the other philosophers to do the same, swearing that he was changed by a divine influence, and moved by an energy which he could not explain.†

Men will draw their conclusions, continues the historian, from this story, according to their different tastes and views. A self-sufficient reasoner will despise the instruction it contains; but he who thinks with St. Paul, will consider the whole story as no mean comment on his words, "that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God;" nor will he much regard the prudence of those who labour to accommodate Christian ideas to the spirit of unbelievers, by which they only weaken themselves, and abate not

* Milman, *History of Christianity*, vol. II., p. 441.

† *Sosem.*, *Hist. Eccles.*, lib. I., cap. 18.

IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS IN THE COUNCIL.

in the least the enmity of their opposers. They will think it better to go forth in simple dependence on God, trusting that he will bless his own word with victorious energy. Such know that even in our own times there want not instances of conversions of a similar kind; and those who are still disposed to object should at least be told, that the story has all the proper marks of historical credibility, whatever inferences they may be pleased to draw from it.*

When Constantine had concluded his opening address, many and vehement discussions took place, to which the Emperor paid the utmost attention, and in which he exhibited the part of a kind and conciliating moderator with great prudence. The creed of the Arian party, which had been drawn up and presented by Eusebius of Cæsarea, was considered unsatisfactory, and was rejected as heretical. The venerable Hosius, of Cordova, was appointed to draw up a creed, which is, in the main, the same that is called the Nicene Creed to this day. This formula was the result of the solemn deliberation of the assembly. It was conceived with some degree of Oriental indefiniteness, harmonized with Grecian subtlety of expression. The vague and somewhat imaginative fulness of its original Eastern terms, was not too severely limited by the fine precision of its definitions. One fatal word broke the harmony of assent with which it was received by the whole Council. Christ was declared homoousios, of the same substance with the Father;† and the undeniable, if perhaps inevitable, ambiguity of this single term, involved Christianity in centuries of hostility. To one party it implied absolute identity, and was therefore only ill-disguised Sabellianism; to the other it was essential to the co-equal and co-eval dignity of the three Persons in the Godhead. To some of the Syrian Bishops it implied or countenanced the material notion of the Deity. It was, as it is said by one ecclesiastical historian, a battle in the night, in which neither party could see the meaning of the other. The Creed, however, was agreed upon by almost all parties present, as most expressively declaratory of the identity of essence between the Father and Son, but which the Arians refused to insert in the Creed of Eusebius,‡ was tendered to the Council, and accepted by them as the confession of their faith, and adopted as their conclusions on the controverted questions. Anathemas were added against all who introduced the heretical formula; and Arius and his immediate followers were mentioned by

* Milner, History of the Church, vol. I., cent. iv., chap. iii., p. 522.

† Athanasius himself allowed, that the Bishops who deposed Paul of Samosata were justified in rejecting the word ὁμοσκείαν, because they understood it in a material or corporeal sense.

‡ Eusebius, of Cæsarea, the historian, expressed for some time his doubt concerning the term "consubstantial." He observed, in a letter which he wrote on that occasion to his church, that all the mischief had arisen from the use of unscriptural terms, and that he at last had subscribed to the term for the sake of peace. It would undoubtedly be unjust to accuse this great man of Arianism. Yet why was he so much disposed to favour Arius by writing to Alexander as if he had been wronged? Why so disposed to join afterwards the Arians against Athanasius? The truth is, he seems to have held a middle notion, that the Son of God was from eternity, but was not Jehovah; the very same notion, if I mistake not, which was revived by Dr. Samuel Clark, explained in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, and very solidly confuted by Dr. Waterland in his reply. (Milner.)

name.* The result of the whole was, that Arius was deposed, excommunicated, and forbidden to enter Alexandria. The minority at first refused to subscribe; but being advised at length to yield by Constantia, their patroness, the Emperor's sister, they consented. But by the insertion of a single letter they reserved to themselves their own sense, subscribing not that the Son is the same, but only of a like, essence with the Father.† Honesty is, however, always respectable. Out of twenty-two Arian Bishops, two were found who persisted in refusing: Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmorica; the former of whom bluntly rebuked the courtly Eusebius of Nicomedia for his dissimulation. Arius and his associates were banished into Illyricum.

Tranquillity was restored to the church in appearance only. The quæstio vexata was set at rest by the united authority of the Emperor and a representative body, which might fairly presume to deliver the sentiments of the whole Christian world. But the Arians were condemned, not convinced; discomfited, not subdued.‡ After the death of Helena, Constantine showed particular kindness to Constantia, his sister, who was much led by a Presbyter secretly in the Arian interest. They persuaded her that Arius and his friends were unjustly condemned. She, on her death-bed, prevailed by her entreaties on Constantine to do justice to these men. The Emperor, who seemed as much a child in religious discernment as he was a man in political sagacity, suffered himself to be imposed on by the ambiguous craft of Arius and his friend Euzorius, so as to write in their favour to the churches. Eusebius also, and Theognis, by owning the Nicene faith in words, were restored to their sees. Rather more than two years elapsed, eventful in the private life of Constantine, but tranquil in the history of the Christian church. The imperial assessor in the Christian Council had appeared in the West under a different character, as the murderer of his son and of his wife. He returned to the East, determined no more to visit the imperial city, where, instead of the humble deference with which all parties courted his approbation, he

* Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 273. Mr. Townsend remarks: "I cannot agree with Mr. Newman in his observations on the justice of inflicting penalties upon a real or supposed heretic or heresiarch. If a disciple of Christ believe that he has discovered in the New Testament a doctrine which has been unperceived by the world, he ought to be at liberty to hold it, and to submit it to the examination and consideration of the church. Mr. Newman does not think so. In this, he observes, lies the difference between the treatment due to an individual in error, and to one who is confident enough to publish his innovations: the former claims from us the most affectionate sympathy and the most considerate attention. The latter should meet with no mercy. He assumes the office of the tempter, and, so far forth as his error goes, must be dealt with by the competent authority, as if he were embodied evil. To spare him is a false and dangerous pity. It is to endanger the souls of thousands, and it is uncharitable towards himself." (Pp. 252, 253.)

† Not ὁμοιονία, but ὁμοιονία. It is remarkable that this duplicity of theirs is recorded by Philostorgius, the Arian historian. (Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 8.) "They subscribed to the confession of faith by arts of treachery and deceit, reserving to themselves their own sense, and subscribing not ὁμοιονία, but ὁμοιονία, not that the Son of is of the same, but only of a like, essence with the Father." (Cave's Life of Athanasius.)

‡ The writings of Arius and his followers were condemned to be burned. If we are to believe Sozomen, the concealment of such heretical works was made a capital offense. (Soz., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 21.)

EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA.

had been unable to close his ears against the audacious and bitter pasquinade which arraigned his cruelty to his own family. His return to the East, instead of overawing the contending factions into that unity, which he declared to be the dearest wish of his heart, by his own sudden change of conduct was the signal for the revival of the fiercest contentions. The Christian community was now to pay a heavy penalty for the pride and triumph with which they had hailed the interference of the Emperor in their religious questions. The imperial decisions had been admitted by the dominant party, when on their own side, to add weight to the decree of the Council; at least, they had applauded the sentence of banishment pronounced by the civil power against their antagonists: that authority now assumed a different tone, and was almost warranted, by their own admission, in expecting the same prompt obedience. The power which had exiled might restore the heretic to his place and station. Court influence, obtained, however, through court intrigue, or from the caprice of the ruling Sovereign, by this fatal, perhaps inevitable, step, became the arbiter of the most vital questions of Christian faith and discipline; and thus the first precedent of a temporal punishment for an ecclesiastical offence was a dark prognostic, and an example of the difficulties which would arise during the whole history of Christianity, when the communities, so distinctly two when they were separate and adverse, became one by the identification of the church and the state. The restoration of a banished man to the privileges of a citizen by the civil power, seemed to command his restoration to religious privileges by the ecclesiastical authority.* The opinions of Constantine were certainly on the wane, and the Arian party gradually grew into favour. Arius could not believe the sudden reverse of fortune; and not till he received a pressing letter from Constantine himself, did he venture to leave his place of exile. A person of still greater importance was, at the same time, re-instated in the imperial favour. Among the adherents of the Arian form, perhaps the most important was Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. A dangerous suspicion that he had been too closely connected with the interests of Licinius, in his struggle for the empire, had alienated the mind of Constantine from him, and deprived the Prelate of that respectful attention which he might have commanded by his station, ability, and experience. This Bishop, in company with Theognis, the Bishop of Nice, both of whom had been sent into exile, returned in triumph to their dioceses, and ejected the Prelates who had been appointed in their place. But the Arians were not content with their peaceable re-establishment in their former station. Eusebius, whom Constantine had before publicly denounced in no measured terms, grew rapidly into favour. The complete dominion which, from this time, he appears to have exercised over the mind of Constantine, confirms the natural suspicion that the opinions of the Emperor were by no means formed by his own independent judgment, but entirely governed by the Christian teacher who might obtain his favour. In this respect, Eusebius succeeded to the post which was

* Secret., Hist. Eccles., lib. L, cap. 25, 26; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. II, cap. 27.

VOL. II. 2 F

BOOK V. CHAPTER 1.

formerly occupied by Hosius. Arianism was now in the ascendant; they were in possession of some of the most important dioceses of Asia, and they thirsted for the supremacy in Antioch.*

Eusebius and Theognia passed through Antioch on their way to Jerusalem; and, on their return, summoned Eustathius, the Bishop of Antioch, whose character had hitherto been blameless, to answer before a hastily-assembled Council of Bishops, on two distinct charges of immorality and heresy. The unseemly practice of bringing forward women of disreputable character, to charge men of high station in the church with incontinency, formerly employed by the Heathen to calumniate the Christians, was now adopted by the reckless hostility of Christian faction. The accusation of a prostitute against Eustathius, of having been the father of her child, is said afterwards to have been completely disproved. The heresy with which Eustathius was charged, was that of Sabellianism, the usual imputation of the Arians against the Trinitarians of the opposite creed. Two Arian Bishops having occupied the see of Antioch, but for a very short time, an attempt was made to remove Eusebius of Cæsarea to that diocese, no doubt, by the high reputation of his talents, to overawe or to conciliate the Eustathian party. Eusebius, with the flattering approbation of the Emperor, declined the dangerous post. Eustathius was deposed, and banished, by the imperial edict, to Thrace; but the attachment, at least of a large part, of the Christian population of Antioch refused to acknowledge the authority of the tribunal, or the justice of the sentence. The city was divided into two fierce and hostile factions; they were on the verge of civil war; and Antioch, where the Christians had first formed themselves into a separate community, but for the vigorous interference of the civil power, and the timely appearance of an imperial commissioner, might have witnessed the first blood shed, at least in the East, in a Christian quarrel.†

Athanasius had been raised, by the discernment of Alexander, to a station of confidence and dignity in ecclesiastical affairs. He had filled the office of Secretary to the Prelate of Alexandria. He also bore a distinguished part in the Council of Nice; and his zeal and talents pointed to him as the future head of the orthodox, or Trinitarian, party. On the death of Alexander, the universal voice of the predominant anti-Arians demanded the elevation of Athanasius. In vain did he endeavour to elude the honour which his friends would thrust upon him; and, at thirty years of age, Athanasius was placed on the episcopal throne of the see which ranked with Antioch, and afterwards with Constantinople, as the most important spiritual charge in the East. An imperial mandate was speedily issued, to receive Arius and his followers within the pale of the Christian communion; but the Emperor found, to his astonishment and dismay, that his imperial edict, which in times gone by would have been obeyed with trembling and servile submission, even if it had gone so far as to enjoin on the empire a complete political revolution, or endangered the property and privileges of thousands, was received

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 448.

† Ibid., p. 449.

