08. BOOK V, CHAPTER II

CHAPTER II.

Effect of the Contests between Rome and Persia upon the Church—Intolerance of the Mogi—Their History and Character—Zoroaster—Zendarista—Armenia, the first Christian Country—By whom Christianity was introduced—Struggles and Persecution with which it had to contend—Tiridates—Gregory the Apostle of Armenia, and his Successors—Persian Persecution—Sapor—Simeon, Archbishop of Seleucia—His Character—Martyrdom of Usthaxares—Of Simeon—Numerous Sufferers—Martyrdom of Pusicus—Persecution increases—Marathas—Tarbula and others martyred—Martyrdom of Acepsimas, Joseph, and Aithalas—Multitude of Martyrs and Confessors—Bardemus suffers—Case of Nurses—Commemoration of Martyrs—Martyrdom of Milles—Effect of these Persecutions—Buoyant Spirit of Christianity—State of the Church—Religious Character of the Sons of Constantine—Death of Eusebius the Historian—And of Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople—Paul his Successor—His Character and untimely End—Altered State of Discipline in the Church—Macedonius and Macedonians—Deposition of Athanasius—Gregory

* We are obliged to Zonaras (tom. i., lib. xiii., p. 11) for an account of this invasion of the Massagetae, which is perfectly consistent with the general series of events of which we darkly read in the broken history of Ammianus. The Massagetae were a people of Scythia, east of the Caspian sea, who had their wives in common, and dwelt in tents. They had no temples, but worshipped the sun, to which they offered horses on account of their swiftness. When their parents had come to a certain age, they generally put them to death, and ate their flesh, mixed with that of cattle.

† Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii., chap. xviii., p. 142. Mihnan, edit. 8ro.

of Cappadocia—Philagrius—Persecuting Acts of Gregory—Athanasius flies to Rome—Sufferings of Polamo—Address of Athanasius to the Orthodox—Remarks of Milner the Historian—Eusebius of Nicomedia translated to Constantinople—His Character—Hermogenes is killed in a Tumult—Constans and Constantius contrasted—Council of Sardica—Proceedings of—Its Objects were frustrated—Hosius of Corduba—Disastrous Appearance of the Church—Council of Milan in 347—Phatinus condemned—Pretended Recantation of Ursaces and Valens—Feigned Reconciliation of Constantius with Athanasius—Its gross Inconsistency—Athanasius is restored to Alexandria—Onager—Deposition of Stephen the Arian—Persian War—The Admonitions of Constans—Success of the Arms of Constantius—Want of Talent in Constans—Magnentius—Conspiracy against Constans—Magnentius assumes the Purple—And Constans is slain—Constantius refuses to treat with the Usurper—Engages in a severe Contest, which ends in the Defeat of Magnentius, who ultimately falls on his Sword—The Mask is now discarded by Constantius—Athanasius considered a personal Enemy to the Emperor—Distressed State of the Church—Synods of Arles and Milan—Persecution by the Arians—Effects following the late Restoration of Athanasius—Marcellus—The Sabellians and Arians—Athanasius flies to Rome—And other Prelates are banished—Some Bishops were slain or cruelly treated—George, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria—His fearful persecuting Acts—Cruel Treatment of the Exiles—Tragic Scenes on a "Trinity Sunday"—Persecution in Alexandria—Account of Secundus, a Priest—Orthodox Prelates of Egypt and Libya banished—Death of Paul referred to—Triumph of Macedonius—Weakness of Constantius—Baneful Influence of Prosperity—Council of Milan—Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari—Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellæ—Hilary the Deacon is scourged—Liberius, Bishop of Rome—Is summoned to Milan—His Interview with Constantius—Liberius is banished—Felix supersedes him in his See—Drooping State of the Church illustrated in the Defection of Liberius—And also of Hosius, Bishop of Corduba—Extract from one of his Epistles—Continued Privations of Athanasius—His Address to Dracontius—Constantius resorts to Violence—Cathedral of Alexandria invested by Soldiers—In the Confusion the Prelate escapes—Flees among the Monks and Hermits of the Desert—Who protect him—Many Treatises written during this Retreat—Insolence of Paganism—George of Cappadocia—Cruelties perpetrated by him—Milner quoted—Projected Union of the Orthodox and Novatian Churches—Which proved abortive—Eusebius of Vercellæ—Persecution increases—The Novatians suffer—Character of Novatianism—Zeal displayed in favour of Christianity—Admonitory Case of Hosius—Treatment he underwent from Constantius—Defection of Hosius—Triumph of the Arians—Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers—Death of Hosius—Council at Ariminum—Melatius, Bishop of Antioch—Is subsequently banished—Euxotius—Eustathians—Melancholy Condition of the Church—Value of Creeds—The Athanasius Controversy prepared the way for the Church at Rome to assume the Supremacy—Arianism continues in the Ascendant—Felix the elect Bishop of Rome—Hilary on the State of the Church—Council of Seleucia—And of Ariminum—The Orthodox Faith was recognised by the latter—The Machinations and Intrigues of the Arians afterward prevailed—The Synod of Seleucia—Arianism triumphant—Aetius—Eunomians—Macedonius—Eudoxus—The Christian World in Confusion—Miserable Policy of the Emperor—The Persian War—Illness and Death of Constantius—Accession of Julian to the Throne—His Character—Throws the Shield of Protection over Paganism—Which he openly encourages—Policy of his Attempts against the Christian Faith—Athanasius—Previous Career of Julian—Townsend's Remarks on Gibbon—Julian's Attempts to abolish the Name of Christian—Cause of his Dislike to it—Numerous Restrictions inflicted on the Christians—Early Education of Julian seriously defective—The Conduct of Constantius towards him—Whose general Behaviour tended to excite Disgust in the Mind of Julian—The Influence upon him of the Death of Gallus—Effects of the Death of Constantius upon Julian—The unchristian Christianity of the late Emperor—Julian restores Paganism—His indo-

SUFFERINGS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN PERSIA.

mitable Hatred of Constantine—General Character of Julian—Prosperity of Heathenism—Julian's Mode of Attack on Christianity—Schemes of philosophical Infidels—Ridicule a Weapon in the Hands of the Heathen—Policy of Julian—Professes to abstain from open Persecution—Treatment of the Bishops and inferior Clergy—Vigilant Malice of Julian—Projects the rebuilding of the Temple—Insurmountable Obstacles to its accomplishment—Suppression of Learning among the Christians—The ensnaring Artifices of Julian—Martyrdom of Juventinus and Maximinus—Degradation of Cesarea—Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon—Julian attempts to seduce the Followers of Christ—Sufferings of the Presbyter Basil—His Fidelity and Zeal—His Courage and Fortitude—Tortures inflicted by Julian on Basil Frumentius—Who adds to the Torments—Under which Basil expires—Martyrdom of Gordian—Of John and Paul—Artemius—Cassian—Bonossus and Maximilian—Bibiana—Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa—Many Martyrs—Casarius—Persecutions at Merum—Julian visits Antioch—Death of George of Alexandria—Arianism—Lucifer of Cagliari—Fate of Athanasius—The Persian War—Martyrdom of Theodore—Council of Alexandria—Efforts still made to restore Paganism—Persecutions of Julian—Treatment of the Christians—Removal of Babylas—Temple of Apollo burnt—Profanity of Julian—Miracles—Character of Julian—Publia—Death of Julian—Julian an Author—Remarks on his Decease.

IN the Persian empire it was indeed the hour of darkness with regard to the Christian church. Though Constantine had been instrumental in stilling the tempest, producing outward tranquillity, and establishing Christianity throughout the Roman empire, yet, in other countries not subject to him, the Christians met with usage from the infidels similar to that which they had received from the persecuting Emperors of Rome. This was more especially the case in Persia under Sapor, who swayed the sceptre in that country at the same time that Constantine wore the purple in Rome: here many of the Christians sought refuge from the violence and cruelty of Galerius during the late persecutions, and these spread the Gospel, and brought many to believe on Christ with the heart unto righteousness. The idolatrous Priests, sickened with envy, accused them to Sapor the King, of holding treasonable correspondence with the Romans, who were at war with the Persians: they were immediately oppressed with heavy taxation, and orders were issued to massacre every Priest among them. It was in the ancient dominions of Darius and of Xerxes that the old religion of Zoroaster * resumed its power and authority. No sooner had

* He was an ancient Oriental philosopher. He is generally regarded as the Zerdusht of the Persians, who reformed the religion of the Magi, and wrote the Zendarista, which contains his pretended revelations; which the ancient Magi and modern Parsees observe and reverence in the same manner as Christians do the Bible, making it the sole rule of their faith and manners. It includes also a reformed system of Magianism, a compendium of which is the Sadder, both regarded as of sacred authority. They taught, that there is a Supreme Being, eternal, self-existent, and independent; who created both light and darkness, out of which he made all other things; that these are in a state of conflict which will continue to the end of the world; that then there shall be a general resurrection and a judgment, and that just retribution shall be rendered unto men according to their works; that the angel of darkness, with his followers, shall be consigned to a place of everlasting gloom and punishment; and the angel of light, with his disciples, introduced into a state of everlasting glory and happiness; after which, light and darkness shall no more interfere with each other. It is evident from these and various other sentiments contained in the Zend, that many parts of it are taken out of the Old Testament. Dr. Baumgarten asserts, that this work contains doctrines, opinions, and facts actually borrowed from the Jews, Christians, and Mahommedans; whence, and from

Artaxerxes destroyed the last remains of the foreign Parthian dynasty, and re-organized the dominion of the native Persian Kings, than he hastened to environ his throne with the Magian hierarchy, and to re-establish the sacerdotal order in all its former dignity. But an ancient religion, which has sunk into obscurity, will not regain its full influence over the popular mind unless re-invested with divine authority; intercourse with heaven must be renewed, the sanction and ratification of the Deity must be public and acknowledged. These supernatural interpositions were assumed, and the Magi again wielded the emblems of authority and office. An hierarchy which suddenly regains its power after centuries of obscurity, and perhaps of oppression, will not be scrupulous as to the means of giving strength and permanence to its dominion. The re-establishment of a national religion, as the strongest and most enduring bond of union between the rulers and the ruled, was an essential part of the scheme of that Monarch of Persia; but a national religion, thus associated with the civil polity, is necessarily exclusive, and impatient of the rivalry of other creeds. Intolerance lies in the very nature of a religion which, dividing the whole world into the realm of two conflicting principles, raises one part of mankind into a privileged order, as followers of the good principle, and condemns the other half as the irreclaimable slaves of the evil one. The national worship is identified with that of Ormusd, and the kingdom of Ormusd must be purified from the intrusion of the followers of Ahriman. The foreign relations, so to speak, of the Persian monarchy, according to their old poetical history, are strongly coloured by their deep-rooted religious opinions. Their implacable enemies, the pastoral Tartar or Turcoman tribes, inhabit the realm of darkness, and invade at times and desolate the kingdom of light; till some mighty Monarch, or some redoubtable hero, re-asserts the majesty, and revenges the losses, of the kingdom of Ormusd. Iran and Turan are the representatives of the two conflicting worlds of light and darkness. In the same spirit, to expel, to persecute the followers of other religions, was to eject, to trample upon the followers of Ahriman. The edict of Artaxerxes closed all the temples but those of the fire-worshippers. Of the loss sustained by Christianity during the conflict we have no record. The persecutions by the followers of Zoroaster are only to be traced at a other circumstances, he concludes, that both the history and writings of this Prophet were probably invented in the later ages. The fundamental article of Zoroaster's system is the celebrated doctrine of these two principles; being an attempt of Eastern philosophy to reconcile the existence of moral and physical evil with the attributes of a wise and benevolent Creator of the world. The primary and original principle, by whom all things exist, is termed by Zoroaster, "Time without bounds." From its operation were from all eternity produced the active principles Ormusd and Ahriman; each possessed of the power of creation, but disposed to exercise it with different designs. Ormusd is the benevolent author of everything conducive to virtue and happiness. Ahriman is the malignant power, "who has pierced the egg of Ormusd," or mingled evil with all the good of his production. At the final consummation, goodness shall be triumphant over its opposite: Ahriman and its followers will sink into their native darkness, and virtue will maintain the universe in everlasting concord. Zoroaster died n.c. 513. Afterwards, the system which he had established was disturbed by a thousand schisms; many reforms were introduced; but the religion gradually sank to a mere idolatrous worship of the fire and the sun.

PERSECUTION IN ARMENIA.

later period, in Armenia, and in the Babylonian province; but Persia, from this time until the fiercer persecutions of their own brethren forced the Nestorian Christians to overleap every obstacle, presented a stern and insuperable barrier to the progress of Christianity.* It cut off all connexion with the Christian communities in the remoter East.†

But while Persia fiercely repelled Christianity from its frontier, upon that frontier arose a Christian state. Armenia was the first country which embraced Christianity as the religion of the King, the nobles, and the people. During the early ages of the empire, Armenia had been an object of open contention, or of political intrigue, between the conflicting powers of Parthia and of Rome. The adoption of Christianity as the religion of the State, while it united the interests of the kingdom by a closer bond with the Christian empire of Rome, added to its perilous situation on the borders of the two empires a new cause for the implacable hostility of Persia. Every successful invasion, and every subtle negotiation to establish the Persian predominance in Armenia, was marked by the most relentless and sanguinary persecutions; which were endured with the combined dignity of Christian and patriotic heroism by the afflicted people. The Patriarch was always the first victim of the Persian conquest. The Armenian histories, written, almost without exception, by the priesthood, in order to do honour to their native country by its early reception of Christianity, have included the Syrian kingdom of Edessa within its borders, and assigned a place to the celebrated Abgar in the line of their Kings. The supposed personal correspondence of Abgarus with the divine Author of Christianity is, of course, incorporated in this early legend. But though, no doubt, Christianity had made considerable progress at the commencement of the third century, the government of Armenia was still sternly and irreconcilably Pagan. Khosrov I. imitated the cruel and impious Pharaoh.‡ He compelled the Christians, on a scanty stipend, to labour on the public works. Many obtained the glorious crown of martyrdom. Ultimately Khosrov was assassinated through the jealous ambition of the King of Persia: the assassin was pursued, and lost his life in the flight. The vengeance of the soldiery wreaked itself on the family of the murderer, whose

* Sozomen, indeed, asserts, that Christianity was first introduced into the Persian dominions at a later period, from their intercourse with Osroene and Armenia. But it is very improbable that the active zeal of the Christians, in the first ages of the religion of Christ, should not have taken advantage of the mild and tolerant government of the Parthian Kings. "Parthians and Elamites," that is, Jews inhabiting those countries, are mentioned as among the converts on the day of Pentecost. (Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 8.)

† Milman, History of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 316.

‡ Khosrov, after the custom of the Armenian Monarchs, began to add improvements to his kingdom; erecting cities, towns, and villages, and adorning them with palaces, caravansaries, and other public buildings. In imitation of the persecution of the Jews by Pharaoh, this Prince compelled all the Christians he found in his dominions to labour at these works, giving them but what was barely sufficient to support life as a remuneration. Many were put to death by him on account of their faith, and thus obtained the glorious crown of martyrdom. (History of Armenia, by Father Michael Chamich. Translated from the original Armenian, by Johannes Ardall, Esq. 8vo. 2 vols. Vol. i., p. 153. Calcutta, at the Bishop's-College press.)

2 K 2 infant alone escaped through the instrumentality of a Christian nurse, and afterwards became Gregory the Apostle of Armenia. The whole family of Khosrov was put to death except Tiridates, who fled to the Romans, and served with distinction in the armies of Diocletian, and seized a favourable opportunity of recovering the throne of his ancestors. The re-establishment of Armenia, as a friendly power, was an important event in the Eastern policy of Rome: the simultaneous conversion of the empire and its Eastern ally to the new religion, strengthened the bonds of union by a common religious interest. Gregory re-entered his native country in the wake of the triumphant Tiridates, who was still an indomitable Pagan, professing the Magian system. He had resolved to offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving for his restoration to his hereditary throne, and Gregory was commanded to assist. But he resolutely refused; and endured, according to the Armenian history, twelve different kinds of torture; and was then immured in a deep dungeon, where he languished fourteen years, supported by the faithful charity of a Christian female. At the end of that period, we are told that the sister of Tiridates embraced the faith, and advised the release of Gregory; who, on his enlargement, healed the King, who was suffering from a direful malady which was then awfully prevalent. The pestilence ceased; the King and his nobles submitted to baptism, and Armenia became Christianized. The province of Dara, the sacred spot in the estimation of the Armenians, which was crowded with their temples, made a stern and dogged resistance. The heathen priesthood fought for their altars with desperate courage; and it was at the point of the sword only that Christian places of worship could be erected. Strong efforts were made to suppress Christianity; but, notwithstanding the stupendous measures which were adopted in order to succeed in their enterprise, they miserably failed, and the Christian church became triumphant.*

* According to the testimony of Father Chamich, Tiridates was invited to attend the Council at Nice, but was prevented doing so by important affairs in Armenia. Gregory was present, and returned with the celebrated Creed. On his arrival he assembled his Clergy, and, it is said, chanted a Te Deum. From this period Gregory withdrew himself from all intercourse with men, and, retiring into Upper Armenia, fixed his abode in a cavern in Mount Sepuh until his death. The whole time of his superintendence of the Armenian church was thirty years. Aristakes, a son of Gregory, succeeded his father in the pontifical chair: he governed the church with prudence and holiness; discharged the duties of his office with fidelity, so much so, that one of the Armenian Chiefs called Archelaus, having been admonished by the Prelate, was so irritated against him, that, waylaying the Pontiff while journeying on a visit to the province of the Zophs, he slew him. Aristakes was succeeded by his elder brother Vertannes, who was remarkable for his wisdom, piety, and zeal. But, notwithstanding the zealous efforts of Vertannes, many of the Armenian Chiefs relaxed from the strict observances of Christian piety, by taking concubines, and committing other indecencies. When Tiridates beheld these actions of his principal subjects, he besought them to desist from such iniquity, and to lead a life more consistent with the Christian faith: perceiving the inefficacy of his exhortations, and that the Chiefs daily departed from the paths of virtue, he became disgusted with the affairs of the world, and relinquished his earthly crown, in order to attempt the attainment of a heavenly one. He retired from the government, and secluded himself in the same place, on Mount Sepuh, where Gregory died, where he led a life of mortification and self-denial, devoting himself to the worship of his Creator and the blessed Saviour. The Chiefs then assembled together, and, after deliberating on the affairs of the kingdom, determined to endeavour to induce their old King to return, promising in that event to amend their lives. But he, knowing their ill disposition,

MARTYRDOM OF SIMEON, ARCHBISHOP OF SELEUCIA.

We are far from being surprised, when we consider the character of the belligerents, and the barbarous times in which they lived, that outbreaks of sanguinary cruelty and of rancorous hatred toward the Christian name should have been displayed, especially on the part of Sapor; * who attributed the alliance of Armenia with Rome, and the Christian character of both nations, as the grand cause of all his recent humiliation and defeat. All the Christians, over whom he was enabled to sway the sceptre, had but little mercy to anticipate at his hands. Among others, the Magi and idolatrous Priests accused Simeon, the Archbishop of Seleucia, Ctesiphon, another Bishop in Persia, and several other Ecclesiastics, to the number of one hundred and twenty-eight, before Sapor, with having betrayed the affairs of the Persians to the Romans. Sapor was enraged, and commanded Simeon to be brought before him: when he was introduced, he conducted himself throughout as a valiant champion of Christ, and worthy of the high profession which he bore. When the King commanded him to be tormented, he flinched not from the trial; nor, craven-like, did he sue for pardon. Sapor, wondering at his fortitude, asked why he did not kneel before him as heretofore. The Bishop replied, "Having free admittance to the royal presence, he did not scruple in conforming to the customary salutation of the country; but, being now brought before him a prisoner for the truth of his religion, and the cause of the Almighty Jehovah, it was no longer lawful for him to kneel, lest he should be thought to worship the Monarch of Persia, and betray his faith, which he was resolved to defend with his latest breath." Upon this declaration, which Sapor could no longer mistake, the King insisted upon his prompt and entire submission; and left it to his own choice, whether he would kneel and worship, after the custom of the country, promising great advantages if he complied with the mandate; and at the same time threatening, if he refused, to put him and all the Christians in the country to death.† Simeon, refused to resume his crown, for which they in revenge poisoned him. They attempted also to slay Vertaunes; but on their surrounding him to complete their bloody designs, their hands, it is said, were withheld by an invisible power, and the Bishop passed through them. (Chamich, History of Armenia, vol. i., p. 167.)

* King Hormisdas, the father of Sapor, dying, left his Queen pregnant; and the infant in the womb was immediately proclaimed King by the Magians, who went so far as to crown it, yet unborn, by placing the diadem for that purpose upon the mother. Thus Sapor was born King in 310, and lived seventy years, dying in 380; and the beginning of his reign was dated in 309, some months before his birth. He was the ninth King of the Saxanite, or fourth dynasty of the Persian Kings, founded by Artaxerxes, a Persian; who defeated and slew Artabanus, King of Parthia, in whom ended the Parthian empire, in the year of Christ 223, of the Greeks, or the Seleucids, 534, the third of the Emperor Alexander. Maruthas, in the Acts of the Martyrs, with the Persians of his time, computes the years from this epoch: thus, he says, the great persecution was begun in the thirty-first year of King Sapor, and the hundred and seventeenth of the Persian empire, that is, of the reign of the Saxanite, or last dynasty, which held that empire four hundred and eighteen years, till the rise of the Mahommedan kingdom. (Alban Butler.)

† The haughtiness of the King of Persia is manifest from an epistle which he addressed to the Roman Emperor: in that he styles himself the King of Kings, partner with the stars, and brother of the sun and moon. His hatred of the Roman name, as well as of the Christian, led this bitter tyrant to stretch forth his hands to vex the church in not less than three sanguinary persecutions. The first commenced in the eighteenth year of Sapor's reign, the second in his thirtieth, and the third in the thirty-first year; which however, was neither allured by the promises, nor terrified by the menaces, of the Monarch; and as he could not be drawn from his steadfastness, he was committed to prison, where he was kept until the Monarch's pleasure should be farther known. As Simeon was conducted to prison, he was observed by one Usthazares, an old servant in the family of the King, and a quondam tutor of Sapor, but who had renounced the faith of Christ, and rendered an easy compliance with the idolatrous customs of the Heathen. When he saw the venerable Simeon pass by, he saluted him: the pious Bishop at once sharply rebuked the apostate for so cowardly revolting from the profession of the faith, and again returning to the "beggarly elements" of Paganism. The thunderstruck Usthazares burst into tears; and, laying aside the various ornaments of his courtly dress, adopted the habiliments of mourning, and exclaimed, "Alas! woe is me! How shall I hereafter behold the Most High, whom I have so shamefully denied, when Simeon, my old companion and familiar acquaintance, disdains to give me one word, or even to return my salute?"

Intimation of this affair was speedily communicated to Sapor, who, highly incensed at the conduct of his former tutor, asked him what cause he had to grieve, and whether there was anything withheld from him that he could want or desire. Usthazares meekly answered, there was nothing that he wanted which this earth could afford; his grief was of a different nature, on account of which he justly mourned. That, in order to oblige the King of Persis, he had been induced to deny his God, and had, with great dissimulation, worshipped the sun, for which, he said, "I am deserving of a double death; first, for denying the Lord who bought me with his blood, and, secondly, for dissembling with my King." At the same time he solemnly protested that he would not again forsake the Creator of the world, in order to worship the creatures which he had made. Sapor was astonished at this sudden change, and doubted whether it would be best to treat him with lenity or rigour: he at length commanded him to be beheaded. As he went to the place of execution, he desired some respite while he forwarded a messenger to the Monarch, bearing the following intimation; namely, "that Usthazares did not die a traitor for any crime against the King, or the state; but only that, being a Christian, he would not deny his God:" he requested, also, that this declaration might be publicly read at the place of execution. This was highly satisfactory to the martyr, whose chief reason in so doing was, that, as his apostacy from Christ had caused many others to follow his example, these also, being informed that Usthazares died, not for any crime, but solely for the religion of Christ, last persecution was continued till the close of his reign. Sozomen says, "It would be difficult to relate in detail every circumstance respecting these sufferers, such as their names, their country, the mode of their martyrdom, and the species of torture to which they were subjected. I shall briefly state, that the number of men and women, whose names have been ascertained, and who were martyred during this period, has been computed to be upwards of sixteen thousand; while the multitude of martyrs whose names were unknown was so great, that the Persians, the Syrians, and the inhabitants of Edessa, have failed in all their efforts to compute the number." (Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 14.)

USTHAZARES SUFFERS MARTYROOM.

might be induced to return to the church, and become fervent and constant in the faith. The martyr then cheerfully surrendered his neck to the stroke of the executioner, and received his crown. Simeon, who was still in prison, hearing of the heroic conduct of Usthazares, returned thanks to the Most High for the grace of repentance and of courage which he had vouchsafed to his fallen servant, in suffering him to recover from his lapsed state, and to glorify him by his death. On the following day,* the Prelate was again brought before the King, and again refusing to comply with the royal commands to worship the sun after the Persian manner, or to adore the King, the following colloquy is said to have taken place:—"Simeon, what is the result of this night's deliberation? Do you accept of my mercy, or do you persist in disobeying me, and choose death? Adore the sun but once, and never adore it again unless you please. On that condition I promise you all liberty, security, and protection." Simeon replied, "I will never be guilty of such a crime and scandal." The King said, "I call to remembrance our former friendship, on which account I wished you well, and have given you signal proofs of my lenity; but you contemn my benevolence. Impute, therefore, all to yourself." Simeon said, "Flatter me not: why am not I speedily sacrificed? The table is ready prepared for me, and the happy hour of my banquet calls me." The King, turning to his nobles, said, "Behold the wonderful dignity of his countenance, and the venerable majesty of his person. I have seen many countries, but never beheld such a graceful face and such comely limbs. Yet see the madness of the man: he is obstinately bent on dying for his error." To this they all answered, "O King, your wisdom cannot so much admire the beauty of his body, as not to regard more the minds which he has corrupted." The King forthwith commanded him to be beheaded, and he was removed.

At the same time one hundred other Christians were led forth to suffer; among whom were five Bishops, some Priests and Deacons,

* It was in the thirty-first year of Sapor's reign, that he resolved to abolish the Christian name, and decreed that whosoever embraced it should be made a slave. Simeon wrote to him a letter, which manifested a courage which a truly apostolic spirit only could dictate. To the numerous threats of the King against the community to which he belonged, and against himself, he replied, "As Jesus willingly offered himself to death for the whole world, and by dying on the cross redeemed it, why shall I be afraid to lay down my life, with the care of whose salvation I am charged? I desire not to live, unless I may continue unspotted and undefiled. God forbid that I should purchase life at the hazard of those souls for which Jesus died. I am not so slothful as to fear to walk in his steps, to tread the path of his passion, and to share in the communion of his sacrifice. As to your threats against my people, they do not want for courage to die for their salvation." The King, receiving this answer, trembled with wrath, and immediately dictated a decree, commanding all Priests and Deacons to be put to death, the churches to be levelled with the ground, and the sacred vessels to be converted to profane uses. He added, "And let Simeon, the leader of wicked men, who despises my royal majesty, worships only the God of Cæsar, and contemns my divinity, be brought and arraigned before me." The Jews, naturally enemies to the Christians, seeing the circumstances favourable to their malice, said to the King, "If you write, O King, to the Roman Emperor, he will take no notice of your letter; but at a poor line from Simeon he will arise, adore and embrace it with both hands, and command all things contained in it to be instantly put in execution." Simeon was apprehended and bound in chains with two others, Abdhaicla and Hananias, Priests of his church.

and others of the inferior Clergy. As they were led out to execution, the chief of the Magi, or principal Judge, said to them, "If any one of you will adore the sun, the great god, let him step forth, his life shall be granted him." But not one of them accepted life at this rate; all of whom asserted, in language similar to the following, "Our faith in God teaches us to contemn your torments: your swords cannot deprive us of the firm hopes of our resurrection: your pretended deity we will never adore." The officers accordingly applied themselves to the task of slaying these martyrs. Simeon exhorted them to constancy, and reasoned concerning death, the resurrection, and piety, and showed them, from the sacred Scriptures, that a death like this is true life, whereas to live, and through fear to deny God, is truly death. He assured them, also, that even if no one were to slay them, death would inevitably overtake them, as the natural consequence of our birth; and that, after this short and transitory life, an account must be rendered of our actions; after which we enter upon another life, wherein piety receives eternal rewards, and vice is visited with endless punishment. He likewise told them, that the most glorious of good actions is to die for the cause of God. The various martyrs eagerly listened to this discourse of Simeon, and with alacrity went forth to meet their death; after which Simeon also received the stroke of the axe, together also with his two companions, Abdhaicla and Hananias. As the latter was preparing himself for the executioner, by removing or adjusting his garments, he was seized with a violent and altogether involuntary trembling. Pusicius, who had recently been promoted by the King to the office of Superintendent or Prefect of all the artisans employed on the royal works, perceiving the tremor, as the necessary preparations for his death were made, he said to him, "O, old man, close your eyes, and be of good courage; for you will soon behold the light of Christ!" No sooner had he uttered these words than he was arrested, and conducted before the King; and as he frankly avowed himself a Christian, and spoke with great boldness concerning the truth of his religion, and the innocence of the martyrs, he was summarily dealt with. The King having reproached him with ingratitude for the honour lately conferred upon him, Pusicius answered, "I could desire to exchange my life for their death. I renounce this your honour, full of cares and trouble, and beg their death, than which nothing can be more happy." Then the Monarch said, "Do you despise your dignity, and prefer death? Are you a madman?" Pusicius replied, "I am a Christian; and, by a most certain hope in God, I prefer their death to your honours." Sapor, being enraged, said to his attendants, "This man must not die by any common death, but by one that is extraordinary and cruel." He therefore commanded that the back of his neck should be cut through into his mouth, and his tongue plucked out by the roots through the wound. This sentence was executed with extreme rigour, and Pusicius expired the same hour: immediately after his daughter, who had devoted herself to a life of celibacy, was arraigned and executed.*

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 10, 11.

PERSECUTION IN PERSIA AWFULLY INCREASES.