CRITICAL POSITION OF ATHANASIUS.

with deliberate and steady disregard by one junior Christian Prelate. The mitre of Athanasius, so far from being cushioned with down, was lined with thorns; and instead of finding a resting-place on his brow, it was restless and without peace: during two reigns he contested the authority of the Emperor. He weathered tempests of persecution which were hurled upon him by individuals bearing the Christian name. His life was frequently endangered in defence of one single tenet, and that the most purely intellectual, and apparently the most remote from the ordinary passions of man. He confronted martyrdom, not for the broad and tangible distinction between Christianity and Heathenism, but for fine and subtle expressions of the Christian creed. He began and continued the contest, not for the toleration, but for the supremacy, of his own opinions. Neither of the contending parties could now, in truth, yield without the humiliating acknowledgment, that all the contest had been on unimportant and unessential points. The passions and the interests, as well as the conscience, were committed in the strife. The severe and uncompromising temper of Athanasius, no doubt, gave some advantage to his jealous and watchful opponents. Criminal charges began to multiply against a Prelate who was thus fallen in the imperial favour,* which were industriously instilled into the ears of Constantine: nevertheless, the extreme frivolousness of some of these accusations, and the triumphant refutation of the more material charges before a tribunal of his enemies, establish, undeniably, the unblemished virtue of Athanasius.†

The heaviest crimes were consequently charged upon Athanasius, such as rebellion, oppression, rape, and murder. The Arians, through Eusebius of Nicomedia, obtained the convocation of a Council at Tyre from the Emperor Constantine, under pretence of thereby healing the divisions which existed among the Bishops; but their real intention was to oppress Athanasius. The Bishops who were summoned to attend were selected by the Eusebian party, and came from Egypt, Libya, Asia, and most of the eastern provinces: the most noted were Marius of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicæa, Ursaces of Singidunum, and Valens of Mursia; in all, about sixty Arian Bishops attended. There were also a few Prelates present who were not of the Eusebian faction; as Maximus of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Alexander of Thessalonica. Constantine sent the Count Dionysius to keep order; who, as the event showed, was completely devoted to the Eusebian cause, and by his violence destroyed all liberty of debate. Athanasius, who was compelled by the order

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 451.

† "It is remarkable," says Milman, "how little stress is laid on the persecutions which Athanasius is accused of having carried on through the civil authority." "Accusatus præterea est de injuriis, violentiâ, cæde, atque ipsâ Episcoporum internecione. Quique etiam diebus sacratissimis poschas tyrannico more sæciens, Ducibus atque Comitibus junctus: quique propter ipsam aliquos in custodia recludebaut, aliquos vero verberibus flagellisque vexabaut, cæteros diversis tormentis ad communionem ejus sacrilegam adigebant." These charges neither seem to have been pressed nor refuted, as half so important as the act of sacrilege. (See the Protest of the Arian Bishops at Sardica, in Hilarii Oper., Hist. Fragm., lib. iii., cap. 6; see also the accusations of violence on his return to Alexandria, ibid., cap. 8.)

2 y 2 of the Emperor, came to the Council, attended by forty-nine Egyptian Bishops, amongst whom were Potamon and Paphnutius. No accusation was brought against the Bishop on account of his faith; but two cases shall be mentioned, by which a judgment may be formed of all the rest. He was said to have murdered Arsenius, a Meletian Prelate; in proof of which the accusers produced a box, out of which they took a dead man's hand, dried and salted, which they affirmed to be the hand of Arsenius, and that it was preserved by Athanasius for magical purposes. The Meletians charged Arsenius to conceal himself till they had effected their purpose. The party of Eusebius of Nicomedia spread the report through the Christian world, that Arsenius had been privately murdered by the Bishop of Alexandria; and Constantine himself, overcome by incessant importunities, was induced to order an inquiry to be made.* Athanasius had learned, by his own experience, that any accusation against himself, however improbable, was likely to find numerous and powerful supporters; but Providence wonderfully confuted this attempt. Arsenius,† notwithstanding the directions of the accusers to keep close, had privately conveyed himself to Tyre, intending to be secreted there during the whole time of the Synod. It happened that some servants, belonging to Archelaus the Governor, heard a rumour whispered, that Arsenius was in the town. This they immediately told their master, who found him out, apprehended him, and gave notice to Athanasius. The Meletian tool, unwilling to blast his employers, and feeling the awkwardness of his situation, at first denied himself to be Arsenius. Happily, Paul, the Bishop of Tyre, who knew the man, deprived him of that refuge. The day of trial being come, the prosecutors boasted that they should give ocular demonstration to the court of the guilt of Athanasius, and produced the dead hand. A shout of victory rung through the Synod. Silence being made, Athanasius asked the Judges, if any of them knew Arsenius. Several affirming that they did, Athanasius directs the man to be brought into court; and asks, "Is this the man whom I murdered, and whose hand I cut off?" Athanasius turns back the man's cloak, and shows one of his hands; after a little pause, he puts back the other side of the cloak, and shows the other hand. "Gentlemen, you see," said he, "that Arsenius has both his hands: how the accusers came by the third hand, let them explain." Thus ended the plot to the shame of the contrivers. That any persons who bear the name of Christ should deliberately be guilty of such atrocious villany, is deeply to be regretted. But let it be remembered, that the real faith of Christ was opposed to those who were concerned in this base act, and that enmity to the doctrine of the Trinity produced it. The story itself deserves also to be preserved as a memorable instance of the divine interposition of Providence.‡

Notwithstanding the clearest proofs of the innocence of Athanasius,

* Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 27; Theodorat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 30; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 25.

† Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. i., cap. 29.

‡ Milner, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 532.

CRUEL TYRANNY OF THE ARIANS.

and that the whole course of his life was wholly opposed to such crimes as he stood charged with,* his enemies prevailed so far, that Commissioners were despatched into Egypt to examine the affairs of which he was accused. John, the Meletian Bishop, and the chief contriver of the plot, confessed his fault to the injured Athanasius, and craved his forgiveness. Arsenius also, we are told, renounced his former companions, and requested a reception into communion with the Alexandrian Bishop. Egypt, where the persecuted Prelate was best known, was faithful in its adhesion to him. The Commissioners arrived at Alexandria, and endeavoured to extort evidence against him by drawn swords, whips, clubs, and other engines of cruelty. The Clergy of that city solicited to be present that they might give evidence, but were refused. The Marmotic Clergy took the same steps, but to no purpose. These delegated individuals returned with extorted evidence to Tyre, whence Athanasius, who saw no justice was to be shown, had fled. They passed sentence, and deposed him from his bishopric. Yet there were some in the Synod of Tyre who were willing to deal justly with the much-injured Prelate.† Paphnutius, who has been before mentioned, took Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, by the hand: "Let us begone," said he; "it becomes not those who have lost their limbs for religion, to go along with such pernicious company." But the majority were very differently disposed. Athanasius came to Constantinople, and desired justice from the Emperor,‡ and a fair trial. Constantine ordered the Bishops of the Synod to appear before him, and to give an account of what they had done. The greatest part of them returned home; but the ingenuity of Eusebius of Nicomedia was not exhausted, and,

* Theodoret mentions one of these customary charges of licentiousness, in which a woman of bad character accused Athanasius of violating her chastity. Athanasius was silent, while one of his friends, with assumed indignation, demanded, "Do you accuse me of this crime?" "Yes," replied the woman, supposing him to be Athanasius, of whom she was ignorant, "you were the violator of my chastity." (Theod., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1, cap. 30.)

† Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 25.

I A commission of inquiry had been issued, who conducted themselves, according to the statements of the friends of Athanasius, with the utmost violence and partiality. On their report, the Bishop of the important city of Alexandria was deposed from his dignity. But Athanasius bowed not beneath the storm. As the Emperor rode through the city of Constantinople, he was arrested by the sudden appearance of a train of Ecclesiastics, in the midst of whom was Athanasius. The offended Emperor, with a look of silent contempt, urged his horse onward. "God," said the Prelate, with a loud voice, "shall judge between thee and me, since you thus espouse the cause of my calamitateurs. I demand only that my enemies be summoned, and my cause heard in the imperial presence." The Emperor admitted the justice of his petition. The accusers of Athanasius were commanded to appear in Constantinople. A new charge, on a subject skilfully chosen to awaken the jealousy of the Emperor, counteracted the influence which might have been obtained by the eloquence or the guiltlessness of Athanasius. It is remarkable, that an accusation of a very similar nature should have caused the capital punishment of the most distinguished among the heathen philosophic party, and the exile of the most eminent Christian Prelate. Constantinople entirely depended for the supply of corn upon foreign importation. One half of Africa, including Egypt, was assigned to the maintenance of the new capital, while the western division alone remained for Rome. At some period during the later years of Constantine, the adverse winds detamed the Alexandrian fleet, and famine began to afflict the inhabitants of the city. The populace was in tumult; the Government looked anxiously for means to sift the dangerous ferment. (Milman.)

as he hesitated at no fraudulent manoeuvre, he was ashamed of no villany: he, with a few of the Synod, went to Constantinople, and, waving the old accusations, brought forth one altogether new; namely, that Athanasius had threatened to stop the fleet that brought corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. Constantine was credulous enough to be moved by such a report: the machinations of the Arians were successful, honesty and good faith were at a fearful discount, and the Prelate of Alexandria was banished to Gaul. Constantinople was now the seat of contention; but Providence had provided a Bishop who was equal to the contest. This was Alexander of Constantinople, a man of eminent piety and integrity, whose character, at least, seems to have approached as near to that of a primitive Christian, as did that of any persons who distinguished themselves at this period. Eusebius of Nicomedia menaced him with deposition and exile, unless he consented to receive Arius into the church. On the one hand, the Prelate knew too well the power of the Arians, by what they had done already; and the Trinitarians were so far outmatched by them in subtlety and artifice, that, though victorious in argument in the face of the whole world, with the Council of Nice and an orthodox Emperor on their side, they yet were persecuted and oppressed, and their enemies prevailed at Court. But, on the other hand, it behoved not a Christian Bishop to consent to the admission of an artful sectarian, who could agree in form to the Nicene faith, and yet gradually insinuate his poisonous doctrines into the church. What were this but, in fact, to allow the wolf to enter the sheep-fold, and devour the flock? The mind of Alexander was directed aright in this affair. He spent several days and nights in prayer alone in his church. The faithful followed his example, and prayer was made by the church without ceasing, that God would interfere on this occasion. Controversies and the arts of logic were omitted; and they who believed that the Nicene faith was holy, and of most interest to the souls of men, sincerely committed their cause to God. Constantine, however, could not be prevailed upon to admit Arius into the church, unless he could be convinced of his orthodoxy. He sent for him, therefore, to the palace, and asked him plainly, whether he agreed to the Nicene decrees. The heresiarch, without hesitation, subscribed: the Emperor ordered him to swear; he assented to this also. "I follow," says Milner, from whom we at present quote, "the narrative of Socrates, one of the most candid and moderate historians, who tells us that he had heard, that Arius had under his arm a written paper of his real sentiments, and that he swore that he believed as he had written. Whether he used this equivocation or not, is far from being clear. But Socrates, who is careful to tell us that he heard this reported, assures us that he did swear in addition to his subscription, and that this he knew from the Emperor's epistles."* Constantine, whose scruples were now overcome, ordered Alexander to receive him into the church the next day. The good Bishop had given himself to fasting and prayer, and renewed his supplications that day with great fervour in the church, prostrate before

* Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. 1., cap. 36.

AWFUL DEATH OF ARIUS.

the altar, and attended by Macarius only, who was a Presbyter belonging to Athanasius. He begged that if Arius were right, he himself might not live to see that day of contest; but, if the faith were true which he professed, that Arius, the author of all the evils, might suffer the punishment of his impiety. The next day seemed to be a triumphant one to the Arians.* The heads of the party paraded through the city with Arius in the midst, and drew the attention of all toward them. When they came nigh the forum of Constantine, a sudden terror, with a disorder of the intestines, seized Arius. In his urgent necessity, he requested to be directed to a place of retirement. Agreeably to the information he received, he hastened behind the forum, and there he poured forth his bowels with a vast effusion of blood. Such was the exit of Arius. The place of his death was memorable to posterity, and was shown in the times of Socrates.† The united testimony of ancient historians leaves no room to doubt of the fact. The reflections to be made upon it will vary, as men believe and are disposed. That it is usual with the Almighty to hear the prayers of his church, and to answer them remarkably on extraordinary occasions, will not be denied by those who reverence the word of God, and who remember the case of Hezekiah in the Old Testament, and of Peter in the New. That the danger of the church from heresy was particularly great at this time; will be equally admitted by all who believe that the Trinitarian doctrine includes within it whatever is most precious and interesting in the Gospel; that here, on one side, an appeal was made to God in his own appointed way, in faith, prayer, patience, and sincerity; while the other side dealt in falsehood, artifice, ambition, and worldly policy, is evident from the narrative. From these premises, a man who fears God will feel it his duty to believe that God interposed to comfort his church, and to confound its adversaries. We can see no method to avoid this conclusion. The translator of Mosheim seems put to a great difficulty, when he declares it extremely probable that

* Alexander firmly resisted the reception of Arius into the orthodox communion. Affairs were hastening to a crisis. The Arians, with the authority of the Emperor on their side, threatened to force their way into the church, and to compel the admission of their champion. The orthodox, the weaker party, had recourse to prayer. The Arians already raised the voice of triumph. While Alexander was prostrate at the altar, Arius was borne through the wondering city in a kind of ovation, surrounded by his friends, and welcomed with loud acclamations by his own party. As he passed the porphyry column, he was forced to retire into a house, to relieve his natural necessities. His return was anxiously expected, but in vain: he was found dead, as his antagonists declared: his bowels had burst out, and thus the church was saved from the machinations of the obstinate heroic. We cannot wonder that at such period of excitement the orthodox, in that well-timed incident, recognised a direct providential interference in their favour. It was ascribed to the prevailing prayers of Alexander and his Clergy. (Milman.)

† Socrates tells us, that some time after a rich Arian bought the place, changed its form, and built there a house, that the event might gradually sink into oblivion. It must not be denied, however, that Arius also took pains to propagate his sentiments by methods more honourable than those of duplicity and fraud, in which he was so eminently versed. His historian, Philostorgius, of whom some fragments remain, assures us, that he composed songs for sailors, millers, and travellers, tending to support his heresy. "Arium cum ab Ecclesia recessisset, scripsisse cantica nautica, et molaria, et viatoria; aliaque composita in cantus redegisse quos cinque convenire existimabat, ut ita cantus voluptate ad suam homines imperitissimos impietatem furtim raperet." (Philostorg., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 2, Genev., 4to., 1643; Soxom., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 30.)

he was poisoned by his enemies. A more absurd and unwarranted imagination never entered into the heart of man. And surely such things ought not to have been said, without some proof or probable circumstance. Certain it is that the fear of God rested with the Trinitarians, though it was at too low an ebb among all parties. Among these, however, nothing like such wickedness appears, while the Arians evidently seem to have been given up to the greatest villanies and profligacy. Great was the joy of the aged Bishop to find that God had not forsaken his church.*

The history of the church of Christ at this period becomes highly monitory. The imperial enactments were known by three names. They were severally called Epistles or Rescripts, Decrees, and Edicts. The Epistles, or Rescripts, of the Emperors, were laws enacted at the instance of the parties concerned. They were the answers of the Emperor to those who applied to him for his judgment and decision, both at home and from the provinces. The power, therefore, which Constantine possessed, was even greater than that of the Cæsars, his predecessors. The Canons of the Council of Nice, which had been summoned in consequence of the letters of Alexander to Constantine, became laws by the rescript of the Emperor. When the Council of Constantinople was concluded, the Fathers wrote to the Emperor Theodosius, and petitioned that the decisions of the Council might be confirmed by his pious edict.† The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Ephesus were confirmed by the same power. The Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon also became laws by the rescript of the Emperor Marcian, written to the Prefect Palladius.‡ The Fathers of the fifth General Council petitioned Justinian to confirm and establish their Canons into a law. Justinian not only did so, but expressly commanded that the Canons of the first four General Councils should have the force of law throughout the empire. When the power of the Emperors began to yield to that of the Church of Rome, the Bishops of Rome followed the example of the Emperors. The Canons of the various Councils, whether General or Provincial, as well as the writings of the Fathers, were received with universal deference; and when ecclesiastical controversies could be decided by referring to them, their authority was conclusive. When, however, this could not be done, the parties interested in the several points under discussion made application, in various instances, to the Bishops of Rome, who returned answers in the same manner as the Emperors had done; and such epistles had the force of law over those who were subjected to the authority of the Pontiffs, and were called rescripts and decretal epistles. The laws of the Church of Rome were soon so framed, as to correspond with the general enactments of the temporal power, and they constituted the decrees, or, as they were more commonly called, from the Latin name of the seal appended to the

* Milner, History of the Church, vol. i., p. 535.

† "Edictio prælatis tuæ confirmatur Synodi sententia." (Godolphia, Repertorium Canonicum, Introduct., p. 3.)

‡ "Ea quæ de Christianâ fide, a sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone convenerunt, per nostra præcepta statuta sunt." (Godolphia, ut supra.)

STATE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

parchment on which they were written, the Bulls of the Bishop of Rome. The imperial constitutions, by whatever name they were called, whether epistles, or decrees, or edicts, possessed the force of law throughout the empire.* The whole jurisdiction over the churches gradually fell into the hands of the Bishop of Rome, till the lex Pontificalis became the only law to the churches. The description of the imperial law was applicable to the pontifical law. The will of the Prince was sole rule to the people:† the will of the Pontiff became the sole rule to the church. In this way was persecution, or the infliction of extreme punishment for the holding of opinion, made a law to the Christian church. Not only were the opinions of Arius anathematized by the Council,—thus far they were right in their condemnation; not only was he deposed from his office,—in thus inflicting punishment they did not exceed their authority and power; but the heresiarch was banished, and the law which made the possession of his books by an inquirer into the controversy a capital offence, was promulgated by the Emperor's letters to the whole empire. Neither was one epistle only written to the churches and the people; repeated rescripts were published, that none might plead ignorance of the painful fact, that heresy was a civil crime, and that heretics were traitors and criminals.‡ Such efforts to extend the knowledge of the penalties decreed against a new offence among the people of the empire, who had long been accustomed to consider the punishment of torture and death due to those who would not profess the religion of the ruler, must have been attended with great effect.§

From this period until the close of this century, intolerance, in its rudest and most savage forms, was rampant, in which all parties indulged, some in a greater and others in a less degree. The Rev. George Townsend has entered at large into a consideration of the internal state of the church at this period; and the conclusion at which he has arrived we will lay before our readers. The Christian who is jealous for the honour of his religion, the philosopher who desires to think favourably of human nature, the student of history who wishes to be pleased with the discovery of the facts which prove the flowing, rather than the ebbing, tide of human advancement, are alike pained with the events which occurred during the period between the Council of Nice and the establishment of the atrocious codes of law which still further multiplied the crimes and the sorrows of the people. We may pass by the long story without reluctance, though it is sometimes made interesting by the development of the virtues of firmness, zeal, and undoubted attachment to principle and truth. It is sufficient to say, that the picture which has been already

* They were also called "pragmatism sanctiones, orationes, annotationes," &c. (See Butler.)

† Ulpian, writing on the lex regia, observes: "Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia, quæ de imperio ejus lata est, populus ei, et iu eum, omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat." (Hooke, Roman History. Note to the last paragraph of the last volume.)

‡ The Greek of the original decree is given by the historian Socrates, and is preserved by Gelasius, in his View of the Acts and Monuments of the Council of Nice, in the second volume of Labbe's Concilia.

§ Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, vol. I., p. 299.

2 G sketched of the state of the Christian world, from the accession of Constantine A.D. 306 to his death A.D. 336, retained all its colours with unfading freshness. The same contest between the churches, their Bishops, and the people, agitated the provinces, exasperated the Sovereigns, delighted the scoffer, and debased Christianity. Athanasius, after many banishments, and as many returns to his see, died in peace in the forty-sixth or forty-eighth year of his episcopate. Other Councils were called at Alexandria and Rome, in Milan, in Sardica, (in which a new power was said to have been conferred on the Bishops * of Rome, of determining the justice of the decisions of Provincial Councils by sending Legates to inquire into the matters discussed,) at Alexandria and Paris, in Italy and at Rome, as well as at Beziers in France, afterwards so fatally distinguished in the war of the Albigenses, and in other places, in favour of the Homoousian Confession. Three Councils of an opposite tendency were summoned at Antioch, in all of which new creeds, or confessions of faith, were tendered by the Bishops to the assembly, professing the general doctrine of the Council of Nice; only the disputed word, "homoousian," was omitted. Other Councils were summoned, also, in various parts of the empire against the disputed word: at Arles, where the Legates of the Bishop of Rome were unfortunately induced to subscribe to an anti-homoousian confession; at Milan, where, nine years before, the Nicene Confession had been adopted; at Antioch, Ancyra, and repeatedly at Sirmium; at Ariminum, where the Council commenced by sanctioning the Nicene, and ended by subscribing the Eusebian, Creed; and at many other places also, which need not now be recapitulated: in all of which the will of Arian Emperors was the prevailing motive with the majority of the Bishops of the church to condemn the Creed of Nice, and adopt the conclusions of its opponents. The world saw with astonishment Synod against Synod in the smaller, and Council against Council in the larger, provinces; †

* We adopt the expression, "was said to have been conferred," because the canons of the Council are questionable. They were quoted as those of Nice and rejected. They are not reckoned among the canons of the universal church received at Chalcedon.

† We must not, however, suppose that the Councils did no more than anathematize real or supposed heretics: they sometimes passed useful canons, and enacted good laws. The Council of Gangra, for instance, concluded with words similar to the following:—"We ordain these things not to exclude those who would, according to the advices of the holy Scripture, exercise themselves in the church by these practices of continence and piety; but against those who use these kinds of austerities as a pretence to satisfy their ambition, who despise those who lead an ordinary life, and who introduce innovation contrary to Scripture, and the ecclesiastical law. We admire virginity when it is accompanied with humility; we praise abstinence which is joined with piety and prudence; we respect that retirement which is made with humility; but we also honour marriage. We do not blame riches, when they are in the hands of persons just and munificent. We esteem those who clothe themselves modestly, without pride and affectation; and we abhor uncivil and voluptuous apparel. We have a reverence for churches; and we approve the assemblies which are there made as holy and useful. We do not confine piety to houses; we honour all places built to the name of God. We approve the assemblies which are kept in the church for the public good. We praise the largesses which the faithful give to the church to be distributed among the poor. In a word, we wish and desire that these things may be observed in the church, which we have learnt from the Scripture, and the tradition of the Apostles." (Du Pin.) We have referred to the Council of Gangra; it was held some time between the years 325 and 380. Dom. Cellier would assign it to a year subsequent to 379, in which Basil died, because that Father, who in various places speaks of the excesses of Eusta-

MURDEROUS TUMULTS IN THE CHURCH.