The following year, on the day on which the passion of Christ was commemorated, and when preparations were being made for the celebration of the festival of his resurrection from the dead, Sapor issued a most cruel edict throughout Persia, condemning to death all those who should confess themselves to be Christians; and it is said, that an immense number of the faithful perished, without any trial or form of judicature. The swords of the furious were everywhere unsheathed. Christians looked upon their slaughter as their glory, and courageously went out to meet it. They had even in this life the advantage of their enemies, who often trembled, or were fatigued, while the persecuted professors of the truth remained unshaken; so that, to adopt the language of Maruthas,* "the cross grew and budded upon rivers of blood, the troops of the saints exulted with joy, and, being refreshed by the sight of that sign, were themselves animated with fresh vigour, and inspired others continually with new courage." From the sixth hour on Good Friday to the second Sunday of Pentecost, the slaughter was continued without interruption. The Magi sought diligently in the cities and villages for those who had concealed themselves; and many voluntarily surrendered, lest they should appear, by their silence, to deny Christ. The report of this edict no sooner reached distant cities, than the Governors threw all the Christians into prisons, to be butchered as soon as the edict arrived; and when it appeared among them, they were either stabbed, or had their throats cut on the spot. Of the Christians who were thus unsparingly sacrificed, many were attached to the palace, among whom was Azadas, who was especially beloved by the King: he was so affected at his death, that he issued another edict, putting a stop to the indiscriminate slaughter of the faithful, and directing that the teachers of religion only should be slain. It was also about this time, that the Queen of Sapor was attacked by a disease, and that Tarbula, the sister of the martyred Simeon the Bishop, a holy virgin, was arrested; likewise her sister, who was a widow, and had abjured a second marriage; also her servant, who, like herself, was devoted to a religious life. The cause of their arrest was the calumny of the Jews,† who reported that they had injured the Queen by their enchantments, in revenge for the death of Simeon. They replied to the accusation by asserting that the law of God allowed no more of enchantment than of idolatry; and then being told that they had done it out of revenge, Tarbula answered, that they had no reason to revenge her brother's death, inasmuch as through it he had obtained eternal life in the kingdom of heaven; revenge was also strictly forbidden by the law of Almighty

* Maruthas, Bishop of Tagrit, in Mesopotamia, compiled the Acts of the Martyrs who suffered in Persia, during the forty years of Sapor's persecution, from A.D. 340 to A.D. 380, part of which collection has been recovered, and published by Stephen Assemannus in 1748.

† "As invalids easily give credit to the most frightful representations, the Queen believed the calumny, and especially because it emanated from the Jews; for she had great confidence in their veracity, and in their attachment for herself: she had embraced their sentiments, and lived in the observance of the Jewish rites." (Sozom., Hist. Eccles., Bb. II., cap. 12.)

2 L

God. After this they were remanded to prison. It is said that Tarbula was extremely beautiful, and that one of the Magi, a Judge, having become deeply enamoured of her, he sent some money secretly to her the next day, with a message, that if she would consent to marry him, he would obtain her pardon and liberty of the King. She, it is said, refused the offer with indignation, asserting that she had consecrated her all to Jesus Christ, and that she feared not death, which would open to her the way to her dear brother, and to eternal rest. The other two Judges privately made to her similar proposals, but were rejected in like manner. These "unjust Judges" made forthwith their report to the King, in which they represented the prisoners as guilty of the crime with which they were charged; but Sapor, believing they were innocent, was willing that their lives should be spared, and they restored to liberty, on the condition that they offered sacrifice to the sun. They declared that nothing should ever prevail upon them to give to a creature the honour which is due to God alone. The Magians immediately exclaimed, "They are unworthy to live by whose spells the Queen is wasting in sickness." The Magi were therefore required to assign the punishment by which the party should die: they therefore determined, that out of regard to the Queen's recovery, their bodies should be sawn in two, a part of each should be placed on each side of a road, and that the Queen should pass between them, as a charm which should restore her to health.* Even after this sentence, the admirer of Tarbula found means to let her know, that it was still in her power to prevent her death by consenting to marry him. But she cried out with indignation, "Most impudent of men, how could you again entertain such a dishonest thought? For me courageously to die is to live; but life purchased by baseness is worse than any death." When they were come to the place of execution, each person was tied to two stakes, and with a saw was divided in two; each half, thus separated, was cut into six parts, and these, being thrown into so many baskets, were hung on two forked stakes, placed in the

* There is something difficult in accounting for this sentence upon Tarbula and her companions. There is apparently an allusion to the ancient method of making covenants; from the word convenio, signifying an agreement, association, or meeting between two or more parties; for it is impossible that a covenant can be made between an individual and himself, whether God or man. For whatever purpose a covenant was made, it was ever ratified by a sacrifice offered to God; and the passing between the divided parts of the victim appears to have signified that each agreed, if they broke their engagements, to submit to the punishment of being cut asunder, which, we find from Matt. xxiv. 51, and Luke xii. 46, was an ancient mode of punishment. This is farther confirmed by Herodotus, who says that Sabachus, King of Ethiopia, had a vision, in which he was ordered to cut in two all the Egyptian Priests. We find also, from the same author, that Xerxes ordered one of the sons of Pythius to be cut in two, and one half to be placed on each side of the way, that his army might pass through between them. That this kind of punishment was used among the Persians, we have proof from Dan. ii. 5; iii. 29; Story of Susanna, 55, 59. See, further, 2 Sam. xii. 31, and 1 Chron. xx. 3. These authorities may be sufficient to show that the passing between the parts of the divided victims, signified the punishment to which those exposed themselves who broke their covenant engagements. That covenant sacrifices were thus divided among the Heathen, even from the remotest antiquity, seems to be intimated by Homer, Ibid A., v. 460. But is the paragraph to which we have alluded, the veritable and significant custom seems to have degenerated into a vile and superstitious form.

MARTYROOM OF ACEPSIMAS AND OTHERS.

figure of half crosses, leaving an open path between them, through which the Queen superstitiously passed the same day. Maruthas adds, that no sight could be more shocking or barbarous, than this spectacle of the martyrs' limbs, cruelly mangled and exposed to scorn.

Maruthas closes his history of the persecutions of Sapor with an account of the following martyrs. In an advanced stage of these persecutions another edict was published, commanding the Governors and Magistrates to punish all Christians with racks, scourges, and stoning, and various kinds of death, laying to their charge the following articles:—That they abolish the doctrines of the Magi; they teach men to worship one only God, and forbid them to adore the sun or fire; they use water for profane washing; they forbid persons to marry, to be soldiers in the King's army, or to strike any one; they permit all kinds of animals to be killed, and they suffer the dead to be buried; they say, that serpents and scorpions were made, not by the devil, but by God himself. Acepsimas, Bishop of Honita, in Assyria, a man above fourscore years old, but of a vigorous and strong constitution of body, was apprehended, and conducted in chains to Arbela, before the Governor. The Judges wondered how he could deny the divinity of the sun, which all the East adored. The martyr answered him by expressing his astonishment how men could prefer a creature to the Creator. By the orders of the Governor, he was laid on the ground, with his feet bound, and in that posture barbarously scourged, till his whole body was covered with blood, after which he was thrown into prison. In the mean time, one Joseph, a Presbyter of Bethelatuba, and Aithalas, a Deacon of Bethundra, celebrated for eloquence, sanctity, and learning, were brought before the same Governor. To his interrogatories Joseph answered, that he was a Christian, and had always taught that the sun was an inanimate creature. He was then stretched on the ground, and beaten by ten executioners, who succeeded one another, till his body seemed one continued wound. At the sight of himself in this condition, the martyr said, "I return thanks, that Christ, the Son of God, has granted me this mercy, and washed me with this second baptism of my blood." His courage the persecutors termed an insult, and renewed, with redoubled fury, their attempts to torture and maltreat him. After he was loosened, he was laden with heavy chains, and thrown into the same dungeon with Acepsimas; and Aithalas was introduced, to whom the Governor said, "Adore the sun, which is a divinity; eat blood, marry, and obey the King; and you shall live." The martyr answered, "It is better to die, and then live eternally." By the command of the Judge, his hands were tied under his knees, and his body fastened to a beam, when, by extreme pressure, and various contortions, his bones were in many places either dislocated or fractured, and his flesh was lacerated: he was afterwards scourged; and then, on the shoulders of the attendants, conveyed to prison. On the following day, all the three martyrs were again brought forth, stretched on the ground, bound fast with cords, their legs, thighs, and ribs so tortured and strained by stakes, that the noise of their bones break-

2 L 2 ing is said to have filled the place with horror.* Yet to every solicitation of the Judge or officers their answer invariably was, "We trust in one God, and will not obey the King's edicts." Scarcely a day passed, in which some new torture was not invented and exercised upon them.

After they had for three years endured the hardship of imprisonment and daily torture, the King taking a journey into Media, the martyrs were brought before Adarsapor, the chief of the Governors of the East, other Satraps, and various official characters, sitting with him in the palace. The victims of persecution were unable to walk, and scarce retained the appearance of human creatures. The sight of such spectacles affected those who were present to compassion, and many even to tears. They, without any appearance of fear, again professed their attachment to Christianity, and declared that they

* This mode of torture appears to have been peculiar to the country, and in some degree synonymous with the punishment of the bastinado, though inflicted with much greater severity. A short account of this mode of torture is given by Mr. Antes. On the 15th of November, 1779, Mr. Antes was returning from a short country excursion, to Grand Cairo: he was seized by some of the attendants of Osman Bey, a Mameluko Chief; and, after stripping him of his clothes, they demanded money, which he not having about him, they dragged him before the Bey, telling him that he was a European, from whom he might get something. In order to extort money from him, the Bey ordered him to be bastinado: they first threw him down flat on his face, and then bent up his legs, so that the soles of his feet were horizontal; they then brought a strong staff, about six feet long, with an iron chain fixed to it at both ends. This chain they threw round both feet above the ankles, and twisted them together; and two follows on each side, provided with what they call a *corbige*, held up the soles of the feet by means of the stick. When thus placed, an officer whispered in his ear, "Do not suffer yourself to be beaten: give him a thousand dollars, and he will let you go." Mr. Antes, not willing to give up the money which he had received for the goods of other merchants, refused: the two men then began to beat the soles of his feet, at first, moderately; but when a second application for money was refused, and then the demand was two thousand dollars, they began to lay on more roughly, and every stroke felt like the application of a red-hot poker. Finding they could get no money, supposing he might have some choice goods, a third application was made to him by the officer. He told them, he had a fine silver-mounted blunderbuss at his lodging, which he would give. The Bey asked what he offered. The officer sneered, and said, *Bir carabina*; that is, "One blunderbuss." On which the Bey said, *Ettrap it knip*, "Beat the dog." Then they began to lay on with all their might. "At first," says Mr. Antes, "the pain was excruciating; but, after some time, my feeling grew numb, and it was like beating a bag of wool." Finding that nothing was to be got from him, and knowing that he had done nothing to deserve punishment, the Bey ordered them to let him go. One of the attendants anointed his feet, and bound them up with some rage, put him on an ass, and conducted him to his house in Cairo, and laid him on his bed, where he was confined for six weeks, before he could walk even with crutches; and for more than three years his feet and ankles were very much swollen; and though twenty years had elapsed when he published this account, his feet and ankles were so affected, that, on any strong exertion, they were still accustomed to swell. He mentions instances of the bastinado having been applied for three days successively; and, if the person survived, the feet were rendered useless for life; but, in general, he observes, when they have received between five and six hundred strokes, the blood gushes from the mouth and nose, and they die either under or soon after the operation. How he felt his mind affected on this distressing occasion, he thus piously describes:—"I at once gave up myself for lost, well knowing that my life depended upon the caprice of a brute in human shape; and having heard and seen such examples of unrelenting cruelty, I could not expect to fare better than others had done before me. I had therefore nothing left, but to cast myself on the mercy of God, commending my soul to him: and, indeed, I must in gratitude confess, that I experienced his support most powerfully; so that all fear of death was taken from me; and, if I could have bought my life for one halfpenny, I should, I believe, have hesitated to accept the offer." (Observations on the Manners, &c., of the Egyptians, by J. Antes, Esq., p. 146, 12mo., Dublin, 1801.)

MARTYRDOM OF JOSEPH AND AITHALAS.

would not abandon the faith. Adarsapor said, that he saw, by their wounds, what they had already suffered, and used both threats and entreaties to induce them to comply with the law. They requested him to hasten the execution of his threatenings: he, however, assured them, that "death delivers criminals from pain; although I," said he, "will render life to you as grievous as a continued death, that others of your sect may tremble." To these words Acepsimas replied, "In vain do you threaten. God, in whom we trust, will give us courage and constancy." At this answer, fury flashed in the eyes of Adarsapor; and he swore, by the fortune of the King, that if they did not at that instant obey the regal edicts, he would sprinkle their grey hairs with their blood, destroy their bodies, and cause their remains to be ground to powder. Acepsimas said, "To you we resign our bodies, and commend to God our souls. Execute what you threaten: it is what we desire." The tyrant, with rage painted in every feature of his countenance, ordered the venerable old man to be stretched on the ground; and thirty men, fifteen on each side, were directed to pull and haul the sufferer by cords tied to his arms and legs, so as to dislocate and almost tear his limbs asunder;* two common executioners, in the mean time, were cruelly to scourge his body, and to mangle and tear off the flesh in several places: under this torture the martyr expired. His remains were watched by guards appointed for that purpose; till, after three days, they were removed by the Christians, and interred, by the care of a daughter of the King of Armenia, who was at that time a hostage in Media.

Joseph and Aithalas underwent similar treatment, but came alive out of the hands of the tormentors. The latter said to the Judge, while under his torments, "Your inflictions are too mild: increase them as you please." Adarsapor was struck with astonishment at their fortitude, and observed to those that were around him, "These men are greedy of torments, as though they were a banquet; and long for a kingdom that is invisible." He then caused them to be tortured afresh: every part of the body was mangled anew, and the joints of their shoulders and arms were dislocated. Adarsapor gave an order, that if they did not expire under their torments, they should be taken back to their own country, and there put to death.† The

* Alban Butler, Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, Saints, &c., Mar. 14.

† Maruthas was the recorder of the acts of these Persian martyrs, whose writings were published by Asseman, in his "Acta Mart. Orient." With regard to the martyrdom of Aithalas, he informs us, that angels were heard singing at the place of his execution, and many miracles wrought. The industrious, but fearfully superstitious, Alban Butler adopts this passage without explanation, or reservation on the point of authenticity and genuineness. These Acts or Passions of the martyrs, when they were carefully taken and preserved genuine, without corruption, were commonly read in the church upon the anniversary commemoration and proper festival of the martyr. The third Council of Carthage, which forbids all other books to be read in the church besides the canonical Scriptures, excepts the Passions of the martyrs, (Con. Carth. iii., can. 47: "Lieut. legi Passiones martyrum, cum anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur,") as books that might be read on their anniversary day's commemoration. Augustine, Pope Leo, and Gelasius often mention the reading of such histories in the African and Roman churches. Cassarius Arelateus, Alcimus Avitus, and Ferreolus speak of the same in the French churches. And some think, not improbably, that such sort of histories and Passions of the martyrs had particularly the name of legends, "legends;" upon this account, two martyrs, not being able to sit, were tied on the backs of beasts, and in extreme pain were conveyed to Arbela, the guard treating them by the way with unparalleled barbarity. Jazdundocta, an illustrious lady of the city, for a large sum of money, obtained leave of the Governor, that the sufferers should be conducted to her house, in order to take some refreshment. She was a Christian, and bathed and dressed their wounds, and was greatly encouraged by their exhortations and their faith. The martyrs were shortly conveyed from this lady's house to prison, where they languished six months longer. A new Governor at length came into that province, who is reported to have been the most savage of men, bringing an edict of the King, commanding that Christians who were condemned to death should be stoned by those who professed the same religion. The intelligence of his arrival drove the Christians into the woods and deserts, that they might not be compelled to imbrue their hands in the blood of any pertaining to the "noble army of martyrs." The brutal soldiery hunted them like beasts of the earth, and many were captured. The two confessors were brought before the new Judge. Joseph was hung up by the toes, and scourged during two hours, in the presence of the Governor, who, his victim referring to the day of the resurrection in some words which escaped from his lips, asked, "In that resurrection, how do you intend to punish me?" The martyr replied, "We are taught meekness, to return good for evil, and to pray for enemies." "Well," said the Judge, "then I shall meet with kindness from your hands for the evil which you here receive from me." To which the martyr answered, "There will be then no room for pardon or favour; nor will one be able to help the other. I will pray that God will bring you to a knowledge of himself in this life." The Judge responded, "Consider these things in the next world, whither I am going to send you: at present, obey the King." The old man answered, "Death is our desire." The Governor then began to interrogate Aithalas, and afterwards caused him to be hung up by the heels for a long time. He was at because they were used to be read in the church on the festivals of the martyrs: but the fabulous writers of lives, such as the author of the Golden Legend, and other Monkish impostors, have since written the lives of saints and martyrs in such a scandalous manner as to alter the signification of a good old word, and make a legend pass for a romantic fiction, and mere imposture. Of which learned men even in the Roman Church, such as Ludovicus Vives, and Melchior Canus, and Papebrochius, (Papebrech. Const. Histor. Chronol., p. 43,) and Pagi, (Pagi, Crit. in Baron. A.D. 302, § 18, 19,) have made frequent and just complaints; confessing, that even their Breviaries and Passionals are often filled with such monstrous fables as would make a wise man blush to hear or read them in the public offices of the church, and which they desire heartily to see perfectly reformed. Particularly Pagi exposes the fiction of Ursula, (Pagi, Crit. in Baron. A.D. 382, § 3,) and her eleven thousand companions, all virgins, said to be martyred at Cologne at one time under Cyricius, a Pope that never was in being; and he tells us the Roman Martyrology and Breviary have dropped the number as an incredible fiction; as also did the Cologne editors, and the school of the Sorbonne, retaining the name of Ursula, but being ashamed of her eleven thousand companions, notwithstanding that Hermannus Crombak wrote a large volume, called Ursula Vindicata, to defend this monstrous fable. It were easy to give many other such instances; but this one is sufficient to show the difference between the modern Passionals, and the simplicity of those of the ancient church, the reading of which was one part of their solemn exercise upon these festivals. (Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xx., chap. vii., § 5, vol. vii., p. 109. Edit. 8vo., 1834.)

AFFLICTED STATE OF THE PERSIAN CHRISTIANS.

length taken down; and, in order to move him to obey the iniquitous mandate, he was shown a certain Manichæan, who had renounced his religion for fear of persecution, and was engaged in killing ants, which that sect held to be unlawful, teaching that insects and beasts have rational souls. Aithalas was then stretched on the ground, and scourged until he fell into a swoon, and then was thrown on one side, like a dog. A certain Magian, out of pity, threw a coat over his wounds, to cover them; for which act of kindness he received two hundred lashes. Thamsapor, a superior officer in the country, arriving at his place of residence, the Judge caused the martyrs to be carried before him. They were ordered to eat the blood of beasts, which they refused to do. One told them, that if they ate the juice of red grapes curdled, which the people might think to be blood, it would satisfy the Judges. They answered, "God forbid that we should dissemble our faith." Thamsapor and the Governor, after a short consultation, condemned both to be stoned to death by Christians. Joseph was executed at Arbela. He was put into the ground up to the neck, and the soldiers had gathered together five hundred Christians to witness his execution. That noble lady, Jazdundocts, was also brought with them, and earnestly besought to throw something, if it were only a feather, at the martyr, that she might seem to obey the order of the King. But she resolutely resisted their entreaties and their threats, desiring to die with the servant of God. Many, however, complied with the mandate, through weakness; and a shower of stones fell upon the martyr, under which he expired. A guard was set to watch his remains; but the Christians found means to steal them away during a tempestuous evening which followed. Aithalas was martyred in the province of Bethunhadra: the Governor of the country, having recently apostatized from the faith, basely became one of his murderers. Sozomen informs us, that subsequently a multitude of Presbyters, Deacons, various other Ministers of the church, and numerous labourers in the word and doctrine, terminated their lives by martyrdom. One Dausas, who had been made a prisoner by the Persians, and brought from a place named Zabdaeus, died about this time also, in defence of the Christian faith; with whom must be associated Marcabdes Chorepiscopus,* and about two hundred and fifty of his Clergy, who having also been captured by the Persians, suffered.

* When churches were raised up in the neighbourhood of cities, the appointment of Chorepiscopi, or country Bishops, and of Visiting-Presbyters, both acting under the presbytery of the city, with its Bishop at its head, is sufficiently in proof that the ancient churches, especially the larger and more prosperous of them, existed in that form which, in modern times, we should call a religious connexion, subject to a common government. This appears to have arisen out of the very circumstance of the increase of the church, through the zeal of the first Christians; and in the absence of all direction by the Apostles, that every new society of believers raised should be formed into an independent church, it was doubtless much more in the spirit of the very first discipline exercised by the Apostles and Evangelists, (when none of the churches were independent, but remained under the government of those who had been chiefly instrumental in raising them up,) to place them under a common inspection, and to unite the work with the strong, and the newly converted with those who were "in Christ before them." There was also in this greater security afforded, both for the continuance of which some doctrine and gaily discipline. (Witness, Theology Institute, Works, vol. 24, p. 186)

We shall conclude our brief account of the Persian martyrs by giving a statement of the sufferings of Bardemus,* a native of Bethle-pat, a small town on the frontiers of Mesopotamia, then in the hands of the Persians. He was educated in the principles of the Christian religion, and quitted the world, and all hope of advancement in it, to embrace a retired life, which custom had recently been introduced into Persia. It had long been practised in Armenia, where it commenced shortly after the introduction of the Gospel into that country. In the execution of this design, Bardemus distributed the greater part of his property to the poor; and with the rest, it is said, he erected a religious house, which he endowed; and, being accompanied by others actuated by principles similar to his own, he presided over them with mildness and affability, and lived in the practice of the religion of Christ. In the persecution which Sapor had raised against the church, Bardemus and seven of his companions were seized, and sent to prison. The former was treated with much less mercy than his associates, being regarded as their leader and chief: he was severely scourged every day, and endured a variety of afflictions during an imprisonment of four months; nothing, however, could depress his fortitude, or disturb his confidence in God, whose promises were the song of his rejoicing in every circumstance and place. Narses, a man of considerable rank, and Governor of Aria, was in the prison at the same time, and for the same cause: he had been solicited to pay divine honours to the sun; and, upon refusing, had been treated with great severity. Wearied out with the miseries he endured, he unhappily exchanged the reward of perseverance for the deceitful and transitory joys of the present life, and intimated to the Emperor his disposition to obey his orders. The Prince, pleased with his change of mind, and willingness to submit to his decree, sent two officers of the court to inform him, that if he would regain his liberty, and recover his estate, he must convince them of his sincerity by becoming the executioner of Bardemus. Like Demas of old, Narses was determined to purchase his ease at any rate: he embraced the proposal, and was conveyed to the palace, attended by the martyr in irons. He drew his sword, and prepared to execute his office; but his hand trembled, and he was seized with terror, which left in him no power of motion. Bardemus, observing his condition, manifested pity and compassion for his apostate executioner, and, thinking this a favourable opportunity for restoring him to the profession of the faith he had renounced, endeavoured to show him the enormity of his

* About this period Milles suffered martyrdom. He originally served the Persians in a military capacity, but afterwards abandoned that vocation, in order to embrace the apostolical mode of life. It is related, that he was ordained Bishop over a Persian city, where he underwent a variety of sufferings; and that, failing in his efforts to convert the inhabitants to Christianity, he uttered imprecations against the city, and departed. Not long after, some of the principal citizens incurred the anger of the King, and an army, with three hundred elephants, was sent against them; the city was utterly demolished, and corn was sown on its site. Milles, taking with him nothing but the holy book of the Gospels, repaired to Jerusalem to worship; thence he proceeded to Egypt, in order to see the Monks. The extraordinary and admirable works which he accomplished are attested by the Syrians, who have written an account of his life and actions. (Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 14.)

FUTILITY OF ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH CHRISTIANITY.

crime, and the severity of the judgments of the Almighty at the last day. But that unhappy man had lost his faith, and was abandoned to his own corrupt and perverse inclinations as a punishment for his apostasy, his heart was hardened, and his conscience seared. As soon as he was somewhat recovered, he proceeded to the task on which his liberty and fortune were made to depend, but performed it in such a manner as showed a mixture of fear, confusion, and respect for the individual he was about to slay. He gave him several blows, but inflicted them with so little judgment and precision, that he had a slow and lingering martyrdom, which he endured with all that tranquillity which the hopes of glory inspire. Nurses received the promised reward, "the price of blood." He did not long enjoy the fruit of his shameless conduct. The hand of God was upon him, even of Him who had said, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm." Soon after the death of Bardemus, he fell into disgrace with his Prince, and came to a miserable end.

From what we have stated with regard to the persecutions in Persia, the great object of Sapor was the utter and complete destruction of the Christian name throughout his dominions. The futility of such schemes is obvious, especially when we take into the account the great persecutions of the Christians by the Roman Emperors. When the number of the faithful, to adopt the sentiments of a modern writer,* who were put to death in each of those persecutions is considered, the only wonder is that there were any left, either to suffer for the Gospel, or to publish it abroad through the world. Some idea of the numbers slain may be learned from the nature of those persecutions. In the tenth, so called, under Diocletian, in 303, that Emperor in his edict commanded all the churches to be demolished, and the Christians to be deprived of their sacred writings, and of all civil privileges; another edict commanded the imprisonment of all Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel; a third, that the most exquisite tortures should be employed to constrain them to apostatize; a fourth enjoined that the Magistrates use the severest tortures on all Christians, without regard to sex or age, for the purpose of forcing them to renounce the religion of Christ. One historian says, that twenty thousand Christians were burnt by Diocletian's orders on one Christmas-day; and yet those bloody edicts extended over all the Roman empire, except Gaul, and were executed with such zeal, that pillars were erected in honour of this bloody Emperor, for having everywhere abolished the superstition of Christ. Vain boast! Everywhere abolished Christianity! And yet, in twenty-five years from this time, when Constantine swayed the sceptre, we are told the Christians were numerous both at Rome and in the provinces. So true it is, that the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church, or, as Tertullian expresses it in his Apology, "The more you mow us down, the thicker we rise: the Christian blood you spill, is like the seed you sow; it springs from the earth again, and fructifies the more." How true it is that our whole inheritance of liberty and blessing is the price of blood! Not

* Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine, vol. iv., p. 420, fourth series, abridged edition, Mason, 1848.

2 M only our national independence, and our rich civil privileges, but our rights of conscience, all our religious privileges, from our Saviour's crucifixion down to the present time, have been the price of blood. What a boon of blessings have our predecessors bequeathed unto us! A review of their sufferings should impress us with gratitude for the more auspicious times in which our lot is fallen, and awaken in us a quenchless desire to make the best possible improvement of our patrimony.

While Christianity appeared to make rapid progress towards the subjugation of the world to its influence, the world was making fearful reprisals on Christianity. By enlisting new passions and interests in its cause, religion surrendered itself to an inseparable fellowship with those passions and interests. The more it mingles with the tide of human affairs, the more turbid becomes the stream of Christian history. In the intoxication of power, the Christian, like ordinary men, forgot his original character; and the religion of the Saviour, instead of diffusing peace and happiness through society, might, to the superficial observer of human affairs, seem introduced only as a new element of discord and misery into the community of man. The first act of the new reign was the murder of the nephews of the deceased Sovereign. This act, indeed, was that of a ferocious soldiery, though the memory of Constantius is not free from the suspicion, at least, of connivance in that bloody deed. Christianity appears only in a favourable light, as interposing between the assassins and their victim. Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa, saved Julian from his enemies: the future apostate was concealed under the altar of the church. Yet, on the accession of the sons of Constantine, to the causes of fraternal animosity, usual on the division of a kingdom between several brothers, was added that of religious hostility. The two Emperors, for they were speedily reduced to two, placed themselves at the head of the two contending parties in Christianity. The weak and voluptuous Constans adhered with inflexible firmness to the cause of Athanasius; the no less weak and tyrannical Constantius to that of Arianism. The East was arrayed against the West. At Rome, at Alexandria, at Sardica, and, afterwards, at Arles and Milan, Athanasius was triumphantly acquitted; at Antioch, at Philippopolis, and, finally, at Rimini, he was condemned with almost equal unanimity. Even within the church itself, the distribution of the superior dignities became an object of fatal ambition and strife. The streets of Alexandria and Constantinople were deluged with blood by the partisans of rival Bishops. In the latter an officer of high distinction, sent by the Emperor to quell the tumult, was slain, and his body treated with the utmost indignity by the infuriated populace.*

It was about the year 340 that Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, died. He had been a dangerous man in the church. He was, in the most obnoxious sense, a courtly Prelate; he associated with Arius, and joined in the condemnation of Athanasius. Milner observes, that it gives pain to part on such terms with the historian to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many valuable monuments of anti-

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 2.

PAUL, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

quity; but truth must be spoken, and his case is one of the many which show that learning and philosophy, unless duly subordinate to the revealed will of God, are no friends to Christian simplicity.* Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, died also about the same period, and Paul obtained the see. The followers of Arius and Macedonius assert that he took possession of this office without the concurrence of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, or of Theodore, Bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, upon whom, as being the nearest Bishops, the right of conferring ordination devolved. Many, however, maintain, on the testimony of Alexander, whom he succeeded, that he was ordained by the Bishops who were then assembled at Constantinople. For when Alexander, who was eighty-nine years of age, and who had held the episcopal office for twenty-three years, was at the point of death, his Clergy asked him whom he wished to succeed him in the government of his church. "If," replied he, "you seek a good man, and one who is apt to teach, you have Paul; but if you desire one who is conversant with public affairs, and able to confer with rulers, Macedonius is, in these respects, more qualified than Paul." The Macedonians themselves admit that this testimony was given by Alexander; but they say that Paul was the more skilled of the two in the transaction of business, and the art of eloquence, and that Macedonius was celebrated on account of the purity of his life and conduct; and they accuse Paul of having been addicted to luxury and licentiousness. It appears, however, from their own acknowledgment, that Paul was a man of great eloquence, and highly renowned on account of his skill in teaching the church. Events proved that he was not competent to combat the casualties of life, or to hold intercourse with those in power. He was never successful in subverting the machinations of his enemies, like those who are accustomed to the management of such affairs. Although the people were much attached to him, he suffered severely from the artifices of those who rejected the doctrines acknowledged by the Council of Nice. In the first place he was expelled from the church of Constantinople, as if some accusation had been established against him. He was then sent into banishment; and finally, it is said, fell a victim to the devices of his enemies, and was strangled.† These events transpired at some subsequent period. The election of Paul was far from being grateful to Constantius, who summoned a Council of Arians, and dictated its decisions. Paul was ejected from the see, and Eusebius of Nicomedia sprung into the vacant seat; and from that time Constantinople continued under an Arian episcopacy forty years. The ancient usages in choosing Bishops were altered, and a precedent was set of vesting in the hands of Princes the government of the church in capital cities. A Council of a hundred Bishops of Egypt, with Athanasius at their head, protested against these proceedings to the whole Christian world.‡

"Wars and rumours of wars" were still the fate of the church. The recent ordination of Paul occasioned great commotion. The adherents

* Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 538.

† Sozon., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 3.

‡ Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 538.

2 M 2 of Arius desired that Macedonius* should be installed, an individual whose heterodoxy was far from being doubtful. In this, however, his friends failed; but a Council was immediately convened at Antioch, which was supported by the presence of the Emperor, and by the artifices of Eusebius of Nicomedia; Athanasius was deposed, and Gregory of Cappadocia was ordained in his place. The Council prevailed on Constantius to direct Philagrius, the Prefect of Egypt, to support their proceedings with an armed force. Violence was thus found necessary to support iniquity, and an Arian Prince was obliged to tread in the steps of his pagan predecessors to support what he called the church. The views of Gregory were promoted with vigour. Virgins and Monks were cruelly treated at Alexandria. Jews and Pagans were encouraged to murder Christians. Gregory himself entered the church with the Governor and certain Pagans, and caused a number of the friends of Athanasius to be scourged and imprisoned. The persecuted Prelate himself, who wanted not courage and capacity to resist, acted, however, a much more Christian part. He fled before the storm, and took refuge in Rome. This was a memorable season for the church of Christ, who now found her livery to be that of persecution, even when Pagans had ceased to reign. Gregory would not suffer the Athanasians, who, in great numbers, still refused to own the Arian domination, even to pray in their own houses. The greatest severities were inflicted on those Bishops who had been zealous for the Nicene faith, though the decrees of the Council had never been reversed, and the Arians as yet contented themselves with ambiguous confessions, and the omission of the term "consubstantial." Bishops were scourged, and put in irons. Potamo was beaten on the neck till he was thought to have expired: he recovered in a small degree, but died shortly after. His crime, in the eyes of the Arians, was, doubtless, an unvaried attachment to the Nicene faith. Mr. Milner, the historian, observes, that "while Gregory dealt in violence, his competitor used only the more Christian arms of argument. He published an epistle to the Christian world, exhorting all the Christians to unite on this occasion.† 'The faith,' said he, 'is not now begun, it came to us from the Lord through his disciples. Lest what has been preserved in the churches until now, perish in our days, and we be called to account for our stewardship, exert yourselves, my brethren, as stewards of the mysteries of God, and as beholding your rights taken away by strangers.' He goes on to inform them of the proceedings of the Arians, observing that the like had not happened in the church since the ascension of our Saviour. It was not right that a decided Arian, nor one who was inclined to such sentiments, should have been chosen; but, according to the canons of the church, and the word of the Apostle Paul, the people

* The Macedonians were the followers of this Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, who, through the influence of the Eunomians, was deposed in the Council of Constantinople in 360, and sent into exile. He considered the Holy Ghost as a divine energy diffused throughout the universe, and not as a person distinct from the Father and the Son. The sect of the Macedonians was crushed before it had arrived at its full maturity, by the Council assembled by Theodosius, in 381, at Constantinople.

† Athanasii Opera, Epist. ad Orthodox., tom. 1., p. 439.

HERMOGENES SLAIN IN A TUMULT.

being gathered together, and the Spirit of the Holy One, who, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, appoints Bishops, all things should have been examined into, and done regularly in the presence of the people who make the application, and of the Clergy. A stranger put forth by the Arians should not, as if making gain of the office, intrude himself by force, and the authority of secular Magistrates, upon those who have not asked for him, and who neither wish for him, nor were at all cognizant of the proceedings that had taken place. Athanasius begs the Bishops, that, if there were any complaints against him, not to receive the letters of Gregory, but to tear them, and treat the bearers with disdain, as ministers of iniquity. It cannot be denied that his arguments were sound, and that his cause was just. The Arians must bear the infamy of being the first who secularized the discipline of the Christian church. But in adding the close of the letter, I mean," says Milner, "the reader to remark the decline of the Gospel at this time. As on the one hand it were very unfair to confound the Athanasians and the Arians as on an equal footing in point of piety and morality, when the superiority of the former is too evident to admit of a dispute; so, on the other hand, it is certain, that the experimental use of the divinity of Christ by no means employed an equal degree of the zeal of its patrons with the abstract doctrine itself. Hence Athanasius, though always firm and constantly severe, fails in meekness and charity." *

Soon after the liberation of Athanasius, Eusebius, the Bishop of Constantinople, died, in whom human depravity, under the cloak of sanctity, had attained an unenviable maturity. His thirst for secular ambition and his love of the world, had rendered him one of the most notorious characters of the age. A double election to the vacant see took place, that of Paul and Macedonius. Hermogenes, Master of the Militia, was ordered by the Emperor to banish Paul.† He did so; and the friends of Paul, being exasperated by a series of persecutions, forgot the character of Christians, and killed Hermogenes. In 347, for the purpose of composing some of those terrific divisions which had now for a long time devastated the church, a Council was held at Sardica by order of the two Emperors, Constantius and Constans, the latter being as steady in the support of the Nicene faith as the former was in opposition.‡ Sardica was in

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. fr., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 540.

† The ordination of Paul created a great commotion in the church of Constantinople. During the life of Alexander the Arians did not venture to excite any insurrection, for the people were implicitly obedient to their Bishop, and attached to his sway; and, moreover, regarded the extraordinary and unexpected death of Arius as a manifest indication of divine wrath, drawn down upon him, so to speak, by the prayers and virtues of Alexander. After the death of this Bishop, however, the people became divided into two parties, and disputes and contests concerning doctrines were openly carried on. The Arians desired the ordination of Macedonius, while those who maintained that the Son is consubstantial with the Father wished to have Paul as their Bishop; and this latter party prevailed. After the ordination of Paul, the Emperor returned to Constantinople, and manifested as much displeasure at what had taken place as if Paul had been unworthy of the bishopric. Through the machinations of the enemies of Paul, a Synod was convened, and he was expelled from the church. Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, was installed in the bishopric of Constantinople. (Sozomen.)

1 Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 7. 8: Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 20; Sozom., lib. iii., cap. 11, 12.

Illyria, the border of the dominions of each. The intention of the Council was evidently to unite; but it actually separated the two parties more than ever. Prayer and devout aspirations of the soul were but little known, and the glad tidings of the Gospel were but seldom heard. Peaceable spirits became absorbed in superstition, and the turbulent in ecclesiastical contentions. The life and power of godliness was well-nigh extinct. The Easterus, finding that it was not likely to be a free Council, departed from it, leaving the Westerns to settle matters as they pleased. Hosius of Cordova,* the venerable President of Nice, presided here also, and the Athanasian cause was decided in favour of the Alexandrian Prelate. The Easterns seceded from Sardica, and assembled at Philippopolis, in Thrace, and excommunicated their brethren of the West. In Asia and Egypt the friends of the Nicene faith were treated with great cruelty; but into Europe the subtleties of this contention had not entered: men were there more simple, and followed the primitive faith in quietness and peace.

The Western Council at Milan, A.D. 347, accepted and ratified the decrees of the Council of Sardica, absolving Athanasius of all criminality, and receiving his doctrines as the genuine and exclusive truths of the Gospel. What else passed is not certain; but it is supposed that Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, was called upon in this Council to give account of his faith: he was condemned and denounced as a heretic for denying the divinity of our Lord, and declaring that he was a mere man. Sentence of deposition was passed upon him, which for a long time could not be executed, owing to the great affection which his people had towards him. It is also believed that Ursaces and Valens, Arian Bishops, in this Council pretended, in a written document, to recant; and, according to Hilary, were united to the church.† On a sudden, however, affairs took a different turn. Constantius threw himself, as it were, at the feet of Athanasius, and, in three successive letters, entreated him to resume his episcopal seat. The Emperor and the Prelate met at Antioch, with mutual expressions of respect and cordiality.‡ Constantius commanded all the accusations against Athanasius to be erased from the registers of the city. He commended the Prelate to the people of Alexandria in

* Athanasius and the other accused parties were introduced to prove their innocence, and the conduct of the Eusebians was put in its true light. The complaints urged on all sides against them were examined: the most important was that which charged them with communicating with the Arians who had been condemned at Nicea. The charge brought against Athanasius of having caused the death of Arsenius, was best refuted by the proof that he still lived; and he is even by some said to have been actually present in the Council. The falsehood of the story of the broken chalice was as easily proved by the testimony of various witnesses from Alexandria, and by that of eighty Egyptian Bishops in their Letter to Julius, the Bishop of Rome. The issue of the examination was, that the Fathers confirmed Athanasius in the communion of the church. They also declared to be innocent four Alexandrian Priests, whom the Eusebians had compelled to flee for their lives. (Landon's Councils.)

† Pagi ad Baron., A.D. 345, note v.; Labbe, Concil., tom. ii., col. 720.

‡ The Emperor proposed to Athanasius to leave one church to the Arians at Alexandria: Athanasius dexterously eluded the request by very fairly demanding, that one church in Antioch, where the Arians predominated, should be set apart for those of his communion.

ATHANASIUS AGAIN RETURNS TO ALEXANDRIA.

terms of courtly flattery, which harshly contrast with his former, as well as with his subsequent, conduct to Athanasius. The Arian Bishop, Gregory, was dead, and Athanasius, amid the universal joy, re-entered the city. The Bishops crowded from all parts to salute and congratulate the Prelate, who had thus triumphed over the malice even of imperial enemies. The city was brilliantly illuminated; alms were lavished on the poor; every house resounded with prayer and thanksgiving, as if it were a church; the triumph of Athanasius was completed by the recantation of Ursaces and Valeus, two of his most powerful antagonists. The sudden change in the policy of Constantius has been ascribed to the detection of an infamous conspiracy against one of the Western Bishops on a mission to Constantius. The aged Prelate was charged with incontinence, but the accusation was proved to be false. A man of infamous character, Onager, "the wild ass," the chief conductor of the plot, on being detected, avowed himself the agent of Stephen, the Arian Bishop of Antioch. Stephen was ignominiously deposed from his see. Constantius was about to be engaged in the Persian war: at this dangerous crisis, the admonitions of his brother, not unmingled with warlike menace, might enforce the expediency at least of a temporary reconciliation with Athanasius. The political troubles of three years suspended the religious strife. The war with Persia brought fame to the arms of Constantius. The flame of civil war, however, was by no means extinguished. The pride assumed by Constans from the success of his arms, was rendered more contemptible by his want of abilities and application. The chosen bands of Jovians and Herculeans, who acknowledged Magnentius as their leader, maintained the most respectable and important station in the imperial camp. They laid their scheme both deeply and extensively, and endeavoured to convince the soldiery, that the republic summoned them to break the bonds of hereditary servitude. A splendid entertainment was provided. The intemperance of the feast was protracted until a late hour of the night. On a sudden the doors were thrown open, and Magnentius, who had retired for a few moments, returned into the apartment, invested with the diadem and purple. The surprise, the terror, the intoxication, the ambitious hopes, and the mutual ignorance, of the rest of the assembly, prompted them to join their voices to the general acclamation. The guards hastened to take the oath of fidelity, and before the dawn of day Magnentius became master of the troops and treasure of the palace and city of Autun. By his secrecy and diligence, he entertained some hopes of surprising the person of Constans, who was pursuing, in the adjacent forest, his favourite amusement of hunting. The rapid progress of fame allowed him, however, an instant for flight, though the desertion of his soldiers and subjects deprived him of the power of resistance. Before he could reach a sea-port in Spain, where he intended to embark, he was overtaken near Helena, at the foot of the Pyrenees, by a party of light cavalry, whose chief, regardless of the sanctity of a temple, executed his commission by the murder of the son of Constantine. Magnentius, not satisfied with the success of his sanguinary enterprise, meditated the demolition of the sway of Constantius. With him, however, the Emperor refused to treat. The Deputies from Magnentius were instructed to soothe the resentment and to alarm the fears of Constantius, and also to offer an alliance by a kind of double marriage; namely, an union of Constantius with the daughter of Magnentius, and of Magnentius himself with the ambitious Constantius, and to acknowledge in the treaty the pre-eminence of rank which might justly be claimed by the Emperor of the East. These terms were rejected with disdain. One of the Ambassadors was dismissed with a fitting answer from the Emperor, but his colleagues were placed in irons. Magnentius and Constantius were now eager for the fight, and, after several skirmishes, the tug of war was reserved for the field of Mursa. The engagement soon became general: it was maintained with various and singular turns of fortune, and scarcely ended with the darkness of the night. The number of the slain was computed at fifty-four thousand men, and the slaughter of the conquerors was more considerable than that of the vanquished. Notwithstanding the invectives of a servile orator, there is not the least reason to believe that the tyrant deserted his own standard in the beginning of the engagement. He displayed the virtues of a General and of a soldier till the day was irrecoverably lost, and his camp in the possession of the enemy. Magnentius then consulted his safety, and, throwing away the imperial ornaments, escaped with difficulty. In a short time the cavalry, legions, and auxiliaries of Italy renewed the oath of allegiance to Constantius. The pride of Magnentius was reduced to sue for peace, but in vain; for the Emperor, though he granted fair terms of pardon to all who abandoned the standard of rebellion, avowed his inflexible resolution to inflict a just punishment on the crimes of an assassin, whom he prepared to overwhelm on every side by the effort of his victorious arms, by sea as well as by land. He ultimately fell upon his sword.*

Constantius being now freed from the threats of his brother, who had again and again urged upon him a different line of conduct with regard to Athanasius, he flung away the mask behind which he had endeavoured to conceal his real purposes. He now reigned alone, none daring to arrest his sanguinary designs. The Bishop of Alexandria did not long enjoy his restored dignity; and, from the circumstances which had attended his restoration, he had become in the eyes of the Emperor a bitter personal enemy, against whom he resolved to avenge himself to the utmost of his power. Eager, however, as he was to inflict summary punishment on the obnoxious Prelate, he found it impossible to effect his purpose with safety till, after two years of incessant plotting, he had obtained the sentence of two Synods held at Arles and Milan in his favour. To show the condition to which the church had reduced itself by claiming the inter-

* Magnentius is said by Zonaras to have sacrificed a girl to propitiate the gods on this occasion, lib. xlii. Victor the younger describes his death with some horrid circumstances: "Transfosso latere, ut erat vasti corporis, vulnere naribusque et ore crnovem effundens, expiravit." If we can give credit to Zonaras, the tyrant, before he expired, had the pleasure of murdering with his own hand his mother and his brother Desiderius.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE CHURCH.

ference of the civil power, we need but mention, that those Prelates who would not subscribe to the decision of the Councils were informed, that unless they agreed to the condemnation of Athanasius, according to the decree of the Synods, they would themselves be deposed and banished by a similar ordinance. Still greater violence was exercised against some of the other Clergy: the prison and the scourge were become the common resource of the Emperor and his Arian subjects against those of the opposite creed. Men of the most irreproachable character were driven from their churches to make room for others, who had neither learning nor experience to qualify them for their office; and the evil spirits of schism and persecution shared the domain of the church between them.* In the mean time, on the return of Athanasius to Alexandria, religious joy and zeal appeared in the character of the age by a number devoting themselves to a monastic life. Acts of mercy and liberality were also abundantly performed. Every house seemed to be a church set apart for prayer. Such are the views which Athanasius himself gives of the effects of his restoration. A number of his enemies retracted, and justified him in the most honourable manner; and among these the recantation of Ursaces and Valens is remarkable.† Asclepas was also restored to Gaza, and Marcellus to Ancyra, though the latter was not unmolested. The suspicion of his unsoundness was perhaps justly increased by the less ambiguous sentiments of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, who was supposed to tread in his steps, and was, in a Council at that place, deposed as a Sabellian by universal consent.‡ Garminius, an Arian, was elected in his stead, and then, as well as at this day, the Sabellians and the Arians, in opposing each other, assaulted the truth, which lay between them: the former removing all distinction between the Father and the Son, the latter establishing a difference which took away the Trinity of the Godhead. Each desired to remove the mystery from the doctrine, and in the attempt corrupted it; while those who were taught of God, and were content with inadequate ideas, sincerely worshipped the Trinity in unity, and mourned over the abominations of the times.§

The orthodox were called to endure a great fight of afflictions. Athanasius and several other Bishops were banished, and their sees were filled with Arians, who caused numerous disturbances in the church. Many Bishops in Egypt and Libya were slain during the course of this persecution, and others were most cruelly scourged, because they would not communicate with the Arian Bishop George of Alexandria; so much so, that pieces of the rods were so deeply fixed in the flesh, that they could not easily be withdrawn, and many through this excessive ill-treatment expired. Similar cruelties were exercised upon others of the faithful in Constantinople, who were compelled to communicate with the Arians. George, the heterodox Bishop of Alexandria, entered that city in Lent, 356, and com-

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 165.

† Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. ill., cap. 23, 24.

‡ Sierrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. ill., cap. 18, 19; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 12.

§ Milner, History of the Church, vol. I., p. 511, cent. iv., chap. 4.

2 N menced the following Easter to exert his rage upon the orthodox: he was supported by the Emperor, and easily found an opportunity to assert his claims to that see by the force of arms. Heraclius, an officer, was sent from the court to assist the insurgents: Sebastian, General of the forces in that country; Catophonius, Governor of Egypt; and Faustinus, the Treasurer; were the ministers of his cruelty. The time between Easter and Whit-Sunday was too short for all the bloody designs which he had against the faithful. It was not sufficient for him to drive the orthodox Clergy out of the town, seize their churches, and oblige them, with their Clergymen, to assemble in the desert; for so long as they were permitted to meet and worship God in any manner, the Arian cause was not considered safe. The heretics far exceeded the Pagans in acts of cruelty and blood. They forced their way into the houses of the exiles, massacred the inmates, and wantonly tore them in pieces after death. Those who exercised toward them compassion, and received for refuge fugitives from these tortures, were treated with as little humanity. Scarcely a day passed over, which was not a witness to some act of violence committed by the Arian Bishop George and his assistants in the persecution, who appeared to fix on the great festivals of the church as preferable to all other seasons for their diabolical work, inasmuch as large companies were then assembled. One Trinity Sunday, the orthodox Christians went out of the town, to engage in their devotions, which they had performed in the open fields ever since Easter, their churches since that period having been in the possession of the heterodox. George, having been apprized of their assembling, commanded Sebastian, the General, to fall upon them with his soldiers while they were at prayer. The service, however, was concluded before they arrived at the place, and the greater part of the congregation had departed; but Sebastian, unwilling to lose his labour, encouraged the troops to exert their fury on the few they found on the ground, without any distinction of age or sex. He cruelly ordered a great fire to be made, and several young men and women brought to it, whom he endeavoured, through fear of the flames, to induce to make a profession of Arianism. But, finding that the dread of even a cruel death had no influence upon them, he commanded them to be stripped, and so unmercifully beaten, especially on the face, that it was impossible even for their relations to recognise them for some days following. His barbarity did not stop here. Under his direction, they were scourged with palm-branches recently cut, with such violence, that many languished but a few days, and then expired; while those who recovered were obliged to undergo a variety of sufferings, before the broken pieces of the rods could be extracted from the flesh: some died under the operation, who, instead of complaining of the treatment they underwent, or reproaching their adversaries with cruelty, invoked the assistance of Christ, for whose sake they suffered. The virtue of patience which they exercised, only exasperated the Arians the more against them. Those who survived throughout this sanguinary day were banished, while the remains of such as died under the hands of the persecutors were thrown into

SEVERE PERSECUTIONS INFLICTED BY THE ARIANS.

the fields as food for the dogs; and the cemeteries contiguous to the city were guarded, in order to prevent their relatives and friends giving them interment.

The "noble army of martyrs" received constant accession in numbers at Alexandria, through the instrumentality of the Arians. Many suffered martyrdom because they would neither renounce the orthodox faith, nor communicate with the usurping Bishop, nor with his supporters. Some were stabbed, others had their throats cut upon the spot; some were strangled, were thrown headlong over some precipice, or starved in prison. Secundus, a certain Priest, differed in some points of doctrine from the Arian Bishop of that name, who had embraced those heretical opinions from their first appearance in the church: the Bishop, indignant that Secundus should reject the doctrines which he proposed with so much mistaken zeal, took with him an individual of the name of Stephen, who had embraced similar errors with himself; and when they found that they could not subdue the Priest in any other way, they murdered him: he expired praying for his assassins, that they might not suffer for this cruelty inflicted upon him. Alexandria was too small a theatre for the atrocious acts of these persecutors to be exhibited: they therefore applied to Constantius for an order commanding the banishment of all the orthodox Bishops of Egypt and Libya, and placing their churches in the hands of the Arians. This document was committed to Sebastian, the commander of the Roman forces in those districts. As soon as he received it, he made known the Emperor's commands to all his subordinate officers; and a considerable number of Bishops and other Ecclesiastics were seized, and laden with chains. The Emperor's direction was only that the Prelates of the communion of Athanasius should be exiled; but these persecutors of the truth, without any regard to the age or infirmities of those venerable persons, sent them into wild and uninhabited places, at a great distance from their churches. Those who came from Libya were ordered into the great desert of Oasis, in Thebais; and those of Thebais, into the worst and most inhospitable parts of Libya. Those who were not banished, were sentenced to work in the mines and quarries; while others fled, to avoid the death with which they were threatened. A few joined the Arians, not being able to endure the fierceness of the persecution. Among those whom the Most High supported by his grace on this trying occasion, were some who had been Bishops above fifty years; namely, Ammonius, Muis, Psenosiris, Nilamnon, Plenus, Mark, and Athenodorus, most of whom had been invested with the episcopal dignity anterior to the assembling of the Council of Nice. The difficulty and length of their journeys to the places of exile were designed to harass, and ultimately to destroy, these victims. No compassion was shown to the weak and the sickly: all were compelled to travel, and to keep what pace their merciless guards thought fit to dictate. One of them died on the road; but the conductors prosecuted their cruelties even after death, and refused the body to his relatives for interment. The other of the exiled Bishops had been ordained by Athanasius, or raised to that dignity since his promotion to the see

2 N 2 of Alexandria: their names were Caisa, Philo, Hermes, Agathus, Anagamphus, Ammonius, Mark, Adelphus, and Dracontius; the last of whom was made Bishop of Hieropolis: he was banished to a castle in the desert of Clysma, in Arcadia, where he received consolation from a visit of Hilarion. Painable, in Thebais, was the prison of Adelphus. Hierax and Dioscorus, both Priests of the church of Alexandria, were sent to the desert of Soina, which was probably the name of a division of that part of Oasis. Of the places to which others were banished, little is known.

A great change in civil affairs having taken place by the death of Constans, and the ruin of the usurper Magnentius, Constantius, now sole master of the empire, revived the persecution. About the year 351, Paul of Constantinople was sent into Mesopotamia, heavily ironed; and at length to Cucusis, on the confines of Cappadocia. There, after suffering cruel hardships, he was strangled.* Macedonius, by an armed force, attended with much effusion of blood, took possession of the see. Paul received the crown of martyrdom, and the Arians seemed ambitious to surpass the bloody fame of Galerius.† The imbecile mind of Constantius was again prejudiced by absurd calumnies against Athanasius; and a Council at Milan‡ was convened in the year 355, in the presence of the Emperor, who proposed to them an Arian creed, which he recommended by this argument,— that God had declared in his favour by his victories.§ Prosperity, it seems, had not strengthened his reasoning powers; but, unhappily, had increased the depravity of his heart. Here appeared the magnanimous constancy of Lucifer,|| Bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; and

* "They pursued Paul, Bishop of Constantinople; and, having seized him at Cucusum, a city of Cappadocia, they had him strangled, by order of Philip, the Proconsul, who was the protector of their heresy, and the active agent of their most atrocious projects. Such were the murders to which the blasphemy of Arius gave rise. A virulent opposition was raised by this faction against the only-begotten Son of God, and his servants were not spared." (Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 5; see also Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 26.)

† Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 546.

‡ The Eusebians, as well as Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, having demanded of Constantius the convocation of a Council, it was assembled at Milan in 355. The object of the Eusebians was to effect the condemnation of Athanasius. All the influence of the Emperor was afforded them. The Eusebian Bishops acted throughout with extreme violence, and a total disregard of all ecclesiastical usage. They, in the first place, brought forward an imperial edict, containing all the venom of their heresy: upon this the delegates of Liberius demanded that the doctrine of Arius should be condemned; but Constantius declared this doctrine to be orthodox, and told them that he did not require their advice. The third session was held in the palace; the Arian party fearing the violence of the people, who had declared openly in favour of Athanasius. The Emperor then sent for the three Prelates who constantly refused to testify against the Bishop, Eusebius, Lucifer, and Dionysius, and commanded them either to sign or prepare for banishment. The Arian eunuchs were set against Hilary, the Deacon, whom they stopped and cruelly beat. (Landon's Councils.)

§ Luciferi Lib. de Regibus Apostacris.

|| Lucifer refused to allow the decree made in the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 352, for receiving the Arian Bishops who openly acknowledged their errors. This he opposed so resolutely, that, rather than yield, he chose to separate himself from the communion of the rest, and to form a new schism, which bore his name, and soon gained a considerable footing, especially in the West. He was also one of the deputies sent by Liberius to the Council of Milan in 355. As Lucifer is honoured by the Church of Rome as a Saint, Baronius pretends that he abandoned his schism, and returned to the communion of the church, before his death. But his contemporary, Ruffinus, who probably knew

EUSEBIUS AND OTHER PRELATES BANISHED.

the pious self-denial of Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellæ, in Italy. These Prelates were animated with a sincere spirit of piety on this occasion, and answered, that the Nicene faith had always been the faith of the church. "I ask not your advice," said the Emperor; "and you shall not hinder me from following Arius, if I think fit." The Emperor's Creed was read in the church; but the people, more sincere and more simple than the great, and more willingly attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, because they read it in their Bibles, rejected the faith of Constantius. The condemnation of Athanasius* was, however, insisted on; and Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, and the two others just mentioned, were most unreasonably required to subscribe to it. "Obey, or be banished," was the imperious mandate. The Bishops lifted up their hands to heaven, and told Constantius, that the empire was not his, but God's; and reminded him of the day of judgment. He drew his sword on them in a rage, but contented himself with ordering their banishment. Hilary, the Deacon, was stripped and scourged, and ridiculed by Ursaces and Valens, who had recanted some time ago. Hilary blessed God, and bore the indignity as a Christian. The greater part of the Prelates subscribed to the condemnation of Athanasius; a few only testified that the grace of God was still as powerful as ever in supporting his people, and in causing them to suffer gladly, rather than to sin. Others, besides the three mentioned above, joined in the same measure, particularly Maximus, Bishop of Naples, who was tortured in hopes of forcing his submission, because of the weakness of his body. In the end he was banished, and died in exile. Eusebius† of Vercellæ was sent into Palestine; Lucifer into Syria; and Dionysius into Cappadocia, where he died shortly after.‡

It is worthy of notice, that among those who suffered from persisting in their virtuous resolution not to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, while they were convinced of his innocence, was Liberius, the Bishop of Rome. This distinguished man, on being summoned to Milan, whither he was carried almost as a prisoner, was forthwith placed before the tribunal of the Emperor, who sternly ordered him to renounce further communion with the impious Athanasius. "All the other Bishops have condemned him," said he: "why do you resist? Will you, for any scruple of your own, trouble the peace of the universe, which it is my duty to preserve undisturbed?" Liberius replied, that the judgments of Ecclesiastics ought to be guided by the most rigorous attention to justice; that many of those who had signed the condemnation of Athanasius were not acquainted with the circumstances of the case; that they had been influenced, on the one hand, by the desire of possessing the bribes held out to him, as-ness as that he died in the schism which he had formed, A.D. 370. His works were published at Paris by John Till, Bishop of Meaux, in 1568, and at Venice about 1780, in fol., with additions.

* Athanasii Opera, ad Solit., tom. I., p. 831.

† Ado. in his Chronicle, anno 361, says, that Lucifer was sent to Palestine, and Eusebius first to Scythopolis, and afterwards into Cappadocia; and so likewise does Jerome. (Hieron., De Vir. Illust., cap. 95, 96.)

‡ Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 16.

them,—and, on the other, by the fear of punishment, should they refuse to comply; and he added, with the firmness which became his character and office, that though he were alone in his resistance to the unjust procedure, the faith would still be preserved in safety; for it had already once happened, that only three persons could be found who resisted an unjust ordinance. Eusebius, one of the Bishops present, immediately said, "Do you liken the Emperor, then, to Nebuchadnezzar?" evidently understanding his allusion to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. "No," replied Liberius; "but to condemn a man unheard, is to be guilty of an injustice similar to his." Constantius, enraged at the freedom and resolution which Liberius displayed, sentenced him to be banished into Thrace,* where he continued two years; at the end of which time, so little remained of the spirit which formerly distinguished the professors of Christianity, he purchased a reversal of his sentence, by agreeing to all the Emperor and his Ministers required. The character of Liberius was that which appears to have been common to the greater number of Ecclesiastics at this period. During his examination before the Emperor, while insisting on the acquittal of Athanasius, he exhorted the Monarch to employ the authority which he had received from God, to enforce the universal reception of the Nicene Creed. The dogmatic, persecuting spirit which had already produced such deplorable circumstances, was thus manifested by one of the very men who were now suffering the effects of its introduction. But, instead of this haughty and intolerant principle tending to establish those who encouraged it in an unchanging profession of the truth, it generally left them, like an exhausted stimulant, weak and wavering, when they were most in need of firmness and energy. This first era of persecution, therefore, is found to have been fruitful to excess in apostates and renegades from the faith. Hundreds of Ecclesiastics signed and rejected the Nicene Creed, at the instigation of the reigning Monarch: pride, rather than faith, prompted them to clamorous professions of zeal; and pride being formed of materials far less durable than faith, these loud and haughty preachers of conformity, these supplicants at the thrones of their Monarchs for edicts against heresy, sunk into the earth at the prospect of one tithe of the evils which the humblest and weakest of the meek, faithful Christians of a former age had borne, and smiled under with contented resignation. Liberius was far from being the only one, even of the most virtuous, of the followers of Athanasius, who recanted the principles for the establishment of which they would have had the Emperor publish an ordinance. The venerable Bishop of Cordova, even, who had suffered greatly in

* Liberius being thus driven from his see, another was placed on it in his room; and the person whom the Emperor and the Arian faction fixed upon was Felix, then only Deacon of the church in Rome. But the Clergy could not proceed to a new election, without an open violation of the oath they had taken. The people began to mutiny; and, assembling in crowds, would suffer none of the Arian faction to enter their churches. The imperial palace, therefore, served instead of a church: three of the Emperor's eunuchs represented the people; and three Bishops, slaves of the court,—Epictetus of Circumcellæ, Acacius of Cæsarea, and Basilios of Aocyra,—ordained the now-elected Bishop. Thus was Felix chosen and ordained. (Bower, History of the Popes.)