creed opposed to creed, and Bishops anathematizing Bishops, while both parties appealed to the civil power to execute the decrees of condemnation, and punish their adversaries with exile, imprisonment, or death. Here, as in Alexandria, the troops of the Emperor were required by the Arian Gregory to take possession of the church, which the people burnt in revenge after Athanasius had escaped; there, as in Antioch, Macedonius, the Arian, expels Paulus, the Nicenist favourite of the people, and takes possession of the episcopal chair amidst the slaughter of more than three thousand men. At one time the Emperor of the East refuses to receive Athanasius, who, after an appeal to Rome, had been recommended to be re-instated in his see; and his brother Emperor in the West compels the restoration of a Christian Bishop by threatening open war. Constantius, the Emperor to whom we are alluding, to avoid the fatal alternative, restores Athanasius to his see. He requests only that one church be granted to the Arians. The Bishop requests, in return, that one church be granted to those of his own faith in those districts where the Arians possessed authority. The request of the Bishop, and the petition of the Sovereign, such was the intolerance of the age, were alike refused. Cruelty was committed by both parties; but the Arians, like all who are most in the wrong, were more severe, and fierce, and unrelenting than their opponents, and committed atrocities thius of Sebaste, says nothing at all about his having been condemned in this Council; whence Cellier infers that it was not holden till after his death. And, further, it appears that Peter the brother of Basil occupied the see of Sebaste, in Armenia, in 380, from which he thinks that he was elected in the place of Eustathius, deposed in this Council, about the end of the year 380. But it is necessary to prove that the Eustathius condemned in this Council was the same with Eustathius of Sebaste of whom Basil speaks. Socrates and Sozomen, the most ancient ecclesiastical historians, plainly assert that it was so; and, moreover, what they say of Eustathius and his doctrine agrees exactly with what we read in the synodal letter of Gangra. The letter does not, indeed, distinctly term him Bishop of Sebaste, but it indirectly accuses him of having spread his errors in Armenia, since it is addressed to the Bishops of that country. Added to the testimony of Socrates and Sozomen, we have that of Basil, who relates that the disciples of Eustathius of Sebaste rendered an ascetic life odious by their hypocrisy and false piety. This agrees with the idea that the canons of Gangra give us of the conduct of Eustathius and his followers therein condemned. There can, then, be little doubt that the Eustathius of the Council is identical with Eustathius of Sebaste. And if this be so, the most probable date of the Council of Gangra is, perhaps, just before, if not after, the death of Basil, that is, about 379. Valeus reigned from 364 to 378. If, however, as Pagi asserts, Hosius of Cordova was present in the Council, so late a date as 380 cannot be assigned to it. Hosius died in 387; but there is sufficient reason to doubt his presence. (See note, Barouil Annales Histor. Eccles., A.D. 319.) About 324 is the date given by Labbe and Cossart, Collection of Councils. Not later than 340, according to Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. II., p. 76. Eustathius, toward the end of his life, originated the notion, that it is unlawful to marry, and to eat certain meats. He separated several married persons; advised those who disliked the public offices of the church to communicate at home; himself wore, and made his followers also wear, an extraordinary dress; obliged women to cut off their hair; said that it was quite unnecessary to keep the prescribed facts of the church, and ordered his followers, on the contrary, to fast on Sundays; and maintained that they should avoid, as the greatest profanation, the communion and the benediction of a married Priest living with his wife. In order to arrest the course of these dangerous errors, an assembly of Bishops was held at Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia, in which twenty-one canons were published, in opposition to the error of Eustathius and his followers. Fifteen Bishops subscribed them, and addressed them, together with a synodal letter, containing briefly the causes which led to the assembling of the Council, to the Bishops of Armenia. (Landon's Councils.)

2 a 2 which were only equalled in those sad ages of which we have yet to speak. Hosius of Cordova, the President of the Council of Nice, though nearly a hundred years old, was beaten with clubs till he Arianized. The cities and provinces were stained with blood, and disgust alone can be excited by the tales of mutual and unsparing vengeance.* Valentinian, in the West, retained the Nicene faith, and was certainly less guilty than his brother ruler. Though a man of most cruel disposition,† he showed toleration to the Christians who differed from him. Valens, in the East, adhered to the Arian heresy, and excelled even the cruelty of the age. Some he drowned in the Orontes and other rivers, drowning being the most common of his inflictions. Eighty deputies of the Nicene faith, from Nicomedia, were burnt alive in a vessel which he ordered to be deserted by the mariners. This man seemed mad with fury. Being informed by a fortune-teller that the name of his successor would begin with the letter theta, he destroyed as many as possible whose names commenced in that manner, among whom Theodosiolus, a Spaniard of equal honour and courage, is more particularly mentioned by the historian. The spirit of the age, in short, is best expressed by the language of Nestorius to the Emperor of the day, some time after the death of Valens:—"Clear the world from heretics, O Emperor! and I will give you heaven. Aid me to extirpate heretics, I will aid thee in conquering the Persian enemy." Difference of opinion was the cause, hatred and persecution were the effect. Misery in private life, and weakness of the empire in public affairs, were the inevitable and uniform consequences.

In prosecuting our researches, we shall often have occasion to stumble on what has been designated the Apostolical Canons or Constitutions, and the Canons of the Universal Church. The Apostolic Constitutions, consisting of eight books, and the Codex, containing eighty-five canons, known by the title of the Canons of the Apostles,‡ are among the records of this class. Athanasius and Epiphanius frequently allude to them in their writings. It must, however, be stated, that these quotations are very probably the result of some interpolators, inasmuch as it is generally admitted, that the eighth book of these canons has been added since the days of Epiphanius. The Fathers of the three first centuries are as silent as the grave concerning them. Many customs are referred to in them, which had no existence until a much later date than that which it is presumed saw their birth: they were utterly unknown as the general laws of the

* See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xxi., in which he dwells particularly on the cruelties of the Arians.

† Ibid., chap. xxv.

‡ Or Apostolical Constitutions: they were a collection of regulations attributed to the Apostles, and supposed to have been collected by Clement, whose name they likewise bear. It is the general opinion, however, that they are spurious, and that Clement had no hand in them. They appeared first in the fourth century, but have been much changed and corrupted since. There are so many things in them different from, and even contrary to, the genius and design of the New-Testament writers, that no wise man would believe, without the most convincing and irresistible proof, that both could come from the same hand. They were published both in Greek and English, by William Whiston, who contended vehemently for their divine authority. (Henderson.)

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS.

church at that early period which their title imports: it is, however, desirable, since they have been appealed to in more recent times, and particularly in support of some of the arbitrary and tyrannical pretensions of the Church of Rome, that we arrive at a tangible opinion respecting their authority and value. The first official notice of them appears to have taken place at the second Council of Constantinople. Several of these canons are of an early date, and others are far less ancient. Doubtless every distinct see, and every metropolitan church, would register every rule that was to be observed in the internal administration of its affairs; these records would, in process of time, include the enactments of minor Synods, and would be preserved as a successive register of precepts and laws enacted from the foundation of each bishopric. Certain Bishops, also, of the most ancient dioceses, might agree among themselves to order selections or abstracts of the earliest and most important rules, in order to establish a uniformity of discipline in their respective jurisdictions; copies of which having in time multiplied, became acknowledged as canons, though few of them might have resulted from the greater Councils. Had they been submitted for acceptance and ratification to any public assembly of the Bishops and Elders of the church, there would not have been much ambiguity respecting them. It is still difficult to trace the several portions of the code to any particular date, or to discover any satisfactory authority under which they may have been at first framed. Much may be gathered respecting the history of ecclesiastical customs and usages from the Constitutions et Canones Apostolice, during the years from 193 to 325. They are valuable reference for testimony and evidence; but for authority they certainly possess no weight.

Another blow was struck about this time, from which Paganism did never recover; and this was, the erection of another city, which was intended to rival even Rome, and marks one of the great periods of change in the annals of the world. Both its immediate and its remoter connexion with the history of Christianity are among those results which contributed to its influence on the destinies of mankind. The removal of the seat of empire from Rome might, indeed, at first appear to strengthen the decaying cause of Paganism.* The Senate became the sanctuary, the aristocracy of Rome, in gene-

* Of the churches erected by Constantine in the new city, one was dedicated to Sophia, (the supreme Wisdom,) the other to Elrene (Peace). A philosophic Pagan might have admitted the propriety of dedicating temples to each of these abstract names. The consecrating to individual saints was of a later period. The ancient temple of Peace, which afterwards formed part of the Santa Sophia, was appropriately transformed into a Christian church. The church of the Twelve Apostles appears, from Eusebius, to have been built in the last year of his reign and of his life, as a burial-place for himself and his family. "This building he carried to a vast height, and brilliantly decorated, by encasing it, from the foundation to the roof, with marble slabs of various colours. He also formed the inner-roof of finely fretted work, and overlaid it throughout with gold. The external covering, which protected the building from the weather, was of brass, instead of tiles; and this, too, was splendidly and profusely adorned with gold, and reflected the sun's rays with a brilliancy which dazzled the distant beholder. The dome was entirely encompassed by a finely-carved tracery wrought in brass and gold." (Kuseh., De Vita Const., lib. iv., cap. 58.) Sozomen says, that Constantine embellished the city.

ral, the unshaken adherents of the ancient religion. But its more remote and eventual circumstances were favourable to the consolidation and energy of Christianity in the West. The absence of a secular competitor allowed the Papal power to grow, and to develope its secret strength. By the side of the imperial authority, perpetually contrasted with the pomp and majesty of the throne, constantly repressed in its slow but steady advancement to supremacy, or obliged to contest every point with a domestic antagonist, the Pope would hardly have gained more political importance than the Patriarch of Constantinople. In any other city the Bishop of Rome would in vain have asserted his descent from the Apostle Peter: the long habit of connecting together the name of Rome with supreme dominion, silently co-operated in establishing the spiritual despotism of the Papal See. But in its more immediate influence, the rise of Constantinople was favourable to the progress of Christianity. It removed the seat of government from the presence of those awful temples, to which ages of glory had attached an inalienable sanctity, and with which the piety of all the greater days of the republic had associated the supreme dominion and the majesty of Rome. It broke the last link which combined the pontifical and the imperial character. The Emperor of Constantinople, even if he had remained Pagan, would have lost that power which was obtained over men's minds by his appearing in the chief place in all the religious pomps and processions, some of which were as old as Rome itself. The Senate, and even the people, might be transferred to the new city: the deities of Rome clung to their native home, and would have refused to abandon their ancient seats of honour and worship.*

The prospect of beauty, of safety, and of wealth, united in a single spot, was sufficient to justify the choice of Constantine. But as some decent mixture of prodigy and fable has, in every age, been supposed to reflect a becoming majesty on the origin of great cities, the Emperor was desirous of ascribing his resolution, not so much to the uncertain counsels of human policy, as to the infallible and eternal decrees of divine wisdom. In one of his laws he has been careful to instruct posterity, that, in obedience to the commands of God, he laid the everlasting foundations of Constantinople; and though he has not condescended to relate in what manner the celestial inspiration was communicated to his mind, the defect of his modest silence has been liberally supplied by the ingenuity of succeeding writers, who describe the nocturnal vision which appeared to the fancy of Constantine, as he slept within the walls of Byzantium. The tutelar genius of the city, a venerable matron sinking under the weight of years and infirmities, was suddenly transformed into a blooming maid, whom his own hand adorned with all the symbols of imperial greatness.†

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 401.

† The Greeks, Theophanes, Cedrenus, and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, confine themselves to vague and general expressions. For a more particular account of the vision we are obliged to have recourse to such Latin writers as William of Malmabury. Constantinople was first called Byzantium; which name is still preserved by the imperial money called Bezants. Aldhelm, in his book on Virginity, (Aldhelmi, Opera, Occid. Saxon. Episc. De Landib. Virginitat., cap. xii., Biblioth. Pat. et Vet.,

THE NEW IMPERIAL CITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

The Monarch awoke, interpreted the auspicious omen, and obeyed, without hesitation, the will of Heaven. The day which gave birth to a city or colony was celebrated by the Romans with such ceremonies as had been ordained by a generous superstition; * and though Constantine might omit some rites which savoured too strongly of their pagan origin, yet he was anxious to leave a deep impression of hope and respect on the minds of the spectators. On foot, with a lance in his hand, the Emperor himself led the solemn procession; and directed the line which was traced as the boundary of the destined capital, till the growing circumference was observed with astonishment by the assistants, who at length ventured to observe that he had already exceeded the most ample measure of a great city. "I shall still advance," replied Constantine, "till He, the invisible guide who marches before me, thinks proper to stop." Without presuming to investigate the nature or motives of this extraordinary conductor, we shall briefly refer to the extent and limits of the projected city. From the eastern promontory to the golden gate, the extreme length of Constantinople was about three Roman miles; the circumference measured between ten and eleven, and the surface might be computed as equal to about two thousand English acres. It is impossible to justify the vain and credulous exaggerations of modern travellers who have sometimes stretched the limits of Constantinople over the adjacent villages of the European and even of the Asiatic coast. But the suburbs of Pera and Galata, though situate beyond the harbour, may deserve to be considered as a part of the city; and this addition may perhaps authorize the measure of a Byzantine historian, who assigns sixteen Greek (about fourteen Roman) miles for the circumference of his native city. Such an extent may not seem unworthy tom. iii., col. 290, fol., Paris, 1624,) relates that it changed its appellation by divine suggestion. His words are as follow: "As Constantine was sleeping in this city, he imagined that there stood before him an old woman, whose forehead was furrowed with age; but that, presently, clad in an imperial robe, she became transformed into a beautiful girl, and so fascinated his eyes by the elegance of her youthful charms, that he could not refrain from kissing her; that Helena, his mother, being present, then said, 'She shall be yours for ever; nor shall she die, till the end of time.' The solution of this dream, when he awoke, the Emperor extorted from heaven by fasting and almsgiving. And, behold, within eight days, being cast into a deep sleep, he thought he saw Pope Silvester, who died some little time before, regarding his convert with complacency, and saying, 'You have acted with your customary prudence in waiting for a solution, from God, of that enigma which was beyond the comprehension of man. The old woman you saw is this city, worn down by age, whose time-struck walls, menacing approaching ruin, require a restorer. But you, renewing its walls and its affluence, shall signalize it also with your name; and here shall the imperial progeny reign for ever. You shall not, however, lay the foundations at your own pleasure; but, mounting the horse on which, when in the novitiate of your faith, you rode round the churches of the Apostles at Rome, you shall give him the rein, and liberty to go whither he please; you shall have too, in your hand, your royal spear, whose point shall describe the circuit of the wall on the ground. You will be regulated, therefore, in what manner to dispose the foundations of the wall by the track of the spear on the earth.' The Emperor eagerly obeyed the vision, and built a city equal to Rome; alleging that the Emperor ought not to reign in Rome, where the martyred Apostles, from the time of Christ, held dominion." (William of Malmsbury, Chronicle.)

* Among other ceremonies, a large hole, which had been dug for that purpose, was filled up with handfuls of earth, which each of the settlers brought from the place of his birth, and thus adopted his new country.

of an imperial residence. Yet Constantinople must yield to Babylon and Thebes, to ancient Rome, to London, and even to Paris.*

In several towns there was a public building, termed the Basilica, or Hall of Justice,† which was singularly adapted for the Christian worship. This was a large chamber, of an oblong form, with a plain flat exterior wall. The pillars which in the temples were without, stood within the Basilica; and the porch, or that which in the temple was an outward portico, was contained within the Basilica.‡ This hall was thus divided by two rows of columns into a central avenue, with two side-aisles. The outward wall was easily pierced for windows, without damaging the symmetry or order of the architecture. In the one the male, in the other the female, appellants to justice waited their turn.§ The three longitudinal avenues were crossed by one in a tranverse direction, elevated a few steps, and occupied by the Advocates, Notaries, and others employed in the public business. At the further end, opposite to the central avenue, the building swelled out in a semicircular recess with a ceiling rounded off: it was called absis in the Greek, and in Latin, tribunal. Here sate the Magistrate with his Assessors, and hence courts of justice were called tribunals. The arrangement of this building coincided with remarkable propriety with the distribution of a Christian congregation.|| The sexes retained their separate places in the aisles. The central avenue became the nave, so called from the fanciful analogy of the church to the ship of Peter. The transept, the βημα, or "choros," was occupied by the inferior Clergy, and the singers. The Bishop took the throne of the Magistrate, and the superior Clergy ranged on each side, on the seats of the Assessors. Before the throne of the Bishop, either within or on the verge of the recess, stood the altar. This was divided from the nave by the cancelli, or "bars," from whence hung curtains, which, during the celebration of the communion, separated the participants from the rest of the congregation. By the consecration of these basilicas to the purposes of Christian worship, and the gradual erection of large churches in many of the Eastern cities, Christianity began to assume an outward form and dignity commensurate with its moral influence, and in its imposing

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xvii., vol. iii., p. 17, 8vo. edit.

† Basilica is properly a royal palace; but in the first centuries of Rome the basilicas were splendid public buildings, of an oblong shape, and four-cornered, and commonly adorned with Corinthian columns and statues, where the citizens collected to consult for their common welfare, transact mercantile business, and hear the young orators exercise themselves in declamation. Some of them having been given by Constantine to the Roman Christians for their worship, the first buildings appropriated to this purpose obtained the name of basilica; and afterwards, when new churches were built, the shape of the ancient basilica was retained. (Henderson.)

‡ "Le basilique fut l'édifice des anciens, qui convint à la célébration de ses mystères. La vaste capacité de son intérieur, les divisions de son place, les grandes ouvertures, qui introduisent de toutes parts la lumière dans son enceinte, le tribunal qui devint la place des célébrants, et du chœur, tout se trouva en rapport avec les pratiques du nouveau culte." (Q. de Quincy, p. 173.)

§ According to Bingham, the women occupied galleries in each aisle above the men. This sort of separation may have been borrowed from the synagogue: probably the practice was not uniform.

|| Some few churches were of an octagonal form; some in that of a cross.

THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF CONSTANTINE.

magnitude, if not in the grace and magnificence of its architecture, it not only rivalled the temples of antiquity, but led to a fearful aberration from the path of piety and truth, until an awful Ichabod was inscribed upon the pulpit and the pew, "The glory of the Lord is departed!"

In taking a review of the character and conduct of Constantine, we must admit that he was animated throughout these perplexing dissensions, not by any private or sectarian animosity against the Arian party, but by a sincere desire to promote the peace of the church. It was his object to correct and chastise the perversity of the heretics, and thus to force them into communion with the great body of his Christian subjects; but he had no wish for their extermination.* And as soon as he discovered that his first severities were ineffectual; that the Arians, under the episcopal guidance of Eusebius† of Nicomedia, lost little strength in Asia, and even maintained the contest in Alexandria itself; and that they were not without support in his own court and household; he perceived the inutility of his measures, and chose rather to retrace the steps which he had taken, than to advance more deeply into the paths of persecution. He therefore recalled Eusebius in the year 330; and six years afterwards Arius himself, having presented to the Emperor a modified profession of faith, was released from the sentence of banishment.‡ Arius, as we have seen, did not long survive his restoration, and, to adopt the language of a writer by no means friendly to the heresiarch, "he made use of the advantages he was master of to gain the people; for it is certain that he had a great many talents, which rendered him capable of nicely insinuating himself into their good opinion and affections. He was tall of stature, and of a very becoming make, grave and serious in his carriage, with a certain air of severity in his looks, which made him pass for a man of great virtue and austerity of life. Yet this severity did not discourage those who accosted him, because it was softened by an extraordinary delicacy in his features that gave lustre to his whole person, and had something in it so sweet and engaging, as was not easily to be resisted. His garb was modest, but withal neat, and such as was usually worn by those who were not men of quality, as well as learning. His manner of receiving people was very courteous, and very ingratiating, through his agreeable way of entertaining those who came to him upon any occasion. In short, notwithstanding his

* In a formal Edict, addressed to the Bishops and people, Constantine compares the blindness of Arius to that of Porphyry, and commands his followers to be designated by the ignominious name of Porphyrians. He then proceeds to consign the books of Arius to the flames, nearly in the following terms:—"If any man be found to have concealed a copy of those books, and not to have instantly produced it, and thrown it into the fire, he shall be put to death. The moment he is convicted of this he shall be subjected to capital punishment. The Lord continue to preserve you." (Socrates, Hist. Eccles.)

† Philostorgius, the Arian historian, attributes miracles to this Eusebius; and Athanasius seems to consider him rather as the master, than the disciple, of Arius. (See Tillemont, Sur les Ariens, art. vi.)

‡ It is another, perhaps a more probable, opinion, that Eusebius was recalled in 328, and Arius even sooner; but that the Emperor did not invite Arius to Constantinople until 336. (Mosb., Eccles. Hist., cent. iv., p. ii., c. 5.) See also Tillemont, loc. cit., who dates the real raucour of the contest from the refusal of Athanasius still to communicate with his adversary.

2 H mighty seriousness, and the severity and strictness of his mien, he perfectly well understood how to soothe and flatter, with all imaginable wit and address, those whom he had a mind to bring over to his opinion, and engage in his party." But the envy that proceeds from ambition, is a wild beast, which benefits can never tame: they, being so many marks of that greatness which is already insupportable in him that bestows them, only add to the uneasiness of that furious passion, and at the same time afford it more power to spread its venom, and to do mischief. Thus it was with Arius, of which numerous opportunities were forthcoming.*

Three Greek writers, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, take up the annals of the church about the time of its establishment by Constantine, nearly where the history of Eusebius terminates, and carry them on as far as the reign of Theodosius the Younger, through the space of about one hundred and twenty years. SOCRATES† was a native of Constantinople; he was carefully instructed in grammar and rhetoric, and presently assumed the profession of a scholastic or advocate. Much time, however, and very considerable diligence, he directed to the compilation of his historical materials, and no scanty judgment is shown in their arrangement and composition. The Epistles of Bishops, the Acts of Councils, and the works of preceding or contemporary Ecclesiastics, are consulted with care, and seemingly cited with fidelity; and the principal events are chronologically distinguished by Olympiads, or Consulates. His impartiality is so strikingly displayed, as to make his orthodoxy questionable to Baronius, the celebrated Roman Catholic historian; but Valesius, in his Life, has clearly shown that there is no reason for such suspicion. We may mention another principle which he has followed, which, in the mind of Baronius, may have tended to confirm the notion of his heterodoxy: he is invariably adverse to every form of persecution on account of religious opinions; and we call it persecution to offer any description of molestation to those who are quiet. Some credulity respecting miraculous stories is his principal failing. HERMIAS SOZOMEN‡ was also an Advocate, resident at Constantinople; but he

* Maimbourg, History of Arianism, book i., vol. i., 4to., London, 1728.

† He flourished about the middle of the fifth century, was born at Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius, and studied grammar under Helladius and Ammonius, who, having fled from Alexandria to Constantinople, had opened a school there; and, after he had finished his studies, he for some time professed the law, and pleaded at the bar, whence he obtained the name of Scholasticus. In the decline of life he undertook to write the history of the church, which is completed, as far as it goes, with much judgment and exactness. He has been accused of being a Noratian, and it cannot be denied that he speaks well of that sect; yet, as Valesius has proved, he was not one of them, but adhered to the church, while he represents them as separated from it. His history has been translated into Latin, and published in Greek and Latin by Valesius, together with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians, and re-published, with additional notes, by Reading, London, 1720, 3 vols., fol.