DEFECTION OF HOSIUS, BISHOP OF CORDOVA.

testimony of the truth during the reign of Diocletian, and had reached the hundredth year of his life; who had been the chief actor in the Council of Nice, and was generally regarded as the firmest supporter Athanasius possessed; consented, after suffering a short imprisonment, to put his name to an Arian Confession of Faith; and thus gave another proof, though he afterwards expressed his repentance for what he had done, how rare is the connexion between a dogmatical and a firm and intrepid spirit.* Flattery and menaces were both employed to induce Hosius to condemn Athanasius. A few lines of his answer to an imperious letter of the Emperor may give us some idea of his temper:†—"I confessed the first time in the persecution under Herculeus, your grandfather. If you likewise desire to persecute me, I am ready still to suffer anything, rather than betray the truth. It is not so much a personal malice against Athanasius, as the love of heresy, which influences these men. I myself invited them to come to me, and declare, at the Council of Sardica, what they knew against him. They durst not; they all refused. Athanasius came afterwards to your court at Antioch: he desired his enemies might be sent for, that they might make good their accusations. Why do you still hearken to them who refused such fair proposals? How can you endure Ursaces and Valens, after they have recanted and acknowledged their calumny in writing? Remember, you are a mortal man: be afraid of the day of judgment. God hath given you the empire, and hath committed the church to our care. I write thus through my concern for your eternal welfare; but, with respect to your requisition, I cannot agree with Arians, nor write against Athanasius. You act for his enemies; but in the day of judgment you must defend yourself alone." Constantius kept him a year at Sirmium, without respect to his age or infirmities. His orders, addressed to the Bishops, were to condemn Athanasius, and to communicate with the Arians, under pain of banishment. The Judges were directed to see to the execution of these things. Ursaces and Valens, whose instability should have destroyed their credit, assisted the persecution by informations; zealous heretics, by force of arms, were intruded into the place of the exiled; and Arianism seemed well-nigh to have avenged the cause of fallen idolatry.‡

The adventures of the persecuted Prelate in his sufferings were extraordinary. He was for some time preserved in the house of a pious woman with great care and fidelity.§ But we need not enlarge

* Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 173.

† Athanasii Opera, ad Solit., tom. I., p. 838.

‡ Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. I., p. 548.

§ When the storm descended, to which we shall presently refer, he had escaped falling into the hands of the Governor of Egypt, who, at the command of the Emperor, and at the request of the friends of George, had formed plans to arrest him: he concealed himself in the house of a holy woman at Alexandria. It is said that she was endowed with such extraordinary beauty, that those who beheld her regarded her as a phenomenon of nature; and that men of gravity and reflection kept aloof from her, for fear of giving rise to slander, or of exciting disadvantageous reports. She possessed, in the flower of youth, such modesty and such wisdom as would have conferred beauty on an individual who had not received that gift from nature. It is related, that Athanasius sought refuge in the house of that holy person by the revelation of God, who designed to save him in this manner. She had sufficient courage to receive him, and sufficient prudence on the various hardships to which he was exposed; * suffice it to mention only a few circumstances which occurred. He would doubtless be informed of the measures taken against him at Arles and Milau, and of the distressed condition of his followers and fellow-labourers. But his courage was equal to his piety; and he continued with unabated energy to instruct his people, and to urge them to await with fortitude the storm which he foresaw was ready to break upon their heads. In a letter which he wrote to a Bishop who had lately retired into the deserts, he expresses all those sentiments of high and resolute devotion which so remarkably distinguished him in every period of his career. "O my dear Dracontius," † says he, "your retreat has deeply afflicted us. Before your ordination you lived for yourself, but now you belong to your flock and to the church. If you tremble at the fearful aspect of the times in which we live, where is your courage? It is in such circumstances as these that it especially behoves us to show our zeal and boldness for the cause of Jesus Christ. Truth must be victorious in the end: error can only triumph for a time. If those who went before us had been timid and wavering, would you now have been a Christian? Feeble as you say you are, you yet should be the guardian of your flock; lest the enemies of the truth, finding them abandoned, should take occasion to spoil and devour them. Leave us not alone in the combat!"

The anticipated tempest descended at length in all its fury. Athanasius had repelled more than one imperial order to retire from his see, and the people of Alexandria expressed their determination to defend him against whatever attempts might be made to expel him. Threats having thus proved abortive, the Ministers of the Emperor had recourse to violence; and one night, when the Bishop and a numerous congregation were assembled at their devotions in the cathedral, a body of five thousand soldiers, under the command of Syrianus, Duke of Egypt, were landed in the city, and immediately led to invest the church. The tumult occasioned by this proceeding spread instant alarm through the startled congregation, and all rose to prepare for a precipitate flight. But Athanasius, by his calm and resigned bearing, repressed the panic which had seized the assembly; and, in obedience to his exhortations, it immediately commenced and chanted the 135th Psalm. While the congregation was performing this act of devotion, the soldiers were assailing the doors of the church with incessant blows; and, in a few minutes, the whole armed multitude burst furiously into the aisles of the sacred edifice. A hundred voices were raised to implore Athanasius to fly; but he remained immovable in his episcopal chair, watching the escape of his flock;

to preserve his life. She alone ministered to him, and supplied him with what nature required. She washed his feet, brought him food, provided him with the books he wanted, and acted so prudently, that, during the whole time of his residence with her, none of the inhabitants of Alexandria suspected the place of his retreat. (Suzom., Hist. Eccles, lib. v., cap. 6.)

* Athanasii Opera, De Foga, tom. i., p. 717.

† Such was the respect entertained for this Dracontius, that many Gentiles promised to embrace Christianity from the admiration of his character. (Vita Sanct. Athanasii Opera, p. 58.)

ATHANASIUS FLEES INTO THE DESERT.

nor did he leave his station till the last were about to depart, when he was dragged away by some of the most courageous and devoted of his Clergy. The confusion which prevailed prevented his being discovered, and he was speedily lost in the dense crowd which surrounded the church. But, as he was driven to and fro by the terrified multitude, against whom the soldiers were exercising the most brutal violence, he lost his footing, and lay for some moments in imminent peril of being trampled to death. Having, however, with great difficulty raised himself from the ground, he contrived to make his way to a place of concealment, and thence to the deserts of Thebais; where he was sure of finding a safe asylum and numerous friends among the devout hermits who inhabited that solitary region. But his steps were traced by the indefatigable ministers of Arian rage; bands of soldiers were despatched to seize him in his retreat, and offers of the richest kind held out to those who should have the good fortune to bring him to the Emperor, either alive or dead. His safety now wholly depended, humanly speaking, on the courage and fidelity of the Monks and hermits, in whose cells he had found a shelter. Nor was his confidence in their assistance abused. Protecting him, sometimes by force, at others by cautious contrivances, and not unfrequently by even sacrificing their lives in resisting his pursuers, they enabled him to defy all the arts which were employed to effect his ruin. But the peril to which his protectors were thus exposed, determined Athanasius to go farther into the deserts; and it was not till he had reached the wildest and most remote district of those inhospitable plains that he paused in his wanderings.* While in the desert he composed some of his most important treatises; and conforming himself in the strictest manner to the mode of life followed by the Monks, he never forgot the labours or duties of a Bishop. He thus became an object of the highest veneration to the ascetics. Anthony had bequeathed to him his garment; and, it being now presented to him, he clothed himself in it, and continued to wear it to the end of his life. This conduct, in a man whose station had placed him in the midst of a proud and busy world, could not fail to be regarded as worthy of profound admiration; and Athanasius, by the persecutions which he suffered, saw his reputation extended over a region from which fame might have retreated in despair. There is, however, reason to believe that Athanasius had sometimes the courage to leave his solitude; and that he ventured to present himself more than once to his faithful disciples in Alexandria.† His retreat, however, continued unbroken.

At these untoward events in the Christian church, the Pagans were encouraged to assist the heretics in the persecution; asserting, that "the Arians have embraced our religion." A Prelate was not wanting to support these proceedings,—George, of Cappadocia, who began his

* Athanasius has left, in one of his Epistles, a strong and melancholy description of the miseries endured by his flock during his absence. Their houses were broken open in the dead of night, they were scourged without mercy, and the tenderest females were often so beaten in the face as to become undistinguishable by their friends.

† Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. i., p. 168.

2 O usurpation in the year 356. Through his influence, supported by the secular arm, the friends of the Nicene faith were cruelly beaten, and some expired beneath the infliction. A sub-Deacon, having been severely scourged, was sent to the mines, without being allowed time to dress his wounds, and he died on the road. Venerable Bishops were sent into the deserts throughout Egypt, and Arianism reigned and revelled in blood. The episcopal station was sold to unworthy men, the profession of Arianism being the only condition of office. The cruelties of George provoked the Alexandrians to retaliation, but military force prevailed; and after this Bishop had been once expelled, he returned still more terrible and detested; nay, so deplorably misinformed was Constantius, that, in a letter to the people of Alexandria, he represents this veritable George as one who was in every way capable of instructing others in heavenly things. It was a sight of this letter that deterred the persecuted Prelate from his projected visit to the Emperor, and led him to flee yet further into the deserts. It was during his solitary abode in that region, that he wrote his Apology to Constantius, in which are to be found strong traces of that rapid eloquence and clear reasoning for which Athanasius is celebrated: to adopt the sentiment of Milner, "integrity and fervour appear throughout; but it were to be wished that less zeal on his own account, and more on account of his divine Master, were visible in this, as well as in his other writings." In truth, the connexion of the doctrine of the Trinity with the honour of Christ, and with lively faith in his mediation, is so plain, that practical, serious, humble religion, if it exist at all in any scene of controversy, must be found on that side. Men who degrade the divine Saviour into a creature, will, of course, exalt themselves, and cannot have that humility and faith which are the essential ingredients of a holy life. The value of the apostolical doctrines, so fiercely persecuted in the fourth century, rests not on speculation, but on the holy tendency of their nature. There is sufficient proof of the existence of this holy tendency and influence both in respect of Athanasius and other Trinitarians of that time; and there is also more than sufficient proof of the contrary tendency of the doctrines supported by the Arians. But it must be allowed that the evidence of the former sort is scanty: Christian godliness continued very low in all this period; and good men, in their writings and reflections, attended too little to the connexion which subsists between doctrine and practice.*

Eusebius of Vercellæ, one of the most honest and pious of the Prelates of this mournful period of the church's history, yet suffered very severely in Palestine during his exile. The persecution extended even to Gaul, which had hitherto preserved the simplicity of apostolical confession unmolested. In Constantinople Macedonius, by the terror of his persecutions, drove those of the general church and the Novatian dissenters into a sympathy for each other, which their mutual prejudices had for some time prevented. Both endured bitter persecution, being obliged to communicate with the Arians, or to undergo

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. I., p. 550.

PROJECTS RESPECTING THE NOVATIANS.

a variety of hardships.* Agelius, the Novatian Bishop, fled. A Priest and a Monk of theirs were tortured, and the latter died under this usage. Novatianism retained much of the influence of the Holy Spirit, and was honoured with contributing a quota of that cloud of witnesses who suffered for the name of Christ. The Novatians had three churches in Constantinople, one of which was thrown down by the Emperor's orders. The Novatians carried away the materials to the other side of the sea; the women and children wrought diligently, and thus it was rebuilt. In the next reign, by the Emperor's permission, they carried back the materials, and rebuilt their church in Constantinople, and called it "Anastasia," which signifies, "risen again." An attempt was again made to re-unite those of the general church with the Novatians: the former were the more ready, because they had no place of worship at all; but that selfishness and bigotry which had ever been the bane and mischief of that people, prevented the union.† A remarkable instance of human infirmity it is now our duty to record, and which should teach us a lesson of pity and admonition. Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, had been confined a year at Sirmium, his relations had been also persecuted, and he himself had suffered in his own person by a variety of tortures. By thus afflicting him, the Arian tyrant thought he served the cause; and by such inhuman measures were the patrons of the heresy stimulated to seek the destruction of godliness. Yet so infatuated was the spirit of Constantius, that he all along was liberally supporting the most expensive forms and ornaments of Christian worship, while he was labouring, with all his might, to eradicate Christian doctrine.‡ We have alluded already to the defection of Hosius: we shall now refer to the treatment which he received at the hands of the persecuting Arians. Constantius, without hearkening to the reason he urged in justification of the conduct of Athanasius, and also of his own, and without paying the least

* At this period a union was nearly effected between the Novatian and the Catholic (orthodox) churches; for, as they held the same opinions concerning the Godhead, and were subjected to a common persecution, the members of both churches assembled and prayed together. The Catholics then possessed no houses of prayer; for the Arians had wrested them from them. It appears, too, that from the frequent intercourse between the members of each church, they began to reflect that no solid reason could be adduced for their separation. A reconciliation would certainly have been effected, had not the desire of the multitude been frustrated by the envy of a few individuals, who asserted that there was an ancient law prohibiting the union of the churches. (Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 20.)

† Novatian first separated from the communion of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, on pretence of his being too easy in admitting to repentance those who had fallen off in times of persecution. He indulged his inclination to severity so far, as to deny that such as had fallen into gross sins, especially those who had apostatized from the faith under the persecution set on foot by Decius, were to be again received into the bosom of the church; grounding his opinion on that of St. Paul, "It is impossible," &c. (Heb. vi. 4-6.) The Novatians did not deny but a person falling into sin, how grievous soever, might obtain pardon by repentance; for they themselves recommended repentance in the strongest terms; but their doctrine was, that the church had it not in its power to receive sinners into its communion, as having no way of remitting sins but by baptism; which once received could not be repeated. In process of time, the Novatians softened and moderated the rigour of their master's doctrine, and only refused absolution to very great sinners. The two leaders, Novatian and Novatus, were proscribed, and declared heretics; not for excluding penitents from communion, but for denying that the church had the power of remitting sins. (Henderson.)

† Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 551.

2 o 2 regard to the earnest prayers and entreaties, to the paternal exhortations and admonitions, of so venerable a Bishop, ordered him to quit his diocese forthwith, and retire to Sirmium, where he was detained in durance, for the period of a whole year, in a kind of exile. But, unaffected with the hardships he underwent, with the loss of dignity, and with the inhuman treatment of his relations, who were all persecuted, deprived of their estates, and reduced, on his account, to beggary, Hosius still stood up in defence of Athanasius, and rejected with indignation the proposals of his enemies, who were striving to induce him, at least, to communicate with them. They therefore resolved to proceed to extremity, and either gain over to their party a man of his station and rank, or, by removing him out of the way, deprive the orthodox of their chief support. Accordingly, with the approbation and consent of Constantius, they caused him, first, to be closely confined, and, afterwards, cruelly beaten; then to be put on the rack, and inhumanly tortured, as if he had been the worst of criminals.* Even against these exquisite sufferings, the firmness of his mind was proof for some time; but the weakness of his body compelled him to yield at last, and communicate with Ursaces and Valens. Athanasius asserts, in one place, that Hosius signed his condemnation; but in another he seems to contradict this. Sulpitius Severus thinks he was guilty of no other crime, but that of communicating with the Arians. However, that he did not stop here, but signed the Arian confession of Sirmium, is but too manifest from several unexceptionable and contemporary writers. Phoebadius, Bishop of Agen, in France, in his answer, written about this period, to the Arians, boasting that their doctrines had been approved and embraced by the celebrated Hosius, allows the fact; but he adds, that he was induced so to do by compulsion, not conviction. Be that as it may, the fall of Hosius, whom the orthodox regarded as their invincible champion, surprised the Christian church. Some could not credit the story: others ascribed the defection to his great age, which was supposed to have enfeebled his judgment. The account was immediately published throughout the Eastern world, and great rejoicing was made on the occasion by the Arian Bishops, who viewed such an accession to their party as an important victory gained over the orthodox. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, who was at this time in exile, appears to have been misinformed respecting the circumstances attendant upon the painful fall of Hosius, otherwise he would certainly have made some allowance for the barbarous and inhuman treatment the unhappy Prelate experienced, and not have indulged in such severe and caustic reflections, as, that it had pleased

* "This Prelate had but a short time before been sent into exile by the intrigues of the Arians; but, at the earnest solicitation of those convened at Sirmium, the Emperor summoned him thither, with the design either of influencing him by persuasion, or of compelling him by force to give his sanction to their proceedings; for, if this could be effected, they considered it would give great authority to their sentiments. On this occasion, therefore, he was most unwillingly obliged to be present; and when he refused to concur with them, stripes and tortures were inflicted on the old man, until they had constrained him to acquiesce in, and subscribe, their exposition of the faith." (Socratis Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 32.)

MELETIUS, BISHOP OF SEBASTE, EXILED.

the Most High to prolong his life to this period, that the world might know from what state he had fallen. That a man in the one hundredth year of his age should yield to most exquisite and repeated torments, cannot be a subject of surprise. But the Arians, among whom Hilary lived, took special care to conceal whatever might have a tendency to depreciate their vaunted victory. The unfortunate Prelate did not live long after his fall. He died in the concluding part of the year 357. He grievously complained, even at the point of death, of the violence that had been offered to him: he cordially anathematized the heresy of Arius, and strongly exhorted, by his last will, all men to reject it.* Thus we have seen, to his end, the most venerable character of that age, still, in his heart, true to his God. The length of his days only exposed him to a greater variety of suffering; and though Satan's malice was permitted to do him much mischief, nevertheless, he was mercifully enabled to die in peace, and to prove that the Lord faileth not them that are his.

In the year 359 two Councils were held, the one at Rimini, the other at Seleucia, with a view to support Arianism. In the former, a number of good men were artfully seduced, by the snares of the Arians, to agree to what they did not understand. This sect, now victorious everywhere, began to show itself disunited, and to separate into two parties. In these confusions, Macedonius lost the see of Constantinople, which was given to Eudoxius, translated from Antioch, in the year 360. Constantius poorly endeavoured to stone for the corruptions, both of principles and practice, with which he filled the church, by offering large vessels of gold and silver; carpets, for the altar, of gold tissue, adorned with precious stones; curtains of gold and divers colours for the doors of the church; and also liberal donatives to the Clergy, the widows, and the virgins. In the mean while Christendom groaned under the weight of extorted Arian subscriptions; and Macedonius, the deposed Bishop of Constantinople, formed another sect of those who were enemies to the divinity of the Holy Ghost. These, by the advantage of sober manners, spread themselves among the monasteries, and increased the corruption which then pervaded the Christian world. The see of Antioch being vacant,† Meletius, Bishop of Sebaste, a man of exemplary meekness

* Bower, History of the Popes, 4to., vol. i., p. 164, London, 1750.

† The members of the Arian faction, believing that Meletius was of one mind with themselves, and that he upheld the same doctrines, petitioned Constantius to commit the reins of the church of Antioch into his hands; for they fearlessly violated every enactment in their attempts to strengthen their own impious cause. The very foundation of their blasphemy was laid upon the transgression of the laws, and they everywhere introduced numerous innovations. Those who supported the apostolical doctrines, being aware of the sound principles of Meletius, as well as of his exemplary course of life and of his great virtues, warmly seconded the petition, and zealously took measures to insure the decree of his election being written and signed. When the decree had been duly completed, it was intrusted to the care of Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, who was a noble defender and champion of the truth. Upon receiving the imperial command, Meletius returned, and was met by all the Bishops, by the Clergy, by the citizens, and even by the Jews and the Greeks, who were desirous of seeing so celebrated a man. The Emperor commanded him, and those other Bishops who possessed rhetorical abilities, to explain to the multitude the following words: "The Lord made me in the beginning of his ways, for his work;" and he commanded that each exposition should be and piety, was chosen. The Arians supposed him to be of their party. Constantius ordered the new Bishop to preach before him on the controversial subject of the Trinity: Meletius delivered himself with Christian sincerity, rebuked the rashness of men who strove to fathom the divine nature, and exhorted his audience to adhere to the simplicity of the faith. He remained only a month in Antioch, and had the honour to be banished by the Emperor, who filled up the vacancy with Euzoius, the old friend of Arius. In consequence of this, the friends of Meletius separated from the Arians, and held their assemblies in the ancient church, which had been the first in Antioch. Besides the Arians, who were in possession of the Emperor's favour, there were two parties both sound in the Nicene faith, the Eustathians* before referred to, and the Meletians, who testified, in the strongest manner, their regard for their exiled Pastor.†

Nothing can contrast more strongly with the expansive and liberal spirit of primitive Christianity, than the repulsive conduct of its professors, and the tyrannical tone adopted by those who presumed to be its teachers; yet even this appears to have been necessary, and even advantageous to the permanence and extension of the faith. The religion of Christ shortly had to pass through the ordeal of those dark ages which followed the irruption of the barbarians. During this period, Christianity was to subsist as the conservative principle of social order and the sacred charities of life, the sole, if not always faithful, guardian of ancient knowledge, of letters, and of arts. But, in order to preserve its own existence, it assumed, of necessity, another form. It had a splendid and imposing ritual, to command the barbarous minds of its new proselytes, and one which might be performed by an illiterate priesthood; for the mass of the sacerdotal order could not but be involved in the general darkness of the times. A fearful Ichabod was inscribed upon the pulpit and the pew. Brief and definite formularies of doctrine were in requisition. As the oricommitted to writing, in order to secure accuracy. George, Bishop of Laodicea, was the first who drew up an exposition, and in it he displayed the baneful nature of his heresy. Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his explanation, which was next completed, steered a middle course between the impiety of the Arians, and the purity of the apostolical doctrines, differing greatly from the one, and yet not preserving the characteristic features of the other. Thirdly, Meletius stood up, and explained the principles enforced by the ecclesiastical canons. He weighed all his words in the balance of truth, and carefully avoided saying either too much or too little. His discourse was heard with general approbation, and, being entreated to give a brief synopsis of his doctrines, he extended three of his fingers, and then closed two, leaving one only extended, and uttered the following remarkable words, "Three persons are conceived in the mind; but we speak as if addressing one." (Theoloret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap 31.)

* So called from their founder, Eustathius, a Monk so foolishly fond of his own profession, that he condemned all other conditions of life. Whether this Eustathius were the same with the Bishop of Sebaste, and chief of the semi-Arians, is not easy to determine. He excluded married people from salvation, prohibited his followers from praying in their houses, and obliged them to quit all they had, as incompatible with the hopes of heaven. He drew them out of the other assemblies of Christians, to hold secret ones with him, and made them wear a particular habit; he appointed them to fast on Sundays, and taught them that the ordinary fasts of the church were needless after they had attained to a certain degree of purity, which he pretended to. He showed great horror for chapels built in honour of martyrs, and the assemblies held therein. He was condemned at the Council of Gangra, in Paphlagonia, held between the years 325 and 340.

† Milner, Hist. of the Church, cent. fr., chap. 4, vol. i., p. 554.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREEDS.

ginal languages, and even the Latin, fell into disuse, and before the modern languages of Europe were sufficiently formed to admit of translations, the sacred writings receded from general use: they became the depositaries of Christian doctrine, totally inaccessible to the laity, and almost as much so to the inferior Clergy. Creeds, therefore, became of essential importance, to compress the leading points of Christian truth into a small compass. And as the barbarous and ignorant mind cannot endure the vague and the indefinite, so it was essential that the main points of doctrine should be fixed, and cast into plain and emphatic propositions. Theological language was firmly established before the violent breaking up of society; and no more was evidently required of the barbarian convert, than to accept, with uninquiring submission, the established formulary of the faith, and gaze, in awe-struck veneration, at the solemn ceremonial.* The Athanasian controversy powerfully contributed to establish the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. It became almost a contest between Eastern and Western Christendom; at least the West was neither divided like the East, nor submitted with the same, comparatively, willing obedience to the domination of Arianism under the imperial authority. It was necessary that some one influential Prelate should take the lead in this internecine strife. But, even were this acknowledged superiority of character and talent wanting, the dignity of the see would command the general respect; and what see could compete, at least in the West, with Rome? Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople, could alone rival, in pretensions to Christian supremacy, the old metropolis of the empire; and those sees were either fiercely contested, or occupied by Arian Prelates. Athanasius himself, by his residence, at two separate periods, at Rome, submitted, as it were, his cause to the Bishop of Rome. The imperial city became the centre of the ecclesiastical affairs of the West; and since the Trinitarian opinions eventually triumphed through the whole of the Christian world, the firmness and resolution with which the Roman Pontiffs, notwithstanding the defection of Liberius, adhered to the orthodox faith,—their uncompromising attachment to Athanasius, who, by degrees, was sanctified and canonized in the memory of Christendom,—might be one ground-work for that belief in their infallibility, which, however it would have been repudiated by Cyprian, and never completely prevailed in the East, became throughout the West the inalienable

* A creed is a form of words in which the articles of faith are comprehended. It is derived from the Latin credo, "I believe," with which the Apostles' Creed begins. In the Eastern church a summary of this sort was called μαθημα, "the lesson," because it was learned by the catechumens; γραφη, "the writing," or καναν, "the rule." But the most common name in the Greek church was σομβολον, or, "symbol," which term has also passed into the West. Hence creeds and confessions are commonly called symbolical books. The most ancient form of creeds is that which goes under the name of the Apostles' Creed: besides this there are several other ancient forms and scattered remains of creeds to be met with in the primitive records of the church; as, 1. The form of apostolical doctrine collected by Origen. 2. A fragment of a creed collected by Tertullian. 3. A remnant of a creed in the works of Cyprian. 4. A creed composed by Gregory Thaumaturgus for the use of his own church. 5. The creed of Lucien the martyr. 6. The creed of the Apostolical Constitutions. Besides these scattered remains of the ancient creeds, there are extant some perfect forms, as those of Jerusalem, Cæa-rea, Antioch, &c.

spiritual heir-loom of the Roman Pontiffs. Christian history will doubtless show how powerfully this monarchical principle, if not established, yet greatly strengthened, by these consequences of the Athanasian controversy, tended to consolidate, and so to maintain, in still expanding influence, the Christianity of Europe.*

This conflict continued with unabated vigour till the close of the reign of Constantius. Arianism gradually assumed the ascendant, through the violence and the arts of the Emperor: all the more distinguished of the orthodox Bishops were in exile, or at least in disgrace. Though the personal influence of Athanasius was still felt throughout Christendom, his obscure place of concealment was probably unknown to the greater part of his own adherents. The Bishops of Poitiers, of Milan, and the violent Lucifer of Cagliari, were in exile; and though Constantius had consented to the return of Liberius to his see, he had returned with the disgrace of having consented to sign the new formulary framed at Sirmium, where the term "consubstantial," if not rejected, was at least suppressed. Yet the popularity of Liberius was undiminished, and the whole city indignantly rejected the insidious proposition of Constantius, that Liberius and his rival Felix should rule the see with conjoint authority. The parties had already come to blows, and even to bloodshed, when Felix, who, it was admitted, had never swerved from the Creed of Nice, and whose sole offence was entering into communion with the Arians, either from moderation, or conscious of the inferiority of his party, withdrew to a neighbouring city, where he soon closed his days, and relieved the Christians of Rome from the apprehension of a rival Pontiff. The unbending resistance of the Athanasians was no doubt confirmed, not merely by the variations in the Arian Creed, but by the new opinions † which they considered its legitimate offspring, and

* The orthodox Synod of Sardica admits the superior dignity of the successors of Peter. "Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem, de singulis quinque provinciis Domini referant Sacerdotes." (Epist. Syn. Sard. apud Hilarium, Fragm. Oper. Hist., lib. ii., cap. 9.) It was disclaimed with equal distinctness by the seceding Arians. "Novam legem introducere putaverunt, ut Orientales Episcopi ab Occidentalibus judicerentur." (Fragm., lib. iii., cap. 12.) In a subsequent clause they condemn Julius, Bishop of Rome, by name. It is difficult to calculate the effect which would commonly be produced on men's minds by their involving in one common cause the two tenets, which, in fact, bore no relation to each other,—the orthodox belief in the Trinity, and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. (Soxomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 11, 13; Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 17; Philostorg., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 3.)

† Aetius was the originator of one set of opinions, which not merely denied the consubstantiality, but the similitude, of the Son to the Father. He was not only not of the same, but of a totally different nature. Aetius, according to the account of his adversaries, was a bold and unprincipled adventurer; (Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. ii., cap. 35; Soxom., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 15; lib. iv., cap. 12; Philostorg., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 15, 17; Suidas, Voc. Aerius: Epiphan. Harres., § 76; Gregor. Nyssen, contra Eunom.); and the career of a person of this class is exemplified in his life. The son of a soldier, at one time condemned to death and to the confiscation of his property, Aetius became a humble artisan, first as a worker in copper, afterwards in gold. His dishonest practices obliged him to give up the trade, but not before he had acquired some property. He attached himself to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch; was expelled from the city by his successor; studied grammar at Anazarba; was encouraged by the Arian Bishop of that see, named Athanasius; returned to Antioch; was ordained Deacon, and again expelled the city. Discomfited in a public disputation with a Gnostic, he retired to Alexandria; where, being exercised in the art of rhetoric,

A COUNCIL HELD AT ARIMINUM.

which appeared to justify their worst apprehensions of its inevitable consequences.* Council continued to follow Council, and the tumult and confusion of Christendom were perpetuated. Hence Hilary declares, that the "East and West are in a state of restlessness and disturbance. Deserting our spiritual charges; abandoning the people of God; neglecting the preaching of the Gospel: we are hurried about from place to place, sometimes to great distances, some of us infirm with age, with feeble constitutions or ill health, and are sometimes obliged to leave our sick brethren on the road. The whole administration of the empire, of the Emperor himself, the Tribunes and the Commanders, at this fearful crisis of the state, are solely occupied with the lives and the condition of the Bishops. The people are by no means unconcerned. The whole brotherhood watches in anxious suspense the event of these troubles; the establishment of post-horses is worn out by our journeyings; and all on account of a few wretches who, if they had the least remaining sense of religion, would say with the Prophet Jonah, 'Take us up, and cast us into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you; for we know that it is on our account that this great tempest is upon you.'"†

For the purpose, if possible, of throwing oil upon the waters of strife, a double Council was called, of the Eastern Prelates at Seleucia, and of the Western at Ariminum. At the latter Council all the Bishops of the West were summoned, the Emperor promising to supply them with the means of travelling and subsistence.‡ The whole number present was about four hundred: of this number eighty were Arians, headed by Ursaces and Valens. Their resolutions were firm and peremptory. The Arian doctrines were repudiated, and the assembly expressed their rigid adherence to the formulary of Nice. This was opposed by Ursaces and Valens, who objected to the use of the word "consubstantial," maintaining that it was far better to use the expression, "like to the Father in all things," than to employ new words, which only served to create divisions, and which, moreover, were not to be found in Scripture; and they then presented to the assembly a new formulary of faith, which they had privately drawn up. The orthodox Bishops answered, that they had no need of any new formulary; that they had met together not to learn what they ought to believe, but to oppose those who set themselves against the truth, and who introduced novelties; that it was necessary to condemn the doctrine of Arius, and without disguise to he revenged himself on a Manichman, who died of shame. He then became a public itinerant teacher, practising at the same time his lucrative art of a goldsmith. The Arians rejected Aetius with no less earnest indignation than the orthodox; but they could not escape being implicated, as it were, in his popularity; and the odious Anomeans, those who denied the similitude of the Son to the Father, brought new discredit even on the more temperate partisans of the Arian Creed. Another heresiarch, of a higher rank, still further brought disrepute on the Arian party. Macedonius, the Bishop of Constantinople, to the Arian tenet of the inequality of the Son to the Father, added the total denial of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. (Milman.)