‡ An ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, was born of a good family at Bethella in Palestine, and studied the law at Berytus. He then went to Constantinople, and became a pleader. Afterwards he applied himself to the writing of ecclesiastical history; and he first drew up a compendium of it in two books, from the ascension of Christ to the year 323; but this is lost. He then continued his history in a more circumstantial and close manner to the year 439; and this part, which is in nine books, is extant.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS.

was a native of Palestine, born near Gaza, and was educated in a monastery in that country. In his writings we perceive a great ardour for the monastic life, and a concomitant tendency to superstitious extravagance. Superior in style to his contemporary, he is below him in judgment and discrimination; still his work contains much valuable matter, though some of it was certainly borrowed from that of Socrates, which seems to have been published somewhat earlier. THEODORET,* like Sozomen, received a monastic education; but he entered into the ecclesiastical profession, and became Bishop of Cyrus, in Syria. He was remarkable not only for his learning and piety, but for his absolute and voluntary poverty. "I was ordained Bishop against my will; for twenty-five years," says he, in an Epistle still extant: "I have so lived in that station, as never to be at variance, never to prosecute any one at law, or to be prosecuted. The same I can say of all the pious Clergy who are under my inspection, none of whom was ever seen in any court of justice. Neither I nor my domestics ever received the smallest present from any person, not even a loaf, nor an egg. My patrimony I gave long ago to the poor, and I have made no new acquisitions. I have neither house, nor land, nor money, nor a sepulchre where my friends may lay my body when I die. I am possessed of nothing save the poor raiment which I wear." As a writer, however, he is inferior to his two fellow-labourers, both in judgment and in moderation; he is more violent against schism and heresy, more bigoted, and more absurdly credulous. Yet he did not himself escape the charge of heresy; and was certainly attached to the party, probably to the opinions, of the Nestorians. His style is pronounced by Photius to be clear and lofty, without redundancy. To this list we may venture to regret that we cannot add the name of Philostorgius.† This writer, as we have observed, was an Arian; his history extended from the year 300 to 425, and he had witnessed much of what he described. But of his works nothing remains but an epitome by Photius, and some fragments. Photius assures us, that he betrayed great partiality for the sect to which he belonged, and this indeed appears to have been so; yet even such a narrative we would willingly confront with the probable misrepresentations of his adversaries. We have also referred to

It is dedicated to Theodosius II. "His style is more florid and elegant," says Jortin, in his Ecclesiastical Remarks, "than that of Socrates; but he is by no means so judicious an author."

* His Ecclesiastical History, in five books, is a kind of supplement to those of Socrates and Sozomen, after which it was written. It begins where that of Eusebius ends; namely, at the rise of Arianism, in 322 or 323; and it terminates in 428.

† Philostorgius was born at a village in Cappadocia about 368, and studied at Constantinople. He wrote an Ecclesiastical History, in twelve books, containing the history of affairs from the commencement of the Arian controversy, or about the year 300, to the year 425, when it was published. The work is lost. But in the Codex of Photius large extracts from it are preserved; which were first published at Geneva by James Godfrey, in the original Greek, accompanied with a Latin version, notes, and dissertations, 1643, 4to. In 1673 Henry de Valois, having collated the original with different manuscripts, corrected the text, and gave a new translation of the whole, published those extracts at Paris, together with the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c., in 3 vols. fol.; followed by a supplement of additional fragments from Suidas and other authors. This edition was reprinted at Cambridge, in 1720, by William Reading, in 3 vols. fol., with additional notes and illustrations.

2 H 2 the authorities of Epiphanius, Hilary, Rufinus, and Sulpicius Severus, but have been very sparing in our use of them. Epiphanius was bred a Monk, and became Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus.* He was the author of a voluminous book against all the heresies which had hitherto arisen. But his work is disfigured by so many marks of levity and ignorance, that we can follow him with no general confidence. Hilary was Bishop of Poitiers, for the most part a copyist of Tertullian and Origen, but celebrated for "Twelve Books concerning the Trinity," written against the Arians. Rufinus was a Presbyter of Aquileia, a translator, and not always a faithful one, of Origen and other Greek writers. He was engaged in a violent contest with Jerome, and was assailed by the virulence of that intemperate writer; and he had the additional misfortune of being excommunicated by Anastasius, the Bishop of Rome, for his attachment to the opinions of Origen. Contemporary with Rufinus was Sulpicius Severus,† a native of Aquitania, and a man of rank and learning. He received ordination, and was extremely attached to the person and character of Martin, the venerable Bishop of Tours. He lived to become his biographer; and, besides his "Vita Beati Martini," he wrote three Epistles also relating to that Prelate. But his principal work was his "Sacra Historia:" it consists of two books, of which the contents extend from the time of Adam to the end of the fourth century. The only valuable portion of it is the conclusion, which contains some interesting contemporary information.

We are now approaching the period when the death of Constantine took place; and deeply do we regret that, with all his numerous failings in connexion with the Church and the State, he descended into the tomb with hands dabbled in the blood of his wife and son. An edict of the Emperor, published about this time, (Oct. 1st, 325,) manifestly indicates his real or affected suspicions, that a secret conspiracy had been formed against his person and his government. By all the allurements of honours and rewards, he invites informers of every degree to accuse, without exception, his Magistrates or Ministers, his friends or his most intimate favourites; protesting, with a

* His youth was spent among the Monks of Egypt; and he founded a monastery near his native village, Besanduce, in Palestine, and presided over it. He took up a violent animosity against the writings of Origen; and entered into a fierce dispute on the subject with John, Bishop of Jerusalem. He engaged Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in the contest; and that Prelate, in a Council held in 399, caused the books of Origen to be condemned, and persecuted all the Monks that were suspected of holding his memory in veneration. Epiphanius followed his example; and, in a Council held in 401, procured a similar condemnation. Chrysostom condemned his proceedings; the discountenance of the Empress Eudoxia, and some discourse with Ammonius and his companions, followers of Origen, who had been banished by Theophilus, tempered his zeal, and he resolved on a return to Cyprus, without having effected anything. He died on his passage home, in 403.

† He first followed the legal profession; but, after the death of his wife, he led a retired and monastic life as a Presbyter in Aquitaine. He wrote Vita Sancti Martini Turonensis; Historia Sacra, or Chronica Sacra, in two books; (this is a brief history of religion, from the creation down to the Consulship of Stilicho and Aurelian, A.D. 400;) Dialogi Tres; and Epistolae. Notwithstanding the superstitious tone which pervades all the works of Sulpicius, they have a charm, arising from their purity of diction, which scarcely any other writer of that age possesses. He seems to have taken Sallust as his model; and some writers have called him the Christian Sallust.

CONDUCT OF CONSTANTINE TOWARDS HIS FAMILY.

solemn asseveration, that he himself will listen to the charge, that he himself will revenge his injuries; and concluding with a prayer, which discovers some apprehension of danger, that the providence of the Supreme Being may still continue to protect the safety of the Emperor and of the empire. The informers, who complied with so liberal an invitation, were sufficiently versed in the arts of courts to select the friends and adherents of Crispus as the guilty persons; nor is there any reason to distrust the veracity of the Emperor, who had promised an ample measure of revenge and punishment. The policy of Constantine maintained, however, the same appearance of regard and confidence towards a son, whom he began to consider as his most irreconcileable enemy. The time was now arrived for celebrating the august ceremony of the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine; and the Emperor for that purpose removed his court from Nicomedia to Rome, where the most splendid preparations had been made for his reception. Every eye, and every tongue, affected to express their sense of the general happiness; and the veil of ceremony and dissimulation was drawn for a while over the darkest designs of revenge and murder. In the midst of the festival, the unfortunate Crispus was apprehended by order of the Emperor; who laid aside the tenderness of a father, without assuming the equity of a Judge. The examination was short and private;* and as it was thought decent to conceal the fate of the young Prince from the eyes of the Roman people, he was sent under a strong guard to Pola, in Istria; where soon afterwards he was put to death, either by the hands of the executioner, or by the more gentle operation, poison. The Cæsar Licinius, a youth of amiable manners, was involved in the ruin of Crispus; and the stern jealousy of Constantine was unmoved by the prayers and tears of his favourite sister, pleading for the life of a son, whose rank was his only crime, and whose loss she did not long survive. The story of these unhappy Princes, the nature and evidence of their guilt, the forms of their trial, and the circumstances of their death, were buried in mysterious obscurity; and the courtly Bishop Eusebius, who has celebrated in an elaborate work the virtues and piety of his hero, observes a prudent silence on the subject of these tragic and sanguinary events.†

The innocence of Crispus was ere long fully acknowledged; and the Greeks have endeavoured to palliate the conduct of Constantine

* 'Anphros, "without a trial," is the strong, and most probably the just, expression of Suidas. The elder Victor, who wrote under the next reign, speaks with becoming caution. "Natu grandior incertum quâ causâ, patris judicio occidisset." If we consult the succeeding writers, Eutropius, the younger Victor, Orosius, Jerome, Zosimus, Philostorgius, and Gregory of Tours, their knowledge will appear gradually to increase, as their means of information must have diminished; a circumstance which frequently occurs in historical disquisition. (Gibbon.)

† Such haughty contempt for the opinion of mankind, while it imprints an indelible stain on the memory of Constantine, must remind us of the very different behaviour of one of the greatest Monarchs of the eighteenth century. The Czar Peter, in the full possession of despotic power, submitted to the judgment of Russia, of Europe, and of posterity, the reasons which had compelled him to subscribe the condemnation of a criminal, or at least of a degenerate, son. (Histoire de Pierre le Grand, par Voltaire, part II., chap. 10.)

by asserting, that as soon as the Emperor discovered the falsehood of the accusation, by which his credulity had been so fatally misled, he published to the world his repentance and remorse; he even erected a golden statue of Crispus, with this inscription, "To my son, whom I unjustly condemned." A tale so moral and interesting would deserve to be supported by less exceptionable authority; but if we consult the more ancient and authentic writers, they will inform us, that the repentance of Constantine was manifested only in acts of blood and revenge; and that he atoned for the murder of an innocent son by the execution perhaps of a guilty wife. They ascribe the misfortunes of Crispus to the acts of his step-mother Fausta, whose implacable hatred, or whose disappointed love, renewed in the palace of Constantine the ancient tragedy of Hippolytus and Phædra.* Like the daughter of Minos, the daughter of Herculeus accused her son-in-law of an incestuous attempt on the chastity of his father's wife; and easily obtained from the jealousy of the Emperor a sentence of death against a young Prince, whom she considered, with reason, as the most formidable rival of her own children. But Helena, the aged mother of Constantine, lamented and revenged the untimely fate of her grandson Crispus. It was not long before Fausta was charged with having entertained an unlawful intrigue with a menial attached to the imperial household. Her condemnation and punishment were the immediate consequences of the accusation, and she was suffocated with the steam of a bath.† One would have imagined that the remembrance of a conjugal union of twenty years, and the honour of their common offspring, were calculated to soften the obdurate heart of Constantine, and to persuade him to suffer his wife, however guilty she might appear, to expiate her offences in a solitary prison. We shall not attempt to apportion the criminality which is due to the parties concerned. Suffice it to say, that before many months had elapsed the Emperor was called to a tribunal far superior to his own. One melancholy fact is awfully true: we allude to the feeble influence that genuine Christianity exercised upon the person or family of the Emperor.‡

After Constantine had humbled the pride of the Goths, who had recently attempted to raise the standard of rebellion against him, and received from the Ambassadors of Ethiopia, Persia, and the most remote countries of India, congratulations on the peace and prosperity of his government, he divided the empire among his sons, who were called Cæsars; to Constantine and Constans he awarded the western regions, and to Constantius the eastern; and as he was indisposed, and required to have recourse to bathing, he repaired for that purpose to Helenopolis, a city of Bithynia. If he estimated, among the favours which accompanied him through life, the death of his eldest

* Zosimus, lib. ii., p. 103, may be considered our original. The ingenuity of the moderns, assisted by a few hints from the ancients, has illustrated and improved his obscure and imperfect narrative.

† If Fausta were put to death, it is reasonable to believe that the private apartments of the palace were the scene of her execution. The orator Chrysostom indulges his fancy by exposing the naked Empress on a desert mountain, to be devoured by wild beasts.

‡ Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xviii., p. 107, Milm. edit., 8vo.

THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE.

son, of his nephew, and perhaps of his wife, he enjoyed certainly an uninterrupted flow of private as well as of public happiness till the thirtieth year of his reign; a period which none of his predecessors, since Augustus, had been permitted to celebrate. Constantine survived that solemn festival about ten months; and at the mature age of sixty-four, after a short illness, he ended his memorable life at the palace Aquyrion, in the suburbs of Nicomedia, whither he had retired for the benefit of the air, and with the hope of recruiting his exhausted strength by the use of the warm baths. After the soldiers had spent some time in lamentation and apparent sorrow, they lifted the body from its couch, and laid it in a golden coffin, which they enveloped in a covering of purple, and removed to the city which was called by his own name. Here it was placed in an elevated position, in the principal chamber of the imperial palace, and surrounded by candles burning in candlesticks of gold, presenting a marvellous spectacle, and such as no mortal had exhibited on earth since the world itself began. The forms of the court were strictly maintained. Every day, at the appointed hours, the principal officers of state, the army, and the household, approaching the person of their Sovereign, with bended knees and a composed countenance, offered their respectful homage as seriously as if he had been still alive. When Constantius, the late Emperor's second son, arrived, he proceeded to celebrate his father's funeral, himself heading the procession, which was preceded by detachments of soldiers in military array, and followed by vast multitudes, the body itself being surrounded by companies of spearmen and heavy-armed infantry. On the arrival of the procession at the church dedicated to the Apostles of our Saviour, the coffin was there entombed. Such honour did the youthful Emperor Constantius render to his deceased parent, both by his presence and by the due performance of the ceremony.*

The character of the Emperor, who removed the seat of government, and introduced many important changes into the civil and religious constitution of the country, has fixed the attention and divided the opinions of mankind. By the energetic, yet grateful, zeal of the Christians, the emancipator of the church has been adorned with all the attributes of a hero, and the qualifications of a saint, in a motley and incongruous confusion; while the discontent of the vanquished party has compared Constantine to the most abhorred of those tyrants who, by their vice and weakness, dishonoured the imperial purple. These sentiments have been perpetuated to succeeding generations; and the character of that Emperor is still considered by some an object of satire, and by others of panegyric. We cannot, in the true and legitimate sense of the term, designate Constantine a Christian. Lactantius, in the midst of the Emperor's court, was impatient to proclaim to the world the glorious example of the Sovereign of Gaul, who in the first moments of his reign acknow-

* Constantine had prepared for himself a stately tomb in the church of the Holy Apostles. (Enseb., De Vita Constant., lib. iv., cap. 60.) The best, and indeed almost the only, account of the sickness, death, and funeral of Constantine, is contained in the fourth book of his Life by Eusebius.

ledged and adored the majesty of the true and only God. Eusebius has ascribed the faith of Constantine to the miraculous sign which is supposed to have been displayed in the heavens, whilst he meditated and prepared the Italian expedition. The historian Zosimus maliciously asserts, that the Emperor had imbued his hands in the blood of his eldest son, before he publicly renounced the gods of Rome and of his ancestors. But, according to the strictness of ecclesiastical language, the first of the Christian Emperors was unworthy of that name till the moment of his death; since it was only during his last illness that he received, as a catechumen, the imposition of hands, and was afterwards admitted by the initiatory rite of baptism into the number of the faithful. Eusebius informs us, that when he was convinced that his life was drawing to a close, he felt the time was come when he should seek to expiate the errors of his past career, firmly believing that whatever sins he had committed as a mortal man, his soul would be purified from them through the efficacy of the mysterious words and the salutary waters of baptism.* Its administration had been long delayed; and the custom, from the imperial example, would naturally gather fresh strength. Superstition had by this time taught men to connect, by a necessary union, the forgiveness of sins with the administration of the rite; and men who loved to continue in sin, protracted their baptism to a time when they imagined it might be of the greatest advantage to them. Little more need be said of Constantine's religious character: it was of a very dubious description, and appears to have been much of the same kind as that of his panegyrist Eusebius, whose pompous Life of Constantine gives no very favourable idea of the writer's own views of Christianity.†

The dying Emperor had committed the management of his funeral to the filial piety of Constantius, whom he intended to succeed to the empire in Italy and Africa. He was an Arian, and was by no means free from the intolerant and persecuting spirit which characterized that party in all its operations. As soon as he had taken possession of the palace of Constantinople, his first care was to remove the apprehensions of his kinsmen, by a solemn oath which he pledged for their security. His next employment was to find some specious pretence which might release his conscience from the obligation of an

* These words seem to prove that the Emperor now first became a catechumen. His postponement of baptism until his last illness, (after having stood forward so long as the public advocate and protector of the Christian religion,) and the superstitious reliance which he was encouraged to place on the late performance of this "mysterious" rite, afford an evidence of the melancholy obscuration of Christian truth at the very time when Christianity was ostensibly becoming the religion of the Roman empire. There is probably too much truth in the following remarks of Gibbon:—"The pride of Constantine, who refused the privileges of a catechumen, cannot easily be explained or excused; but the delay of his baptism may be justified by the maxims and practice of ecclesiastical antiquity. The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered." (Euseb., De Vita Constant., lib. iv., cap. 62, note.)

† Milner, History of the Church, vol. I., p. 536.

THE MASSACRE OF THE PRINCES.

imprudent oath. When fraud and cruelty unite, a pretence is not long wanting. From the hands of that miserable time-server, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Constantius is said to have received a scroll, which he affirmed to be the last will and testament of his father, in which the Emperor expressed his suspicions that he had been poisoned by his brothers; and conjured his sons to revenge his death, and to consult their own safety by the punishment of the guilty.* A report of this description operated as the shock of a thunder-bolt hurled among an unsanctified and revengeful throng. Whatever reasons might have been alleged by these unfortunate Princes, to defend their lives and honour against so incredible an accusation, they were silenced by the furious clamours of the soldiers, who declared themselves at once their enemies, their judges, and their executioners. The forms of legal proceedings were violated in a promiscuous massacre. Among the victims, Hannibalianus was the most conspicuous. If it were needful to aggravate the horrors of this sanguinary proceeding, we might add, that Constantius had espoused the sister of Hannibalianus, and that he had bestowed his own sister upon the son of Julius. All these alliances which were formed by the policy of Constantius, utterly regardless of the public prejudice, and not to strengthen the bonds of fraternity and social friendship, served only to convince mankind that these Princes were as cold to the endearments of conjugal affection, as they were insensible to the ties of consanguinity, and the soul-thrilling entreaties of youth and innocence. Of so numerous a family, Gallus and Julian alone, the two youngest children of Julius Constantius, were saved from the hands of the assassins, till their rage, satiated with slaughter, had in some measure subsided. The Emperor, who in the absence of his brothers was the most obnoxious to guilt and reproach, discovered, on some future occasions, a faint and transient remorse for those cruelties, which the perfidious counsels of his Ministers, and the irresistible violence of the troops, had extorted from his unexperienced youth.†

Constantius furnishes too many materials to illustrate his disposition. One Eusebius, an eunuch, his Chamberlain, had great influence over him, and was himself the convert of an Arian Priest, whom Constantia had recommended to her brother, and to whom also the dying Emperor had intrusted his will. The Empress herself, the wife of Constantius, was infected with Arianism. By degrees,

* The authority for this improbable story is the Arian historian Philostorgius. (Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 17, p. 21. 4to. 1643.) But if such pretext were ever used by Constantius, it was laid aside with contempt as soon as it had served his immediate purpose. Athanasius mentions the oath which Constantius had taken for the security of his kinsmen. A modern writer (Guizot) states, that the authority of Philostorgius is so suspicious, as not to be sufficient to establish this fact; which Gibbon has inserted in his History as certain, while in a note he appears to doubt it.

† In after-days, Julian charged his cousin Constantius with the whole guilt of a massacre, from which he had himself so narrowly escaped. His assertion is confirmed by Athanasius, who, for reasons of a very different nature, was not less an enemy of Constantius. Zosimus joins in the same accusation. But the three abbreviators, Eutropius and the Victors, use very qualifying expressions:—"Sinente portus quam jubente;" "Incertum quo suasore;" "Vi militum." In our opinion, if Constantius and Eusebius of Nicomedia were to divide the guilt of the murderous act between them, one might obtain less, but neither of them more, than was his due.

2 I the Emperor, a man of a weak understanding, corrupted with the pride of power, and ill-informed in anything that pertained to real Christianity, was confirmed in what was, at that early period, the fashionable heresy. There was then, during this whole reign, which extended from the year 337 to the year 361, a controversy carried on between the church and the heretics by arms and resources suited to the genius of the parties: those of the former were prayers, treatises, and preaching; of the latter, policy, intrigue, persecution, and the friendship of the great. The most zealous supporters of antiscriptural sentiments seemed far more disposed to cultivate the favour of men of rank, than to labour in the work of the ministry among the bulk of mankind.*

When Constantius ascended the throne, Paganism, like a pyramid on its point, was nodding to its fall. Eusebius, in three distinct passages in the Life of Constantine, asserts, that he prohibited sacrifice; that he issued two laws to prevent, both in the city and in the country, the pollutions of the old idolatry, the setting up of statues, divinations, and other unlawful practices, and to command the total abolition of sacrifice;† and throughout the Roman empire the "doors of idolatry" were closed to the people and to the army, and every kind of sacrifice was suspended.‡ Theodoret asserts that Constantine prohibited sacrifice; and, though he did not destroy, shut up all the temples. In a passage of his panegyric,§ Eusebius asserts, that he sent two officers into every part of the empire, who compelled the Priests to surrender up the statues of their gods, which, having been despoiled of their ornaments, were melted and destroyed. These strong assertions of Eusebius are, to a certain extent, confirmed by expressions in the laws of his successors, especially one of Constans, which appeals to an edict of his father Constantine, which forbade sacrifice.¶ On the other hand, we have statements somewhat contradictory, in which the late Emperor proclaims the most impartial toleration to Paganism, as well as Christianity, deprecating compulsion in all religious matters. "Let all enjoy," said he, "the same peace; let no one disturb another in his religious worship; let each act as he thinks fit; let those who withhold their allegiance from Thee," (it is an address to the Deity,) "have their temples of falsehood, if they think right."¶ He exhorts to mutual charity, and declares, "It is a very different thing willingly to submit to trials for the sake of immortal life, and to force others by penalties to embrace our faith."** These sentiments present a great incongruity with the edicts previously promulgated; and pagan writers have not been scrupulous in

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. iv., vol. I., p. 538.

† Euseb., De Vita Const., lib. ii., cap. 44, 45.

‡ Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 21; compare Sozomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 17; Orosina, lib. vii., cap. 28.

§ Euseb., De Laudib. Constantini, cap. 8.

¶ "Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania. Nam quicunque contra legem divi Principis, parentis nostri, et hanc nostrae mansuetudinis jussioneam ausus fuerit sacrificia celebrare, competens in eum vindicta, et praesens sententia exseratur." (Cod. Theodos., lib. xvi., cap. 10, 2; see, likewise, the note of Godefroy.)

¶ Euseb., De Vita Constant., lib. ii., cap. 26.