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. III., p. 43.

† Hilaril Opera, Hist. Frag., lib. xb, cap. 25.

‡ This offer was refused, amongst others, by the British Bishops who were present, except three, who were too poor to maintain themselves. (Cave.)

2 P receive that of Nicea. Then they declared the formulary of Valens and Ursaces to be utterly at variance with the true faith, and confirmed the Acts of Nicea, asserting that nothing whatever should be added to them. As Valens and his party refused to acquiesce in this decision, the Council proceeded to declare them heretics, and excommunicated and deposed them. This decree was signed by three hundred and twenty Bishops; and the doctrine of Arius, as well as that of Photinus and Sabellius, was anathematized. Up to this point, therefore, that is, while the Fathers of the Council had liberty of action granted to them, the orthodox faith was triumphant in the Council of Ariminum.

But after this decision both parties made their representation of the affair to the Emperor. The faithful, by the ten deputies whom they sent, declared that they could decide upon no step better calculated to confirm the true faith, than to keep close to the Creed of Nicea, which they highly eulogized, without adding to or taking from it. They then alluded to the opposition made by Valens and his party, and showed that they had been forced by their conduct to excommunicate them. The Arians, on the other hand, by the deputies whom they sent to the Emperor, prejudiced his mind against the opposite party, and placed before him their formulary of faith, which the orthodox had rejected, but with which Constantius found no fault. Thus when the deputies of the Athanasians * arrived at Constantinople, they were refused an audience, and were for a long time, upon one pretext or other, kept without any answer; the Emperor delaying matters, with the hope that the Bishops, wearied out, and separated from their churches, would at last yield to his wishes, and surrender the terms "substance" and "consubstantial." Further, the Arians having compelled the ten deputies of the Council, in spite of themselves, to come to Nice in Thrace, and having intimidated them by threats, and worn them out by violence and ill-usage, obliged them at last to consent to abandon the two obnoxious expressions, and to receive a confession conformable to that drawn up at Sirmium two years before: in fact, they obliged them to become parties to an act of union with the Arians, and to renounce all that had been done at Ariminum. The Emperor, in the mean time, sent orders to the Prefect, Taurus, not to suffer the Council to separate until this confession, which entirely suppressed the words οὐσις and ὁμοουσιος, had been subscribed by all the Bishops. All of them, with

* "The ten Arians were received with the utmost respect; their rivals with every kind of slight and neglect. Insensibly they were admitted to more intimate intercourse; the flatteries, perhaps the bribes, of the Emperor prevailed: they returned, having signed a formulary directly opposed to their instructions. Their reception at first was unpromising; but by degrees the Council, from which its firmest and most resolute members had gradually departed, and in which many poor and aged Bishops still retained their seats, wearied, perplexed, worn out by the expense and discomfort of a long residence in a foreign city, consented to sign a Creed in which the contested word, the homoousion, was carefully suppressed. Arianism was thus deliberately adopted by a Council, of which the authority was undisputed. The world, says Jerome, groaned to find itself Arian. But on their return to their dioceses, the indignant Prelates everywhere protested against the fraud and violence which had been practised against them. Now persecutions followed." (Milman.)

A COUNCIL AT SELEUCIA.

the exception of twenty, gave way to the violence and ill-usage to which they were subjected, and signed this confession of faith, known as the formulary of Nice or Ariminum. In order to induce them the more readily to comply, the Arians endeavoured to persuade them, that they could not, without wrong, reject a scheme of faith produced, as they falsely pretended, by the Oriental Bishops; and added, that if the formulary, in some parts, appeared not sufficiently clear to them, they were at liberty to make what additions they pleased. The orthodox Bishops joyfully availed themselves of this seeming door of escape, and quickly drew up certain propositions, containing a condemnation of Arius, and declaring the equality of the Son with the Father, and his existence from all eternity; but when they were completed, Valens craftily persuaded them to add, that the Son was not a creature like other creatures; thus, in fact, inducing the simple Bishops, who intended nothing less, to acknowledge him to be but a creature. When this triumph over the truth was completed, a deputation, headed by Ursaces and Valens, was sent to Constantius; and the formulary, thus shamefully signed, was circulated throughout the Eastern part of the empire, with orders to exile all who should refuse to sign it; and in this way the signatures of a large number of the Bishops were obtained, some sooner, some later, either through fear, or ignorance, or bribery.*

In the autumn of the year 359, the Council of Seleucia was held by order of Constantius, in which the triumph of Arianism was much more easy than at Ariminum. One hundred and sixty Bishops assembled. The Arians, semi-Arians, and Anomeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, and hurled mutual anathemas against each other. At the very first sitting they openly renounced the Council and the Creed of Nicea. The party of the Anomeans prospered, while Actius, its author, was banished.† Macedonius was deposed; Eudoxus of Antioch was translated to the imperial see, and the solemn dedication of the church of Sophia was celebrated by a Prelate who denied the similitude of nature between the Father and the Son. The whole Christian world was in confusion: these fatal feuds penetrated almost as far as the Gospel itself had reached. The Emperor, whose alternately partial vehemence and subtlety had inflamed rather than allayed the tumult, found his authority set at nought: a deep, stern, and ineradicable resistance opposed the imperial decrees.‡ A large portion of the empire proclaimed aloud, that there were limits to the imperial despotism; that there was a higher allegiance, which superseded that due to the civil authority; that in affairs of religion they

* Landon, Manual of Councils. See also Labbe, Concilia, tom. ii., col. 791-801.

† Actius and Eunomius seem to have been the heroes of the historian Philostorgius, fragments of whose history have been preserved by the pious hostility of Photius. This diminishes our regret for the loss of the original work, which would be less curious than a genuine Arian history. Philostorgius seems to object to the anti-materialist view of the Deity maintained by the semi-Arian Eusebius, and, according to him, by Arius himself. He reproaches Eusebius with asserting the Deity to be incomprehensible and inconceivable. (Milman.)

‡ Hilary quotes the sentence of Paul the Apostle: "Ubi fides est, ibi et libertas est;" in allusion to the Emperor's assuming the cognizance over religious questions. (Opera, Hist. Fragm., lib. 1., cap. 5.)

2 P 2 would not submit to the appointment of superiors who did not profess their views of Christian orthodoxy. The Emperor himself, by mingling with almost fanatical passion and zeal in these controversies, at once lowered himself to the level of his subjects, and justified the importance which they attached to these questions. If Constantius had firmly, calmly, and consistently enforced mutual toleration; if he had set the example of Christian moderation and temper; if he had set his face solely against the stern refusal of Athanasius and his party to admit the Arians into communion;—he might, perhaps, have retained some influence over the contending parties. But he was not content without enforcing the dominance of the Arian party; and this was the rock on which he was shipwrecked.*

Constantius was on his way towards Cappadocia from the Persian war when the disease attacked him which caused his death. Trembling at the tidings which were brought him of his nephew Julian, he had resolved to oppose his arms to the progress he was making in the Western provinces. His death probably saved the empire from the miseries of civil war; but the accession of Julian once more exposed Christianity to the fury of idolaters. The approach of winter could not detain the Monarch at Antioch; and his courtiers durst not oppose his impatient desire of revenge on Julian, who was judged as conspiring against the throne. A slight fever, which was perhaps occasioned by the excited condition of his feelings, was increased by the fatigues of his journey. Constantius was obliged to halt at the little town of Mopsucrene, twelve miles beyond Tarsus, where he expired, after a short illness, in the forty-fifth year of his age, and the twenty-fourth of his reign,—having received baptism, a little before his death, from Euzoius; for, after his father's example, he had deferred it till this time.† His character needs no detail: it appeared, from his case, that a weak man, armed with despotic power, was capable of doing incredible mischief in the church of Christ.

The character of the new Emperor was calculated to inspire alarm; but he for some time concealed, or subdued, the virulency of the dislike with which he regarded the church. Oppressed in his earliest youth by the jealousy of the reigning Princes, it was natural for him to view with hatred the principles which they professed, and to the operation of which he might easily attach the notion of his own misfortunes. As he advanced towards manhood, he found it necessary to dissemble his feelings, and, that he might preserve the precarious dignity he enjoyed, to appear a Christian. Endowed as he was with a most active mind, with strong passions, and a tendency to enthusiasm, this necessity of professing a creed, and practising rites, to conciliate the favour of the man whom he

* Milman, History of Christianity, book III., chap. 5, vol. III., p. 48.

† A fact related of him by Theodoret enables us to fix the religious character of this Prince. When he was going to carry on war with Magnentius, he exhorted all his soldiers to receive baptism,—observing the danger of dying without that sacred rite, and ordering those to return home who refused to submit to it. Not infidelity, but superstition, predominated in his mind. Yet how inconsistent, to defer his own baptism so long! (Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. III., cap. 3.)

ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH AT THE ACCESSION OF JULIAN. 293 both feared and despised, was of all things the most likely to confirm him in disbelief. His first acquisition of power was attended with an announcement of his adherence to the old religion of Paganism. In a letter to the philosopher Maximus, he says, that he publicly and openly worshipped the gods; that as they commanded him to live purely and chastely, so he endeavoured to obey their mandates; and that he trusted to receive great rewards from them, if he should not be slow in their service.* The full possession of imperial authority enabled him to commence the design he appears to have long cherished, of attempting the restoration of idolatry. Having himself set the example of a zealous attention to all its practices, he issued orders for their general observance throughout the empire, directed that the temples which had fallen into ruin should be repaired, and consecrated anew the various ranks of heathen priesthood. The city of Cæsarea early experienced the effects of his ill-concealed intolerance. To revenge the destruction of two temples to Jupiter, which had been many years thrown down, he imposed the most oppressive burdens on the Christians, took possession of the wealth of the church, and compelled the Clergy to enrol themselves in the lowest ranks of the army.† But Julian had too much keenness to persecute without caution; and, unlike his predecessors, pursued his measures with the policy of one whose object it was to root out the religion, rather than take vengeance on those who professed it. Instead of giving the Christians opportunities of showing their constancy and fortitude in suffering, he sought to undermine their faith by a deceitful moderation, and by the application of arts which could excite no immediate alarm.‡ After six years passed in the deserts, and in occasional journeys to visit his flock, Athanasius was encouraged, first, by the death of Constantius, and, secondly, by the accession of Julian, who boasted of his love of toleration, to return to his diocese. He was still further encouraged to do this, by the tidings he received of the death of George of Cappadocia, who had been placed in the episcopal chair of Alexandria by the hand of force, immediately after his expulsion. The violence which had been committed during his absence, rendered his presence in every way needful for the encouragement of his harassed people; and his return was consequently hailed with expressions of universal delight.§

There was that which was truly remarkable in the history of the last of the pagan persecutors of Christianity. Julian, the nephew of Constantine the Great, and son of Basilina, an Arian persecutress, was educated as a Christian by an Arian Bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, a relation of his mother. The religion of Julian was of that

* Julian, ad Maxim. apud Baron., Ann. Eccles., A.D. 361.

† Julian commanded that all the Clergy should be enrolled among the troops under the Governor of the province, which is accounted the most arduous and least honourable service among the Romans. He further threatened, that unless their (pagan) temples were speedily re-erected, his wrath would not be appeased, but would be visited on the city, until none of the Galileans remained in existence; for this was the name which, in derision, he gave to the Christians. (Suzumen. Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 4.)

‡ Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 176.

§ Ibid., p. 169.

most unphilosophical kind, which permits the human reason to interfere between the evidences and the discoveries of revelation respecting the nature of the Deity. Experience has fully shown, that most persons who are guilty of thus preferring the conclusions of their own minds to the declaration of scriptural truths, gradually retrograde from holding a larger number of the more mysterious articles of their faith, until they lapse into infidelity itself. It is not improbable that Julian was made a Pagan in the age in which he lived, by the same process of reasoning which makes men become Deists in our own day. Instructed in Arianism by Eusebius, for whom he had little respect, he preferred the teaching of the speculative Platonists. Admitted to the office of Reader, he publicly read the Scriptures in the church of Nicomedia. Though he declares, in a letter to the Alexandrians, that he was a Christian till the twentieth year of his age, it was in that very year that he passed at once into Paganism, by being initiated into the mysteries at Ephesus. Four years after this, having passed the intermediate time at Constantinople and Milan, he was sent to study at Athens, where the dying absurdities of Heathenism were dignified by the name of philosophy. Here he was known to Gregory Nazianzen, who predicted his future folly by observing, even there, his affected behaviour, his light carriage and wandering eye, his haughty demeanour, and general impertinence.* Six years after this, Constantius died; and Julian, who had distinguished himself by courage and military conduct, and who had been proclaimed Emperor by his troops, in consequence of his success as a soldier, became Sovereign of the empire. He had written against Christianity; and, amidst all the vanity of that worst of all coxcombry, the coxcombry of philosophy, had displayed great talent, ceaseless energy, and much self-government.† The time, therefore, had now arrived, when the dignity of his situation should have induced him to substitute pride for vanity, and simplicity for affectation. Instead, however, of assuming the majesty of the Judge, and the lofty courtesy of the ruler of the state, he carried with him to the throne the buffoonery of a joking scholar, and satirized the Christians while he treated them with alternate cruelty and insult. Conscious that the former systems of persecution had failed to extirpate Christianity, he had recourse to new plans of action against the religion which he had once embraced, and now renounced and detested. He proclaimed unlimited toleration to all; and, under the mask of freedom and equality, directed his arrows against Christianity. The Pagans were commanded to open their temples for worship. The Arians and other enemies

* "See what a pest the Roman empire nourishes in her own bosom!" (Greg. Nazianz. in Julian., Orat. ii.)

† Julian is the idol of Gibbon, who is, however, compelled to qualify all his praise by acknowledging the truth of the charge of affectation, which was the bane of the Prince. The historian has laboured to the utmost to convince the world that the apostate was a great man; but what can we think of the intellect which rejects the New Testament to consult the augurs, listen to oracles, and prefer the deities of Olympus to the Saviour, whom Julian rejoiced to mention with contempt? Some of Gibbon's choicest insults are to be found in this chapter, as when he speaks of the dull and obstinate understanding of Gallus embracing, with implicit zeal, the doctrines of Christianity.—Chap. xxiii. (Townsend.)

CHARACTER OF JULIAN.

of the church were recalled. If the Emperor had been contented with demonstrations of his impartiality, he might have healed the divisions of his people, and have been recorded to posterity as a benefactor to them, in spite of the foolery which made him sacrifice morning and evening to the moon and stars, and defile his inky fingers with the blood of the panting hearts which his own imperial hands tore forth from the dying victim. But the friend of falsehood is the enemy of truth; and when that enmity exists with the power to display or exert it, no crafty affectation can conceal its efforts. Believing that he was unable to destroy Christianity by the open violence and persecution of his predecessors, he began to assail it in another manner. Every argument which the promise or the actual bestowal of wealth, honour, or advancement could impress upon the wavering, the ambitious, or the timid, was urged upon his Christian subjects, to induce them to follow the example of their Sovereign, and become Pagans. Those who refused compliance were treated, in common with the rest of the Christian community, with a calm and distant scorn, as persons of inferior judgment and weak intellect. They were degraded in public estimation. He commanded them to be called Galileans, unconscious that this epithet would soon prove a title of honour to a people that despised reproach.* He forbade them to teach in schools: he removed them from all offices of rank, honour, and usefulness, and scornfully reminded them of those passages in the New Testament which forbid the followers of Christ from being anxious in the affairs of this world. The Christians were commanded to restore to the Pagans the temples and their revenues; and the latter, as well as the Arians, were encouraged to perplex and injure the orthodox. The name of Christ was erased from the labarum; and while the God of Christianity prevented the fulfilment of the attempt of the Emperor to overthrow the testimony of prophecy, by building the temple of Jerusalem,† the oracles of Delos and Delphos, of Dodons, and others,‡ which he had re-established, pro-

* "I cannot learn," says Mr. Townsend, "why Julian so much disliked the word 'Christian.' Was it that he felt the repeating of the word to be a reproach to his apostasy? Gibbon says, somewhere in his notes, that the word 'Christian' was invented at Antioch. This, too, is a sneer against Christianity. He could not be ignorant that the words of the original imply, that the followers of Christ were called Christians by divine command." (Milman.)

† After reading Warburton, Waddington, Lardner, and Gibbon, with their references, the sober Christian must conclude, that the defeat of the enterprise of Julian cannot be called a natural event. (Milman.)

‡ Butler, Lives of the Saints. Libanus, the Pagan, is quoted by Butler as the authority for this affirmation. This same Libanus, when leaving Antioch, derided a Christian Schoolmaster, by asking him what the carpenter's son was then doing. The man replied, "The God who made the world, whom you mock, is making a coffin for your master Julian." The Emperor marched with his army on to Edessa, but would not enter the city, because it was wholly Christian. He proceeded on to Carræ, in Mesopotamia, which city he entered on April 13th, where he performed in secret many execrable pagan rites; which being finished he sealed the doors, and set a guard upon them, commanding that none should open them till his return. It was found, after his death, that his sacrifices consisted of human beings, both at this place and at Antioch; and that, previously to his march to meet the Persians from Carræ, he had been performing with his divines the rites ab exilis inspiresidis, on a sacrificed female. (Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ill., cap. 26. 27.)

mised him victory over the Persians, and bade him prosper. He listened, was persuaded, and perished.*

The education of Julian was certainly misdirected. When about the age of fourteen or fifteen, Julian was shut up, with his brother Gallus, in Macellæ, a fortress in Asia Minor; and committed, in this sort of honourable prison, to the rigid superintendence of Ecclesiastics. By his Christian instructors the young and ardent Julian was bound down to a course of the strictest observances; the midnight vigil, the fast, the long and weary prayer, and visits to the tombs of martyrs, rather than a wise and rational initiation in the genuine principles of the Gospel, or a judicious familiarity with the originality, the beauty, and the depth of the Christian morals and Christian religion. He was taught the virtue of implicit submission to his ecclesiastical superiors; the munificence of conferring gifts upon the churches: with his brother Gallus, he was permitted, or rather incited, to build a chapel over the tomb of Mammas.† For six years, he bitterly asserts that he was deprived of every kind of useful instruction. And though, as we have stated, Julian and his brother were recognised as Readers in the church, the passages of the sacred writings with which he might thus have become acquainted were imposed as lessons; and, in the mind of Julian, Christianity, thus taught and enforced, was inseparably connected with the irksome and distasteful feelings of confinement and degradation. No youths of his own rank, or of ingenuous birth, were permitted to visit his prison: he was reduced, as he indignantly declares, to the debasing society of slaves. At the age of twenty, Julian was permitted to reside in Constantinople, afterwards at Nicomedia. The jealousy of Constantius was excited by the popular demeanour, sober manners, and the reputation for talents, which directed all eyes towards his youthful nephew. He dismissed him to the more dangerous and fatal residence of Nicomedia, in the neighbourhood of the most celebrated and most attractive of the pagan party. The most faithful adherents of Paganism were that class with which the tastes and inclinations of Julian brought him into close intimacy,—the sophists, the men of letters, the rhetoricians, the poets, the philosophers. He was forbidden, indeed, perhaps by the jealousy of his appointed instructor, Ecebolus, who at this time conformed to the religion of the court, to hear the dangerous lectures of Libanius, equally celebrated for his eloquence, and his ardent attachment to the old religion. The conduct of Constantius towards Julian was highly calculated to excite his hostility and rancour. Popular rumour did not acquit Constantius of the murder of Julian's father, and Julian

* See Ammon, Marcell., lib. xxv., cap. 3, who accompanied this expedition into Persia; and also Townsend, Eccles. and Civil Hist., vol. i., p. 414.

† Julian is said even thus early to have betrayed his secret inclinations. In his declamations he took delight in defending the cause of Paganism against Christianity. A prophetic miracle foreboded his future course. While this church rose expeditiously under the labour of Gallus, the obstinate stones would not obey that of Julian: an invisible hand disturbed the foundations, and threw down all his work. Gregory Nazianzen declares, that he had heard this from eye-witnesses. (Greg. Nazianz., Orat., lib. iii., pp. 59, 61; Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 2.)

EDUCATION OF JULIAN.

himself afterwards publicly avowed his belief in this crime. He had probably owed his own escape to his infant age and the activity of his friends. Up to this time, his life had been the precarious and permissive boon of a jealous tyrant, who had inflicted on him every kind of degrading restraint. The personal religion of Constantius; his embarking, with alternate violence and subtlety, in theological discussions; his vacillation between timid submission to priestly authority and angry persecution; were not likely to make a favourable impression on a wavering mind. The Pagans themselves, if we may take the best historian of the time as the representative of their opinions, considered that Constantius dishonoured the Christian religion, by mingling up its perspicuous simplicity with anile superstition. If there were little genuine Christianity in the theological disputations of Constantius, there had been less of its beautiful practical spirit in his conduct to Julian. It had allayed no jealousy, mitigated no hatred; it had not restrained his temper from overbearing tyranny, nor kept his hands clean from blood. And now the death of Julian's brother Gallus, to whom he seems to have cherished warm attachment, was a new evidence of the capricious and unhumanized tyranny of Constantius, a fearful omen of the uncertainty of his own life under such a despotism. He had beheld the advancement and the fate of his brother; and his future destiny presented the alternative, either of ignominious obscurity, or fatal distinction. His life was spared only through the casual interference of the humane and enlightened Empress; and her influence gained but a slow and difficult triumph over the malignant eunuchs who ruled the mind of Constantius. But he had been exposed to the ignominy of arrest and imprisonment, and a fearful suspense of seven weary months. His motions, his words, were watched: his very heart was scrutinized: he was obliged to suppress his natural emotions of grief for the death of his brother; to impose silence on his fluent eloquence, and act the hypocrite to nature as well as to religion. His retreat was Athens, of all cities in the empire, that, probably, in which Paganism still maintained the highest ascendancy, and appeared in the most attractive form.* The political religion of Rome had its stronghold in the capital; that of Greece, in the centre of intellectual culture and of the fine arts. Athens might still be considered the University of the empire: from all quarters, particularly of the East, young men of talent and promise crowded to complete their studies in those arts of grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy, which, however, by no means disdained by the Christians, might still be considered as more strictly attached to the pagan interest. Some Christian students were at the same time dwelling in Athens, among whom were Basil and Gregory. The latter, in the orations with which, in later times, he condemned the memory of Julian, has drawn, with a somewhat coarse and unfriendly hand, the picture of his person and manners. His manners did injustice to the natural beauties of his person, and betrayed his restless, inquisitive, and somewhat incoherent character. The Christian already discerned, in the unquiet and unsubmissive

* Milman, History of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 62.

2 Q spirit, the future apostate. But the general impression which Julian made was far more favourable. His quickness, his accomplishments, the variety and extent of his information,—his gentleness, his eloquence, and even his modesty,—gained universal admiration, and strengthened the interest excited by his forlorn and perilous position. Ere long, Julian was elevated to the rank of Cæsar; but this was obtained from the necessities, and not by the esteem, of Constantius, who with cold suspicion thwarted all his measures, crippled his resources, and appropriated to himself, with unblushing injustice, the fame of his victories.*

The death of Constantius prevented the deadly warfare in which the last of the race of Constantine was about to contest the empire. The dying bequest of the empire to Julian, said to have been made by the penitent Constantius, could not efface the recollection of those long years of degradation, of jealousy, of avowed or secret hostility; still less could it allay the dislike or contempt of Julian for his weak and insolent predecessor, who, governed by eunuchs, wasted the precious time, which ought to have been devoted to the cares of the empire, in idle theological discussions, or quarrels with contending Ecclesiastics. The unchristian Christianity of Constantius must bear some part of the guilt of Julian's apostacy. Prior to Julian having assumed the imperial purple, he would have few opportunities of displaying the real sentiments of his mind. But no sooner had he marched into Illyria, an independent Emperor, at the head of his own army, than he threw aside all concealment, and proclaimed himself a worshipper of the ancient gods of Paganism. The army followed the example of their victorious General, and the neglected temples resumed their ceremonies, and the altars again were crowded with victims. The Athenians, in particular, obeyed with alacrity the command of the new Emperor; the honours of the priesthood became again a worthy object of contest; two distinguished females claimed the honour of representing the genuine Eumolpidæ,† and of officiating in the Parthenon. Julian, anxious to infuse as much of the real Christian spirit as he could into reviving Paganism, exhorted the contending parties to peace and unity, as the most acceptable sacrifice to the gods. He commanded that all the pagan temples should be re-opened throughout the East; that those which had been neglected should be repaired; that those which had fallen into ruin should be rebuilt;

* See Ammian. Marcell., lib. xv., cap. 8, et seq.; Socrates, Hist. Eccles., lib. ii cap. 1. The well-known passage in Ammianus shows the real sentiments of the court towards Julian:—"In odium venit cum victoriis suis capella, non homo; ut hirsutum Julianum carpentes appellantesque loquacem talpam, ut purpuratam simiam, et litterio-nem Græcum." (Ammian. Marcell., lib. xvii., cap. 11.)

† Eumolpidæ, the most distinguished and venerable among the priestly families in Attica. They were devoted to the service of Demeter, at Athens and Eleusis, and were said to be the descendants of the Thracian bard Eumolpus, who, according to some legends, had introduced the Eleusinian mysteries into Attica. Other members of their family do not seem to have had any particular functions at the Eleusinis, though they undoubtedly took part in the great procession to Eleusis. The Eumolpidæ had, on certain occasions, to offer up prayers for the welfare of the state: and, in case of neglect, they might be taken to account, and punished; for they were, like all other Priests and Magistrates, responsible for their conduct, and for the sacred treasures intrusted to their care.

HISTORY OF JULIAN.

and that the altars should be restored. He assigned money for this purpose; he restored the customs of antiquity, and the practice of offering sacrifice. He himself offered libations and sacrifices in the temples, bestowed honours on those who were zealous in the performance of these ceremonies, re-established the Priests and Ministers of idols in the enjoyment of their former privileges, and exempted them from the payment of public taxes: he revived the pensions formerly granted to those who guarded the sanctuaries, and commanded them to abstain from certain meats, and from whatever the Pagans represented as inimical to purity. He also commanded that the admeasurements of the Nile and the symbols should be conveyed, according to ancient usage, to the temple of Serapis, instead of being deposited, according to the regulations established by Constantine, in the church. He wrote frequently to the inhabitants of those cities in which the observance of pagan rites was retained, and urged them to proffer any request that they might desire. Towards the Christians, on the contrary, he openly manifested his aversion, refusing to honour them with his presence, to give audience to their deputies, or to listen to their complaints. When the inhabitants of Nisibis sent to implore his aid against the Persians, who were on the point of invading the Roman territories, he refused to assist them, because they would neither re-open their temples, nor resort to the Priests: he would not receive their embassy, and threatened that he would never visit their city, until they returned to Paganism. He likewise accused the inhabitants of Constantius, in Palestine, of attachment to Christianity; and rendered their city tributary to that of Gaza. Constantius was formerly called Majuma, and was used as a harbour for the vessels of Gaza; but, on hearing that the majority of its inhabitants were Christians, Constantine conferred on it the name of his own son, and a separate form of government; for he considered that it ought not to be dependent on Gaza, a city addicted to pagan rites. On the accession of Julian, the citizens of Gaza went to law against those of Constantius. The Emperor decided in favour of Gaza, and commanded that Constantius should be an appendage to that city, although it was situated at a distance of twenty stadia. It has since been denominated the maritime region of Gaza. The two cities have now merged into one, under the same Magistrates, chiefs, and public regulations.*

From all, therefore, that we can learn with regard to the motive to which this change in Julian is attributable, it was the hatred which he indulged towards the name and sons of Constantine, owing to the cruelties they had inflicted on his family,—hatred which a young and impetuous disposition might easily extend to their religion. Another reason alleged is, that when he saw the dissensions of the Christians, and their rancour against each other, his faith was perplexed: he found it hard to distinguish the excellence of the religion from the vices of those who professed it, and was unable to prevent his judgment from being blinded by his indignation. Both of them may be true; for it is clear, from some part of his subsequent conduct, that

* Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 3.

2 Q 2 his enmity to Christianity was founded on passion, more than on reason; and his hatred of the faith is more prominent than his disbelief of it. Hence it is, that, having renounced one religion, he flew with ardour to the exercise of the other, and sought its aid and alliance against the common adversary. This enthusiasm for Paganism carried him into some ridiculous excesses. It is true, that the affection which he professed for processions and ceremony, and the profuse splendour of his sacrifices, may have proceeded from a wish to seduce and allure the vulgar; but his private devotion to magical rites and the practice of divination, in which his sincerity is not doubted, has no such excuse, and could only have proceeded from an irregular and superstitious mind. Yet to this weakness he united many extraordinary qualities: he was eloquent and liberal, artful, insinuating, and indefatigable; which, joined to a severe temperance, an affected love of justice, and a courage superior to all trials, first gained him the affections, and soon after the peaceable possession, of the whole empire.* A strong attachment to literature distinguished his character, and may have tended to nourish his heathen prejudices; and the passion for glory, which sometimes misled him, was probably the strongest of his passions, and his leading motive of action. The character of Julian has been compared with that of the Emperor Antoninus: if we attempt the contrast, we shall, without fail, find in the latter a thoughtful, consistent, and sober understanding. His principles were the best that heathen philosophy could suggest. His knowledge of Christianity was too partial, and the power of its professors too inconsiderable, to command his belief or respect. He was sensible, also, of the absurdities of Paganism; so that he was content with rigorously and temperately (on most occasions) maintaining the national worship. Julian had more of passion than philosophy in his constitution. He was impetuous, restless, and fearless: he converted into love for the one religion, that which at first was only hatred for the other; and he proceeded daringly to accomplish what he ardently projected. Julian has also been compared with Constantine; but the great difference between them lies here: the religion of Constantine was young and progressive; it stood on principles which proved its excellence, and insured its durability; the only weakness which it acknowledged was that of immaturity. The religion of Julian had for ages been held in derision by all reasonable men: its energy had long passed away from it, and its feebleness was the decrepitude of old age. So that the one led on to certain victory an aspiring assailant; the other endeavoured to rally a shattered, undisciplined, dispirited fugitive.†

Heathenism now everywhere held up its head, and Christianity was openly and systematically insulted; but laws are the least part of what is required from Princes who mean to encourage religion. A plan of conduct, an earnestness of principle, and a system of man-

* The passage is from Warburton; but we have no reason to question the sincerity of that principle in Julian, though it was sometimes overpowered by his religious antipathy.