** Ibid., cap. 60.

EXPIRING EFFORTS OF PAGANISM.

their charges of inconsistency against the memory of their former ruler. Historical records strongly confirm the idea, that Paganism was openly professed; its temples in some places were restored, its rites celebrated; neither were its priesthood degraded from their immunities, nor the estates belonging to the temples generally alienated; in short, that it was the public religion of a large portion of the empire, and still confronted Christianity, if not on equal terms, yet with pertinacious resistance, down to the reign of Theodosius, and even that of his sons. Constantine himself, though he neither offered sacrifices, nor consulted the Sybilline Books, nor would go up to the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter, with the Senate and the people, performed, nevertheless, some of the functions—at least, he did not disdain the appellation—of Supreme Pontiff. We may with confidence assert, that there were two kinds of sacrifices abolished by Constantine; namely, the private sacrifices connected with unlawful acts of theurgy and of magic; those midnight offerings to the powers of darkness, which in themselves were illegal, and led to scenes of unhallowed licence;* and also those which might be considered the state sacrifices, offered by the Emperor himself, or by his representatives in his name, either in the cities or in the army. Though Constantine advanced many Christians to offices of trust, and no doubt many who were ambitious of such posts conformed to the religion of the Emperor, probably most of the high dignities of the state were held by Pagans. An edict might be required to induce them to depart from the customary usage of sacrifice, which, with the Christian officers, would quietly fall into desuetude. But still, the sacrifices made by the priesthood, at the expense of the sacerdotal establishments, and out of their own estates,—though in some instances these estates were seized by Constantine, and the sacerdotal Colleges reduced to poverty,—and the public sacrifices offered by the piety of distinguished individuals, would be made as usual. In the capital there can be little doubt that sacrifices were offered, in the name of the Senate and the people of Rome.† Much now depended on the faithfulness and exemplary piety of the Christian name: the sharp end of the wedge had procured a lodgment in the blood-cemented structure of Paganism and falsehood, which threatened to raise it from its antiquated and deep-seated foundations. In process of time this happily was the case.

Persia had long been a reluctant tributary to Rome; but the mili-

* M. La Bastie and M. Beugnot would consider the terms, Τα μυσάρα της εἰδωλολάτρειας, in the rescript of Constantine, and the "Insana superstitio" of the law of Constans, to refer exclusively to these nocturnal and forbidden sacrifices. M. Beugnot has observed, that Constantine always uses respectful and courteous language concerning Paganism: "Vetus observantia, vetus consuetudo; templorum solemnia; consuetudinis gentiliitis solemnitiae." The laws of the later Emperors employ very different terms: "Error; dementia; error veterum; profanus ritus; sacrilegus ritus; nefarius ritus; superstitio pagana, damnabilis, damnata, deterrima, impia; funestæ superstitionis errores; stolidus Paganorum error." (Cod. Theodos., tom. v., p. 255; Beugnot, tom. l., p. 80.)

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 464.

2 1 2 tary fame of Constantine, and the real or apparent strength of his government, suspended any attempt at rebellion being carried into execution. The death of Constantine was the signal for revolt; * and the actual condition of the Syrian and Armenian frontier seemed to encourage the Persians by the prospect of a rich spoil, and an easy conquest. The example of the massacres of the palace diffused a spirit of licentiousness and sedition among the troops of the East, who were no longer restrained by their habits of obedience to a veteran commander. By the prudence of Constantius, who, from the interview with his brothers in Pannonia, immediately hastened to the banks of the Euphrates, the legions were gradually restored to a sense of duty and discipline. But the season of anarchy had permitted Sapor II., King of Persia, to form the siege of Nisibis, and to occupy several of the most important fortresses of Mesopotamia. In Armenia the renowned Tiridates† had long enjoyed the peace and glory which he deserved, by his valour and fidelity to the cause of Rome. The firm alliance which he maintained with Constantine was productive of spiritual as well as of temporal benefits: by the conversion of Tiridates, the character of a saint was added to that of a hero, the Christian faith was preached and established from the Euphrates to the shores of the Caspian, and Armenia was attached to the empire by the double ties of policy and religion. But as many of the Armenian nobles refused to renounce Paganism, the public tranquillity was disturbed by a discontented faction, which insulted the Sovereign, and rejoiced in his decease, which took place after a reign of fifty-six years. His lawful heir was driven into exile, the Christian Priests were either murdered or driven from their churches, the barbarous tribes of Albania were solicited to descend from their mountains; and two of the most powerful Governors, usurping the ensigns or the powers of royalty, implored the assistance of Sapor, and opened the gates of their cities to the Persian garrison. The Christian party sought for succour from Rome; and, after a diversity of reverses, the Armenians submitted to the conditions of peace which Sapor condescended to impose,—the payment of an annual tribute, and the restitution of the fertile province of Atropatene, which the courage of Tiridates, and the victorious arms of Galerius, had annexed to the Armenian monarchy.

During the comparatively long reign of Constantius, the provinces of the East were afflicted by the calamities of the Persian war. The irregular incursions of the light troops alternately spread terror and desolation beyond the Tigris and beyond the Euphrates, from the gates of Ctesiphon to those of Antioch; and this active service was performed by the Arabs of the desert, who were divided in their interest and affections; some of their independent chiefs being

* Constantine had endeavoured to allay the fury of the persecutions which, at the instigation of the Magi and the Jews, Sapor had commenced against the Christians.

† Tiridates had sustained a war against Maximinus, caused by the hatred of the latter to Christianity. Armenia was the first nation which embraced the faith of the Redeemer. About the year 276 it was the religion of the King, the nobles, and the people of Armenia.

CONSTANTIUS, AND HIS PERSIAN CAMPAIGN.

enlisted in the service of Sapor, whilst others had engaged their doubtful fidelity to the Emperor.* Constantine had long before his death contemplated a war with Persia, on account of the protracted friendship which had existed between Tiridates and the court of Rome. The aggressive, predatory, and persecuting temper of Sapor had frequently perpetrated annoyances upon the territories of the Armenian Monarch; so that Constantine, at the close of his life, resolved to punish the aggressor, and to protect the injured. The more grave and important operations of the war were conducted with considerable vigour, and the armies of Rome and of Persia encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day was most commonly adverse to the Romans; but in the battle of Singara, their imprudent valour had almost achieved a signal and decisive victory. The stationary troops of Singara retired on the approach of Sapor, who passed the Tigris, and occupied the village of Hilleh, which by his pioneers he surrounded in one day with a deep ditch and a lofty rampart. After a slight resistance the Persians fled in disorder before the Romans, unable to resist the strength of the heavy legions. Constantius, who hurried along in the pursuit, attempted, without effect, to restrain the ardour of his troops, by representing to them the dangers of the approaching night, and the certainty of completing their success on the following day. But they depended more on their own valour than on the experience or the abilities of their chief; they silenced by their clamours his timid remonstrances, and, rushing with fury to the charge, filled up the ditch, broke down the rampart, and dispersed themselves through the tents to recruit their exhausted strength, and to enjoy the rich harvest of their labours. The Persian Monarch watched the moment of victory. His army, of which the greater part, securely posted on the heights, had been spectators of the action, advanced in silence, and under the shadow of the night; and his archers, guided by the illumination of the camp, poured a shower of arrows on a disarmed and licentious crowd. The Romans were vanquished with a dreadful slaughter, and the flying remnant was exposed to the most intolerable hardships.† The courtly flattery of some of the panegyrists of Constantius attribute the whole of this disaster to the disobedience of the soldiery, rather than to any want of military prudence and courage on the part of the Emperor: nevertheless, one of these venal scribblers relates, with amazing coolness, an act of such incredible cruelty as, in the judgment of posterity, must imprint a far deeper stain on the honour of the imperial name. The son of Sapor, the heir of his crown, had been made a captive in the Persian camp. The unhappy youth, who might have

* Ammianus gives a lively description of the wandering and predatory life of the Saracens, who stretched from the confines of Assyria to the cataracts of the Nile. It appears from the adventures of Malchus, which Jerome has related in so entertaining a manner, that the high road between Berea and Edessa was infested by these robbers.

† The Persian historians, or romancers, do not mention the battle of Singara, but make the captive Shahpour (Sapor) escape, and defeat and take prisoner the Roman Emperor. The Roman captives were forced to repair all the ravages they had committed, even to replanting the smallest trees. (Milman.)

excited the compassion of the most savage enemy, was scourged, tortured, and publicly executed by the inhuman Romans.

Sapor could not, however, consider himself a conqueror, so long as the fortified towns of Mesopotamia, and especially the fortified city of Nisibis,* remained in the possession of the Romans, before which he had been frequently repulsed. This large and populous city was situate about two days' journey from the Tigris, in the midst of a pleasant and fertile plain at the foot of Mount Massius. A triple enclosure of brick-walls was defended by a deep ditch, and the garrison was encouraged by the desperate gallantry of the people. The citizens were also animated by the exhortations of the Bishop; they were inured to arms by the presence of danger, and roused by the intentions of Sapor to plant a Persian colony in their room, and to lead them away into distant and barbarous captivity. The result of two former failures, whilst they elated the confidence of the people, had exasperated the haughty spirit of the Persian King, who, with the united forces of Persia and the neighbourhood, was resolved to undergo no further defeat. The ordinary machines invented to batter or undermine the walls, were rendered ineffectual by the superior skill of the Romans; and many days had vainly elapsed, when Sapor embraced a resolution worthy of an Eastern Monarch, who believed that the elements themselves were subject to his power. At the stated season of the melting of the snows in Armenia, the river Mygdocius, which divides the plain and the city of Nisibis, forms, like the Nile, an inundation over the adjacent country. By the labour of the Persians the course of the river was stopped below the town, and the waters were confined on every side by solid mounds of earth. On this artificial lake a fleet of armed vessels filled with soldiers, and with engines which discharged stones of five hundred pounds weight, advanced in order of battle, and engaged, almost upon a level, the troops which defended the ramparts.† The irresistible force of the waters was alternately fatal to the contending parties, till at length a portion of the walls, unable to sustain the accumulated pressure, gave way at once, and exposed an ample breach of one hundred and fifty feet. The Persians were instantly driven to the assault, and the fate of Nisibis depended on the event of the day. The heavy-armed cavalry, who led the van of a deep column, were embarrassed in the mud, and great numbers were drowned in the unseen holes which had been

* Nisibis was a very ancient, noble, and strong city of Mesopotamia, in Mygdocius, towards the Tigris. Some ascribe its origin to Nimrod, and suppose it to be the Achad of Moses. It was built by a colony of Macedonians, who called it Antiochia of Mygdocius. Strabo says it was situated at the foot of Mount Massius. It was the Roman bulwark against the Parthians and Persians. It sustained three memorable sieges against the power of Sapor, A.D. 338, 346, and 350. But the Emperor Jordanus, by an ignominious peace, delivered it up to the Persians, A.D. 363. Nisibis is now reduced to one hundred and fifty houses; the marshy lands produce rice, and the fertile meadows, as far as Mosul and the Tigris, are covered with the ruins of towns and villages. (Niebuhr, Voyages, tom. ii., pp. 300-309.)

† Macdonald Kinnier observes on these floating batteries, "As the elevation of the place is considerably above the level of the country in its immediate vicinity, and the Mygdocius is a very insignificant stream, it is difficult to imagine how this work could have been accomplished, even with the wonderful resources which the King must have had at his disposal."

SAPOR IS DEFEATED BEFORE NISIBIS.

filled by the rushing waters. The elephants, made furious by their wounds, increased the disorder, and trampled down thousands of the Persian archers. The great King, who from an exalted throne beheld the misfortunes of his arms, sounded, with reluctant indignation, the signal of retreat, and suspended for some hours the prosecution of the attack. But the vigilant citizens improved the opportunity of the night, and the return of day discovered a new wall of six feet in height, rising every moment to fill up the interval of the breach. Notwithstanding the disappointment of his hopes, and the loss of more than twenty thousand men, Sapor still pressed the reduction of Nisibis with an obstinate firmness which could have yielded only to the necessity of defending the Eastern provinces of Persia against a formidable invasion of the Massagetae.* Alarmed by this intelligence, he hastily relinquished the siege, and marched with rapid diligence from the banks of the Tigris to those of the Oxus. The dangers and difficulties of the Scythian war engaged him soon afterwards to conclude, or at least to observe, a truce with the Roman Emperor, which was equally grateful to both Princes; as Constantius himself, after the death of his brothers, was involved, by the revolutions of the West, in a civil contest, which required and seemed to exceed the most vigorous exertion of his undivided strength.† This "dearth and din of war" were by no means favourable to the interests of Christianity, especially in Persia: the condition, therefore, of the church of Christ in that country will engage our attention in the subsequent chapter.