† Waddington, A History of the Church, vol. I., p. 222.

CHARACTER OF JULIAN.

ners, are needful to support any religious tenets.* Dr. Cave has, with great clearness, illustrated the methods of Julian: we shall therefore avail ourselves of the help which he affords, and also of some other assistance, in order to strip Julian's machinations of every mask, under which he vainly attempted to extinguish Christianity; and if we but change the object, and suppose true religion to be promoted, instead of that which is false, Julian would stand, in prominent bold-relief, a useful preacher to Christian Princes, and would shame that spirit of criminal indifferentism which beclouds the greater part of the political hemisphere of Europe at this moment.

1. Philosophical infidels, in our own times, Mr. Milner observes, when they have found themselves no longer able to support a perfect scepticism, have borrowed some Christian light, called it natural, and endeavoured, by the help of that, to subvert Christianity itself. In Julian this scheme was reduced to a system; and he issued forth precepts for the support of Heathenism, which in his youth he had learned in the Christian school, though he disavows his obligations to his benefactors. The divine excellence of the Gospel, and the extreme malignity of human nature, appear in a very conspicuous light. To reform Paganism itself, was the first object of Julian; but to maintain it on the old system of popular belief, he discovered was utterly impossible. The light of Christianity had rendered pagan darkness visible, its deformity disgusting, and its absurdity contemptible. With great importunity did he exhort Magistrates to correct the vices of men, and relieve their miseries; assuring them that the gods would reward men for their charitable acts; that it is our duty to do good to all, even to the worst of men, and our bitterest enemies; and that public religion should be supported by a reverential adoration of the images of the gods, which were to be viewed as symbols of the gods themselves. Priests, he said, should so live as to be copies of what they preached by their own lives; and dissolute ones should be expelled from their offices. Not only wicked actions, but obscene and indecent language, should be avoided by them. No idle books and wanton plays, but divine philosophy, should be the object of their serious study; they should learn sacred hymns by heart, should pray thrice, or at least twice, every day; and when in their turn called upon to attend the temple, they should never depart from it, but give up themselves to their office. At other times they should not frequent the forum, nor approach the houses of the great, unless with a view of procuring relief for the indigent, or discharging the duties of their office; that in no case they should frequent the theatres, nor ever be seen in the company of a charioteer, player, or dancer. In every city the most pious and virtuous should be ordained, without any consideration of their circumstances. The godly training of their own families, and their compassionate care for the indigent, would be their best recommendation. The impious Galileans, he observed, by their singular benevolence, had strengthened their party, and Heathenism had suffered by the want of attention to these things. Such was the fire which the apostate stole

* Cave, State of Paganism under Julian.—Lives of the Fathers, vol. ii., p. 32.

from heaven, and such his artifice in managing it. The rules, however, deserve the attention of Christian Pastors in all ages, though it may seem wonderful that the Roman High Priest * should not see the divinity of that religion whence he had learned such excellent things, the like to which are not in any degree to be found in Plato, or in any other of his favourite Greeks. He endeavoured, in imitation of Christians, also to erect schools for the education of youth.† Lectures of religion, stated times of prayers, monasteries for devout persons, hospitals and almshouses for the poor and diseased, and for strangers; these things he particularly recommends in a letter to Arsacius, the Chief Priest of Galatia. He tells him what it was that advanced the impious religion of the Christians,—their kindness to strangers, their care in burying the dead, and their affected gravity. He bids him warn the Priests to avoid playhouses and taverns, and sordid employments. Hospitals should be erected in every city for the reception of all sorts of indigent persons. "The Galileans," he observes, "relieve both their own poor and ours."‡ It was not, as will be seen, in the power of Julian to infuse this spirit into his partisans, which alone could produce such excellent fruits. It is vain to think of destroying Christian principles, and at the same time of establishing Christian practice. But here is an additional testimony to the virtues of Christians from their most determined enemy, and as powerful an illustration of the work of God in the first ages of Christianity. It must be confessed, at the same time, that the good sense and penetration of the Emperor are as conspicuous as his malice and impiety.

2. Ridicule was another weapon which the apostate Prince wielded with some effect against Christianity. It is a method of attack which in all ages has been but too successful. Satire, as it is the easiest, so is it the most pleasing, mode of writing: the whole nature of man, prone to indulge ideas of evil, favours the practice; and when written by an Emperor, who might, if he had pleased, have used violence of the most formidable kind, it seemed to be the dictate of generosity. In writing against Christianity, he trod in the steps of Celsus and Porphyry; and, by the few fragments of his work which remain, he appears to have imbibed their spirit. "The Son of Mary," or "the Galilean," were the titles which he gave to the blessed Jesus, and ordered the Christians to be designated accordingly.§ In his treatise of the Cæsars, he asperse his uncle Constantine with much asperity, and represents the Gospel as an asylum for the vilest of mankind. No doubt the enemies of God were delighted in that age with such productions, as they have since been with similar ones of Hume and Voltaire; and many are slow to learn that a serious frame of mind is absolutely necessary for the contemplation of Christianity, and is as favourable

* All the Cæsars were entitled Pontifex Maximus.

† Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 16.

‡ In the same spirit, speaking of the duties of a Priest, he observes, that "the gods have given us great hopes after death, and on them we may with confidence rely." He certainly learnt this language from Christianity, which he ungratefully labours to destroy: a species of behaviour not uncommon to philosophic infidels. (Milner.)

§ Gregor. Nazian., Orat. iii., Opera, tom. i., p. 81; Theodoretii Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 21; Socrati., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 12.

PRINCIPLES BY WHICH JULIAN WAS ACTUATED.

for its reception as a playful spirit is for its exclusion from the mind of man.

3. Julian was extremely politic in weakening the power and interest of Christians.* He made an act of sacrifice the condition of preserving their honour and authority, and thus he either lessened their power or their reputation; and while he carefully avoided a formal persecution, he indirectly persecuted under every plausible pretence he could invent. Whoever had distinguished himself, under the former reigns, in demolishing the monuments of idolatry, felt his heavy hand, and was even put to death on frivolous accusations. The grants made to some subjects from the revenues of heathen temples, furnished a decent opportunity of impoverishing the opulent Christians, and this often with extreme injustice. He seized the treasures of the Arian church at Edessa,† which had assaulted the Valentinian heretics, taunting them with the law of their religion, that being made poor here they might be rich hereafter.‡ Injuries were now committed with impunity against the Christians by the Governors of the provinces; and when the former complained, he had the baseness to turn the knowledge of Christian precepts, which he had imbibed in his tender years, into a cruel sarcasm: "You know what directions of passiveness under injuries your Christ has given you." To this he added an affected encouragement of heretics and sectaries; and thus artfully embroiled the Christian world with factions by toleration of them all, without any real affection for any.

4. It was, however, a refinement of policy far beyond the maxims of that age,§ and a proof of the native sagacity and good sense of Julian, that, young and impetuous as he was, he could abstain from open persecution himself, and yet connive at it in others, who knew what was agreeable to their master. He boasted of mildness in this respect, and contrasted himself with Galerius, and the rest of the persecutors; observing, that they had augmented rather than lessened the number of Christians. "For, give them only occasion," said he, "and they will crowd as fast to martyrdom as bees fly to their hives." Yet a number suffered for the Gospel in his reign, though not by the forms of avowed persecution.

5. The Bishops and inferior Clergy || were beheld with an eye of rancour, at once ingenious and determined. In truth, they are in all ages the object of peculiar malevolence to men who love darkness rather than light. Persecuting Emperors and atheistical philosophers unite in this respect. It is the glory of the Christian religion, that it provides popular instruction for the bulk of mankind; where not applause, but spiritual utility,—not ostentation, but holy and virtuous principles and practice,—are the objects of attention. Persecutors desire, that no instruction be instilled into the minds of the people; and philosophers, overlooking the vulgar with proud disdain,

* Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 5, 18.

† Julian., Opera, Ep. 43.

‡ Nicephori Hist. Ecclesiast., lib. x., cap. xxiv., p. 53.

§ Chrysostomi Hom. in SS. Matthai, Juven., et Maxim.; Sozom., Hist. Ecclesiast., lib. v., cap. 4.

|| Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 15.

confine their attention to a few learned men. If the Gospel be indeed the light of heaven, that alone leads men to holiness, which fallen nature abhors, one sees at once why the public teachers of Christianity are abhorred by the proud and the mighty. Julian charged them with seditiousness: had he been a citizen of a free state, he would, with equal falsehood, and with equal malice, have charged them with supporting tyranny. To deprive the church of the inspection of its Pastors, he seized their incomes, abrogated their immunities, exposed them to civil burdens and offices, and occasionally expelled them by fraud or violence. At Antioch the treasures of the church were taken, the Clergy obliged to flee, and the sanctuaries were closed.* The same was done at Cyzicus, without any shadow of sedition. At Bostra he threatened Titus the Bishop, that if any mutiny happened, he should lay the blame on him and his Clergy; and when the Bishop assured him, that though the inhabitants were chiefly Christian, they lived peaceably and quietly under his government, he wrote back to the city, charging him with calumniating their character, and exhorting them to expel him. In other places he found pretences for imprisoning and torturing the Pastors.

6. The vigilant malice of the apostate surveyed every advantage, and seized it with consummate dexterity. Nor can the enemies of the Gospel in any age find a school more fruitful in the lessons of persecution than this before us. A man so perfectly Grecian as this Emperor must have hated or despised the Jews, and Moses must have been as really an object of his derision as Paul the Apostle. But to advance and encourage the Jews in their secular concerns was one of the obvious means of depreciating Christianity.† Hence he spake of them with compassion, begged their prayers for his success in the Persian war, and pressed them to rebuild their temple,‡ and restore their worship. He himself promised to defray the expenses out of the exchequer, and appointed an officer to superintend the work. To strengthen the hands of such determined enemies of Christianity, and to invalidate the Christian prophecies concerning the

* It is certain that the temple of Daphne was burned in the night which terminated the procession of the Christians, who had removed the body of Babylon, a martyr in the Decian persecution, to Antioch from Daphne, where Julian would not suffer it to remain any longer. Julian, in his satire against the people of Antioch, indirectly charged the Christians with the fact, and was glad of the pretence to justify his severities against them. That he suspected them, Ammianus assures us, but gives no grounds to justify the suspicion. The work entitled "Misopogon" tallies the manners of the Antiocheans. Those of the Emperor were austere, and void not only of pomp, but even of decent neatness. Theirs were full of Asiatic luxury. In fact, Christian simplicity had much decayed in this place, where Christians first had the name. Their numbers were immense, but the power of godliness was low. (Milner.)

† Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 20; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 20; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 22.

‡ He sent for some of the chief men of their nation, and asked them why they did not sacrifice according to the law of Moses. They told him that they were forbidden to sacrifice except at Jerusalem. He thereupon promises to rebuild their temple; and we have still a letter of his to the community of the Jews, which appears, on the authority of Sozomen, to be genuine. Philostorgius expressly tells us, (Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 9, 14.) that Julian's design in the rebuilding of Jerusalem was to oppose the prophecies. (Milner.)

ATTEMPTS TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM.

desolation of the Jews,* were objects highly desirable, indeed, to the mind of Julian. But the enterprise was suddenly baffled, and the workmen obliged to desist. No historical fact since the days of the Apostles seems better attested. We shall state very briefly the fact itself, and allude to its proofs, then leave the reader to judge whether there ever were reasons to doubt its credibility. Ammianus Marcellinus, a writer of unquestionable credibility, and at least no friend of the Gospel, acquaints us with the attempt, and informs us of its defeat. "He projected the rebuilding of the magnificent temple of Jerusalem. He committed the conduct of the affair to Alypius of Antioch; who set himself to the vigorous execution of the charge, and was assisted by the Governor of the province; but horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with repeated attacks, rendered the place inaccessible to the scorched workmen from time to time, and the element resolutely driving them to a distance, the enterprise was dropped."† Socrates observes, that, during the progress of this affair, the Jews menaced the Christians, and threatened to retort upon them the evils which they had suffered from the Romans. The Christian evidences for the fact are Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, who lived at the same time. The three ecclesiastical historians, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, who flourished during the next century, give a testimony consistent with one another. To these may be added, Philostorgius the Arian, and the evidence of Jewish Rabbis.‡

* See Matt. xxiii. 38, 39. To restore this people, while yet they continued in their enmity to Christ, was an attempt worthy of an infidel like Julian, and called for a miraculous interposition as plainly as Pharaoh's pursuit of the Israelites at the Red Sea. (Milner.)

† Ammianus Marcell., lib. xxiii., cap. 1.

1 The whole Jewish world was in commotion: they crowded from the most remote quarters to be present and assist in the great national work. Those who were unable to come envied their more fortunate brethren, and waited in anxious hope for the intelligence, that they might again send their offerings, or make again their pilgrimage, to the temple of the God of Abraham, in his holy place. Their wealth was poured forth in lavish profusion; and all who were near the spot, and could not contribute so amply, offered their personal exertions: blessed were the hands that toiled in such a work; and unworthy was he of the blood of Israel who would not unlock, at such a call, his most secret hoards. Men cheerfully surrendered the hard-won treasures of their avarice; women offered up the ornaments of their vanity. The very tools which were employed were, as it were, sanctified by the service, and were made of the most costly materials: some had shovels, baskets, and mallets of silver, and women were seen carrying rubbish in robes and mantles of silk. Men, blind from the womb, came forward to lend their embarrassing aid; and the aged tottered along the ways, bowed beneath the weight of some burden, which they seemed to acquire new strength to support. The confidence and triumph of the Jews were unbounded: some went so far in their profane adulation, as to style Julian the Messiah. The Christians looked on in consternation and amazement. Would the murderers of the Son of God be permitted to rebuild their devoted city, and the temple rise again from the "abomination of desolation?" Materials had now accumulated from all quarters,—some say, at the expense of the Emperor; but that is not probable, considering the costly war in which he was engaged. Nor were the Jews wanting in ample resources,—timber, stones, lime, burnt brick, clay, were heaped together in abundant quantities. Already was the work commenced, already had they dug down to a considerable depth, and were preparing to lay the foundations, when suddenly flames of fire came bursting from the centre of the hill, accompanied with terrific explosions. The affrighted workmen fled on all sides, and the labours were suspended at once by this unforeseen and awful sign. Other circumstances are said to have accompanied this event: an earthquake shook the hill; flakes of fire, which took the form of crosses, settled on the dresses of the workmen and spectators;

2 R

7. The suppression of learning among the Christians was another of the objects of Julian's policy. He published a law, that no professor of any art or science should practise in any place without the approbation of the court of that city, and the sanction of the Emperor. With a view to keep the church in ignorance of the arts of reasoning and philosophy, he forbade Christian Schoolmasters to teach Gentile learning, "lest," being furnished, says he, "with our armour, they make war upon us with our own weapons. Our learning is unnecessary to Christians, who are trained up to an illiterate rusticity, so that to believe is sufficient for them; and by this prohibition I only," says Julian, "restored possessions to their proper owners."* The scheme was highly prudent; but it required a great length of time to raise from it any considerable effects.†

8. Philosophy had ever been the determined foe of the Gospel. It behoved the artful persecutor, himself a philosopher, to encourage it as much as possible. He expressed his hearty wishes,‡ that all the books of the wicked Galileans were banished out of the world. But as this was now impossible, he directed the philosophers to bend all their powers against them. Jamblichus, Libanius, Maximus, and others of the philosophic tribe, were his intimate friends and counsellors, and the empire was filled with invectives against the Gospel.§ Its enemies were liberally paid by imperial munificence for their labours, and Julian seemed desirous to put it to the proof, whether indeed "the foolishness of God was wiser than men."

9. Julian made use of ensnaring artifices to draw unwary Christians into compliance with pagan superstitions.|| He was accustomed to place the images of the heathen gods near his own statues, that those who bowed to the latter might seem to adore also the former. Those who seemed thus to comply, he endeavoured to persuade and the fire consumed even the tools of iron. It was even added, that a horseman was seen careering among the flames; and that the workmen having fled to a neighbouring church, its doors, fastened by some preternatural force within, refused to admit them. These, however, may be embellishments, and are found only in later and rhetorical writers; but the main fact, of the interruption of the work by some extraordinary and, as it was supposed, preternatural interference, rests on the clear and unsuspicuous testimony of the heathen Ammianus Marcellinus. (Milman, History of the Jews; see also Waddington, History of the Church, vol. I., chap. viii., p. 227.)

* In the same strain he says, "If they, the Christian professors, think these authors give a false account of the most honourable things, let them betake themselves to the churches of the Galileans, and expound Matthew and Luke. Yet those of the Christian youth, who please to go to the pagan schools, are not excluded." (Juliani Epist. xlii.) So prudently did he provide for the progress of Hellenism, and for the downfall of Christian knowledge. He charges the Christians with the inconsistency of instructing pupils in classical learning, at the same time that they opposed the heathen mythology. The account of La Bisterie concerning this matter is just, and his observation deserves to be quoted. "To explain the classic authors, to commend them as models of language, of elegance, and taste, to unveil their beauties, &c.; this is not proposing them as oracles of religion and morality. Julian is pleased to confound two things, so different, and to erect, under favour of this confusion, the puerile sophistry which prevails through his whole edict." (Milner.)

† For the facts stated in the above paragraph, see Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 18; Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 12; Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 8; Gregor. Nazianzen, Oper., Orat. iii., tom. i., p. 97.

‡ Juliani Epistol. ix.

§ Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 1.

|| Ibid., lib. v., cap. 17.

ARTIFICES OF JULIAN TO INDUCE APOSTACY.

into greater concessions: those who refused he charged with treason, and proceeded against them as delinquents. He ordered the soldiers, when they received their donative, to throw a piece of frankincense into the fire in honour of the gods. Some few Christians, who had been surprised into the practice, returned to the Emperor, threw back their donatives, and professed their readiness to die for their religion.* The story of Theodoret deserves to be told more particularly. Julian caused an altar to be placed near himself, with burning coals upon a table, and required every one to throw some incense into the fire before he received his gold. Some, who were aware of the danger, feigned sickness; some, through fear or avarice, complied. But the greater part were deceived. Some of these last, going afterwards to their meals, called on the name of Jesus Christ according to their custom. One of their companions said, in surprise, "What is the meaning of this? You call upon Christ after having renounced him!" "How?" answered the other, astonished. "You have thrown incense into the fire." They instantly tore their hair, rose up from table, and ran into the forum. "We declare it," they cried, "before all the world, we are Christians: we declare it before God, to whom we live, and for whom we are ready to die. We have not betrayed thee, Jesus our Saviour. If our hands have offended, our hearts have consented not. The Emperor has deceived us: we renounce the impiety, and our blood shall answer for it." They then ran to the palace, and throwing the gold at Julian's feet, "Sacrifice us," they say, "to Jesus Christ, and give your gold to those who will be glad to receive it." In a rage he ordered them to be led to execution. The warmth of his temper had well-nigh prevailed over his politic maxims: he recovered himself, however, in time sufficient to countermand the order. He contented himself with banishing them to the distant parts of the empire, forbidding them to reside in cities. Let the reader see here the philosophizing Heathen and the simple Christian, and judge which religion is human, and which is divine. On some occasions Julian would defile the fountains with the Gentile sacrifices, and sprinkle the food brought to market with hallowed water. Christians knew their privilege from Paul the Apostle's well-known determination of the case, yet they groaned under the indignity. Juventus and Maximinus,† two officers of his guard, expostulated with great warmth against these proceedings, and so provoked his resentment, that he punished them capitally, though, with that caution which never forsook him, he declared that he put them to death, not as Christians, but as undutiful subjects. Jupiter in no age has possessed so zealous a devotee as this Prince, who lived at the close of his religious dominion over mankind. Decius and Galerius, compared with Julian, were mere savages. It is certain, that no ingenuity could have contrived measures more dexterously. Disgrace, poverty, contempt, a moderate degree of severity, checked

* Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. ill., cap. 16, 17. This account is made up from Theodoret, Sozomen, and Gregory Nazianzen, and gives the sense sufficiently well, though not a close translation. (Gregor. Nazianz., Orat. ill., Opera, tom. i., p. 85.)

† Chrysostom., Homil. in S. S. Mart. Juvent. et Maxim., Opera, tom. v., p. 533, et seq. Ed. Savil.

2 R 2 and disciplined by dissimulation, and every method of undermining the human spirit, were incessantly labouring to subvert Christianity. We do not see how the scheme could have failed, had Providence permitted this prudent and active genius to proceed many years in this course; but what a worm is man, when he sets himself to oppose his Maker!*

About this time the Emperor erased Cæsarea, the large and wealthy metropolis of Cappadocia, situated near Mount Argeus, from the catalogue of cities, and even deprived it of the name of Cæsarea, which had been conferred upon it during the reign of Claudius Cæsar, its former name having been Mazaca. He had long regarded the inhabitants of this city with extreme aversion, because they were zealously attached to Christianity, and formerly destroyed the temple of Apollo and that of Jupiter, the tutelar deity of the city. The temple dedicated to Fortune, the only one remaining in the city, was destroyed after his accession; and, on hearing of the deed, his anger against the Christians exceeded all bounds. He also blamed the Pagans, who were few in number, but who ought, he said, to have hastened to the temple, and to have risked everything in its defence. He caused all property belonging to the churches of the city and suburbs of Cæsarea to be rigorously sought and carried away: about three hundred pounds of gold, obtained from this source, were conveyed to the public treasury. He ordered the Christian populace to be numbered, women and children inclusive, and imposed taxes upon them as onerous as those to which villages are subjected. He further threatened that, unless their temples were speedily re-erected, his wrath would not be appeased, but would be visited on the city, until none of the Galileans remained in existence. There is no doubt that his menaces would have been fully executed, had not death intervened. It is said that, on one occasion, when he was sacrificing in the temple of Fortune at Constantinople, Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon, presented himself before him, and publicly rebuked him as an irreligious man, an atheist, and an apostate. Julian had nothing in return to reproach him with except his blindness, for his sight was impaired by old age, and he was led by a child. According to his usual custom of uttering blasphemies against Christ, Julian added, in derision, "The Galilean, thy God, will not cure thee." Maris replied, "I thank God for my blindness, since it prevents me from beholding one who has apostatized from religion." Julian passed on without giving a reply; for he considered that Paganism would be advanced by the exhibition of greater lenity and mildness towards Christians, than could in ordinary circumstances be expected.†

For similar reasons Julian recalled from exile all Christians who, during the reign of Constantius, had been banished on account of their religious sentiments, and restored to them the property which had been confiscated. He charged the people not to commit any act of injustice against the Christians, not to insult them, and not to constrain them to offer sacrifice. He commanded that, if they should,

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 8, vol. i., p. 580.

† Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 4.

PROJECTS OF JULIAN TO SUBVERT CHRISTIANITY.

of their own accord, desire to draw near the altars of Heathenism, they were first to appease the wrath of the demons whom the Pagans regard as capable of averting evil, and to purify themselves by the customary course of expeditions. He compelled virgins and widows, who, on account of poverty, were reckoned among the Clergy, to refund the provision which had been assigned to them from public sources. For when Constantine adjusted the temporal concerns of the church, he devoted a portion of the taxes raised upon every city to the support of the Clergy; and, to insure the stability of such an arrangement, he enacted a law, which continued in force sometime posterior to the death of Julian. These exactions were very cruel and rigorous, as appears by the receipts given by the receivers of the money to those from whom it had been extorted, and which were designed to show that the property received in accordance with the law of Constantine, had been refunded. Nothing, however, could diminish the enmity of the Emperor against Christianity. In his hatred against the faith, he seized every opportunity to ruin the church. He deprived it of its property, ornaments, and sacred vessels; and compelled those who demolished temples during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius, to rebuild them, or to defray the expenses of their re-erection. Many of the Bishops, Clergy, and other Christians, were cruelly tortured and cast into prison on this account. It may be concluded from what has been said, that if Julian shed less blood than preceding persecutors, and if he devised fewer punishments for the torture of the body, he was equally averse to the church, and equally intent upon injuring it. He certainly recalled the Priests who had been banished by Constantius; but he was actuated by the desire of introducing division into the church, and increasing the existing disputes. He also contemplated the condemnation of Constantius, whose memory he thought to render odious to all his subjects, by favouring the Pagans, who were of the same sentiments as himself, and by showing compassion to those Christians who had been unjustly persecuted during the preceding reign. He expelled the eunuchs from the Court, because the late Emperor had been well-affected towards them. He condemned Eusebius, the Governor of the palace, to death, from a suspicion he entertained, that it was at his suggestion that Gallus, his brother, had been slain. He recalled Aetius from the region whither Constantius had banished him, on account of suspicions which had been excited against him by the friendship formerly existing between him and Gallus; and to him Julian sent letters full of benignity, and furnished him with a public conveyance, to expedite his return. For a similar reason he condemned Eleusius, Bishop of Cyzicus, under heavy penalties, to rebuild, within two months, and at his own expense, a church belonging to the Novatians, which he had destroyed.*

The reign of Julian furnishes us with numerous instances of individuals who were ready to die "champions for their God." Among these was Basil, A.D. 362. The first circumstance that is recorded of this martyr, is his vigorous opposition to the Arian heresy in the

* Sosomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. B.

time of Constantius. The sacred character of the priesthood engaged him in so strenuous a defence of the orthodox faith, that the Patriarch of Constantinople and those of his party, in a Council of their own held in that city, A.D. 358 or 360, issued an order which forbade to convene or to preach to the people. But this prohibition could not check his zeal: he continued to guard the faithful at Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, where he resided, against the attempts of the enemies of the orthodox faith. The Prelates of that party, however, encouraged him, and he persisted in publishing the truth, at the hazard of all that the world calls valuable. Informations were laid against him to the Emperor as an incendiary, and a disturber of the public peace, and requesting that he might be punished as such. But Constantius was too intent upon his Persian expedition, to give his enemies the satisfaction they required. Basil took this opportunity of enforcing the true faith, and was instrumental in recovering many an Arian from his errors. When Julian was seated on the vacant throne, he declared himself a Pagan, and forthwith endeavoured to re-establish Paganism throughout his dominions. This greatly alarmed the zeal of Basil, who now made it his business to visit every part of the city of Ancyra, and the neighbouring towns, in order to inveigh against idolatrous worship, and to caution the people against all attempts made to introduce so baneful a practice, exhorting them to be courageous in maintaining the faith of God in its purity. We are not surprised that this conduct soon drew the odium of the Heathen upon him: nevertheless, he well knew what was his duty; his profession obliged him to assert the truth, and to preserve the flock of Christ from the dangers with which it was threatened, even at the expense of his life. He therefore proceeded with the same resolution and courage to oppose their attempts, and to do the best he could to defeat the designs of the adversaries of Christianity. Full of concern for the honour of God, as he was one day passing through the streets, he saw the Pagans engaged in sacrifice: he expressed his grief at what he saw by a deep sigh, and prayed that God would vouchsafe to preserve the Christian church from such idolatrous practices. The Pagans around him deeply resented this liberty, seized him, and, in an angry tone, inquired how he dared to inspire men with such sentiments of disrespect to their gods, and endeavour to discourage the religion of their ancestors, which the Emperor was seeking to re-establish. Basil told them, that the destruction of their superstitions was not to be charged upon him: it was the work of Almighty God, who would most certainly exert his irresistible power against them. Here he was interrupted, and hurried away to Saturninus, the Governor of that province, and accused of raising a disturbance in the city, abusing the gods, and affronting the Emperor. Saturninus desired to know his sentiments from his own mouth, and finding him animated with an almost invincible courage in the defence of Christianity, ordered him to be placed upon the rack, and treated according to his crime; but being fatigued with his constancy, he was committed to prison, and Saturninus acquainted Julian with the condition of affairs.

MARTYRDOM OF BASIL, THE PRESBYTER.

Julian at this time was some small distance from Ancyra, and employed in renewing the superstitious worship of Cybele, the fabulous parent of heathen deities, and actually putting to death those who refused to conform to the new establishment. He purposed to visit Ancyra on his way to Cappadocia, but his zeal for Paganism would not suffer him to delay proceedings against his intended victim till his own arrival: he therefore commissioned Elpidius and Pegasus to go before him, and make farther inquiry into Basil's conduct, and to employ both promises and threats to engage him to renounce the Christian faith. Their efforts were fruitless. They then applied themselves to the Governor, who proposed the usual interrogatories to him again, and also repeated the cruelties which he had suffered before. But he triumphed over them a second time, and the malice of his persecutors only tended to make his triumph the more glorious. A few days after this Julian arrived at Ancyra.* The heathen Priests met him at his entrance into the city, and carried the idol of the goddess Hecate in solemn procession before him. The Emperor was so pleased with this respect shown to him and the gods of his adoration, that, as soon as he reached the palace, he called the Priests together, and distributed large donatives among them. On the following day the public sports were exhibited, and, during the entertainment, Elpidius made his report to Julian respecting Basil, who was ordered to be brought to the palace at the conclusion of the festivities. The Emperor interrogated the martyr, but found him proof against all that he could say or do. He then predicted the death of the Apostate, and the misery with which he would be tormented in the world to come. The Emperor, enraged at his boldness, told him that he was inclined to save his life, and restore him to liberty, but he, by his insolent behaviour, had put that for ever out of his power. He then gave orders for his body to be torn every day in seven different parts, till his whole skin was stripped off; and, leaving the execution of this barbarous sentence to Frumentius, he set out for Antioch. The tortures of Basil immediately commenced, and, after having suffered with wonderful patience the first incisions, he desired to speak with the Emperor. Frumentius would be himself the bearer of his message to Julian, not doubting that Basil intended to comply, and offer sacrifice. Julian instantly ordered that the confessor should meet him in the temple of Esculapius. He there pressed him to join in offering sacrifice. But the martyr replied, that he could never adore blind and deaf idols; and taking a piece of his flesh which had been cut out of his body that day, and still hung thereto by a fragment of skin, he threw it, it is said, upon the Emperor. The

* When Julian arrived at Ancyra, Basil was presented before him; and the crafty Emperor, putting on an air of compassion, said to him, "I myself am well skilled in your mysteries; and I can inform you, that Christ, in whom you place your trust, died under Pilate, and remains among the dead." The martyr answered, "You are deceived: you have renounced Christ at a time when he conferred on you the empire. But he will deprive you of it, together with your life. As you have thrown down his altars, so will he overturn your throne; and as you have violated his holy law, which you had so often announced to the people, (when a Reader in the church,) and have trodden it under your feet, your body shall be cast forth without the honour of a burial, and shall be trampled upon by men." (Butler, Lives.)

Monarch went out in a state of great indignation; and Frumentius, fearing his displeasure, studied how to revenge an insult, for which he seemed responsible to his master. He therefore mounted his tribunal, and ordered the torments of the martyr to be redoubled; and so deep were the incisions made in his flesh, that his bowels were exposed to view, and the spectators wept for compassion. The martyr prayed aloud all the time, and at evening was carried back to prison. Julian set out for Antioch, but would not see Frumentius, who resolved to repair as far as possible his disgrace, or, at least, to discharge his resentment, by exerting his rage upon the servant of Christ. Basil was again produced before the tribunal, and answered Frumentius with great calmness and self-possession.* The officer seemed no longer able to restrain his wrath: he commanded the martyr to be laid down, and his back to be pierced with red-hot iron spikes. Basil expired under these torments.

Basil by no means was the only one who suffered at this period. The Acts of the Martyrs inform us, that Gordian was an inferior Magistrate in Rome; that one Januarius, a Priest, having been brought before him, and accused of being a Minister of the Christian religion, upon his examination Gordian was so affected with the confession of his faith, and his discourse on the subject, that he became a disciple, dismissed his prisoner, and was baptized. The Prefect of Rome, being informed of the circumstance, banished Januarius, and ordered Gordian to be placed under the care of a proper officer, who took great pains to persuade him to renounce the truths of Christianity, but to no purpose. The Prefect, provoked at the disrespectful manner in which Gordian spake of the gods of the empire, which, since the accession of Julian, were again held sacred, ordered him to be severely scourged, and then beheaded. Hard upon the martyrdom of Gordian followed that of John and Paul, brothers, who were united not merely by the bonds of affection and nature, but also by those of grace, and the fellowship of their sufferings for the faith of Christ. It is highly probable that they were born of Christian parents, and had occupied some important offices at court during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius; for we are informed that they fell into disgrace with Julian when they refused to serve him in the same capacity, and conform to his religion. The Captain of his Life-Guards, or household troops, whom some call Terentianus, and others imagine to have been Apronianus, his successor in that post, was a virulent enemy to the Christian name, and embraced every opportunity of persecuting it. He was the most active officer in the present scene. He allowed the brothers, on account of their distinguished characters, ten days for consideration; but finding them, at

* Alban Butler gives a marvellous account of Basil. He represents the martyr addressing Frumentius, and saying, "You know how many pieces of flesh have been torn from my body; yet look on my shoulders and sides, see if any wounds appear. Know that Jesus Christ this night hath healed me. Send this news to your master Julian, that he may know the power of God whom he hath forsaken. He hath overturned his altars, who was himself concealed under them when he was sought by Constantius to be put to death. But God hath discovered to me that his tyranny shall be shortly extinguished with his life." (Butler, *Lives of the Saints*.)

JULIAN VISITS ANTIOCH.

the termination of that period, as averse to change their faith as they were at the commencement, they were condemned to be beheaded. The sentence is supposed to have been carried into execution in the month of June, 362. Artemius was another of the sufferers. He was the Commander of the forces in the East, at the time when Julian mounted the imperial throne. In that situation it was a part of his duty to assist the Governor in preserving peace among disturbed and mutinous people. The pagan portion of the population at Alexandria, being aware of the Emperor's predilections in respect of religion, thought this a favourable opportunity of pursuing their revenge for what they supposed they had suffered during the two preceding reigns. When Julian visited Antioch, their complaints were drawn up, in form, and laid before him; they were comprised under two heads: that Artemius demolished several of their idols during the reign of Constantine; and that he had assisted George, the Arian, and Bishop of Alexandria, in plundering the temples. When Julian had read the accusation, he commanded the officer to repair to Antioch to answer the charges which were preferred against him by his adversaries. It appeared upon his trial, that he had been particularly active in destroying idolatry, and removing the objects of pagan worship, both under Constantine and his successor, Constantius; a crime which the apostate would by no means forgive, and which could be expiated only by the blood of the offender, who was first deprived of his commission, then he suffered confiscation of his property, after which he was beheaded. The sedition which took place at Alexandria, soon after the death of Artemius, was a sufficient indication of the intention of the idolaters in the execution of that officer: his power, also, was so considerable, that Julian ironically termed him the "King of Alexandria." The Emperor also, writing an account of his proceedings against his General, lays to his charge the death of his brother Gallus: it is, however, well known, that that artful Prince invariably forged imaginary articles against those whom he was determined to destroy on account of religion; but Gallus had been beheaded by the express orders of Constantius, who viewed him as a fiery and insolent Commander, who was at all times ready for any description of rebellion.

Cassianus was a Schoolmaster * at Imola, in the province of Ro-

* The prohibition of human learning, to which we have already alluded, decreed by Julian, induced Apollinarius, the father and the son, to invent something which might stand as a substitute for the loss. (Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 16; Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 18.) The father, a grammarian, wrote in heroics the sacred history, and imitated the Greek tragedians, taking his subjects out of the Scripture. The son, a philosopher, wrote in defence of the Gospel in the form of dialogue, like Plato. Little of these works has come down to us: the prohibition ceasing with the death of Julian, Christian scholars returned to their former studies, and we cannot judge how far the writings of the Apollinarii merited the rank of classics. Ecobolus, a famous sophist at Constantinople, yielded to the caresses of Julian, and returned to Paganism. (Socrates, Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 13.) After the Emperor's death, he desired to be received again into the church, and, prostrating himself at the entrance, said, "Tread me under foot, like salt that has lost its favour." "I know no more of the man," says Milner, "to enable me to form a just estimate of his character. We may be convinced, however, that a considerable number of true Christians were yet in the church, amidst all its corruptions, by this important fact, that the greater part

2 s magna, and another victim to the sanguinary myrmidons of Julian, whose close attention to the instruction of those under his care had, as usual, for want of better information, made them his insatiable foes. Prudentius, who flourished towards the end of the fourth century, informs us, that, during the period of persecution, the Emperor's officers went to Cassianus, and proposed that he should offer sacrifice to the heathen deities. Upon his refusing to comply with such an outrageous requirement, he was forthwith hurried before the Judge, who, understanding the character of his profession, and being told that the greater portion of the boys of his school had an unconquerable dislike to him, invented a somewhat novel mode of exhibiting his hatred to Christianity, by commanding the pupils to be the executioners of their master. He therefore ordered Cassianus to be stripped of his clothes, his hands tied behind him, and then surrendered to the tender mercies of his scholars, who were instructed to treat him as they thought proper. As soon as he was delivered into their hands, the pupils began to treat him with the most wanton cruelty: some attacked him with rods, others with styles,* which they wielded with so much dexterity and vigour, that they had the satisfaction of beholding Cassianus fall dead at their feet. This tragic event occurred about the year 362. Bonosus and Maximilian also suffered during Julian's reign. On the death of Constantius, they were both officers in the Herculean Guards, and also Christians; who, upon Julian removing the standard of the Cross, and commanding the banners which were constructed by Constantine to be altered, neglected to conform to that order: this was observed by Julian, the uncle of the Emperor, who exceeded even his nephew in his detestation of the religion of Christ, and carried forward the persecution with even more ardour and vigour than were required at his hands. Seeing the old ensigns still in use in that corps, he sent for the two Commanders, and gave them a strict charge to comply without hesitation with the orders of the Emperor, and render also that homage to the pagan idols which he desired; but, like undaunted soldiers of the Cross, without hesitation they declared they could do neither. Julian then acquainted them, that he had the imperial commands to compel their compliance, or to punish their disobedience with death. To which they replied, that they were ready to suffer anything for the sake of their Redeemer. After this attempt upon their constancy, Julian took Bonosus from his companion, and of public teachers and professors of Christianity chose to quit their chairs rather than to forsake their religion. Proesius ought to be distinguished. Julian had studied under him at Athens, and, from a kindness to his master, excepted him out of the general law. Yet he refused to be thus singled out from his brethren, and retired. Another of them was Victorinus, an African, converted from idolatry in his old age. The manner of his conversion is finely told by Augustine. His rhetorical school was given up on occasion of Julian's edict, and he wrote with zeal in defence of divine truth, though his abilities were inadequate to the work." (Miloer.)

* "Styles." They were iron instruments resembling a pencil in size and shape, used for writing upon wax tablets. They were sharpened at one end to a point, for the purpose of scratching the characters upon the wax, while the other end, being flat and circular, served to render the surface of the tablets smooth again, and so to obliterate what had been written. (Smith, Dictionary of Roman Antiquities.)

MARTYROOM OF BONOSUS.

ordered him to be bound: he then endeavoured to persuade him a second time to renounce the faith, and to conform to the opinion and practice of the Emperor. The martyr replied, that he had received a law from his parents to which he was obliged to adhere; but that he had no acquaintance with the deities whom he had recommended. The Judge then proceeded to threaten him with the most severe punishment, if he should persist in his refusal; and, finding that he could make no impression upon him by persuasion, ordered him to receive three hundred strokes with the plumbata, or whips laden with leaden bullets. Whilst he was under the hands of the executioner, Julian annoyed him with several interrogatories, to which he returned no answer, but smiled as if insensible to the blows which were heaped upon him; whereupon the Governor desired him to have some regard for himself, and to speak. At length Bonosus replied, "We adore the living and the true God, and serve him only; but as for the deities which you worship, we know them not." Maximilian was then conducted to the same place, and, upon being interrogated in a similar manner, gave a similar reply; adding, that if the Pagans could prevail with their idols, so as to induce them to speak, and give some proof of hearing the supplications of their votaries, the commands of the Emperor should be forthwith obeyed; appealing, as he did, to the sacred Scriptures, which forbade the worship of all deaf and dumb gods. Incensed at this resolution, notwithstanding the former punishment which Bonosus had suffered, Julian commanded them both to be severely scourged; but they manifested so much tranquillity under that and other torments, that the Heathens were led to designate them magicians; and Julian, finding his labour lost, remanded them to prison. All the bread which was allowed them, during their incarceration, was marked with the Governor's seal, which probably contained an impression of some of the deities of Paganism to which the food had been presented: the confessors refused to touch, taste, or handle it, lest such an act should be misinterpreted, and taken as a mark of their veneration of the idol thus impressed; providentially, the Christians resident in the neighbourhood amply provided other food. On the day appointed for their trial, Sallustius, Prefect of the East, appeared on the bench, accompanied by Julian. After this hearing, during which the martyrs appeared as invincible as before, they were remanded to prison, where they were visited by Hormisdas, brother to Sapor, Emperor of Persia: he was a Christian, and had passed the greater part of his life in the courts of Constantine and Constantius, and found the martyrs in good health and cheerful. Hormisdas encouraged them to persevere. The honour conferred upon these illustrious prisoners by this interview was far from being agreeable to Julian, who immediately ordered them to be brought before him, and asked Bonosus, by what means he contemplated being delivered out of his hands. To which he replied, "By martyrdom." When the Governor told him that he should be delivered to wild beasts, he replied, that his companion and he feared them as little as they feared man, when secure of the divine assistance. Julian then endeavoured to intimidate them

2 s 2 with the prospect of being hurled into the fiery furnace; but nothing could move them. Being, however, apprehensive of the consequences of the moderation of Sallustius towards them, he hastened the sentence, and condemned them both to be beheaded: the Christians who were present at the trial were full of holy indignation, and courageously assured the Governor, that they desired not merely to be spectators of the sufferings of their brethren, but also companions of their martyrdom. Julian was so far from being affected with this declaration, that he was inclined to expose the victims to additional tortures; but Sallustius, though a Heathen, overruled such an intention. Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, and a great concourse of the faithful, accompanied the martyrs to the place of suffering, where they encouraged them to fortitude and steadfastness, and congratulated them upon their happiness in prospect. They received the martyrs' crown A.D. 362.*

The Emperor Julian constituted Apronianus Governor of Rome in 363; and while on his way to that city, he had the misfortune to lose an eye. Being a slave to idolatry, and an undisguised enemy to the Christian name, he imputed this accident to the power of magic, and issued orders for the discovery and the punishment of all who dealt in that art; a common pretence among the Pagans for persecuting the Christians. According to the most authentic accounts, Bibiana was the daughter of Flavian, who had filled some considerable post connected with the government of the country, but was at the present disgraced and dismissed on account of his religious profession, and ultimately died in banishment. His wife, Dafross, was for some time confined to her own house with the expectation of being starved to death; but the persecutor either changing his determination, or imagining her to be too long in dying, ordered her to be taken out of the city, and beheaded. Bibiana and her sister, whom the Acts call Demetria, fell into the hands of the pagan Governor, after the death of their parents, and were deprived of all that which they had left to them. It was then imagined, that the miserable condition to which they were reduced would prevail in leading them to renounce the faith; but Almighty God graciously supported them by the abundant communications of his Holy Spirit, and the temptations of hunger and poverty did not shake their confidence. Demetria died suddenly in the presence of Apronianus. The Magistrate finding all his efforts ineffectual to persuade Bibiana to renounce the faith

* Though Julian did not persecute to death by laws, that being directly contrary to his edicts of toleration which he had with so much ostentation and frequency repeated, yet he connived at the fury of the people, and the brutality of the Governors of provinces, who, during his short reign, brought many martyrs to the stake. For he put such into governments whose inhumanity and blind zeal for their country-superstitions were most distinguished. And when the suffering churches presented their complaints to him, he dismissed them with cruel scoffs; telling them their religion directed them to suffer without murmuring. So that we have little reason to doubt what the ancients say of his declared intention, (had he returned victorious from the Persian war,) to subject the whole Christian world to the honezer persecution of fire and sword. (Warburton, "Julian; or, a Discourse concerning the Earthquake and fiery Eruption, which defeated that Emperor's Attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem." Warburton's Works, vol. viii., p. 56. Hard's edit., 8vo., London, 1811.)

PERSECUTION IN PALESTINE.

of Christ, placed her in the hands of Rufina, a woman of a wretched character, but extremely artful, who undertook to bring her to a better way of thinking, as she designated apostasy. That agent, instigated by the devil, employed all the softer means she could possibly invent, which were succeeded by blows. Bibiana remained immovable. Aprouianus was irritated by her fidelity and fortitude, and forthwith passed upon her sentence of death, to be scourged with the plumbata until she expired. The martyr displayed great firmness until the last moment, and died under the hands of the executioners. During the short reign of Julian, which extended not even to two years, the persecution raged from the populace, and the Governors of provinces, in almost every part of the empire; for whatever they practised against the Christians was passed over with impunity. In Palestine many of them were burnt alive; others were stripped naked, had cords tied to their feet, by which they were dragged about the streets, till, their flesh being torn from the bones, they expired in the hands of their tormentors; some were scalded to death, having had boiling water thrown over them; others were stoned; others had their brains beaten out with clubs, and, having been murdered, their remains were burnt to ashes. In Alexandria many were slain by the sword; some were crucified, or stoned; and so strong was the hatred shown to Christianity, that brother spared not brother, fathers their children, or children their parents. In Thrace, Emilianus was burnt at the stake, and Domitius was murdered in a cave, whither he had fled to escape their rage. Cæsarius, the brother of the famous Gregory Nazianzen,* continued to practise physic at the court, as he had done in the former reign. His brother wrote to him, how grievous a thing it was to himself and to their aged father, (the Bishop of Nazianzum, in Cappadocia,) that he should continue in the court of an infidel, seeking worldly greatness. "Our mother," says he, "could not endure the account. Such the weakness of her sex, and such the fervour of her piety, we are obliged to conceal the truth from her." Cæsarius profited by these rebukes, and not all the artifices of Julian could move him. "I am a Christian," said he, "and must continue so." Cæsarius quitted the court, and retired to his pious father, who was as much delighted with his son's conduct, as earthly-minded parents would have been displeased.†

Among the officers of the army was Valentinian, afterwards Emperor. He commanded the guards who attended on Julian. The Emperor one day entered the temple of Fortune, and on each side of the gate stood the door-keepers, who sprinkled with sacred water those who came in. A drop of this water falling on the mantle of Valentinian, he struck the officer with his fist, expressed his resentment at being defiled with the impure water, and tore that part of his mantle.‡ Julian, incensed at his boldness, banished him from his presence, not for his Christianity, as he pretended, but because he

* Gregor. Nazianz., Opera, tom. i., p. 779; Epist. xvii., Orat. x., tom. i., p. 167.

† Milner, History of the Church, vol. I., p. 882, cont. iv., chap. 9.

‡ Sezomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 6; Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 16.

had not kept his cohort in good order. Sensible, however, of his merit, he still employed him in the army. There were others who, like Valentinian, defended their Christian profession not with meekness, but wrath. They found, however, the punishment of their folly from Julian, whose partiality and prejudices in favour of Paganism urged him to adopt measures which filled the whole empire with confusion. We are also informed, that at Merum, a city of Phrygia, Amachius, the Governor of the province, ordered the temple to be opened, and the idols to be cleansed. Three Christians, inflamed with holy zeal, says the historian Sozomen, could not bear the indignity; * and rushing during the silence of the night into the temple, they demolished all the images. The Governor in his wrath being about to chastise many innocent persons, the real offenders generously offered themselves for punishment. Amachius gave them the alternative, either to sacrifice or die. They preferred the latter, and suffered death with excruciating tortures; more admirable for fortitude than meekness in their behaviour during their dying scene. Milner does not hesitate to say, there was in this action more of pride than zeal. Christians, having tasted a little of the pleasure of superiority over Paganism in the last two reigns, and being influenced in no high degree by Christian principles in those times, descended again into a state of disgrace and inferiority with much reluctance. In the same spirit at Dorostolis, in Thrace, one Æmilian was cast into the fire † by the soldiers for having overthrown certain altars. Those only who are in the vigorous exercise of spiritual arms can with cheerful patience abstain from such as are carnal when they are under provocation. Yet true Christians might be in a degree overcome by this spirit, and suffer with the love of Christ prevailing in the heart. The commendation bestowed on such conduct by Socrates, shows how much the spirit of Christianity had declined since the days of Cyprian.‡ At Pessinus, in Galatia, on the confines of Phrygia, two young men suffered death in the presence of Julian, but not solely for professing the faith of Christ: one of them had overturned an idol, which so enraged the Emperor, that he was put to death in a most cruel manner, together with his mother, his companion, and also the Bishop of that city.§

It was also about this period that Marcus, the Prelate of Arethusa, suffered, who, by the direction of the Emperor Constantine, had destroyed the idol-temple in that city, and on the site had erected a Christian church. The pagan inhabitants of Arethusa, knowing the hatred of Julian to the Christian name, accused Marcus with being a traitor, and an enemy to the Emperor. The Bishop at first prepared to fly from the rage of his adversaries; but finding that several of his friends were apprehended in his stead, he returned, and voluntarily surrendered himself. The Arethusans seeing the aged Prelate now in their power, and neither pitying his age nor reverencing his per-

* Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 15; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 11.

† Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 7.

‡ Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. 9, vol. i., p. 583.

§ Gregor. Nazianz., Opera, Orat. iv., tom. i., p. 133.

BUFFERINGS OF MARCUS OF ARETHUSA.

son, they stripped him naked, and cruelly beat him, and then thrust him into a common and filthy sewer, after which they employed boys to goad him with pointed sticks, to increase his pain; afterwards they placed him in a basket, and anointed him with honey, and then hung him in the heat of the sun to attract the wasps, bees, and other insects. All this was done with the view of compelling him to rebuild the pagan temple, or to give money wherewith it might be rebuilt; but he refused to do either. They then offered to remit one-half of the amount, provided he would give the other; but he persisting in his refusal, the sum was reduced to a comparatively small amount, when Marcus, without hesitation, told them, that the impiety evinced by an individual in giving the smallest piece of coin for that purpose, was as great as though he were to give his whole fortune. The Bishop bore his sufferings with such astonishing patience, that the Prefect said to Julian, "Is it not a shame, Sir, that the Christians should be so much superior to us, and that an old man, over whom victory would be inglorious, should conquer us?" He was at length dismissed, and a number who had persecuted him attended afterwards to his instructions. The Bishop had saved the life of Julian in the beginning of the reign of Constantius, when all his family were in danger. His character appears to have been that of eminent piety and virtue: as such he is extolled by Gregory Nazianzen, though he had all along supported the Arian party; and considering the entire separation of the Arian from the general church, it is very improbable that Gregory should speak of him so highly as he does, had he not returned to the church, and been in its communion at that time.* Julian expressed no indignation, and ordered no punishment.

Constantinople remained uniformly and contumaciously Christian; but Antioch had been the chief seat of that mingled Oriental and Grecian worship of the sun, which had grown up in all the Hellenistic parts of Asia: the name of Daphne, given to the sacred grove, implied that the fictions of Greece had been domiciliated in Syria. Antioch was now divided by two incongruous, but equally dominant, passions,—devotion to Christianity, and attachment to the games, the theatre, and every kind of public amusement. The bitter sarcasms of Julian on the latter subject are justified and confirmed by the grave and serious admonitions of Chrysostom. By a singular coincidence, Antioch came into collision with the strongest prejudices of Julian. His very virtues, so called, were fatal to his success in his re-establishment of Paganism: its connexion with the amusements of the people, Julian repudiated with philosophic disdain. Instead of attempting to purify the degenerate taste, he had all the austerity of a pagan Monk. Public exhibitions were interdicted to his reformed priesthood: once at the beginning of the year the Emperor entered the theatre, remained in undisguised weariness, and withdrew in disgust. He was equally impatient of wasting his time as a spectator of the chariot-race: he attended, occasionally, out of respect to the presiding deity of the games, saw five or six courses, and retired.

* Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. vii.; Fleury, Hist. Eccles., liv. xv., cap. 17.

Yet Paganism appeared to welcome Julian to Antioch. It had still many followers, who clung to it with fond attachment, especially to its pomps and gay processions. The whole city poured forth to receive him: by some he was hailed as a deity. It happened to be the festival of Adonis, and the loud shouts of welcome to the Emperor were mingled with the wild and shrill cries of the women, wailing that Syrian symbol of the universal deity, the Sun. It might seem an awful omen, that the rites which mourned the departure of the genial deity should welcome his ardent worshippers. The outward appearance of religion must have affected Julian with alternate hope and disappointment. From all quarters diviners, augurs, magicians, enchanters, the Priests of Cybele, and of the other Eastern religions, flocked to Antioch. His palace was crowded with men, whom Chrysostom describes as branded with every crime, as infamous for poisonings and witchcraft. "Men who had grown old in the prisons and the mines, and who maintained their wretched existence by the most disgraceful trades, were suddenly advanced to places of dignity, and invested with the priesthood and sacrificial functions."* The severe Julian, as he passed through the city, was encircled by the profligate of every age, and by prostitutes, with their wanton laughter and shameless language. Among the former the ardent, youthful, and ascetic Preacher probably included all the Theurgists of the philosophic school: the latter describes the festal processions, which no doubt retained much of their old voluptuous character. Julian ascended the lofty top of Mount Casius, to solemnize, under the broad and all-embracing cope of heaven, the rites of Jupiter Philius.† But in the luxurious grove of Daphne, he was doomed to a melancholy disappointment. The grove remained, with all its beautiful scenery, its shady recesses, its cool and transparent streams, in which the heathen inhabitants of Antioch had mingled their religious rites with their private enjoyments. But a serious gloom, a solemn quiet, pervaded the whole place. The temple of Apollo, the magnificent edifice in which the devotion of former ages had sacrificed hecatombs, where the clouds of incense had soared above the grove, and in which the pomp of Oriental worship had assembled half Syria, was silent and deserted. He expected, to adopt his own words,‡ a magnificent procession, victims, libations, dances, incense, boys with white and graceful vests, and with minds as pure and unspotted, dedicated to the service of the god. He entered the temple, and found a solitary Priest, with a single goose for sacrifice. The indignant Emperor poured out his resentment in the bitterest language: he reproached the impiety, the shameful parsimony of the inhabitants, who enjoyed the large estates attached to the temple, and thus neglected its services; § who, at the same time, permitted their wives to lavish their treasures on the infamous Galileans, and on their scandalous banquets, called the Maiuma.

* Chrysost. contra Gent.

† The Jupiter Philius, or Caius. This god was the tutelary deity of Antioch, and appears on the medals of the city.

‡ Juliani Misopog., p. 362.

§ Milman, Hist. of Christianity, vol. iii., p. 92.

AWFUL DEATH OF GEORGE OF ALEXANDRIA.

Julian was not indifferent to the advancement of the pagan interest in other parts of the empire; and Alexandria could not be at peace, while any kind of religious excitement inflamed the minds of men. The character of George, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, is laden by heathen, as well as by Christian, writers, with every kind of obloquy. His low birth, the base and sordid occupations of his youth, his servile and intriguing meanness in manhood, his tyranny in power, trace, as it were, his whole life with increasing odiousness. Yet, extraordinary as it may seem, the Arian party could find no man of better reputation to fill this important post; and George, the impartial tyrant of all parties, perished, the victim of his zealous hostility to Paganism, by the hands of idolaters at last. A chief cause of the unpopularity of George was, the assertion of the imperial right over the fee-simple of the land on which Alexandria was built. This right was gravely deduced from Alexander the Great. During the reign of Constantius, George had seized every opportunity of depressing and insulting Paganism: he had interdicted the festivals and the sacrifices of the Heathen; he had pillaged the gifts, the statues, the ornaments of their temple; he had been heard, as he passed the sanctuary either of Serapis himself, or of the Fortune of the city, to utter the contemptuous expression, "How long will this sepulchre be permitted to stand?"* He had discovered a cave where the Mithraic mysteries were said to have been carried on with a horrible sacrifice of human life. The heads of a number of youths were exposed, (probably disinterred from some old cemetery near which these rites had been established,) as of the victims of this sanguinary idolatry. These insults and outrages rankled in the hearts of the Pagans. The fate of Artemius, the Duke of Egypt, the friend and abettor of George† in all his tyrannical proceedings, prepared the way for that of the Prelate himself. Artemius was suspected of being concerned in the death of Gallus. He was charged with enormous delinquencies by the people of Alexandria. Whether, as a retribution for the former offence against the brother of Julian, or as the penalty for his abuse of his authority in the government, Artemius was condemned to death. The intelligence of his execution was the signal for a general insurrection of the Pagans in Alexandria. The palace of George was invested by a frantic mob. In an instant he was dragged forth, murdered, trampled under foot, dragged along the streets, and, at length, torn limb from limb. With him perished two officers of the empire, Dracontius, Master of the Mint, and the Count Diodorus; the one accused of having destroyed an altar of Serapis, the other of having built a church. The mangled remains of these miserable men were paraded through the streets on the back of a camel, and, at length, lest they should be enshrined and worshipped as the relics of martyrs, cast into the sea. The Christians, however, of all parties, appear to have looked with unconcern on the fate of this episcopal tyrant, and the general hatred, if it did not excite them to assist in

* Ammian. Marcell., lib. xxiii., cap. 11; Socrates. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 2.

† This is he whom monkish ignorance hath exalted into St. George, the Champion of England, against all the rules of history, geography, and common sense.

VOL. 11.

2 T his massacre, prevented them from attempting to defend him. Julian addressed a letter to the people of Alexandria. While he admitted, in the strongest terms, the guilt of George, he severely rebuked their violence and presumption in thus taking the law into their own hands, and the horrible inhumanity of tearing like dogs the bodies of men in pieces, and then presuming to lift up their blood-stained hands to the gods.* He admitted that their indignation for their outraged temples and insulted deities might naturally madden them to sudden resentment, but they should have awaited the calm and deliberate course of justice, which would have exacted the due punishment from the offender. Julian secured to himself part of the spoils of the murdered Prelate. George had a splendid library, rich not merely in the writings of the Galileans, but, what Julian esteemed as infinitely more precious, the works of the Greek orators and philosophers. The first he would willingly have destroyed, the latter he commanded to be carefully reserved for his own use.† There were, however, not wanting those who published it abroad, that George had been murdered by the Athanasian party; but the letter of Julian to the people of Alexandria, above quoted, abundantly confutes this calumny.‡

Some months subsequent to the death of the Arian Prelate of Alexandria, Athanasius was induced fearlessly to appear in public. The Arians were obliged to hold their meetings in private houses, and the general voice of the people was in favour of the exiled Bishop. Julian knew and dreaded the character of Athanasius, who, during these tumults, had quietly returned to his charge, and resumed his authority over the orthodox Christians of Alexandria. The general edict of Julian for the recall of all exiles contained no exception, and Athanasius availed himself of its protecting authority. Under his auspices, the church, even in these disastrous times, resumed its vigour; and, during the short period he was allowed to appear in public, he acted as a Christian Bishop, treating his enemies with mildness, and relieving the distressed without respect of persons, restoring the custom of preaching on the doctrine of the Trinity, removing those from the sanctuary who had made a traffic of holy things, and gaining the hearts of the people. He held a Council at Alexandria, composed of those who had suffered during the Arian persecution, among whom particular mention is made of Eusebius of Vercellæ. Here those who, contrary to their settled principles, had been beguiled by Arian subtitles to subscribe to what they did not believe, with tears owned how they had been imposed upon, and were received into the church. Here the doctrine of the Trinity was again cleared of the ambiguities which had clouded it, and the Nicene Creed was allowed to be the most accurate and exact. Two schisms § unhappily rent the church

* "Poterantque miserandi homines ad crudele supplicium devote Christianorum adjumento defendi ni Georgii odio omnes indiscretè flagrabant." (Ammian. Marcell., lib. xxii., cap. 11.)

† Epistola Julianl, xl., p. 378.

‡ Socratis Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 2, 3; Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 7; Philostorg., Hist. Eccles., lib. vii., cap. 2.

§ Socratis Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 6, 9; Theodoret Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 4; Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., lib. iv., cap. 13; Fleury, Hist. Ecclesiastique, liv. xv., chap 29.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE CHURCH.

at this time. The first was at Antioch, where Euzoius the Arian had the chief sway. The followers of Eustathius, the late orthodox Bishop, gave themselves up to Paulinus, a Presbyter; while another party looked on themselves as belonging to Meletius, who had lately returned from exile. Lucifer of Cagliari, on his return through the East from banishment in Egypt, visited Antioch, with the best intentions, and endeavoured to heal the divisions of the church. But by ordaining Paulinus he confirmed the evils which he meant to cure. Meletius had a church without the city, Paulinus was allowed one within the city, while Euzoius, the most popular, possessed himself of the remainder of the sacred edifices; but justice requires us to say, that he exercised his victory with moderation, and, respecting the age, meekness, and piety of Paulinus, he did not deprive him of his little church in the city. A rare instance of moderation in an Arian leader. Lucifer himself was offended that his fellow-sufferer Eusebius would not approve of his conduct at Antioch, and even broke off communion with him. Finding his obstinacy much blamed in the church, he became a schismatic altogether, returned to his own church at Cagliari, in Sardinia, where he died eight years after.* His disciples bore the name of Luciferians; but their influence was small, and their numbers were few. It has ever been the design of history to record what may be useful to mankind. In this view even the faults of the wise and good may be serviceable. The unhappy spirit of faction, in the decline of Christian faith and love, split the small remnant of the faithful in Antioch into two parties, which subsisted some time after the beginning of the next century. Two persons, both of undoubted piety, minister there, and yet cannot heal the mischief. A third, who had distinguished himself for zeal and devotion above many of his age, endeavoured to close the breach, but widened it, and soon, through the impatience of contradiction, took the lead of another party. There was a world of wisdom in the charge of the Apostle John to the church in his old age, "Little children, love one another." The want of it will not fail to be followed by factions, surmises, and endless divisions. The breach once made is more easily

* No man, says Mr. Milner, ever exceeded Lucifer in courage and hardihood of spirit. When in exile for the Nicene faith, he published certain writings, in which he accuses Constantius with the most astonishing boldness. If there were more of the meekness of the Gospel in these writings, it might be proper to quote some parts of them for the edification of the Christian reader; but there is evidently too much of the man, and too little of the saint, in the whole method and spirit of them. Not content with composing these works, he sent a copy of them to the Emperor, who, surprised at his boldness, ordered him to be asked, whether he had really sent them. "Know," answered the intrepid Bishop, "that I did send the book to the Emperor, and, after having again considered it, I do not retract; and when you have examined the reasons for which I have written in this manner, you will find that we have been strengthened by God, so as to expect with gladness the death which is preparing for us." I wonder not that Athanasius highly commends this man: he himself, though in a less degree, partook of the same spirit. It is useful to mark the declensions of the Christian character among even good men. The want of a closer attention to the vital parts of experimental godliness, rendered even the best men in these days too ferocious in their opposition to heretics. Lucifer was consistent throughout: the same temper which appears to have actuated him in his conduct towards Constantius, seduced him into a blainable schism in his latter days; yet, who can deny the sincerity of his love for the truth, and the integrity of his heart? (Milner, Hist. of Church, vol. 1, p. 587.)

2 T 2 widened than closed. While the Gospel flourished in name through Antioch, the vices of luxury prevailed amidst the evils of heresy and schism. The church there became the mark of reproach to the Apostate in his satire against their city. We turn with far more pleasure to behold Eusebius of Vercellæ, who returned to his Western bishopric in Italy, where he was received with extraordinary joy.* His labours, and those of Hilary of Poitiers, were serviceable in Italy, Gaul, and, in general, through Europe. There the Arian heresy was suppressed, and peace and unity reigned. False learning and philosophy had not so corrupted the understanding. The Donatists in Africa obtained leave of Julian to recover their churches; and that frantic and turbulent sect proceeded to exercise military violence, an evil with which they had always been infected.†

We have noticed the return of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria, which proved to him to be, notwithstanding numerous professions of toleration on the part of the Emperor, a bed of thorns. The Egyptian Prelate was still exposed to the pitiless peltings of that imperial storm which Julian was anxious to continue, in his persecuting rage against the Christian name and character. The Emperor knew and dreaded Athanasius, under whose superintendence the church, even in these disastrous times, resumed vigour and strength. The Arians, terrified, perhaps, by the hostility of the Pagans, hastened to re-unite themselves to the church; and Julian heard, with bitter indignation, that some pagan females had received baptism from Athanasius. The Emperor expressed his astonishment, not that Athanasius had returned from exile, but that he had dared to resume his see. The Pagan part of the Alexandrian population represented to the persecuting Monarch, that the Egyptian Prelate had corrupted the city and all Egypt, and that, if he continued there, not a Pagan would be left.‡ Julian's affected moderation was tried to the utmost in this case; and the open spirit of persecution, which, contrary to his deliberate maxims, he displayed on this occasion, does immortal honour to the talents and integrity of Athanasius. "I allowed," said Julian, "those Galileans who had been banished, to return to their countries, not to their churches.§ I order Athanasius to leave the city on the receipt of my letter." The Christians wrote to the Emperor, and begged that they might not be deprived of their Bishop. Provoked to see how deeply the love of Christianity was fixed in them, and what progress the Bishop had made in a very little time, Julian answered them, that since Alexander was their founder, and Serapis and Isis their tutelary gods, it was surprising that the corrupted part should dare to call themselves the community. "By the gods," said he, "I am much ashamed that any of you Alexandrians should confess himself a Galilean. You forget your ancient felicity when the whole of Egypt worshipped the gods, and we enjoyed numberless blessings; but those who now introduce this new preaching among

* Socrat., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 9, 10; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 13.

† Milner, Hist. of the Church, vol. I., p. 589, cent. iv., chap. 9.

‡ Theodoret., Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 9; Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 15.

§ Epistola xxvi. Juliani. A distinction certainly unfounded, because contrary to the permission granted to all the rest of the Bishops.

ESCAPE OF ATHANASIUS.

you, tell me what good they do your city. Alexander of Macedon, a servant of the gods, was your founder, not at all, by Jupiter, to be put on a level with any of these, or even with the Hebrews, who are far their superiors. The Ptolemies, who cherished your city as a daughter, advanced it to its greatness, not by preaching Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the execrable Galileans. If you resolve to follow these impostors, agree among yourselves, and desire not to retain Athanasius. Many of his disciples are capable of pleasing itching ears, which cannot be satisfied but by their impious discourses. But if your affection for him is grounded on his skill and shrewdness, (for I hear the man is crafty,) for this reason I expel him from your city. That such an intriguer should preside over the people, is dangerous; one who deserves not the name of a man, a low despicable creature, who takes a pride in hazarding his life, and is fit only to cause disturbances in society." To hasten the execution of his order, Julian wrote to the Governor of Egypt, that if he did not expel Athanasius by a certain time, which he specified, he would fine his officers one hundred pounds of gold. "I am deeply afflicted," said he, "at the contempt of the gods which is shown by this man: it will be highly agreeable to me if you drive the villain out of Egypt, who, under my government, has had the insolence to baptize Grecian women of quality." The enmity of the carnal mind against God has seldom been more displayed than in these letters concerning Athanasius. It breaks through all disguises, and transgresses all the bounds of prudence and decorum. The affectation, also, of despising a man whom he feared, and whose abilities dismayed him, is completely evident. One sees, in the weakness of his arguments, how incapable even sensible men are of saying anything that has the least tendency to shake the mind of a Christian. We must take every opportunity to show the progress of the Gospel; and as, through the scantiness of materials, a part of our evidence must come from the mouth of enemies, it should be observed, that there is, in the last letter, a confession of the laborious and useful life of Athanasius. He remained not a year in his bishopric after his return; yet in that time he confirmed the faithful in the truth; he demonstrated the power of godliness by kindness, liberality, and mercy to enemies as well as friends; he extended the pale of the church by the conversion of Pagans, some of noble birth; and he merited the indignation, and alarmed the fears, of the Monarch of the Roman world. The Egyptian Prelate was therefore obliged once more to seek safety by flight. All the faithful gathered together around him weeping. "We must retire a little time, friends," said he: "it is a cloud that will soon pass over." He took leave of them, recommending his church to the ablest of his friends; and, going on board a vessel, he fled by the Nile into the obscurer parts of Egypt. Still his life was in imminent danger. The persecutors followed, and were not far from him, which induced Athanasius to use something of that craftiness with which Julian charged him. He directed his companions to return to Alexandria, and to meet his enemies. The pursuers asked them earnestly, "Have you seen Athanasius?" "He is near," say they: "make haste, and you will soon overtake him." Thus deluded, they went forward with speed in vain; and the Bishop, who had secreted himself during this scene, returned in private to Alexandria, where he lay concealed till the end of the persecution. Thus did the malice of Julian expose this great and good man to use the same sort of artifices which David did, when persecuted by King Saul, who made the same remark as Julian, "It is told me that he deaieth very subtilly;" a conduct which probably extorted from him afterwards that prayer, "Remove from me the way of lying." *

The spirit of Julian was now directed to the destruction of the Persian monarchy; and the pains which he took, and the expense he incurred in sacrifices and auguries, may seem to be incredible. His ardent mind was one of the fittest instruments of Satanic infatuation, and divine Providence was with rapid steps hurrying Julian to the crisis of all his projects and his hopes. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen were actively employed at this period in the defence of the church against its subtle adversary. But the Emperor was too deeply infected with the enmity he had imbibed in youth, to be moved by either the piety or the eloquence of Christians. He treated the faithful at Antioch with a severity which was in total contradiction to his boasted system of toleration. Attributing, it is said, the silence of the oracle in the grove of Daphne to the burial of martyrs in that celebrated seat of pagan worship, he directed the coffin of Babylas, the most distinguished of the confessors, to be forthwith removed. The Christians assembled, and bore the remains of the saint, with splendid solemnity, to its new place of interment, the mingled multitude of worshippers chanting, as they proceeded, the psalms which imprecate divine vengeance on the adorers of false gods: "Confounded be all they that worship graven images." Julian ordered the Praetorian Prefect, Sallust, to punish the multitude. He, though a Gentile, reluctantly obeyed, and seized a number of the Christians. One of them, Theodorus, a young man, was so long and so variously tortured, that his life was despaired of; but God preserved him.† Gregory Nazianzen describes the cruelties of Julian at Antioch rather in a rhetorical than in an accurate manner; and speaks also of his horrible incantations, and the cruelties attendant on his superstition. This description is probably exaggerated; but Gregory was both too intelligent and too honest either to have been deceived himself, or to have deceived others altogether. Certain it is that Julian, towards the Christian part of his subjects, was a tyrant; and one instance or two more shall close the account of his severities. Publia, a widow of great reputation, with a number of virgins over whom she presided at Antioch, sang and praised God when Julian was passing by. In particular they sang such parts of the Psalms as expose the wickedness and folly of idolatry. Julian ordered them to hold their peace till he had passed them. Publia, with more zeal than charity, I fear, encou-

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. ix., vol. I., p. 591.

† Ruffinus, the Latin historian, declares, that he saw him a long time after, and asked him whether he felt any pain in his torments. He owned, not much, for a young man stood by him, wiped off his sweat, and encouraged his spirit; so that upon the whole he felt, during his tortures, more pleasure than pain. (Milner.)

CONFLAGRATION OF THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO.

raged them, and caused them to sing on another occasion as he passed, "Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered." The Emperor, in a rage, ordered her to be brought before him, and to be buffeted on each side of her face. The effects of passion seem but too visible both in the Emperor and the woman: there is, however, this difference, the one had a zeal for God, the other a contempt.* The history of this period abounds with traditions of miraculous occurrences, a circumstance which may in some measure be accounted for, perhaps, by the consideration that Julian was not less superstitious than powerful, and that the Christians were brought into closer contention with him, respecting objects of mere outward reverence, than they had been with any preceding Emperor. It was hence that, having heard of the statue of Christ, said to have been set up by the woman cured of the issue of blood, at Cæsarea Philippi, he displaced the image of the Saviour to set up his own on the same pedestal; and hence the story of it being hurled down by lightning, and of the miracles wrought at the foot of the statue of Christ.† It was not long after the remains of Babylas had been removed, that fire suddenly fell upon the temple of Apollo at Daphne, and, according to Sozomen, the historian, the roof of the edifice and the statue of the deity were burnt, and the naked walls, with the columns on which the portico and the back part of the building had rested, alone escaped the conflagration. The Christians believed that the prayers of the martyr had drawn down fire from heaven upon the demon; but the Pagans suspected the Christians of having set fire to the place. This suspicion gained ground, and the Priest of Apollo was brought before the tribunal of justice, to render up the names of those who had perpetrated the deed; but though bound, and subjected to the most cruel tortures, he did not name any one. Hence the faithful were more fully convinced than before, that it was not by the act of man, but by the wrath of God, that fire was poured down from heaven upon the temple. Such were the occurrences which then took place. The Emperor, as is conjectured, on hearing that the calamity at Daphne had been occasioned by the martyr Babylas, and on being further informed that the honoured remains of martyrs were preserved in several houses of prayer near the temple of Apollo Didymus, which is situated close to the city of Miletus, wrote to the Governor of Caria, commanding him to destroy with fire all such edifices as were furnished with a roof and an altar, and to throw down from their very foundations the houses of prayer which were incomplete in those respects.‡

Paganism followed with faithful steps, and with eager hopes, the career of Julian on the brilliant outset of his Persian campaign. Some of the Syrian cities through which he passed, Batnæ and Hierapolis, and Carrhæ, seemed to enter into his views, and endeavoured, with incense and sacrifice, to propitiate the gods of Julian. For the last time the Etruscan haruspices accompanied a Roman Emperor; but

* Milner, History of the Church, cent. iv., chap. ix., vol. I., p. 592.

† Stebbing, History of the Christian Church, vol. I., p. 178.

‡ Sozom., Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 20.

by a singular fatality, their adverse interpretation of the signs of heaven was disdained, and Julian followed the advice of the philosophers, who coloured their predictions with the bright hues of the Emperor's ambition. The name of Christ, we have seen, was erased from the labarum; and, while the God of Christianity prevented the fulfilment of the attempt of the Emperor to overthrow the testimony of prophecy by building the temple of Jerusalem, the oracles of Delos and Delphos, of Dodona, and others, which he had re-established, promised him victory over the Persians, and bade him prosper. He listened, was persuaded, and perished. Mr. Townsend supposes that if he had returned from his Persian expedition, he would probably have thrown off the assumed gentleness which made him depend on policy and treachery, rather than on force and violence. The common people destroyed the temples of the Pagans wherever they were built. The destroyers who suffered, either by the Pagans who resisted, or by the Magistrates who condemned them, were venerated as martyrs for their faith. Every day increased the separation between the Emperor and the Christians. He regarded them as fanatics; and, if the writers of the age are correct, he swore their destruction, if he returned in safety from Persia. They believed him to be as cruel as he was crafty, and were preparing for more than resistance. They had resolved never to submit again to the dominion of Paganism; and they saw that the severity of Amachius, the Governor of Phrygia, was only a specimen of the manner in which the whole Christian body must expect to be treated, if the Emperor returned in safety. In obedience to the order of the Sovereign, Amachius purified the Heathen temple, and again set up the images which had been thrown down. The Governor resolving to put to death many who were not guilty, the perpetrators of the act came forth from their concealment. The Governor commanded them to sacrifice to the idol. On their refusing to do so, they were tortured, and at length broiled to death on gridirons.* We have seen, however, that this was by no means the only instance of persecution; a fearful omen of the cruelties which, probably, awaited the whole church, should the Emperor return unscathed from the Persian war. Though he could revenge the offence of the people of Antioch by foolish jokes on his dirty nails and undressed beard, yet he could put Theodore on the rack, and show a cruelty of spirit which could not be disguised either by pleasantry or philosophy. He had been accustomed to declare, that he would not persecute the Christians, because he would not encourage the spirit of martyrdom, nor the disposition to venerate criminals as martyrs. Towards the end of his short-lived career, this policy began to be altered. He per-

* "Being seized, they were ordered to expiate the crime they had committed by sacrificing. On their refusal to do this, their Judge menaced them with tortures; but they, despising his threats, being en-lowed with great courage, declared their readiness to undergo any sufferings, rather than pollute themselves by sacrificing. After being racked with a variety of torments, they were at last laid on gridirons, under which a fire was placed, and thus they were destroyed. But even in this last extremity they gave the most heroic proofs of fortitude, addressing the ruthless Governor thus: 'If you wish to eat broiled flesh, Amachius, turn us on the other side also, lest we should appear but half cooked to your taste.'" (Socrati, Hist. Eccles., lib. iii., cap. 15.)

FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO UPROOT CHRISTIANITY.

ceived his efforts, like those of the pagan persecutors before him, to be utterly vain against the spirituality and firmness of the Christians. The discovery, instead of making him retrace his steps, only confirmed him in the obstinacy of his hatred, and increased the grossness of his superstition. His rancour was inflamed against the active, fearless, bold, and uncompromising religion he had forsaken; and there can be little doubt, that the conclusion at which both his eulogists and opponents have arrived, is correct, that these beginnings of actual severity would have terminated in the most relentless and, probably, the most unsparing persecution that had ever yet afflicted the empire, if he had returned in safety from Persia. The religion of Christ could not now have been extirpated. The vine had taken root; and though wild grapes, as well as the ripe rich clusters fit for the Master's use, crowded its branches, it filled the land, and the wild boar of the wood could not now have rooted it up. If the Emperor had persisted in his endeavour to destroy Christianity, he must have waded through the bloodshed of a more fierce civil war than any yet known to history. The empire in such a contest would have become a desert, and the barbarians, descending on the frontiers, would have made a more easy conquest of the desolate provinces, and the wreck of a divided population. The providence of God decreed that it should not be. The learned yet pedantic, the cautious yet imprudent, the brave but rash, the superstitious but not religious, the wise yet foolish, Emperor died, as we shall shortly discover, the death of an honourable and high-minded soldier, in the field of battle in the heart of Persia.* So, indeed, passeth away the glory of the world!

In the midst of war and rumours of war from without, a Council was held at Alexandria to deliberate, with Athanasius and Eusebius, upon their present prospects, and particularly upon the means to be adopted for restoring peace and union to the church of Antioch, where the "orthodox" Christians, who for some time had communicated with the Arians, at length separated from them, and united themselves to Meletius, but could not induce the Eustathians to unite with them. The Prelates who were assembled, applied themselves with great industry to discover the most advisable way to restore order in the church, agitated as it had been by such a tempest of heresy. The Council settled, that those who had been leaders or defenders of the heresy, should be admitted to penance, but that they could not be permitted to retain their clerical office; while those who had been led away by the violence of others, should be allowed to retain their rank, provided they subscribed the acts of the Council of Nice. The pains, however, which the Council, and the Prelate of Alexandria in particular, had taken to procure peace to the church of Antioch, failed, owing to the intemperate behaviour of Lucifer, who had consecrated Paulinus, the chief of the Eustathians; and being offended with Eusebius for finding fault with this act, he rejected the decrees of the Council, and withdrew, first from communion with the Alexandrian Bishop, and afterwards from that of the church, whence arose the

* Townsend, Ecclesiastical and Civil History, vol. I., p. 417.

2 U schism of the Luciferians, which lasted forty years.* But notwithstanding the efforts of the church and the devices of the ungodly, the Emperor was deeply mortified at finding that all his endeavours to secure the predominance of Paganism were ineffectual; for, although the gates of the temples were kept perpetually open, sacrifices were daily presented, and the observance of ancient festivals restored in all the cities, Julian was far from being satisfied, inasmuch as he foresaw, that on the withdrawal of his influence, a change in the aspect of affairs would speedily take place. He was deeply chagrined on discovering that the wives, children, and servants of many of the Priests of Paganism had been converted to Christianity. On considering that one main support of the Christian religion was the virtuous lives of its professors, he determined to introduce into the pagan temples the order and discipline of Christianity, to institute various orders and degrees of ministry, to appoint readers and teachers to give instruction in pagan doctrines, and to command that prayers should be offered on certain days at stated hours. He moreover resolved to found monasteries for the accommodation of men and women who desired to live in philosophical retirement; and likewise hospitals for the relief of strangers and of the poor, and for other philanthropical purposes. He wished to introduce among the Pagans the system of penance for voluntary and involuntary transgressions; but the point of ecclesiastical discipline which he chiefly admired, and desired to establish, was the custom of the Bishops to give letters of recommendation to those who travelled to foreign lands, wherein they commended them to the hospitality and kindness of other Bishops, in all places and under all contingencies. Thus did Julian strive to engraft the customs of Christianity upon Paganism;† but a more futile and insignificant attempt was never made.

The historian Sozomen relates, that the degrading profanity of the Emperor kept pace with his other acts of impiety and wickedness: he treated with great ignominy and contempt a certain statue of the Saviour; yet Eusebius informs us, that at the base of this statue grew a herb which was unknown to the physicians and empirics, but which was efficacious in the cure of all disorders. "It does not appear a matter of astonishment to me," says Sozomen, "that, after God has vouchsafed to dwell with men, he should condescend to bestow benefits upon them." Legendary stories of a similar nature were numerous,‡ and received with

* Landon, Manual of Councils, p. 22; Labbe, Concilia, tom. ii., col. 97, 808.

† Sozomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. v., cap. 16.

‡ "There is a city now called Nicopolis, in Palestine, which was formerly only a village, and which was mentioned by the holy Evangelists under the name of Emmaus. The name of Nicopolis was given to this place by the Romans, in consequence of the conquest of Jerusalem, and the victory over the Jews. Just beyond the city, where three roads meet, is the spot where Christ, after his resurrection, said farewell to Cleophas and his companions, as if he were going to another village; and here is the fountain in which the Saviour washed his feet, and which has ever since possessed the property of removing every species of disease from man as well as animals! At Ermopolis, in Thebais, is a tree called Persea, of which the branches, the leaves, and the least portion of the bark, are said to heal diseases when touched by the sick; for it is related by the Egyptians, that when Joseph fled with Christ and Mary, the holy mother,

JULIAN'S CAMPAIGN IN PERSIA.

unbounded credulity at this period. Julian had to struggle with almost insurmountable difficulties; all his most important schemes were blighted in the bud; and after his immense army had been brought to the very verge of starvation, he was compelled to sound an ignominious retreat in the presence of an active and exulting foe. The silent hours of the night were yet devoted to study and contemplation; but whenever the Emperor closed his eyes in short and interrupted slumber, his mind was agitated with painful anxiety; in the restless rest which he suffered, the genius of the empire was painted on his imagination, as covering with a funeral veil his head, and then slowly retiring from the imperial tent. The Monarch started from his couch, and, stepping forth to refresh his wearied spirits with the coolness of the midnight air, he beheld a fiery meteor, which shot athwart the sky and suddenly vanished. Julian was convinced that he had seen the menacing countenance of the god of war, and the council which he immediately summoned advised him to abstain from action: this could not be, and the combatants were summoned at break of day. The army marched through a hilly country, and the hills had been secretly occupied by the Persians. The guards of the Emperor reminded him that he was without armour, and conjured him to decline the ruin which evidently awaited him. In a moment he fell mortally wounded,* and was conveyed out of the tumult of the battle to a neighbouring tent.

The pagan historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, who was present, does not relate the circumstance which is mentioned by Sozomen and Theodoret, that the Emperor, finding himself wounded, took of the blood which broke forth from his side, and throwing the warm gore into the air, cried out, "Galilean! thou hast conquered!" It is possible that the conscience of the wounded man, observes Mr. Townsend, at the moment, might have recalled the inward remembrances of his early life; and that although Ammianus might not have heard the words, others of the soldiers might have done so, and have recorded them for the chronicles of a subsequent age. The thoughts of the dying rest on the subject nearest to the soul; and that subject is more certainly developed by an accidental expression in the moment of from the wrath of Herod, they went to Ermopolis, and, as they were entering the city, this tree bent down and worshipped Christ. I relate precisely what I have heard from many sources concerning this tree. I think that this phenomenon was a sign of the presence of God in the city; or, perhaps, as seems most probable, it may have arisen from the fear of the demon, who had been worshipped in this large and beautiful tree by the people of the country; for at the presence of Christ, the idols of Egypt were shaken, even as Isaiah the Prophet had foretold. On the expulsion of the demon, the tree was permitted to remain as a monument of what had occurred, and was endowed with the property of healing those who believed. The inhabitants of Egypt and of Palestine testify to the truth of these events which took place among themselves." (Sozomen, History.)

* "No one knows even to this day, by whom this mortal blow, which he had so justly deserved, was inflicted. Some say that it was by one of the invisible order of beings; others, that it was by the hand of an individual belonging to one of the nomadic tribes, generally called Ishmaelites; others say that he was killed by a soldier reduced to despair by hunger, and by wandering in the desert. But whether the sword were that of an angel or of a man, certain it is, that whoever committed the deed, was but the instrument of the divine will." (Theodoret., Hist. Eccles.)

2 v 2 danger or excitement, than in the deliberate and collected farewell. The historian Gibbon informs us, with reference to these traditions, that the legends of more recent saints may be silently despised.* It is possible it may be a legend; but if it be so, it is much less absurd than Julian's dying assurance, that he was about to be united with the stars. The immortality of the Gospel is the continuance of the personal identity of the soul in the society of other spirits who were disembodied before the believer himself. The immortality of Heathenism was an absorption of the consciousness of identity in the substance of the universe. The first is true philosophy; the second is nonsense. The first is the blessing of the Christian, whether he be Prince or peasant; the last was the curse of the dying Julian, of the Heathen, of the Deist, and of the fool. In his last moments, says his great eulogist Gibbon, he displayed, perhaps with some ostentation, the love of virtue and of fame, which had been the ruling passion of his life. He displayed these excellences by summoning to his bed-side his attendants and friends, and addressing them in a speech, in which he dared to utter these words, "I die without remorse, as I have lived without guilt. I am pleased to reflect on the innocence of my past life." Much self-eulogy followed, and some metaphysical discussion with two pagan speculatists, or philosophers. He called for some cold water, and drank, and died.† May God grant to me at that hour to hold other language, and to have other hopes! Let me die the death of the righteous, humble Christian, and not the death of the presumptuous and absurd philosopher. So he died; and believing, as both reason and true philosophy and well-evidenced revelation compel me to believe, in the Providence which governs the world He created, I cannot but see in the example of Julian a memorable proof of that continued government. The last pagan enemy of Christianity was permitted to rule over the empire of Rome at the time when the sun of Christianity was brightening the horizon of the heathen world, that the truth of that faith might be confirmed to the utmost. By re-establishing the oracles, he so demonstrated their folly, that they have never recovered their influence. By endeavouring to refute a prophecy, and fairly challenging the truth of Christianity in the matter of the rebuilding of the temple, he was the cause of a series of events, which compel the boldest infidel to pause before he pronounces the defeat of his attempts to be merely of human origin. By his whole life he showed the weakness of the once all-powerful Paganism. By his death he proved how miserable is the consolation which false philosophy can give, when it calls annihilation immortality, and destroys at once the accountableness, the happiness, and the identity of the soul of man, under the sounding brass and tinkling cymbals of the silly language of that affected wisdom which is based on no evidence, speaks no certain truth, and affords no real happiness, either in life or death; and which, in all these respects, is the contrast to Christianity, and the very antipodes of revelation. Thanks be unto God for the unspeakable gift of a revelation which is proved to be true

* Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xxiv., vol. iv., p. 191.

† Sozomen, Hist. Eccles., lib. vi., cap. 2.

CHARACTER OF JULIAN.

by every moral demonstration which can be required to satisfy the reason; which gives us gratitude to Christ as our motive, the will of God for our guide, and a better consolation in life and death than the remembrance of our own virtues, or the hope of being absorbed in the soul of the universe.*

In his peculiar way Julian stood forward, as the imperial antagonist of Christianity, as an author. He was ambitious, as a writer, of confuting its doctrines, and impeaching its veracity: he passed in his closet the long nights of the winter, and continued, even during his Persian campaign, his elaborate work against the faith of Christ. He seemed, as it were, possessed with an equal hatred of those whom he considered the two most dangerous enemies of the Roman empire, the Persians and the Christians. While oppressed by all the serious cares of organizing and moving such an army as might bring back the glorious days of Germanicus, or of Trajan; while his ambition contemplated nothing less than the permanent humiliation of the great eastern rival of the empire; his literary vanity found time for its exercise, and in all his visions of military glory and conquest, Julian never lost sight of his fame as an author. It appears to have been composed in a purely polemic spirit, with no comprehensive views of the nature of Christianity, and with no consciousness of the utter inefficiency of the cold and incoherent pagan mysticism, which he endeavoured to substitute for the Gospel. But, at least, this was a grave and a serious employment. Whatever might be thought of his success as a religious disputant, there was no loss of dignity in the Emperor condescending to enlighten his subjects on such momentous questions. But when he stooped to be the satirist of the inhabitants of a city which had ridiculed his philosophy, and rejected his religion, the finest and most elegant irony, the keenest and most delicate wit, would scarcely have justified this compromise of the imperial majesty. One of his principal works† was entitled, "The Misopogon, or Beard-Hater," which seems to have been composed in consequence of certain scurrilous writings which had appeared in Antioch, reflecting severely upon his personal rusticity. There is doubtless much felicity of sarcasm and justice in his animadversions on the dissolute manners, the ingratitude for his liberality, the dislike of his severe justice, the insolence of their contempt for his ruder manners, throughout the "Misopogon;" but it lowers Julian from a follower of Plato to a coarse imitator of Diogenes; it exhibits him as borrowing the worst part of the Christian-Monkish character, the disregard of the decencies and civilities of life, without the high and visionary enthusiasm, or the straining after superiority to the low cares and pursuits of the world. It was singular to hear a Grecian sophist (for such was undoubtedly the character of Julian's writings) extolling the

* Townsend, Civil and Ecclesiastical History, vol. I., p. 419.

† Julian wrote the "Lives of the Emperors," his predecessors, in which we find many pointed remarks and illustrations of their several characters, and especially of their defects: possessing neither the fulness nor impartiality of history, it must nevertheless be considered his most important work. The next in celebrity bore the singular name of "Misopogon." Besides these two works, several epistles and rescripts are extant, which are of greater historical importance.

barbarians, the Celts and Germans, above the polished inhabitants of Greece and Syria. Milner observes, that "a tear of compassion is due to this extraordinary man. He had seen a poor sample of the Gospel in the lives and manners of the family of Constantine, and had suffered deep and cruel injuries from them. Philosophers cautiously watched him when very young, and infused their poison with dexterity. Useful lessons may be learned from history by young persons who, among ourselves, having been educated by Christians of mere formal orthodoxy, are ever prone to be seduced by heretical philosophers; while those who profess the Gospel, are loudly called upon to take care that they express their religious zeal by something more substantial than words and forms. Young minds who are under the influence of unfruitful professors, are seriously warned by the apostasy of Julian to perform with diligence what he neglected; namely, to search the Scriptures for themselves with prayer. Had Julian been as studious of the Greek Testament as he was of Plato, and prayed as earnestly to God through Christ as he did, or seemed to do, to Jupiter and Apollo, he might have escaped the snare of Satan. But men confirm themselves in apostasy and infidelity by hearkening to everything that tends to produce these evils; and they avoid the force of divine truth by contemptuous neglect and indifference." *